Chapter 20Committees

Studies Conducted by Committees

Authority to Conduct Studies: Orders of Reference and Instructions

With a few exceptions, studies conducted by committees are based on an order of reference²⁵⁹ or instruction from the House of Commons (and the Senate in the case of joint committees).²⁶⁰ The order of reference is the formal means by which the House mandates a committee to consider a matter or defines the scope of its proceedings. Committees receive orders of reference when they are established and may receive others from time to time. An order of reference may also be given to a subcommittee by its main committee or, occasionally, by the House.²⁶¹

The Standing Orders provide orders of reference to standing committees that set out departmental and policy-area responsibilities.²⁶² The Standing Orders also provide that a certain number of other matters must be referred to committees on a regular basis, namely, reports and other documents tabled in the House pursuant to statute,²⁶³ the estimates,²⁶⁴ Order in Council appointments for non-judicial positions or Officers of Parliament,²⁶⁵ and bills.²⁶⁶ In addition to the orders of reference mentioned in the Standing Orders, the House refers other matters to its committees as it deems appropriate.²⁶⁷

Depending on the type of business to be referred, the designation of the appropriate parliamentary committee to which the referral is made may be subject to a motion agreed to in the House (e.g., referral of a bill) or may simply be stipulated when the item is tabled in the House (e.g., referral of the main estimates, Order in Council appointments, documents).

Once a committee has begun a study, the House may also give it additional direction, known as “instructions”. They are sometimes mandatory, but are usually permissive. A mandatory instruction orders a committee to consider a specific matter or to conduct its study in a particular way.²⁶⁸ A permissive instruction gives the committee the power to do something that it could not otherwise do, but does not require it to exercise that power. Committees may request an instruction from the House by presenting a report to it.²⁶⁹

Committees are bound by their orders of reference or instructions and may not undertake studies or present recommendations to the House that exceed the limits established by the House.²⁷⁰

Types of Studies Conducted

Legislative Measures

Committees play a central role in the legislative process. On occasion, they can be the driving force behind new legislation when they are mandated to prepare a bill on a specific subject. Moreover, the vast majority of bills that are made into law in Canada are referred to committee for thorough review and possible improvement. Finally, a number of laws stipulate that committees must review them or their application once they have come into force.²⁷¹

Bills

Committee Prepares and Brings in a Bill

A Minister may present a motion to establish a new committee or to mandate a standing, special or legislative committee to prepare a bill.²⁷² Such a motion must be considered during Government Orders. If adopted, it becomes an order of reference to the committee. In its report, the committee must recommend the principles, scope and general provisions of the bill. The committee may also, if it deems it appropriate, make specific recommendations regarding the wording of the bill.²⁷³

Once the committee reports to the House, a Minister may move a motion to concur in the report. The concurrence in the committee report constitutes an order from the House to bring in a bill based on the recommendations of the committee.²⁷⁴

A committee has also considered a draft bill introduced in the House by the government and reported its observations and comments on it.²⁷⁵

Bills Referred to Committee Before or After Second Reading

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, all bills must be considered in committee. The referral of public bills to committee may take place after second reading or before second reading,²⁷⁶ and the committee in question may be a legislative, standing or special²⁷⁷ committee. Bills may also be referred to a Committee of the Whole after second reading.²⁷⁸ On rare occasions, the House has referred bills to joint committees.²⁷⁹ Private bills are referred to legislative committees.²⁸⁰

When a bill is referred to a committee, the bill itself constitutes the order of reference. Speaker Fraser has ruled on the meaning and scope of that order:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments.²⁸¹

It may happen that the House provides additional instructions following this order of reference, such as, for instance, an instruction to divide the bill.²⁸²

The committee stage consists primarily of the clause-by-clause and, if necessary, line-by-line and word-by-word, consideration of the bill. It is at this point that committee members have the first opportunity to propose amendments to the bill.²⁸³

Committees that adopt amendments that are procedurally inadmissible risk having these amendments declared null and void by the Speaker of the House at report stage.²⁸⁴

Order of Consideration

The committee decides when and how it will consider each bill that is referred to it. It also decides when the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill will begin. Before proceeding with this consideration, the Chair of the committee usually calls clause 1 (or clause 2, if clause 1 contains the short title). This allows committee members to hold a general debate, hear witnesses and question them. Usually, in the case of a government bill, the committee first hears testimony from the Minister responsible for the legislation, or from the Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, often accompanied by the responsible public servants, then explains the provisions of the bill.²⁸⁵ In the case of a private Member’s bill, the Member who sponsored the bill will usually be the committee’s first witness. If they wish, the members of the committee then hear comments from groups or individuals interested in the bill. Some committees ask the Minister responsible (or the Parliamentary Secretary) or the Member sponsoring the legislation to come back and testify at the end of the committee’s hearings.

The period of time devoted to the consideration of the bill is determined by the committee, but it can be circumscribed or restricted by various factors, such as the obligation to report the bill within a prescribed time pursuant to a special order of the House or to a time allocation motion, or due to limits the committee has placed upon itself by adopting motions to that effect.²⁸⁶ In the latter case, it may be a question of limiting the overall time the committee will spend on the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the time allocated for debate on each clause and amendment, the time allocated for each intervention by members on the matters broached by the committee, or a combination of any of these.²⁸⁷

Normally, there is no requirement to give notice of amendments moved at committee stage.²⁸⁸ However, to ensure an orderly and comprehensive consideration of a bill, a committee may adopt a motion requiring that members submit their amendments to the committee clerk before the beginning of the clause-by-clause consideration to allow the legislative clerk to arrange the amendments in a package in the order in which they appear in the bill.²⁸⁹ Such a motion does not generally prevent the moving of amendments not previously submitted once clause-by-clause consideration has begun. When there is sufficient time, if the committee agrees, the package can be circulated in advance of the clause-by-clause consideration meeting, ensuring that all members of the committee may see the amendments that their colleagues wish to make to the bill.

When a committee studies a bill, the Standing Orders state that consideration of the preamble of the bill, if any, is postponed to the very end of the process, as is consideration of the first clause if it contains only the short title.²⁹⁰ The rest of the clauses will be considered one by one in the order in which they appear in the bill. Some clauses may be “stood”, which means that the committee has decided, for specific reasons, to postpone consideration of these clauses until later in the process.²⁹¹ Clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is carried out in the following order:

clauses;
clauses allowed to stand (if any);
schedules;
clause 1 (short title, if any);
preamble (if any); and
title of the bill.

Amendments to the bill, if they are moved and deemed admissible by the Chair of the committee, are studied in the order of the lines of the bill they are to modify.²⁹² They may be submitted in either official language and must be submitted in writing. The committee may consider only one amendment at a time. Although each amendment is normally debated and voted on by the committee,²⁹³ the Chair may rule that amendments are consequential to each other, and the committee’s decision on an amendment will be applied to any consequential amendments.²⁹⁴ Also, by unanimous consent, the committee may agree to apply the results of a vote on one amendment to others.²⁹⁵ The committee then votes on the clause, be it as amended or not. It then moves on to the next clause and to the amendments that have been moved to it until all of the clauses of the bill have been considered. Subamendments may also be moved to the amendments and may be debated.²⁹⁶ The committee may consider only one subamendment at a time and that subamendment cannot be amended in turn. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is put to a vote first. Another subamendment may then be moved, or the committee may debate the main amendment and vote on it. Moreover, a committee may decide to group a certain number of clauses and vote on them together, such as those on which there are no amendments.²⁹⁷

During the clause-by-clause consideration of a government bill, officials from the departments concerned normally remain before a committee as witnesses in order to provide technical explanations of the effect of individual clauses of the bill and the technical implications of proposed amendments.²⁹⁸ If the committee so decides, they may also be asked to appear during clause-by-clause consideration of a private Member’s bill to provide insofar as possible the same type of technical expertise as in the case of government bills. For private Members’ bills, some committees find it useful to request the presence of the bill’s sponsor as an additional witness during clause-by-clause consideration.

Reports to the House and Deadlines for Reporting

Once a committee has concluded its consideration of the clauses of a bill, a motion proposing the bill’s adoption either as is or as amended is moved. The committee then adopts a motion ordering its Chair to report the bill to the House. If the committee has substantially amended the bill, it usually orders that the bill be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.²⁹⁹

The committee must report the bill as a whole. It cannot report sections of the bill separately without having been instructed to do so by the House. The report must not contain any remarks nor recommendations whatsoever,³⁰⁰ other than the amendments the committee made to the bill.³⁰¹ Committees that have the power and the mandate to do so may sometimes decide to present, in addition to the official report on the bill, administrative and procedural reports or substantive reports on matters related to the bill under consideration.³⁰²

In addition, there are no specific time periods provided in the Standing Orders for the consideration in committee of government bills or private bills. However, the House may, by way of a special order, set a deadline for the presentation of the report.³⁰³ In the case of public bills, the House may also invoke the Standing Orders provisions concerning time allocation.³⁰⁴

With regard to private Members’ bills, the Standing Orders provide that the committees to which they are referred have 60 sitting days from the date of the order of reference to: conclude their consideration of the bill and report the bill to the House, with or without amendments; present a report recommending not to proceed further with the bill;³⁰⁵ or present a report requesting a 30-sitting-day extension to conclude the consideration of the bill (only one such extension may be requested).³⁰⁶ In the latter two cases, the committee must also set out in its report the reasons for its recommendation or request. If the committee does not present its report within the 60-sitting-day period, the bill is automatically deemed to have been reported without amendment.³⁰⁷

Referral of the Subject Matter of a Bill to a Committee

In the House, the motion for second reading of a bill may be amended so that the bill is not given second reading, but rather that its subject matter is referred to a committee for consideration.³⁰⁸ The order for second reading of the bill is then discharged, the bill is withdrawn from the Order Paper, and a committee is mandated to study and investigate the subject matter of the bill. By proceeding in this manner, the House signals that it is not ready to legislate on the matter, but considers nonetheless that it should be the subject of consideration by one of its committees. The House may sometimes impose a deadline for the committee’s report.³⁰⁹ This type of study usually leads to the presentation of substantive reports.³¹⁰

Recommittal of a Bill

In the House, the motion for third reading and adoption of a bill may be amended so that the bill in question is referred anew to committee for reconsideration or for the amendment of certain clauses for a specific reason.³¹¹ This can be an opportunity for the committee to add a new clause, or to reconsider clauses or previous amendments. Such a referral is not generally accompanied by mandatory instructions,³¹² with the exception of a time frame for the study and report of the bill. However, the committee must limit its reconsideration to the parts of the bill specified in the new order of reference, if any.

Consideration and Review of Existing Laws

A number of Canadian statutes contain provisions that require their review by a committee once they have come into effect. This review may cover all of the provisions of an act, only some of them, or their implementation. Depending on the legislation in question, such a review must normally be done by a committee of the House of Commons or of the Senate, or by a joint committee.³¹³ It is up to the Houses of Parliament to choose the appropriate committee to carry out the review. It may be an existing committee, or it may be a special committee created for that purpose.

Certain acts require that the review be done continuously as soon as the act is given Royal Assent, or when the whole of the act or some of its parts come into force.³¹⁴ Other legislation prescribes that this review must be conducted after a certain period of time following Royal Assent or the coming into force of the act, or at the latest at a specific time, or at set intervals.³¹⁵

The legislation generally provides that the committees charged with such reviews must report their conclusions and recommendations to Parliament.³¹⁶ Normally, no other instructions are set out in the legislation, with the exception of a time limit for the report. The legislation normally allows Parliament to extend that deadline or set another one. Committees that believe they will not be able to meet these deadlines may request an extension by presenting a report to that effect to the House, and the report must then be adopted by the House. They may also obtain this authorization directly through a special order of the House.³¹⁷

In the case of legislation that requires continuous review, the House usually includes this task in the mandates of certain standing committees, which are set out in the Standing Orders.³¹⁸ As for laws that require periodic review or review at a specific time, the House entrusts this work to the appropriate committee through an order of reference.³¹⁹

Review for the Purpose of Affirming or Disallowing/Revoking Delegated Legislation Emanating from an Act of Parliament

Certain acts adopted by Parliament entrust committees of the House with a role in the review, affirmation or disallowance/revocation of delegated legislation made pursuant to Canadian laws. This delegated legislation may consist of regulations, decrees, various administrative rules and regulations which can be made by Ministers, departments, boards, commissions or other organizations.

For instance, the Statutory Instruments Act mandates a parliamentary committee to review statutory instruments made after December 31, 1971.³²⁰ In concrete terms, this role is played by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. The Act states that this Committee may present a report to the Senate and the House of Commons containing a resolution to revoke all or a portion of a regulation, which is done when the Committee considers that it does not comply with the intent of the act pursuant to which it was enacted. The resolution contained in the report (not a motion for concurrence in the Committee report) is placed on the Notice Paper and is deemed to have been moved and adopted at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the 15th sitting day following the presentation of the report, unless a Minister has in the meantime given notice of motion to the effect that the resolution not be adopted. In that case, the Minister’s motion is debated and a decision is made by the House.³²¹

For its part, the User Fees Act obliges any regulatory organization that wishes to set or increase its user fees, or broaden or extend the period of their application, to table a proposal to that effect before each House of Parliament.³²² When the proposal is tabled, it is deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee in one or the other House of Parliament,³²³ which may then review it.³²⁴ The Act provides that the committee in question may present a report setting out its recommendations as to the appropriate fees.³²⁵ This report must be presented within the 20 sitting days following the tabling of the proposal, failing which a report recommending the approval of the proposed user fees is deemed to have been presented by the committee at the end of the period.³²⁶ If the committee does present a report, the Act provides that the House of Parliament concerned may approve, reject or amend its recommendations.³²⁷

Subject Matter Studies

From time to time the House refers to its committees the consideration of specific matters for more in-depth study.³²⁸ These orders of reference may include an obligation to report and the imposition of time limits within which the committees must complete the study or report.

The standing committees may themselves initiate, without first obtaining the prior approval of the House, any study they feel it advisable to undertake,³²⁹ insofar as it falls within the mandate provided to them by the Standing Orders.³³⁰ The committees then undertake to define the nature and scope of the study, to determine how much time they will devote to it and whether or not they will report their observations and recommendations to the House. For some committees, these studies represent a significant part of their work and of the reports they present to the House.³³¹

Moreover, on an almost daily basis, the House refers to its committees a large number of reports and documents that are tabled in the House of Commons.³³² These are tabled by Ministers of the Crown or the Speaker of the House pursuant to the laws of Canada and pursuant to the Standing Orders. They are referred on a permanent basis to the relevant standing committees.³³³ These can be, for instance, the annual reports of departments and federal government organizations on access to information and privacy protection, reports on the implementation of a given law, or draft regulations or instructions from the Governor in Council.³³⁴ The committees are free to decide whether or not to examine these documents or to initiate a study based on the information they contain.

Estimates

The main estimates are the government’s projected spending for a fiscal year broken down by department and program.³³⁵ The estimates are presented as a series of numbered budgetary items or “votes”, each of which indicates the amount of money required by the government for a program or activity. Normally, a single vote in the main estimates covers a total spending category, such as departmental operations or capital costs, and summarizes all the planned activity or program expenditures for the department or agency in that category. When additional funds are required or when the reallocation of already appropriated funds is necessary during a fiscal year, the government tables supplementary estimates.³³⁶

Reference to Committee and Timeline for Reporting

The Standing Orders provide for detailed consideration of the estimates by standing committees.³³⁷ When the estimates are tabled in the House, each standing committee receives an order of reference for those departmental and agency votes which relate to its mandate.³³⁸ The orders of reference are recorded in the Journals of the House of Commons.

The main estimates for the fiscal year are required to be tabled in the House and referred to standing committees by no later than March 1 of each year.³³⁹ The Standing Orders do not oblige committees to consider the main estimates. When a committee chooses to study and report on the main estimates, however, it must report them no later than May 31 of the fiscal year to which they apply. If a committee has not reported the main estimates by that date, it is deemed to have done so, whether it has actually considered them or not.³⁴⁰

The Leader of the Opposition may, not later than the third sitting day prior to May 31, give notice of motion to extend the reporting deadline respecting committee consideration of the main estimates of a named department or agency.³⁴¹ The motion is deemed adopted when the House considers items under “Motions” during Routine Proceedings on the last sitting day before May 31. A committee studying the main estimates of the department or agency affected by the extension must report, or will be deemed to have reported, no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment either 10 sitting days after the adoption of the extension motion or on the sitting day prior to the final allotted day in that supply period.³⁴²

The Standing Orders further provide that the Leader of the Opposition may, not later than May 1, in consultation with the leaders of the other opposition parties, give notice of a motion to refer consideration of the main estimates of no more than two named departments or agencies to a Committee of the Whole. The motion is deemed to be adopted on the expiry of the 48-hour notice period. When the motion is adopted, the estimates in question are deemed withdrawn from the standing committees to which they had initially been referred when the main estimates were tabled.³⁴³ This applies even if the committees had already begun their consideration of the estimates in question.³⁴⁴

While considering the main estimates, committees are also empowered to consider expenditure plans and priorities in future years for the departments and agencies.³⁴⁵ The plans and priorities are set out in reports published each year after the main estimates are tabled. They are tabled in the House of Commons by the President of the Treasury Board, on behalf of the Ministers responsible for the departments and agencies concerned.³⁴⁶ The reports on plans and priorities, which are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees upon tabling, essentially set out the future objectives of the department or agency and its plan for achieving them. The Standing Orders provide that if a standing committee wishes to present a report dealing with those plans and priorities, it must do so no later than the final sitting day in June.³⁴⁷

In their analysis of the estimates, committees may also refer to departmental performance reports, which are published in November each year and tabled in the House by the President of the Treasury Board.³⁴⁸ These reports set out the objectives for a specific department or agency and the progress made on achieving those objectives.

A committee to which supplementary estimates are referred may decide whether or not to consider them. The Standing Orders provide that, if the committee decides to consider the estimates and report on them, the report must be presented not later than the third sitting day before either the final sitting day or the final allotted day in that supply period. As with the main estimates, if a committee has not reported within the prescribed time, it is deemed to have reported.³⁴⁹

Consideration in Committee

When a standing committee examines estimates, it is free to arrange its own proceedings. Ordinarily, committees find it convenient to examine the votes assigned to them in groups, which will usually consist of a number of votes under one heading in the estimates, and occasionally, both simultaneously.³⁵⁰ Committees generally begin their examination of the estimates by hearing from the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the activities and programs dealt with in the votes, who is usually accompanied by senior departmental officials.³⁵¹ The questions and discussions at these meetings are generally wide-ranging, although the rule of relevance does apply. If committees hold more than one meeting on the estimates, the senior departmental officials normally attend the subsequent meetings. Committees are free to invite the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to appear again if they judge it necessary.

When the committee has completed its consideration of a vote or group of votes, the committee Chair puts the question on each one separately, in the order in which the votes appear in the estimates. For each vote, the Chair puts the question: “Shall Vote [number] carry?”³⁵²

Each motion may be debated and amended. Amendments may be presented to reduce the amount of a vote.³⁵³ An amendment may not increase the amount of a vote because this would infringe upon the financial prerogative of the Crown.³⁵⁴ An amendment may also not reduce the amount of a vote to zero, as the proper course is to vote against the motion “Shall Vote [number] carry?” An amendment that does not relate to the vote under consideration or that attaches a condition or an expression of opinion is also not admissible. It is not permitted to attempt to change the way in which funds are allocated by transferring money from one vote to another,³⁵⁵ or to change the purpose of a grant or the conditions on which it is made. In addition, the amounts allocated in one dollar items³⁵⁶ and statutory items³⁵⁷ may not be amended by the committee. Once committees have dealt with amendments to a vote, they concur in it, whether or not it has been reduced, or they defeat the motion to concur in the vote.

When this work is completed, the committee adopts a motion instructing the committee Chair to report the votes to the House.³⁵⁸ The report states that the committee has considered certain votes and is reporting them to the House. If the committee has reduced any of the votes, the report sets out the reductions made.³⁵⁹ The Speaker of the House has ruled that reports on the estimates may not contain substantive recommendations.³⁶⁰ Any such recommendations must be made in a report presented separately under the powers and mandate assigned to the committee by the Standing Orders.³⁶¹

Initiatives Since 2000

In recent years, a number of committees have presented reports to the House dealing with the need for a more stringent review of the estimates.³⁶² Initiatives were acted on during these years, including the creation in 2002 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

That Committee was assigned a mandate that includes the review of the process for considering the estimates and supply, and the review of the format and content of estimates documents produced by the government.³⁶³ The Standing Orders also empower the Committee to amend certain votes that have been referred to other standing committees, in coordination with those committees.³⁶⁴ The votes in question relate to central departments and agencies, the use of new information and communication technologies by the government and operational items across all departments and agencies.

Appointments

The Standing Orders provide for committees to play a role in considering two types of appointments: Order in Council appointments by the Governor in Council to non-judicial offices, and appointments of Officers of Parliament.

Order in Council Appointments

The Standing Orders require that the government table in the House certified copies of all Order in Council appointments to non-judicial posts, not later than five sitting days after they have been published in the Canada Gazette.³⁶⁵ Appointments are effective on the day they are announced by the government, not on the date the Orders in Council are published or tabled in the House. The Standing Orders provide that the certified copies be automatically referred to the standing committee specified at the time of tabling, normally the committee charged with overseeing the organization to which the individual has been appointed.³⁶⁶ These references are recorded in the Journals of the House of Commons.

A Minister may also table a certificate of nomination to a non-judicial post in the House.³⁶⁷ A certificate is used when an appointment is proposed. Unlike an appointment that is duly made and published in the Canada Gazette, tabling of a certificate in the House is voluntary. Such notices are also referred to the standing committees specified at the time of tabling.

In the case of both an appointment and a proposed appointment, the standing committees to which they are referred have 30 sitting days following the day of tabling in the House in which to take up the order of reference.³⁶⁸ During that period, the committee may call the appointee or nominee to appear before it, for a period not to exceed 10 sitting days.³⁶⁹ The Standing Orders provide that the committee has 10 sitting days from the sitting day on which the person in question appears before the committee to complete its examination of the appointee or nominee.³⁷⁰ At the end of the earlier of that period or of the 30-sitting-day period, the committee has no further authority to meet under the order of reference.

A committee that has received such an order of reference may instruct the clerk to request that the Minister’s office provide the curriculum vitae of the appointee or nominee.³⁷¹

The committees in question have a number of options:

to do nothing;³⁷²
to examine and inquire, which may include calling individuals,³⁷³ for example, the appointee or nominee, or individuals who have held the office in the past, or individuals who may be able to inform the committee about the requirements of the office; and
to report to the House.³⁷⁴

If the committee decides to call the appointee or nominee to appear, it is limited by the Standing Orders to examining the individual’s qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the office sought.³⁷⁵ Questioning by members of the committee may be interrupted by the Chair, if they attempt to deal with matters considered irrelevant to the committee’s inquiry. Among the areas usually considered to be outside the scope of the committee’s study are the political affiliation of the appointee or nominee, his or her contributions to political parties, and the nature of the nomination process itself.³⁷⁶ Any question may be permitted if it can be shown that it relates directly to the appointee’s or nominee’s ability to perform the duties of the office.

If the committee decides to present a report to the House, the report will ordinarily state that the committee has reviewed the appointment or nomination. It will then state whether or not the committee finds the person qualified and competent to perform the duties of the office.³⁷⁷

When a committee examines and inquires into an appointment or nomination pursuant to an order of reference by the House, it has no power to revoke the appointment or nomination.³⁷⁸ The Speaker of the House has ruled that Order in Council appointments are the prerogative of the Crown. In 2005, the Speaker ruled:

While the government can be guided by recommendations of a standing committee on the appointment or nomination of an individual, the Speaker cannot compel the government to abide by the committee’s recommendation nor by the House’s decision on these matters.³⁷⁹

Officers of Parliament

The Standing Orders provide that where the government intends to appoint an Officer of Parliament,³⁸⁰ the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Librarian or the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the name of the proposed appointee shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee for consideration.³⁸¹ A large majority of these persons are appointed by the Governor in Council after a favourable resolution is adopted by the House of Commons and, in most cases, the Senate.

As in the case of the procedure for appointments by Order in Council and certificates of nomination, a committee that receives an order of reference in relation to the proposed appointment of an Officer of Parliament has no obligation to consider the matter. If the committee chooses to do so, the Standing Orders provide that it has 30 calendar days following the tabling in the House of the document concerning the proposed appointment in which to do so. The options available to the committee are essentially the same: to examine and inquire, which may include calling the proposed appointee to appear before it, and the possibility of presenting a report.

The Standing Orders do not impose an obligation on the government to provide the proposed appointee’s curriculum vitae, but the appointee’s biographical notes are usually tabled in the House when the proposed appointment is referred to committee.³⁸² In addition, the Standing Orders do not impose specific limits on the scope of the examination when a proposed candidate appears before the committee or on the number of sitting days that may be devoted to the appearance. Apart from the general provision for the 30-day requirement, there is no provision that the committee’s examination must be completed within 10 sitting days after the proposed appointee appears, as is the case for appointments by Order in Council or certificate of nomination.

Ordinarily, the reports presented pursuant to this type of order of reference state that the committee has examined the proposed appointment and indicate whether or not it recommends that the House approve the appointment.³⁸³ On occasion, some committees have presented more detailed reports,³⁸⁴ while some standing committees have referred to their powers and mandates under the Standing Orders in presenting additional reports setting out observations on the appointment review process.³⁸⁵

The Standing Orders provide that not later than the expiry of the 30-day period, a notice of motion to ratify the appointment shall be put under Routine Proceedings on the Order Paper, whether or not the committee to which it was referred has examined the matter or reported on it. When the motion is moved, it must be decided without debate or amendment. The House then decides whether or not it accepts the proposed appointment.³⁸⁶

Failure of the Government to Respond to Petitions or Written Questions

The Standing Orders provide that petitions tabled in the House by Members must be transmitted immediately to the government. The government must then table a response in the House within 45 calendar days.³⁸⁷ In the same way, when a Member places a written question on the Order Paper for a Minister of the Crown, the Member may request that the government respond within 45 calendar days.³⁸⁸

In both cases, if the government does not respond within the time limit, its failure to do so is deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee.³⁸⁹ It is not the subject matter of the petition or question that is referred, but simply the government’s failure to respond. The referral occurs on the day the time limit expires; this is noted in the Journals. If the referral involves a written question, the question is officially “designated” on the Order Paper until a response is provided; this allows the Member to place another question on the Order Paper.

The committee remains seized with the order of reference even if the response to the petition or written question is tabled within the days immediately following expiry of the time limit. However, a Member who has a designated question on the Order Paper may, when “Questions on the Order Paper” is called during Routine Proceedings, indicate the intention of raising the matter during the Adjournment Proceedings. In that event, the order of reference to the committee is immediately discharged.³⁹⁰

The Standing Orders require the Chair of a committee that receives an order of reference involving a petition or written question to convene a meeting of the committee within five sitting days of the referral to consider the matter. The Chair may also place the matter on the agenda of a previously scheduled meeting, as long as this meeting takes place within the five-day limit. The meeting does not have to be dedicated solely to the referral; committees regularly add this type of order of reference to other items already on the agenda. As a matter of courtesy, the committee clerk informs the office of the Member sponsoring the petition or written question of the date of the meeting where the matter is to be discussed.³⁹¹

Committees have free rein in terms of their own proceedings and in dealing with and disposing of such an order of reference. Among the possible options are the following:

do nothing and/or deem the matter closed;³⁹²
defer consideration of the matter to a later meeting;³⁹³
examine and inquire into the matter, possibly calling witnesses³⁹⁴ (for example, the sponsoring Member, Ministers or officials responsible either for the department or agency targeted by the petition or question or for the coordination of government responses, and so on). Occasionally a committee will mandate its Chair to write a letter to the individuals and institutions responsible requesting explanations or voicing the committee’s dissatisfaction.³⁹⁵ Committees may also decide to adopt a resolution on the matter; and³⁹⁶
report to the House.³⁹⁷

259.: This includes studies undertaken pursuant to the Standing Orders.
260.: In rare cases, a statute of Canada may give a parliamentary committee a specific mandate, occasionally naming the committee in question. For example, the Oceans Act, SC 1996, c 31, s 52(1), provides that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans shall review the administration of the Act within three years after its coming into force.
261.: See, for example, Journals, February 26, 2009, p. 165. Also, Standing Order 91.1(1) provides an order of reference for the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider the items placed in the order of precedence.
262.: Standing Order 108. Prior to 1986, standing committees received no general mandate from the Standing Orders. They met and began their work once the House had referred a specific matter to them (Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1644–66, in particular pp. 1660–2; February 13, 1986, p. 1710).
263.: Standing Order 32(5).
264.: Standing Order 81(4) and (5). See also Standing Order 81(6), provisionally adopted in June 2017 and in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6).
265.: Standing Orders 32(6), 110 and 111.1.
266.: Standing Orders 73(1) to (3) and 141(1).
267.: Such orders of reference are sometimes the result of the adoption of motions moved under Private Members’ Business. See, for example, Journals, April 18, 2007, pp. 1233–5; October 6, 2010, pp. 748–50; February 5, 2014, pp. 506–8. On one occasion, orders of reference to committees were made further to formal commitments in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, which was adopted by the House (Journals, October 20, 2004, pp. 125–6; November 25, 2004, pp. 260–1).
268.: See, for example, Journals, June 29, 1983, p. 6116; November 27, 2014, p. 1852.
269.: See, for example, Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented to the House on April 23, 2013 (Journals, p. 3015).
270.: Committee reports which go beyond the committee’s order of reference have been ruled out of order by Speakers. See, for example, Debates, June 29, 1983, pp. 26943–4; February 28, 1985, pp. 2602–3; May 15, 2008, pp. 5924–5; Journals, April 2, 2009, p. 359; June 17, 2010, p. 564.
271.: See, for example, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, SC 1999, c 33, s 343(1) [Canadian Environmental Protection Act].
272.: Standing Order 68(4). In response to a point of order regarding the procedural admissibility of a private Member’s motion that sought to instruct a committee to prepare and bring in a bill, the Speaker permitted debate on the motion in order “to provide the House with the opportunity to determine whether or not it wishes to proceed in the manner outlined in the member’s motion” (Debates, June 9, 2016, pp. 4285–6).
273.: Standing Order 68(5). Since this Standing Order came into force in 1994, two bills have been drafted by a committee. In April 1994, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs received the mandate to prepare and bring in a bill on the readjustment of electoral boundaries (Journals, April 19, 1994, pp. 363–4, 368–70). A few months later, the Committee presented to the House a report including a draft bill (Fifty-First Report, presented to the House on November 25, 1994 (Journals, p. 939)). The second case is the result of the adoption of an opposition motion calling on the government to mandate a committee to prepare a bill on impaired driving. Immediately after this motion was agreed to, a Minister moved, by unanimous consent of the House, a motion to have the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights prepare such a bill (Journals, October 30, 1997, pp. 174–5). The Committee presented the draft bill in May 1999 (Twenty-First Report, presented to the House on May 25, 1999 (Journals, p. 1905)).
274.: Standing Order 68(6). See, for example, Fifty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 25, 1994, Issue No. 33, pp. 5–44, presented to the House of November 25, 1994 (Journals, p. 939). A motion to concur in the report was debated and agreed to during Government Orders (Journals, February 9, 1995, pp. 1107–8; February 14, 1995, pp. 1125–6). Bill C-69, An Act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, 1st Sess, 35th Parl, 1995, received first reading on February 16, 1995 (Journals, p. 1141). The House agreed by unanimous consent to hold a brief debate at second reading before referring the bill to committee (Journals, February 22, 1995, p. 1162; Debates, February 24, 1995, pp. 9987–92). The Committee reported the bill a few weeks later with amendments (Journals, March 22, 1995, p. 1256). The bill was then passed by the House, but was not passed by the Senate before the end of the session. As for the Twenty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented to the House on May 25, 1999 (Journals, p. 1905), no motion was moved to concur in the report but the government later introduced a bill based on the Committee’s work, Bill C-82, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving and related matters), 1st Sess, 36th Parl, 1999 (Journals, June 7, 1999, p. 2060). The House agreed by unanimous consent to review all stages of the bill in a single sitting (Journals, June 9, 1999, pp. 2085–6). The bill received Royal Assent on June 17, 1999 (Journals, p. 2108–9).
275.: On May 3, 2001, the Minister of Health introduced in the House a draft bill on assisted human reproduction (Journals, p. 357). That same day, while appearing before the Standing Committee on Health, the Minister asked the Committee to examine the draft bill (Evidence, May 3, 2001, Meeting No. 13). The Committee examined the draft bill and presented a report to the House on December 12, 2001 (Journals, p. 948). A few months later, the government officially introduced the bill (Journals, May 9, 2002, p. 1395). The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Health for review (Journals, May 28, 2002, pp. 1437–8). The Chair of the Committee, in collaboration with the analysts assigned to the Committee, wrote about the experience in an article. See Bonnie Brown, “Committees as Agents of Public Policy: The Standing Committee on Health,” with Nancy Miller Chenier and Sonya Norris, Canadian Parliamentary Review 26, no. 3 (Autumn 2003): p. 4.
276.: Standing Order 73(1) and (2). The order of reference is contained in the motion adopted by the House containing the referral to the designated committee. When the House gives second reading to a bill, it approves its principle or scope. The committees are then bound by the decision of the House and they cannot amend the bill in a manner that would run counter to the fundamental principles that have been approved. When bills are referred to a committee before being read a second time, amendments to the scope and principles of that bill are possible at committee stage. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
277.: Standing Order 73(3).
278.: All bills based on supply motions are studied by a Committee of the Whole (Standing Order 73(4)). For further information, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
279.: Journals, November 16, 1964, p. 876; June 22, 1965, pp. 290–1; May 31, 1966, p. 594; July 15, 1975, p. 711; March 30, 1993, pp. 2742–3.
280.: Standing Order 141(1).
281.: Debates, April 28, 1992, p. 9801.
282.: In 2001, the House had authorized the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to divide into two parts Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts, 1st Sess, 37th Parl, 2001, and to report it separately (Journals, September 26, 2001, p. 637). The Committee had then ordered the reprinting of the two new bills C-15A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts, 1st Sess, 37th Parl, 2002, and C-15B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, 1st Sess, 37th Parl, 2002, for its own use (Fourth Report of the Committee, presented to the House on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 686)).
283.: For further information on all of the components that make up a bill as well as on those that may or may not be amended, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
284.: The Speaker generally intervenes after Members have drawn the Speaker’s attention to the alleged irregularities. See, for example, Speaker Scheer’s ruling concerning an amendment made in committee to Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act and to provide for other measures, 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2014 (Debates, May 1, 2014, pp. 4787–8). The Speaker ruled an amendment, and two consequential amendments, inadmissible. He then ordered that the Bill be reprinted without those amendments. See also Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, February 27, 2007, pp. 7386–7).
285.: Officials are available during all or a large part of the hearing phase of a government bill in committee to answer technical questions. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
286.: For more information on the obligation to report within a prescribed period, see “Reports to the House and Deadlines for Reporting” in this section. The requirements related to these orders of the House supersede all rules or limits which committees may give themselves. See, for example, Journals, February 24, 2000, pp. 1018–9; Legislative Committee on Bill C-20, Minutes of Proceedings, February 24, 2000, Meeting No. 10. The House may also adopt a special order limiting the amount of time a committee may consider a bill at committee stage. See, for example, Journals, February 14, 2011, pp. 1237–40. A time allocation motion at committee stage generally allocates a certain number of hours to this stage so that at the end of the time period prescribed, all questions necessary to dispose of the bill are voted on successively without further debate. See, for example, Journals, September 19, 2000, pp. 1928–9. For further information, see Standing Order 78. See also Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
287.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Finance, Minutes of Proceedings, November 5, 2013, Meeting No. 3. The Speaker ruled that this type of limitation is legitimate if it is approved by the committee. A Member had complained in the House that the committee he was a member of had adopted a rule limiting the number of minutes allocated for Members’ remarks on each amendment (Debates, November 6, 2006, pp. 4755–6).
288.: Committees sometimes adopt rules to require such notice. See, for example, Legislative Committee on Bill C-2, Minutes of Proceedings, May 31, 2006, Meeting No. 17.
289.: See, for example, Standing Committee on International Trade, Minutes of Proceedings, October 2, 2014, Meeting No. 37. During the Forty-First and Forty-Second Parliaments, several committees adopted motions which allowed independent Members of Parliament to submit amendments by a deadline and have them deemed moved during clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, and to make “brief representations” in support of their amendments. See, for example, Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Minutes of Proceedings, November 4, 2013, Meeting No. 2.
290.: Standing Order 75(1).
291.: The consideration of a clause may be postponed on condition that the clause in question has not already been the subject of an amendment that has been carried or negatived by the committee. However, if the amendment proposal was withdrawn, the consideration of the clause may be postponed. In practice, committees often decide to postpone the consideration of a clause even if an amendment to it has already been moved. Committees may also defer the consideration of part of the bill, or in a bundle, a series of successive clauses. Debate on a motion to postpone consideration of a clause or of a series of clauses must be limited solely to the matter of the postponement and not broach the provisions of the bill or of the clause concerned.
292.: An order of precedence applies when more than one amendment is moved for the same clause. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
293.: A committee may, upon adoption of a motion to that effect, proceed to divide a clause for the purpose of debating the parts of the clause or in order to vote on them separately.
294.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Minutes of Proceedings, November 25, 2014, Meeting No. 54. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
295.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, December 4, 2014, Meeting No. 39. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
296.: Just as for amendments, admissibility rules apply to subamendments. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
297.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Finance, Minutes of Proceedings, May 27, 2014, Meeting No. 37.
298.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Evidence, February 11, 2014, Meeting No. 12.
299.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Minutes of Proceedings, May 5, 2014, Meeting No. 28.
300.: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling (Journals, December 20, 1973, pp. 774–5).
301.: See, for example, Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented to the House on June 11, 2014 (Journals, p. 1245). It has happened that committees have rejected all of the clauses of a bill and have reported only its title or its number. See, for example, Eighteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented to the House on June 13, 2007 (Journals, p. 1519), and Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, November 21, 2007, pp. 1178–9); Second Report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on November 18, 2009 (Journals, p. 1048).
302.: They are normally presented after the formal report on the bill. They should not be presented pursuant to the order of reference of the bill. For an example of administrative and procedural reports, see Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented to the House on April 29, 2008 (Journals, p. 740), wherein the Committee explains why it could not consider some of the clauses of a bill that had been referred to it. For an example of a substantive report, see Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented to the House on February 14, 2008 (Journals, p. 443).
303.: See, for example, Journals, October 26, 2007, p. 69.
304.: See, for example, Journals, February 24, 2000, pp. 1018–9. For further information on time allocation, see Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
305.: Standing Order 97.1(1). See, for example, Second Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented to the House on June 9, 2010 (Journals, p. 486), and concurred in on September 22, 2010 (Journals, pp. 641–3); Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented to the House on February 28, 2013 (Journals, p. 2806), and concurred in on March 27, 2013 (Journals, pp. 2945–6).
306.: See, for example, Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented to the House on February 3, 2015 (Journals, p. 2085), and concurred in on February 4, 2015 (Journals, pp. 2100–2).
307.: For further information, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
308.: See, for example, Journals, November 26, 2014, pp. 1842–5.
309.: See, for example, Journals, November 26, 2014, pp. 1842–5. It has happened that a committee has requested an extension to the deadline imposed by the House (Sixteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented to the House on March 24, 2015 (Journals, p. 2269), and concurred in on March 25, 2015 (Journals, p. 2280)).
310.: See, for example, Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented to the House on October 31, 2003 (Journals, p. 1216).
311.: See, for example, Journals, May 2, 2008, p. 758; November 24, 2010, pp. 942–4; May 1, 2014, p. 866.
312.: See Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, May 8, 2008, p. 5632).
313.: Occasionally, a committee is designated in each of the Houses of Parliament. For example, the Anti-terrorism Act, SC 2001, c 41 [Anti-terrorism Act], was reviewed both by a committee of the House (Journals, May 19, 2006, p. 201) and by a Senate committee (Journals of the Senate, May 2, 2006, pp. 83–4).
314.: See, for example, Official Languages Act, supra note 78, s 88.
315.: See for example, the Conflict of Interest Act, SC 2006, c 9, s 2, ss 67(1)–(2), which states that a review must be held in the five years following the coming into force of the Act, or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, supra note 271, ss 343(1)–(2), which states that a review must be held every five years following the coming into force of the Act.
316.: For an example of this type of report, see Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented to the House on March 27, 2007 (Journals, p. 1162). This was a report on the consideration of the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act, supra note 313, and related matters. Normally the committees are empowered solely to make recommendations; it is up to the government to consider the recommendations and if it deems it advisable, to take the initiative of introducing a bill to amend existing legislation.
317.: See, for example, Journals, February 23, 2007, p. 1066.
318.: See, for example, Official Languages Act, supra note 78; mandate of the Standing Committee on Official Languages in Standing Order 108(3)(f).
319.: See, for example, Journals, October 17, 2013, p. 22.
320.: Supra note 89, ss 19, 19.1.
321.: If the motion revoking the regulation is adopted (whether it was deemed adopted or whether the House defeated a Minister’s motion), the authority vested with the power of making regulations (usually the Governor in Council) must revoke the regulation within 30 days following the adoption of the motion. For further information, see Chapter 17, “Delegated Legislation”.
322.: SC 2004, c 6, s 4(2) [User Fees Act]. “User fee” means a fee, charge or levy for a product, regulatory process, authorization, permit or licence, facility, or for a service that is provided only by a regulating authority, that is fixed pursuant to the authority of an Act of Parliament and which results in a direct benefit or advantage to the person paying the fee (s 2).
323.: Ibid., s 4(4). See, for example, Journals, March 29, 2012, p. 1046.
324.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, May 28, 2009, Meeting No. 24; Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, Minutes of Proceedings, April 25, 2012, Meeting No. 33.
325.: User Fees Act, supra note 322, s 5. See, for example, Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented to the House on February 14, 2013 (Journals, p. 2767).
326.: User Fees Act, supra note 322, s 6(2). This is recorded in the Journals. See, for example, Journals, May 12, 2014, p. 990.
327.: User Fees Act, supra note 322, s 6(1). There is no precedent to date concerning the House of Commons. The Act is silent with regard to the impact of unfavourable recommendations from the committee, should they be concurred in by the House.
328.: See, for example, Journals, February 8, 1994, pp. 132–4; October 21, 2013, pp. 39–44.
329.: Standing Order 108(2). The power to undertake studies on specific matters on their own initiative was granted to standing committees following recommendations of the McGrath Committee (Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, pp. 16–8, presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839); Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1644–66, in particular pp. 1660–1; February 13, 1986, p. 1710). For an example of a study initiated by a committee, see Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented to the House on June 12, 2014 (Journals, p. 1256). This report concerns a review of the Canadian music industry. Standing joint committees must obtain permission to undertake a study from the Senate since the Rules of the Senate do not authorize them to conduct studies on their own initiative.
330.: For further information, see the section in this chapter entitled “Types of Committees and Mandates”. Most standing committees are authorized to study any question relating to the departmental activities and policies set out in their mandate. Moreover, in January 2008, the government stated its intention to table in the House all of the international treaties governed by international law which Canada intended to ratify. For a period of 21 days following their tabling, the government intends to abstain from implementing them in order to allow for parliamentary examination and debate within that time frame. Although these treaties are not referred to parliamentary committees when they are tabled in the House and there is no formal procedure concerning them, certain standing committees have used their power to initiate studies on matters pertinent to their mandates in order to conduct studies on some of these treaties and present reports. See, for example, Journals, February 14, 2008, p. 443 (tabling of the treaty); Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented to the House on April 10, 2008 (Journals, p. 686) (consideration of the matter by a parliamentary committee); tabling and first reading of a treaty implementation bill (Journals, May 5, 2008, p. 763).
331.: For general information about the types of studies undertaken by committees, see the reports on committee activities and expenditures of the Liaison Committee. See, for example, Second Report of the Committee, presented to the House on June 6, 2016 (Journals, p. 555).
332.: Standing Order 32(5). Prior to 1982, without a specific order of reference, committees were unable to study a report or other document tabled in the House. In 1982, the referral of these documents became automatic and was made permanent so as not to force the committee to limit its study to a specific period. Currently, few studies are undertaken pursuant to this provision. See, for example, Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, April 18, 2013, Meeting No. 70.
333.: This is not a real, physical reference; rather, committees are advised of the reference through an entry to this effect in the Journals. See, for example, Journals, June 18, 2014, pp. 1316–7. In the vast majority of cases, the Minister (or the Speaker of the House if the Speaker tables the document) decides to which standing committee the document will be referred. Sometimes the Standing Orders state that a document must be referred to a specific committee. See, for example, Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vii).
334.: In accordance with Standing Order 153, the Clerk of the House publishes a document at the beginning of each parliamentary session listing all of the reports and documents to be tabled in the House of Commons pursuant to federal legislation.
335.: For further information on the overall estimates process, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
336.: Programs whose funding and funding levels are already prescribed by statute are included with the estimates, but for information purposes only. As these expenditures have already been approved by the passage of the appropriate legislation, they are not referred to committee for examination. In addition, supplementary estimates often include what are known as “one dollar items”, which seek an alteration in the existing allocation of funds authorized in the main estimates. The purpose of a dollar item is not to seek new or additional money, but rather to spend money already authorized for a different purpose within a single department or agency. Since these votes are budgetary items, they must have a dollar value. However, because no new funds are requested, the one dollar is merely a symbolic amount. Dollar items may be used to transfer funds from one program to another, to write off debts, to adjust loan guarantees, to authorize grants or to amend previous appropriation acts. The House provisionally amended Standing Order 81 in June 2017. This provisional amendment, in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament, replaces interim supply with interim estimates, which will be treated in the same manner as other estimates, including being referred to committee. As a result, interim estimates will be tabled in the supply period ending March 26 and will be based on a fraction of that year’s estimates. They will ensure that the needs of the public service at the start of the next fiscal year are covered before appropriations based on the main estimates have been allocated (Standing Order 81(6); Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6).
337.: Standing Order 81(4) and (5). See also Standing Order 81(6), provisionally adopted in June 2017. According to this provisional amendment, in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament, interim estimates, in addition to the main estimates and supplementary estimates, will be referred to committee (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6).
338.: See, for example, Journals, February 27, 2014, pp. 597–602 (main estimates); May 14, 2014, pp. 1004–5 (supplementary estimates). In practice, Treasury Board determines, based on the mandates of the standing committees, which votes will be sent to which specific committees. Because the supplementary estimates deal only with costs in excess of the amounts provided in the main estimates, this affects only specific departments or agencies that have new or additional expenses. They are therefore referred only to the standing committees affected by the votes contained in them. Moreover, the House may withdraw the consideration of specific votes from a standing committee and assign them to another committee. See, for example, Journals, March 5, 2014, p. 624.
339.: Standing Order 81(4). The House provisionally amended Standing Order 81 in June 2017. According to this provisional amendment, in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament, the main estimates will be tabled no later than April 16, rather than March 1 (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6).
340.: Standing Order 81(4). Some committees have considered the main estimates after they have been deemed reported back to the House. They have, however, done so pursuant to their general mandate and were therefore only able to report on the subject matter of the estimates and not adopt or reduce the amounts found in the estimates. See, for example, Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Minutes of Proceedings, June 11, 2014, Meeting No. 32. The House provisionally amended Standing Order 81 in June 2017. According to this provisional amendment, in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament, a committee that decides to study the main estimates must report them no later than June 10, rather than May 31 (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6).
341.: Standing Order 81(4)(b). See, for example, Journals, May 29, 2009, p. 545. Notice must be given during the time specified in Standing Order 54. The House provisionally amended Standing Order 81 in June 2017. According to this provisional amendment, in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition may give notice for a motion of extension no later than the third sitting day prior to June 10 rather than May 31 (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6).
342.: Standing Order 81(4)(c). The Standing Orders provide that a report of this nature may be presented at any time during a sitting simply on a point of order raised by the Chair of the committee in question or by a member of the committee acting for the Chair. The House shall then immediately revert to “Presenting Reports from Committees” (Routine Proceedings) (Standing Order 81(4)(d)). The House provisionally amended Standing Order 81 in June 2017. According to this provisional amendment, in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament, a committee that has received approval to extend its study of the main estimates shall report or shall be deemed to have reported on the third sitting day prior to the final allotted day in that supply period (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6).
343.: Standing Order 81(4)(a). See, for example, Journals, May 2, 2014, p. 874. The House provisionally amended Standing Order 81 in June 2017. According to this provisional amendment, in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition may give notice of motion to refer consideration of the main estimates to a Committee of the Whole no later than May 8 rather than May 1 (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6).
344.: For further information, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
345.: Standing Order 81(7).
346.: See, for example, Journals, March 6, 2014, pp. 631–5.
347.: Standing Order 81(8).
348.: See, for example, Journals, November 5, 2013, pp. 135–9.
349.: Standing Order 81(5). See also Standing Order 81(6), provisionally adopted in June 2017 (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6). This provisional amendment, in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament, replaces interim supply with interim estimates, which will be treated in the same manner as other estimates, including being referred to committee (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6). Some committees have considered the supplementary estimates after they have been deemed to have been reported back to the House. They have done so pursuant to their general mandate and were therefore only able to report on the subject matter of the estimates and not adopt or reduce the amounts found in the estimates. See, for example, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Minutes of Proceedings, March 6, 2014, Meeting No. 15.
350.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Minutes of Proceedings, May 29, 2014, Meeting No. 26.
351.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Minutes of Proceedings, May 29, 2014, Meeting No. 32. There is nothing to prevent committees from hearing witnesses from outside the government. There are also no parliamentary rules that would prevent senior departmental officials from appearing prior to the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary.
352.: The House provisionally amended Standing Order 81 in June 2017. This provisional amendment, in effect for the remainder of the Forty-Second Parliament, replaces interim supply with interim estimates, which will be treated in the same manner as other estimates, including being referred to committee (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6). Consequently, when a committee studies the main estimates, it will no longer have to take into account the amount previously approved in the interim estimates, as that amount will not appear in the appropriations in the main estimates. For further information on the various estimates, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
353.: The usual wording of an amendment of this nature is: “That Vote [number] in the amount of $[amount] be reduced by $[amount] to $[amount]”.
354.: However, the committee could present a report, separate from its report on the votes, recommending that the government “consider the advisability” of increasing the amounts allocated to certain programs, services or activities. See, for example, Second Report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented to the House on May 31, 2006 (Journals, p. 217), and concurred in on June 6, 2006 (Journals, pp. 239–41).
355.: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling (Journals, March 24, 1970, pp. 636–7).
356.: One dollar items included in the supplementary estimates seek an alteration in the existing allocation of funds as authorized in the main estimates. For further information, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
357.: Statutory expenditures are provided for on an ongoing basis by way of legislation and are included for information purposes only; committees may not modify them during consideration of the estimates. See, for example, Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 7, 1986, Issue No. 1, p. 8. For further information, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
358.: See, for example, Standing Committee on National Defence, Minutes of Proceedings, May 29, 2014, Meeting No. 28. As long as the report has not been presented to the House, the committee may return to the consideration of the votes, if it so decides. For example, on reconsideration, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration decided to rescind its decisions regarding certain votes that had been referred to it and discharge the order to report those decisions (Minutes of Proceedings, November 15, 2005, Meeting No. 77). As a result, committee members were able to recall the Minister responsible for the votes and question him further at a return appearance. The Committee subsequently voted the votes again and adopted a new order that they be reported to the House.
359.: See, for example, First Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented to the House on November 29, 2004 (Journals, pp. 268–9).
360.: See Speaker Lamoureux’s rulings (Journals, March 24, 1970, pp. 636–7; June 18, 1973, pp. 419–20); and Speaker Jerome’s ruling (Debates, December 10, 1979, p. 2189).
361.: Standing Order 108(2) and (3). See, for example, Second Report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented to the House on May 31, 2006 (Journals, p. 217), and concurred in on June 6, 2006 (Journals, pp. 239–41).
362.: See, for example, Sixty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on April 21, 1997 (Journals, p. 1494), entitled “The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control”; Thirty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on June 15, 2000 (Journals, p. 1883), entitled “Improved Reporting to Parliament Project – Phase 2: Moving Forward”; First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, paras 33 to 36, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691–3), pursuant to a Special Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685); Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, paras 43 to 46, presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995); Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented to the House on September 25, 2003 (Journals, pp. 1039–40), entitled “Meaningful Scrutiny: Practical Improvements to the Estimates Process”; Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented to the House on June 20, 2012 (Journals, p. 1876), entitled “Strengthening Parliamentary Scrutiny of Estimates and Supply”. For a discussion of the review of estimates and prospects in this area, see Jack Stillborn, “Parliamentary Review of Estimates: Initiatives and Prospects,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 29, no. 4 (Winter 2006–07): p. 22.
363.: Standing Order 108(3)(c)(vii).
364.: Standing Order 108(3)(c)(v). However, this authority has never been used to date. The requirement for coordination set out in the Standing Order implies that the authority could be exercised by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates only with the consent of the standing committees to which the estimates had initially been referred. However, the provision is silent as to the form that such coordination might take.
365.: Standing Order 110(1). See, for example, Journals, March 28, 2014, pp. 755–6. The McGrath Committee recommended that committees review Order in Council appointments (Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, pp. 29–34, presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839)). Standing Orders giving effect to the recommendations were adopted provisionally in 1986 and were made permanent in 1987. The review procedure deals only with non-judicial appointments (Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1644–66, in particular p. 1664; February 13, 1986, p. 1710; Debates, October 30, 1986, p. 889; June 3, 1987, pp. 1016–28). In addition, failure to comply with the five-day rule has occasionally been raised in questions of privilege. For example, in 2004, the Speaker had to remind the government about the requirements. At that time, he ordered that the committees dealing with the Orders in Council which had not been tabled within the time allowed would have 30 days from the actual date of tabling and not from the date on which the Orders in Council should have been tabled (Debates, March 8, 2004, pp. 1216–8; March 9, 2004, pp. 1259–60).
366.: In practice, it is the government that determines the committee to which the appointment will be referred. The House may decide, by special order, to withdraw the order of reference to a committee and refer the matter to another committee. See, for example, Journals, February 22, 2005, p. 466.
367.: Standing Order 110(2).
368.: Standing Order 110. Where Order in Council appointments have been withdrawn from certain committees and referred to others, the 30-day period is deemed to have begun with the adoption of the order of reference to the new committee. See, for example, Debates, October 30, 1986, p. 889.
369.: Standing Order 111(1). In practice, a large majority of committees devote only one meeting to the appearance of an appointee or nominee.
370.: Standing Order 111(3).
371.: Standing Order 111(4). Committees sometimes instruct their clerks to obtain systematically all curricula vitae of appointees or nominees referred to them. See, for example, Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, Minutes of Proceedings, November 5, 2013, Meeting No. 2. The curricula vitae are then distributed to members or made available to them on request.
372.: There is nothing to compel committees to review Order in Council appointments or nominations referred to them. See Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, December 11, 1986, pp. 1997–9).
373.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Minutes of Proceedings, June 3, 2014, Meeting No. 26.
374.: The report should be adopted by the committee within the time allowed by the Standing Orders for the review of the appointment or nomination. On occasion, at the conclusion of their review, committees have simply adopted resolutions without reporting to the House. In some cases, these were motions in which they stated their support for the nominee or appointee and declared that they were concluding their review. See, for example, Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, March 22, 2005, Meeting No. 25; Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Minutes of Proceedings, November 18, 2009, Meeting No. 48.
375.: Standing Order 111(2).
376.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Government Operations, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 27, 1986, Issue No. 4, pp. 4–7; Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 13, 1997, Issue No. 6, p. 2. See also Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, December 11, 1986, p. 1998). Members have sometimes raised questions of privilege in the House because some of their questions in committee were ruled inadmissible. Each time the Speaker has refused to intervene and has reiterated that committees are masters of their own procedure and decisions of committee Chairs may be appealed by committee members (Debates, April 18, 2002, pp. 10539–40; January 30, 2007, pp. 6174–5).
377.: See, for example, Third Report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented to the House on November 28, 2013 (Journals, p. 220).
378.: An act of Canada may provide for examination by a parliamentary committee of an appointment to a particular office. In certain cases, the act may even assign a decision-making role to the parliamentary committee in approving or rejecting the appointment. See, for example, An Act respecting the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, SC 2006, c 9, ss 4(4)–(5), which requires that the Attorney General refer the appointment of another candidate for the position of Director of Public Prosecutions if the committee to which the initial appointment was referred does not give its approval. These examinations are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and any other provisions ordered by the House, and not the process for examination of appointments and nominations provided by the Standing Orders. Committees may be required to examine the nomination and report within a certain time. See, for example, Journals, February 4, 2009, p. 87.
379.: Debates, May 3, 2005, pp. 5547–8. A Member had raised a question of privilege regarding the fact that the government had disregarded the opinion of a standing committee and the House concerning an appointment to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, presented to the House on March 24, 2005 (Journals, p. 564), and concurred in on April 6, 2005 (Journals, pp. 583–4)).
380.: The Standing Orders do not define “Officer of Parliament”. The First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons defined them as persons who report to Parliament and are usually appointed in some way by the House of Commons and Senate (First Report of the Committee, para 42, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691–3), pursuant to a Special Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685)). They include the following: the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer (Officer of the House of Commons only), the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (Officer of the House of Commons only; the Commissioner is referred to in the Standing Orders), the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying. The Standing Order relating to Officers of Parliament has been used for the President of the Public Service Commission, although this person does not report directly to Parliament, and the appointment need not be approved by the House of Commons or Senate (Journals, March 31, 2004, pp. 245–6; February 3, 2012, p. 759).
381.: Standing Order 111.1. In practice, it is the government that determines the committee to which the proposed appointment will be referred. See, for example, Journals, June 5, 2014, pp. 1149–50. This procedure was suggested by the members of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, who thought it advisable to codify what was then the recent practice of having a nominee for a position as an Officer of Parliament appear before a committee of the House before the House approved the appointment (First Report of the Committee, paras 42 to 44, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691–3), pursuant to a Special Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685)). The reference to the Ethics Commissioner in the Standing Orders was added in 2004 when the House concurred in the Twenty-Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on April 27, 2004 (Journals, p. 319), and concurred in on April 29, 2004 (Journals, p. 349).
382.: See, for example, Journals, May 28, 2014, p. 1082.
383.: See, for example, Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented to the House on June 11, 2014 (Journals, p. 1245).
384.: See, for example, Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented to the House on November 6, 2003 (Journals, p. 1247). In that Report, the Committee refers to the time constraints and background to its examination of the proposed appointment to the position of Privacy Commissioner that had been referred to it. It describes the qualifications that the proposed appointee should have, and then presents its findings and recommendations.
385.: See, for example, Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented to the House on November 7, 2003 (Journals, p. 1259).
386.: Standing Order 111.1(2). The Standing Orders are silent about any conflict that could arise if the House were to concur in a committee’s report on a proposed appointment before the motion to ratify it is formally moved.
387.: Standing Order 36, in particular 36(8)(a).
388.: Standing Order 39, in particular 39(5)(a).
389.: Standing Orders 36(8)(b) and 39(5)(b). See, for example, Journals, April 16, 2007, p. 1214 (petition); March 25, 2011, p. 1425 (written question). It is the Member who tabled the petition or placed the written question on the Order Paper who decides to which committee the matter should be referred. Usually it is referred to the committee whose mandate corresponds most closely to the subject matter of the petition or question. With regard to written questions, this rule was adopted in 2001 following concurrence in the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons (First Report of the Committee, paras 17 to 18, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691–3), pursuant to a Special Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, 2001, p. 685)). In the Committee’s Fourth Report, two years later, its members noted that the rule on written questions had had a salutary effect, and encouraged the government to comply with the timelines in the Standing Orders. They proposed a similar procedure for government responses to petitions (Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, para 40, presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995)). The rule came into force provisionally with concurrence in the Fourth Report. It became permanent with the concurrence in the Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, October 29, 2004, pp. 170–1).
390.: Standing Order 39(5)(b).
391.: The Member may attend the meeting, but this is not necessary for the order of reference to be considered.
392.: This occurs when a committee learns that the government’s response has finally been tabled in the House. See, for example, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Minutes of Proceedings, May 27, 2003, Meeting No. 36.
393.: Committees may choose this option so that they can wait to see whether the government’s response is tabled in the meantime. See, for example, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Minutes of Proceedings, April 27, 2004, Meeting No. 12.
394.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations, Minutes of Proceedings, January 31, 2002, Meeting No. 47; Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, February 3, 2005, Meeting No. 17.
395.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, March 25, 2004, Meeting No. 5.
396.: See, for example, Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, February 3, 2005, Meeting No. 17. The Committee adopted a motion expressing its displeasure with a department’s failure to respond within the prescribed number of days, and its intention to revisit the matter if a response was not forthcoming shortly.
397.: To date, no committee has ever reported such an order of reference to the House.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611

trbdrb@parl.gc.ca