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

[51]: See, for example, Debates, April 6, 1981, p. 9014.
[52]: See, for example, Journals, August 29, 1917, p. 605; in December 1988, notice of closure was given on the first day of debate at second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading stages of Bill C-2, Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Journals, December 15, 1988, pp. 36-7; December 20, 1988, p. 61; Debates, December 20, 1988, p. 500; Journals, December 22, 1988, pp. 72-3).
[53]: On March 1, 1926, after some 25 days of debate, the government gave notice of closure on the motion for the Address in Reply; the motion was moved and adopted on March 2 (Journals, pp. 121, 123).
[54]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 15, 1988, p. 78.
[55]: In 1969, three notices of closure were given in respect to a motion for concurrence in the report of a procedure committee (Journals, July 22, 1969, pp. 1383; July 23, 1969, p. 1386; July 24, 1969, p. 1393). The closure motion was moved on July 24, 1969 (Journals, p. 1396). In 1987, two notices of closure were given on a motion concerning capital punishment (Journals, June 18, 1987, p. 1200; June 26, 1987, p. 1263). The closure motion was moved during the following sitting (Journals, June 29, 1987, p. 1274).
[56]: Journals, December 4, 1986, pp. 272, 274; August 26, 1987, p. 1384; August 28, 1987, pp. 1396-7.
[57]: Debates, June 16, 1989, pp. 3146-8.
[58]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 15, 1988, pp. 76-8.
[59]: Following a question of privilege protesting the government’s intent to invoke closure on the motion relating to the reinstatement of capital punishment, Speaker Fraser ruled that the timing of closure in a debate is not a procedural matter and that the Chair has no discretionary power to refuse the motion and is without authority to intervene when a Standing Order is used according to the House’s rules and practices (Debates, June 29, 1987, pp. 7713-4). See also, Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1397-9; Debates, February 7, 1990, pp. 7953-4.
[60]: Standing Order 57.
[61]: Journals, December 14, 1964, p. 1000.
[62]: Debates, April 13, 1921, p. 2094; October 23, 1980, pp. 4049-53.
[63]: In 1969, Speaker Lamoureux delivered a ruling in which he reviewed the precedents and concluded that if the debate as a whole is to be closured, then any amendment or other motion applying to the main motion is included in the termination time set out in the closure rule (Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1393-6).
[64]: Standing Order 45(3).
[65]: On occasion, debate on a closured item has collapsed prior to the cut-off time. See, for example, Journals, June 26, 1989, pp. 450-3; March 4, 1996, pp. 33-5, 39-42; and Debates, March 4, 1996, pp. 270-3.
[66]: See Journals, December 6, 1995, pp. 2214-6; March 14, 1996, pp. 94-6.
[67]: Standing Order 45(7).
[68]: See, for example, Debates, April 1, 1932, p. 1609; May 31, 1956, pp. 4516-7; December 21, 1988, pp. 539-41.
[69]: Debates, May 24, 1956, pp. 4286-93.
[70]: Debates, April 28, 1919, p. 1796.
[71]: Debates, May 15, 1956, pp. 3968-72.
[72]: Standing Order 78.
[73]: See, for example, Journals, November 28, 1996, p. 930.
[74]: Since time allocation can be used to curtail debate, it is commonly referred to as “closure” in debate.
[75]: Between May 15 and June 5, 1956, closure was used at all four stages of the legislative process as it was then: resolution (Debates, May 15, 1956, p. 3895); second reading (Debates, May 22, 1956, p. 4165); Committee of the Whole (Debates, May 31, 1956, p. 4498); and third reading (Debates, June 5, 1956, p. 4689).
[76]: As comments from that period suggest, Members were eager to see the time of the House used more efficiently. See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1960, pp. 3685, 3692; January 18, 1961, p. 1169; March 26, 1962, pp. 2162-6.
[77]: See comments by Finance Minister Donald Fleming (Debates, May 9, 1960, pp. 3685, 3687); by Opposition Leader Lester B. Pearson and CCF Leader Hazen Argue (Debates, January 18, 1961, pp. 1169-70); by Opposition Leader John G. Diefenbaker (Debates, October 23, 1963, pp. 3925-31) and by Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) (Debates, May 20, 1965, pp. 1530-1).
[78]: Motions to appoint the special committees were adopted on May 9, 1960 (Journals, p. 434); January 18, 1961 (Journals, p. 163); March 26, 1962 (Journals, p. 277); October 23, 1963 (Journals, p. 482); March 9, 1964 (Journals, pp. 76-7); January 25, 1967 (Journals, pp. 1227-8); May 8, 1967 (Journals, p. 12).
[79]: Journals, August 19, 1964, p. 633.
[80]: Journals, May 19, 1965, pp. 128-9.
[81]: See Journals for May 19, 20, 21, 25, 26 and 27, and June 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, 1965.
[82]: Journals, June 8, 1965, pp. 210-1.
[83]: Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 219-23.
[84]: Speaker Lamoureux noted that the provisional Standing Order “not only dispenses with the requirement for 48 hours’ notice with respect to a motion for time allocation; it also renders inoperative the ordinary machinery for putting a notice on the order paper” (Debates, April 20, 1967, pp. 15120-1).
[85]: Journals, September 20, 1968, p. 58.
[86]: Journals, September 24, 1968, p. 68
[87]: Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 439-40.
[88]: Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 579.
[89]: The Third Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization was presented on June 20, 1969 (Journals, pp. 1211-2), and adopted on July 24, 1969 (Journals, pp. 1393-402), after debate which continued over 12 sitting days and was brought to an end with the aid of closure.
[90]: On December 1, 1971, points of order were raised regarding the wording and interpretation of Standing Order 78(3). Speaker Lamoureux ruled that 48 hours’ written notice was not required to move a time allocation motion and, furthermore, that it was regular to move such a motion for the disposal of proceedings for the stage being considered by the House (Journals, pp. 947-8).
[91]: In 1971, Speaker Lamoureux ruled that, in essence, independent Members would not receive the recognition accorded to Members represented by a party spokesperson, according to the wording of Standing Order 78(1) (Journals, December 30, 1971, pp. 1013-4).
[92]: Debates, November 13, 1975, p. 9022.
[93]: Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, pp. 59-63.
[94]: Debates, December 20, 1978, pp. 2317-20.
[95]: See pages 20 and 21 of “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament”, tabled on November 23, 1979 (Journals, p. 260).
[96]: Debates, March 7, 1983, pp. 23510-1.
[97]: Debates, October 26, 1983, pp. 28357-8.
[98]: Debates, May 16, 1985, pp. 4821-2.
[99]: Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1026-7.
[100]: Debates, August 15, 1988, pp. 18309-11; August 16, 1988, pp. 18352-5, 18380-1.