Chapter 14The Curtailment of Debate

Closure

Closure is a procedural device used to bring debate on a question to a conclusion by “a majority decision of the House, even though all Members wishing to speak have not done so”.³⁹ The closure rule⁴⁰ 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,⁴¹ the rule has remained virtually unchanged since its adoption in 1913.

Closure may be used for any debatable matter, including bills and motions. The rule was intended for use in a Committee of the Whole⁴² as much as in the House, but it cannot be used in its standing, special, legislative or joint committees. When these committees are considering bills, the House may, however, use the time allocation rule⁴³ to impose a deadline on the committee stage or to force a committee to report the bill under consideration 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 1913.⁴⁴ 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.⁴⁵ Speeches from that period show that it was often thought that the question on a motion would not be put for a long time, if at all, and in 1911, during one of these protracted debates, a Member of the opposition referred to the possibility of “illimitable discussion”.⁴⁶

Opposition Leader Robert Borden, who would eventually introduce the new rule, had himself suggested that a closure mechanism would be “undesirable”,⁴⁷ but nearly two years of discussion on naval policy convinced him of the need 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.⁴⁸ 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.⁴⁹

Invoked 11 times from 1913 to 1932, the closure rule was not used again for the following 24 years, when the pipeline debate took place. In May 1956, the government presented a bill entitled An Act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipeline Crown Corporation aimed at providing financial assistance to an American consortium that was building a gas pipeline from Alberta to Quebec. During the acrimonious debate on the bill, which continued from May into June, closure was invoked at each stage of the legislative process.⁵⁰

Since its introduction, closure has been used more than 80 times: in order to hold a vote more quickly on an array of motions,⁵¹ primarily resolutions,⁵² and motions to amend the Standing Orders,⁵³ to regulate House proceedings and hours of sitting,⁵⁴ and to reinstate bills on the Order Paper at the beginning of a new session⁵⁵ or to examine them at one or more stages of consideration.⁵⁶ Closure has also been used to put an end to a debate on a question of privilege.⁵⁷

The closure rule has been the subject of scrutiny and discussion many times, and the idea of repealing the closure rule surfaces from time to time.⁵⁸ The pipeline debate, which was the subject of extensive analysis and discussion, has had a lasting impact on Members’ perception of how the House operates.⁵⁹

In December 1957, the new Diefenbaker government placed a notice of motion to repeal the closure rule on the Order Paper, but the motion was never debated.⁶⁰ 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”.⁶¹ The Committee never acted on the 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.⁶² It did not report on the matter. The Throne Speech in September 1962 indicated that the House would be asked to abolish closure, but this also was not acted upon.⁶³ During the Thirtieth Parliament (1974–79), a subcommittee 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,⁶⁴ but this too was never recommended to the House by the Standing Committee.

The most recent development of significance occurred in October 2001, when the House adopted a new Standing Order allowing for a question and answer period of at most 30 minutes when a motion of closure is moved.⁶⁵ The intent of the question and answer period is to promote ministerial accountability, and it provides an opportunity for the government to justify its use of this measure.⁶⁶

Generally speaking, how much debate the government will allow on a measure before moving closure depends on a number of factors, including its desire to adhere to its legislative timetable. The Speaker has occasionally been asked to use discretionary authority to refuse to put a closure motion to the House on the grounds that the measure had not yet been given enough debating time. Invariably, the Speaker 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 used properly.⁶⁷

Notice of Closure

Prior to moving a motion for closure, a Minister must have given oral notice of intention to do so at a previous sitting of the House or a Committee of the Whole. The Standing Orders do not specify when such notice may be given, and there are, therefore, a variety of precedents. For example, notice has been given when there was no question before the House,⁶⁸ when the motion to be closured was under debate⁶⁹ and when the question before the House was not related to the notice.⁷⁰ Sometimes, notice was given on the first day of debate on the motion to be closured,⁷¹ and sometimes after one or more days of debate.⁷² Regardless, debate on the item which is the subject of the notice must have begun before notice of closure may be given.⁷³

Although there is no requirement to give notice more than once, on occasion, Ministers have given the same notice in several sittings so as to avoid any objection that notice had not been given at the previous sitting.⁷⁴ Moreover, there is no obligation to proceed with moving the closure motion even if notice has been given; there have been cases where the notice was not followed up.⁷⁵ 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; however, four separate motions proposing closure, one for each bill, had to be moved.⁷⁶

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.⁷⁷ 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.

The motion of closure in the House reads simply, “That the debate be not further adjourned”. In a Committee of the Whole, closure can be applied to a resolution or to the particulars of a bill, such as the title, preamble, or clauses, individually or in groups. It is not necessary for all parts of a bill to be called and then postponed before invoking closure.⁷⁸ In fact, the parts affected by the closure motion are normally those whose consideration has not yet been completed by the Committee, on which debate has not yet ended, which have not yet been called or where consideration of specific parts has been postponed or stood by decision of the Committee. The motion of closure requires that these parts of the bill be the first business taken up in Committee of the Whole that day and not be further postponed. Basically, the adoption of a motion of closure in a Committee of the Whole ensures that the committee stage will be completed in that sitting.⁷⁹

Closure motions are neither debatable nor amendable. However, once moved, the House or the Committee of the Whole proceeds to a question and answer period of not more than 30 minutes, when Members may put brief questions to the Minister responsible for the item subject to the closure motion or to the Minister acting on his or her behalf.⁸⁰

In the House, at the end of the time provided for questions and answers, or when no other Member rises to speak, the Speaker puts the question immediately: “That … the debate shall not be further adjourned”. If a recorded division is demanded in the House, the bells will sound for up to 30 minutes.⁸¹ If the closure motion is adopted, debate resumes on the now-closured business, but the debate becomes subject to the restrictions imposed by the closure rule.⁸² No Member (including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition) may speak more than once, nor for longer than 20 minutes; each speech may be followed by a period of not more than 10 minutes for questions and comments.⁸³ A Member who has spoken to the main motion prior to the adoption of the closure motion may speak again if an amendment or subamendment is moved during the closured debate. However, a Member who is recognized to speak to the main motion after the adoption of the closure motion may not speak to any subsequent amendment or subamendment.

In a Committee of the Whole, following the question and answer period, the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will put the question on the motion for closure. If closure is adopted, the resolution, or a specific part of a bill if the Committee is considering a legislative measure, is immediately taken under consideration.⁸⁴ In the case of a bill, the first clauses will likely be at issue. During the ensuing debate, as is the case in the House, no Member may speak more than once, nor for longer than 20 minutes. If consideration of one clause ends and debate begins on the next clause, Members have a further 20 minutes to speak to that clause.⁸⁵

All questions necessary to dispose of the closured item are to be put no later than 8:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, allowing any Member who might have been recognized prior to 8:00 p.m. to finish speaking.⁸⁶ No Member may rise to speak after 8:00 p.m.⁸⁷ At that time, or soon thereafter if a Member is bringing his or her speech to a close,⁸⁸ the Speaker of the House or the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will put all questions necessary to dispose of the closured item, including any amendments and subamendments.⁸⁹

In the House, if a recorded division is demanded, the bells will sound for up to 15 minutes.⁹⁰ Should the debate conclude before 8:00 p.m., the bells for any recorded division will sound for not more than 30 minutes.⁹¹ A recorded division may be deferred by unanimous consent of the House to a later day, as has been done on occasion,⁹² or with the agreement of the Whips of all recognized parties.⁹³

During a sitting in which a motion of closure is carried and the closured item is called and debated for the remainder of the sitting day, Private Members’ Business takes place as usual, if applicable, at the time designated in the daily order of business.⁹⁴ On Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, the House debates the closured item until Private Members’ Business and resumes the debate immediately afterward. However, the Adjournment Proceedings are suspended in sittings where closure is applied.⁹⁵ Motions to extend a sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and motions to adjourn debate or the House are out of order when a closured motion is under debate.⁹⁶

39.: Norman Wilding and Philip Laundy, An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 4th ed. (London: Cassell, 1972), p. 139.
40.: Standing Order 57.
41.: Originally, the time for putting all questions to dispose of closured business was set at 2:00 a.m. (Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507–9). In 1955, it was changed to 1:00 a.m. (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881, 910–1, 945), in 1991 to 11:00 p.m. (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2902–5, 2913) and in 2001 to 8:00 p.m. (First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, para 25, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691–3), pursuant to a Special Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685)).
42.: See, for example, Debates, December 21, 1988, p. 541.
43.: Standing Order 78. For further information, see the section in this chapter entitled “Time Allocation”.
44.: Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507–9. Although both Westminster and the Canadian House of Commons have closure rules, some differences are worth noting. First, the wording of the question to be put to the British House of Commons is in the affirmative: “That the question be now put”. Second, closure there is moved without notice, must be decided forthwith and, if adopted, ends debate immediately. Third, unlike in Canada, the Speaker can refuse to put the motion if it appears “that the motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority”. Fourth, at least 100 Members must vote in favour of the closure motion for it to be adopted (Standing Orders 36 and 37 of the U.K. Standing Orders of the House of Commons). Standing Order 29 also sets out a procedure similar to closure. The Australian House of Representatives makes a distinction between “Closure of Member”, which reads: “That the Member from … be not further heard” (Standing Order 80) and “Closure of Question”, which reads: “That the question be now put” (Standing Order 81).
45.: These are the franchise bill in 1885, the Manitoba school legislation in 1896, the franchise bill in 1908 and the reciprocity debate in 1911. See Dawson, Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, p. 121.
46.: “It is therefore altogether probable that, if the government can force the matter to a vote, it will be carried. On the other hand, the opposition can, if it sees fit, probably prevent a vote. There are 300 items which will give opportunity for illimitable discussion” (Debates, April 28, 1911, col. 8038).
47.: Debates, December 14, 1909, cols. 1441–2.
48.: Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507–9. For a detailed account of the Naval Aid Bill episode, see Henry Borden, ed. Robert Laird Borden: His Memoirs, vol. 1 (Toronto/Montreal: McClelland and Stewart, 1969), pp. 186–99; and Dawson, Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, pp. 122–4.
49.: Debates, May 9, 1913, col. 9445.
50.: 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).
51.: In the Forty-First Parliament, closure was used a few times to move motions to expedite the consideration of bills to end labour disputes. See, for example, Journals, June 23, 2011, pp. 153–5; March 13, 2012, pp. 956–8; May 29, 2012, pp. 1331–3.
52.: See, for example, Journals, June 29, 1987, pp. 1274–6 (on capital punishment); December 9, 2002, pp. 280–1 (on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol).
53.: See, for example, Journals, February 27, 2001, pp. 139–40.
54.: See, for example, Journals, June 23, 2005, pp. 974–6; May 27, 2014, pp. 1063–5.
55.: See, for example, Journals, February 10, 2004, pp. 34–6; October 21, 2013, pp. 37–41.
56.: See, for example, Journals, June 11, 1999, pp. 2101–2; December 7, 2009, pp. 1147–50; February 14, 2011, pp. 1235–8.
57.: See, for example, Journals, March 4, 2014, pp. 616–8; May 2, 2017, pp. 1644–6.
58.: In 1998, the opposition managed to have the rule temporarily repealed (Journals, June 12, 1998, pp. 1027–8).
59.: Some writers have commented that the use of closure during the pipeline debate produced a lingering distaste for the closure rule, already in disrepute. See, for example, Stewart, The Canadian House of Commons, pp. 242–6; Philip Laundy, The Office of Speaker in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth (London: Quiller, 1984), pp. 112–9.
60.: Journals, December 9, 1957, p. 255.
61.: Debates, July 21, 1960, p. 6676.
62.: Journals, March 26, 1962, p. 277.
63.: Journals, September 27, 1962, p. 15.
64.: Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, p. 57.
65.: Standing Order 67.1(1); First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, paras 21 to 24, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691–3), pursuant to a Special Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685). This rule also concerns the use of time allocation under Standing Order 78(3). For further information on this subject, see the section in this chapter entitled “Time Allocation”.
66.: See, for example, Journals, October 7, 2014, p. 1596.
67.: 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.
68.: See, for example, Journals, June 16, 2011, p. 106 (notice given between Oral Questions and Routine Proceedings); June 21, 2011, pp. 122–3 (notice given between Oral Questions and Government Orders); October 18, 2013, p. 32 (notice given between Routine Proceedings and Government Orders).
69.: See, for example, Debates, March 1, 1926, p. 1431; Journals, October 4, 2002, pp. 23–4; March 3, 2014, p. 611.
70.: See, for example, Debates, April 6, 1981, p. 9014; Journals, April 16, 2007, p. 1209; May 21, 2013, pp. 3139–40.
71.: See, for example, Journals, August 29, 1917, p. 605; June 22, 2005, pp. 960–1, 968. 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, 1st Sess, 34th Parl, 1988 (Journals, December 15, 1988, pp. 36–7; December 20, 1988, p. 61, Debates, p. 500; Journals, December 22, 1988, pp. 72–3). See also Government Business No. 10 (Journals, May 26, 2014, pp. 1037–8, 1057).
72.: On March 1, 1926, after some 25 days of debate, the government gave notice of closure on the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne; the motion was moved and adopted on March 2, 1926 (Journals, pp. 121, 123).
73.: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, December 15, 1988, pp. 76–8).
74.: In 1969, three notices of closure were given in respect of a motion for concurrence in a report of the Standing Commitee on Procedure and Organisation (Journals, July 22, 1969, p. 1383; July 23, 1969, p. 1386; July 24, 1969, p. 1393). The closure motion was moved on July 24, 1969 (Journals, p. 1396). In 2002, two notices of closure were given, on December 5 and 6, respectively, regarding a government motion on the Kyoto Protocol (Journals, December 5, 2002, p. 264; December 6, 2002, p. 277). The closure motion was moved on December 9, 2002 (Journals, p. 280).
75.: Journals, December 4, 1986, pp. 272, 274; August 26, 1987, p. 1384; August 28, 1987, pp. 1396–7. In 1999, during Routine Proceedings, a Minister moved a motion authorizing travel by the Standing Committee on Finance. The ensuing debate was finally adjourned, and the Minister gave notice of closure on the motion. The notice was not followed up as on the next sitting day, the House authorized travel by the Committee by unanimous consent (Journals, October 29, 1999, pp. 142–4; November 1, 1999, p. 145). In 2009, a Minister gave notice of his intention to move closure at a future sitting in relation to the third reading stage of a bill. Later that same sitting, the House passed the bill without having to use closure (Journals, December 10, 2009, pp. 1191, 1199–200).
76.: Debates, June 16, 1989, pp. 3146–8.
77.: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, December 15, 1988, pp. 76–8).
78.: See, for example, Debates, April 1, 1932, p. 1609; May 31, 1956, pp. 4516–7; December 21, 1988, pp. 539–41.
79.: See, for example, Debates, May 15, 1956, pp. 3968–72.
80.: Standing Order 67.1. The rule does not, however, specify the manner in which this question and answer period is to proceed. The Speaker’s practice to date has been to recommend that speeches take about one minute each in order to allow as many Members as possible the opportunity to ask a question. The Speaker also encourages Members to express their interest in participating by asking them to rise before the question and answer period begins. See, for example, Debates, November 27, 2001, p. 7532; May 27, 2014, p. 5670. Preference is normally given to opposition Members, although government Members may also be recognized (Debates, May 29, 2012, p. 8482). The first question and answer period on a motion of closure was held in the House on October 7, 2002 (Debates, pp. 335–40). To date, there have been no question and answer periods in Committee of the Whole.
81.: Such a division cannot be deferred without the unanimous consent of the House or the agreement of the Whips of all recognized parties (Standing Order 45(7)).
82.: Standing Order 57.
83.: Standing Orders 43 and 57.
84.: See, for example, Debates, May 24, 1956, pp. 4286–93.
85.: See, for example, Debates, April 28, 1919, p. 1796.
86.: See, for example, Journals, December 14, 1964, p. 1000; Debates, March 4, 2014, p. 3529.
87.: See, for example, Debates, April 13, 1921, p. 2094; October 23, 1980, pp. 4049–53.
88.: See, for example, Debates, March 23, 1999, pp. 13360–3 (the Chair Occupant allowed the Member to complete his speech before interrupting the proceedings at 11:05 p.m.); February 10, 2004, pp. 422–4 (the Chair Occupant interrupted the proceedings at 8:00 p.m.).
89.: 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 cut-off time set out in the closure rule (Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1393–6).
90.: Standing Order 45(3).
91.: 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, Debates, pp. 270–3; Journals, June 11, 1999, pp. 2101–2; April 17, 2007, pp. 1216–9, Debates, pp. 8285–7. On one occasion, by unanimous consent, the House adopted a motion regarding the proceedings on a privilege motion subject to closure; consequently, the debate was interrupted before the cut-off time, questions on the subamendment and the amendment were deemed adopted, and the recorded division on the main motion, as amended, was deemed requested and deferred until the following day (Journals, May 2, 2017, pp. 1644–7).
92.: See, for example, Journals, December 6, 1995, pp. 2214–6; December 9, 2002, pp. 281, 285.
93.: Standing Order 45(7).
94.: Standing Order 67.1 provides that, if the motion for closure is moved and carried at the beginning of the time provided for Government Orders on any day, and if the bill is then called and debated for the remainder of that sitting day, a period of time equal to the time allowed for questions and answers shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders on that same day. In practice, Government Orders are not extended because the proceedings under closure are interrupted at 8:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. Private Members’ Business, where applicable, is dealt with at the time designated in the daily order of business and is not delayed, despite Standing Order 67.1. See, for example, Journals, May 29, 2012, pp. 1331–4.
95.: The Adjournment Proceedings have occasionally been held even though closure has been applied to an item debated during the sitting. See, for example, Journals, December 9, 2002, pp. 280–1, 285, when, with the unanimous consent of the House, the vote on a subamendment and all other questions affected by closure had been deferred to another day, making it possible for the Adjournment Proceedings to be held that day.
96.: For further information, see the sections entitled “Motions to Adjourn the Debate” and “Motions to Adjourn the House” in Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611

trbdrb@parl.gc.ca