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

[51]: Standing Order 11. See Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”, and Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”. The topic of disorderly conduct in a Committee of the Whole is also discussed later in this chapter under “Conduct of Debate in a Committee of the Whole”.
[52]: Standing Order 8.
[53]: Standing Order 12.
[54]: See Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 224. For an example of appeals to the House prior to 1965, see Debates, May 31, 1956, pp. 4498-4534; June 1, 1956, pp. 4537-9, 4551-70, 4576-82.
[55]: See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 541.
[56]: The Deputy or Acting Speaker hears the report from another Member whom he or she has designated. See, for example, Journals, June 25, 1965, pp. 303-4. In this instance, the Deputy Speaker confirmed his own ruling. In February 1971, when a Chairman’s ruling was appealed to the Speaker, the Chairman advised the Committee that the Speaker was not in the building and that he did not wish to hear the appeal to his own ruling. By unanimous consent, the Committee agreed to continue its consideration of the legislation before it until the Speaker was available to hear the appeal. The Speaker subsequently sustained the ruling of the Chairman. See Debates, February 17, 1971, pp. 3495-6, 3498-501.
[57]: For practical reasons, the report is presented orally to the Speaker. For examples of recent appeals of Chairman’s rulings, see Journals, April 6, 1971, pp. 475-6; December 21, 1988, pp. 67-8.
[58]: In 1971, the Speaker permitted Members to present their arguments to him before he ruled on the matter (Debates, April 6, 1971, pp. 4969-71).
[59]: Standing Orders 10 and 12.
[60]: When the Standing Orders allowed appeals to be decided by the House, rulings by Chairmen were overturned on at least three occasions (Journals, March 6, 1913, p. 323; March 22, 1948, pp. 275-6; December 13, 1957, p. 270).
[61]: See, for example, Debates, April 6, 1971, p. 4971; December 21, 1988, p. 541.
[62]: See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1975, p. 5646; January 28, 1988, p. 12362.
[63]: See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1997, p. 2105.
[64]: Standing Order 100. In addition, pursuant to Standing Order 56(2), any government motion seeking to have the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the next sitting day is put without debate or amendment. Prior to 1955, as a general rule, whenever the House desired to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the motion “That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair” was moved. In some instances, if the motion was for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of Supply or into the Committee of Ways and Means, it was debatable; in other instances, the House would resolve itself into Committee without putting the question. (In 1913, the House had adopted an amendment to the rules which provided that if an Order of the Day were called to go into the Committee of Supply or of Ways and Means on a Thursday or Friday, the Speaker left the Chair without putting any question (Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9)). In 1955, the special committee appointed to consider the procedures of the House recommended a new Standing Order to clarify what had become the “general practice” by that time. The House adopted the rule which specified that except for the particular circumstances of motions to resolve into the Committee of Supply or the Committee of Ways and Means, all motions for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on any matter would be decided without debate or amendment (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 920-1). The wording of the rule remained unchanged until December 1968. Since the Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means were abolished at that time, the Standing Order was rephrased to stipulate that when an Order of the Day was read for the House to go into a Committee of the Whole or when it was ordered that a bill be considered in a Committee of the Whole, no question would be put. The Speaker would simply leave the Chair upon the order being read (Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 572).
[65]: Although the Speaker has participated in debate in a Committee of the Whole (see, for example, Debates, April 7, 1927, pp. 2034-8), this is not the modern practice.
[66]: According to Beauchesne, 4^th ed. (p. 195), the Clerk also leaves the Chamber when the Speaker exits and returns when the Committee rises. In practice, the Clerk will leave the Chamber along with the Speaker but may reappear to take the place of one of the Table Officers.
[67]: Rules in a Committee of the Whole are similar to those in standing, special and legislative committees. The Standing Orders apply, except those relating to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking, and the length of speeches. See Standing Orders 101 and 116. See also Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[68]: Debates, October 15, 1987, p. 10064; October 16, 1987, pp. 10089-90.
[69]: Standing Order 101(1).
[70]: Standing Order 43(2) stipulates that only when the Speaker is in the Chair may Members split their speaking time. When the House has resolved into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker is not in the Chair.
[71]: Standing Order 101(3).
[72]: Standing Order 101(3). See also Debates, May 26, 1982, p. 17802; March 8, 1983, p. 23550; September 30, 1991, p. 2946; March 21, 1996, p. 1068. This is in contrast to when the Speaker is in the Chair. Pursuant to Standing Order 43(1), when the Speaker is in the Chair, no Member may speak longer than 20 minutes; following each 20-minute speech, there is a 10-minute period for Members to ask questions and comment on the speech.
[73]: See Standing Order 17. See also Debates, February 8, 1994, p. 1084.
[74]: See Debates, April 21, 1997, p. 10001.
[75]: See, for example, Debates, December 2, 1997, p. 2613.
[76]: Standing Order 101(1).
[77]: See, for example, Debates, November 8, 1919, pp. 1992-3; March 17, 1966, p. 2825; November 30, 1978, p. 1679.
[78]: See Standing Order 102(1).
[79]: See, for example, Debates, December 2, 1997, p. 2615.
[80]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 48; Standing Order 29(1).
[81]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 218; Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 250.
[82]: See, for example, Debates, May 19, 1966, p. 5323; March 14, 1967, pp. 13993-4.
[83]: The Chairmanmay also take the Chair as Deputy Speaker (see, for example, Debates, June 6, 1899, col. 4461).
[84]: See, for example, Debates, June 6, 1899, col. 4461; March 30, 1915, pp. 1780-1; May 13, 1919, p. 2361; February 29, 1968, pp. 7131-2; October 29, 1968, p. 2180.
[85]: Standing Order 29(3). See Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”, for additional information on quorum.
[86]: Standing Order 41(2). Since this Standing Order was first adopted in 1991, proceedings in a Committee of the Whole have not been interrupted because of a lack of quorum. On June 9, 1938, the House was adjourned because of a lack of quorum in the Committee of Supply (see Journals, June 9, 1938, p. 434; Debates, p. 3704). The following day the Prime Minister moved a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply. The motion was adopted and the House went into Committee of Supply. See Journals, June 10, 1938, p. 436; Debates, pp. 3705-6.
[87]: Standing Order 101(2).
[88]: Standing Order 11(2). See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2937, 2979; March 15, 1995, p. 10566.
[89]: There is no provision for this practice in the Standing Orders; nonetheless, it has become an accepted practice over the years. See Debates, November 30, 1978, pp. 1657, 1665. See Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, for additional information on relevance.
[90]: See Chairman’s ruling, Debates, May 11, 1960, pp. 3783-4, 3788-9.
[91]: See Chairman’s ruling, Debates, March 23, 1965, p. 12693.
[92]: See Chairman’s rulings, Debates, August 2, 1960, p. 7418; December 11, 1979, p. 2239.
[93]: Standing Order 12.
[94]: Standing Order 11(2). See, for example, Debates, July 31, 1944, pp. 5681-2; May 25, 1956, pp. 4340-1; March 16, 1962, p. 1889. Standing Order 12 stipulates that disorder in a Committee of the Whole can only be censured by the House after the Speaker has received a report from the Chairman. In practice, since 1986 the Speaker has had the authority, under Standing Order 11, to “name” a Member without putting a motion to the House; the Chairman is not vested with the authority to “name” a Member in a Committee of the Whole. See Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1644-66 and in particular pp. 1645-6; February 13, 1986, p. 1710; June 3, 1987, p. 1016. See also Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, for additional information on “naming”. Also see Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 397.
[95]: Standing Order 11(2). A Member has never been named for persisting in irrelevance or repetition in a Committee of the Whole. In 1944, the Chairman reported to the Speaker that a Member refused to withdraw the word “bribe”. After refusing the Speaker’s request that he withdraw his remarks, under the rules in place at the time, the Member was named and ordered to withdraw from the Chamber (see Debates, July 31, 1944, pp. 5680-4). In 1956, when the Chairman was addressing the Committee, a Member rose on a question of privilege. When the Chairman asked the Member to resume his seat, the Member refused. The Chairman reported the incident to the Speaker. Under the procedures in place at that time, after debate on the matter, the House voted to suspend the Member from the service of the House for the remainder of the sitting (see Debates, May 25, 1956, pp. 4340-52). In 1962, when the House was in Committee of Supply, a Member implied in his remarks that the Chairman was not being impartial when recognizing Members on debate. The Chairman asked the Member to withdraw his comments. When the Member refused, the Chairman reported the incident to the Speaker. Again, under the procedures in place at that time, the House subsequently ordered the Member to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting (see Debates, March 16, 1962, pp. 1888-90). On one occasion, disorder ensued when a Member refused to resume his seat when the Chairman would not hear him on a point of order because of the hour of sitting (pursuant to the rules at the time, the Chairman was not permitted to recognize any Member after 1:00 a.m.). The Chairman reported the incident to the Speaker who advised the House to resolve the matter itself. After debate, the House resolved back into the Committee of the Whole and heard the Member’s point of order (see Debates, May 15, 1956, pp. 3967-9).
[96]: In 1913, grave disorder in Committee prompted the Speaker to take the Chair twice without hearing a report from the Chairman (Debates, March 15, 1913, cols. 6016-22). This incident was procedurally unique in that the Speaker took the Chair on his own initiative before the Committee had reported. Without direction from the House, the Speaker named a Member for disregarding the authority of the Chair. The offending Member subsequently withdrew his remarks and apologized to the Chair and the House. This incident marked the first occasion of “naming” in the House of Commons.
[97]: See Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”. See also Maingot, 2^nd ed., p. 221.
[98]: Often, when a Member rises on a question of privilege in a Committee of the Whole, the Chairman rules that the matter raised is more appropriately a point of order or a matter of debate. See, for example, Debates, November 23, 1970, p. 1373; November 8, 1971, p. 9435; October 23, 1974, p. 665; May 22, 1975, pp. 6012-3; December 20, 1983, pp. 379-90.
[99]: Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 95. See also Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”. A question of privilege was raised in a Committee of the Whole in 1987 when John Nunziata (York South–Weston) rose to complain that a Member had assaulted him because he was not in his own seat. He requested an apology, but the Member refused. Although the Chairman advised that he would report on the matter to the full House, only the bill as amended was reported later that day (Journals, October 15, 1987, pp. 1688-9). The following day, Mr. Nunziata raised his question of privilege in the House. The Member apologized and the Speaker declared the matter closed (Debates, October 15, 1987, p. 10064; October 16, 1987, pp. 10089-90).
[100]: For further information, see Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.