Part 2 - So, is this the death of the committee system as we know it?

As you can see, while there are plenty of past examples of governments -- well, this government, anyway -- using procedural tricks to hamstring hapless committees, this does appear to be the first time that they've been able to use quorum to their advantage, thanks to the somewhat unique terms of reference of the Afghanistan committee, which sets quorum at 7 - one more than a majority - and also requires the presence of at least one member of the government for any proceedings.

That may sound like a mere technical detail, but it is significantly different from the rules that govern most standing committees, which require a majority for quorum -- either six, or seven members, depending on the total, and not including the chair -- but which can, in certain circumstances, operate with a reduced quorum of just three members, plus the chair. The only stipulation is that at least one opposition member be present; there is no requirement that a member of the government be there as well. They can't hold votes or introduce motions, but they can receive evidence. In other words, if the Afghanistan committee used the same rules as standing committees, there would have been nothing stopping the vice-chair - Liberal Bryon Wilfert - from taking the chair on Tuesday, although they wouldn't have been able to pass a motion to schedule a subsequent meeting and invite witnesses. (At least, I don't think that would have been allowed, but if someone more procedurally omniscient thinks otherwise, feel free to correct me in the comments.)

Interestingly enough, back in February, when Parliament returned after prorogation and the current batch of committees were holding their respective organizational meetings, there was what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated strategy to have Conservative members put forward what seemed, at the time, to be a fairly minor amendment to the usual routine motion on reduced quorum. The exact wording of the proposed motion varied slightly from committee to committee -- in some cases, it would explicitly require that a member from the government be present, as well as one from the opposition; in other cases, every recognized party would have to be represented for the meeting to proceed.

It was proposed, and defeated at Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Government Operations and Estimates, Human Resources, International Trade, National Defence, Natural Resources and Status of Women -- and was accepted at Agriculture, Canadian Heritage, Finance, Fisheries and Oceans, and Foreign Affairs, which means that any of the five could, in theory, be shut down just as effectively as the Afghanistan committee if no one from the government side turns up.

(This, incidentally, is why it is the wise Whip's office that monitors the normally eye-glazing process of passing routine motions.)