We're all human, so I guess there is always politics.
More seriously, the basic importance of peer review in committees was addressed earlier. The batting average of scientists in peer review is actually very good. It is imperfect and it is perfectible, but basically, if you have peers, you have to give them clear criteria, and the programs have to be well designed. To me, that's a separate issue, but if you give them the right criteria and the programs are well designed, external assessment can say whether this is good or this is bad.
A lot of the grants are actually assessed via committees. Scientists across Canada, who oftentimes also have international experience, see these reports in committees and say that this can work or this may not work. This is the gold standard in science across the world.
As pointed out in the previous panel, transparency can be increased and improved. There are various means of improving it, but it's not a bad idea to determine what good science is. In the same way, since I'm wearing a cast right now because I ripped my Achilles tendon, I want my orthopaedic surgeon to give me advice, and when I want more advice, I want to ask another orthopaedic surgeon. I don't want to ask an engineer. You want the experts to assess which projects are the ones with the highest quality.