As we discussed in Chapter 1, the majority of MPs described committees as where the “real work” took place, and where Parliamentarians were able to constructively advance policy. Yet even when apparently useful work was underway, MPs said that their party leadership would often disrupt the process, replacing committee members with no consultation or notice.
Committees are seldom subject to much media attention. Although MPs lamented the fact that Canadians didn’t often see constructive politics at play in Ottawa, they were also aware of the unfortunate consequences of shining the public spotlight on a committee.
“Debates are much more reasonable in committees that aren’t televised. You televise a committee and you get the same nonsense, you don’t get the usual members of the committee. Parties substitute their hitters to come into the committee when it’s a televised committee, as opposed to the people who are there normally, doing the work,” one MP explained.
According to our MPs, party interference was not limited to those committees in the media spotlight. Committee members suspected of not toeing the party line were often changed without notice.
One Conservative MP recounted an instance where the governing party replaced all of its members before an amendment vote. “We had members of the committee listening to witnesses and coming up with agreements on amendments. On the day of the vote, the whip substituted every member of the committee on the government side. They’re out and a new bunch of guys are in, whose only qualification is that they will vote the way they’re told,” he said.
This meddling could damage the cross-party working relationships MPs had forged. “Once it’s perceived that the government is trying to jam something through, then the goodwill evaporates and any relationships that you have become secondary to advancing your party’s [interests],” said one Conservative MP.
A Liberal member of the public accounts committee remembered a valuable fellow member being removed as punishment for voting against his party. “We had a chartered accountant, which gave the committee more expertise. When he voted against the gun registry, his punishment was to take him off the committee. That weakened the committee’s [overall work],” he said.
There is a sad irony in the MPs’ observations that when the party finally pays attention to the “real work,” the results are rarely favourable.