Chapter 14The Curtailment of Debate

The Previous Question

There are occasions where Members will move, during a debate on a motion before the House, “That this question be now put”.¹¹ This motion, commonly known as the previous question, may be moved on substantive debatable motions.¹² Although it does not necessarily put an end to debate, the previous question restricts debate and expedites the putting of the question in two ways.

First, the previous question precludes the moving of amendments to the main motion and therefore any debate that might have ensued on those amendments. It can only be moved, therefore, when no amendment to the main motion is under consideration. If the previous question is carried, the Speaker must put the question on the main motion forthwith.¹³ When the previous question is moved and Members wish to speak, another period of debate begins. In fact, the previous question is viewed as a new question submitted to the House and it is debatable.¹⁴ Members who have already spoken to the main motion or to any previous amendments may speak again to the previous question. When used in this manner, the previous question is a method of curtailing debate which has unpredictable results: at various times, the previous question has been carried without debate,¹⁵ after a short debate,¹⁶ and after several days of debate.¹⁷ In instances where the previous question did not appear to bring a motion to a vote, a motion to adjourn the debate,¹⁸ a motion for closure¹⁹ or a motion for time allocation²⁰ has sometimes been moved to end the debate. When a recorded division is demanded on the previous question, it may be deferred at the request of either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip.²¹ However, once the previous question is adopted, a recorded division on the main motion may not be deferred,²² except on a Friday,²³ with the agreement of the whips²⁴ or pursuant to a Special Order.²⁵

Second, the previous question can have the effect of superseding a motion under debate since, if negatived, the Speaker must not put the question on the main motion at that time. In other words, if the motion “That this question be now put” is not adopted, the main motion is dropped from the Order Paper. Unless it is revived on a future day and reinstated on the Order Paper,²⁶ the item will not be debated again. Over the years, the previous question has not been very successful as a mechanism for limiting debate by causing an item to be dropped from the Order Paper. Since Confederation, the motion “That this question be now put” has been negatived only four times. In most of these cases, the item was revived and eventually adopted, with or without amendments.²⁷

All Members may move the previous question.²⁸ It is used by some in the hope that it will expedite a vote on the main motion or limit amendments, and by others in the hope that it will prevent the Speaker from putting the question then on a motion or a bill. Although the previous question can be both a method of forcing a decision on a motion and a way of postponing or delaying a decision, it has been used almost exclusively in recent years by the government to limit debate.²⁹

In the past, the use of the previous question has been anything but predictable. Ministers have moved it on private Members’ motions,³⁰ opposition motions³¹ and government motions³² and bills.³³ Conversely, private Members have moved the previous question on motions moved by other private Members³⁴ or by the government,³⁵ on government bills³⁶ and on routine motions.³⁷

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.³⁸

11.: Standing Order 61. In Canada, the wording of the previous question has remained unaltered since it was first introduced in the House of Commons in 1867. In the Westminster version, the wording of the motion was changed to “That the question be not now put” in 1888 to avoid confusion with closure, which employs the same formula. See Thomas Erskine May, Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 24th ed., ed. Sir Malcolm Jack, Mark Hutton and Douglas Millar (London: LexisNexis, 2011), p. 404.
12.: There are, however, restrictions on the use of the previous question. For further information, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
13.: Standing Order 61(2). See, for example, Journals, June 13, 2013, pp. 3405, 3407.
14.: Standing Order 67(1)(c); Debates, December 13, 2001, p. 8251; October 23, 2002, p. 810; February 28, 2011, p. 8461.
15.: See, for example, Journals, December 5, 1996, pp. 968–9.
16.: See, for example, Debates, October 23, 2002, pp. 810–3.
17.: For example, on September 17, 2012, the previous question was moved on a motion for second reading of a government bill; the debate continued during that sitting and through the sittings of September 18, 19 and 21 and October 5. The question was put on October 5 and the vote was deferred to October 16 (Journals, September 17, 2012, p. 1963; October 16, 2012, pp. 2142–6).
18.: See, for example, Journals, May 10, 1995, pp. 1458–9; May 10, 2005, pp. 726–7; November 22, 2012, p. 2335.
19.: Arthur Beauchesne, Beauchesne’s Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th ed., ed. Alistair Fraser, William Foster Dawson, and John A. Holtby (Toronto: Carswell, 1989), p. 160. See, for example, Journals, March 2, 1926, pp. 123–4. On one occasion, notice of closure was given, but the House ultimately concurred in the motion to be closured the next day (Journals, October 29, 1999, pp. 143–4; November 1, 1999, p. 145). Occasionally, Members have used the previous question in combination with closure to dispose swiftly of an item, as well as to avoid having to vote on possible amendments. See, for example, the events leading up to the adoption of the motion recognizing the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada (Journals, November 24, 2006, p. 803; November 27, 2006, pp. 808, 811–3).
20.: See, for example, Journals, April 19, 2010, pp. 234–6; May 8, 2013, p. 3109; June 17, 2014, p. 1305.
21.: Standing Order 45(5).
22.: Standing Order 61(2).
23.: Standing Order 45(6) takes precedence over Standing Order 61(2), as provided in Standing Order 45(6)(a): “in case of conflict, this section will prevail over any other provision of the Standing Orders”.
24.: Standing Order 45(7). See, for example, Journals, June 20, 2012, p. 1895.
25.: See, for example, Journals, June 18, 2014, pp. 1309–11. Following the adoption of the previous question, the vote on the initial motion was deferred pursuant to an order made on May 27, 2014 (Journals, pp. 1063–70).
26.: Beauchesne, Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th ed., p. 160.
27.: In 1869, the main motion was not presented to the House again. On the other three occasions, it was. In 1870 and 1929, the revived motions were adopted, and in 1928, no decision was taken (Journals, May 31, 1869, pp. 163–4; April 28, 1870, pp. 254–5; June 1, 1928, p. 489; April 15, 1929, p. 242). The previous question has also been withdrawn, on occasion, by unanimous consent. See, for example, Debates, February 9, 1983, pp. 22682–6; Journals, May 10, 1990, p. 1685; March 2, 2011, p. 1285; March 25, 2011, p. 1421.
28.: In 1985, Speaker Bosley ruled that “there is no question in my mind from reading the rules that there is no restriction on the moving of this motion in terms of whether it be by a Minister of the Crown, a Parliamentary Secretary or a Private Member” (Debates, January 28, 1985, p. 1708).
29.: For further information on the frequency of use of the previous question, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
30.: See, for example, Journals, May 31, 1869, p. 163.
31.: See, for example, Journals, March 25, 2011, pp. 1420–1. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons moved the previous question on an opposition motion, which clearly stated that the House had lost confidence in the government. At the end of the proceedings, the previous question was withdrawn by unanimous consent, and the question was put on the opposition motion. See also Journals, September 29, 2014, p. 1497; September 30, 2014, pp. 1538–9.
32.: See, for example, Journals, January 16, 1991, p. 2571.
33.: See, for example, Journals, April 22, 1988, p. 2541.
34.: See, for example, Journals, April 6, 1959, p. 289.
35.: See, for example, Journals, December 5, 1996, p. 968. See also Journals, June 21, 2011, p. 122. The motivations for using the previous question have not always been the same and do not always involve curtailing debate. For example, opposition Members in favour of a government motion have moved the previous question not to cause the item to be dropped from the Order Paper, but rather to signal their support for the government initiative and limit debate “by consent”. In 1992, just before moving the previous question on a government motion to amend the Constitution, Jean Chrétien, Leader of the Opposition, stated that it was “with great pleasure that I support this motion” (Debates, December 11, 1992, pp. 15086–7).
36.: See, for example, Journals, February 16, 2007, p. 1019; March 24, 2010, pp. 134–5; November 28, 2013, p. 222.
37.: See, for example, Journals, November 3, 2004, pp. 190–1; May 30, 2005, pp. 800–1.
38.: Dawson, Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, p. 119.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611

trbdrb@parl.gc.ca