Chapter XII — Committees of the Whole

Introduction

The four Standing Orders in this chapter give an overview of procedure in Committees of the Whole, that is, in committees whose membership includes all Members and whose meetings are held in the House itself. Certain other Standing Orders contain exceptions to these rules when the House is in Committee of the Whole for a take-note debate (Standing Order 53.1) or to consider the Main Estimates (Standing Order 81(4)(a)).

Commentary — Standing Order 100

Standing Order 100 specifies that when an Order of the Day is called for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole [1] or when a bill is to be considered in Committee of the Whole, [2] no question is put to the House. The Speaker simply relinquishes the Chair and leaves the Chamber. The Chair of the Committee is then usually taken by the Chair, Deputy Chair or Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole House.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 100

Prior to 1955, as a general rule, whenever the House desired to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, a motion was moved “That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair”. In some instances, this motion was debatable; [3] in other instances, the House would resolve itself into Committee without putting the question. [4] In one particular circumstance, there appeared to be great confusion as to whether or not the motion was debatable and, if so, what would be the nature of the debate. [5]

The revision committee which considered the rules in 1955 recommended a new Standing Order to clarify what had become the “general practice” by that time. [6] The new Standing Order specified that except for the particular circumstances of motions to resolve into Committee of Supply or Committee of Ways and Means, all motions for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on any matter would be decided without debate or amendment. [7]

The wording of the rule remained unchanged until December 1968. [8] Since the Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means were abolished in December 1968, the Standing Order was rephrased to stipulate that when an Order of the Day was read for the House to go into a Committee of the Whole or when it was ordered that a bill be considered in a Committee of the Whole, no question would be put. [9] The Speaker would simply relinquish the Chair upon the order being read.

Commentary — Standing Order 101

Any Committee of the Whole House is the only House committee whose membership includes all Members and whose meetings are held in the House itself. Because the membership of a Committee of the Whole is the same as that of the House, one might expect the rules in both forums to be the same. While this is in fact the case, there are three stated exceptions from the Standing Orders which apply in Committee of the Whole. First, the Standing Order requiring motions to be seconded does not apply in Committee of the Whole; nor does the Standing Order which limits the number of times a Member may speak to a question. Finally, the many rules respecting the length of speeches do not apply; instead, section (3) of this Standing Order establishes a 20-minute time limit per Member per speech, from which, in turn, the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are exempted. [1] Some additional exceptions, such as the prohibition against moving the previous question in that forum, have crept into Committee practice, [2] while other rules, such as that respecting the quorum, [3] have held where they were capable of being applied.

Section (2) — the relevancy rule — stipulates that debate in a Committee of the Whole must be “strictly relevant” to the matter under consideration. [4]

Historical Summary — Standing Order 101

Sections (1), (2) and (3) of Standing Order 101 did not exist in their present form in 1867. Section (1) was part of another rule (it became section (1) in 1927); and sections (2) and (3) did not appear in the Standing Orders until 1910 and 1955, respectively.

Section (1), which existed at Confederation, was nevertheless very similar to its present-day counterpart. It was different only in that instead of three exceptions to the general application of the rules to proceedings in Committee of the Whole, it allowed for only one exception; namely, the “number of times of speaking”. [5] In 1906, the “seconding of motions” was added as a second exception, [6] and beginning in 1955, House rules respecting the length of speeches were no longer made to apply to discussions in Committee of the Whole, thus adding the third exception to the Standing Order. [7]

Relevance in Committee of the Whole was first enforced without the help of a Standing Order, [8] but eventually, in 1910, the House adopted a rule which required strict relevance in Committee discussions. The Leader of the Opposition observed, in support of the new rule: “If the discussion in Committee or anywhere else is not to be relevant, it is, of course, impossible to have any business done in order.” [9] The wording and application of the rule have not since changed.

The limitation attached to the length of speeches is a relatively new feature of Standing Order 101. A 30-minute limit was placed on interventions in 1955, only to be reduced to 20 minutes in 1968. [10] The 1955 curtailment, implemented at a time when all other speeches were still limited to 40 minutes, had been suggested many times before. As early as 1944, proposals were made to reduce speaking time in Committee of the Whole to 20 minutes. [11] In 1947, Speaker Fauteux similarly recommended a 50 per cent reduction in speaking time, as did a procedure committee in 1948. [12] Even the 1955 change was a compromise. [13] After 1968, however, no further changes were made to the rule.

Commentary — Standing Order 102

Although in general the Standing Orders apply in Committee of the Whole, some simply are not transferable; for instance, Standing Order 60, which permits Members to move the adjournment of the House. As a substitute to moving the adjournment of the House, Standing Order 102 permits a motion “That the Chair leave the Chair”. If passed, such a motion has the same effect as a motion to adjourn the House: the Committee rises without a report to the House and the matter before the Committee is superseded. A motion “That the Chair report progress”, meanwhile, has the same effect as a motion to adjourn debate. [1]

As with a motion to adjourn the House, a motion that the Chair leave the Chair supersedes the question then before the Committee and is not subject to debate. Similarly, if it is rejected, it can be moved again only after an intermediate proceeding.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 102

When this Standing Order was first introduced in 1867, it read as follows:

A motion that the Chairman leave the Chair shall always be in order, and shall take precedence of any other motion. [2]

Although the rule indicated the proper motion would be “That the Chair leave the Chair”, it was much more common for Members to move simply “That the Committee do now rise”. Either motion was debatable and had the effect of superseding whatever matter was then before the Committee. [3]

This remained so until 1913, when the House adopted the controversial Rule 17A, which attempted to list debatable motions. [4] Omissions in the list later provoked discussions about what motions were in fact debatable; one such discussion in 1916 concerned the motion “That the Chair 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 Chair also established that the correct motion to move was “That the Chair leave the Chair” and not “That the Committee do now rise”. [5] Current practice, however, has seen this latter motion once again become acceptable. [6]

In 1927, the Standing Order was formally amended to prohibit debate, [7] and has not since been amended.

Commentary — Standing Order 103

This Standing Order is rarely used, since resolutions reported from Committee of the Whole are now infrequent. Should a Committee of the Whole report a resolution, however, and a Member move a motion that the House concur in the resolution, the Standing Order obliges the Speaker to put the motion immediately, without debate or amendment.

By its resolutions, the House declares its own opinions and purposes. [1] Thus if the House agrees to the concurrence motion, it expresses its support for the contents of the resolution; if not, the House withholds such support.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 103

When this Standing Order was first adopted in 1955, it reflected a practice the House had previously followed for a number of years in connection with financial proceedings. In recommending the adoption of this Standing Order, the special committee appointed at the time worded its report as follows:

In the past, resolutions reported from Committee of the Whole House, the Committee of Ways and Means, and in some cases the Committee of Supply were concurred in forthwith. [This new Standing Order makes] the procedure uniform in all cases. [2]

The references above to the Committee of Ways and Means and of Supply reflect the practice, discontinued in 1968, whereby resolutions upon which money bills were based had first to be agreed to in these committees and then concurred in by the House. [3] Because this procedure is no longer followed in the Canadian House, the provisions of Standing Order 103 apply only to those infrequent occasions when resolutions may be reported to the House from Committee of the Whole. [4]

Content Disclaimer