House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

14. The Curtailment of Debate

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[101]: Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2915-6.
[102]: For a procedural definition of a recognized party, see Chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”. See also Journals, December 30, 1971, pp. 1013-4; Debates, April 2, 1993, p. 18052.
[103]: Standing Order 78(1).
[104]: See, for example, Debates, July 22, 1977, p. 7916.
[105]: There are times when, rather than resorting to the written rule, party representatives agree on an allocation of time, which the House then adopts by unanimous consent. See, for example Journals, October 26, 1978, pp. 69-70 (timetable for the consideration of a bill, including number of committee meetings, instruction to amend, and committee reporting deadline); March 10, 1987, p. 568 (agreement to complete consideration of two bills at all stages); March 20, 1992, p. 1192 (agreement to consider all stages of a bill).
[106]: Standing Order 78(2).
[107]: Debates, August 16, 1988, pp. 18380-1. On this occasion, the two parties in opposition contended that an agreement had been reached pursuant to the rule, to which the government was not a party; however, the Chair ruled that the initiative of announcing any agreement or lack thereof is clearly with the government (i.e., a Minister), who must be party to any agreement and whose support is signified by his or her rising under the terms of the Standing Order.
[108]: Standing Order 76.1(10).
[109]: Standing Order 78(2)(a). See, for example, Journals, June 21, 1994, pp. 633-7, when no less than four motions were moved and adopted to allocate time in respect to four bills.
[110]: Standing Order 78(2)(b).
[111]: Standing Order 78(3).
[112]: See, for example, Debates, December 1, 1971, pp. 10050-1.
[113]: Standing Order 76.1(10).
[114]: Written notice of a motion for the allocation of time is acceptable when given in addition to oral notice (see Speaker Bosley’s ruling, Debates, May 16, 1985, pp. 4821-2).
[115]: See, for example, Debates, April 2, 1990, pp. 10102-3; April 3, 1990, p. 10124.
[116]: Standing Order 78(3). The Speaker has ruled that oral notice of an intention to move a motion for time allocation is not covered by the rule pertaining to notice (Standing Order 54(1)) and that 48 hours’ written notice is therefore not required (Journals, December 1, 1971, p. 948).
[117]: See, for example, Debates, March 7, 1983, p. 23511; October 19, 1983, pp. 28127-9; June 3, 1988, pp. 16127-8.
[118]: Standing Order 78(3). See, for example, Debates, December 1, 1982, p. 21172; Journals, December 1, 1982, p. 5408.
[119]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, August 16, 1988, pp. 18380-1.
[120]: In this case, 0.1 hour was allocated to the report stage and 0.25 hour to third reading (all-party agreement) (Journals, April 2, 1993, pp. 2791-2).
[121]: Standing Order 78.
[122]: Standing Order 78(2)(a), (3)(a).
[123]: Standing Order 78(3)(b).
[124]: For example, consideration of Bill C-85 (Canagrex Act) was resumed several months after a time allocation motion for both report stage and third reading had been adopted by the House (Journals, December 13, 1982, p. 5458 (notice of time allocation given); December 16, 1982, pp. 5470-1 (time allocation motion adopted); June 7, 1983, pp. 5972-87 (report stage); June 13, 1983, pp. 6000-2 (third reading)).
[125]: Standing Order 45(3).
[126]: In 1987, for example, the question on the motion for third reading of a bill, under an order for time allocation adopted on June 15 (Journals, pp. 1094-5), was put on June 17 and deferred to June 18, pursuant to a special order adopted on June 16 (Journals, p. 1175).
[127]: Standing Order 45(6)(a). See, for example, Journals, November 27, 1992, p. 2252; December 1, 1995, p. 2199; March 12, 1999, p. 1601.
[128]: Standing Order 45(7).
[129]: Standing Order 45(5). See, for example, Journals, November 29, 1996, p. 939.
[130]: Debates, April 4, 1990, pp. 10183-5; December 9, 1992, pp. 14917-23; March 31, 1993, pp. 17854-62.
[131]: Debates, June 6, 1988, pp. 16139, 16142-9; August 16, 1988, pp. 18380-1; March 29, 1990, pp. 9916-7; October 1, 1990, p. 13622.
[132]: Standing Order 56.1.
[133]: Standing Order 56.1(1)(b).
[134]: See, for example, Journals, March 22, 1999, p. 1645.
[135]: See, for example, Journals, March 16, 1995, p. 1226; April 24, 1997, pp. 1524-5.
[136]: See, for example, Journals, March 23, 1995, p. 1265.
[137]: See, for example, Journals, June 15, 1995, p. 1754.
[138]: See, for example,Journals,April 12, 1999, p. 1687.
[139]: See, for example, Journals,December 1, 1997, pp. 290-1.
[140]: See, for example, Journals,April 12, 1999, p. 1687.
[141]: See, for example, Journals,June 9, 1998, p. 954.
[142]: Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2913.
[143]: Practically unused during the Thirty-Fifth Parliament, Standing Order 56.1 was moved six times between September 1997 and June 1999. It could be argued that, because of the 25-Member provision, Standing Order 56.1 is particularly attractive when there are many officially recognized opposition parties.
[144]: See, for example, Debates, March 26, 1991, p. 19044.
[145]: Debates, April 9, 1991, pp. 19233-7, especially p. 19236.
[146]: Standing Order 53.
[147]: In 1992, Standing Order 53(1) was used to waive the 48-hour notice requirement for the beginning of the report stage of a government bill (Journals, June 1, 1992, pp. 1560-1).
[148]: In 1992, Deputy Speaker Champagne ruled the motion out of order because, contrary to the terms of Standing Order 53(2), the Minister had not stated the reasons for the urgency of the motion when he presented it to the House. See Debates, December 11, 1992, pp. 15132-3.
[149]: See, for example, Debates, June 10, 1999, pp. 16227-30.
[150]: See, for example, Journals, March 15, 1995, p. 1219.