Article author:
The Canadian Press
THE CONVERSATION
This article was originally published in The Conversation, an independent, non-commercial source of news, analysis and commentary by academic experts. rice field. Disclosure information is available at the original site.
——
Author: Jonathan Malloy, Professor of Political Science, Carleton University
House committees took center stage this summer. Rogers Suspension and Investigation into Hockey Canada's Treatment of Sexual Violence.
This is a somewhat unusual role for a Congressional commission. The hearings on Rogers and Hockey Canada primarily conveyed public outrage against non-governmental organizations. They didn't focus much on the government itself.
This can be viewed as a useful role for MPs or a worrying trend.
Substantial Work
Commons Commissions often operate anonymously. They can do good substantive work. But it's often about obscure issues that don't get the attention they deserve.
On the committee he has 12 Members of Parliament, divided according to party standings in the House of Commons. The more high-profile and pressing the issue, the more the committee becomes bogged down in divisions within the party. Senate committees are less partisan, reflecting the independent status of most senators. But they also struggle with profile and influence.
In addition to reviewing legislation, the Commission scrutinizes the actions of governments and their agencies. One example is this summer's Public Safety Commission hearings on the Nova Scotia shootings investigating political pressure on the RCMP.
But hockey his Canada and inquiries to Rogers belong to a different category.
They primarily focus on the problems of external organizations rather than governments. They are also about issues with widespread public outrage and limited partisan divisions. MPs are then free to explore issues without fighting each other.
His one-day investigation into his July 8th Rogers suspension by the Industry and Technology Committee found the proverbial shoot the fish in the barrel when MPs unloaded Rogers executives. It was like A Minister of Industry also appeared, but he was largely able to sidestep policy issues and hold Rogers accountable.
Hockey Canada's hearing by the Heritage Commission focused on the government and asked about the organization's approach to sexual violence cases.
But again, most of the focus and blame landed on external authorities, allowing the Sports Minister to commit to a cleanup response.
Worrying Trends
Canadians seem to appreciate his Canada and MPs who hold Rogers accountable for hockey. But it's a worrisome trend.
Parliamentary committees may not directly influence policy. But they are unique public forums. As Rogers and Hockey Canada executives now know, they can force anyone to turn up and undergo public scrutiny, and there is no way around it.
Commissions can be convened quickly and MPs are well placed to investigate and ask tough questions on behalf of the Canadian people. The Commission can therefore investigate important issues and seek answers.
Commissions, on the other hand, are blunt instruments, ultimately driven by politics. Unlike judicial investigations, there are few rules and protections for witnesses. The Commission lacks the resources to conduct an in-depth investigation, making witnesses its primary focus. The committee is a hammer, not a precise surgical instrument.
The risk of commission overreach has long been raised by public administration scholars. In a 1991 study, Sharon Sutherland argued that ministers absolved themselves of responsibility by publicly placing blame on subordinates less powerful to fight back, as did Donald Savoie in his 2003 book Breaking the Bargain. A commission investigation claimed a civil servant was being dumped by wolves.
Most recently, Craig and Marc Kielburger of WE Charity fought to keep themselves out of front of the Commons Commission. Kielberger correctly knew they were not the commission's primary targets. Rather, the opposition focused on linking the charity's plight to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
On the other hand, the Liberal members were devoted to protecting the Prime Minister and willingly attacked Kielberger when necessary.
Lack of nuance
Keelberger, his CEO of Rogers, or those who feel especially sorry for his Canadian leadership of hockey I don't think so.
But it is important to remember that commissions are not very good for nuances. This eagerness to scrutinize private, rather than government, officials opens the door to potentially unrestricted commission investigations. and attention, it can be considered fair game.
Members of Parliament, on the other hand, sincerely reflect the views and concerns of Canadians on these issues. Investigation also gives his MP fresh and valuable opportunities. They are able to tackle important issues without partisanship.
I am currently doing research on parliamentary committees. We look at these trade-offs and how the committee finds the most effective role.
Ultimately, parliamentary committees reflect the complexity of the entire parliament. They must reconcile the reality of partisanship with effective scrutiny. But their focus should be the government, not the external agency.
——
Jonathan Malloy is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
——
This article is reprinted from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Disclosure information is available at the original site. Read Original Article: https://theconversation.com/whats-the-point-of-parliamentary-committ https://theconversation.com/whats-the-point-of-parliament