Committee Business: Six of one, half dozen of the other?

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:38pm - 59 Comments

Not when it comes to House committees, that’s for sure — not when, as previously –  and exhaustively – documented, a sixth seat at the table would give the Conservatives a de facto majority on at least three committees currently chaired by the opposition: Public Accounts, Government Operations and Estimates, and – perhaps most critically, given the antics of the last session – Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

To secure that elusive extra vote, however, the Government House Leader – currently, the almost cartoonishly partisan Peter Van Loan – will have to convince the other three parties that his expanded – but still minority – government caucus should, by rights, get one of the four committee slots held by the Official Opposition during the last Parliament.  The makeup of the membership is not set in stone by the Standing Orders, but is the result of agreement between the parties — all the parties – and although the rules state that it has to be “roughly” proportionate to standings in the House, that doesn’t mean that the Conservatives will be automatically assured of an additional seat just because the math may work out in the government’s favour.

Back in 2004, when Paul Martin became the first prime minister to preside over a minority government in over two decades, they – the government and the opposition parties – managed to work out a mutually acceptable formula for committee membership before the newly reconstituted Commons had even held its first meeting by reducing the size from sixteen seats — of which the government had held nine — to twelve: five government members on one side of the table, and on the other, four from the Official Opposition, two from the Bloc Quebecois, and just one from the NDP.

When the Conservatives took power the next year, the same formula was used to divvy up the available committee slots; even though the Conservatives came back with a smaller minority – 123 seats to 135 held by Martin – the government still got a full five seats – one vote shy of a majority, but able to win a vote with the support of just one opposition member.

If they really have their hearts set on having a sixth seat at committee, then, the government will have to persuade the rest of the House that they can be trusted with even strictly limited majority power without running roughshod over the opposition, which would be a tough sell under even the most harmonious of minority parliaments, but is likely to be nearly impossible in this one.

Bookmark and Share
  • L

    Is there any reason at all why committees can’t have an odd number of members?

    Say we have 11 members total: 5 CPC, 3 Lib, 2 BQ, 1 NDP. If this were the case, then even with committees that are chaired by the opposition, there would be a tie between government and opposition.

    Does this make too much sense to be considered by the House leaders?

  • keith by the Bruce

    Pakistan seeks IMF bailout to stave off bankruptcy . Maybe van steve could get outside Parliament experts for advice ?

    All knowing extreme right ” Strauss believed that allowing citizens to govern themselves will lead, inevitably, to terror and tyranny, ” “A ruling elite of political philosophers must make those decisions because it is the only group smart enough.” http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2005/11/29/HarperBush/

    China , India and Pakistan have a long history . Sorry but the world is not black & white as cons believe ?

    Don’t even stop fighting merely spend the $ 20 million harper spent on state of the art bunker buster bombs to conviene some real talent to plot a way forward ? ( not U of Calgary alumni )

  • Style

    Eliminating one Liberal seat from every committee seems like a reasonable response to the election results. Expanding to 13 seats would also work – adding one NDP seat to every committee and moving one Liberal seat to the Conservatives. The only challenge seems to be that odd-numbered committees would more often have tied votes, forcing the Chair to vote (presumably complicating the Chair’s role in running the committee).

    You have to expand to 16 seats to have an even number and fewer Government seats than Opposition. But this seems unfair – the Government would have 7 seats to 9 Opposition seats, giving the Government less influence at Committee…A party increased their seats in Parliament, should the rules be revised to ensure their influence in Committee declines?

  • keith by the Bruce

    I am trying to say that whatever the cons do about make up of committees or committee chairs may have more similiarity to a coin toss than higher math ?

  • madeyoulook

    Funny you should mention coin toss, keith. Where shall we plug in this 308 ball-filled lottery machine?

  • keith by the Bruce

    From the far outskirts I would rate feigned rabid beliefs , strenght with head bowed , ability to take one for the man and video poise as the big guy’s criteria ?

  • Style

    Is Keith actualy William Burroughs? I hope he and Elvis are hiding out together working on some cool rock-a-billy/beat poetry hybrid.

  • Eric Finley

    Naah… put the committee composition up to the house using BC-STV. It would actually work like a charm – that’s exact the right size range of ‘districts’ for STV.

    And this would work in the subtleties like one party being more broadly acceptable to the other parties than another one, even though their number of first-choice votes is the same.

    Who’s up for a petition?

  • Pingback: Committee business – Maybe thirteen isn’t such an unlucky number after all. : Capital Read : Inside the Queensway : Macleans.ca Blog Central

From Macleans