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

[151]: See, for example, the passage of the Bill C-74, An Act respecting the supervision of longshoring and related operations at west coast ports (Journals, March 15, 1995, pp. 1219-22). See also Journals, September 17, 1991, pp. 354-5; September 30, 1991, pp. 414, 417-9.
[152]: See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[153]: This practice extends back to Confederation when consideration of the preamble was postponed while each clause was considered in its proper order; the preamble and title were considered last (see Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 46).
[154]: The Thirteenth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization recommended that consideration of Clause 1 should be postponed when it contained only a short title. See Journals, October 7, 1964, pp. 771-3. The recommendation was adopted on a provisional basis on October 9, 1964 (Journals, pp. 777-80), and the provisional changes were extended for the Twenty-Seventh Parliament (1966-68) (Journals, January 21, 1966, p. 34; April 26, 1967, pp. 1769-74). Permanent changes to the Standing Orders were adopted in December 1968 (Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554-62, in particular p. 560).
[155]: See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2968-9.
[156]: See, for example, Debates, April 16, 1997, pp. 9843-4; November 24, 1997, pp. 2105-13. On one occasion, there was agreement in a Committee of the Whole for amendments to any of the clauses in the bill under consideration to be proposed on Clause 2. A general debate was held on all the amendments, but the question was not put on individual amendments until the clauses to which they applied were called. See Debates, March 15, 1995, pp. 10559, 10561.
[157]: Unanimous consent has been granted for the Chair to call a number of clauses as one group in order to expedite proceedings in a Committee of the Whole. See, for example, Debates, April 20, 1994, pp. 3291, 3294; May 25, 1994, p. 4416.
[158]: See, for example, Debates, October 6, 1998, pp. 8854-5.
[159]: See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1997, pp. 2107, 2112.
[160]: Beauchesne, 6^th ed., pp. 210, 250.
[161]: See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2996-7.
[162]: In practice, if the presiding officer who has chaired the Committee of the Whole takes the Chair of the House as Speaker, he or she may simply invoke pro forma the name of another Member as presenting the report from the Committee of the Whole.
[163]: Standing Order 76.1(12). See, for example, Debates, April 20, 1994, p. 3291; December 2, 1997, p. 2618.
[164]: See, for example, Journals, April 20, 1994, pp. 375-6; June 20, 1994, pp. 617-8; March 12, 1997, p. 1262. This practice differs significantly for public bills reported back from standing, special or legislative committees. The Standing Orders require that every bill examined and reported by a committee be considered by the House at report stage. In the case of public bills reported back from a standing, special or legislative committee, report stage cannot begin sooner than the second day after the bill has been reported (see Standing Order 76.1(1)). At Confederation, amendments made in a Committee of the Whole were reported by the Chairman to the House which received the report forthwith (see Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 47). The rules then provided for debate and amendments to be moved to the bill before it was ordered for third reading. If the bill had not been amended in the Committee, it would be ordered for third reading at a time decided by the House. It was not until 1955 that the Standing Orders were amended to require a report from the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole to be received and the motion for concurrence in amendments to be disposed of forthwith (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 932-3).
[165]: Standing Order 76.1(11).
[166]: See Standing Order 71. See also Journals, February 24, 1969, pp. 738-9.
[167]: See, for example, Debates, April 20, 1994, p. 3291; June 18, 1996, p. 4039.
[168]: See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 589; September 30, 1991, p. 2998.
[169]: An amendment to recommit to a Committee of the Whole a bill that had been considered previously by a standing committee was ruled out of order (see Debates, March 9, 1999, pp. 12645-6). For an example of a bill which was examined by a standing committee and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent, see Journals, February 11, 1977, p. 464; July 25, 1977, p. 1441. Also refer to Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[170]: See, for example, Journals, April 3, 1882, pp. 248-9; March 27, 1933, pp. 343-4; April 25, 1952, pp. 231-2; June 27, 1952, pp. 604-5; March 1, 1962, pp. 182-3; July 25, 1977, p. 1441.
[171]: See, for example, Journals, February 17, 1928, p. 83; April 10, 1957, p. 445.
[172]: An instruction is a direction by the House to a committee, which has already received an order of reference, further defining its course of action or empowering it to do something. See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, for more information.
[173]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 395, 517. The object of a mandatory instruction is to define the course of action a committee must take. See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[174]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 398.
[175]: See, for example, Journals, May 20, 1971, p. 569; March 30, 1984, p. 324; December 2, 1997, pp. 313-4.
[176]: See, for example, Journals, March 19, 1948, pp. 268-9; July 30, 1956, pp. 942-3.
[177]: See, for example, Journals, April 15, 1920, p. 146.
[178]: Debate on the motion of instruction must be relevant to the object of the instruction and not the content of the bill. Amendments must be worded in such a way that if an amendment were adopted, the question would retain the form and effect of an instruction (May, 22^nd ed., pp. 518-9).
[179]: See Journals, March 19, 1948, p. 269 (motion negatived); July 30, 1956, pp. 942-3 (motion negatived).
[180]: See Journals, April 15, 1920, p. 146.
[181]: See Journals, March 15, 1948, p. 255 (motion negatived).
[182]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 513. See, for example, Journals, May 2, 1872, p. 79; May 23, 1956, pp. 598-603.
[183]: Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 204.
[184]: A resolution is a motion adopted by the House in order to make a declaration of opinion or purpose. An address is a formal message to the Crown which may either express a wish or an opinion of the House or make a request. Addresses are used to express congratulations, etc., to the Royal Family and also to request the production of documents in the Crown’s possession.
[185]: In 1991, a Member sought to have the House sit as a Committee of the Whole during the debate on the crisis in the Persian Gulf to maximize the exchanges between Members. Consent was denied. See Debates, January 15, 1991, p. 16984.
[186]: For a brief period between 1975 and 1977, through provisional amendments to the Standing Orders on Supply proceedings, the House reinstated the former practice of referring selected items in the Estimates to a Committee of the Whole, where a resolution was subsequently agreed to and reported to the House for concurrence (Journals, March 14, 1975, pp. 372-6; March 24, 1975, p. 399). Though this provisional Standing Order was continued for another session through agreement (Journals, October 12, 1976, p. 12), it was not renewed thereafter. As an example, see Journals, May 9, 1975, pp. 533-4. This occurred again, most recently, in 1988 (Journals, January 28, 1988, p. 2076).
[187]: Motions which have been debated in a Committee of the Whole in the past have dealt with, among other matters, the naturalization of aliens (Journals, April 10, 1873, p. 147; April 5, 1875, p. 355), the establishment of provincial boundaries (Journals, April 29, 1889, pp. 383-5), the classification and organization of House of Commons Staff (Journals, June 5, 1913, pp. 785-8), and the ratification of agreements, conventions and treaties (Journals, March 20, 1925, pp. 148-9; June 8, 1942, p. 367).
[188]: See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1975, p. 5646; January 28, 1988, p. 12362. See Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 425-8, for a description of the consideration of resolutions in a Committee of Supply.
[189]: See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1975, p. 5670; January 28, 1988, p. 12371.
[190]: Standing Order 103. This Standing Order was adopted in 1955 to reflect a practice the House had previously followed for a number of years in connection with financial proceedings. For a recent example of the use of this Standing Order, see Journals, January 28, 1988, p. 2076. For a historical perspective on procedures relative to resolutions reported back from Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means, see Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 433-9; for reports from a Committee of the Whole, see Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 402-3. See also Beauchesne, 4^th ed., pp. 207-8.
[191]: Beauchesne, 5^th ed., p. 150.
[192]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 399. Amendments and divisions have been recorded in the Journals, but the practice was exceptional. For an example of proceedings in a Committee of the Whole on a bill in the early years of Confederation, see Journals, April 22, 1870, pp. 230-1. Prior to 1968 when resolutions were adopted before the first reading of a bill, proceedings in regard to these resolutions in a Committee of the Whole were also recorded in the Journals (see, for example, Journals, June 21, 1965, p. 284). Proceedings of Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means were recorded in the Journals as were any resolutions providing for the expenditure of public money or the imposition of taxes. See, for example, Journals, October 19, 1962, pp. 124-5; May 28, 1965, p. 161. See also Journals, January 28, 1988, p. 2076, when the House resolved into a Committee of the Whole to consider an item in the Supplementary Estimates.
[193]: See, for example, Journals, August 27, 1987 pp. 1392-4; September 30, 1991, pp. 418-9; April 16, 1997, pp. 1478-9; December 2, 1997, p. 316; October 6, 1998, p. 2025. In 1971, proposed government amendments to a bill were tabled and printed as an Appendix to the Votes and Proceedings (Journals, October 13, 1971, p. 868; October 28, 1971, p. 895). The amendments were subsequently moved and printed in the Debates the following day (Debates, October 22, 1971, pp. 8934-61; October 29, 1971, pp. 9157-70). On another occasion, the Royal Recommendations covering amendments to be proposed in a Committee of the Whole were printed in the Journals (June 2, 1983, pp. 5954-7).