I do.
For obvious reasons I don't want to make too strong a link, because every element of a proposal should stand on its own merits, and I think that's a debate that's worth having. On what the specifics would be, how things would be done, I think members would probably disagree, and with good arguments on either side.
I'll note that with what I have here, if you have it work for the chair, and of course, if you extend it to the vice-chairs, those are members who could only be removed with the consent of the entire House of Commons. I suppose the government could kick the member out of caucus and then they'd be ineligible, something that drastic. But you'd then have a system in which a committee chair would be responsible to the entirety of the membership, and even in a majority government—let's say the member has the support of a minority of his caucus and of the other parties—they would have independence at that point to operate on their own, which I think is a good thing.
I see the link you're making. I think it's something that needs to be debated. But I think if we're going to do reforms, we wouldn't want to package too many reforms together, because my observation in this House has been that people will vote against the larger package if there is only one element in the larger package that they dislike. It would probably be prudent, if you want to get some reforms, to have a series of votes rather than to package everything into one vote, whereby someone could say they don't like one particular element and therefore they're opposed to the entirety.