I think the main advantage of this proposal is that it starts to give the House and members a greater sense of ownership of the committees. Members do good work on their committees, but I think committees should be directly responsible to the House. Now, I would ultimately like a system where for committee chairs and vice-chairs, and even inside of caucuses, there is some election mechanism rather than the de facto appointment system that most caucuses now function under.
I think you would ultimately get more robust committee reports. I think you could get a broader range of subject matter dealt with. I think people would be slightly less cautious on all sides; I think that would sometimes be a good thing. That's what I would envision.
Does the system work poorly now? I would say no, but I said that systems can work better. Canadian democracy is a good system, but it's always what you're comparing it to. If we're comparing our parliamentary system to some tinpot dictatorship somewhere, of course it's perfect. If we're comparing it to an ideal that we all aspire to, then it has flaws. That's what I would say.
I want to get closer to the ideal. Canada is a great run country and has been since 1867, but we don't judge ourselves by world standards. We judge ourselves by our own standards, which is that we want to be the best in the world.