Chapter 14The Curtailment of Debate

Time Allocation

The time allocation rule allows for specific periods of time to be set aside for the consideration of one or more stages of a public bill.⁹⁷ The term “time allocation” suggests primarily the idea of time management,⁹⁸ but the government may use a time allocation motion as a guillotine. In fact, although the rule allows the government to negotiate with opposition parties on the adoption of a timetable for the consideration of a bill at one or more stages (including consideration in committee⁹⁹ and the consideration of Senate amendments¹⁰⁰), it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate. This is why time allocation is often confused with closure. While it has become the most frequently used mechanism for curtailing debate,¹⁰¹ time allocation remains a means of bringing the parties together to negotiate an acceptable distribution of the time of the House.

Historical Perspective

Like closure, the time allocation rule came about in the aftermath of a controversy. During the pipeline debate of 1956,¹⁰² 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 had to be repeated at every stage of a given bill.¹⁰³

Throughout the period of successive minority governments in the 1960s, the House attempted, unsuccessfully, to establish a procedural mechanism to formally structure the time of the House in order to facilitate the efficient conduct of debate. Members recognized that the volume and complexity of House business was increasing and that measures were necessary to ensure that business would be dispatched within a reasonable amount of time.¹⁰⁴ 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.¹⁰⁵

From the outset, the committees examined proposals that would allow for cooperation 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. Committee members wrote that they would “continue to explore this basic question”,¹⁰⁶ but they did not report further on the matter.

Early in the following session, the government took action by moving a motion, which, among other things, addressed the issue of time allocation. The motion called for a new Standing Order establishing a House Business Committee made up 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 for concurrence in the report, to be decided without debate or amendment, could then be presented without notice by a Minister. If, however, the Business Committee were unable to reach unanimous agreement or if it failed to report within the prescribed 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.¹⁰⁷

The motion was debated in the House for 12 days¹⁰⁸ and, throughout the debate, specific concerns were raised with respect to the Business Committee proposal. The proposal was then separated from the main motion and referred to a special committee for further study.¹⁰⁹ The special committee recommended another version of the time allocation proposal in its report to the House. The report was concurred in and a provisional rule, referred to as Standing Order 15-A, was adopted.¹¹⁰ 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 notice did not have to appear on the Notice Paper.¹¹¹

When the Twenty-Eighth Parliament assembled in September 1968, the House decided that Provisional Standing Order 15-A would no longer be in effect.¹¹² A special procedure committee was established shortly thereafter¹¹³ to consider, among other things, the issue of time allocation. In its Fourth Report, the Committee recommended a new rule on time allocation.¹¹⁴ 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.¹¹⁵ Tensions persisted between the government and the opposition as to finding a balance between debating at length and the curtailment that was apparently allowed by the provisional rules.

It was not until 1969, after debate that lasted 12 sitting days was curtailed by a motion of closure, that the House adopted a report recommending a measure for time allocation, a forerunner to the present rule.¹¹⁶ In its simplest form, the newly adopted Standing Order set out three options for time allocation, ranging from agreement between all parties to the government acting alone after negotiation had failed to rally the support of any other party. Time allocation motions moved with the agreement of all parties were put immediately, without debate or amendment. Those called with the agreement of a majority of parties or no opposition parties could, however, be amended, and they could also be debated for up to two hours, at which point all questions necessary to dispose of the motions were to be put by the Chair.

Members of the opposition later expressed dissatisfaction with the interpretation of this Standing Order.¹¹⁷ The fact that negotiations were to be held between parties, thus excluding independent Members, was also raised.¹¹⁸

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.¹¹⁹ Although it did not report to the House, the Committee created a subcommittee on the use of time. Among other items, the subcommittee reviewed and proposed alternative wording for the Standing Order on time allocation.¹²⁰

The wording of the Standing Order adopted in 1969 continued to give rise to procedural concerns. A position paper on parliamentary reform, tabled by the government in November 1979, noted the ambiguity in the wording and proposed that it be rewritten.¹²¹

Over the years, the issue has been clarified by Speaker’s rulings. In December 1978, on a point of order, 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.¹²²

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.¹²³ In October of the same year, she ruled that the division bells ringing for a dilatory motion moved during the two-hour allotment provided in the Standing Orders for consideration of a time allocation motion should be interrupted when the two hours had elapsed. The Chair must then put every question necessary to dispose of the time allocation motion, first disposing of any dilatory motions that might have been moved in the meantime.¹²⁴

As of May 1985, a new practice developed whereby time allocation motions were moved and debated following written government notices of motions under Government Orders on the Order Paper. To fulfill the requirements of the Standing Order, this written notice was in addition to the oral notice of intention to move such a motion. The new practice was confirmed by Speaker Bosley as an acceptable way of proceeding.¹²⁵

In June 1987, amendments were adopted to provide that debate on the item of business under consideration at the time the motion was moved would be deemed adjourned.¹²⁶ The practice of providing written notice seems to have continued until August 1988. At that time, 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 wording of the motion. 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.¹²⁷

In 1991, following a further change to the Standing Order, the motion for time allocation moved with or without the agreement of a majority of parties ceased to be a subject of debate or amendment.¹²⁸

The House returned to a debate of sorts when, in October 2001, it adopted a new Standing Order¹²⁹ providing for a 30-minute question and answer period when a time allocation motion was moved without the agreement of any of the opposition parties. During this 30-minute period, questions would be directed to the Minister sponsoring the item of business under debate or to the Minister acting on his or her behalf, in order “to promote ministerial accountability and to require the Government to justify its use of these extraordinary measures”.¹³⁰

The Three Options

The time allocation rule is divided into three distinct sections. Each section sets outs the conditions for time allocation, depending on the degree of support among the representatives of the recognized parties¹³¹ in the House.

All Parties Agree: The first section of the rule pertains to 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.¹³² No notice is required. In proposing the motion, a Minister first states that such an agreement has been reached¹³³ and then sets out the terms of the agreement, specifying the number of days or hours of debate to be allocated.¹³⁴ The Speaker then puts the question to the House, which is decided forthwith without debate or amendment.
Majority of Parties Agree: The second section of the rule pertains to agreement among a majority of the representatives of the recognized parties in the House.¹³⁵ In such cases, the government must be a party to any agreement reached.¹³⁶ 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.¹³⁷ Again, no notice is required, and it is not necessary for debate on the stage or stages subject to time allocation to have begun. Prior to moving the motion, the Minister states that a majority of party representatives have agreed to a proposed allocation of time.¹³⁸ The motion specifies how many days or hours are to be allocated.
No Agreement: The third section of the rule allows the government to propose time allocation unilaterally.¹³⁹ In this case, an oral notice of intention to move the motion is required.¹⁴⁰ The motion can propose time allocation for only 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 that it is consistent with the rule requiring a separate day for third reading when a bill has been debated or amended at report stage.¹⁴¹ In the case of a bill referred to committee before second reading, the motion can pertain to both the report stage and second reading stage as well as the third reading stage.¹⁴² The amount of time allocated for any stage may not be less than one sitting day or its equivalent in hours (five).¹⁴³

Notice

Oral notice is required when the government wishes to impose its own timetable in the absence of any time allocation agreement among representatives from all or a majority of the recognized parties.¹⁴⁴ 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.¹⁴⁵ It must be given by a Minister, from his or her place in the House,¹⁴⁶ any time during the course of the sitting.¹⁴⁷

The notice in question is to state that agreement could not be reached under the other provisions of the rule and that the government therefore intends to move a motion to allocate time in respect of a particular stage of a particular bill.¹⁴⁸ The notice need only express the intention of the government; it need not include the wording of the time allocation motion to follow.¹⁴⁹ The time allocation motion can then be moved, by the Minister who gave notice of the motion or by another Minister,¹⁵⁰ at any future sitting of the House, even several days or weeks later. In the meantime, the House may freely debate the bill.¹⁵¹ Once given, a notice of time allocation may be withdrawn; similarly, notice may be given without a motion being moved subsequently.¹⁵²

Motion to Allocate Time

The wording of a motion for time allocation must set out the terms of time allocation. 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 bill in question.¹⁵³ In all cases, a motion for time allocation must be moved by a Minister in the House and is never debatable or amendable.¹⁵⁴ Such a motion is subject to a question and answer period of not more than 30 minutes when it is not supported by a majority of the representatives of the recognized parties.¹⁵⁵

In cases when there is agreement among the representatives of all parties, the motion is normally moved under “Motions” during Routine Proceedings. When a majority agree on the time allocation, 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.¹⁵⁶

When the time allocation motion is moved with the agreement of all or a majority of the recognized parties, the question is put on the motion as soon as it is moved. However, if it is moved without any agreement, the House first holds a question and answer period not exceeding 30 minutes¹⁵⁷ for Members to ask questions of the Minister responsible for the item subject to the motion or of the Minister acting on his or her behalf. At the conclusion of the period provided, or when no other Member wishes to speak, the Speaker puts the question on the time allocation motion.¹⁵⁸ If a recorded division is demanded, the bells are sounded for a maximum of 30 minutes.¹⁵⁹

If the motion for time allocation carries, debate at the stage or stages of the bill in question then becomes subject to the time limits imposed by the motion. The normal rules of debate continue to apply. However, motions to extend a sitting beyond its ordinary hour of daily adjournment,¹⁶⁰ as well as motions to adjourn debate or the House,¹⁶¹ are not allowed unless the adopted time allocation motion is expressed in hours, not days.

The day on which the time allocation motion is adopted may also be counted as one sitting day for that purpose, provided that the motion is moved and adopted at the beginning of Government Orders, the motion concerns the sitting day and the bill is taken up immediately.¹⁶² The bill may also be taken up at a future sitting of the House.¹⁶³

At the end 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 more than 15 minutes.¹⁶⁴ Recorded divisions on bills under time allocation are not ordinarily deferred, though deferrals may take place by Special Order,¹⁶⁵ by automatic deferral of the vote pursuant to rules of the House,¹⁶⁶ or by agreement of the Whips of all recognized parties.¹⁶⁷ When debate concludes prior to the end of the allotted time,¹⁶⁸ 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.¹⁶⁹

During a sitting subject to a time allocation motion, Private Members’ Business and Adjournment Proceedings are still held, where applicable. If a motion is moved without the agreement of the opposition parties, if it is related to a bill, if it is moved and carried at the beginning of Government Orders and if the order for the said bill is then called and debated for the remainder of the sitting day, then the period of time set aside for Government Orders is extended by a period of time equal to the time taken for the question and answer period.¹⁷⁰ Private Members’ Business and Adjournment Proceedings are delayed accordingly.¹⁷¹ Exceptions are time allocation motions expressed in hours not sitting days and time allocation motions worded so that the day in question is not under time allocation.¹⁷²

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 has no discretionary authority to refuse to put a time allocation if all the procedural requirements have been met.¹⁷³ The Speaker has stated that the wording of the rule does not define the nature of the consultations 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.¹⁷⁴

97.: Standing Order 78.
98.: See the observations of Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House) (Debates, October 24, 2013, p. 361; March 6, 2014, p. 3623; March 27, 2014, p. 3961).
99.: See, for example, Journals, September 19, 2000, pp. 1928–9.
100.: See, for example, Journals, March 7, 2012, pp. 916–8. In 2003, following receipt of a message from the Senate noting that the Senate had divided a bill, Speaker Milliken ruled that, as the House of Commons was required to respond to the other House in order for the bill to proceed further, the message was an integral part of the legislative process, specifically the Senate amendments stage, during which time allocation motions may be moved (Journals, December 4, 2002, p. 258; February 14, 2003, p. 419; Debates, April 7, 2003, pp. 5182–6; April 10, 2003, pp. 5363–4).
101.: To understand how time allocation came to be used as a time management tool in the House, see Yves Yvon J. Pelletier, “Time Allocation in the House of Commons: Silencing Parliamentary Democracy or Effective Time Management?,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 23, No. 4 (Winter 2000–01): pp. 20–8.
102.: For further information on this debate, see the part of the section on closure in this chapter entitled “Historical Perspective”. Between May 15 and June 5, 1956, the government used closure at all 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).
103.: 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. Furthermore, the requirement to move a motion of closure for every one of the legislative stages through which a bill must pass in order to expedite passage was highlighted by the Chair in a ruling on an opposition motion that would have expedited the passage of four government bills simultaneously by skipping a number of stages in the legislative process (Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 21, 2007, pp. III–IV, Debates, pp. 7729–35; March 29, 2007, pp. 8136–8).
104.: See comments by Finance Minister Donald Fleming (Debates, May 9, 1960, pp. 3685, 3687); by Lester B. Pearson, Leader of the Opposition and Hazen Argue, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation Leader (Debates, January 18, 1961, pp. 1169–70); by John G. Diefenbaker, Leader of the Opposition (Debates, October 23, 1963, pp. 3925–31) and by Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) (Debates, May 20, 1965, pp. 1530–1).
105.: Motions to establish 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).
106.: Journals, August 19, 1964, p. 633.
107.: Journals, May 19, 1965, pp. 128–9.
108.: Journals, May 19–21, 25–27, 1965; June 1–4, 7, 8, 1965.
109.: Journals, June 8, 1965, pp. 210–1.
110.: Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 219–23.
111.: 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).
112.: Journals, September 20, 1968, p. 58.
113.: Journals, September 24, 1968, p. 68.
114.: Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 439–40.
115.: Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 579.
116.: Third Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House on June 20, 1969 (Journals, pp. 1211–2), and concurred in on July 24, 1969 (Journals, pp. 1393–402).
117.: On December 1, 1971, points of order were raised regarding the wording and interpretation of Standing Order 78(3) (then Rule 75C). Speaker Lamoureux ruled, in particular, that it was regular to move a time allocation motion for the disposal of proceedings for the stage being considered by the House (Journals, pp. 947–8).
118.: 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) (then Rule 75A) (Journals, December 30, 1971, pp. 1013–4).
119.: Debates, November 13, 1975, p. 9022.
120.: Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, pp. 59–63.
121.: “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament”, pp. 20–1, tabled in the House on November 23, 1979 (Journals, p. 260).
122.: Debates, December 20, 1978, pp. 2317–20.
123.: Debates, March 7, 1983, pp. 23510–1.
124.: Debates, October 26, 1983, pp. 28357–8.
125.: Debates, May 16, 1985, pp. 4821–2.
126.: Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1026–7.
127.: Debates, August 15, 1988, pp. 18309–11; August 16, 1988, pp. 18352–5, 18380–1. In a related ruling, the Speaker reiterated that it was the prerogative of the government and its Ministers to move any motion pertaining to the agenda of business before the House, such as time allocation. The reminder was required after the opposition gave notice of a motion to expedite the passage of four government bills simultaneously by deeming them adopted at all remaining stages. The Speaker ruled the motion out of order, while saying that he saw certain similarities between this opposition motion and the standard closure and time allocation motions (Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 21, 2007, pp. III–IV, Debates, pp. 7729–35; March 29, 2007, pp. 8136–8).
128.: Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2915–6.
129.: Standing Order 67.1(1); First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, para 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 deals with closure moved pursuant to Standing Order 57.
130.: First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, para 23, 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). The idea was put forward initially in the Thirty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on May 17, 2000 (Journals, pp. 1721–2). The report was, however, neither debated nor concurred in.
131.: For a procedural definition of a recognized party, see Chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”. See also Journals, December 30, 1971, pp. 1013–4; Debates, April 2, 1993, p. 18052.
132.: Standing Order 78(1).
133.: See, for example, Debates, June 15, 2011, p. 403.
134.: There are times when, rather than resorting to the written rule, party representatives agree on an allocation of time, which the House then adopts by unanimous consent. See, for example, Journals, October 26, 1978, pp. 69–70, June 16, 2011, p. 106 (timetable for the consideration of a bill at all stages, including consideration in committee); March 10, 1987, p. 568, February 4, 2013, p. 2727 (agreement to complete consideration of bills at all stages); March 20, 1992, p. 1192 (agreement to consider all stages of a bill); June 20, 2006, p. 316 (agreement to complete consideration of a bill at report stage and third reading within a specific time frame); June 4, 2013, p. 3294 (agreement to complete second reading stage); May 5, 2014, p. 879 (agreement to complete a bill at report stage and at third reading stage).
135.: Standing Order 78(2).
136.: Debates, August 16, 1988, pp. 18380–1. On this occasion the two parties in opposition contended that an agreement had been reached pursuant to Standing Order 78(2), to which the government was not a party; however, the Chair ruled that the initiative of announcing any agreement or lack thereof is clearly with the government (i.e., a Minister), who must be party to any agreement and whose support is signified by his or her rising under the terms of the Standing Order.
137.: Standing Order 76.1(10).
138.: Standing Order 78(2)(a). See, for example, Journals, June 21, 1994, pp. 633–7, when no fewer than four motions were moved and adopted to allocate time in respect to four bills. See also Journals, June 23, 2005, pp. 981–2.
139.: Standing Order 78(3).
140.: Debates, December 1, 1971, pp. 10050–1.
141.: Standing Order 76.1(10).
142.: See, for example, Journals, May 28, 2015, pp. 2585–6.
143.: Speaker Scheer determined that a sitting day was equivalent to an average of 4.7 hours, or approximately 5 hours. He had to make a ruling following a point of order that was raised when the government moved a time allocation motion expressed in hours, not days (Debates, June 12, 2012, pp. 9231–6; June 18, 2012, pp. 9680–1). In the Forty-First Parliament, the government often moved motions expressed in hours during sittings that extended beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment. This made it possible to debate several bills that were under time allocation during the same sitting. See, for example, Journals, June 17, 2014, pp. 1296, 1302–5.
144.: Written notice of a motion for time allocation is acceptable when given in addition to oral notice. See Speaker Bosley’s ruling (Debates, May 16, 1985, pp. 4821–2).
145.: Debates, April 2, 1990, pp. 10102–3; April 3, 1990, p. 10124.
146.: Standing Order 78(3). The Speaker has ruled that oral notice of an intention to move a motion for time allocation is not covered by the rule pertaining to notice (Standing Order 54(1)), and that 48 hours’ written notice is therefore not required (Journals, December 1, 1971, p. 948).
147.: See, for example, Journals, September 26, 2011, p. 268 (immediately after Oral Questions); February 18, 2015, p. 2143 (during Private Members’ Business); June 9, 2015, p. 2691 (during Government Orders); March 11, 2015, p. 2220 (during Routine Proceedings).
148.: Standing Order 78(3). See, for example, Debates, June 9, 2015, p. 14837.
149.: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, August 16, 1988, pp. 18380–1).
150.: See, for example, Journals, October 30, 1985, p. 1164; June 10, 2002, p. 1495; June 10, 2013, p. 3359.
151.: See, for example, Journals, February 14, 2003, p. 419 (notice); April 7, 2003, p. 660 (debate); May 6, 2003, pp. 739–40 (motion moved); March 27, 2014, p. 747 (notice); May 28, 2014, p. 1085 (motion moved).
152.: See, for example, Debates, September 24, 2014, p. 7800.
153.: In this case, 0.1 hour was allocated to the report stage and 0.25 hour to third reading (all-party agreement) (Journals, April 2, 1993, pp. 2791–2).
154.: Standing Order 78.
155.: Standing Orders 78(3) and 67.1(1).
156.: Standing Order 78(2)(a) and (3)(a).
157.: Standing Order 67.1(1).
158.: On occasion, the 30-minute question and answer period held pursuant to Standing Order 67.1(1) has been interrupted to proceed with Statements by Members and Oral Questions. See the statement of the Chair Occupant (Debates, April 30, 2015, pp. 13274–5).
159.: Standing Order 45(4).
160.: See, for example, Debates, November 28, 1996, p. 6876.
161.: On several occasions, a motion to adjourn the House has been ruled out of order, pursuant to Standing Order 25, because the proceedings were subject to a time allocation motion. See, for example, Journals, December 6, 1999, pp. 273–4; Debates, December 13, 1999, pp. 2743–6; Journals, February 22, 2000, pp. 941–2; Debates, February 25, 2000, pp. 4046–7. In the last case, the government had scheduled one of its own bills for debate at the beginning of the sitting. Later in the day, during Routine Proceedings, a Member moved concurrence in a committee report under “Motions”; it was during this debate that another Member attempted to move the adjournment of the House. More recently, a motion to adjourn the House was moved by unanimous consent and subsequently negatived in a recorded division when a matter under time allocation was under consideration (Journals, June 12, 2014, pp. 1268–9).
162.: Standing Order 78(2)(b) and (3)(b).
163.: For example, consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2014, resumed more than a month after a time allocation motion for second reading had been adopted by the House (Journals, March 26, 2014, pp. 738–9 (time allocation motion adopted); April 28, 2014, pp. 839–40 (second reading); October 1, 2014, pp. 1550–7 (time allocation motion adopted and report stage); October 20, 2014, pp. 1626–7 (third reading)). The motion has also been moved when the House was considering a bill other than that under time allocation. See, for example, Journals, May 28, 2015, pp. 2585–6.
164.: Standing Order 45(3).
165.: See, for example, Journals, June 3, 2002, pp. 1457–8, 1460; May 27, 2014, pp. 1064–5; June 12, 2014, p. 1261.
166.: Standing Order 45(6)(a). Apart from certain exceptions, this rule states that if a division is demanded on a Friday on any debatable motion, the division is deferred until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day. See, for example, Journals, November 27, 1992, p. 2252; December 1, 1995, p. 2199; March 12, 1999, p. 1601.
167.: Standing Order 45(7).
168.: See, for example, Journals, June 12, 2014, pp. 1261–3, 1267–8.
169.: Standing Order 45(5). See, for example, Journals, November 29, 1996, p. 939.
170.: Standing Order 67.1(2). See, for example, Debates, June 10, 2015, pp. 14879, 14885, 14894.
171.: See, for example, Journals, June 3, 2015, pp. 2621, 2625, 2630, Debates, p. 14544.
172.: See, for example, Journals, March 6, 2014, pp. 647–9; April 3, 2014, pp. 785–7 (current day not under time allocation); Debates, June 16, 2014, pp. 6898–904 (motion expressed in hours).
173.: Debates, April 4, 1990, pp. 10183–5; December 9, 1992, pp. 14917–23; March 31, 1993, pp. 17854–62; February 13, 2001, pp. 569–76; March 1, 2001, pp. 1415–6; June 3, 2002, pp. 12019–22.
174.: Debates, June 6, 1988, pp. 16139, 16142–9; March 6, 2014, pp. 3596–8.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611

trbdrb@parl.gc.ca