Setting the rules

The Globe and Mail reports that the Cons have attempted to rewrite the rulebook for Parliamentary committees to give themselves even more means of ducking any hearings which they'd prefer to avoid. But I'm curious as to why the opposition isn't looking to get some new rules in place as well to make sure the Cons can't continue their obstruction:

Conservative parliamentary secretaries arrived at the inaugural committee meetings of the new session this week with motions for changes that would include requiring 48 hours notice before the committee could debate any motion.

Motions that are not quickly debated would die, the number of questions that the New Democrats could ask would be reduced, and the presence of at least one government and one opposition member would be required for quorum.

The parliamentary secretaries also want to be added to the four-person steering committees - currently composed of a member from each party - that decide what business the committees will handle.

Opposition members outnumber Conservatives on every committee. So, while some of the rule changes have been accepted, others were flatly rejected...

The proposed rule changes mean Prime Minister Stephen Harper "is trying to run all parties the way he is trying to run his own," (NDP MP Yvan) Godin said. "It's his way or the highway."

I'll be interested to see the breakdown as to which changes were accepted and which ones rejected. While the extra notice for motions might not be the most controversial of issues, the steering committee and quorum proposals look to have absolutely no purpose other than to give the Cons the ability to shut down discussion of any inconvenient topic. (And naturally the attempt to silence the NDP looks like a serious problem.)

While the Cons' changes seem to have already been dealt with, though, I'm surprised that the opposition parties aren't apparently trying to get a few of the rules moved in the opposite direction.

Remember that under the current rules, the Cons' existing playbook has allowed them to cut off any discussion by having the committee chair adjourn a hearing abruptly with no opportunity for debate. Particularly with the Cons opening the door to rule changes, shouldn't the opposition take the opportunity to put forward some new adjournment rules to ensure that Con chairs can't unilaterally halt any hearing - and at least force the Cons to reconsider part of their current disruption strategy?