My understanding, Mr. Proulx, and other committee members, is that the chair actually has a casting vote, so there would be no need at all for another member. My other understanding, quite frankly, is that when the witnesses were testifying, they also testified that they'd never had a situation where they even came close on a vote. They usually find, for the most part, unanimity in relation to most of their votes. So even if there were a disagreement, the chair would have as a prerogative a casting vote to change that. I just don't see the necessity of it.
On December 7th, 2009. See this statement in context.