One can make a case for the use of closure in certain circumstances. Opposition parties are certainly entitled to examine proposed legislation thoroughly and to oppose matters with which they do not agree. But the government is also entitled to govern, to carry out the mandate given by the voters. In the case of the 1956 pipeline debate, for example, the opposition parties were not so much examining legislation as they were filibustering – that is attempting to speak indefinitely until it was too late in the year for construction of the pipeline to begin. Liberal imposition of closure in this situation might be considered an appropriate response.
In contrast, Green Party leader Elizabeth May pointed out (in a statement to the House of Commons on September 15, 2014) that the Conservative Government had imposed closure 21 times between October 2013 and June 2014. In a number of instances, the government terminated debate on legislation at second reading, at report stage (when the bill returned from detailed examination in committee) and at third and final reading. Aaron Wherry, in a June 2014 article in Maclean’s Magazine reported that since their election three years earlier (May 2011) the Conservatives had used time allocation motions (a variation of closure) 75 times – limiting debate far more than in any previous Parliament. (http://www.macleans.ca/politics/why-is-the-harper-government-using-time-allocation-so-often/) Moreover, while it is one thing to impose a time limit when debate has dragged on at some length, the Conservatives have imposed time allocations on bills early in the legislative process, allegedly to improve scheduling in the House.
To use closure and time allocations to this extent suggests a disturbing impatience with the legitimate role of opposition parties in Parliament and their responsibility for providing a thorough examination of proposed legislation.