The Conservatives approved a motion of time allocation yesterday, this time on debate of Bill C-43.
By the NDP’s math, that was the 28th time the Conservatives have used time allocation to limit debate in the House during this Parliament. According to the New Democrats, the Conservatives have used closure another two times.
A full historical perspective would probably require determining how much debate was allowed on each bill and what sorts of bills were subject to time allocation and closure in the past—it can’t be said that time allocation and closure are inherently bad measures, in many ways they could be defended as necessary.
But the annotated standing orders do provide for a quick and dirty mathematical comparison. If you dig through the notes on time allocation (page 286) and closure (page 214), you get the following numbers for previous Parliaments with a majority government.
2001-2004. 14 uses of time allocation, 4 uses of closure.
1997-2000. “At least” 30 uses of time allocation, 2 uses of closure
1993-1997. “At least” 30 uses of time allocation, 5 uses of closure
1988-1993. “At least” 30 uses of time allocation, 15 uses of closure
1984-1988. “More than” 20 uses of time allocation, 2 uses of closure
1980-1984. “More than” 20 uses of time allocation, 2 uses of closure
1974-1979. 15 uses of time allocation, 0 uses of closure
1969-1974. 3 uses of time allocation, 1 use of closure
(Note: Closure numbers are based on what is cited in the annotated standing orders. We might allow for the possibility that some uses of closure are not mentioned there.)
If the Conservatives are presently at 28 uses of time allocation, that would seemingly put them on pace to smash the acknowledged record. Is that because they are particularly disrespectful of parliamentary debate? Is it because this collection of opposition MPs is particularly obstinate in their desire to fight government legislation on the floor of the House? Is this an efficient and useful approach to parliamentary democracy? Or a worrying trend?
I suspect you will receive differing opinions on all of those questions. Regardless, it’s another issue to throw on the pile of questions we’re building about how the House operates and how the House should operate.