Skip to main content Start of content
Table of ContentsIndexPrint Format
Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Chapter II — Members

Notes on Standing Order 15:

[1]
Debates, April 3, 1987, pp. 4875-8. See also, for example, Debates, June 16, 1970, p. 8153; December 15, 1986, p. 2084; November 20, 1997, p. 1989.
[2]
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 57; S.C. 2001, c. 20, s. 3. The 2001 amendment to the Act doubled the penalty for non-attendance from $60 to $120 per day.
[3]
Aside from a minor technical amendment in 1986 (Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1644; February 13, 1986, p. 1710), the rule had not changed since 1867.
[4]
Journals, May 8, 1868, p. 301; February 15, 1871, p. 10; April 13, 1877, p. 257.
[5]
Journals, May 12, 1873, pp. 327-8.
[6]
The last time the rule was invoked was April 26, 1878 (Journals, p. 220).
[7]
Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7473-5; July 10, 1906, cols. 7616-8.
[8]
Journals, December 14, 1964, p. 990.
[9]
Journals, October 4, 1967, p. 367; Debates, December 1, 1981, p. 13548; March 13, 1992, pp. 8172-5.
[10]
A proposal that it be deleted from the Standing Orders was made as early as 1948 (Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Empire Parliaments, Volume XVII, 1948, p. 236).
[11]
See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545) and concurred in June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563).

Notes on Standing Order 16(1):

[1]
See for example, Debates, May 29, 1990, p. 12011; October 30, 1990, p. 14890. See also Speaker Fraser’s remarks in Debates, June 22, 1988, pp. 16731-2. In doubtful cases, the Member is asked if he or she heard the question. See for example, Debates, April 21, 1982, p. 16472. The Chair accepts the word of a Member (see Debates, June 9, 1982, p. 18296).
[2]
See for example, Debates, June 20, 1984, pp. 4939-40; June 25, 1986, p. 14830; March 23, 1990, p. 9731; October 28, 2003, pp. 8886-7.
[3]
See for example, Debates, May 3, 1951, p. 2663; October 6, 1971, p. 8495. See discussion on this point in Debates, April 9, 1990, p. 10390.
[4]
Debates, June 18, 1869, p. 896.
[5]
Debates, January 27, 1881, p. 724. The reference to Mr. Bunster escaping on all fours can also be found in the comments made by Mr. Mills some years later (Debates, February 21, 1889, p. 249).
[6]
Debates, February 21, 1889, p. 249.
[7]
Debates, August 25, 1891, col. 4701.
[8]
Debates, August 25, 1891, col. 4701. See also Debates, August 26, 1891, cols. 4729-37.
[9]
Debates, September 8, 1896, col. 852. See also Debates, July 5, 1905, cols. 8883-4; April 27, 1910, cols. 8167-8; March 31, 1924, p. 889.
[10]
See for example, Debates, June 1, 1926, pp. 3921-2; Journals, May 3, 1951, p. 336; Debates, November 26, 1953, pp. 382-3; August 31, 1988, pp. 19137-40.
[11]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 884-5.
[12]
See for example, Journals, April 18, 1956, p. 416; Debates, July 10, 1956, p. 5845; February 14, 1983, pp. 22822-3; June 9, 1986, pp. 14140-1.
[13]
See for example, Debates, June 20, 1984, p. 4940. The confusion in this case resulted from the calling of several consecutive recorded votes lasting into the early hours. See also Debates, February 16, 1976, p. 10986. In a recent case, some Members refused to take their seats in an act of protest against a time allocation motion, choosing instead to stand in the middle aisle of the Chamber, thus delaying the vote by several minutes. The Speaker reminded them of the need to take votes in an orderly fashion (Debates, March 1, 1999, p. 12212).
[14]
See for example, Debates, March 29, 2000, p. 5437; March 30, 2000, p. 5443. In this case, a Member had been holding up signs during a vote.
[15]
Debates, April 21, 1959, p. 2919.
[16]
Debates, June 9, 1998, p. 7890; December 7, 1999, p. 2377; March 13, 2000, p. 4669.

Notes on Standing Order 16(2), (3) and (4):

[1]
Debates, April 30, 1985, p. 4269.
[2]
See the Historical Summary to Standing Order 10.
[3]
Debates, January 18, 1910, cols. 2083-4.
[4]
See for example, the Indexes to the Commons Debates for the First and Second Sessions of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament, under the heading “Procedure; Decorum”.
[5]
See for example, Debates, July 21, 1904, col. 7235.
[6]
See for example, Debates, October 16, 1970, p. 219; April 30, 1985, p. 4269; March 15, 1990, p. 9311; March 23, 2004, pp. 1609-10.
[7]
See Debates, January 25, 1984, p. 738; April 30, 1985, p. 4273; October 29, 1997, p. 1309.
[8]
Debates, April 24, 1906, col. 2017. See also remarks by the Speaker in Debates, April 8, 1918, p. 518.
[9]
Debates, October 31, 1991, pp. 4271-85, 4309-10.

Notes on Standing Order 17:

[1]
Ill or injured Members have been allowed to speak while seated (Debates, October 7, 1985, pp. 7416-7); Members have also been permitted to speak from a place other than their own, but only by consent of the House (Debates, April 9, 1962, p. 2629).
[2]
While the exceptions for take-note debates, emergency debates and adjournment proceedings are recent, the seating rule was never applied in Committee of the Whole; see Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 37. Speakers have also ruled that Members do not have to be in their seats in order to request a recorded division (Debates, June 23, 1992, pp. 12684, 12686; January 30, 2003, p. 2926).
[3]
For example, clerical collars have been deemed appropriate (Debates, November 5, 1979, p. 937), while ascots have been ruled inappropriate (Debates, November 29, 1974, p. 1795). See also Debates, August 11, 1988, pp. 18208-9; February 19, 1990, pp. 8485-6; May 3, 1990, pp. 10941-2.
[4]
Scrapbook Debates, Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, September 14, 1863, p. 97.
[5]
Debates, January 13, 1881, p. 443.
[6]
See for example, Debates, November 12, 1962, p. 1499.
[7]
Debates, October 7, 1985, pp. 7416-7; November 24, 1992, p. 13977; February 2, 1998, p. 3181; October 11, 2002, p. 623. Bourinot writes of another case in his 4th edition, p. 332. Standing Order 1.1 now explicitly allows the Speaker to alter the application of the Standing Orders to permit the participation of a Member with a disability.
[8]
Debates, March 13, 1878, p. 1072. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 332.
[9]
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 333-4. Recent examples of the Chair enforcing this rule include Debates, May 25, 1989, p. 2136; September 25, 2001, p. 5519.
[10]
See for example, Debates, November 25, 1976, p. 1398.
[11]
Debates, June 27, 1972, p. 3568.
[12]
Debates, April 9, 1962, p. 2629 (note the Speaker’s comment “for this time only”). See also Debates, April 2, 1962, p. 2403; April 3, 1962, p. 2453.
[13]
See the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and concurred in October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).
[14]
Two turn-of-the-century examples are: Debates, July 12, 1899, col. 7214; February 17, 1902, cols. 113-4.
[15]
See Debates Index for the three sessions of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament under “Procedure – Members’ remarks”.
[16]
See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545) and adopted June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563).
[17]
Debates, February 20, 1885, p. 171. Archival photographs show some Members wearing hats in the House as late as 1897, and a 1925 photograph shows hats on Members’ desks. In 1955, M.J. Coldwell, M.P., recalled that a few Members kept up the old custom of wearing hats well into the mid-1930s (Debates, July 12, 1955, p. 5986).
[18]
Debates, March 17, 1971, p. 4338; April 4, 1966, p. 3783.
[19]
Debates, June 20, 1983, pp. 26564-6; June 21, 1983, p. 26606.
[20]
In one recent example, a Member who had been undergoing chemotherapy addressed the House while wearing a hat and was complimented by the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition (Debates, June 14, 1995, p. 13803).
[21]
Debates, June 8, 1925, pp. 3957-8; July 2, 1931, pp. 3299-300; July 12, 1943, pp. 4633-4. On one occasion, the House agreed by unanimous consent to relax the rule due to a failure of the air conditioning system (Debates, May 29, 2002, pp. 11873, 11884).
[22]
Debates, November 29, 1974, p. 1795 (ascot); January 25, 1985, pp. 1685-6 (kilt); July 27, 1982, pp. 19762-3 (t-shirt).
[23]
Debates, March 31, 1987, pp. 4726-7; February 14, 2000, p. 3520. Speakers have insisted on a jacket being worn (Debates, December 7, 1999, pp. 2328, 2346).
[24]
Debates, April 5, 1990, pp. 10242-3; February 15, 2000, p. 3527.

Notes on Standing Order 18:

[1]
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 338-9. See for example, Debates, March 9, 1910, cols. 5100-1.
[2]
Constant reminders issue from the Chair in this regard. See for example, Debates, November 19, 1984, p. 352; February 23, 1998, p. 4312. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 356-7.
[3]
See for example, Debates, December 5, 1985, pp. 9204-5; December 20, 1989, pp. 7247-8; October 5, 1990, p. 13858.
[4]
See for example, Debates, May 16, 1986, p. 13353; April 1, 1998, pp. 5653-4.
[5]
See Standing Order 11(1) on naming.
[6]
May, 23rd ed., pp. 419-23.
[7]
Journals, November 3, 1873, p. 137.
[8]
Debates, March 1, 1877, p. 371. See also Debates, March 12, 1959, p. 1869; May 23, 1958, p. 406; February 9, 1979, p. 3068; February 12, 1979, pp. 3110-3; September 27, 1990, p. 13513.
[9]
Debates, April 29, 1887, p. 200. See also Debates, February 25, 1985, pp. 2447-8; February 26, 1985, p. 2504; March 8, 1985, pp. 2845-6; February 3, 1994, pp. 892-3; September 24, 1998, p. 8354.
[10]
See for example, Debates, May 11, 1887, p. 373; February 18, 1926, p. 1106; November 28, 1996, p. 6854.
[11]
Debates, June 20, 1958, p. 1462; March 12, 1959, p. 1870. No such prohibition was referred to in 1878, when the supposed “unwise and subversive” actions of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec were debated for several days and with little respect for his position as the Queen’s representative. In a more recent instance, when a Member asked whether disrespectful remarks about a Lieutenant-Governor were acceptable, the Chair merely promised to review the matter (Debates, March 9, 1983, p. 23608).
[12]
See for example, Debates, August 8, 1899, col. 9897; February 25, 1985, p. 2447; January 21, 1994, p. 170.
[13]
See for example, references to the Senate with regard to the passage of Bill C-11, Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85 (No. 2), in the Debates of the First Session of the Thirty-Third Parliament. See also a discussion on Senate reform in Debates, October 20, 1995, pp. 15660-9.
[14]
See Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 143-50 for a partial list of the many expressions which have from time to time been ruled unparliamentary. Strict adherence to a list of unparliamentary words is somewhat impractical, however, as Speakers must consider the tone and the context in which words are used, as well as whether or not they cause disorder in the Chamber (see remarks of Speaker Parent in Debates, February 17, 1997, p. 8200).
[15]
See Standing Order 11(1) on naming.
[16]
Debates, May 10, 1878, p. 2564; December 12, 1983, p. 77. There are many other examples.
[17]
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 356-7.
[18]
Debates, October 23, 1991, October 25, 1991 and November 21, 1991. The motion did not come to a vote, but remained on the Order Paper until the end of the session.
[19]
See the Report of the Special Advisory Committee to the Speaker, June 22, 1992. As this was an unofficial committee, the report was not tabled in the House, but a copy was forwarded to the Standing Committee on House Management and to the House Leaders of each party.
[20]
For recent examples, see Journals, June 1, 1955, pp. 654-7; Debates, May 19, 1960, p. 4025; May 11, 1983, pp. 25363-6; November 3, 1983, p. 28661; April 6, 1995, p. 11608. Members themselves have occasionally called attention to the rule. See Debates, June 1, 1982, p. 17973. (This Standing Order refers specifically to the votes of the House, and not to the votes of individual Members.)
[21]
Journals, April 6, 1868, p. 184.
[22]
Journals, February 13, 1877, p. 26.
[23]
Journals, February 10, 1885, p. 53; June 12, 1950, p. 501. See also other examples in Journals, May 27, 1898, p. 269; August 1, 1942, p. 708; November 22, 1944, p. 923; November 24, 1944, p. 927.

Notes on Standing Order 19:

[1]
Hatsell, Volume II, p. 233. See also Debates, April 1, 1902, cols. 1919-20.
[2]
Redlich, Volume II, p. 146.
[3]
Redlich, Volume II, p. 146.
[4]
See for example, Journals, February 20, 1911, p. 190.
[5]
Rules, Orders, and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, p.8. Rule 12 read: “A Member called to Order shall sit down, but may afterwards explain. The House, if appealed to, shall decide on the case, but without debate. If there be no appeal, the decision of the Chair shall be final.”
[6]
For examples, see Scrapbook Debates of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, March 10, 1865, p. 176; Debates of the House of Commons, April 3, 1868, p. 454; April 29, 1885, pp. 1461-8; June 15, 1887, pp. 1010-1; April 1, 1902, cols. 1919-20.
[7]
Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7465-7.
[8]
Debates, July 9, 1906, col. 7466.
[9]
Debates, July 9, 1906, col. 7466.
[10]
See for example, Debates, March 23, 1868, pp. 387-8; March 7, 1878, p. 808.
[11]
Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 353.
[12]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 326-7.
[13]
See for example, Debates, February 11, 1982, pp. 14899-904; March 2, 1982, pp. 15532-9; February 14, 1983, p. 22816; October 27, 1983, pp. 28361-77.
[14]
Debates, October 31, 1983, pp. 28591-4.
[15]
Debates, February 12, 1982, pp. 14969-70. See also events of February 11, 1982, Debates, pp. 14900-1.
[16]
Debates, May 7, 1985, p. 4488.
[17]
Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399; April 14, 1975, p. 441. See also Standing Order 47.
[18]
Debates, April 30, 1964, pp. 2799-802. See also Debates, May 1, 1964, pp. 2807-17; December 5, 1991, p. 5892; December 10, 1997, pp. 3064-5. See Debates, June 13, 1986, p. 14372, for an exception.
[19]
Debates, June 15, 1983, pp. 26394-5; December 4, 1992, p. 14633 (moving a motion); Journals, May 26, 1961, p. 588 (impeding a motion). The only motion that can be moved on a point of order is a motion that another Member “be now heard” (see Commentary on Standing Order 62).

Notes on Standing Order 20:

[1]
“Conduct” has been taken to encompass the actions of Members both inside and outside the House (see Historical Summary).
[2]
After Parliament passed the Controverted Elections Act in 1873, the House progressively distanced itself from matters connected with the election of Members, leaving such questions to the courts instead (see Standing Order 23(2)). As such, its inclusion in the Standing Order is an anachronism.
[3]
Hatsell, Volume II, p. 171n.
[4]
Debates, May 25, 1956, p. 4348.
[5]
From 1867 to 1873, the House itself, via Election Committees, dealt with controverted elections. However, it was not the practice for every Member whose return or election was investigated by an Election Committee to withdraw, this procedure being instead apparently reserved for cases considered by the House itself (see Note 2).
[6]
Debates, June 1, 1887, pp. 671-5.
[7]
Journals, April 13, 1874, pp. 50-1. Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 137n, relates the Member’s absence until the seat was confirmed. A similar instance in 1883 saw another Member, Augustine Colin MacDonald, refrain from taking his seat until the House had confirmed the validity of his return (Journals, February 19, 1883, pp. 34-6; March 1, 1883, pp. 68-9; March 9, 1883, pp. 101-2; April 25, 1883, pp. 257-62; see also Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 138-40).
[8]
Debates, March 17, 1913, cols. 6064-5.
[9]
Debates, May 6, 1926, p. 3149.
[10]
Double returns resulting from tie contests were possible up to 1874 because, until then, Returning Officers were not required to cast a deciding vote (S.C. 1874, c. 9, s. 60).
[11]
Journals, April 25, 1872, pp. 44-5.
[12]
Journals, April 25, 1872, p. 46; May 13, 1872, p. 104.
[13]
Journals, March 16, 1876, pp. 145-60. See also Debates, March 15, 1876, pp. 652-4.
[14]
Journals, August 20, 1891, pp. 422-3.
[15]
Debates, May 17, 1894, cols. 2931-3; July 22, 1903, cols. 7095-103; March 6, 1911, cols. 4645-56; May 22, 1924, pp. 2401-7.
[16]
Between 1867 and 1876, the order was termed “Sessional”, as it was adopted at the beginning of each session. From 1876 to 1906, it was an unnumbered Standing Order. Since then it has been numbered. It has not been amended materially since 1927.
[17]
The change was first proposed in 1925 (Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 357), but was adopted only in 1927 on the second try (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 338-9).
[18]
In 1928, for instance, a charge against a Member was withdrawn after the accused made a strong and emphatic denial, and after the Speaker had requested acceptance of the denial (Debates, June 7, 1928, pp. 3868-74). See also another charge in 1932 (Debates, February 8, 1932, pp. 8-10) where Prime Minister Bennett did not himself respond to the allegations made against him, as well as the Lacombe case in 1943 (Debates, June 30, 1943, pp. 4175-90).
[19]
Debates, January 15, 1953, pp. 1054-6; January 19, 1953, pp. 1101-3. Evidence of his withdrawal can be found in comments later made by the Speaker (Debates, May 25, 1956, p. 4348).
[20]
Debates, May 25, 1956, p. 4348.
[21]
The Member in question, Jean-Marc Jacob, was accused of seditious and offensive behaviour. Though he did not participate in debate on the motion regarding his behaviour, an interjection by him is recorded in the Debates (March 13, 1996, p. 673). He also voted on a motion to adjourn the debate (Journals, March 12, 1996, pp. 79-80), a motion that the debate be not further adjourned (Journals, March 14, 1996, pp. 94-5), as well as on a subamendment, an amendment and on the main motion (March 18, 1996, pp. 107-10). The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which reported on June 18, 1996 (Journals, pp. 565-6). A motion to concur in the report was debated on June 20, 1996, but debate was adjourned and never resumed (Journals, pp. 592-3)

Note on Standing Orders 21 and 22:

[1]
See the Twenty-Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled April 27, 2004 (Journals, p. 319) and adopted April 29, 2004 (Journals, pp. 348-9). For the history of these former Standing Orders, see the first edition of the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, published in April 1989.

Notes on Standing Order 23(1):

[1]
Journals, November 3, 1873, pp. 134-5; November 7, 1873, p. 142.
[2]
Debates, April 27, 1964, pp. 2582-3; April 28, 1964, pp. 2645-7; Journals, June 15, 1964, pp. 425-6.
[3]
See the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, particularly sections 8 to 25.
[4]
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, ss. 16 and 41. See also the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 119.
[5]
Journals, November 3, 1873, pp. 134-5.
[6]
Journals, November 4, 1873, p. 139.
[7]
Journals, November 7, 1873, p. 142. At the time, Members appointed to Cabinet were required to resign their seats and run in a by-election. See S.C. 1867-68, c. 25.
[8]
A case of harassment was alleged in 1939 (Debates, February 1, 1939, p. 519), but was not pursued.
[9]
Debates, April 27, 1964, pp. 2582-3.
[10]
Debates, April 28, 1964, pp. 2645-7.
[11]
Journals, June 15, 1964, pp. 425-6.
[12]
See for example, Journals, April 5, 1886, pp. 112-5; May 28, 1886, p. 322; May 11, 1891, pp. 55-60; August 20, 1891, pp. 422-4; May 21, 1976, pp. 1305-7. Related examples can be found in Debates, May 7, 1976, pp. 13269-71, 13280-1; February 20, 1984, pp. 1559-61.
[13]
See for example, Sir Richard Cartwright’s remarks on the Rykert case, Debates, March 11, 1890, cols. 1713-33. In 1906, three sections were added to the Act respecting the Senate and the House of Commons, which specifically outlawed Members’ receiving or agreeing to receive compensation “for services rendered... in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons, or before a committee of either House...” (S.C. 1906, c. 49). These sections have not since changed (see Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, ss. 16 and 41). In 1892, Criminal Code penalties were established for attempts of bribery towards Members (S.C. 1892, c. 29, s. 131). These provisions are also still in effect (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 119).
[14]
May, 20th ed., p. 149.
[15]
See the Code of Conflict for Members of the House of Commons.

Notes on Standing Order 23(2):

[1]
The principal statute is the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, particularly parts 19 and 20. This Act replaces provisions formerly found in the now repealed Dominion Controverted Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-39; the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-45; the Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2; and the Disfranchising Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. D-3.
[2]
See subsection 502(3) of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9.
[3]
See for example, the Speaker’s ruling of May 6, 1926 (Debates, pp. 3147-9, but particularly p. 3149). The provisions of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act referred to by the Chair are now contained in the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, sbs. 522(1).
[4]
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 134. See also Debates, March 20, 1875, pp. 807-8.
[5]
See for example, Journals, November 21, 1867, p. 26; November 27, 1867, p. 37; November 29, 1867, p. 42; December 18, 1867, p. 108.
[6]
During this time, voting was in public and oral, and polling days were held on different days over several weeks, with the result that election irregularities abounded. It was not until 1874 that the secret ballot was adopted, almost at the same time as a law making elections more or less simultaneous in all parts of the country.
[7]
Journals, April 2, 1873, pp. 115-7.
[8]
Journals, October 27, 1873, pp. 125-6.
[9]
Journals, April 20, 1874, p. 82.
[10]
Debates, February 23, 1876, pp. 207-9.
[11]
Royal Assent was given to An Act to make more effectual provision for the Administration of the Law relating to Corrupt Practices at Elections of Members of the House of Commons and to An Act to provide for the more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections of Members of the House of Commons (Journals, April 12, 1876, pp. 324-5).
[12]
Journals, March 10, 1879, pp. 70-1; Debates, March 10, 1879, pp. 236-8.
[13]
Journals, February 15, 1881, pp. 199-200.
[14]
Debates, April 28, 1887, pp. 154-90, especially the comments of Mr. Thompson, pp. 156-60. The King’s County example referred to by Thompson occurred in 1883, not 1882 (see Debates for 1883).
[15]
Journals, February 27, 1888, p. 52; February 28, 1888, p. 55. For yet another example, see Journals, May 10, 1886, pp. 247-8; May 17, 1886, pp. 278-80. In the 1886 case, the motion to refer the matter to committee was defeated.
[16]
Journals, April 6, 1892, pp. 203-4; Debates, May 4, 1892, cols. 2068-73; Journals, May 27, 1892, pp. 334-5.
[17]
Journals, March 22, 1893, p. 188; March 23, 1893, pp. 190-1.
[18]
Debates, April 24, 1901, cols. 3643-724. For other examples, see the Brockville and West Huron cases, both in 1899 and 1900.
[19]
Debates, March 17, 1913, cols. 6050-160.
[20]
Debates, May 4, 1926, pp. 3065-104; May 6, 1926, pp. 3147-50.
[21]
See for example, Debates, February 2, 1938, p. 105. Another case is the Beauharnois scandal (see Debates, February 11, 1932, pp. 134-49).
[22]
Debates, July 20, 1943, pp. 5092-103.
[23]
Debates, February 15, 1927, pp. 297-311 (see Debates Index under “Athabaska Election” for further references); Debates, July 25, 1942, pp. 4700-1; July 30, 1942, pp. 4970-1; Journals, May 20, 1943, p. 370.
[24]
See Notes 1 and 2.
[25]
As with Standing Order 23(1), Standing Order 23(2) was, from 1867 to 1876, put forward at the beginning of each session as a Sessional Order. It was an unnumbered Standing Order between 1876 and 1906, after which it was assigned a number.
Previous Chapter Next Chapter