Article content continued

Still, that, and the promise to provide more time to speakers on both sides — which would mean either reducing the total number of questions, or extending QP beyond the current 45 minutes — seem fairly easy to test out, at least, as a sort of House pilot project. But as has been pointed out during previous parliamentary existential crises, there is nothing in the current rules that would prevent a speaker from intervening during Question Period; they’re just (understandably) reluctant to do so, lest it lead to accusations of bias, which makes it difficult to say what, if any, specific changes to the Standing Orders would have the desired effect.

The pitch: More resources — and autonomy — for House committees.

The Liberals would boost the overall budget for committee management. This would include additional staff when necessary, along with money to bring in expert witnesses. It would also allow committee members to elect their respective chairs by secret ballot, instead of the pro forma show of hands to confirm the choices previously decided by the party leadership, as is the current practice.

The Liberals would also end the practice of dispatching parliamentary secretaries to committees — a tactic embraced by the Conservatives as an additional means of exerting control over the process, as well as keeping tabs on government members.

The catch (if any): No downside here, as far as I can tell. If the Liberals actually did this — and even went so far as to formally change the Standing Orders to ensure future governments would have to abide by the same restrictions barring an eventual repeal — it would give committees and their members a fighting chance to assert their independence from the executive in everything from putting together witness lists to amending legislation without undue interference by the government. (Unless, that is, the exceptions to the proposed free vote system also covers committee stage, in which case it would have little practical effect.)