Chapter 11 — Committees of the Whole
11.1Introduction
The Legislative Assembly uses two types of committees which comprise all Members of the Assembly, with the exception of the Speaker: Committees of the Whole and the Committee of Supply. In B.C. practice, a Committee of the Whole is usually tasked with a detailed examination of a bill after second reading, during which the Committee will undertake a clause-by-clause review of the bill. It is at this stage in the legislative process that the sponsor of a bill will answer questions about the bill’s clauses, and where most amendments to bills are considered. The Committee of Supply reviews the Estimates, which outline government’s proposed appropriations for the next fiscal year. Further information on the Committee of Supply is provided in Chapter 12 (Financial Procedures).
In B.C. practice, a Committee of the Whole is usually tasked with a detailed examination of a bill after second reading.
As all Members are part of a Committee of the Whole, they all have the right to participate in debate and to propose amendments to a bill in such a committee. Given the general use of Committees of the Whole in the legislative process in B.C., a significant amount of Assembly sessional time is spent in this forum.
11.2Historical Perspective
In the 16th century, the U.K. House of Commons created two types of committees to handle certain time-consuming functions: “select committees” with no more than 15 Members and “standing committees” made up of between 30 and 40 Members (out of approximately 310 Members). Select committees were often tasked with reviewing legislation in detail, but only the Members appointed by the House to those committees were permitted to participate in a committee’s proceedings. In the standing committees, any Member could attend and participate in debate. The standing committees gradually evolved into “general” or “grand” committees, made up of all Members of the House, 272 and became known as Committees of the Whole. In both types of committees, procedures were less formal than in the House. In keeping with their less formal nature, the practice emerged of having a Member other than the Speaker serve as Chair of committees, including Committees of the Whole.
Due to the interest of all Members in having an opportunity to debate and propose amendments to a bill, Committees of the Whole became forums for discussing bills. By the beginning of the 18th century, it was the common practice in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom to refer all bills to a Committee of the Whole following second reading of the bill (see House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 921-2).
In the 20th century, the legislative program in the U.K. House of Commons increased in size and complexity, and legislative scrutiny shifted from Committees of the Whole to smaller standing committees (now called general committees). In exceptional cases, Committees of the Whole continue to be used, such as for major constitutional bills; urgent legislation; bills which are not controversial, such as technical housekeeping legislation; and Private Members’ bills which are unopposed (see Erskine May, 25th ed., §28.83, p. 688).
A similar evolution occurred in larger Legislative Assemblies in Canada and in other Commonwealth jurisdictions. In the 1960s, the House of Commons of Canada changed its procedures to provide for the referral of bills to a parliamentary committee after second reading. Parallel procedures were adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, the National Assembly of Quebec, the Australian House of Representatives and the New Zealand House of Representatives.
British Columbia has retained the use of Committees of the Whole to review bills after second reading, reflecting smaller total numbers of Members, shorter and more intensive parliamentary calendars for legislative business, and the continued interest of all Members in participating in such deliberations.
11.3Presiding Officers
As noted, under longstanding practice, U.K. Committees of the Whole are chaired by a Member other than the Speaker. This practice has been adopted by most jurisdictions in Canada, including British Columbia.
Although there is no Standing Order or statutory provision precluding the Speaker from chairing a Committee of the Whole, it has been an established practice since the 19th century that another Member presides over such proceedings.
Under Standing Order 15, the Deputy Speaker or another designated Member may take the chair in the House or in committee whenever necessary, and no formal communication to the Legislative Assembly regarding this is required. Typically, the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Deputy Speaker serves as Chair when Committee of the Whole or Committee of Supply proceedings take place in the Chamber, and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole or other designated Members 273 will serve as Chair when proceedings take place in designated committee rooms such as the Douglas Fir Committee Room or the Birch Committee Room. The Mace is not present in a committee room while the Legislative Assembly is sitting, as it remains in the Chamber. Under Standing Order 15, the Deputy Speaker or other Member shall “have and execute all the powers, privileges and duties of the Speaker.” The provision of Standing Order 9 that “No decision (of the Speaker) shall be subject to an appeal to the House” applies to Members serving as Chair of a Committee of the Whole.
Meetings, more commonly referred to as sittings, of Committees of the Whole are usually held in the Chamber, though these proceedings have also occurred in designated committee rooms, if so authorized by the Legislative Assembly.
When the Legislative Assembly resolves itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker will call on another Presiding Officer to take the chair at the Table, which denotes that the Legislative Assembly is sitting as a Committee of the Whole. The Speaker then leaves the Chamber, and the Speaker’s chair is left vacant. To further indicate that the Assembly is meeting as a Committee of the Whole, the Sergeant-at-Arms removes the Mace from the top of the Table and places it in the lower cradle at the front of the Table.
11.4Quorum
STANDING ORDER 6
The presence of at least ten Members of the House, including the Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers.
The provincial Constitution Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 66, s. 42) and Standing Order 6 define quorum in the Legislative Assembly as ten Members, including the Chair. This provision extends to proceedings of Committees of the Whole as, pursuant to Standing Order 61(1): “The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in the Committees of the Whole so far as may be applicable, except Standing Orders limiting the number of times a Member may speak” (see also Beauchesne, 6th ed., §902(4), p. 250; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed., p. 930).
STANDING ORDER 7
(1) If, at the commencement of a sitting there is not a quorum, the Speaker may declare a recess or adjourn the House until the next sitting.
(2) If, during a sitting of the House, a question of quorum arises, the Speaker may ring the division bells and, no later than 5 minutes thereafter, count the House. If a quorum is then
not present, the Speaker may declare a recess or adjourn the House until the next sitting.
(3) Whenever the Speaker adjourns the House for want of a quorum, the time of adjournment and the names of the Members then present shall be entered in the Journal.
Standing Order 7 provides for the course of action to be taken if a lack of quorum during proceedings of a Committee of the Whole is brought to the Chair’s attention.
The application of Standing Order 7 differs slightly in a Committee of the Whole from other proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. If a question of quorum arises, the Chair will follow the procedure outlined in Standing Order 7(2) and may ring the division bells or may recess or adjourn the meeting of the Committee. Most often, the Chair will ring the division bells to call Members to the Chamber. It remains at the discretion of the Chair whether or not to ring the bells. The Chair may decline to ring the bells on the grounds that the call for a quorum count amounts to an obstruction, or for other reasons (see House of Representatives (Australia) Hansard, October 14, 1936, p. 1106; September 6, 1929, pp. 747-8).
If the Chair chooses to ring the division bells, once the allotted time has elapsed, the Chair will conduct the count of Members present. Consistent with Standing Orders 6 and 61(1), the Chair is counted in the number of Members necessary to form a quorum in a Committee of the Whole (see House of Representatives (Australia) Hansard, November 20, 1935, p. 1817).
If a quorum is not subsequently established, the Chair will report to the Speaker, who in turn then follows the procedure set out in Standing Order 7(2) and conducts another quorum call. In the absence of quorum, the Speaker may then declare a recess or adjourn the Legislative Assembly until the next sitting. A lack of quorum cannot result in a dropped order, and the item under debate when quorum is called retains its precedence on the Order Paper.
A Speaker’s decision in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario outlined the procedure followed in the absence of quorum in that Assembly. Subject to B.C. practice and Standing Order 7, the Ontario procedures outlined constitute a useful guideline relating to Committees of the Whole. The decision stated, in part (Ontario Journals, June 18, 1969, p. 182):
At the request of the Member for High Park, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has asked for a ruling on the correct procedure to be followed when there does not appear to be a quorum. For the guidance of the House, I am, therefore, pleased to set out the procedure as precisely as possible, as follows….
3. If the House is sitting in Committee and a Member draws to the Chairman’s attention the apparent lack of a quorum, he will take precisely the same procedure as had already been outlined
for Mr. Speaker, that is, he will have the bells rung for four minutes and then make his count. If his count discloses less than a quorum, the Chairman will leave the Chair, the House will resume and the Chairman will report the facts to Mr. Speaker. On the Chairman’s report Mr. Speaker proceeds exactly as if the question had been raised while he was in the chair; i.e. he will cause the bells to be rung for four minutes, then make his count. If a quorum is then present the House again resolves itself into Committee, but if not, Mr. Speaker adjourns the House until the next sitting. In this regard it would appear that if the adjournment takes place in the afternoon of the day on which a night sitting is to be held, the adjournment would be to the night sitting; otherwise, until the next day. If the incident occurs at a night sitting, the adjournment, of course, is until the following day.
11.5Rules of Debate
STANDING ORDER 61
(1) The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in the Committee of the Whole so far as may be applicable, except Standing Orders limiting the number of times a Member may speak.
(2) Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
STANDING ORDER 43
The Speaker or the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of that Member’s own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct that Member to discontinue speaking and, if the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker or the Chairperson shall follow the procedures in Standing Orders 19 and 20.
Debate in Committees of the Whole is less formal than proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. The primary difference is that Members are entitled to speak more than once to the same question, enabling them to make shorter and more frequent contributions to debate. Members must still speak from their assigned place and must address their remarks to the Chair (see Erskine May, 25th ed., §28.84, p. 669; Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, 4th ed., p. 224).
276In British Columbia, Standing Order 61 extends to proceedings of Committees of the Whole, and Members are therefore required to observe the rules of debate as they apply to other proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, outlined in detail in Chapter 7 (Rules of Debate).
Debate in Committees of the Whole is less formal than proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, and Members may speak more than once to the same question.
11.5.1Relevancy Rule
The “relevancy rule,” as contained in Standing Orders 61(2) and 43, requires that debate “must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration” and that the Chair “may direct a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition…to discontinue speaking.”
House of Commons Procedure and Practice indicates:
The relevancy rule stipulates that debate in a Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item, clause or amendment under consideration. If a Member’s speech is not relevant to the debate, the Chair is empowered to call the Member to order. 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 contains only the short title of a bill). 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. Moreover, debate must be confined to the contents of the bill. 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. (3rd ed., p. 932).
The application of the relevancy rule can be challenging in specific circumstances. It has been described as the necessity of directing a speech to the question under discussion (see Erskine May, 25th ed., §21.15, pp. 490-1). In applying this provision in borderline cases, it has been the practice to give the Member the benefit of the doubt; however, the Chair has frequently admonished Members who have strayed in debate (see Beauchesne, 6th ed., §459, p. 136). The precise relevance of an argument may not always be perceptible, but a Member who wanders from the subject before the Committee will be reminded by the Chair that they must speak to the question at hand (see Erskine May, 25th ed., §21.15, pp. 490-1).
27711.5.2Committee on Bills — Re-Canvassing the Principles
of a Bill out of Order
When a Committee of the Whole is examining a bill, there have been occasions when Members re-canvass the principles of the bill at the outset of the bill’s consideration, during debate on the first clause. Although some latitude may be provided during consideration of the first clause, such debate re-examining the principles of the bill already adopted by the Legislative Assembly at second reading is out of order (see decision of Deputy Speaker Hartley, B.C. Journals, January 14, 1999, pp. 189-90).
Further information on the relevancy rule in debate is outlined in Chapter 7 (Rules of Debate).
11.5.3Time Limits
Under Standing Order 45A, Schedule 6, Members may speak as often as they wish during proceedings of Committees of the Whole but are limited to 15 minutes at any one time.
STANDING ORDER 45A
In respect of a subject indicated in the following schedules to this Standing Order, the maximum period for which a Member may speak shall not exceed the period specified opposite that Member, and the other rules in that schedule apply….
SCHEDULE 6
Other
Committees of the Whole
Public Bills
Public Bills
in the Hands of Private Members
Private Bills
(All Proceedings)
| (i) | Each Member | 15 minutes |
11.6Role of the Chair
As Presiding Officer, the Chair maintains order in Committees of the Whole and decides questions of order and practice. In this regard, the Chair’s powers are identical to the Speaker’s, as provided in Standing Order 9. Pursuant to Standing Order 61(3), decisions of the Chair are not subject to an appeal to the Legislative Assembly. The actions of the Chair cannot be criticized other than by a substantive motion brought forward in the Legislative Assembly, of which notice is required (see House of Commons (U.K.) Hansard, February 21, 1962, vol. 654, c. 415).
278The Chair must enforce the Standing Orders as they are applicable in a Committee of the Whole and, in so doing, may:
1. Refuse to put dilatory motions that abuse the rules and privileges of the Legislative Assembly (Standing Orders 44 and 62; see also Erskine May, 25th ed., §28.86, p. 670).
2. Order a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw for the remainder of a day’s sitting (Standing Order 19; see also Erskine May, 25th ed., §28.86, p. 670).
3. Name a Member (Standing Order 20).
11.6.1Disorderly Conduct
The Standing Orders include a number of provisions that enable the Chair to preserve order and decorum in proceedings of Committees of the Whole. The rules reflect those that apply during all proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, and are inherent to preserve decorum and respectful debate. For more detailed information on the full extent of these provisions, see Chapter 6 (Order and Decorum).
STANDING ORDER 61
(3) The Chairperson shall preserve order and decorum in the Committee of the Whole and shall decide questions of order and practice. In deciding a point of order or practice, the Chairperson shall state reasons for the decision and shall cite any Standing Order or other applicable authority. The Chairperson may invite submissions from Members but no debate shall be permitted on any decision. No decision shall be subject to an appeal of the House.
(4) Subject to Standing Orders 19 and 20, disorder in a Committee of the Whole may only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof. Words used in a Committee of the Whole to be reported to the House must be taken down in writing.
11.6.2Chair’s Powers in Addressing Disorderly Conduct
Under Standing Orders 19 and 20, the Chair is entrusted with a range of options to address disorderly conduct. The applicability of these Standing Orders in Committees of the Whole is extended through Standing Order 61. These provisions may be used should a Member refuse to heed the Chair’s request to bring their behaviour into line with the rules and practices of the Legislative Assembly, and for breaches of order and decorum.
27911.6.3Order for a Member to Withdraw
STANDING ORDER 19
The Speaker or the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole shall order a Member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House or Committee of the Whole for the remainder of that day, and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as may be received from the Chair in pursuance of this Order.
Should the Chair find a Member behaving in a grossly disorderly manner, the Chair may first attempt to bring the Member to order. If any such attempt fails, under Standing Order 19, the Chair may order the Member to withdraw from proceedings for the balance of the day’s sitting.
An order to withdraw for the balance of a particular sitting is to be distinguished from a Member being suspended from the service of the Legislative Assembly. Such punishment can only be imposed by the Assembly, with the Speaker in the chair.
11.6.4Naming and Suspension in Committees of the Whole
Should a Member refuse to adhere to an order to withdraw, or should a Member otherwise persistently disregard the authority of the Chair, the Chair may resort to the more severe punishment provided in the Standing Orders, that being the naming procedure. Details on the naming procedure are outlined in Chapter 6 (Order and Decorum).
STANDING ORDER 20
(1) Any Member who disregards the authority of the Chair or refuses to comply with an order of the Chair, or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, may be named by the Speaker or by the Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, and, if the offence has been committed in the House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a motion being made without amendment, adjournment or debate, “That such Member be suspended from the service of the House”, and, if the offence has been committed in a Committee of the Whole, the Chairperson shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report the circumstances to the House, and the Speaker shall, on a motion being made thereupon, put the same question, without amendment, adjournment or debate, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself.
(2) If any Member is suspended under this Order, the suspension shall continue for a period not to exceed 15 consecutive sitting days from and including the day of suspension.
(3) When a Member has been suspended under this Order, the Speaker shall order that Member to withdraw immediately from the House, and if the Member shall refuse to obey the direction of the Speaker, when summoned under the Speaker’s orders by the Sergeant-at-Arms to obey such direction, the Speaker shall call the attention of the House to the fact that recourse to force is necessary in order to compel obedience to his or her direction, and the Member named by him or her as having refused to obey his or her direction shall thereupon and without any further question being put, be suspended from the service of the House for 30 consecutive sitting days, from and including the day of suspension.
11.6.4.1Naming Process in Committees of the Whole
If a Member disregards the authority of the Chair, or if there is persistent and willful obstruction of the Committee’s proceedings, the Chair will name any Member causing disorder by stating: “(Member’s name), it is my duty to name you (for disregarding the authority of the Chair), and I now do so.” The Chair then suspends (i.e., temporarily halts or recesses) the proceedings of the Committee and leaves the chair to report the circumstances to the Legislative Assembly.
Once a Member has been reported by the Chair to the Speaker for disregarding their authority, the Speaker names the Member again, by using the same language the Chair used in Committee. Therefore, when an offence takes place in a Committee of the Whole, there are two namings. The second naming by the Speaker is a necessary prerequisite for the motion for suspension (see B.C. Journals, July 30, 1979, p. 108).
In keeping with recognized practice, the Government House Leader then immediately moves the motion “That the Member for (electoral district name) be suspended for (length of suspension) from the service of this House.” A vote on the motion is taken forthwith. Arguments, points of order and apologies are not permitted during such proceedings, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 39.
On one occasion in the U.K. House of Commons, the Deputy Chair reported a Member to the House for disregarding the authority of the Chair during proceedings of a Committee of the Whole. When the Speaker resumed the chair, both the offending Member and another Member sought to raise a point of order, but the Speaker refused to hear them. The Government House Leader subsequently moved a motion suspending the offending Member, which was carried. Another Member then asked if it was not possible for an offending Member to make an apology or withdrawal between the time when the Speaker had resumed the chair and the moving of the suspension motion by 281 the Government House Leader. Speaker Morrison subsequently delivered the following decision (House of Commons (U.K.) Hansard, November 29, 1951, vol. 494, cc. 1731-2):
I was asked yesterday if I would give a ruling for the guidance of Hon. Members as to the procedure which is followed in the case of an Hon. Member being named by the Speaker for disregarding the authority of the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House.
Standing Order 22 [current Standing Order 44] provides that the Chairman shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report the circumstances to the House, because it is for the House, with the Speaker or his Deputy in the Chair, to pass judgment upon the Hon. Member on the circumstances being reported to it. When the Chairman makes his report to the House, through the Speaker, and the Hon. Member is named by the Speaker, it is the duty of whoever is leading the House at the time to move, at once, the suspension of the Hon. Member. [Emphasis added.]
By practice and usage, this Motion must follow immediately upon the naming of the Hon. Member by the Speaker. The House and the Speaker are entitled to assume that before matters have reached this stage the resources of the Committee and its Chairman for maintaining order have been exhausted. The time for withdrawals and apologies is, for the moment, over.
Up to 1882 it was the practice, when a Member was named in these circumstances, that he should be heard in his place in his own defence before the House decided what course of action it should adopt. It was precisely because this practice led to obstruction and disorder that what are now Standing Orders 22 to 24 [current Standing Orders 44 to 46] were passed. For the last 70 years, since the modern summary procedure was introduced, the practice has been as I have described.
In another case in the U.K., after the Chair had given a ruling in Committee, he was obliged to name a Member for characterizing his conduct in the Chair as “abominable.” When the Speaker resumed the chair, and after a Minister moved the offending Member’s suspension, other Members appealed to the Speaker not to put the question on the suspension motion, but instead to allow the Member to withdraw. Speaker FitzRoy replied: “No. The Standing Order is quite clear. When I resume the chair, the only thing I can do is accept the motion and put it forthwith to the House” (House of Commons (U.K.) Hansard, April 22, 1937, vol. 322, cc. 2122-5).
11.6.5Instances of Grave Disorder
STANDING ORDER 22
(2) In the case of grave disorder arising in a Committee of the Whole, the Chairperson may recess the sitting of the Committee without question put.
In the event of grave disorder arising in a Committee of the Whole, the Chair recesses the proceedings of the Committee forthwith, and leaves the chair to report the circumstances to the Legislative Assembly (see Erskine May, 25th ed., §28.86, p. 670).
However, when grave disorder arises in Committee by which the reputation and dignity of the Legislative Assembly may be affected, the Speaker may take the chair immediately, without waiting for the Committee Chair to report progress or to report the circumstances to the Assembly (see Beauchesne, 6th ed., §909, p. 251).
11.7Points of Order and Questions of Privilege in Committees of the Whole
Matters arising in a Committee of the Whole, such as points of order and questions of privilege, must be settled in the Committee, and cannot be raised in the Legislative Assembly without a report on the matter from the Committee. This is reinforced in a decision of Speaker Schroeder, who noted: “…there is an undisputed principle of parliamentary law that the House cannot take cognizance of what takes place in committee, except on the Chairman’s report to the House upon previous order of the Committee” (B.C. Journals, June 7, 1982, p. 126). This finding was reiterated in a decision of Speaker Barnes, who stated (B.C. Journals, July 12, 1995, p. 159):
Let me say at the outset, that the Member brought to the House a matter occurring in Committee, which, in keeping with the long-standing practice of this House, should have been raised in Committee. All Honourable Members will recall the rule that matters of procedure arising in a Committee must be settled in the Committee and the House cannot deal with such matters unless they are reported to the House.
11.7.1Points of Order
Much like during other proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, a point of order may be raised by a Member in a Committee of the Whole to call attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or from parliamentary practice. A Member may interrupt another Member and bring the Chair’s attention to the alleged breach of order. The Member who has the floor resumes their seat until the matter is resolved. When recognized by the Chair, the Member raising the point of order must briefly state the matter which they consider to have been breached.
The validity of a point of order is a matter for the Chair to determine. Once the Chair makes a decision on the matter, it is final and cannot be appealed, pursuant to Standing Order 61(3).
Further information on points of order is outlined in Chapter 6 (Order and Decorum).
28311.7.2Questions of Privilege
If a Member believes that the collective privileges of the Legislative Assembly or their individual privileges as a Member were breached during proceedings of a Committee of the Whole, the matter must first be raised in, and be dealt with by, the Committee.
Standing Order 26 permits Members to interrupt almost any business before the Legislative Assembly in order to raise a question of privilege. However, in practice, a Member wanting to reserve their right to raise a question of privilege or to outline the issue of concern in a question of privilege waits until the Member speaking has concluded their remarks. Questions of privilege not related to Committee of the Whole proceedings should be raised in the Assembly when the Speaker is in the chair (see House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed., p. 934).
Only the Legislative Assembly collectively has the power to punish; a Committee can only report any misconduct, breach of privilege or contempt to the Assembly. As such, the Chair of a Committee of the Whole has no authority to rule on a question of privilege that has occurred in Committee. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in a Committee of the Whole, the Chair will permit the Member to provide an explanation regarding the question of privilege. If the Chair’s determination is that the Member’s explanation does indeed relate to a question of privilege, the Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee present a report to the Legislative Assembly on the possible breach of privilege. As noted in House of Commons Procedure and Practice: “The report should: clearly describe the situation; summarize the facts; provide the names of the people involved, if applicable; state that there may be a breach of privilege; and ask the House to take such measures as it deems appropriate” (3rd ed., p. 1060).
Once the report is presented and adopted in the Legislative Assembly, any Member may properly raise the matter as a question of privilege. The Assembly will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon the presentation of a report from the Committee (see House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 152-3). The process for raising a question of privilege in the Assembly is further explained in Chapter 17 (Parliamentary Privilege).
11.8Role in the Legislative Process
In the Legislative Assembly, all bills adopted at second reading are subsequently committed to a Committee of the Whole for consideration. Commonly referred to as committee stage, it is one of the principal stages of the legislative process that a bill must pass through before becoming a law. Bills awaiting consideration in Committee of the Whole are listed in the Orders of the Day. Any bill so listed may be called for committee consideration by the Government House Leader once the Legislative Assembly has proceeded to the Orders of the Day at a sitting.
Prior to being committed to a committee for consideration, a bill must be adopted at first reading and at second reading. A motion to commit a bill to a Committee of the Whole is administrative in nature, and is not subject to debate (see decision of Speaker Barisoff, B.C. Journals, April 27, 2010, p. 56).
284When a Committee of the Whole is examining a bill, the sponsor of the bill must be seated at their assigned place in the Chamber (or a designated committee room), unless the Member has received leave from the Legislative Assembly to occupy another Member’s seat. In instances when the Committee is examining a government bill, the Minister may be accompanied by public servants, who may provide advice to the Minister regarding the provisions of the bill.
11.8.1Procedure for the Consideration of Bills
During proceedings of Committees of the Whole studying bills, Members examine each clause of a bill in detail, asking the sponsor of the bill, most often a Minister, questions regarding the meaning and purpose of each clause. Members may also propose amendments to any clause, to the preamble (if any) and to the title of the bill. Questions are only put to the sponsor of the bill, and must strictly relate to the clause under consideration by the Committee.
Once the Speaker has left the chair and the Legislative Assembly has resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Committee Chair begins the proceedings by calling the Committee to order and asking if the first clause of the bill shall pass. At this stage, Members may begin to ask questions regarding the bill, starting with any questions that they may have about the first clause of the bill. Chairs have shown some latitude on the nature of the debate on the first clause; however, a re-examination of the principles of the bill as already adopted by the Legislative Assembly is out of order.
Once questioning of the sponsor of the bill has concluded on the first clause, the Chair asks if it shall pass, without a motion to that effect being put. Typically, only a voice vote occurs. A Member can ask that a decision be noted in the Votes and Proceedings without a standing vote by stating “on division.” In addition, a division (standing vote) on whether a clause shall carry may also be requested by any Member. Further information on voting is outlined in Chapter 8 (Voting and Divisions).
Committee consideration of a bill may last from a few hours to several days or weeks. When a committee has finished its debate and adopted any proposed amendments, Members vote to report the bill complete, with or without amendment, to the Legislative Assembly.
If this motion is adopted, the Mace is put back on the top of the Table, the Speaker resumes the chair, and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will report the bill to the Legislative Assembly, with or without amendment. The Speaker then puts the question on the motion to approve the bill at report stage. The report from the Committee of the Whole on a bill may be adopted by the Assembly forthwith if there are no amendments. If the Committee reports the bill to the Assembly with amendment, the report is typically considered at the next sitting; however, leave may be requested to consider the report immediately.
Detailed information on the consideration of bills in Committees of the Whole is outlined in Chapter 10 (Legislative Process). For further information on general procedures applicable in Committees of the Whole, see Erskine May, 25th ed., §28.84, p. 669.
28511.8.2Ending Proceedings — Motion to Leave the Chair
STANDING ORDER 62
A motion that the Chairperson of a Committee of the Whole leave the Chair shall always be in order, shall take precedence of any other motion, and shall not be debatable. Such motion, if rejected, cannot be renewed unless some intermediate proceeding has taken place.
Committees of the Whole typically end proceedings when a Committee has finished considering the matter referred to it by the Legislative Assembly or, if the Committee has not finished its consideration, a few minutes before the time of adjournment of a sitting of the Legislative Assembly set out in Standing Order 2(1). In the latter instance, the usual motion that is proposed, typically by a Minister, is “That the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.”
If a Committee has agreed to certain clauses of a bill but is unable to conclude the discussion on other clauses, the established practice is to direct the Chair to report progress and seek leave to sit again (see Beauchesne, 5th ed., §464, p. 162). In essence, the Committee is informing the Legislative Assembly that it has not completed its consideration of the matter before it and is seeking permission to continue its work at a future sitting. This report is received by the Assembly, and under normal practice, the Committee is called to sit again at the next sitting of the Assembly. If called to sit again, the Committee must once more report to the Assembly prior to the end of the subsequent sitting.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(2), a motion to report progress cannot be debated. If a motion to report progress is negatived, it cannot be moved again without some intermediate proceeding. The motion is subject to the same rule as that observed in the Legislative Assembly, which will not permit a motion for the adjournment of a debate to be repeated without some intermediate proceeding. A motion to report progress may be alternated with a motion “That the Chair do now leave the chair” (see Erskine May, 25th ed., §28.90, pp. 673-4).
The term “intermediate proceeding” has generally been interpreted as meaning any proceeding that can properly be entered in the Votes and Proceedings. It is because of this limitation that the device of “alternate” or “rotating” motions has been used in the past. There are, however, restrictions on the use of these motions, further outlined in Chapter 5 (Sitting Days and Business) and Chapter 9 (Motions).
The limitations attached to various dilatory motions do not restrict the Government House Leader’s historic right to move adjournment of the House or adjournment of debate or to move that the Committee report progress or resolution, further outlined in Chapter 5 (Sitting Days and Business) and Chapter 9 (Motions).
28611.8.3Motion Resulting in a Dropped Order
The motion that the Chair of the Committee of the Whole leave the chair, as contemplated by Standing Order 62, is a way of bringing a sitting of the Committee to a premature end. The motion, if carried, results in the bill or question under debate becoming a dropped order, as the Chair has received no instruction from the Committee to report to the Legislative Assembly (see Erskine May, 25th ed., §28.124, p. 692). More information on dropped orders is provided in Chapter 5 (Sitting Days and Business).
11.8.4Report to the Legislative Assembly
STANDING ORDER 63
When the Chairperson of a Committee of the Whole has been ordered to make a report to the House, he or she shall leave the Chair without question put.
STANDING ORDER 64
Every report from a Committee of the Whole shall be brought up without any question being put.
The Legislative Assembly has no formal knowledge of proceedings of a Committee of the Whole, which provides for the requirement for any Committee of the Whole to formally report to the Assembly on its deliberations and findings. The Chair may be directed by the Committee to report to the Legislative Assembly at any time during the Committee’s consideration of the matter before it.
Standing Orders 63 and 64 are combined in Standing Order 70 of the U.K. House of Commons, which provides: “When the chairman of a committee of the whole House has been ordered to make a report to the House, he shall leave the chair without putting any question. Every such report shall be brought up without any question being put.”
In outlining the procedure for a U.K. Committee of the Whole examining a bill, Erskine May states:
When consideration of the bill in committee has been completed, the occupant of the Chair proposes the question, “That I do report the bill without amendment (or, as amended) to the House”.… This question having been agreed to, they leave the Chair, without any further question being put (Standing Order No 70), and the Speaker resumes the Chair. The Chair of the Committee of the whole House is then directed by Standing Order No 71 to report the bill forthwith to the House… (25th ed., §28.121, p. 691; see also 21st ed., p. 500).
Pursuant to the practices of the U.K. and Canadian Houses of Commons, once a Committee of the Whole has completed its deliberations on a resolution, bill or portion of a bill, the Chair proposes the question “That I do report this resolution to the House” or “I do report this bill,” and, upon this question being agreed to, leaves the chair for this purpose. In the Legislative Assembly, a Member will move “That the Committee rise and report the bill complete with/without amendment.” No further question is necessary because of Standing Order 70 of the U.K. House of Commons, and correspondingly, no further question would be required in British Columbia in view of the wording of Standing Orders 63 and 64. However, it should be noted that B.C. practice has not provided for debate or amendment on a report from a Committee of the Whole to the Legislative Assembly.
Once a bill has been reported complete from a Committee of the Whole, there is one stage remaining in its consideration by the Legislative Assembly: third reading.
Once a bill has been reported complete from a Committee of the Whole, there is one stage remaining in its consideration by the Legislative Assembly: third reading. The motion for third reading is moved by the sponsor of the bill, further outlined in Chapter 10 (Legislative Process).