Closure
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.
Historical Perspective
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]
Notice of Closure
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.
Motion of Closure
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]