14. The Curtailment of Debate

There are occasions where Members will move, during a debate on a motion before the House, “That this question be now put”. ^[13]  This motion, commonly known as the previous question, may be proposed to substantive debatable motions before the House. There are a number of restrictions placed on the use of the previous question. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”. Once the previous question has been moved, debate on the original motion resumes. Although it does not put an immediate end to debate, the previous question restricts debate and expedites the putting of the question in two ways.

First, it precludes the moving of amendments to the main motion and, therefore, any debate that might have ensued on those amendments. Indeed, if the previous question is carried, the Speaker is obliged to put the question on the main motion forthwith. ^[14]  Members who have spoken already to the main motion or any previous amendments may speak again to the previous question. In this sense, the previous question is at best an unpredictable method of curtailing debate. The previous question has been adopted without debate, ^[15]  it has carried after a short debate, ^[16]  or after several days of debate. ^[17]  In instances where the previous question did not appear useful in bringing a question to a vote, a motion to adjourn the debate ^[18]  or a motion of closure ^[19]  has been moved to put an end to a debate on the previous question. When a recorded division is demanded on the previous question, it may be deferred at the request of either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip ^[20] ; however, once the previous question is adopted, a recorded division on the main motion may not be deferred. ^[21] 

Second, the previous question can have the effect of superseding a motion under debate since, if negatived, the Speaker is bound not to put at that time the question on the main motion. In other words, if the motion “that the question be now put” is not adopted, the motion under debate is dropped from the Order Paper. Unless revived on a future day and reinstated on the Order Paper, ^[22]  the item will not be debated again. In practice, in a majority of instances when the previous question was negatived, the item was revived and eventually adopted, with or without amendment. As a mechanism for limiting debate by causing an item to drop from the Order Paper, the previous question has not been very successful. Since Confederation, the motion “that the question be now put” has been negatived four times. ^[23]  It has also been withdrawn by unanimous consent. ^[24] 

While both government and opposition Members may move the previous question, ^[25]  it is used by some in the hope that it will expedite a vote on the main motion, and by others in the hope that it will prevent the Speaker from putting the question now on a motion or a bill. Although the previous question can be both a method of forcing a decision on a motion and a way of postponing or delaying a decision, it has in recent years almost exclusively been used by the government to limit debate.

In the past, the use of the previous question has been anything but predictable. Ministers have moved it on private Members’ motions ^[26]  and on government motions and bills. Conversely, private Members have moved the previous question on other private Members’ motions ^[27]  as well as on government motions. ^[28]  Perhaps because of the many restrictions that regulate its use, the previous question has been described as the “most ineffective” method of limiting debate. ^[29] 

Closure is a procedural device used to bring debate on a question to a conclusion by “ … a majority decision of the House, although all Members wishing to speak have not done so”. ^[30]  The closure rule ^[31]  provides the government with a procedure to prevent the further adjournment of debate on any matter and to require that the question be put at the end of the sitting in which a motion of closure is adopted. Apart from technical changes as to the hour at which debate is to conclude, ^[32]  the rule has remained virtually unchanged since its adoption in 1913.

Closure may be applied to any debatable matter, including bills and motions. The rule was conceived for use in a Committee of the Whole ^[33]  as much as in the House, but it cannot be applied to business being considered in standing, special, legislative or joint committees of the House. When these committees are considering bills, the House may use the time allocation rule ^[34]  to impose a deadline on the committee stage or to force a committee to report the bill to the House.

Introduced at Westminster in 1881 and in the Australian House of Representatives in 1905, the closure rule was not adopted by the Canadian House of Commons until 1913. ^[35]  The idea of closure had, however, been discussed on a number of occasions, but the House had never been able to adopt a closure rule satisfactory to both government and opposition. By 1913, strong and organized opposition had managed to delay the adoption of government legislation on at least four occasions. ^[36]  Speeches from that period allude to the occasional inability of the House to come to a vote on a question and, in 1911, during one of these protracted debates, a Member of the opposition spoke of the possibility of “illimitable discussion”. ^[37]  Opposition Leader Robert Borden, who would eventually introduce the new rule, had himself suggested that a closure rule would be “undesirable,” ^[38]  but nearly two years of discussion on naval policy convinced him of the necessity to bring forward a motion which, among other things, would introduce the closure rule. These changes, vigorously attacked by the opposition, were debated for nearly a month before being adopted. ^[39]  The new closure rule was immediately tested by the government only a few days after its adoption, during debate at the Committee of the Whole stage of the Naval Aid Bill. ^[40] 

Used nine times from 1913 to 1932, the closure rule was then not resorted to for 24 years. In May and June 1956, during the Pipeline Debate, closure was invoked at each stage of the legislative process. ^[41]  This episode, which gave rise to much analysis and commentary, had lasting repercussions on Members’ perception of how the House operates. ^[42] 

The rule has been the subject of scrutiny and discussion on numerous occasions. In December 1957, the new Diefenbaker government placed a notice of motion on the Order Paper to repeal the closure rule, but the motion was never debated. ^[43]  In July 1960, Prime Minister Diefenbaker expressed the hope that “the rules committee will give consideration to removing from the rule book the closure procedure”. ^[44]  The Committee never acted on that matter. In March 1962, another special committee was set up to consider the procedures of the House and, in particular, “to consider the desirability of repealing” the closure rule; ^[45]  it did not report on this issue. The Throne Speech in September 1962 indicated that the House would be asked to abolish closure, but this also was not acted upon. ^[46]  During the Thirtieth Parliament (1974-79), a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization recommended, in its report on the use of time, that a new Standing Order based on the British House of Commons’ closure rule be adopted, ^[47]  but this was never recommended to the House. The issue of repealing the closure rule still resurfaces from time to time. ^[48] 

Prior to moving a motion for closure, an oral notice of intention to do so must have been given by a Minister at a previous sitting of the House or a Committee of the Whole. The rule is not specific as to when such notice may be given; thus a variety of precedents exist. Notice of intention to move a closure motion has been given: when there was no question before the House; ^[49]  when the motion to be closured was under debate; ^[50]  and when the question before the House was not related to the notice. ^[51]  Notice has been given on the first day of debate on the motion to be closured, ^[52]  and after one or more days of debate. ^[53]  Regardless, debate on the item which is the subject of the notice must have begun before notice of closure may be given. ^[54] 

Although there is no requirement to give notice more than once, Ministers have provided the same notice in several sittings so as to avoid any objection that notice had not been given at the previous sitting. ^[55]  On the other hand, no obligation exists to proceed with moving the closure motion even if notice has been given; there have been cases where the notice was not proceeded with. ^[56]  On one occasion, the government gave notice of closure on four separate bills, all at the same time: three at second reading and one at third reading; ^[57]  however, four motions proposing closure, one for each bill, had to be moved separately.

After notice has been given of the intention to move a motion of closure, the motion may be moved during a subsequent sitting, whether the following day or later. The motion for closure must be moved by a Minister, and the debate on the motion or bill to which closure is to apply must have been adjourned at least once before a closure motion can be moved. ^[58]  The motion for closure must be moved immediately before the Order of the Day for resuming debate on the item to which the closure motion is to apply is called, either in the House or in a Committee of the Whole.

Closure motions are neither debatable nor amendable and, once moved, the Speaker or the Chairman puts the question immediately, “That debate … shall not be further adjourned” (or in a Committee of the Whole, “That debate … shall not be further postponed”). How much debate the government will allow on a measure before moving closure depends on political factors. The Speaker has at times been asked to use discretionary authority to refuse to put a closure motion to the House on the ground that a measure had not yet been given enough debating time. Invariably, he or she has declined to interfere with the application of the rule, deciding in each case that the Chair has no authority to intervene in the process when the closure rule is applied properly. ^[59] 

When a motion for closure is adopted, debate resumes on the now-closured business, typically leading to an extended sitting of the House through the evening. The debate becomes subject to the restrictions imposed by the closure rule. ^[60]  No Member (including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition) may speak more than once, nor for longer than 20 minutes. A Member who has spoken to the main motion prior to the adoption of the closure motion may speak again if an amendment or sub-amendment is moved during the closured debate. However, a Member who speaks to the main motion after the adoption of the closure motion may not speak to any subsequent amendment or sub-amendment. Any Private Members’ Business which might have been scheduled is still taken up at its regular time.

All questions necessary to dispose of the closured business are to be put no later than 11:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, having allowed any Member who might have been recognized prior to 11:00 p.m. to finish speaking. ^[61]  No Member may rise to speak after 11:00 p.m., ^[62]  at which time the Speaker or the Chairman will put all questions necessary to dispose of the closured business, including any amendments and sub-amendments. ^[63]  If a recorded division is demanded in the House, the bells will sound for up to 15 minutes. ^[64]  Should the debate conclude before 11:00 p.m., the bells for any recorded division will sound for not more than 30 minutes. ^[65]  The wording of the Standing Order is quite clear that the question on a closured motion must be “decided forthwith”. A recorded division, if demanded, is therefore held immediately unless it is deferred by unanimous consent of the House to a later day, as it was done on occasion, ^[66]  or with the agreement of the Whips of all recognized parties. ^[67] 

In a Committee of the Whole, it is not necessary for all clauses of a bill to be called and then postponed before invoking closure. ^[68]  Furthermore, once closure is adopted, the moment a clause of the bill is called by the Chair, it is deemed to be under consideration. ^[69]  If consideration of one clause ends and debate begins on the next clause, Members have a further 20 minutes to speak to that clause. ^[70]  The adoption of a closure motion in a sitting ensures that the committee stage will be completed in that sitting. ^[71] 

The time allocation rule allows for specific lengths of time to be set aside for the consideration of one or more stages of a public bill. ^[72]  While the term “time allocation” connotes ideas of time management more than it does closure, a motion to allocate time may be used as a guillotine by the government. Indeed, although the rule permits the government to negotiate with opposition parties towards the adoption of a timetable for the consideration by the House of a bill at one or more stages (including the stage for the consideration of Senate amendments), ^[73]  it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate. ^[74] While it has become the most used mechanism to curtail debate, time allocation remains a means of bringing parties together to negotiate an acceptable distribution of the time of the House.

Like the closure rule, the time allocation rule came about in the aftermath of a controversy. During the Pipeline Debate of 1956, ^[75]  closure was the only rule the government could use to advance its legislation. Closure had come to be perceived as somewhat inflexible for the demands of a modern parliamentary democracy and inadequate as a tool with which to conduct the business of the House. Deliberations began, in the House and in committees, with a view to identifying ways in which the time of the House could be allotted for the consideration of specific items of legislation and for the planning of the session’s work, something the closure rule could not provide since the process of giving notice, moving the motion and voting on it must be repeated at every stage of a given bill. ^[76] 

Throughout the period of minority governments in the 1960s, the House attempted, unsuccessfully, to establish a procedural mechanism which would have formally structured the time of the House to facilitate the efficient conduct of debate. Members recognized that the amount and complexity of House business was increasing and that measures were necessary to ensure that the business would be expedited within a reasonable amount of time. ^[77]  Throughout these years, the House agreed to establish a number of special committees charged with considering the procedures of the House and making suggestions to expedite public business. ^[78] 

From the very beginning, the committees explored measures that would allow co-operation among parties. In the Tenth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House in 1964, reference was made to the difficulty of reaching all-party agreement on a proposal to deal with the fundamental question of the allocation of time. ^[79]  Although the Committee indicated it would “continue to explore this basic question”, it did not report further on this matter. Early in the following session, the government took the initiative by moving a motion, which, among other proposals, addressed the issue of time allocation. The motion called for a new Standing Order establishing a “Business Committee” comprised of a representative of each party of the House. Upon the request of a Minister, the Business Committee would consider, and, if agreement were reached, would recommend in a report to the House within three sitting days, an allocation of time for the specific item of business or stage of the matter referred to it. A motion could then be presented without notice by a Minister for concurrence in the report, to be decided without debate or amendment. If, however, the Business Committee were unable to reach unanimous agreement or if it failed to report within the three-day period, a Minister could then give notice during Routine Proceedings that, at the next sitting of the House, he or she would move a motion allocating the time for the item of business or the stage. ^[80] 

The motion was debated in the House for 12 days ^[81] and, throughout the debate, specific concerns were expressed with respect to the Business Committee proposal. The proposal was thus separated from the main motion and referred to a special committee for further study. ^[82]  The special committee recommended in its report to the House another version of the time allocation proposal. The report was concurred in and a provisional rule, referred to as Standing Order 15-A, was adopted. ^[83]  It was invoked on only three occasions from 1965 to 1968, but it became clear that the opposition parties were dissatisfied with it and frequent points of order were raised on how to interpret some of its provisions. In 1967, for example, the Speaker ruled that oral notice was sufficient for the purpose of the time allocation rule and that such a notice did not have to appear on the Notice Paper. ^[84] 

When the Twenty-Eighth Parliament assembled in September 1968, the House decided that Provisional Standing Order 15-A would not be in effect. ^[85]  A special procedure committee was established shortly thereafter ^[86]  to consider, among other things, the issue of time allocation. In its Fourth Report, the Committee recommended a new rule on time allocation. ^[87]  However, on December 20, 1968, the House agreed again to refer the issue to the new Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for further consideration. ^[88] 

Tensions continued between the government and the opposition as to the balance to be achieved between debating at length and perceived curtailment brought about by the provisional rules. It was not until 1969 that the House adopted a report recommending a measure for allocation of time, a forerunner to the present rule. ^[89]  In its simplest form, the newly adopted Standing Order envisaged three options under which a time allotment order could be made, ranging from agreement between all parties to the government acting alone after negotiation had failed to rally the support of any other party. Members of the opposition later expressed dissatisfaction with the interpretation of this Standing Order. ^[90]  The fact that negotiations were to be held between parties, thus excluding independent Members, was also raised. ^[91] 

In November 1975, the President of the Privy Council indicated his intention to bring proposals with implications for time allocation before the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. ^[92]  Although it did not report to the House, the Committee created a sub-committee on the use of time which, among other items, reviewed and proposed alternative text to the Standing Order on time allocation. ^[93] 

The wording of the Standing Order continued to cause procedural concern. In December 1978, after a point of order was raised, Speaker Jerome ruled that a time allocation motion could be moved covering both report and third reading stages, even though third reading had not yet been reached. ^[94]  A position paper on reform, tabled by the government in November 1979, noted the ambiguity in the wording of the Standing Order and proposed that it be rewritten. ^[95]  In March 1983, Speaker Sauvé confirmed that notice of intention to move a time allocation motion could be given at any time during the sitting. ^[96]  In October 1983, she ruled that once the question on the motion for time allocation was proposed, the vote would be taken two hours after that proceeding had begun, and any superseding motions proposed during that time period would be disposed of at the end of the two-hour allotment and before voting on the time allocation motion. ^[97] 

From May 1985, a new practice developed whereby time allocation motions were moved and debated following written government notices of motions under Government Orders. This written notice was in addition to the oral notice of intention to move such a motion which had been given to fulfil the requirements of the Standing Order. The new practice was confirmed by Speaker Bosley as an acceptable way of proceeding. ^[98] 

In June 1987, amendments were adopted to provide that time allocation motions, after only oral notice, would be moved under “Government Orders” rather than under “Motions” during Routine Proceedings, as had been the practice. The revisions also provided that debate on the item of business under consideration at the time the motion was moved would be deemed adjourned. ^[99] 

In August 1988, Speaker Fraser ruled that an oral notice of a time allocation motion need only be a notice of intention and not a notice of the text of the motion itself. In the same ruling, the Speaker further stated that the initiative of announcing any agreements (or lack thereof) to allot time rested with a Minister, who had to be a party to any such agreements. ^[100] 

In 1991, following a further change to the Standing Order, the motion for time allocation moved without the agreement of all parties ceased to be a subject of debate or amendment. ^[101]  Until then, such a motion was subject to amendment and could be debated for up to two hours, at which point all questions necessary to dispose of the motion were to be put by the Chair.

The time allocation rule is divided into three distinct sections. Each section specifies the conditions applying to the allocation of time, depending on the degree of support among the representatives of the recognized parties ^[102]  in the House.

1. All Parties Agree: The first section of the rule envisages agreement among the representatives of all the recognized parties in the House to allocate time to the proceedings at any or all stages of a public bill. ^[103]  Notice is not required. In proposing the motion, a Minister first states that such an agreement has been reached ^[104]  and then sets out the terms of the agreement, specifying the number of days or hours of debate to be allocated. ^[105]  The Speaker then puts the question to the House, which is decided without debate or amendment.
2. Majority of Parties Agree: The second section of the rule envisages agreement among a majority of the representatives of the recognized parties in the House. ^[106]  In these circumstances, as in the case of all-party agreement, the government must be a party to any agreement reached. ^[107]  The motion may not cover more than one stage of the legislative process. It may, however, apply both to report stage and third reading, if it is consistent with the rule requiring a separate day for debate at third reading when a bill has been debated or amended at report stage. ^[108]  Again, no notice is required. Prior to moving the motion, the Minister states that a majority of party representatives have agreed to a proposed allocation of time. ^[109]  The motion specifies how many days or hours are to be allocated. The day on which the motion is adopted is counted as one sitting day for this purpose, if it is moved and carried at the beginning of Government Orders. ^[110] 
3. No Agreement: The third section of the rule permits the government unilaterally to propose an allocation of time. ^[111]  In this case, an oral notice of intention to move the motion is required. ^[112]  The motion can propose only the allocation of time for one stage of the legislative process, that being the stage then under consideration. However, the motion can cover both report stage and third reading, provided it is consistent with the rule which requires a separate day for third reading when a bill has been debated or amended at report stage. ^[113]  The amount of time allocated for any stage may not be less than one sitting day.

Oral notice is required when the government wishes to propose its own timetable in the absence of any time allocation agreement among representatives from all or a majority of the recognized parties. ^[114]  The notice may be given only after debate has begun on the stage of the bill to which the time allocation motion is to apply. ^[115]  It must be given by a Minister, from his or her place in the House, ^[116]  any time during the course of the sitting; ^[117]  the time allocation motion can then be moved at any future sitting of the House, even several days or weeks later.

The notice is to state that agreement could not be reached under the other provisions of the rule and that the government therefore intends to propose a motion to allocate time in respect of a particular stage of a particular bill. ^[118]  The notice need only express the intention of the government; it need not include the terms of the motion to follow. ^[119]  Once given, a notice of time allocation may be withdrawn; similarly, notice may be given without a motion being moved subsequently.

The wording of a motion for time allocation must be specific as to the terms of the allocation of time. In most cases, time is allocated in terms of sitting days or hours; however, on at least one occasion, time was allocated in increments of less than one hour per stage of the affected bill. ^[120]  In all cases, a motion for time allocation must be moved by a Minister in the House, and is neither debatable nor amendable. ^[121] 

In cases when there is agreement among the party representatives, the motion has normally been moved under “Motions” during Routine Proceedings. In circumstances when a majority agree on the allocation of time, or when no agreement has been reached, the motion is moved under Government Orders. Debate on any item of business interrupted by the moving of a motion for time allocation is deemed adjourned. ^[122]  Once the motion is moved, the question is put forthwith.

After the adoption of a motion for time allocation, debate at the stage or stages of the bill in question then becomes subject to the time limits imposed by the motion. The day on which the time allocation motion is adopted may be counted as one sitting day for that purpose, provided the motion is moved and adopted at the beginning of Government Orders and the bill is taken up immediately. ^[123]  The bill may also be taken up at a future sitting of the House. ^[124]  The normal rules of debate apply. At the expiry of the time allocated for a given stage, any proceedings before the House are interrupted, and the Chair puts every question necessary for the disposal of the bill at that stage. If a recorded division is demanded, the bells summoning the Members will ring for not longer than 15 minutes. ^[125]  Recorded divisions on bills under time allocation are not ordinarily deferred, though deferrals may take place by special order, ^[126]  by automatic deferral of the vote pursuant to rules of the House, ^[127]  or by agreement of the Whips of all recognized parties. ^[128]  When debate concludes prior to the end of the allotted time, if a recorded division is demanded, the bells will ring for not more than 30 minutes, and the vote may be deferred by either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip. ^[129] 

At times, objections have been raised as to the circumstances in which agreement was reached or to the nature of the consultations undertaken by the government. As with closure, the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed. ^[130]  The Speaker has stated that the wording of the rule does not define the nature of the consultations which are to be held by the Minister and representatives of the other parties, and has further ruled that the Chair has no authority to determine whether or not consultation took place nor what constitutes consultation among the representatives of the parties. ^[131] 

If, at any time during a sitting of the House, unanimous consent is denied for the presentation of a “routine motion”, a Minister may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker put the motion. ^[132]  For that purpose, a “routine motion” refers to motions which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishment of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. ^[133]  The motion, which is neither debatable nor amendable, is immediately put to the House by the Speaker. If 25 Members or more oppose the motion, it is deemed withdrawn; ^[134]  otherwise, it is adopted. ^[135] 

While it appeared at first that the range of motions to which this process could be used would be limited, over the years the rule has been used to extend a sitting in order to sit on the weekend; ^[136]  to extend the sitting to consider Government Orders; ^[137]  to deal with a specific motion under Government Business; ^[138]  to pass a government bill at all stages; ^[139]  to establish the length of speeches during a “take note” debate; ^[140]  and to attempt to rescind an Order of the House. ^[141]  There is no limit on how often the government can resort to this rule during one sitting.

Adopted in 1991, ^[142]  this procedure was relatively unused until the Thirty-Sixth Parliament (1997- ). ^[143]  Prior to its adoption, it was argued that the new proposed rule would have a negative impact on Members’ ability to debate government motions and “override unanimous consent”. ^[144]  On April 9, 1991, Speaker Fraser, while pointing out that the range of motions to which the proposed procedure would apply was very limited, also suggested that the new Standing Order was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate: “There are certain similarities also between the proposal and existing Standing Order 78 respecting time allocation in that both use a ladder-like type of approach depending upon the extent of agreement forthcoming to securing the right to propose the motion”. ^[145] 

When a situation arises that the government considers urgent, a Minister may move that the House suspend certain Standing Orders respecting notice requirements and the times of sitting in connection with that matter. ^[146]  For example, motion can be used to waive notice for the introduction of a bill or for any stage at which a notice is required. ^[147]  In moving the motion, the Minister gives reasons for the urgency of the situation and, after the motion has been seconded, the Speaker immediately proposes the question. ^[148]  In doing so, the Speaker may allow up to one hour of uninterrupted debate. ^[149]  Speeches are limited to 10 minutes each and no amendment is allowed except by another Minister. When putting the question, the Speaker is bound to ask those Members opposed to rise. If fewer than 10 do so, the motion is automatically adopted; ^[150]  if 10 or more do so, it is deemed to have been withdrawn. ^[151]  The resulting order, if the motion is adopted, applies only to the proceedings specified in that order.

This Standing Order is relatively recent and has been invoked infrequently since its adoption in 1968. The reasons for its establishment go back to 1964, when Prime Minister Pearson moved a motion, without notice, to send a Canadian peacekeeping force to Cyprus. Although the motion appeared to have the overall support of the House, some Members objected to the lack of notice. They argued that 48 hours’ advance warning was required before such an important matter could be discussed. Stating that the Prime Minister had obtained “leave”, the Deputy Speaker dismissed the objections and allowed the House to proceed with the motion. ^[152] 

Then, in 1966, when the House was asked to deal urgently with a strike by air traffic controllers, the Minister of Public Works suggested a procedural mechanism for the government to deal with urgent matters. As he explained, “ … a private member has a right to move the adjournment of the house to consider a matter of urgent public importance… . It is a curious anomaly that there is no corresponding provision enabling the government to bring any proceedings relating to the same matter before the house without notice.” ^[153]  Although opposition Members felt action was required, in the end, the Minister’s proposal was withdrawn. ^[154] 

When the present rule was agreed to two years later in 1968, it was evident from its wording that the events of 1966 had been taken into account. Indeed, the new rule was similar to the one proposed in 1966. In suggesting the addition of the rule, the Special Committee on Procedure wrote: “ … it seems reasonable to expect that the normal requirement of a notice of motion … might be dispensed with for the purpose of dealing with matters of urgency when the overwhelming majority of the House recognizes that it would be desirable to do so. It seems intolerable … that a single dissenting voice should be permitted to frustrate the otherwise unanimous will of the House… .” ^[155]  The rule has not been altered except for minor gender reference changes in 1982.

While intended to be used to waive notice requirements and set times of sitting, this Standing Order has been used to outline terms of debate in a manner that resembles time allocation. ^[156]