Committees of the British Parliament have
existed in some form since the fourteenth century.[4] The
precursors to the first parliamentary committees were the individuals selected
as Triers and Examiners of Petitions,[5] and the earliest duty of committees, as we know them, was to draw up
legislation to carry into effect those prayers or petitions to which the Crown
had acceded. By the middle of the sixteenth century, committees formed part of
the regular machinery of parliament, modifying or “improving” legislation to
which the House of Commons had agreed in principle. Committees had their own
meeting room in the Palace of Westminster and committee practice had acquired
many of its modern characteristics, including the more relaxed rules governing
debate, the right to appoint subcommittees and the right to summon witnesses.
However, the House was always careful to exercise control over, and
responsibility for, the matters it referred to committee.
At that time, there were two types of
committees: large committees of 30 to 40 members, and small
committees of up to 15 members. The large committees, often composed of
different classes of Members (professional, regional, functional), were established
to consider substantive matters. In the beginning, they were always classified
as “special” committees, that is, bodies created for a particular purpose and
disbanded as soon as that purpose was discharged. Over time, some of these
large committees were given sessional orders of reference (or mandates) which
remained in effect for the duration of a session. As “standing” committees,
they were charged with an area of responsibility, such as the consideration of
a class of bills or a particular department of House business.[6] By the middle of the seventeenth century, a fairly elaborate system
of standing committees was in place, and that system remained virtually
unchanged over the next two centuries.[7]
The smaller committees, composed of only
those Members who had been specifically named by the House, became known as
“select” committees. While any Member could attend select committee
proceedings, only those specifically named to the committee by the House could
participate in the deliberations.[8]
By contrast, it became common in the large
committees to allow whoever attended to participate in the discussion. As the
practice of allowing any Member to speak in a large committee evolved, they
came to be known as the “general” or “grand” committees. Ultimately, the
membership of these committees equalled that of the House itself and they were
referred to as Committees of the Whole.[9] Grand committees became the preferred forum for the consideration
of “bills of great concernment, and chiefly in bills to impose a tax, or raise
money from the people … to the end there may be opportunity for fuller debates,
for that at a committee the members have liberty to speak as often as they
shall see cause, to one question”.[10]
Britain’s
revolutionary Long Parliament (1640‑60),[11]
which assumed all the powers of administration and government on behalf of the
Commonwealth, effectively did away with grand committees and ruled by means of
small committees. Committees of the Whole were seen to be “highly
inconvenient”, affording as they did equal debating rights to the opposition.[12]
With the Restoration,[13] Parliament, in 1661, once again reverted to grand committees to
consider its most significant orders of business and, by 1700, it had become
common to examine bills in Committees of the Whole House following second
reading.[14] Over the years, various committees on reform continued to suggest
that legislation again be referred to the small committees, but the House
continued to prefer the greater openness available in the larger forum.
Contrary to the United Kingdom practice in
the nineteenth century, where the majority of committee work was carried out in
Committees of the Whole, the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada regularly
referred bills to select committees for consideration.[15] In
fact, the standing committee system in the two Canadas, as it evolved, more
closely resembled the committee structure of the American colonial legislatures
and the United States Congress than that of the British Parliament.[16] A fairly sophisticated system of committees emerged during the
1830s.
In 1831, Lower Canada began appointing a
number of standing committees—committees having an on‑going mandate—at
the beginning of every session. Somewhat later, in 1836, the Assembly of Upper
Canada appointed 12 select standing committees, touching virtually all matters
of government business, a departure from its usual practice of nominating ad
hoc or special committees as the need arose.[17]
Committees afforded Members of the
Legislative Assemblies a degree of independence from the executive and
reflected their desire to involve themselves more directly in government
affairs. For this reason, the Executive Council of Upper Canada discontinued
the practice of appointing standing committees following the 1837 rebellion.[18] Similarly, the government of the United Province of Canada (1841‑66)
initially refused to institute a system of standing committees, contending this
would compromise the principle of responsible government.[19]
The rules respecting committees of the
House of Commons in the new Dominion of Canada were inherited from the Province of Canada, and were essentially the same as those used in the legislature of Lower Canada prior to the Union Act, 1840.[20]
Efforts at reform, both before and since Confederation, have continued to
reflect either the desire to improve the efficiency of the legislature, or the
perpetual struggle to alter the balance of power between the legislature and
the executive.
Of the original Standing Orders adopted in
1867, few were directly concerned with standing or special committees. The
rules did not list which committees should be established, nor specify their
powers, procedures or the authority of the Chair. They did, however, deny
committee membership to any individual who had declared against the matter
under consideration.[21]
A feature of British parliamentary practice since at least the time of Queen
Elizabeth I, this rule was not rescinded in Canada until 1955.[22]
From 1867 to 1906, the list of House
standing committees[23]
was established by way of a motion adopted during each session of each
Parliament, usually in the first days following the Speech from the Throne.[24]
In 1906, the House included in the Standing Orders, for the first time, a list
of “standing” committees which the House had decided should be appointed in
every session, although even these committees were active only when the House
specifically ordered them to consider a particular matter.[25] Special and joint
committees, whose number and mandate varied from one year to the next, were
also established during the course of each session. Also in 1906, the House
instituted a committee of selection charged with nominating the standing
committee membership.[26]
Given the considerable size of most
committees in the early years of Confederation (some had over 100 members),
and the rule that a majority of the membership was needed for a quorum, the
larger standing committees experienced considerable difficulty gathering
together enough members, on a regular basis, to meet and transact business.[27]
Consequently, over the years, despite some variations, the size of standing
committees generally declined, with the result that during the Twenty-Sixth
Parliament (1963‑65), the largest standing committee membership did not
exceed 15, and during the Thirty-Ninth (2006-08), it did not exceed 12.[28]
On the other hand, the number of House standing committees has varied
substantially since Confederation, from 10 in 1867 to 25 in 1986, back to 17 during the Thirty-Sixth Parliament (1997‑2000), increasing again to 24
during the Thirty-Ninth Parliament (2006-08).[29]
Although a standing committee structure was
established at Confederation, for the first hundred years most of the committees
did not actually meet from one session to another and most House business was
transacted on the floor of the Chamber, often in a Committee of the Whole.[30]
The House repeatedly considered enhancing the role of standing committees,
particularly in relation to the study of the estimates. On several occasions,
Members expressed concern over the lack of detailed scrutiny the estimates
received in the House and suggested they could be studied more effectively by
first referring them to standing or special committees for consideration. A
proposal to this effect was referred to a special committee in
February 1925.[31]
Although the proposal was not endorsed by the committee, the issue continued to
be raised in the House. In July 1955, the House agreed to a motion providing
for the withdrawal of the estimates from the Committee of Supply[32]
and the referral of them to standing or special committees.[33] In 1958, the House
added a Standing Committee on Estimates.[34]
In 1964, a Special Committee on Procedure and Organization further proposed
that, upon tabling, the main estimates be referred automatically to the
standing committees.[35]
In 1965, the Standing Orders were modified,
on a provisional basis, permitting standing committees to examine the
estimates.[36]
However, it was not until 1968 that the House agreed to a permanent
restructuring and reorientation of the committee system. Under the new rules,
the main estimates would be tabled and referred to the standing committees by
March 1 of each year, to be reported back (or deemed reported back) to the
House by May 31. As well, provision was made for standing committee
consideration of all bills (other than those based on supply, and ways and
means motions) after second reading.[37]
In 1982, the House again appointed a
special committee to review the Standing Orders[38] and proceeded to
implement several of its recommendations on a provisional basis. Among the most
significant changes were those automatically referring the annual reports of
departments, agencies and Crown corporations to standing committees and
empowering the committees to initiate their own studies or inquiries based on
the information in those reports.[39]
Early in the subsequent Parliament (1984‑88), the House agreed to retain
the provisional changes[40]
and struck yet another special committee (the McGrath Committee) to inquire
into the efficacy of all aspects of House procedure and administration.[41]
This committee made recommendations to enlarge the scope of committee mandates
to give standing committees “broad authority” to look into and report to the
House on any matter which was relevant to the departments for which they were
responsible; to create a committee structure which reflected, as much as
practicable, the organization of government;[42]
and to establish a Liaison Committee, consisting of the Chairs of all standing
committees and appropriate Chairs or Vice-Chairs of joint committees, charged
with the allocation of committee budgets.[43]
Provisional changes to the Standing Orders, in 1986, incorporated the majority
of the Committee’s recommendations relating to committees; these changes were
made permanent the following year.[44]
There have been other significant changes
to committees since the McGrath Committee reforms. In April 1991, the
House agreed to allow committees to broadcast their proceedings within
guidelines established by the Standing Committee on House Management.[45]
In 1994, the rules were again amended to permit the House to instruct a
committee to prepare and bring in a bill, and to refer bills to a committee before
second reading.[46]
The intent of these changes was to give Members an opportunity to participate
in policy development before the government had committed itself to a
particular legislative initiative.[47]
In 2002, the House established the new
Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.[48] In so doing, it
implemented some of the recommendations put forward in the report by the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled: “The Business of
Supply: Completing the Circle of Control”.[49]
It advocated the establishment of a committee to oversee and review the process
whereby the estimates are considered by parliamentary committees. The Standing
Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was given a broad mandate,
including review of the effectiveness, administration and operations of
government departments and central agencies.
Also in 2002, the Senate having notified
the House that it would no longer participate in the Standing Joint Committee
on Official Languages, the House established its own Standing Committee on
Official Languages.[50]
In addition, the procedure for designating the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of
standing and special committees was changed: if there is more than one
candidate for such positions, an election is held by secret ballot. Previously,
unanimous consent of committee members had been required in order to proceed in
this manner. At the same time, the House formalized the longstanding practice
whereby, with some exceptions, the Chairs of standing committees are to be
drawn from the ranks of the government party, and their first and second
Vice-Chairs from the Official Opposition and another opposition party,
respectively.[51]
In 2005, significant changes were made in
the procedure for debate on motions for concurrence by the House in reports of
standing and special committees, including limiting such debates to three
hours.[52]
In 2007, the House approved an entirely new Standing Order whereby committee
deliberations are to be suspended when Members are summoned to the House for a
recorded division.[53]
[4]
For a full description of the evolution of committees in the British
Parliament, see 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.),
pp. 203‑14.
[5]
For further information, see Chapter 22, “Public Petitions”.
[6]
In 1571, for the first time, committees of this nature were appointed for “the
subsidy”, grievances and petitions, religion and disputed elections. From 1592
onwards, elections and privileges were considered by a single sessional
committee. In 1621, the House instituted a grand standing committee on trade
and another on the administration of justice. These along with the committees
on religion, grievances and the smaller, that is select, Privileges and
Elections Committee, constituted the system of standing committees as it was to
remain for two centuries (Redlich, pp. 206‑8).
[9]
For further information on the development of Committees of the Whole, see
Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”. By 1628, all the standing
committees, except that on Privileges, were made Committees of the Whole House.
The Committee on Privileges remained a select committee (Redlich, p. 209).
[11]
The Long Parliament sat during the period of the Civil War and the Commonwealth
in Great Britain. See Davies, G., The Oxford History of England:The Early Stuarts, 1603-1660, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1938 (reprint of
1937 ed.), pp. 97, 172.
[15]
For an expanded description of committees during this period, see 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, pp. 301‑2. For further information on the principle
of responsible government, see Chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”.
[20]
The Union Act, 1840 joined Upper and
Lower Canada into the single Province of Canada (R.S. 1985,
Appendix II, No. 4).
[21]
The Member had to have stated opposition to the principle of the matter, rather
than dissatisfaction with particular aspects of it. See Redlich,
p. 205.
[23]
Throughout this period, the inventory of standing committees remained virtually
unchanged and consisted of the committees on Privileges and Elections, Expiring
Laws, Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, Miscellaneous Private Bills,
Standing Orders, Printing, Public Accounts, Banking and Commerce, and
Immigration and Colonization (subsequently renamed Agriculture and
Colonization). From 1867 to 1906 as well, the House consistently agreed, by
separate motions, to Standing Joint Committees on the Library of Parliament and
on the Printing of Parliament. See Journals,
November 19, 1867, pp. 21‑2; December 4, 1867,
p. 48; April 14, 1887, pp. 5‑6;
March 14, 1906, p. 46.
[24]
In 1867, 1883 and 1891, the Speech from the Throne occurred on the second
sitting day (Journals,
November 7, 1867, p. 5; February 9, 1883, p. 15;
April 30, 1891, p. 5). In all other instances, committees were
established on the first day of the new session.
[25]
Legislation was dealt with in a Committee of the Whole at that time. For further
information, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[26]
Prior to this, the standing committee membership was drawn up and reported by a
special committee “composed of leading men of the ministry and opposition …”.
Members were generally given one or two days to examine the lists before
concurring in the report; however, it was often necessary to ask for immediate
concurrence so that the Standing Committee on Standing Orders could consider
petitions for private bills. These were receivable only within a limited period
after the commencement of the session. The membership list included those
committees regularly established since Confederation, excepting the Committee
on Expiring Laws, which was dropped, and committees on the Library of Parliament and on the Debates of the House, which were added (Bourinot, J.G., Parliamentary
Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, 2nd ed., rev. and enlarged,
Montreal: Dawson Brothers, Publishers, 1892, pp. 493‑4. See, for
example, Journals, January 21, 1884, p. 22;
March 12, 1903, p. 22).
[27]
In 1887, the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines had a
membership of 147 and thus a quorum, according to the Standing Order, of 74;
the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce had a membership of 104 and thus
a quorum, by rule, of 53. The membership of the House in 1887 was 215 (Journals, April 18, 1887, pp. 17‑9).
[28]
In 1927, the rules regarding committees were revised. The number of members on
each standing committee was cut to roughly half, and the size of the membership
was set down in the Standing Orders. Quorum for each committee was set
individually. See, for example, Journals,
March 22, 1927, pp. 320‑3. Further changes in
December 1968 (Journals,
December 20, 1968, pp. 554‑79) restricted committee
membership to between 20 and 30 Members of Parliament, excepting the 12‑member
Committee on Procedure. At the beginning of the Thirty‑Sixth Parliament (1997‑2000),
the maximum number of members was set at 16 to 18, enabling committees to
reflect the proportions of party representation in a five‑party House (Journals, September 23, 1997,
pp. 12‑3; October 1, 1997, p. 56).
[29]Journals, November 7, 1867,
p. 5; February 6, 1986, pp. 1656‑7;
November 4, 1987, p. 1831; September 23, 1997,
pp. 12‑3; April 5, 2006, pp. 19-21.
[30]
Franks, C.E.S., The Parliament of Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987, pp. 162‑3. See also Chapter 19, “Committees
of the Whole House”.
[32]
From 1867 to 1968, the Committee of Supply was composed of the membership of
the Whole House. The Committee debated every request for supply (interim, main
estimates and supplementary estimates). For further information, see
Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[38]
The Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure (Journals, May 31, 1982, pp. 4892‑3).
The Committee, chaired by Tom Lefebvre, is commonly referred to as the Lefebvre
Committee.
[39]
Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure
(Parliamentary reform and changes to the Standing Orders), Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence,
November 4, 1982, Issue No. 7, pp. 3‑41; Journals, November 5, 1982,
p. 5328; November 29, 1982, p. 5400.
[41]
The Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons (Journals, December 5, 1984,
pp. 153‑4). The Committee was chaired by James McGrath, from
whom it derived its name.
[42]
Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons,
pp. 16‑27, presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals,
p. 839).
[43]
Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons,
pp. 22‑5, presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals,
p. 839).
[44]Journals, February 6, 1986,
pp. 1644‑66; February 11, 1986, p. 1696;
February 13, 1986, p. 1710; June 1, 1987, pp. 968‑80;
June 2, 1987, pp. 984‑97; June 3, 1987,
pp. 1002‑28.
[45]Journals, April 11, 1991,
pp. 2905‑32, in particular p. 2929.
[46]Journals, February 7, 1994,
pp. 112‑8; Standing Orders 68 and 73.
[47]Debates, February 7, 1994,
pp. 957‑62. Prior to this time, there had been occasions where
committees were empowered by their orders of reference to draft legislative
proposals or to bring in a bill. See, for example, Special Joint Committee on
Bill C‑43, Senate and House of Commons
Conflict of Interest Act;Journals, November 22, 1991,
pp. 717‑8.
[49]
Fifty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
presented to the House on December 10, 1998 (Journals, p. 1435). The
House had earlier requested that the government make every effort to act on the
report’s recommendations (Journals, March 12, 2002, pp.
1167-8).
[50]Journals, October 10, 2002, p. 59 (Message from the Senate); November 7,
2002, pp. 181‑2 (striking of the House of Commons Standing Committee
on Official Languages).
[51]Journals, November 5, 2002, pp. 162-4. For further information, see
“Methods of Designation” under the section in this chapter entitled “Committee
Membership, Leadership and Staff”.
[52]
This was originally included in various provisional amendments to the Standing
Orders (Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451-5) that were subsequently
made permanent (Seventeenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, presented to the House on October 20, 2006 (Journals,
p. 556) and concurred in on October 25, 2006 (Journals, pp. 577-9)).
[53]
Forty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
presented to the House and concurred in on May 9, 2007 (Journals, pp.
1376, 1378).