The MPs’ haphazard orientation was further complicated by confusion over their committee appointments. Nearly every MP is expected to serve on at least one committee—the multi—party groups of parliamentarians that are charged with considering a particular policy or program area.
This work is important, and the 65 former MPs stressed this. It is through committee appointments that MPs, in conjunction with the public service, interest groups, experts and citizens, deliberate and decide how our laws and public policies should evolve. From economic to social policy, on issues both domestic and international, these decisions impact the lives of all Canadians.
Given the importance of committees to the overall work of Parliament, it was a surprise that so many MPs described their initial appointments as unexpected or unsuitable. Although many MPs acknowledged that regional and gender balance was important to committee composition, they still felt frustrated when their appointments did not accord with their experience or interests.
Some MPs with a particular area of expertise expressed feeling surprised or disappointed when their appointments had little to do with their pre—existing knowledge. One MP, who came to Parliament with a background in literacy and skills training, was surprised when he was placed on a committee whose focus about which he knew little. “I got to Ottawa and said,
‘You have made a mistake. I am on the health committee. I should be on the human resources committee. I was a senior policy advisor [in this area in my home province], and we are doing great things.’ I was baffled that it didn’t seem to matter,” the MP said.
The appointment process was confounded further by the lack of formal opportunity to request a particular policy focus, and the lack of any recourse if a committee appointment was found to be inappropriate or not of interest to the MP. “I couldn’t go to somebody and say, ‘Look, you’ve got me on the wrong committee.’ That wasn’t the way it worked. You’re on a committee because that’s where you’re put. [We’re told], ‘Don’t worry if you don’t know enough about it; we are going to give you notes anyway,’” one MP said. “They put me on the public accounts committee. I was not keen on being on [that committee]. I couldn’t get myself changed [yet] I ended up as the vice-chair,” said another MP.
The result was not only confusion, but at times a misapplication or waste of one’s expertise. “It was funny because if you were put on a justice committee, you were thought of as a justice person, when maybe your expertise was in health. People in your caucus saw you as what you were working on, and sometimes it was a match, and sometimes it wasn’t,” one MP said.