The curtailment of debate in the house of commons.

• Author: Plante, Francois
• Position: An Historical Perspective - Report

Time is certainly one of Parliament's most precious resources. Since a happy medium must be found between the right to debate as long as is desirable and the right of Parliament to make a decision, House of Commons procedure has evolved to enable the government, when it sees fit, to limit the time available for debate. This article presents a historical analysis of the creation and use of the time management tools provided in the Standing Orders. These tools are closure, time allocation, the previous question, the motion to suspend certain Standing Orders for matters of an urgent nature and the routine motion by a Minister. Although debate in the 41st Parliament (2011-) has been curtailed more often than in previous parliaments, the use of time management tools has been on the rise since the mid1970s. Various factors such as the larger number of tools available to the government, the adoption of a fixed schedule and calendar and the systematic increase in opposition obstructionism likely explain this trend.

The Parliament of Canada, like all modern parliaments, has three major functions: it represents, it monitors government actions and it legislates. The legislative function--the introduction and examination of laws in a three-reading process-necessitates debate between the government and the opposition. The former explains its proposals to the public, and the latter, when it opposes a bill, attempts to change it or impede its passage while rallying public support.

A government intent on seeing its legislative agenda pass must ensure it has at least some cooperation from opposition parliamentarians. [...] Parliamentary procedure provides opposition MPs with various ways to be heard, including when they wish to prevent a government bill from being passed quickly. Proposing countless motions and amendments and using all the speaking time available in the House and in committee are so many ways to slow down a bill's passage. When these tools are used in an orchestrated and systematic way, the word "filibuster" is applicable. This parliamentary strategy is based on using dilatory measures and can postpone the House's decision. However, the government majority possesses certain tools to speed up the proceedings. (1) The tools at the government's disposal appear to have evolved over time, and it seems clear that their use has also changed significantly. Given that debate in the House of Commons was curtailed substantially more often during the first year of Stephen Harper's majority government, it is appropriate to take a look at the creation and use of the various time management tools.

This article will discuss the "rules and practices of the House of Commons that. ... on the one hand, facilitate the daily management of its time and, on the other, limit debate and expedite the normal course of events in cases deemed of an important or urgent nature." (2) More specifically, the article will focus on the five measures identified in Chapter 14 of the parliamentary procedure reference work by O'Brien and Bosc (2009). These measures are closure, time allocation, the previous question, the motion to suspend certain Standing Orders for matters of an urgent nature and the routine motion by a Minister. After briefly describing how these tools came to be and how they work, the article will provide a historical analysis of their use. Note that the data analyzed for the current Parliament covers only the period between the start of the session and the summer adjournment in 2012 (June 2, 2011, to June 21, 2012).

But first, it is certainly worth noting that the vast majority of bills are debated and passed without the governing party having to curtail debate. Indeed, only 2.8% of the 5,278 government bills introduced in the House since the start of the 12th Parliament (in 1911) have been targets of "hostile" time management methods. (3) Moreover, many bills are passed rapidly, sometimes in a single day, with the unanimous consent of the House, which allows it to set aside its own rules.

The previous question

The first time management tool is also the oldest: the previous question (Standing Order 61) existed in the first Parliament of Canada in 1867. Any MP (even an opposition MP) who has the floor during debate on a motion can move "that this question now be put." Some might hesitate to call this a time management tool and in fact, the previous question does nothing to impede debate. "Because of the many restrictions that regulate its use, as well as its sometimes unexpected outcome, the previous question has been described as the 'most ineffective' method of limiting debate." (4) Yet the curtailment of debate becomes more apparent if one considers that the previous question has the effect of preventing the introduction of amendments to the main motion. In addition to blocking any amendment or potential obstruction tactics, adopting the previous question puts the main motion to a vote on the spot, without further debate. Rejecting it has the effect of striking the main motion from the Order Paper.

Analysis of the previous question's history shows that, overall, it was used modestly until the mid1980s. The previous question was not used in 16 of the first 32 Parliaments. Moreover, the average number of previous questions moved per 100 sittings never exceeded two until the 33rd Parliament (1984-1988). This has changed substantially since 1984, as MPs have used the rule much more frequently. Based on the partial data from the 41st and current Parliament, use of the previous question is at an all-time high, averaging eight previous questions per 100 sitting days. In all, the previous question has been moved 135 times since 1867, and nearly 80% of these have come in the past three decades. While most of these recent cases involved the tactic being applied to debate on government bills, they also include instances where government motions, motions made during routine proceedings and private member's bills were targeted. In addition, some previous questions were moved by opposition MPs.

The reasons the previous question was little used in the first Parliaments are intriguing. O'Brien and Bosc suggest the following:

For the first 45 years following Confederation, the only tool at the government's disposal was the previous question. ... Not only was there no other way of putting an end to a specific debate within a reasonable time, but there were no formal time limits of any kind on debates. The length of speeches was unlimited. The conduct and duration of proceedings in the House were based largely upon a spirit of mutual fair play where informal arrangements, or "closure by consent," governed the debate? In short, the early Parliament of Canada was likely characterized by a greater spirit of cooperation among the parties.

Suspension of the Standing Orders for matters of an urgent nature

Another time management tool has been available since 1968 under Standing Order 53. This rule was created subsequent to an imbroglio involving a motion moved by Prime Minister Pearson to send Canadian peacekeepers to Cyprus in 1964. Standing Order 53 provides a mechanism to suspend certain rules, particularly those requiring advance notice and setting the timetable of sittings, to deal with a matter of an urgent nature. The suspension of the Standing Orders for matters of an urgent nature has been rarely used since its adoption, and only three of seven government attempts to use it have succeeded.

This method was only once used to modify debate in a way that could be considered time allocation. When it invoked Standing Order 53 on September 16, 1991, the government stated that a maximum of one day of debate would be allocated to each of second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading for back-to-work legislation for the public sector. (6) However, as has most often been...