Rules of Debate / Miscellaneous

Closure

Journals pp. 1393-6

Debates pp. 11547-9

Background

When Mr. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) proposed to move closure on the adjourned debate for concurrence in the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, which recommended the adoption of rules allowing time allocation orders, Mr. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka) raised a point of order. He objected that the Minister was, in effect, giving "notice of two motions at the same time": one for the amendment of the report presently before the House and another for the main motion for concurrence. Since the Speaker had received prior warning of Mr. Aiken's point of order, he had had an opportunity to study the matter and was prepared to make a ruling; however, he decided to invite comments from Members before announcing his decision.

Issue

Do amendments to a motion come within the provisions of the closure rule proposed to dispose of the motion?

Decision

Yes. One closure motion is sufficient to close debate on a question.

Reasons given by the Speaker

While the closure rule as it now stands is not without "uncertainty and pitfalls ..., all precedents support the view that any amendment or other motion that may be proposed to a main motion comes under the provisions of the cut-off time set out in [the] Standing Order ... No precedent has been found to support the suggestion that each amendment is a separate debate that must be covered by a motion in each case ... Indeed, the concluding sentence of [the] Standing Order . . . reads in part ... 'but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude such adjourned debate or postponed consideration, shall be decided forthwith'."

Sources cited

Journals, August 30, 1917, pp. 606-8; September 10, 1917, pp. 643-5; September 14, 1917, pp. 659-61; March 2, 1926, pp. 123-6; March 29, 1932, pp. 177-81; May 22, 1956, pp. 587-96; June 5, 1956, pp. 699-711; December 14, 1964, pp. 996-1002.

Standing Order 33.

References

Journals, July 22, 1969, p. 1383.

Debates, July 22, 1969, pp. 11470-8; July 24, 1969, pp. 11544-7.