Routine Proceedings / Motions

Committee report; Standing Orders

Journals pp. 511-3

Debates pp. 3733-4

Background

On December 9, Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) rose on a point of order to contest the acceptability of the motion standing in the name of the chairman of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, Mr. Blair (Grenville-Carleton), which asked that the House concur in its fourth report. Mr. Knowles argued that, if accepted, the motion would effect significant changes in the rules and privileges of the House. Accordingly, he felt that the matter should be referred to Committee of the Whole so that each of the rule changes could be considered individually. To do otherwise, he claimed, would be inconsistent with past practice. The Speaker heard argument on the matter and announced his decision the following day.

Issue

Can changes to the rules of the House be adopted either by the Committee of the Whole or by concurrence of the House in a committee report?

Decision

Precedents exist for both practices and the Speaker does not have the authority to determine which shall be followed.

Reasons given by the Speaker

While most major revisions of House rules have been considered in Committee of the Whole, there have been, in fact, a number of occasions when this has not happened. Rule changes can be adopted either following full consideration in Committee of the Whole or by concurring in the report of a special committee. However, the Speaker does not possess the authority to decree that a motion will be considered in Committee of the Whole rather than by the House.

Sources cited

Standing Order 50.

Journals, July 1, 1952, p. 624; September 27, 1961, p. 957.

Debates, December 20, 1962, p. 2885.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 183, c. 221(2).

References

Debates, December 6, 1968, p. 3583; December 9, 1968, pp. 3639-41.