House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Second Edition, 2009

House of Commons Procedure and Practice - 15. Special Debates - Emergency Debates


The Standing Orders provide Members with an opportunity to give their attention to a pressing matter by moving a debatable adjournment motion. A Member may request leave from the Speaker “to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration”.[67] Furthermore, the matter “must relate to a genuine emergency”[68] and, if the request is granted by the Speaker, the House is permitted to debate the topic at an early opportunity, foregoing the usual 48 hours’ notice period.

Until the turn of the twentieth century, any Member, at virtually any time in the proceedings, could introduce a new matter for discussion by moving the adjournment of the House. Since the adjournment motion could be moved at any time and was always subject to debate, the result would be an interruption of the business then before the House, often leading to the disruption of the entire day’s program. In 1906, the government of the day decided to remedy this situation and implemented a new rule, the ancestor to the present Standing Order, whereby debate would be permitted only on adjournment motions dealing with definite matters of urgent public importance.[69]

From 1906 to 1968, motions under the emergency debate rule were considered immediately after they had been accepted for debate. This meant that other business was put aside. In December 1968, the House amended the rule to have the debate begin at 8:00 p.m., except on Fridays when it would begin at 3:00 p.m., if proceeded with the same day.[70] This still resulted in a conflict and a displacement of the regular business of the House. When the regular evening sittings of the House were abolished in 1982,[71] the conflict between emergency debates and the regular business of the House was eliminated, except for Fridays.

As one Speaker noted, an emergency debate should be on a topic “that is immediately relevant and of attention and concern throughout the nation”.[72] Thus, matters of chronic or continuing concern, such as economic conditions, unemployment rates and constitutional matters, have tended to be set aside whereas topics deemed to require urgent consideration have included work stoppages and strikes, natural disasters, and international crises and events.[73] At various times other topics such as fisheries, forestry and agriculture have also been judged acceptable.[74] Topics considered highly partisan in nature are not as readily approved.[75]

*   Initiating Debate

Any Member, whether a private Member or a Minister,[76] who wishes to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration must give the Speaker written notice of the matter he or she wishes to propose for discussion at least one hour prior to rising in the House to make the formal request.[77] At the conclusion of Routine Proceedings,[78] any Member who has filed an application with the Speaker rises to ask the Speaker for leave to move the adjournment of the House to debate the issue outlined in the application.[79] The Member then makes a brief statement, normally by simply reading the text of the application filed with the Speaker.[80] No discussion or argument is allowed in the presentation[81] because, as one Speaker stressed, a lengthy statement may provoke debate.[82] However, occasionally a Member will be permitted to expand on the application if the Chair indicates that the additional information could be of assistance in reaching a decision.[83]

Under the Standing Orders, not more than one motion to adjourn the House for an emergency debate may be moved in a particular sitting.[84] On occasion, more than one application has been forwarded to the Speaker. In such cases, Members are recognized in the order in which applications were received.[85]

If the point in the day’s order of business set aside for hearing the application has not been reached, or if the House decides to proceed to other business, for example, by adopting a motion to move to the Orders of the Day during Routine Proceedings, then the Chair cannot hear applications for emergency debates. These applications must be refiled at the next sitting of the House unless unanimous consent is granted for the Speaker to hear them at some other time during the sitting.[86]

The timeliness of an application is important. On one occasion, the Speaker advised a Member who had risen to present his application that had been filed on a previous day to refile it.[87] Although the House may grant a Member unanimous consent to present an application that had not been filed that day,[88] the Chair has expressed reservations about holding over applications. One Speaker stated that a matter which requires urgent action one day may not necessarily demand the same attention the next day, or conversely may be even more critical, a determination that should be left to the discretion of the Member who filed the application.[89] On one occasion, applications were filed during a lengthy adjournment of the House and were heard at the conclusion of Routine Proceedings the first day the House resumed sitting.[90]

*   Discretionary Responsibility of the Speaker

Having heard an application for an emergency debate, the Speaker decides without debate whether the matter is specific and important enough to warrant urgent consideration by the House.[91] In deciding whether to approve the application, the Chair is guided by the Standing Orders, the authorities and practice. If the Speaker so desires, he or she may defer the decision until later in the sitting, when the proceedings of the House may be interrupted for the purpose of announcing the decision.[92] In exceptional cases, the Speaker has not returned to the House with a decision until the following day.[93]

If more than one request for an emergency debate on the same topic is made in the same sitting and found acceptable, the Speaker grants leave to move the adjournment of the House to the Member who first submitted an acceptable application.[94]

The Speaker is not required to give reasons when granting or refusing a request for an emergency debate.[95] Nonetheless, from time to time reasons are offered, although Chair Occupants have tried to refrain from this practice in order to prevent the build‑up of jurisprudence, which could itself become a subject of a debate in the Chamber.[96]

Criteria for Decision

Although the Standing Orders give considerable discretion to the Speaker in deciding if a matter should be brought before the House for urgent consideration, certain criteria must be weighed. The Speaker determines whether a matter is related to a genuine emergency that could not be brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means, such as during a supply day or a take-note debate.[97] To do this, consideration is given to the importance and specificity of the issue[98] and the degree to which the matter falls within the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action.[99]

The Speaker then considers whether the request meets certain other criteria. The matter being raised for discussion must contain only one issue.[100] Moreover, the motion to adjourn the House for an emergency debate cannot revive discussion on a matter previously debated in this way during the session,[101] nor may it raise a question of privilege.[102] In addition, the motion cannot deal with a matter normally debatable only by means of a substantive motion for which notice has been given and which calls for a decision of the House.[103]

Other conditions that have evolved from decisions of previous Speakers are also considered. Chair Occupants have established that the subject matter proposed should not normally be of an exclusively local or regional interest nor be related to only one specific group or industry,[104] and should not involve the administration of a government department.[105] Applications to debate ongoing matters have been rejected,[106] as have applications to debate matters arising out of the business of the same session,[107] Senate proceedings,[108] matters before the courts or other administrative bodies,[109] and non‑confidence or censure motions.[110] Furthermore, the Chair has ruled that an emergency debate cannot be held to debate the interpretation of a Standing Order,[111] nor may it be “used as a vehicle for the purpose of airing statements made outside the House by organizations or people who are not answerable or responsible to this chamber”.[112] In addition, one Speaker ruled that the emergency debate provisions cannot be used to debate “items which, in a regular legislative program of the House of Commons and regular legislative consideration, can come before the House by way of amendments to existing statutes, or in any case will come before it in other ways”.[113]

However, in one exceptional circumstance, an application was approved for an emergency debate on “the sudden and unexpected revelation of events which [had] taken place in the past, in that they might precipitate a course of conduct which, if allowed to continue unchecked, would certainly classify itself as an emergency and a matter of urgent consideration”.[114]

Finally, the Speaker may take into account the general wish of the House to have an emergency debate and grant a request for an emergency debate.[115] Similarly, the Chair has periodically allowed an emergency debate on an issue which was not necessarily urgent within the meaning conferred by the rule, but was one on which the House of Commons timetable prevented any discussion in a timely manner.[116]

The responsibility for deciding whether an issue is an acceptable topic for an emergency debate is occasionally taken out of the hands of the Chair. There have been instances when the House itself has unanimously decided to hold an emergency or a take-note debate.[117] On one noteworthy occasion, the Speaker was not required to render a decision on a number of similar applications because later in the sitting unanimous consent was granted for the introduction of a bill on the same topic, and the House decided to proceed immediately to debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill.[118]

*   Timing of Debate

Once the application for an emergency debate has been granted, the actual debate is deferred until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment that same day, except on Fridays when it is held immediately.[119] In all cases, however, the Speaker is free to defer debate until a specific time during the next sitting day.[120] The House has also periodically adopted special orders setting a time for an emergency debate.[121] In three cases, an application for an emergency debate was granted at a time when the House had extended its sitting hours in June.[122]

When a debate on the same day is scheduled for a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, the Adjournment Proceedings are not held. Instead, the House proceeds with the emergency debate at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and the Member who was granted leave moves the motion, “That this House do now adjourn”. If the debate is held on a Friday, it takes away approximately two hours of House time that would otherwise be used for other business, such as Government Orders or Private Members’ Business, as it begins shortly after Routine Proceedings at 12:00 noon.[123] In addition, the emergency debate can continue past the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of 2:30 p.m. until 4:00 p.m.[124]

In this way, the Standing Orders provide that emergency debates take precedence on Friday or if the Speaker sets down a time at the next sitting that is within the normal sitting hours. The Speaker then determines when any other business that has been superseded by an emergency debate should be considered or disposed of.[125]

*   Rules of Debate

During an emergency debate, speeches are limited to 20 minutes per Member and may be followed by a 10-minute questions and comments period. Members may divide their speaking time with another Member if they so desire.[126] Furthermore, Members are not required to speak from their places.[127]

The established rules of debate apply to emergency debates.[128] Therefore, as with all other motions to adjourn, the motion to adjourn the House to discuss an important and urgent matter is not amendable.[129]

Finally, the House quite frequently adopts a special order not to allow quorum calls, requests for unanimous consent or dilatory motions during an emergency debate.[130]

*   Termination of Debate

Since the wording of the motion for an emergency debate is simply, “That this House do now adjourn”, at the conclusion of the debate, the House is not required to render a decision on the matter under discussion.[131] At midnight (4:00 p.m. on Friday), or when no Member rises to speak, the motion is declared carried by the Speaker and the House adjourns until the next sitting day.[132] However, if the debate is held during the regular sitting hours of the House and concludes prior to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the motion is deemed withdrawn and the House continues with other business.[133]

The Standing Orders allow a Member to propose a motion to continue the debate beyond midnight, or 4:00 p.m. on Fridays, if the motion is moved in the hour preceding the time the debate would normally adjourn, that is, between 11:00 p.m. and midnight, and between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on Fridays.[134] If fewer than 15 Members rise to object to this motion, the motion is deemed adopted. A handful of debates have been extended past midnight pursuant to the Standing Orders,[135] while several have been prolonged by unanimous consent.[136]

There have been occasions when the House has wanted to express its opinion on the topic of an emergency debate by adopting a motion or resolution. In 1970, the House held an emergency debate on the Nigerian‑Biafran conflict; pursuant to a Special Order adopted earlier in the sitting, the debate was interrupted at 10:30 p.m., the House adopted a motion on the same subject and then adjourned without question put.[137] In 1983, following an emergency debate regarding the shooting down of a South Korean civilian aircraft by the Soviet Union, the motion to adjourn the House was deemed withdrawn, the House adopted a resolution denouncing the actions of the Soviet government, and then adjourned until the next sitting day by unanimous consent.[138] In 1989, an emergency debate on the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, China, was temporarily interrupted to allow the House to adopt a resolution condemning the massacre.[139] In 2007, a resolution urging the government to employ every means possible to stop the flow of water from Devils Lake into the Canadian water system was adopted on a brief point of order during an emergency debate dealing specifically with the operation of the Devils Lake outlet.[140]

Top of Page

[67] Standing Order 52(1).

[68] Standing Order 52(6)(a).

[69] Journals, July 10, 1906, p. 580. The first emergency debate held in accordance with the new rules occurred on February 25, 1907, when the topic of discussion was the Trent Valley Canal (Debates, cols. 3627‑8).

[70] Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554‑79, in particular p. 555.

[71] Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.

[72] Debates, February 22, 1978, p. 3128.

[73] See, for example, the debate on the situation in Iraq, a few days prior to the military action led by American and British forces (Journals, March 17, 2003, p. 499).

[74] There have been, for instance, a few debates on the softwood lumber industry (see, for example, Journals, November 6, 2001, p. 807), several debates on agriculture (see, for example, Journals, October 7, 2002, p. 35; February 13, 2008, p. 438) and the fisheries (see, for example, Journals, April 29, 2003, p. 713).

[75] Between 1984 and 1988, for example, there were 21 requests for emergency debates on the Canada‑United States Free Trade Agreement; none was granted.

[76] Ministers have been granted leave to move the adjournment of the House on two occasions: October 14, 1971 (Debates, p. 8688) and November 18, 1991 (Debates, p. 4920). On April 2, 1924, the motion to adjourn was moved by the Prime Minister (Debates, p. 945).

[77] Standing Order 52(2).

[78] Standing Order 52(1). The original reason for delaying the hearing of applications of emergency debates until the conclusion of Routine Proceedings was “to make sure that all business of the House which was not of a controversial nature would be duly attended to” (Journals, April 5, 1951, p. 247; Debates, January 11, 1956, p. 20).

[79] In 1988, the Leader of the New Democratic Party filed notice of an application for an emergency debate on minority language rights. Following Routine Proceedings, the NDP House Leader presented the application. In response to a point of order raised as a result of this, the Speaker ruled that while the person giving notice and the person speaking to it should be the same, he had allowed the House Leader to present the application given its subject matter (Debates, April 11, 1988, p. 14309).

[80] See, for example, Debates, June 21, 2005, p. 7512.

[81] Standing Order 52(3). For the same reason, the other Members are not normally allowed to speak in support of the Member presenting the application for an emergency debate. See, for example, Debates, February 26, 2007, pp. 7314-5.

[82] Debates, September 24, 1990, p. 13229.

[83] See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1989, pp. 1501‑2.

[84] Standing Order 52(6)(c).

[85] See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1999, p. 1688; April 8, 2002, p. 10096.

[86] See, for example, Debates, January 23, 1990, pp. 7363‑5.

[87] Debates, January 29, 1990, p. 7559.

[88] See, for example, Debates, February 4, 1992, p. 6337.

[89] Debates, March 6, 1990, p. 8845.

[90] See Debates, September 24, 1990, pp. 13229‑32.

[91] Standing Order 52(4). Between 1906 and 1927, the rules stipulated that the Speaker had to decide on whether the matter was in order rather than urgent and this resulted in most requests being accepted. In 1927, the Standing Orders were amended to clarify that the Speaker also had to rule on the urgency of the matter raised. This new power, however, did not prevent Members from challenging the Chair's decision and only when the Standing Orders were amended in 1965 to prohibit appeals to the House of the decisions of the Chair did this practice cease. This change substituted the right of appeal for a process whereby, if the Chair questioned the urgency of a request, Members would first debate the merits of it, which resulted in the loss of valuable House time. In 1968, amendments to the Standing Orders eliminated this stage in the process, but the Member presenting the application was still required to obtain the leave of the House to move the adjournment motion if it had been accepted by the Speaker. This procedure, by which the House granted leave, was eliminated altogether in 1987.

[92] Standing Order 52(8). See, for example, Debates, June 21, 2005, pp. 7512, 7544.

[93] Debates, January 30, 1990, pp. 7589-90; January 31, 1990, p. 7658. See also Debates, December 11, 2006, pp. 5932-3; December 12, 2006, p. 5973. In the latter case, the application for an emergency debate was made late in the afternoon and the Speaker, considering that the debate could not be held that day, asked the House for consent to defer his decision until the next sitting day. Unanimous consent was given and the Speaker delivered his ruling the next day.

[94] See, for example, Debates, June 5, 1989, pp. 2523-4, 2591; September 18, 2000, pp. 8255-6, 8279; April 8, 2002, p. 10096; April 9, 2002, p. 10177; May 26, 2003, pp. 6445, 6467.

[95] Standing Order 52(7). See, for example, Debates, October 18, 1999, pp. 280-1. Between 1927 and 1968, a number of conditions, based on previous rulings, had to be met before the Speaker would grant a request for an emergency debate. In 1968, the Standing Orders were modified so that the Speaker would no longer be obliged to base a decision on these previous rulings, although some precedent‑based conditions were incorporated into the Standing Orders (Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554‑79, in particular pp. 554‑6).

[96] In 1985, a special committee recommended the adoption of the practice of not giving reasons, and the government in its response to the committee report supported the recommendation. See the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, p. 45, presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839); Journals, October 9, 1985, p. 1082. See also Debates, September 22, 1987, p. 9172.

[97] See, for example, Debates, November 5, 2003, pp. 9201-2; September 18, 2006, pp. 2915‑6; February 4, 2008, pp. 2538-9. A number of Speakers have refused applications for emergency debates during consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne because the Address debate allows for discussion on a wide range of topics. See, for example, Debates, February 18, 1972, p. 18; April 4, 1989, p. 41; September 25, 1997, p. 60; November 26, 2008, p. 293. However, there have been exceptions to this practice to allow for debate on issues that were considered urgent or that were mentioned only briefly, if at all, in the Speech from the Throne. See, for example, Debates, April 4, 1989, pp. 40-1; October 4, 2002, p. 322. On the other hand, a request for an emergency debate on the alleged premature disclosure of the budget was disallowed because Members would have ample opportunity to discuss the issue during debate on the budget motion (Debates, April 20, 1983, p. 24685). For further information on take-note debates, see the section in this chapter entitled “Take-note Debates”.

[98] See, for example, Debates, January 23, 1985, p. 1599.

[99] Standing Order 52(5).

[100] Standing Order 52(6)(b).

[101] Standing Order 52(6)(d). See, for example, Debates, September 15, 2003, p. 7353.

[102] Standing Order 52(6)(e).

[103] Standing Order 52(6)(f). See, for example, Debates, April 20, 1983, p. 24685; February 11, 1985, pp. 2210‑1.

[104] See, for example, Debates, February 13, 1978, pp. 2785‑7; December 18, 1984, p. 1351; December 19, 1984, pp. 1366‑7; February 6, 1985, p. 2064; February 3, 1986, p. 10381; February 14, 1986, p. 10830; June 11, 1987, p. 6974; June 22, 1987, p. 7418; March 18, 2002, pp. 9761-2. There are exceptions, however. See, for example, Debates, February 13, 2008, p. 3012, when the Chair allowed an emergency debate on the livestock industry.

[105] See, for example, Debates, March 27, 1974, p. 906.

[106] See, for example, Debates, December 13, 1989, pp. 6875‑6; February 9, 2004, p. 322.

[107] See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1990, pp. 13485‑6; February 6, 1992, pp. 6464, 6505.

[108] See, for example, Debates, October 5, 1990, pp. 13871‑2.

[109] See, for example, Debates, March 5, 1981, p. 7928; November 20, 1989, p. 5834.

[110] See, for example, Debates, May 3, 1971, p. 5425; June 29, 1971, pp. 7434‑5; June 12, 1973, p. 4658.

[111] Debates, April 16, 1974, pp. 1454‑5.

[112] Debates, December 13, 1971, p. 10393.

[113] Debates, April 30, 1975, p. 5340. See also Debates, July 9, 1980, p. 2711; May 4, 1984, p. 3419.

[114] This referred to revelations made in the House on October 28, 1977, by the Solicitor General, concerning illegal actions committed by the national security forces of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in 1973. This matter was referred to the McDonald Royal Commission and to the Attorney General of Quebec (Debates, October 28, 1977, pp. 393‑6; October 31, 1977, pp. 433‑4).

[115] See, for example, Debates, June 1, 1988, p. 15993.

[116] See, for example, Journals, April 9, 1974, pp. 108‑9; Debates, December 18, 1980, pp. 5888‑9.

[117] See, for example, Journals, October 14, 1971, p. 870; October 27, 1983, p. 6356; February 2, 1998, p. 402; Debates, September 26, 2005, pp. 8023-4; April 5, 2006, pp. 29-30, 47.

[118] Debates, January 19, 1987, pp. 2346‑7, 2370.

[119] Standing Order 52(11).

[120] Standing Order 52(9). See, for example, Journals, April 28, 2003, p. 700, when the Speaker ordered one debate to be held that night and another to be held the next day. Prior to 1968, if an application for an emergency debate was approved, the business of the House was immediately put aside and the Member who requested the debate was given leave to move the adjournment of the House. In 1968, the Standing Orders were amended to stipulate that emergency debates would begin at 8:00 p.m. if proceeded with the same day, 3:00 p.m. on Friday. No time limit for these debates was provided in the Standing Orders and Members often seized the opportunity to extend the debates, in one instance for more than 35 hours (Journals, May 4‑5, 1982, pp. 4796‑800; May 6, 1982, pp. 4802‑4).

[121] See, for example, Journals, June 21, 2005, p. 943. On this occasion, the House decided to begin the emergency debate immediately following the taking of the recorded divisions on a government bill at report stage.

[122] In the first case, a time allocation order on a bill had also been invoked that same day. The Speaker set the time for the emergency debate at 10:00 p.m. with the vote on the bill under consideration scheduled for 9:45 p.m. Unanimous consent was subsequently granted to extend the debate past midnight (Journals, June 22, 1992, pp. 1823, 1825‑6, Debates, pp. 12527‑8). The second case occurred in 2005: the debate began at approximately 8:00 p.m., immediately following the taking of the recorded divisions, as confirmed by the House by Special Order (Journals, June 21, 2005, pp. 943, 954, Debates, p. 7583). In the third case, the House decided by unanimous consent to hold an emergency debate at the conclusion of the debate on two government bills or at 9:00 p.m., whichever came first, and limited the debate to three hours. The debate began at approximately 7:30 p.m. and ended at 10:29 p.m. (Journals, June 14, 2007, pp. 1537-8).

[123] Standing Order 52(14).

[124] Since 1987, when this Standing Order came into effect (Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1020), no emergency debates have been held on a Friday, although on three occasions the Speaker has deferred such a debate until the following Monday at 8:00 p.m. (Journals, December 15, 1989, p. 1022; November 27, 1998, p. 1323; October 4, 2002, p. 26). The last emergency debate held on a Friday occurred in June 1986 (Journals, June 13, 1986, pp. 2317‑9).

[125] Standing Order 52(15). This situation could occur if an emergency debate were to take place on the same day as the consideration of the Business of Supply on the last allotted day in a supply period. The Speaker would have to resolve the conflict between Standing Orders 52 and 81.

[126] Standing Orders 43 and 52(13); Debates, June 21, 2005, p. 7584.

[127] Standing Order 17. This is similar to the situation in Committee of the Whole, where Members are not required to be in their assigned seats when they have the floor. In addition, the House wanted to experiment with holding two emergency debates in Committee of the Whole in 2001 (Journals, September 27, 2001, pp. 644‑5, 663; October 4, 2001, pp. 691, 694), in response to the suggestion made in the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons (par. 30, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3) by Special Order (Journals, October 3, 2001, p. 685)). As a motion to adjourn the House is not appropriate in committee, on these two occasions, the committee considered a motion to “take note” of the matter.

[128] See Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.

[129] Debates, July 16, 1942, p. 4427.

[130] See, for example, Journals, February 13, 2008, p. 433.

[131] Debates, April 20, 1983, p. 24685.

[132] These motions have been disposed of in a variety of ways since 1906. Until 1917, motions were generally negatived after a short debate and the House would continue with other business; by 1918, these motions were being withdrawn at the conclusion of debate and the House would move on to other business. In 1927, when the House agreed to adjourn evening sittings no later than 11:00 p.m., adjournment motions for emergency debates were withdrawn if debate concluded before 11:00 p.m., or the House would adjourn without question put at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. Motions were negatived by recorded vote in 1916, 1942 and 1957 (Journals, May 5, 1916, pp. 334‑5; July 16, 1942, pp. 544‑5; February 25, 1957, pp. 181‑2) and negatived on division in 1961 and 1967 (Journals, June 14, 1961, pp. 668‑9; November 24, 1967, pp. 534‑5). Since January 1969, at the conclusion of debate, all such adjournment motions have been declared carried by the Speaker.

[133] Standing Order 52(12).

[134] Standing Orders 26 and 52(12).

[135] See, for example, Journals, January 28, 1987, p. 413; April 28‑29, 1987, p. 796; February 19, 1992, pp. 1043‑4. In one instance, an emergency debate lasted for more than 20 hours. At the next sitting, the debate continued for an additional 14 hours after the House unanimously agreed to resume the debate (Journals, April 28‑29, 1987, pp. 796‑7; April 30, 1987, pp. 800‑2).

[136] See, for example, Journals, April 27, 1987, p. 785; June 1, 1988, p. 2773; April 4, 1989, p. 23; June 5, 1989, p. 315; December 18, 1989, p. 1034; January 21, 1991, pp. 2589‑90; May 5, 1992, p. 1398; June 22, 1992, p. 1825.

[137] Journals, January 12, 1970, pp. 291‑3.

[138] Journals, September 12, 1983, pp. 6134‑5, 6140.

[139] Journals, June 5, 1989, pp. 314‑5.

[140] Journals, June 14, 2007, pp. 1537-8.

Top of Page