I really like what you said about not playing in your sandbox properly. I think that sort of sums up my presentation. Of course, this is not a recent problem. It is not the first time I appear before such a committee and say so.
Let's talk about British parliamentary systems. If we take the Westminster Palace in London as an example, one of the considerations that plays in favour of that Parliament's members is the fact that their mandate is longer than in Canada. When I retired, the average length of a Canadian MP's mandate was about four years. In London, their mandate is from 16 to 18 years. That's the standard.
In addition, their house has from 650 to 700 members. Not everyone can sit on a committee. Some members, if they are part of the government, decide to never be part of the cabinet. They don't want to be part of the cabinet. The dynamic is different. In Canada, unfortunately, there is so much partisanship that the system has become appalling, not only since this government has been in power, but also dating back to previous governments. I think that's the poison, if you will, of the parliamentary process.
In the 1970s, when committees used to have the same powers as you do in terms of the supply, the government and the opposition would compromise much more. In addition, there was much less partisanship and interference by whips.