Chapter XII — Committees of the Whole

Notes on Standing Order 100:

[1]

See for example, proceedings on Bill C-74 (Journals, March 7, 1961, p. 328) and on Bill C-28 (Journals, June 6, 2001, p. 500).

[2]

See for example, proceedings on Bill C-30 (Journals, March 15, 1978, pp. 491-2) and on Bill C-22 (Journals, November 24, 1997, p. 252).

[3]

The motion for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply and into Committee of Ways and Means was, generally, debatable.

[4]

In 1913, the House adopted an amendment to the rules which provided that if an Order of the Day were called to go into the Committee of Supply or of Ways and Means on a Thursday or Friday, the Speaker left the Chair without putting any question (Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9).

[5]

Until March 1953, there was some confusion as to whether the motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the resolution stage of a bill was debatable. Speaker Macdonald declared that in this particular circumstance the motion would no longer be debatable (Journals, March 26, 1953, pp. 419-21). This confusion is noted in the Historical Summary to Standing Orders 79 to 85.

[6]

The rule was adopted on July 12, 1955 (Journals, pp. 920-1).

[7]

The rule was numbered 53 in the 1955 version of the Standing Orders.

[8]

Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 572.

[9]

The amended Standing Order was listed as number 54 in the 1969 version of the Standing Orders.

Notes on Standing Order 101:

[1]

When the House is meeting in Committee of the Whole for a take-note debate, Members are limited to ten-minute speeches with ten minutes for questions and comments (Standing Order 53.1(3)(b)). During consideration of the Main Estimates in Committee of the Whole, Members are limited to 15-minute interventions, of which a maximum of ten minutes may be used for making a speech (Standing Order 81(4)(a)).

[2]

Journals, May 7-8, 1913, p. 560. Another unwritten exception exempts Members from having to speak from their own place. This exception is explicitly provided for during take-note debates (see Standing Order 17), but has long been the practice for all Committees of the Whole (Debates, October 15, 1987, p. 10064; October 16, 1987, pp. 10089-90).

[3]

Debates, June 6, 1899, col. 4461.

[4]

The Chair has frequently cited this rule and requested that Members observe it. See for example, Debates, December 20, 1976, p. 2175; November 30, 1978, pp. 1657, 1665-6; December 10, 1979, p. 2213; December 11, 1979, pp. 2239, 2244; September 30, 1991, p. 2937; March 15, 1995, pp. 10565-6.

[5]

See 1868 Rule 76.

[6]

See 1906 Rule 13.

[7]

See 1955 Standing Order 59.

[8]

The rule of relevance was mentioned only in the context of the 1867-1906 Rule 13 which enjoined Members not to “speak beside the question in debate”. See for example, Debates, May 20, 1892, cols. 2922, 2932-3; May 10, 1909, col. 6168.

[9]

Debates, April 29, 1910, col. 8377.

[10]

Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 928-9; December 20, 1968, p. 573.

[11]

Journals, March 3, 1944, p. 150.

[12]

Journals, December 5, 1947, p. 24; June 25, 1948, p. 680. Another procedure committee in 1951 recommended speeches, such as those given in Committee of the Whole, be “limited as to time” (Journals, December 13, 1951, p. 313).

[13]

See remarks by Mr. Knowles in Debates, July 1, 1955, p. 5568.

Notes on Standing Order 102:

[1]

Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 399-400. For examples of a motion “that the Chair report progress”, see Debates, November 8, 1919, pp. 1992-3; March 17, 1966, p. 2825; November 30, 1978, p. 1679.

[2]

See 1868 Rule 78.

[3]

See for example, Debates, May 19, 1869, pp. 393-4; March 5, 1884, p. 671; May 9, 1892, cols. 2294-305.

[4]

See current Standing Order 67.

[5]

Debates, April 3, 1916, pp. 2449, 2453-4.

[6]

Standing Order 53.1 specifically states that the only receivable motion during a take-note debate is a motion “That the Committee do now rise”.

[7]

See 1927 Standing Order 59. See also Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 352 (Rule 15), where a procedure committee initially suggested the amendment.

Notes on Standing Order 103:

[1]

Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 172; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 448.

[2]

Journals, July 12, 1955, p. 929.

[3]

As an example, see Journals, July 6, 1967, pp. 326-7. For an extensive commentary on this practice, see Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 433-9 and Beauchesne, 4^th ed., pp. 207-14. In a somewhat modified form, the practice existed in Britain (see May, 21^st ed., pp. 589-90) until 1997, when the relevant Standing Orders were repealed (see May, 22^nd ed., p. 689, n. 1).

[4]

For a brief period between 1975 and 1977, the House reverted to the former practice of referring the estimates to Committee of the Whole (the Committee of Supply having been abolished in 1968), where a resolution was agreed to and subsequently reported to the House for concurrence. As an example, see Journals, May 9, 1975, pp. 533-4. Another example of the use of this Standing Order occurred on January 28, 1988 (Journals, p. 2076), when Supplementary Estimates were reported from a Committee of the Whole. Since 2001, the House has once again started considering certain estimates in Committee of the Whole, but no resolutions arise out of this process. The estimates are deemed reported at the end of the time provided for consideration and, upon the Committee rising, the House adjourns immediately without transacting any other business. Motions for concurrence in the reported items are only considered on the last allotted day of the supply period in question, along with the other items reported from standing committees (see Standing Order 81).

Content Disclaimer