House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Second Edition, 2009

House of Commons Procedure and Practice - 19. Committees of the Whole House - Consideration of Bills in a Committee of the Whole

Consideration of Bills in a Committee of the Whole

After a bill has been read a second time, the House may order it referred to a Committee of the Whole either pursuant to the Standing Orders,^{^[146]} by unanimous consent^{^[147]} or by special order.^{^[148]}

All appropriation or supply bills (bills authorizing the actual withdrawal of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for government expenditures) are automatically referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration.^{^[149]} These bills are usually considered at the end of the sitting on the last allotted day in a supply period when little or no debating time remains. The Standing Orders provide for the Speaker to interrupt the proceedings at that time and put all questions necessary, without further debate, to dispose of all stages of any supply bills.^{^[150]} Thus, the committee stage is generally very brief and the bills are reported back to the House, invariably without amendment, within a matter of minutes. On occasion, by special order, the House proceeds even more rapidly and deems the bills adopted at all stages.^{^[151]}

Often a Committee of the Whole will examine non‑controversial bills or bills dealing with matters of political importance for which arrangements on the use of House time have been made. Also, the House has examined urgent legislation, such as legislation terminating strikes, by unanimous consent or by special order in a Committee of the Whole.^{^[152]} Many of these bills are considered by unanimous consent of the House at two or more stages in one sitting.^{^[153]}

Rules of Debate and Proceedings

When the House resolves into a Committee of the Whole for the consideration of bills, the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have unlimited speaking time.^{^[154]} Members have 20 minutes at a time to make speeches, to ask questions and to receive replies every time they rise to speak.^{^[155]} The Chair must apply the 20-minute limit to ensure the Minister or sponsor has an opportunity to answer a final question within the 20 minutes.

A bill is considered within a Committee of the Whole in much the same way it would be if it were referred to a standing, special or legislative committee.^{^[156]} Consideration of the preamble and title (as well as Clause 1 if it only contains the short title of the bill) are postponed.^{^[157]} Each clause is a distinct question and is disposed of separately in numerical order. Traditionally, when Clause 1 (or Clause 2 if Clause 1 contains only the short title of the bill^{^[158]}) is called, the Committee holds a general debate, similar to that at second reading, covering the principles and details of the bill. After Clause 1 (or Clause 2) is disposed of, debate must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration.^{^[159]} This tends to make debate on subsequent clauses shorter. Amendments and subamendments to a clause may be moved. If they are found procedurally acceptable by the Chair, they are debated and disposed of before the next clause is called.^{^[160]} After a clause has been considered, the Chair asks if it shall carry.^{^[161]} Once a clause has been disposed of, it may not be discussed again during consideration of another clause. New clauses, schedules, new schedules, Clause 1 (if it contains only the short title of the bill), the preamble and the title are the last items considered.^{^[162]} Similar to proceedings in standing, special, or legislative committees, consideration of particular clauses may be postponed or stood by decision of the Committee.^{^[163]}

When consideration of a bill in a Committee of the Whole is completed, the Chair requests leave to report the bill. Often leave is granted automatically, but it is not unusual for a division to take place on the motion.^{^[164]} Once leave is granted, the Mace is placed back on the Table, the Speaker takes the Chair and the Chair of the Committee reports the bill, with or without amendment, to the House.^{^[165]} The report is then received by the House and the Speaker immediately puts the question on the motion for the bill to be concurred in at report stage.^{^[166]} No amendments or debate are allowed at this stage.^{^[167]}

Should the bill be concurred in at report stage, the third reading motion may be proposed in the same sitting.^{^[168]} However, if the bill has been read a second time that same sitting, the third reading motion may only be moved with the unanimous consent of the House because the Standing Orders dictate that the three readings of a bill should occur on different days.^{^[169]} With the consent of the House, the third reading motion may be proposed immediately, which is the usual practice,^{^[170]} or later during the same sitting. Third reading may also take place at the next sitting of the House.^{^[171]}

During consideration of the motion for third reading, an amendment may not be proposed to recommit to a Committee of the Whole a bill that has been previously considered by a standing committee.^{^[172]} Such an amendment to recommit the bill usually limits consideration in the Committee to certain clauses, or new proposed amendments.^{^[173]} In some cases, no limitation is included.^{^[174]} If agreed to, this motion becomes an instruction to the Committee.^{^[175]}

Time Allocation

The Standing Orders provide a mechanism, referred to as time allocation, for restricting the length of debate on bills.^{^[176]} It allows the government party to negotiate with the opposition parties to establish, in advance, a timetable for the consideration of a public bill at one or more legislative stages, including debate in Committee of the Whole. In the absence of an agreement among the representatives of all parties or among a majority of the representatives of the parties, the government may also use time allocation to determine, with the agreement of the House, the period of time remaining for committee deliberations. The amount of time allocated may not, however, be less than one sitting day. In this particular case, the government must give prior notice orally at a previous sitting. Before the vote on the motion of time allocation, a 30‑minute questions and answers period must also be held for the government to justify its use of this measure.^{^[177]}

Time allocation has rarely been imposed in a Committee of the Whole.^{^[178]} Bills that are referred to it may deal with matters of political importance on which arrangements have been made on the use of House time; it is therefore not necessary to allocate time. In addition, the House often prefers to make special orders that enable it to move quickly to set specific time limits for the consideration of legislation in a Committee of the Whole.^{^[179]} These special orders are generally negotiated between the parties before being agreed to by unanimous consent.

Motions of Instruction

Motions of instruction are derived from British practice which was developed in the second half of the nineteenth century and incorporated into Canadian practice, although they have seldom been used. Instructions to a Committee of the Whole dealing with legislation are not mandatory but permissive, that is, the Committee has the discretion to decide whether it will exercise the power given to it by the House to do something which it otherwise would have no authority to do.^{^[180]} However, if the Committee itself wishes to extend its powers, it must request that the House give it an instruction to this effect.^{^[181]} Today, given that the House usually refers a bill to a Committee of the Whole to expedite its passage, the House typically defines the guidelines under which the Committee will work by special order.^{^[182]}

In the event the House wishes to instruct a Committee of the Whole to do something, a motion of instruction may be moved without notice immediately after a bill has been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole but before the House has resolved itself into the Committee.^{^[183]} An instruction to a Committee of the Whole has also been moved as a substantive motion under the rubric “Motions” during Routine Proceedings when a bill was already before the Committee.^{^[184]} A motion of instruction is debatable and amendable.^{^[185]}

Members have moved motions instructing a Committee of the Whole to divide a bill into several bills,^{^[186]} to consolidate several bills into one bill,^{^[187]} and to insert new clauses into a bill.^{^[188]} A motion of instruction is inadmissible if it seeks to confer upon the Committee powers it already has, such as the authority to amend a bill.^{^[189]} Any number of motions of instruction may be moved successively to a bill referred to a Committee of the Whole; however, each motion is a separate and independent motion.^{^[190]} Once a motion of instruction is agreed to, it becomes an Order of Reference to the Committee.

[146] Standing Order 73(4). See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[147] See, for example, Journals, June 20, 1994, pp. 617‑8; April 17, 1997, pp. 1485‑6. On a number of occasions, two or more public bills or resolutions have been referred to and considered jointly in a Committee of the Whole in the same sitting by unanimous consent (Journals, June 29, 1934, p. 565; March 23, 1942, pp. 182‑3; May 26, 1954, p. 658; March 9, 1978, p. 468).

[148] For example, in 1988, the House adopted a motion to suspend, for the duration of the First Session of the Thirty‑Fourth Parliament, certain Standing Orders, including the provisions respecting the committee stage of bills. This order also stipulated that Bill C‑2, the Canada‑U.S. Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, was to be referred to a Committee of the Whole after second reading (Journals, December 16, 1988, pp. 46‑9). In 2001, the House adopted a Special Order relating to Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, to schedule three separate sitting days for its second reading, consideration in Committee of the Whole and at report stage, and finally, for its third reading (Journals, June 4, 2001, p. 475).

[149] Standing Order 73(4). The adoption of any motion to concur in the estimates or interim supply is an Order for the House to bring in a bill or bills based thereon. See Standing Order 81(21), as well as Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.

[150] Standing Order 81(17) and (18). See, for example, Debates, June 14, 2005, p. 7160.

[151] See, for example, Journals, December 9, 2004, p. 333.

[152] See, for example, Bill C-29, An Act respecting compensation in the Public Sector of Canada and to amend another Act in relation thereto (Journals, September 17, 1991, pp. 354‑5; September 30, 1991, pp. 414, 417‑9), and Bill C‑74, An Act respecting the supervision of longshoring and related operations at west coast ports (Journals, March 15, 1995, pp. 1219‑22).

[153] See, for example, the Special Order adopted in October 2000 in connection with Bill C-45, An Act respecting the provision of increased funding for health care services, medical equipment, health information and communications technologies, early childhood development and other social services and to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, in which the House provided a period of 15 minutes for its consideration in a Committee of the Whole. At the end of the 15 minutes, any remaining stages of consideration of the Bill, with any amendments adopted in Committee of the Whole, were deemed disposed of, up to and including third reading and passage (Journals, October 19, 2000, pp. 2080-1).

[154] Standing Order 101(3).

[155] Standing Order 101(3). See, for example, Debates, May 26, 1982, p. 17802; March 8, 1983, p. 23550; September 30, 1991, p. 2946; March 21, 1996, p. 1068. The Chair of a Committee of the Whole may suggest that Members speak for shorter periods to give as many Members as possible an opportunity to participate in the debate. See, for example, Debates, June 6, 2001, p. 4716. If the bill has been closured, different rules of debate apply; see the section in this chapter entitled “Closure”.

[156] For further information on bills referred to standing, special or legislative committees for study, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 20, “Committees”.

[157] This practice extends back to Confederation when consideration of the preamble was postponed while each clause was considered in its proper order; the preamble and title were considered last. See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 46.

[158] The Thirteenth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization recommended that consideration of Clause 1 should be postponed when it only contained a short title (Journals, October 7, 1964, pp. 771‑3). The recommendation was adopted on a provisional basis on October 9, 1964 (Journals, pp. 777‑80) and the provisional changes were extended for the Twenty‑Seventh Parliament (1966‑68) (Journals, January 21, 1966, p. 34; April 26, 1967, pp. 1769‑74). Permanent changes to the Standing Orders were adopted in December 1968 (Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554‑62, in particular p. 560).

[159] See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2968‑9; June 6, 2001, p. 4727.

[160] See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1997, pp. 2105‑13; October 19, 2000, p. 9287. On one occasion, there was agreement in a Committee of the Whole for amendments to any of the clauses in the bill under consideration to be moved when considering Clause 2. A general debate was held on all the amendments, but the question was not put on individual amendments until the clauses to which they applied were called (Debates, March 15, 1995, pp. 10559, 10561). In addition, there are times when the House may adopt a special order stipulating that any division requested during the proceedings be deferred to a specific time. See, for example, Journals, June 4, 2001, p. 475; Debates, June 6, 2001, pp. 4731-8.

[161] Unanimous consent has been granted for the Chair to call a number of clauses as one group in order to expedite proceedings in a Committee of the Whole. See, for example, Debates, April 20, 1994, pp. 3291, 3294; May 25, 1994, p. 4416.

[162] See, for example, Debates, October 6, 1998, pp. 8854‑5; June 6, 2001, p. 4738.

[163] See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1997, pp. 2107, 2112.

[164] See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2996‑7.

[165] In practice, if the Presiding Officer who has chaired the Committee of the Whole takes the Chair of the House as Speaker, he or she may simply invoke pro forma the name of another Member as presenting the report from the Committee of the Whole.

[166] Standing Order 76.1(12). See, for example, Debates, December 2, 1997, p. 2618; June 14, 2005, pp. 7160-1.

[167] See, for example, Journals, April 20, 1994, pp. 375‑6; June 20, 1994, pp. 617‑8; March 12, 1997, p. 1262. This practice differs significantly for public bills reported back from standing, special or legislative committees. The Standing Orders require that every bill examined and reported by a committee be considered by the House at report stage. In the case of public bills reported back after second reading from a standing, special or legislative committee, report stage cannot begin sooner than the second sitting day after the bill has been reported, or the third sitting day in the case of a bill sent to committee before second reading. See Standing Orders 76(1) and 76.1(1). At Confederation, amendments made in a Committee of the Whole were reported by the Chairman to the House which received the report forthwith. See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 47. The rules then provided for debate and amendments to be moved to the bill before it was ordered for third reading. If the bill had not been amended in the Committee, it would be ordered for third reading at a time decided by the House. It was not until 1955 that the Standing Orders were amended to require a report from the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole to be received and the motion for concurrence in amendments to be disposed of forthwith (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 932‑3).

[168] Standing Order 76.1(11).

[169] See Standing Order 71. See, for example, Journals, February 24, 1969, pp. 738‑9.

[170] See, for example, Debates, April 20, 1994, p. 3291; June 18, 1996, p. 4039; Journals, December 11, 2007, pp. 295-6, Debates, p. 2078.

[171] See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 589; September 30, 1991, p. 2998; May 4, 2001, p. 363.

[172] See Debates, March 9, 1999, pp. 12645‑6. For an example of a bill which was examined by a standing committee and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent, see Journals, February 11, 1977, p. 464; July 25, 1977, p. 1441. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[173] See, for example, Journals, April 3, 1882, pp. 248‑9; March 27, 1933, pp. 343‑4; April 25, 1952, pp. 231‑2; June 27, 1952, pp. 604‑5; March 1, 1962, pp. 182‑3; July 25, 1977, p. 1441.

[174] See, for example, Journals, February 17, 1928, p. 83; April 10, 1957, p. 445.

[175] An instruction is a direction by the House to a committee, which has already received an order of reference, further defining its course of action or empowering it to do something. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 20, “Committees”.

[176] Standing Order 78. For further information on time allocation, see Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”. With regard to bills, closure is another mechanism that may be imposed for curtailing debate. For further information on this subject, see the section in this chapter entitled “Closure”, and Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.

[177] Standing Order 67.1.

[178] Between 1971 and 1997, time allocation was applied to the Committee of the Whole stage on eight occasions. In six of the cases, debate had already begun in a Committee of the Whole when a Minister advised the House that an agreement could not be reached with respect to a timetable and gave notice that a time allocation motion would be proposed at the next sitting of the House (Debates, December 1, 1971, pp. 10046‑7; January 28, 1977, pp. 2495‑6; December 2, 1977, p. 1498; June 12, 1978, p. 6298; December 5, 1979, p. 2040; March 14, 1983, p. 23750). The following sitting day, the Minister moved the time allocation motion during Routine Proceedings (Debates, December 2, 1971, pp. 10076‑7; January 31, 1977, p. 2534; December 5, 1977, p. 1545; June 13, 1978, p. 6355; December 7, 1979, p. 2148; March 15, 1983, p. 23798). In the other two instances, a time allocation motion was moved to provide for the completion of debate at all stages of a bill, including the Committee of the Whole stage, in the same sitting (Journals, June 27, 1980, pp. 310, 312; March 15, 1995, pp. 1219‑23).

[179] See, for example, the Special Order adopted in June 2001 regarding Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, where the House set aside one sitting day for its consideration in Committee of the Whole (Journals, June 4, 2001, p. 475). See also, for example, Debates, September 30, 1991, pp. 2902‑4; June 10, 1998, p. 7941.

[180] Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 395, 517. The purpose of a mandatory instruction is to define the course of action a committee must take. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[181] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 398.

[182] See, for example, Journals, March 30, 1984, p. 324; December 2, 1997, pp. 313‑4; June 4, 2001, p. 475.

[183] See, for example, Journals, March 19, 1948, pp. 268‑9; July 30, 1956, pp. 942‑3.

[184] Journals, April 15, 1920, p. 146.

[185] Debate on the motion of instruction must be relevant to the purpose of the instruction and not the content of the bill. Amendments must be worded in such a way that if an amendment were agreed to, the question would retain the form and effect of an instruction (May, 22nd ed., pp. 518‑9).

[186] Journals, March 19, 1948, p. 269 (motion negatived); July 30, 1956, pp. 942‑3 (motion negatived).

[187] Journals, April 15, 1920, p. 146 (motion adopted).

[188] Journals, March 15, 1948, p. 255 (motion negatived).

[189] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 513. See, for example, Journals, May 2, 1872, p. 79; May 23, 1956, pp. 598‑603.

[190] Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 204.