House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

19. Committees of the Whole House

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[101]: See Debates, June 12, 1980, pp. 2030-1; December 20, 1983, pp. 364-9. In the 1983 instance, a Member argued that because the Committee had risen and reported progress, the House was apprised of the circumstances surrounding the question of privilege. The Speaker ruled that the Committee had only risen, reported progress and asked for leave to sit again. The Committee had not reported the bill nor any concerns to the House.
[102]: See Debates, April 30, 1964, p. 2782; October 29, 1964, pp. 9561-2; June 2, 1966, pp. 5908-9.
[103]: See, for example, Debates, December 20, 1988, pp. 419, 517.
[104]: See, for example, Journals, September 30, 1991, pp. 412, 414; April 21, 1997, p. 1494; Debates, December 20, 1988, pp. 419, 517; September 30, 1991, pp. 2904, 2950; April 21, 1997, p. 9984.
[105]: See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2924, 2954; April 21, 1997, p. 10000.
[106]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 397. See, for example, Journals, May 9, 1933, pp. 537-8; June 20, 1951, pp. 581-2.
[107]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 401-2.
[108]: Standing Order 26(1). The motion must be proposed during the hour prior to consideration of the item of business being interrupted by the beginning of Private Members’ Business, by the dinner break, or by the ordinary hour of adjournment, as the case may be.
[109]: Standing Order 26(1)(a). See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1969, pp. 6606-7; March 20, 1969, p. 6933; November 9, 1970, pp. 1030-1; November 16, 1970, pp. 1222-3; November 17, 1970, p. 1270. In 1992, such a motion was moved and carried, but only after the Chairman had risen, reported progress and requested leave to consider a bill at the next sitting of the House. After the hour for Private Members’ Business had been completed, the House resumed sitting in a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill (see Debates, December 11, 1992, p. 15145; Journals, pp. 2400-1).
[110]: Standing Order 26(1)(c).
[111]: Standing Order 26(2).
[112]: See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1987, p. 1052; October 15, 1987, p.1687; September 17, 1991, pp. 354-5.
[113]: Standing Order 57. Closure was first introduced in 1913 (Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9) and applied in a Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Naval Aid Bill (Debates, May 9, 1913, col. 9445). See Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”, for additional information on closure.
[114]: On four occasions, in 1913, 1917 (twice) and 1919, all clauses had been called and postponed before closure was moved (Debates, May 9, 1913, col. 9445; August 28, 1917, p. 5016; September 12, 1917, p. 5707; April 28, 1919, p. 1797). In three other cases, in 1932, 1956 and 1988, closure was applied to clauses which had not been called (Debates, April 1, 1932, p. 1609; May 31, 1956, p. 4498; June 1, 1956, pp. 4554-6; December 21, 1988, p. 541). When closure was moved in 1988, during debate in the Committee of the Whole on Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) raised a point of order questioning the form of the motion, and arguing that the closure motion was not procedurally acceptable because it attempted to closure parts of the bill which had not been debated or postponed. The Chairman of Committees of the Whole ruled that on the basis of the 1932 and 1956 precedents, closure may be applied in a Committee of the Whole to parts of a bill not yet debated. The Chairman’s ruling was subsequently appealed to the Speaker who sustained the decision (Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 532-41; Journals, pp. 67-8).
[115]: Standing Order 57. The Standing Order is not specific when oral notice has to be given. For examples of notices in a Committee of the Whole, see Debates, May 8, 1913, col. 9444; August 27, 1917, p. 5015; September 11, 1917, p. 5702; April 25, 1919, p. 1789; March 31, 1932, p. 1605; May 30, 1956, pp. 4464-5; December 20, 1988, p. 500.
[116]: Standing Order 57.
[117]: Standing Order 57. See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1913, col. 9445; August 28, 1917, p. 5016; September 12, 1917, p. 5707; April 28, 1919, p. 1797; April 1, 1932, p. 1609; May 15, 1956, p. 3895. On two occasions, points of order were raised immediately after the closure motion was proposed; the question on the motion was put in both instances only after the Chairman’s ruling had been appealed to the Speaker and sustained. See Debates, May 31, 1956, pp. 4498-528; June 1, 1956, pp. 4554-6; December 21, 1988, pp. 532, 541.
[118]: Standing Order 57. See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 573, 575.
[119]: See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 585. In 1988, the wording of Standing Order 57 stipulated that debate was to conclude at 1:00 a.m. This was changed to 11:00 p.m. in 1991.
[120]: Standing Order 76.1(12). See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 587-9.
[121]: Standing Order 76.1(11). In 1932, a bill that had been closured in a Committee of the Whole was read a third time at the same sitting because the Committee reported back to the House before the normal hour of adjournment (Debates, April 1, 1932, pp. 1609-37).
[122]: See, for example, Journals, June 1, 1956, p. 689; December 21, 1988, pp. 68-9.
[123]: See Standing Order 78. See Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”, for detailed information on time allocation.
[124]: Between 1971 and 1997, time allocation was applied to the Committee of the Whole stage on eight occasions. In six of the cases, debate had already begun in a Committee of the Whole when a Minister advised the House that an agreement could not be reached with respect to a timetable and gave notice that a time allocation motion would be proposed at the next sitting of the House. See Debates, December 1, 1971, pp. 10046-7; January 28, 1977, pp. 2495-6; December 2, 1977, p. 1498; June 12, 1978, p. 6298; December 5, 1979, p. 2040; March 14, 1983, p. 23750. The following sitting day, the Minister moved the time allocation motion during Routine Proceedings. See Debates, December 2, 1971, pp. 10076-7; January 31, 1977, p. 2534; December 5, 1977, p. 1545; June 13, 1978, p. 6355; December 7, 1979, p. 2148; March 15, 1983, p. 23798. In the other two instances, a time allocation motion was moved to provide for the completion of debate at all stages of a bill, including the Committee of the Whole stage, in the same sitting. See Journals, June 27, 1980, pp. 310, 312; March 15, 1995, pp. 1219-23. By unanimous consent, the House has adopted motions limiting debate in Committees of the Whole to a specific number of hours or sitting days. See, for example, Journals, May 7, 1982, pp. 4806-7; September 17, 1991, pp. 354-5. See also Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2902-3; June 10, 1998, p. 7941.
[125]: See Standing Order 61. See also Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”, and Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”, for more information on the “previous question”.
[126]: See Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 421. This rule appeared as far back as the first edition of May (p. 225). See also May, 22^nd ed., p. 691; Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 328. See also Journals, May 7, 1913, pp. 560-1; Debates, May 7, 1913, cols. 9330-40.
[127]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 399.
[128]: See, for example, Debates, December 20, 1988, p. 517; December 11, 1992, p. 15145.
[129]: See, for example, Debates, November 8, 1919, pp. 1992-3; March 17, 1966, p. 2825; November 30, 1978, p. 1679.
[130]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 399.
[131]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 400. According to Beauchesne, 3^rd ed., “the term ‘intermediate proceeding’… means a proceeding that can properly be entered on the journals. The true test is that if any parliamentary proceeding takes place, the second motion is regular, and the clerk ought to enter the proceedings to show that the motion in question is regular” (p. 74). In a Committee of the Whole, an intermediate proceeding could be the moving of an amendment, the disposal of a clause or the motion that “the Chairman leave the Chair”.
[132]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 397.
[133]: Standing Order 102(1). For the first 45 years of Confederation, it was more common for Members to move simply “That the Committee do now rise.” The motion was debatable and had the effect of superseding whatever matter was then before the Committee (see, for example, Debates, May 19, 1869, pp. 393-4; March 5, 1884, p. 671; May 9, 1892, cols. 2294-305). In 1913, the House adopted a Standing Order which attempted to list all debatable motions (see current Standing Order 67). Omissions in this list provoked discussions about what motions were in fact debatable; one such discussion in 1916 concerned the motion “That the Chairman leave the Chair”. In ruling that this motion was correctly omitted from the list, and that as a result debate could not take place on it, the Chairman also established that the correct motion to move was “That the Chairman leave the Chair” and not “That the Committee do now rise.” See Debates, April 3, 1916, pp. 2449, 2453-4. In 1927, the Standing Order was formally amended to prohibit debate (see Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1927, Standing Order 59).
[134]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 400, 527. On a number of occasions during the early years of Confederation, Committees of the Whole either rose without reporting progress on a bill or adopted motions to the effect that the Chairman now leave the Chair (see, for example, Journals, May 19, 1869, p. 106; May 23, 1874, p. 326; March 29, 1883, p. 157; April 7, 1886, p. 126). The matter under consideration would disappear from the Order Paper. In 1883, the Speaker ruled that a committee could not extinguish a bill and that a bill which had disappeared from the Order Paper in this manner could be revived by a motion, moved without notice, that the bill be considered in a committee on a future day (Journals, March 30, 1883, pp. 159-60; Debates, pp. 331-2).
[135]: Standing Order 102(2).
[136]: See, for example, Debates, December 20, 1983, p. 352.
[137]: See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 586.
[138]: See Standing Order 45(1).
[139]: See Debates, September 30, 1991, p. 2952.
[140]: Debates, April 17, 1962, p. 3080. This rule has been difficult to enforce because the procedures for a division are less formal when the House sits as a Committee of the Whole: there are no division bells calling Members to vote; the Whips do not signal to the Chair that Members are ready; and Members do not have to be standing at their desk. See, for example, Debates, December 1, 1971, pp. 10072-4; December 2, 1971, pp. 10075-6; December 20, 1983, pp. 352-4, 382-3, 388, 390.
[141]: Debates, December 20, 1983, p. 352.
[142]: Standing votes have taken place in Committees of the Whole on a number of occasions. Examples can be found in Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 585-7; September 30, 1991, p. 2997. See Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 587, and December 2, 1997, p. 2617, for examples of applied votes in a Committee of the Whole.
[143]: Debates, March 8, 1935, pp. 1541-2. Pairing is an arrangement whereby two Members on opposite sides of the House agree not to vote for a specific period of time. The arrangement which permits Members to be absent on other business is worked out either by the respective Whips or by the Members themselves. For additional information on pairing, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[144]: Standing Order 9. See Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 398. See also Debates, June 20, 1904, col. 5164; April 15, 1920, p. 1265; June 23, 1922, p. 3473; March 26, 1928, p. 1681. As noted in Dawson at page 183, there has been a lack of consistency in this practice. In 1904, a Chairman voted against a motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again. In 1920 and 1928, the Chairman voted against amendments to a clause of a bill in order to leave the matter open. In 1922, the Chairman voted for an amendment without giving reasons. The casting vote of the Chair is also discussed in Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”, and Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[145]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 384.
[146]: Standing Order 73(4). See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[147]: See, for example, Journals, June 20, 1994, pp. 617-8; April 17, 1997, pp. 1485-6. On a number of occasions, two or more public bills or resolutions have been referred and considered jointly in a Committee of the Whole in the same sitting by unanimous consent (see, for example, Journals, June 29, 1934, p. 565; March 23, 1942, pp. 182-3; May 26, 1954, p. 658; March 9, 1978, p. 468).
[148]: For example, in 1988, the House adopted a motion to suspend, for the duration of the First Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament, certain Standing Orders including the provisions respecting the committee stage of bills. This order also stipulated that one bill in particular, Bill C-2 (Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act), was to be referred to a Committee of the Whole after second reading (Journals, December 16, 1988, pp. 46-9). See also Journals, December 1, 1997, pp. 290-1; December 2, 1997, p. 314.
[149]: Standing Order 73(4). The adoption of any motion to concur in the Estimates or Interim Supply is an Order for the House to bring in a bill or bills based thereon. See Standing Order 81(21). See also Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[150]: Standing Order 81(17)-(18). See, for example, Debates, November 25, 1997, p. 2217.