Procedure in the Canadian house of commons

During the last few years more public attention than usual has been focused on the procedure of the House of Commons. It is odd, therefore, that no historical study has yet been made of the rules and practice by which the House governs itself. There have been, of course, some useful books for ready reference on current pro cedure.

This book is emphatically not meant to be a day-to-day reference book to be consulted by a member when he wishes to raise a point of order, or by the procedural expert in the House when he takes issue with his fellows on a minute point. But if the book is not meant to be so im mediately and severely practical as that, it is quite definitely intended to be useful in a less direct way and in a larger sense. An attempt has been made here to survey the whole field of Canadian procedure historically and analytically, to establish what the procedure of the House was in 1867 and to trace its slow develop ment-its evolvement through prin ciples, traditions, rulings, and prece dents to the present time. A particu lar interest has been taken in depicting how the House operates in practice as compared with how it is believed to operate in theory. Certain weak nesses in the procedure of the House have revealed themselves, and sug gestions have been made for possible remedies. Quite aside from these ex plicit recommendations, it is hoped that a concentrated examination of this kind will provide a new perspec tive on procedure to those who are caught up in the day-to-day function ing of the House and to those, both in the House and outside it, who are concerned about larger, more distant implications.

It is necessary to go beyond the quibbling over detail that goes on in the House and realize what procedure means to the whole parliamentary system. It is conventional to refer to our great traditions inherited from Great Britain and assume that these will protect the Government from obstruction and the Opposition from being trampled by a majority. Ex perience has shown that tradition is not enough, either in Great Britain or in Canada. We have the tradition of centuries as a foundation on which to build. We have also added new rules to take care of new conditions. Together these operate to guarantee the debate in Parliament which we consider necessary and to ensure that the Government will be subject at all times to effective scrutiny by the representatives of those in the country who do not agree with its policies. Our whole governmental system is based on the responsibility of the Cabinet to the House of Commons. It is the rules of the House that make this responsibility a reality.