With a few exceptions, all studies
conducted by committees are based on an order of reference or instruction from
the House of Commons (and the Senate in the case of joint committees).[242]
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.
The Standing Orders provide orders of
reference to standing committees that set out departmental and policy-area
responsibilities.[243]
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,[244]
the estimates,[245]
Order-in-Council appointments for non-judicial positions or Officers of
Parliament,[246]
and bills.[247]
In addition to the orders of reference mentioned in the Standing Orders, the
House reserves the right to refer other matters to its committees as it deems
appropriate.[248]
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 voted on 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, and so on).
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.[249]
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, if they wish, request an instruction from the House by presenting
a report to it.
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.[250]
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.
A Minister may present a motion to
establish a new committee or to mandate a standing, special or legislative
committee to prepare a bill.[251] 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.[252]
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.[253]
A committee has also, on its own initiative,
considered a draft bill introduced in the House by the government and reported
its observations and comments on it.[254]
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,[255] and the committee in question may be a legislative, standing or
special[256] committee. Bills may also be referred to a Committee of the Whole
after second reading.[257] On rare occasions, the House has referred bills to joint
committees.[258] Private bills must be referred to legislative committees.[259]
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.[260]
It may happen that the House provides
additional instructions following this order of reference, such as, for
instance, the instruction to divide the bill.[261]
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 Members have the first
opportunity to propose amendments to the bill.[262]
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.[263]
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 his or her Parliamentary
Secretary. The Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, often accompanied by the
responsible public servants, then explains the provisions of the bill[264] to the members. 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: 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.[265] 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.[266]
Normally, there is no requirement to give
notice of amendments moved at committee stage.[267]
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;
such a motion does not prevent the tabling of amendments once clause-by-clause
consideration has begun, unless the committee decides otherwise.[268] The legislative clerk arranges the amendments in a package in the
order in which they appear in the bill. When there is sufficient time, and 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.[269]
The rest of the clauses will be considered one by one in the order 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.[270] 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.[271]
They may be submitted in either official language, and must be submitted in
writing. The committee may only consider one amendment at a time. Each
amendment is debated and voted on by the committee.[272]
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, subject to
debate, may be moved to the amendments.[273] The committee may only consider 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 that were not the subject of any amendments.[274]
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.[275] 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.
Once a committee has concluded its
consideration of the clauses of a bill, a motion proposing its adoption either as
such, or as amended, is proposed. The committee then moves 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.[276]
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,[277] other than the amendments the committee made to the bill.[278] 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.[279]
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.[280] In
the case of public bills, the House may also invoke the Standing Orders
provisions concerning time allocation.[281]
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 either 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;[282] or present a report requesting a 30 sitting day extension to
conclude the consideration of the bill (only one such extension may be
requested).[283] 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.[284]
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.[285] 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.[286] This type of study usually leads to the presentation of substantive
reports.[287]
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.[288] 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[289] instructions, with the exception of a timeframe for the study and
report of the bill. The committee must, however, limit its reconsideration to
the parts of the bill specified in the new order of reference, if any.
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, and/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.[290] 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.[291]
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.[292]
The legislation generally provides that the
committees charged with such reviews must report their conclusions and
recommendations[293] to Parliament. 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 that 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.[294]
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.[295] 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.[296]
Certain acts adopted by Parliament entrust
committees of the House with a role in the review, approval or rejection/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.[297] In concrete terms, this role is played by the Standing Joint
Committee on 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 statutory instrument, 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 is deemed to
have been moved and carried 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 submitted a 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.[298]
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.[299]
When the proposal is tabled, it is deemed referred to the appropriate standing
committee in one or the other House of Parliament,[300]
which may then review it.[301] The Act provides that the committee in question may present a
report setting out its recommendations as to the appropriate fees. 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.[302] If the committee does present a report, the Act provides that the
House of Parliament concerned may approve, reject or amend its recommendations.[303]
From time to time the House refers to its
committees the consideration of specific matters for more in-depth study.[304] These orders of reference may include an obligation to report and
the imposition of time limits within which the committees must complete the
study and/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,[305] insofar as it falls within the mandate provided to them by the
Standing Orders.[306] 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. These
studies represent a large part of the work done by committees and the reports
they present to the House.[307]
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.[308] These are tabled by Ministers of the Crown or the Speaker of the
House pursuant to the laws of Canada and are, pursuant to the Standing Orders,
referred “on a permanent basis” to the relevant standing committees.[309] 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.[310]
The committees are free to decide whether or not to examine these documents or
to initiate a study based on the information they contain.
The main estimates are the government’s projected
spending for the coming fiscal year, broken down by department and program.[311] 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. Where additional funds are
required, or where the reallocation of already appropriated funds is necessary,
during a fiscal year, the government tables supplementary estimates.[312]
The Standing Orders provide for detailed
consideration of the estimates, both main and supplementary, by standing
committees.[313] 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.[314] The orders of reference are recorded in the Journals of the
House.
The main estimates for the coming fiscal
year are required to be tabled in the House and referred to standing committees
by no later than March 1 of each year.[315] The
Standing Orders do not oblige committees to consider the main estimates. When a
committee chooses to study and report on the 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 estimates by that date, it is deemed to have
done so, whether it has actually considered them or not.[316]
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.[317]
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, on the earlier of either 10 sitting days after
the adoption of the extension motion or the sitting day prior to the final
allotted day in that supply period.[318]
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.[319] This applies even if the committees had already begun their
consideration of the estimates in question.[320]
While considering the main estimates,
committees are also empowered to consider expenditure plans and priorities in
future years for the departments and agencies.[321] The
plans and priorities are set out in reports published each year at the end of
February or in March, 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.[322] The reports on plans and priorities 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.[323]
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.[324] 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 during a fiscal year 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 the earlier of the final sitting day or
the final allotted day in the current supply period. As with the main estimates,
if a committee has not reported within the prescribed time, it is deemed to
have reported.[325]
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 main or supplementary
estimates. 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.[326] 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
main or supplementary estimates. For each vote, the Chair puts the question:
“Shall vote [number] carry?”. If it is a vote in the main estimates and interim
supply[327] that has previously been voted by the House, the question put is
instead: “Shall vote [number] in the amount of $[amount], less the amount of
$[amount] granted in interim supply, carry?”.
Each motion may be debated and amended.
Amendments may be presented to reduce the amount of an item.[328] An amendment may not increase the amount of a vote because this
would infringe the financial prerogative of the Crown.[329] An
amendment may also not reduce the amount of a vote to zero, as the proper
course is to vote against the motion “Shall the vote 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 permitted. It is not permitted to attempt
to change the way in which funds are allocated by transferring money from one
item to another,[330] or to change the purpose of a grant or the conditions on which it
is made. In addition, dollar items and statutory items may not be amended by
the committee.[331] When committees have dealt with amendments, they concur in the
votes, whether or not they have been reduced, or defeat the motion(s) to concur
in the votes.
When this work is completed, the committee
adopts a motion instructing the committee Chair to report the votes to the
House.[332] 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.[333] The
Speaker of the House has ruled that reports on the estimates may not contain
substantive recommendations.[334] Any such recommendations must be made in a report presented
separately under the powers and mandate assigned to the committee by the
Standing Orders.[335]
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.[336] Initiatives were acted on during these years including the creation,
in 2002, of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
This 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.[337] The Standing Orders also empower the Committee to amend certain votes
that have been referred to other standing committees, in coordination with
those committees.[338] The votes in question relate to central departments and agencies,
the use of new information and communications technologies by the government
and operational items across all departments and agencies.
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. Appointments of Officers of Parliament
are generally made by the Governor in Council after ratification by each of the
Houses of Parliament.
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.[339] 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.[340] These references are
recorded in the Journals of the House.
A Minister may also table a certificate of
nomination to a non-judicial post in the House.[341] 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.[342]
During that period, the committee may call the appointee or nominee to appear
before it, for a period not to exceed 10 sitting days.[343] 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.[344]
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.
On the order of the committee that has
received such an order of reference, the clerk requests that the Minister’s
office provide the curriculum vitae of the appointee or nominee.[345]
The committees in question have a number of
options:
To
examine and inquire, which may include calling individuals:[347]
for example, the appointee or nominee and/or individuals who have held the
office in the past and/or individuals who may be able to inform the committee
about the requirements of the office;
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.[349]
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.[350]
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.[351]
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.[352] 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.[353]
The Standing Orders provide that where the
government intends to appoint an Officer of Parliament,[354] 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.[355] 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 of the document concerning the
proposed appointment in the House 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 his or her biographical notes are usually tabled in the House
when the proposed appointment is referred to committee.[356] 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.[357]
On occasion, some committees have presented more detailed reports,[358] 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.[359]
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.[360]
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.[361]
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.[362]
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.[363]
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 if he or she so wishes.
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.[364]
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.[365]
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:
To
defer consideration of the matter to a later meeting;[367]
To
examine and inquire into the matter, possibly calling witnesses[368]
(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.[369]
Committees may also decide to adopt a resolution on the matter;[370]
and
[242]
In rare cases, a statute of Canada may give a parliamentary committee a
specific mandate, specifically naming the committee in question. For example,
the Oceans Act (S.C. 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.
[243]
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).
[248]
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. On one occasion, orders of reference to committees were
made further to formal commitments in the Address in Response 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).
[249]
See, for example, Journals, June 29, 1983, p. 6116.
[250]
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.
[252]
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 concurred in, by unanimous consent of the House, a Minister
moved 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)).
[253]
Standing Order 68(6). As regards the Fifty-First Report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 1994, a motion to concur in the report was debated and adopted during Government Orders (Journals,
February 9, 1995, pp. 1107-8; February 14, 1995,
pp. 1125-6). Bill C‑69, the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act, 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 for
clause-by-clause consideration (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 until the end of the session. As to the Twenty-First
Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 1999, 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) (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 shortly thereafter.
[254]
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 Committee Chair, Bonnie Brown, wrote about the
experience in an article entitled “Committees as Agents of Public Policy: The
Standing Committee on Health,” Canadian Parliamentary Review, in
collaboration with N. Miller Chenier and S. Norris, Vol. 26, No. 3,
Autumn 2003, pp. 4-9.
[255]
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”.
[257]
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”.
[258]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.
[259]
Standing Order 141(1). They may, with unanimous consent, be referred to a
Committee of the Whole. See, for example, Journals, February 2,
2007, p. 953.
[261]
In 2001, the House had authorized the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights to divide into two parts Bill C‑15, An Act amending the
Criminal Code and other Acts, 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 other Acts) and C‑15B (An Act to amend the
Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act) for
its own use (Fourth Report of the Committee, presented to the House on October 3,
2001(Journals, p. 686)).
[262]
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”.
[263]
The Speaker generally intervenes after Members have drawn his attention to the
alleged irregularities. See, for example, Speaker Milliken’s ruling concerning
two amendments made in committee to Bill C‑257, An Act to Amend
the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers). The Speaker ruled that these
amendments went beyond the scope of the bill and consequently ruled them
inadmissible. He then ordered that the bill be reprinted without those
amendments (Debates, February 27, 2007, pp. 7386‑7).
[264]
Officials are often 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”.
[265]
On the obligation to report within a prescribed period, see the next section of
this chapter. 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. 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. For further information, see
Standing Order 78, and Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
[266]
One Speaker has 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).
[267]
Committees sometimes adopt rules to require such notice. See, for example, the
Legislative Committee on Bill C‑2, Minutes of Proceedings, May 31,
2006, Meeting No. 17.
[268]
Certain committees impose a deadline after which it is no longer possible to
submit new amendments. See, for example, the Standing Committee on Health, Minutes
of Proceedings, April 14, 2005, Meeting No. 32.
[270]
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 was already moved. Committees may also defer the consideration
of part of the bill or, in a bundle, of 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.
[271]
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”.
[272]
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.
[273]
Just as for amendments, admissibility rules apply to subamendments. For further
information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[274]
See, for example, Standing Committee on Finance, Minutes of Proceedings,
October 4, 2001, Meeting No. 48; Standing Committee on
Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities, Minutes of Proceedings, November 25,
2004, Meeting No. 9.
[275]
See, for example, Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development, Evidence, April 30, 2008, Meeting No. 27.
[276]
See, for example, Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and
Communities, Minutes of Proceedings, February 7, 2008,
Meeting No. 12.
[277]
See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Debates, December 20, 1973,
pp. 774‑5.
[278]
See, for example, the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on National
Defence, presented to the House on June 17, 2008 (Journals,
p. 1000). It has happened that committees have rejected all of the clauses
of a bill and have only reported its title or its number. See, for example, the
Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security,
presented to the House on April 30, 2007 (Journals, p. 1293).
[279]
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 the 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 the Fifth Report of
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented to the House
on February 14, 2008 (Journals, p. 443).
[280]
See, for example, Journals, October 26, 2007, p. 69.
[281]
See, for example, Journals, February 24, 2000, pp. 1018‑9.
For further information on time allocation, see Chapter 14, “The
Curtailment of Debate”.
[282]
See, for example, the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance,
presented to the House on November 21, 2005 (Journals,
p. 1297).
[283]
See, for example, the Fifteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities,
presented to the House on April 18, 2007 (Journals, p. 1226).
[284]
For further information, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[285]
See, for example, Journals, March 20, 2003, pp. 529‑30.
[286]
See, for example, Journals, February 24, 2000, pp. 1023‑4.
[287]
See, for example, the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Official
Languages, presented to the House on October 31, 2003 (Journals,
p. 1216).
[288]
For an example of such an amendment, see Journals, May 2, 2008,
p. 758.
[289]
See Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, May 8, 2008, p. 5632.
[290]
Occasionally, a committee is designated in each of the Houses of Parliament.
For example, the Anti-terrorism Act (S.C. 2001, c. 41) was
reviewed both by a committee of the House (Journals, May 19, 2006,
p. 201) and by a Senate committee (Journals of theSenate, May 2, 2006,
pp. 83‑4).
[291]
See, for example, the Official Languages Act, R.S. 1985
(4th Suppl.), s. 88.
[292]
See for example, the Conflict of Interest Act, S.C. 2006,
c. 9, ss. 67(1) and (2), which state that a review must be held in
the five years following the coming into force of the Act, or the Privacy
Act, R.S. 1985, c. P‑21, ss. 75(1) and (2), which
state that a review must be held every five years following the coming into
force of the Act.
[293]
For an example of this type of report, see the 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 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.
[294]
See, for example, Journals, February 23, 2007, p. 1066.
[295]
See, for example, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (R.S. 1985,
c. 24 (4th Suppl.), s. 9), and the mandate of the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage in Standing Order 108(3)(b).
[296]
See, for example, Journals, June 4, 2002, p. 1470;
April 25, 2006, pp. 60‑1.
[297]Statutory Instruments Act, R.S. 1985, c. S‑22,
ss. 19 and 19.1.
[298]
If the motion repealing the statutory instrument 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 repeal the irregular provisions within 30 days following the
adoption of the motion. For further information, see Chapter 17,
“Delegated Legislation”.
[299]User Fees Act, S.C. 2004, c. 6, s. 4(2). “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).
[300]User Fees Act, S.C. 2004, c. 6, s. 4(4). See, for
example, Journals, March 30, 2007, p. 1196.
[301]
See, for example, Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development, Minutes of Proceedings, May 19, 2005,
Meeting No. 40.
[302]User Fees Act, S.C. 2004, c. 6, s. 6(2). This is recorded
in the Journals of the House. See, for example, Journals,
March 3, 2008, p. 503.
[303]User Fees Act, S.C. 2004, c. 6, 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.
[304]
See, for example, Journals, February 8, 1994, pp. 132‑4.
[305]
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 (see the Third Report of the Special
Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, June 1985, pp. 18‑9;
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 the Sixth Report of the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented to the House on February 28,
2008 (Journals, p. 484). This report concerns the mandate of CBC/Radio‑Canada. 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.
[306]
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 timeframe.
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).
[307]
During the 2007-08 fiscal year, studies initiated by committees made up
approximately 38 percent of the committee hearings, and approximately 39
percent of the reports presented to the House during that period.
[308]
Standing Order 32(5). Prior to 1982, committees were unable without a
specific order of reference 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, November 20, 1997, Meeting No. 6.
[309]
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, April 7, 2008, p. 657. In the vast majority
of cases, the Minister (or the Speaker of the House if he or she 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).
[310]
In accordance with Standing Order 153, the Clerk 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.
[311]
For further information on the overall estimates process, see Chapter 18,
“Financial Procedures”.
[312]
Programs whose funding and funding levels are already prescribed by statute are
included with the estimates, marked “(S)” or “Statutory”. As these expenditures
have already been approved by the passage of the appropriate legislation, they
are not referred to committee for examination, but are provided for information
purposes only. 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.
[314]
See, for example, Journals, February 14, 2008, pp. 441-3 (main
estimates); October 30, 2007, pp. 81-3 (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 13, 1995, p. 1207.
[317]
Standing Order 81(4)(b). See, for example, Journals, May 30,
2007, p. 1447. Notice must be given during the time specified in Standing
Order 54.
[318]
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)).
[326]
See, for example, Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development, Minutes of Proceedings, November 29, 2007, Meeting
No. 4. 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.
[327]
Interim supply consists of funds approved by Parliament to cover government
expenditures for the period from April to June of each fiscal year, pending
approval of the main estimates in June. For further information, see Chapter
18, “Financial Procedures”.
[328]
The usual wording of an amendment of this nature is: “That vote [number] in the
amount of $[amount] be reduced by $[amount] to $[amount]”. When proposing the
reduction of a vote, it is necessary to take into account the fact that a part
of the total amount may already have been approved by the House in granting
interim supply. The amendment will then read: “That vote [number] in the amount
of $[amount], less the amount of $[amount] granted in interim supply, be
reduced by $[amount] to $[amount]”.
[329]
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, the 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).
[330]
See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, March 24, 1970,
pp. 636‑7.
[331]
See, for example, Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion, Minutes
of Proceedings and Evidence, May 7, 1986, Issue No. 1,
p. 8.
[332]
See, for example, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, Minutes
of Proceedings, March 4, 2008, Meeting No. 19. 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 credits
again and made a fresh order that they be reported to the House.
[333]
See, for example, the First Report of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations and Estimates, presented to the House on November 29, 2004 (Journals,
pp. 268-9).
[334]
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.
[335]
Standing Order 108(2) and (3). See, for example, the 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).
[336]
See, for example, the 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”; the
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”; the
First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of
the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 33-6, 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 (Journals, October 3,
2001, p. 685); the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization
and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 43-6,
presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915) and
concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995); the 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”. For a discussion of the review of estimates and prospects
in this area, see Stillborn, J., “Parliamentary Review of Estimates:
Initiatives and Prospects”, Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 29,
No. 4, Winter 2006‑07, pp. 22-7.
[338]
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.
[339]
Standing Order 110(1). See, for example, Journals, January 28,
2008, pp. 348-350. In its Third Report, the McGrath Committee recommended
that committees review Order‑in‑Council appointments. 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. See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the
House of Commons, June 1985, pp. 29‑34; Journals,
February 6, 1986, pp. 1644‑66, in particular p. 1664;
February 13, 1986, p. 1710; June 3, 1987,
pp. 1016‑28; Debates, October 30, 1986,
p. 889. 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).
[340]
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.
[342]
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.
[343]
Standing Order 111(1). In practice, a large majority of committees devote only
one meeting to the appearance of an appointee or nominee.
[345]
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 Government Operations and
Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, November 7, 2002, Meeting No. 1. The curricula
vitae are then distributed to members or made available to them on request.
[346]
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, p. 1998.
[347]
See, for example, Standing Committee on Finance, Minutes of Proceedings,
December 5, 2007, Meeting No. 14.
[348]
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.
[350]
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 to committee members (Debates,
April 18, 2002, pp. 10539‑40; January 30, 2007,
pp. 6174-5).
[351]
See, for example, the Third Report of the Committee on Canadian Heritage,
presented to the House of Commons on February 1, 2008 (Journals,
p. 372).
[352]
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, the Director of Public
Prosecutions Act (S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 4(4) and (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, March 3, 2008, pp. 499-501).
[353]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. See the 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).
[354]
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. See
par. 42 of the report, 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 (Journals, October 3, 2001,
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 (Journals,
March 31, 2004, pp. 245-6) 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.
[355]
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 12, 2007, p. 1507. 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. See par. 42-4 of the First Report of the
Committee, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals,
p. 465) and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals,
pp. 691-693) pursuant to a Special Order (Journals, October 3,
2001, p. 685). The reference to the Ethics Commissioner in the Standing
Orders was added in 2004 when the House concurred in a report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Twenty-Fifth Report, presented to the
House on April 27, 2004 (Journals, p. 319) and concurred in on
April 29, 2004 (Journals, p. 349)).
[356]
See, for example, Journals, February 9, 2007, p. 987.
[357]
See, for example, the Thirty-Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on February 21, 2007 (Journals,
p. 1042).
[358]
See, for example, the 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.
[359]
See, for example, the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations and Estimates, presented to the House on November 7, 2003 (Journals,
p. 1259).
[360]
Standing Order 111.1(2). The Standing Orders are silent as to potential
conflicts that could arise in the event that a committee’s report on a proposed
appointment were to be concurred in by the House before the motion to ratify
the appointment was formally moved.
[363]
Standing Orders 36(8)(b) and 39(5)(b). See, for example, Journals,
April 19, 2004, p. 273 (petition) and
September 18, 2006, p. 392 (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 (par. 17‑8, presented to the House on
June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on
October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691‑3), following a Special
Order (Journals, October 3, 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. See the Fourth Report of the
Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the
House of Commons, par. 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).
[365]
The Member may attend the meeting, but this is not necessary for the order of
reference to be considered.
[366]
This frequently 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.
[367]
Many committees 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).
[368]
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.
[369]
See, for example, Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes
of Proceedings, March 25, 2004, Meeting No. 5.
[370]
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.
[371]
To date, no committee has ever reported such an order of reference to the
House.
