CKNW Editorial
for September 28, 2000

I recently finished a new book about Elizabeth I and in it are several references to Parliament and in particular to parliamentary committees. That committee system is that old – indeed it’s much older. This ancient institution came into being as a vehicle by which groups of MPs, could examine and judge government policy and legislation. Since legislation and policy are presented to the parliament by the government, that is to say the Prime Minister and the cabinet, the committee became a useful way for the commons to hold the government’s feet to the fire. Remember, that in theory at least, "responsible government" means a system in which the cabinet and prime minister come from the parliament itself and are in power at the whim and sufferance of that parliament.

Before we developed the ironclad party discipline we now have the committee system did in fact hold the government to account. In fact, in the United Kingdom where MPs have never permitted party leaders and their whips to have it all to themselves, the committee is a very effective tool indeed against the dictatorship of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Committees, roughly corresponding to departments of government, in theory are supposed to examine with a careful eye and a sharp tongue just how those departments are being administered by the cabinet.

All this by way of saying to you that the rubbish peddled here yesterday by Fisheries and Oceans Minister Herb Dhaliwal ought to shock us all into understanding why we simply cannot be bribed or seduced into voting Liberal.

Mr Dhaliwal simply was not telling the truth. Several Liberal backbenchers – a group not noted for forthright and courageous comment on anything let alone their beloved prime minister – have expressed their grave concerns that the MP has been neutered. This is putting it mildly. With the exception of the Public Accounts Committee – which has an opposition member chairing it for what little good that does - the House of Commons Committees have a chairman who controls the agenda. He is appointed by the Prime Minister and does just what the Prime Minister tells him to. The Committee itself always has a government majority and those members are again handpicked by the Prime Minister. They do precisely as they are told.

Let me give you an example of how this works.

A few months ago, opposition members of the Health Committee wanted to discuss the huge shortfall of federal funding to the provinces. Since this was the burning question of the moment, one can understand that. But Mr Chretien and Health Minister Rock didn’t want the Committee to look into this embarrassing subject and instructed the Committee to examine Mental Health in Canada instead. Now I would be the last person to play down the importance of mental health but the plain fact is that this is a provincial matter not a federal concern. But despite the screams from the opposition, there was no discussion of transfer payments, because that would embarrass the minister and the prime minister. Instead they discussed which was outside their jurisdiction. That scenario is repeated endlessly. The Parliamentary Committee is no longer a way that parliament can watch and exercise restraint, if not control, of the government that is supposed to be "responsible" to them … but has become a place where MPs can be kept busy and out of the government’s hair.

Yes, they do some useful things. So does the Senate. So, I suppose, does the devil if only by reminding us of our duty to God. What is does not do is that for which it was intended – be a brake on the executive it’s supposed to control, but which in fact it pays constant homage to.

The major issue, if we had some gumption in this country, for the next election ought to be reforming the system. To do that, there must be an honest appraisal – something that Mr Dhaliwal and his ilk are not prepared to undertake – and honest to goodness reforms, not paper ones like more free votes.
Herb Dhaliwal insulted your intelligence here yesterday morning. You’ll not hear a peep out of your Liberal lickspittles on reform of the system. That should focus us elsewhere. And that focus will be a direct one when I next have Stockwell Day in my sights. (I’d put Jean Chretien’s feet to the fire if he’d come anywhere near me but he only does interviews where the risk of that is nil or nearly so.)

One final word on Mr Dhaliwal. Since he got into cabinet some three years ago we have constantly sought his appearance on the show. He has steadfastly refused. He did come on for Tracey Jackson when I was away which you may think had something to do with the fact that Tracey’s Mom works for Mr Dhaliwal and is seeking a Liberal nomination. I mean no disrespect to Tracey or her mother – I do mean disrespect to Mr Dhaliwal who knew that the questions were likely to be more pointed from me than my relatively inexperienced replacement.