Most MPs said the problems they described on the floor of the House decreased as their work moved into places with less media scrutiny, and where the party’s interventions in their work was less direct—though still significant, as we’ll address in Chapter 2. Most notably, it was in committees where the MPs overwhelmingly said the “real work” of Parliament is done.
According to the MPs, committee travel was another excellent way to gain input into legislation, and it helped them craft legislation that better reflected citizens’ needs. One MP who chaired the agriculture committee recalled the importance of visiting farmers directly. “We toured the country, bringing forward a series of recommendations and offering help to provinces who were in difficulty with agriculture. We met with people, and saw how agriculture changed,” he said.
Although committee proceedings are most often public, they are rarely covered in the media. Perhaps as a result, and in contrast to the theatrics of the House, the MPs said committees were a place marked by collegiality and constructive debate. “You are fighting all the time, but it’s a sparring that’s at a level where you want to get a good report,” one MP said.
In committees, the MPs said they could immerse themselves in the details of proposed legislation, call witnesses to give testimony regarding potential ramifications, and make informed decisions. Committees also enabled MPs to travel, giving them a more complete understanding of the country and its public challenges.
The MPs attributed the productivity in committees in part to the largely non-partisan environment. “Committees are where most relationships get established. You sit there for at least four or five hours a week with the same individuals. You find out who they are through their questions, their ideas and you develop respect for them,” said one MP. Another noted that committees require MPs to “take off their partisan hats and say, ‘Okay, we are going to work on something here to get the best possible thing we can for the country, recognizing we have different political attitudes.’”
The MPs also recalled committees as a place where diverse perspectives were gathered, and through witness testimony, expert knowledge was brought to the deliberations. “We bring in the best experts in the world, we deliberate over the important issues of the day. It’s quite something. If you were to come and watch, I think you would go away thinking, ‘Wow, this is good. My country is in good hands,’” said one MP.
Witnesses also connected the committee to the Canadian public at large. “We were always meeting with groups, which was tremendously helpful in terms of getting to understand the issues that people were concerned about around the country,” one MP said.
Others said committee work helped bring Canadians more directly into policy decisionmaking. One MP recalled travelling with the finance committee to seek input for the budget: “We held public meetings. But we didn’t meet with the business community alone, or meet with First Nations alone, or meet with the educators alone. You have them all come to the table. The business community says you have to cut taxes and social programs and the unions say you have to increase taxes and social programs. People saw those tradeoffs they were forced to make,” he said.
Even with so many MPs expressing such enthusiasm for the work they performed on committees, not all believed committees ultimately affected policy and legislation. One MP put it bluntly: “People will tell you ‘I’ve done great work on a committee.’ But you really have to say, ‘You did good work. You travelled. You studied this and that. But what did you accomplish? Show us where the legislation changed and what you did.’”
And while committees appeared to bring together all the necessary policy-making ingredients— debate, expert knowledge, cross-party alliances, and well-researched reports—some MPs noted that the process wasn’t adequately integrated into government decision-making. One former whip said that few committees produce budget estimates, making implementation more difficult. Others noted that the governing party is only required to respond to a report within 60 days and is not required to act on a committee’s advice in any real way. As one MP put it, committees could do far more to push the adoption of their recommendations: “The committees should take the government’s response, critique it and then publicize those views,” she said.