Roundup: Immutable committee math

Posted on by

In a move that is possibly quite disappointing, the Liberals got unanimous consent yesterday to suspend the sections of the Standing Orders governing the powers of parliamentary secretaries – which could be an issue if they plan to put them back on committees with voting powers and the ability to move motions and so on. Some of you may recall that when this was the standard practice during the Conservative era, these committees simply became branch plants of the ministers’ offices, and everything was stage-managed within an inch of their lives.

However.

I also have it on good authority that this may not be exactly as it seems. Part of the problem is that there is a shortage of warm bodies in the Liberal ranks to fill the committees, particularly if you have a Cabinet of 37 out of 157 seats, and what looks to be a prospective parliamentary secretary list of at least 46 (given that Economic Development with have separate parliamentary secretaries for each regional economic development agency). Then, subtract the Speaker and the Assistant Deputy Speaker, who can’t sit on committees, and that leaves them with 72 MPs (maybe less – a couple may also remain assigned to NSICOP, which pulled them from other committees in the previous parliament) to distribute across 27 standing and joint committees, where the parliamentary math in the current hung parliament would see four Liberal MPs per committee. Quite simply, they don’t have enough.

What I’ve been told by my sources is that what they may wind up doing is allowing parliamentary secretaries to sit as regular committee members on committees that aren’t those aligned with their minister, so that they would essentially be pulling double (or possibly triple) duty, especially if they remain on the committees aligned with their minister in a non-voting capacity. It’s not pretty, but it may be what winds up being necessary if they intend to live up to their promise to keep parliamentary secretaries from being voting members of their interested committees. (Are we ready to start having a discussion about having a more reasonable number of MPs for a country of our size? Because seriously, not having enough bodies is an actual problem that has consequences for the efficacy of the institution).

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau says the bill to implement the New NAFTA agreement will come “in short order,” but it’s unlikely to be this week, so that means late January.
  • Here is more about what has been changed in the updated New NAFTA agreement.
  • The Aluminium Association and former Conservative minister James Moore are pushing for the New NAFTA to be ratified, incidentally.
  • A new study shows there is no scientific basis for the “zero tolerance” THC rules for impaired driving. (I spoke to lawyers about this back in March).
  • SNC-Lavalin’s request for a judicial review of their denied remediation agreement is heading to the Federal Court of Appeal.
  • Here is a closer look at those new documents on the Afghan War, and what it means for Canada’s involvement.
  • Senators are looking at moving ahead with an audit committee, but this proposal finally has the correct ratio of senators-to-outsiders.
  • After QP yesterday, MPs paid tribute to late Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai.
  • The Liberals held their Reform Act votes, and to no one’s surprise, did not vote to give themselves power to turf the leader, or on voting to kick MPs out of caucus.
  • Liberal MP Sean Fraser is stepping back from his duties to deal with the death of his newborn daughter.
  • The Conservatives, who once decried the abuse of Order Paper questions, tabled 200 of them to make a big show about holding government to account.
  • The Commons passed a non-binding NDP motion on respecting the Human Rights Tribunal compensation order (because who cares about administrative law?).
  • The Alberta government’s “war room” is officially opened, and they insist that it’s totally not the government’s propaganda arm. Sure, Jan.
  • Éric Grenier talks to Hamish Marshall, and learns that the Conservatives had been counting on a much lower voter turnout as part of their strategy.
  • Kevin Carmichael has a must-read about how to read those job figures from last week, and puts the economic figures into perspective.
  • Heather Scoffield looks at the Trump effect on the New NAFTA and the disintegration of the appellate body of the WTO.
  • Susan Delacourt enumerates all of the ways in which politics is two-faced as it adopts the language of marketing for its purposes.
  • Chantal Hébert nods approvingly at the opening moves of the new parliament.
  • Chris Selley delves into the controversy in Quebec surrounding the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, and the hearing on Bill 21.
  • Colby Cosh takes a critical look at the Privacy Commissioner’s annual report, and finds the Statistics Canada banking data story may have been worse than reported.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

3 thoughts on “Roundup: Immutable committee math”

  1. ” (Are we ready to start having a discussion about having a more reasonable number of MPs for a country of our size? Because seriously, not having enough bodies is an actual problem that has consequences for the efficacy of the institution).”

    Part of the problem is of Trudeau’s own making, by creating a larger ministry. You also don’t mention that committees will now be composed of twelve members, rather than 10, also a drain on resources.

    As for the number of constituencies, I believe that the British do well with 650, or one MP for every 104,000 constituents. We are one per 111K, not that far off, especially when we consider that the Brits manage without provincial MPPs. We have more than enough elected officials.

  2. WE don’t need more MP’s, just better educated members who really know the difference between provincial and federal jurisdictions. We need candidates who have studied what is required if elected and not be neophytes who have to spend a lot of time learning the ropes. Also these members should recognise that they also must represent the majority of voters in their ridings that didn’t vote for their party.

  3. Total change of topic: Mr. Scheer has resigned. The right thing to do, IMHO. Sooner would have been better, though.

Comments are closed.