Hockey Canada officers seem on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in Ottawa in July 2022, because it appeared into how Hockey Canada dealt with allegations of sexual assault and a subsequent lawsuit. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
Home of Commons committees have had a excessive profile this summer season, with inquiries into the Rogers outage and Hockey Canada’s dealing with of sexual violence.
It is a considerably uncommon position for parliamentary committees. The hearings on Rogers and Hockey Canada primarily conveyed public outrage towards non-government entities. They had been not likely targeted on authorities itself.
This may be seen both as a helpful position for parliamentarians or a regarding pattern.
Substantive work
Commons committees usually work in obscurity. They’ll do good and substantive work. However it’s usually on low-profile points that don’t get a lot traction.
Committees have 12 MPs, divided in line with occasion standings within the Home. The extra high-profile and urgent the difficulty, the extra the committee will get slowed down in partisan divisions. Senate committees are much less partisan, reflecting the impartial standing of most senators. However additionally they battle for profile and impression.
Along with contemplating laws, committees scrutinize the actions of presidency and its businesses. An instance is that this summer season’s public safety committee hearings on the Nova Scotia shootings, investigating political stress on the RCMP.
However the inquiries into Hockey Canada and Rogers are in a unique class.
They focus totally on issues in exterior organizations, not authorities. They’re additionally about points the place there’s broad public outrage and restricted partisan divisions. So MPs can discover the problems freely with out preventing one another.
The one-day inquiry into the July 8 Rogers outage by the trade and expertise committee was just like the proverbial capturing fish in a barrel as MPs unloaded on Rogers executives. The minister of trade additionally appeared, however he was largely in a position to sidestep the coverage points and heap his personal blame on Rogers.
Rogers executives wait to look earlier than the Home of Commons Standing Committee on Trade and Know-how in July 2022 in Ottawa.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
The Hockey Canada hearings by the heritage committee targeted considerably extra on the federal government, asking concerning the group’s method to sexual violence circumstances.
However once more, a lot of the focus and blame landed on exterior officers, permitting the minister of sport to vow a cleanup response.
Worrisome pattern
Canadians probably appreciated MPs holding Hockey Canada and Rogers to account. But it surely’s a regarding pattern.
Parliamentary committees might not have a lot direct coverage impression. However they’re distinctive public boards. They’ll compel anybody to look and endure public scrutiny and there’s no approach to keep away from them, as Rogers and Hockey Canada executives now know.
Committees can convene shortly, and MPs are well-positioned to probe and ask powerful questions on behalf of Canadians. Committees can subsequently discover essential points and demand solutions.
Then again, committees are blunt devices, in the end pushed by politics. Not like a judicial inquiry, there are few guidelines or protections for witnesses. Committees lack the assets to do deep analysis, making witnesses their predominant focus. Reasonably than exact surgical devices, committees are sledgehammers.
The danger of committee overreach has lengthy been raised by public administration students. In a 1991 examine, Sharon Sutherland argued that ministers escaped accountability by publicly dumping blame on subordinates, who weren’t in a powerful place to battle again. Donald Savoie’s 2003 ebook Breaking the Cut price additionally argued that public servants had been being thrown to the wolves in committee inquiries.
Extra just lately, Craig and Marc Kielburger of the WE Charity fought to keep away from showing earlier than a Commons committee. The Kielburgers appropriately knew that they weren’t the committee’s main goal; somewhat the opposition events had been targeted on tying the charity’s woes to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
In the meantime, the Liberal members targeted on defending the prime minister, and had been glad to assault the Kielburgers as essential.
Marc and Craig Kielburger seem as witnesses by way of videoconference throughout a Home of Commons finance committee listening to in Ottawa in July 2020.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
Lack nuance
Nobody might really feel significantly sorry for the Kielburgers, the CEO of Rogers or the Hockey Canada management.
But it surely’s essential to keep in mind that committees are usually not well-suited to nuance. This enthusiasm for scrutinizing non-public officers, somewhat than authorities, opens the door to doubtlessly limitless committee inquiries. Any situation that marginally touches on coverage and regulatory areas may be thought-about honest sport, particularly if it attracts numerous protection and a spotlight for MPs.
Then again, MPs are genuinely reflecting the views and curiosity of Canadians on these points. And the inquiries give MPs a refreshing and uncommon alternative to work collectively. They’ll have interaction on essential issues with out getting slowed down in partisanship.
I’m at the moment conducting a examine of parliamentary committees. It seems at these trade-offs and the way committees can discover the simplest roles.
Finally, parliamentary committees replicate the complexity of Parliament as a complete. They need to reconcile the fact of partisanship with efficient scrutiny. However their focus needs to be authorities, not exterior entities.
Jonathan Malloy receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Analysis Council.