House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Second Edition, 2009

House of Commons Procedure and Practice - 19. Committees of the Whole House - Conduct of Debate in a Committee of the Whole

Conduct of Debate in a Committee of the Whole

Business in a Committee of the Whole is considered less formal than business in the House and, while certain specific rules apply to this forum, its Chairs are normally more flexible in enforcing them.^{^[81]}

Proceedings in a Committee of the Whole are governed by the Standing Orders as far as may be applicable, except for four major differences relating to the seconding of motions, permission to speak more than once, the length of speeches and the place from which Members may speak.

First, the rules and practices that apply to motions in the House generally apply in a Committee of the Whole, except that motions do not require a seconder.^{^[82]} However, once moved, motions may be withdrawn only by the mover and only with the unanimous consent of the Committee.^{^[83]}

Second, contrary to the current Standing Orders in the House stipulating that a Member may not speak more than once in a given debate, a Member participating in a debate in Committee of the Whole is not limited in the number of times he or she may speak to a question.^{^[84]} As in any parliamentary committee, the previous question cannot be moved in a Committee of the Whole, because one of the primary functions of the Committee is to deliberate.^{^[85]}

Third, speeches in a Committee of the Whole are not subject to the many rules respecting the length of speeches for the various types of debate in the House. Committees of the Whole have special time limit rules that vary according to the type of study being conducted.^{^[86]} Contrary to the normal practice in the House, however, Members may not share their speaking time.^{^[87]}

Fourth, because they are meeting as a committee, it is not necessary for Members to be in their place in order to speak.^{^[88]} Members must, however, wait to be recognized by the Chair before speaking or moving a motion. In addition, as in the House, where all remarks are addressed to the Speaker, Members must address all remarks to the Chair.^{^[89]} It has occurred however, that Members address one another, ask questions and receive answers directly.^{^[90]} In these exchanges, Members should nevertheless always refer to one another by the names of their ridings as is done in the House.^{^[91]}

The relevancy rule stipulates that debate in a Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item, clause or amendment under consideration.^{^[92]} If a Member’s speech is not relevant to the debate, the Chair is empowered to call the Member to order.^{^[93]} An exception which has developed to the rule of relevance is the wide‑ranging debate permitted on Clause 1 of a bill (or Clause 2 if Clause 1 only contains the short title of a bill).^{^[94]} Certain limits have nonetheless been established for consideration of Clause 1, including proscriptions against any repetition of second-reading debate and against anticipation of the clause‑by‑clause debate.^{^[95]} Moreover, debate must be confined to the contents of the bill.^{^[96]} A further limitation applies when an amendment has been proposed to Clause 1: remarks must be restricted to the amendment until it has been disposed of.^{^[97]}

If a Member persists in irrelevance or repetition, refuses to withdraw unparliamentary remarks or to resume his or her seat when so requested, or if the proceedings become disorderly and the Chair is unable to restore order and decorum in the Committee, the Chair may rise and report the incident to the Speaker without seeking leave of the Committee. The Speaker takes the Chair, receives the report of the Chair of the Committee, deals with the matter as if the incident had happened in the House and may subsequently name the Member if necessary.^{^[98]} In the case of unparliamentary language, the Speaker may simply ask the Member to withdraw the remarks. In extreme cases of disorder in a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker has taken the Chair without waiting for the Chair of the Committee to report.^{^[99]} In all cases, after the matter has been dealt with, the Committee can resume its deliberations without a motion to that effect.

Questions of Privilege

Given that the House rarely sits as a Committee of the Whole and that when it does, the proceedings are typically completed in a matter of minutes, questions of privilege in a Committee of the Whole are infrequent today. The practice regarding the raising of questions of privilege in a Committee of the Whole is, nonetheless, identical to that for any standing, legislative or special committee. The Chair has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege has occurred.^{^[100]} The Chair hears the question of privilege and may receive and put a motion that certain events which occurred in the Committee should be reported to the House.^{^[101]} If the Committee decides that the matter should be reported, then the Chair rises, the Speaker takes the Chair, and the Chair of the Committee reports the question of privilege.^{^[102]} The Speaker then deals with the matter. If a prima facie case of privilege is found by the Speaker, a Member may move a motion dealing with the matter.^{^[103]}

The Speaker will hear a question of privilege in regard to a matter that occurred in a Committee of the Whole only if the matter has been dealt with first in the Committee of the Whole and reported accordingly to the House.^{^[104]}

When the House is in a Committee of the Whole, a Member may not rise on a question of privilege affecting the privileges of the House in general; however, a Member may move a motion for the Committee to rise and report progress in order that the Speaker may hear the question of privilege.^{^[105]}

Interruptions

When proceedings in a Committee of the Whole are interrupted in order for the House to proceed with scheduled items of daily business (for example, at 2:00 p.m. Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, and 11:00 a.m. on Friday, for Statements by Members and Question Period; or an interruption for a scheduled recorded division in the House), or if the Committee is unable to complete its business at the conclusion of the time allotted for Government Orders,^{^[106]} the Chair interrupts the proceedings and rises. The Speaker takes the Chair and the Committee reports progress to the House, requesting leave to consider its business again later that day or at the next sitting of the House. The report is then received by the House and the Committee is granted leave to sit again later that day or at the next sitting of the House.^{^[107]} After the interruption, the Committee may resume sitting if the Order is called.^{^[108]} The House may also, by special order, schedule its own interruption of proceedings in Committee of the Whole and its resumption at a specific time the same day or during a subsequent sitting.^{^[109]}

If business arises which requires the attention of the House, for example, a Royal Assent ceremony, the Speaker takes the Chair immediately without waiting for the Committee to rise and report progress.^{^[110]} When the matter which led to the interruption is concluded, the Committee resumes sitting. Messages received from the Senate will not interrupt the proceedings of the Committee; these messages are only reported to the House by the Speaker after the Committee has risen and reported and before another Order of the Day is taken up by the House.^{^[111]}

Extension of Debate

When the House is sitting, a Member may move a motion, without notice, to extend the sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to continue consideration of a particular item of business.^{^[112]} However, when the House is in a Committee of the Whole, a Member must indicate his intention to move such a motion; the Chair interrupts the proceedings and, without reporting progress, rises so that the motion can be properly moved and disposed of with the Speaker in the Chair.^{^[113]} The motion cannot be debated or amended.^{^[114]} It is agreed to automatically unless at least 15 Members who object to it rise in their places when the Speaker puts the question, in which case the motion is deemed withdrawn.^{^[115]} On occasion, the House has adopted special orders extending a sitting in order to complete consideration of a bill in a Committee of the Whole.^{^[116]}

Adjournment of Debate

Generally speaking, a Committee of the Whole has no power to adjourn its own sitting or to adjourn consideration of any matter to a future sitting.^{^[117]} If its consideration of a matter is not concluded by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, or if the House is scheduled to proceed with Private Members’ Business or the Adjournment Proceedings, the Chair interrupts the proceedings and rises. The Speaker takes the Chair and the Committee reports progress to the House and requests leave to consider its business again at the next sitting.^{^[118]} The Speaker asks, as a matter of form, “When shall the report be received?” If the answer is “Now”, he or she then asks, “When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?” If the answer is “At the next sitting of the House”, it is so ordered.

Moreover, during proceedings in a Committee of the Whole, a Member may move that the Chair report progress.^{^[119]} A motion “That the Chair report progress” has the same effect as a motion for the House to adjourn debate.^{^[120]} The question is put without debate or amendment. If the motion is adopted, no further debate can occur on the matter under consideration that day. If the motion is rejected, the Committee continues sitting and the question cannot be put again until some intermediate proceeding has taken place.^{^[121]}

After a Committee of the Whole has risen, reported progress and received leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House, when the Order is next called, the House goes into a Committee of the Whole and the Committee resumes its business.^{^[122]}

Termination of Debate

The proceedings in a Committee of the Whole may be brought immediately to a close if a Member moves “That the Chair leave the Chair” and the motion is adopted. Such a motion is always in order, is neither debatable nor amendable and, if adopted, supersedes the question then before the Committee.^{^[123]} If the question on the motion is put and agreed to, the Committee rises without a report to the House and the matter before the Committee disappears from the Order Paper.^{^[124]} If the Committee rejects the motion for the Chair to leave the Chair, the question cannot be put again without some intermediate proceeding having taken place.^{^[125]}

Closure

The Standing Orders provide the government with a procedural device to limit debate and bring about a decision by the House on any motion or bill at the expiration of a given sitting day. This device is known as closure.^{^[126]} Although its use in Committee of the Whole has been substantially reduced because in modern practice fewer bills and motions are referred to it for consideration, closure may still be invoked.

Once debate has begun in a Committee of the Whole, closure may be applied to a motion; to the whole committee stage of a bill; to its title, preamble or its clauses, individually or in groups; or to amendments or subamendments. Furthermore, closure may be moved on clauses of a bill which have not yet been called.^{^[127]}

However, before invoking closure on a matter being considered in a Committee of the Whole, a notice must be given orally at a previous sitting by a Minister. This notice is normally given while a Committee of the Whole is considering the matter to be closured.^{^[128]} When oral notice has been given, a Minister may move, at any subsequent meeting of the Committee of the Whole, “That the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be the first business of the Committee, and shall not further be postponed”.^{^[129]} Such a closure motion is moved before the Committee resumes consideration of the Order to which closure would apply.

Once moved, a closure motion is decided without debate or amendment.^{^[130]} However, before the question is put on the motion, the Committee of the Whole proceeds with a questions and answers period of not more than 30 minutes so that Members may put brief questions to the Minister responsible for the closured item or to the Minister acting on his or her behalf.^{^[131]} If the motion is agreed to, Members’ participation in the debate is restricted: they may speak only once on the question to which closure has been applied, and for no longer than 20 minutes.^{^[132]} No Member may begin speaking after 8:00 p.m. At this time, or a little later if a Member began speaking before 8:00 p.m., the Chair puts all the necessary questions to dispose of the matter.^{^[133]}

In the case of a motion or a resolution that is agreed to and the Committee agrees that it be reported to the House, the Chair rises, the Mace is placed back on the Table, the Speaker resumes the Chair and the Chair of the Committee reports the motion or resolution agreed to in Committee of the Whole to the House. The Speaker then puts the question immediately, without debate or amendment.

If a bill is the subject of the closure motion, the Chair reports the bill back to the House with or without amendment. A motion for concurrence in the bill at report stage is moved and put without debate or amendment.^{^[134]} If the bill is concurred in at report stage and the sitting has not gone beyond the time normally provided for Government Orders, the House can then proceed immediately to the third reading stage of the bill.^{^[135]} If the bill is concurred in at report stage but the sitting has been extended beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the bill is then ordered for third reading at the next sitting and the House is adjourned.^{^[136]}

Divisions

When putting the question on a bill or on one of its parts, or on a motion, the Chair of the Committee first takes a voice vote (the Chair asks those in favour of the motion to say “Yea” and those opposed to the motion to say “Nay”). The Chair listens to both responses, and states his or her opinion as to the result. If there is no objection, the Chair then declares the motion agreed to or negatived, as the case may be. If no Member requests a standing vote (recorded division—it is not necessary to have five Members rise to force a vote as is required in the House^{^[137]}), the Chair declares the bill, clause or motion adopted or negatived. Sometimes, after the yeas and nays have been called, Members say “on division” to signal their opposition and to indicate that the question has not been decided unanimously, without resorting to a recorded division.^{^[138]} The Chair then declares the bill, clause or motion carried or negatived, on division.

In a Committee of the Whole, no bells are rung to call in the Members for a vote^{^[139]} and the names of Members voting for or against an item are not recorded. Members do not have to be in their places in order to vote. The Members present in the Chamber simply rise in rows and are counted by a Table Officer. Those in favour of the motion to the right of the Chair rise first and, after each row has been counted, the Chair asks the Members in that row to sit. The same procedure is followed for those in favour to the left of the Chair. The procedure is repeated for those opposed to the motion. After the count, the Table Officer stands at the end of the Table and reports the number of “yeas” and “nays” to the Chair. The Chair then declares the motion agreed to or negatived.^{^[140]}

While a division is in progress in a Committee of the Whole, no Member may enter the Chamber, as is the case with a vote in the House.^{^[141]} In addition, the Chair will not hear any point of order during a vote.^{^[142]} Paired members are not noted when there is a vote in a Committee of the Whole because no record is kept of the names of Members who voted one way or the other.^{^[143]}

The Chair does not vote in a Committee of the Whole, but in the event of an equality of voices, he or she has a casting vote and is governed by the same rules as the Speaker under similar conditions.^{^[144]} The general principle guiding a Chair of a Committee of the Whole is to vote in such a manner as to preserve the matter for further consideration (that is, in such a way as to maintain the status quo).^{^[145]}

[81] See, for example, Debates, April 24, 2001, p. 3089.

[82] Standing Order 101(1).

[83] See, for example, Debates, December 2, 1997, p. 2615.

[84] Standing Order 101(1). In practice, the Chair generally tries to ensure that all Members who wish to speak are heard before inviting Members to speak again. Speakers are given the floor according to a proportional party rotation based on the size of the various recognized political parties in the House. See, for example, Debates, November 16, 2004, p. 1439.

[85] Moreover, in the case of a bill that has been referred to a Committee of the Whole for clause‑by‑clause consideration, the moving of the previous question would prevent Members from proposing amendments and considering the legislation to the fullest extent possible. See Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 421. This rule appeared as far back as the first edition of May, T.E., A Treatise Upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, South Hackensack, New Jersey: Rothman Reprints Inc., 1971 (reprint of 1st ed., 1844), p. 225. See also May, T.E., Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 22nd ed., edited by Sir D. Limon and W.R. McKay, London: Butterworths, 1997, p. 691; and Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 328. See, for example, Journals, May 7, 1913, pp. 560-1, Debates, cols. 9330-40. See also Standing Order 61. For further information about the previous question, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”, and Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.

[86] These specific rules are discussed below in the sections devoted to the consideration of bills and motions in Committee of the Whole and other uses of Committees of the Whole.

[87] 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 generally in the Chair.

[88] See, for example, Debates, October 15, 1987, p. 10064; October 16, 1987, pp. 10089-90; November 23, 2004, p. 1771. Standing Order 17 also provides that Members need not be in their places to be allowed to speak for two other events in the House: Adjournment Proceedings and Emergency Debates.

[89] See, for example, Debates, February 8, 1994, p. 1084; October 3, 2006, p. 3602.

[90] See, for example, Debates, December 11, 2007, pp. 2068-9.

[91] See, for example, Debates, December 2, 1997, p. 2613; November 1, 2006, p. 4592.

[92] Standing Order 101(2).

[93] Standing Order 11(2). See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2937, 2979; March 15, 1995, p. 10566.

[94] There is no provision for this practice in the Standing Orders; nonetheless, it has become an accepted practice over the years. See, for example, Debates, November 30, 1978, pp. 1657, 1665. For further information on relevance, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.

[95] See Chairman’s ruling (Debates, May 11, 1960, pp. 3783‑4, 3788‑9).

[96] See Chairman’s ruling (Debates, March 23, 1965, p. 12693).

[97] See Chairman’s rulings (Debates, August 2, 1960, p. 7418; December 11, 1979, p. 2239).

[98] Standing Order 11(2). While a Member has never been named for persisting in irrelevance or repetition in a Committee of the Whole, there have been occasions when Members were named for unparliamentary language or for failing to respect decorum. 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 (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 (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 (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 (Debates, May 15, 1956, pp. 3967‑9). In fact, it is only since 1986 that the Speaker has had the authority, under Standing Order 11, to “name” a Member without putting a motion to the House (Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1644-66, in particular pp. 1645-6; February 13, 1986, p. 1710; June 3, 1987, p. 1016).

[99] 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. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 397.

[100] See Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”. See also Maingot, J.P.J., Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2nd ed., Montreal: House of Commons and McGill‑Queen’s University Press, 1997, pp. 231-2.

[101] Often, when a Member rises on a question of privilege in a Committee of the Whole, the Chair 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.

[102] Beauchesne, 4th 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 other Member apologized and the Speaker declared the matter closed (Debates, October 15, 1987, p. 10064; October 16, 1987, pp. 10089‑90).

[103] For further information on the procedure for dealing with matters of privilege, see Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.

[104] See, for example, Debates, June 12, 1980, pp. 2030‑1; December 20, 1983, pp. 364‑9. In the 1983 instance, a Member argued that because the Committee had risen and reported progress, the House was apprised of the circumstances surrounding the question of privilege. The Speaker ruled that the Committee had only risen, reported progress and asked for leave to sit again. The Committee had not reported the bill or any concerns to the House.

[105] See, for example, Debates, April 30, 1964, p. 2782; October 29, 1964, pp. 9561‑2; June 2, 1966, pp. 5908‑9.

[106] See, for example, Debates, December 20, 1988, pp. 419, 517.

[107] See, for example, Journals, September 30, 1991, pp. 412, 414; April 21, 1997, p. 1494; Debates, December 20, 1988, pp. 419, 517; September 30, 1991, pp. 2904, 2950; April 21, 1997, p. 9984.

[108] See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2924, 2954; April 21, 1997, p. 10000.

[109] See, for example, Journals, October 7, 2004, pp. 58-9, and October 12, 2004, p. 83, when a take-note debate was held in two parts over two evenings, by Special Order (Journals, October 7, 2004, p. 33).

[110] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 397. See, for example, Journals, May 9, 1933, pp. 537‑8; June 20, 1951, pp. 581‑2.

[111] Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 401‑2.

[112] Standing Order 26(1). The motion must be proposed during the hour prior to consideration of the item of business being interrupted by the beginning of Private Members’ Business or by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, as the case may be.

[113] Standing Order 26(1)(a). See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1969, pp. 6606‑7; March 20, 1969, p. 6933; November 9, 1970, pp. 1030‑1; November 16, 1970, pp. 1222‑3; November 17, 1970, p. 1270. In 1992, such a motion was moved and carried, but only after the Chairman had risen, reported progress and requested leave to consider a bill at the next sitting of the House. After the hour for Private Members’ Business had been completed, the House resumed sitting in a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill (Journals, December 11, 1992, pp. 2400‑1, Debates, p. 15145).

[114] Standing Order 26(1)(c).

[115] Standing Order 26(2).

[116] See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1987, p. 1052; October 15, 1987, p. 1687; September 17, 1991, pp. 354‑5.

[117] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 399.

[118] See, for example, Debates, December 20, 1988, p. 517; December 11, 1992, p. 15145.

[119] See, for example, Debates, November 8, 1919, pp. 1992‑3; March 17, 1966, p. 2825; November 30, 1978, p. 1679. However, this procedure is out of order when the House has resolved into a Committee of the Whole for a take-note debate under Standing Order 53.1, which stipulates that no motions may be moved except a motion “That the Committee do now rise”. A motion to adjourn the debate is also out of order when estimates are being considered in Committee of the Whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) as this debate cannot be adjourned because the estimates are deemed reported as soon as the debate concludes. These matters are dealt with in greater detail in the section in this chapter entitled “Other Uses of Committees of the Whole.”

[120] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 399.

[121] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 400. In a Committee of the Whole, an intermediate proceeding could be the moving of an amendment, the disposal of a clause or the motion “That the Chair leave the Chair”.

[122] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 397.

[123] Standing Order 102(1). For the first 45 years of Confederation, it was more common for Members to move simply “That the Committee do now rise”. The motion was debatable and had the effect of superseding whatever matter was then before the Committee. See, for example, Debates, May 19, 1869, pp. 393‑4; March 5, 1884, p. 671; May 9, 1892, cols. 2294‑305. In 1913, the House adopted a Standing Order which attempted to list all debatable motions. See current Standing Order 67. Omissions in this list provoked discussions about what motions were in fact debatable; one such discussion in 1916 concerned the motion “That the Chairman leave the Chair”. In ruling that this motion was correctly omitted from the list, and that as a result debate could not take place on it, the Chairman also established that the correct motion to move was “That the Chairman leave the Chair” and not “That the Committee do now rise” (Debates, April 3, 1916, pp. 2449, 2453‑4). Today, however, the latter motion is in order once again, and in fact is used in Standing Order 53.1. In 1927, the Standing Order was formally amended to prohibit debate on the motion “That the Chairman leave the Chair”. See Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1927, Standing Order 59.

[124] Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 400, 527. On a number of occasions during the early years of Confederation, Committees of the Whole either rose without reporting progress on a bill or adopted motions to the effect that the Chairman now leave the Chair. See, for example, Journals, May 19, 1869, p. 106; May 23, 1874, p. 326; March 29, 1883, p. 157; April 7, 1886, p. 126. The matter under consideration would disappear from the Order Paper. In 1883, the Speaker ruled that a committee could not “kill” a bill and that a bill which had disappeared from the Order Paper in this manner could be revived by a motion, moved without notice, that the bill be considered in a committee on a future day (Journals, March 30, 1883, pp. 159‑60, Debates, pp. 331‑2).

[125] Standing Order 102(2).

[126] Standing Order 57. Closure was first introduced in 1913 (Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507‑9) and applied in a Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Naval Aid Bill (Debates, May 9, 1913, col. 9445). For further information on closure, see Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.

[127] On four occasions, in 1913, 1917 (twice) and 1919, all clauses had been called and postponed before closure was moved (Debates, May 9, 1913, col. 9445; August 28, 1917, p. 5016; September 12, 1917, p. 5707; April 28, 1919, p. 1797). In three other cases, in 1932, 1956 and 1988, closure was applied to clauses which had not been called (Debates, April 1, 1932, p. 1609; May 31, 1956, p. 4498; June 1, 1956, pp. 4554‑6; December 21, 1988, p. 541). When closure was moved in 1988, during debate in the Committee of the Whole on Bill C‑2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) raised a point of order questioning the form of the motion, and arguing that the closure motion was not procedurally acceptable because it attempted to closure parts of the bill which had not been debated or postponed. The Chairman of Committees of the Whole ruled that on the basis of the 1932 and 1956 precedents, closure may be applied in a Committee of the Whole to parts of a bill not yet debated. The Chairman’s ruling was subsequently appealed to the Speaker who sustained the decision (Journals, December 21, 1988, pp. 67‑8, Debates, pp. 532‑41).

[128] Standing Order 57. The Standing Order does not specify when oral notice has to be given. For examples of notices in a Committee of the Whole, see Debates, May 8, 1913, col. 9444; August 28, 1917, p. 5015; September 11, 1917, p. 5702; April 25, 1919, p. 1789; March 31, 1932, p. 1605; May 30, 1956, pp. 4464‑5; December 20, 1988, p. 500.

[129] Standing Order 57.

[130] Standing Order 57. See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1913, col. 9445; August 28, 1917, p. 5016; September 12, 1917, p. 5707; April 28, 1919, p. 1797; April 1, 1932, p. 1609; May 15, 1956, p. 3895. On two occasions, points of order were raised immediately after the closure motion was proposed; the question on the motion was put in both instances only after the Chairman’s ruling had been appealed to the Speaker and sustained (Debates, May 31, 1956, pp. 4498‑528; June 1, 1956, pp. 4554‑6; December 21, 1988, pp. 532, 541).

[131] Standing Order 67.1. Adopted in 2001, this procedure is designed to improve ministerial accountability by providing an opportunity for the government to justify its use of this extraordinary measure. To date, no precedent has been set as no such questions and answers period has been held in a Committee of the Whole. The last time closure was invoked in Committee of the Whole dates back to 1988. For further information, see Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.

[132] Standing Order 57. See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 573, 575.

[133] See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 585. In 1988, Standing Order 57 stipulated that debate was to conclude at 1:00 a.m. This was changed to 11:00 p.m. in 1991, and then to 8:00 p.m. in 2001.

[134] Standing Order 76.1(12). See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 587‑9.

[135] Standing Order 76.1(11). In 1932, a bill that had been closured in a Committee of the Whole was read a third time at the same sitting because the Committee reported back to the House before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment (Debates, April 1, 1932, pp. 1609‑37).

[136] See, for example, Journals, June 1, 1956, p. 689; December 21, 1988, pp. 68‑9.

[137] Standing Order 45(1). See, for example, Debates, December 20, 1983, p. 352; June 6, 2001, pp. 4732‑3.

[138] See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 586; June 6, 2001, pp. 4732‑3.

[139] See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, p. 2952.

[140] Such votes have taken place in Committees of the Whole on a number of occasions. See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 585‑7; September 30, 1991, p. 2997; June 6, 2001, p. 4736. For examples of applied votes in a Committee of the Whole, see Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 587; December 2, 1997, p. 2617.

[141] Debates, April 17, 1962, p. 3080. This rule has been difficult to enforce because the procedures for a division are less formal when the House sits as a Committee of the Whole: there are no division bells calling Members to vote; the Whips do not signal to the Chair that Members are ready to vote; and Members do not have to be standing at their place. See, for example, Debates, December 1, 1971, pp. 10072‑4; December 2, 1971, pp. 10075‑6; December 20, 1983, pp. 352‑4, 382‑3, 388, 390.

[142] Debates, December 20, 1983, p. 352.

[143] Debates, March 8, 1935, pp. 1541‑2. Pairing is a recorded arrangement between a Member of the government party and a Member of an opposition party who agree not to vote on a specific day. Independent Members may also be paired. For further information on pairing, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

[144] Standing Order 9. See Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 398. As noted in Dawson, there has been a lack of consistency in this practice (Dawson, W.F., Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962, p. 183). In 1904, a Chairman voted against a motion to report progress and asked leave to sit again. In 1920 and 1928, the Chairman voted against amendments to a clause of a bill in order to leave the matter open. In 1922, the Chairman voted for an amendment without giving reasons. See Debates, June 20, 1904, col. 5164; April 15, 1920, p. 1265; June 23, 1922, p. 3473; March 26, 1928, p. 1681. The casting vote of the Chair is also discussed in Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”, and Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

[145] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 384.