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”. 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. [11]
These committees were established as forums for discussing bills of great interest
(such as bills to impose a tax or constitutional questions prevalent during the
Parliaments of the Stuarts) and provided members the opportunity to speak to a
question as often as they
wanted. [12]
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”. [13]
By the beginning of the eighteenth century, it had become common to refer all bills
to grand committees for detailed discussion following second
reading. [14]
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. [15]
In Canada, the colonial legislatures
generally modelled their procedures on those of the British House. The
Assemblies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada adopted, in 1792, the British
practice of resolving into a Committee of the Whole to consider legislation, or
procedural and constitutional matters. 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. [16]
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, [17]
and the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada continued to do a significant
part of its business in Committees of the
Whole. [18]
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. [19]
Thus, all
matters affecting trade, taxation or the 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. [20]
Addresses to the Crown were also frequently founded on resolutions first considered in a
Committee of the
Whole. [21]
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. [22]
When that Committee recommended to the House that the Supply requested be granted, and the
House had concurred, the Members went into the Committee of Ways and
Means. [23]
The Committee of Ways and Means would subsequently consider resolutions to authorize
the expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue
Fund; [24]
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. [25]
The Committee of Ways and Means would also give preliminary authorization to
taxation proposals outlined in the Minister of Finance’s
budget. [26]
A Committee of the Whole would routinely debate resolutions preceding bills
involving the expenditure of public
monies. [27]
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. [28]
A Committee of the Whole would also consider in detail most bills after second
reading, [29]
and other
matters such as reports from committees appointed to review House rules and
procedures, [30]
and resolutions concerning international treaties and
conventions. [31]
Few government bills (typically non-contentious ones) 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 were
not given the power to adopt clauses of the bill. After a standing or special
committee had made its report, 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. [32]
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. [33]
In 1955, the House adopted 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. [34]
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. [35]
In 1968, a special committee appointed to
revise the rules of the
House [36]
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 and public spending. The special committee
recommended the elimination of the preliminary resolution stage in a Committee
of the Whole for taxation bills, and 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, 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. [37]
The House subsequently adopted new Standing Orders which implemented these
recommendations. [38]
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. [39]
This provisional Standing Order was continued for the following session through
agreement, [40] 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. [41]
This change was adopted permanently in
1987. [42]
Today, any
public bill, except one based on such a Supply motion, stands referred to either
a standing, special or legislative
committee. [43]