In the British Parliament, two sorts of
committees began to evolve in the sixteenth century: small committees
composed of no more than 15 members known as “select committees”, and large
committees whose membership numbered between 30 and 40 called “standing
committees”.[11]
Bills were often considered in detail in select committees and only members
appointed to these committees were allowed to participate. In contrast, it
became common in standing committees to allow whoever attended to speak. These
standing committees eventually evolved into “general” or “grand” committees comprising
as many members as the House itself. During the reigns of James I (1603‑25)
and Charles I (1625‑49), they became known as Committees of the Whole.[12]
These committees were established as forums
for discussing bills of great interest[13]
and provided Members with the opportunity to speak to a question as often as
they wanted.[14]
A further reason for considering bills in this forum was the greater freedom of
debate secured by the removal of the “constraining presence of the Speaker, who
was at this period expected to look after the interests of the King”.[15]
By the beginning of the eighteenth century, it had become common to refer all
bills to grand committees for detailed discussion following second reading.[16]
This development proved to be an efficient method of discussing matters of
detail and, in the latter half of the century, for the House to establish its
control over financial matters.[17]
In Canada, the colonial legislatures
generally modelled their procedures on those of the British House. In 1792, the
Assemblies of Upper and Lower Canada adopted the British practice of resolving
into a Committee of the Whole to consider legislation, or procedural and
constitutional matters.[18]
Beginning in 1817 in Lower Canada, four committees whose membership was composed
of all Members were appointed at the commencement of each session and were
directed by the Assembly to sit on certain days in each week. They were called
the Grand Committees for grievances, courts of justice, agriculture and
commerce. In 1840, after the union of Upper and Lower Canada, most of the
parliamentary rules that had been in place in Lower Canada were adopted,[19]
and the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada continued to do a
significant part of its business in Committees of the Whole.[20]
At Confederation in 1867, the House of
Commons adopted the rules of the former Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, including the procedures and practices pertaining to Committees of
the Whole.[21]
Thus, all matters affecting trade, taxation or public revenue had to be first
considered in a Committee of the Whole House before any resolution or bill
could be passed by the House of Commons.[22]
Addresses to the Crown were also frequently founded on resolutions first
considered in a Committee of the Whole.[23]
From 1867 to 1968, there were three types
of committees composed of the membership of the whole House: the Committee
of Supply, the Committee of Ways and Means and Committees of the Whole House.
The Committee of Supply would debate each request for supply (interim supply, main
estimates and supplementary estimates), item by item.[24] When that Committee
recommended to the House that the supply requested be granted, and the House
concurred, the Members went into the Committee of Ways and Means.[25]
The Committee of Ways and Means would subsequently consider resolutions to
authorize the expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund;[26] once the
resolutions were reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, and concurred
in by the House, an appropriation bill based on the resolutions would then be
introduced in the House.[27]
The Committee of Ways and Means would also give preliminary authorization to
taxation proposals outlined in the Minister of Finance’s budget.[28]
A Committee of the Whole would routinely debate resolutions preceding bills
involving the expenditure of public monies.[29]
It would only debate the advisability of the measure proposed since the details
of the bill would not yet be known. Debate could be very lengthy. After the
resolution was approved, the House would proceed with the introduction and
first reading of the bill.[30]
A Committee of the Whole would also consider in detail most bills after second
reading,[31]
and other matters such as reports from committees appointed to review House
rules and procedures,[32]
and resolutions concerning international treaties and conventions.[33]
Few bills were sent to standing or special committees for consideration. At
that time, the work of standing and special committees was investigative, not
legislative. Standing committees did not have the power to adopt clauses of a
bill. If a standing or special committee had been directed to examine a bill and
had reported it back to the House, the proposed text of the bill had to be
reconsidered again, clause‑by‑clause, in a Committee of the Whole.
It was the Committee of the Whole’s report that the House concurred in at
report stage.[34]
Only minor changes to Committee of the
Whole proceedings were made during the first hundred years of Confederation. In
1910, the House adopted rules codifying the requirement for relevance during
debate in a Committee of the Whole and empowered the Chairman of Committees of
the Whole House to direct a Member who persisted in irrelevance or repetition
to discontinue his or her speech, the rule being copied verbatim from the
British House of Commons’ rules.[35]
In 1955, the House concurred in a committee report recommending
restrictions on the length of debate in a Committee of the Whole and on the
motion for the House to resolve into Committee of Supply.[36] In
October 1964, rules were adopted pertaining to the limitation of debate on
a resolution preceding bills involving the expenditure of public monies, and to
the rearrangement of the order of consideration of a bill in a Committee of the
Whole.[37]
In 1968, a special committee appointed to revise the rules of the House[38]
criticized, among other things, the study of legislation in a Committee of the
Whole. It argued such studies were too cumbersome and inefficient to handle the
increased volume and complexity of legislation. The special committee
recommended, first, the elimination of the preliminary resolution stage in a
Committee of the Whole for taxation bills, and second, the reference of all
bills, except those based on supply and ways and means motions, to standing
committees, where the clauses could be meticulously examined. It also
recommended that bills referred to standing committees not be reconsidered in a
Committee of the Whole. In addition, it recommended that bills considered in a
Committee of the Whole not be debatable at report stage, and that all speeches
in that forum be limited to 20 minutes.[39]
The House subsequently adopted new Standing Orders which implemented these
recommendations.[40]
In 1975, provisional amendments were made
to the Standing Orders concerning supply proceedings whereby selected items in
the estimates could be withdrawn from standing committees and examined in a
Committee of the Whole.[41]
This provisional Standing Order was continued for the following session through
agreement,[42]
but was not renewed thereafter.
Changes to Committee of the Whole
procedures occurred again in 1985 when the House amended its Standing Orders
provisionally to reflect a recommendation made by the Special Committee on the
Reform of the House of Commons. The Committee recommended that bills based on ways
and means motions be referred to legislative committees, established
specifically to examine bills in detail, rather than a Committee of the Whole.
Only bills based on a supply motion to concur in estimates or interim supply
would be referred to a Committee of the Whole.[43]
This change was adopted permanently in 1987.[44]
In March 2001, the House introduced two new
Committee of the Whole procedures thus giving them a greater role in current
House practice.[45]
First, the House wanted to use the
Committee of the Whole format for take-note debates, which had become more
frequent since the mid-1990s.[46]
Considering that take-note debates provided a good opportunity to solicit the
views of Members on government policy, and that debates in Committee of the Whole
were often less formal and partisan, a new Standing Order was adopted that
allowed a Minister, following consultation with the House Leaders of the other
parties in the House, to move a motion setting out the terms of a take-note
debate in Committee of the Whole.[47]
This procedure was suggested after two successful take‑note debates had
been held in this manner in the spring of 2001.[48] The new Standing
Order has been used frequently since its adoption, and take-note debates have
covered a wide array of topics, from domestic policy to international issues.[49]
Second, the House adopted a new Standing
Order authorizing the Leader of the Opposition to refer consideration of the main
estimates of no more than two departments or agencies to a Committee of the Whole.[50]
The estimates are considered on the day appointed by the government. This new
Standing Order enhances the importance and the visibility of the estimates
review process. Consideration in Committee of the Whole permits a more meaningful
examination of government estimates, while facilitating the participation of
Members who are interested in the department or agency whose estimates are
being considered. Conducting these televised proceedings in the Chamber confirms
the financial oversight role of the House of Commons. The first of these
debates was held in May 2002.[51]
The following year, the House reduced the total time for consideration of each
of the two sets of estimates from five hours to four, and changed the maximum
length of time allowed for speeches.[52]
[11] Standing committees in Britain should not be confused with the
standing committees in the Canadian House of Commons today, which are similar
in size to the British “select committees”.
[12] Bourinot, Sir J.G., Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the
Dominion of Canada, 4th ed., edited by T.B. Flint, Toronto: Canada Law
Book Company, 1916, pp. 391‑2. The earliest references to general committees
and grand committees comprising the total membership of the House can be found
during the reign of Elizabeth I (Wilding and Laundy, 4th ed., p. 152).
[13] For example, bills imposing a tax or involving constitutional
issues were frequent in Parliaments during the Stuart monarchy.
[14] Redlich, J., The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of
its History and Present Form, Vol. II, translated by A.E. Steinthal,
New York: AMS Press, 1969 (reprint of 1908 ed.), p. 208.
[15] Campion, G.F.M., An Introduction to the Procedure of the House
of Commons, 3rd ed., London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1958,
p. 27. See also Griffith, J.A.G. and Ryle, M., Parliament: Functions,
Practice and Procedures, 2nd ed., edited by R. Blackburn and A. Kennon
with Sir M. Wheeler-Booth, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003, p. 384.
[18] Nonetheless, the Upper Canada Assembly made wider use of its select
committee system than Great Britain at the time and many bills were referred to
select committees after second reading. O’Brien, G., “Pre-Confederation
Parliamentary Procedure: The Evolution of Legislative Practice in the Lower
Houses of Central Canada, 1792-1866”, Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, 1988, p. 103.
[19]O’Brien, p. 256. O’Brien notes that parliamentary
procedure in Lower Canada was more comprehensive and better suited to a larger
assembly than that in Upper Canada.
[20]Bourinot, J.G., South Hackensack, New Jersey: Rothman
Reprints Inc., 1971 (reprint of 1st ed., 1884), p. 414.
[24] See, for example, Journals, October 27, 1967,
pp. 418‑20.
[25] See, for example, Journals, March 26, 1964,
pp. 133‑4.
[26] See, for example, Journals, March 26, 1964,
p. 134; June 18, 1965, p. 278.
[27] See, for example, Journals, March 26, 1964,
p. 134. For further information on the Committee of Supply and the
Committee of Ways and Means, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[28] See, for example, Journals, April 29, 1964,
pp. 266‑71; December 14, 1967, pp. 595‑600.
[29] Resolutions relating to the expediency of introducing an
appropriation bill and couched in general rather than specific terms would be
proposed to the House and referred to a Committee of the Whole for
consideration.
[30] See, for example, Journals, July 3, 1961, pp. 795‑6;
July 13, 1964, pp. 526‑7.
[31] See, for example, Journals, November 13, 1964,
p. 872; November 27, 1967, pp. 537‑8.
[32] See, for example, Journals, April 29, 1910,
pp. 535‑7; July 12, 1955, p. 881.
[33] See, for example, Journals, May 1, 1925, pp. 234‑6;
June 8, 1942, p. 367.
[34] Stewart, J.B., The Canadian House of Commons: Procedure and
Reform, Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1977,
p. 85. See, for example, Journals, October 6, 1966,
pp. 833‑4; March 1, 1967, pp. 1459‑60;
March 15, 1967, p. 1538; March 16, 1967, pp. 1540,
1542; March 17, 1967, p. 1546; March 20, 1967, p. 1556;
March 21, 1967, p. 1584.
[35]Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 535‑7, in
particular p. 537. See also British House of Commons Standing Order 42.
[36]Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881, 920, 922‑3,
928‑9. Speeches were limited to 30 minutes at a time, except for the
Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, who had unlimited time, and the
motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair was to be decided without debate or
amendment.
[37]Journals, October 9, 1964, pp. 779‑80.
Debate on such resolutions was limited to one day. In addition, the length of
speeches was reduced to no more than 20 minutes solely during
consideration of such resolutions in a Committee of the Whole. Consideration of
Clause 1 of a bill was postponed until all other clauses had been considered if
Clause 1 contained only the short title of the bill.
[39]Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 429‑64, in
particular pp. 432‑3, 436. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition continued to have unlimited time.
[40]Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554‑79, in
particular pp. 560, 562, 572‑3.
[41]Journals, March 14, 1975, pp. 372‑6;
March 24, 1975, p. 399. In its Second Report, the Standing Committee
on Procedure and Organization had expressed the view that the examination of
selected items in the estimates in a Committee of the Whole would permit the
House to perform more effectively (Journals, March 14, 1975,
p. 373).
[43] Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (the
McGrath Committee), Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 19,
1984, Issue No. 2, pp. 3‑23, in particular p. 21. See, for
example, Journals, December 20, 1984, p. 211; June 27,
1985, pp. 918‑9.
[45] See Journals, March 15, 2001, pp. 175-6; March 21,
2001, pp. 208-9, appointment of the Special Committee on the Modernization
and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons. See also the First
Report of the Committee, par. 26-29, 33-36, presented to the House on June 1,
2001 (Journals, p. 465) and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals,
pp. 691-3) by Special Order (Journals, October 3, 2001,
p. 685). The Committee members devoted an entire section of their report
to Committees of the Whole, and stated that greater use of Committees of the
Whole should be considered in the future (par. 40). They also suggested
extending the Committee of the Whole format to emergency debates (par. 30).
[46] For further information on take-note debates and their history, see
Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[48] The first take‑note debate was held on April 24, 2001,
on the state of Canada’s resource industries, and the second took place on
May 1, 2001, on proposals to modernize the Standing Orders. The new
provisions in the Standing Orders were followed for the first time to schedule
a debate on the upcoming World Trade Organization ministerial meeting. That
debate was held on November 5, 2001 (Journals, April 23, 2001,
p. 308; April 24, 2001, pp. 320, 322; May 1, 2001,
pp. 342, 351; November 1, 2001, p. 781; November 5, 2001,
p. 793).
[49] See, for example, the debates held on January 29, 2003 (on the
situation in Iraq, Journals, p. 341); April 6, 2006 (on
agricultural issues, Journals, p. 29); April 10, 2006 (on Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan, Journals, p. 42).
[50] Standing Order 81(4). For further information on the consideration
of specific Votes in the main estimates in Committee of the Whole, see the
section in this chapter entitled “Other Uses of Committees of the Whole”, and
Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[52] Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and
Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, June 2003, par. 43,
presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915)
and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995).