¹ Useful studies of Canadian committees are: Ward, Norman, The Public Purse: A Study in Responsible Government (Toronto, 1962)Google Scholar; Mallory, J. R., “The Uses of legislative Committees,” Canadian Public Administration, VI, no 1 (March 1963)Google Scholar; and Hockin, Thomas A., “The Advance of Standing Committees in Canada's House of Commons,” Canadian Public Administration, XIII, no 2 (summer 1970).Google Scholar

² Useful general references to British parliamentary committees can be found in Taylor, Eric, The House of Commons at Work (Harmondsworth, Middx. 1967)Google Scholar, chap. 5, “Committees,” and Campion, Lord, An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons (3rd ed., London, 1958)Google Scholar, chap. 8, “Committees.”

In Canadian provinces the small size of the legislatures and the small amount of business reduces the need for referral of bills and estimates to committee. Active provincial committees, including public accounts committees, are usually blatantly partisan. For a discussion of this problem and an attempt to improve a public accounts committee, see Franks, C. E. S., “The Saskatchewan Public Accounts Committee,” Canadian Public Administration, IX, no 3 (Sept. 1966).Google Scholar

³ The Standing Committees of the House, and their membership, are normally listed in the Debates for Wednesday of each week. They are also listed in the Standing Orders in Standing Order 65(1). As of Sept. 1971 they were: Agriculture; Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts; Environmental Pollution; External Affairs and National Defence; Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; Fisheries and Forestry; Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; Indian Affairs and Northern Development; National Resources and Public Works; Justice and Legal Affairs; Labour, Manpower and Immigration; Regional Development; Transport and Communications; Veterans Affairs; Miscellaneous Estimates: Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders; Privileges and Elections; Public Accounts; and Procedure and Organization.

⁴ There was, however, a small skirmish to this effect after Prime Minister Trudeau had suggested opposition obstruction in an interview outside parliament. See Can. H. of C. Debates, Feb. 26, 1971; pp. 3777–81.

⁵ Canada, House of Commons, Special Committee on Procedure, 1968, Third Report, paragraph 12.

⁶ One reason for the support of strong committees among MPS is that a high proportion of them have previous experience on municipal councils: 25 per cent of MPS have had experience with municipal government, but only 4 per cent with provincial (parliamentary) government. See David Hoffman and Ward, Norman, Bilingualism and Biculturalism in the Canadian House of Commons (Ottawa, 1970), 63.Google Scholar

⁷ For Canada, see, for instance, Bishop, Peter V., “Restoring Parliament to Power,” Queen's Quarterly, LXXVI, no 2 (summer 1970).Google Scholar The views of members received public expression in the House on several occasions as well. See, for instance, the discussion on the recommendation of the Transport Committee on the “Newfie Bullet” in Can. H. of C. Debates, April 1, 1969, pp. 7371–412, and the debate on the attitude of the government to parliament, ibid., March 5, 1970, pp. 4418–58. Two advocates of more influential committees in Britain are Crick, Bernard, The Reform of Parliament (London, 1964)Google Scholar, and the pseudonymous Wichelow, and Hill, , What's Wrong with Parliament? (Harmondsworth, Middx., 1964).Google Scholar

⁸ Donald S. MacDonald, then president of the Privy Council, to the author, Dec. 9, 1969.

⁹ Can. H. of C. Debates, Oct. 15, 1970, p. 156.

¹⁰ There have been times when one of the duties of the chairman has been to keep an investigation within limits given him by the government. The 1949 Special Committee on the Operations of the Atomic Energy Control Board and the 1953 Special Committee on the Operation of the Government in the Field of Atomic Energy had as chairman G. J. McIlraith, who was then parliamentary secretary to C. D. Howe, the minister responsible for the program. He was briefed by the government before committee meetings, and stopped questioning along many lines because of the secrecy of information.

¹¹ This was an innovation by the Diefenbaker government in 1958. Norman Ward describes the salutary effects of this change in The Public Purse, 218–19.

¹² See Can. H. of C. Debates, Jan. 22, 1970, pp. 2681–727.

¹³ Ibid., Dec. 3, 1970, p. 1719.

¹⁴ Ibid., Oct. 30, 1970, p. 756: Mr Jerôme, parliamentary secretary to the president of the Privy Council.

¹⁵ Ibid., Oct. 15, 1970, p. 149; Mr Baldwin, opposition House leader.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 156: Marcel Lambert.

¹⁷ The question of whether outsiders could be witnesses on bills was discussed in ibid., Jan. 11, 1971, pp. 2247–8.

¹⁸ Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Eleventh Report (1970), 4–5.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The chairman of the Agriculture Committee, for example, commented… “I endeavour, in so far as is humanly possible to recognize all members in proper order, to be as lenient as possible and yet still maintain some kind of law and order…” Evidence (1968–1969), 748.Google Scholar

²⁰ C-150, 1968–9.

²¹ Can. H. of C. Debates, Oct. 30, 1970, p. 756: Mr Jerôme.

²² Ibid., p. 761.

²³ See Franks, C. E. S., “The Committee Clerks of the Canadian House of Commons,” The Parliamentarian, L.2. (April 1969).Google Scholar

²⁴ Goldenberg, Edward S., “Parliamentary Committees and Policy Formulation: A Case Study of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finances, Trade, and Economic Affairs in the Process of Tax Reform in Canada,” MA thesis, McGill University, 1971, p. 62.Google Scholar

²⁵ Dobell, Peter, “The Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade,” External Affairs, XXI (Dec. 1969).Google Scholar

²⁶ Donald S. MacDonald to the author, Dec. 9, 1969.

²⁷ Gordon Fairweather to the author in an interview, Dec. 11, 1969.

²⁸ Public Accounts Committee, Evidence (June 16, 1970), 7.Google Scholar

²⁹ Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committees on Agriculture, 1968–9, Minutes of Proceedings, nos 11, 14, 18, 19. The report on the estimates is: “… your Committee has considered the items listed in the Revised Main Estimates for 1968–69. Your Committee commends them to the House” (no 11).

³⁰ Ibid., no 21.

³¹ Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Eleventh Report.

³² An instance of this kind of problem arose in the 1968–9 session over the recommendation of the Transport Committee on the “Newfie Bullet.” See Can. H. of C. Debates, April 1, 1969, pp. 7371–412.

³³ Committees cannot submit minority reports. Meetings to discuss reports are held in camera, and no minutes are published. This means that any disagreement of members with the report cannot be found in it, nor can voting patterns or alternative proposals. As reports are often not debated, frequently these differences never emerge. British practice on in camera meetings is to publish full minutes of motions and votes. It would be fairer to the opposition and other minorities, and give a clearer record of the committee's work, if Canada followed British practice.

³⁴ Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, Eighteenth Report, 1969–1970.Google Scholar

³⁵ The Conservative party was initially very critical of the proposals in the White Paper, and at one time it appeared that disagreement between the Conservative government of Ontario and the federal government over its implications might become a provincial election issue. Mr Stanfield was expressing his party's concern when he attended a committee meeting (he was not a member) to question Mr Benson formally about his intentions to adopt proposals (Aug. 5, 1970). The Conservative Committee members did not vote on the report, while the NDP members voted against it, and, unable to present it to the House, submitted their own minority report to the press.

³⁶ Normally in appendix I to his annual report.

³⁷ The Toronto Globe and Mail has published a series of excerpts from the auditor general's report, many years as a regular column in May entitled “Horrible Stories.”

³⁸ See Franks, C. E. S., “The Saskatchewan Public Accounts Committee,” Canadian Public Administration, IX, no 3 (Sept. 1966).Google Scholar

³⁹ See Can. H. of C. Debates, April 14, 1970, pp. 5846–8.

⁴⁰ Ibid., April 13, 1970, p. 5771.

⁴¹ Ibid., April 21, 1970, p. 6111.

⁴² Ibid., p. 6121: C. M. Drury.

⁴³ Public Accounts Committee, Evidence (June 16, 1970), 10.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid., 9.

⁴⁵ C-190, “An Act Respecting the Auditor General of Canada.” The main issues were whether he should report on “matters” or “cases,” his audit of Crown corporations, the appropriate place for response from the government, and control of his establishment.

⁴⁶ Public Accounts Committee, Evidence (Dec. 3, 1970), 8.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Can. H. of C. Debates (unrevised), Dec. 3, 1970, pp. 1709–10. Withdrawal followed an unusual motion by Stanley Knowles of the NDP, which had the unanimous consent of the House.

⁴⁸ Public Accounts Committee, Evidence (June 16, 1970), 7.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid., 8.

⁵⁰ The Canadian House of Commons, Representation (2nd ed., Toronto, 1963), 137. See also Kornberg, Allan, Canadian Legislative Behavior: A Study of the 25th Parliament (New York, 1967), 109–15.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See also, Hoffman and Ward, Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 62–5, on the previous political experience of MPS. Their data suggest that MPS are often not only newcomers to parliament, but have had very little to do with politics before entering the House.

⁵² Can. H. of C. Debates, Oct. 30, 1970, p. 751.

⁵³ Eighteenth Report, p. 18. The original White Paper was in fact called “Proposals for Tax Reform,” and was intended for discussion before change was made. Using British terminology, it might more appropriately have been called a “green paper.”

⁵⁴ Goldenberg, “Parliamentary Committees and Privy Formulation,” 88 et seq.