Practice

The House’s often unique methods of proceeding are the result of centuries of practice86—the unwritten rules of procedure which developed over time and came to be accepted as the normal way of proceeding. The first representative assemblies on Canadian soil were inspired mainly by British parliamentary tradition,87 and to a lesser degree by American practice.88 Until relatively recently, the British influence was explicitly recognized by the House in its Standing Orders89 and, to this day, in instances in which internal precedents do not provide the necessary guidance, the Speaker is given full authority to go beyond the House’s jurisprudence “in all cases not provided for hereinafter”.90 The Speaker may thus turn to provincial or foreign precedents, typically those of Commonwealth legislative bodies, “so far as they may be applicable to the House”.91

In some areas (e.g., the conduct of Question Period), almost all procedures are based on practice augmented by decisions and statements of the Chair;92 in other areas, some practices are born without the active participation of the Speaker.93

There has been a tendency for the House to codify in the Standing Orders many procedures which have originated and evolved as unwritten practices. For example, although for many years representatives of the recognized parties had been permitted to respond to ministerial statements, it was only in 1964 that the practice was codified in the Standing Orders.94 Other examples include the adoption of the Standing Order codifying the long-standing practice of the pairing of Members unable to be present in the House for recorded divisions, as well as the adoption of the Standing Order governing take-note debates.95