Parliament is adjourned periodically for predictable breaks in the proceedings, such as over the Christmas period and during the summer. When it is recalled, parliament resumes with whatever business was on the agenda. There is almost never any controversy attached to this action. One notable exception was when Doug Ford, after a chaotic, capricious, and cruel approach to cutting expenditures in Ontario, decided that the normal summer break for the Legislature would extent until October 25, ostensibly to remain inactive until after the federal election (scheduled for mid-October). Some felt that the move was to free up Ford to campaign against the federal Liberals but in light of his plummeting popularity, it is now seen as a means (unlikely to be successful) of keeping him on the sidelines and out of the headlines. Whatever the original reason, it means an unusually long break in the operations of the provincial legislature.
Prorogation
Traditionally, parliament has been prorogued two or three times during a term of office. When it is prorogued, all bills not completely passed die. After an interval, parliament resumes with a new Speech from the Throne, setting out the priorities for the coming months. Governments use prorogation to give themselves a fresh start and to lay out new initiatives that may respond to changing circumstances and also may be introduced to gain public support. Governments may also announce a date for prorogation to pressure members into passing bills before they lapse.
Proroguing parliament has not usually been controversial, with some notable recent exceptions. In early December 2008, the minority Conservative Government of Stephen Harper faced certain defeat in the Commons as a result of a coalition government in waiting formed by the opposition parties. To avoid this fate, he prorogued parliament, gaining time to work on new government initiatives, in a new budget, that were successful in undermining the coalition and allowing the government to continue in office.
Even more controversial has been Boris Johnson’s declared intention to prorogue the British Parliament from September 12 until October 14, thereby essentially preventing it from resolving the impasse over Brexit and ensuring that Britain will leave the European Union on October 31 without any deal. His action is still being reviewed by the courts and it has triggered a revolt within his own party that has reduced it to minority status and restricted Johnson’s room to manoeuvre.
Dissolution
This is the most significant step that can be taken and it results in the calling of an election. Traditionally, there were two circumstances in which dissolution arose. Given our system of responsible government, a government defeated on a vote of confidence would normally ask the Governor General (or the Queen in Britain) to dissolve parliament so that an election could be called. If a government avoided such a setback, the Prime Minister of the day would at some point request dissolution. Until fairly recent changes, a government did not have a set term but the life of a parliament could not extend beyond five years. To give themselves some flexibility, Prime Ministers usually called an election after about four years, sometimes waiting a bit longer and often going somewhat earlier – depending on when they thought their re-election chances were best.
In 2007, the Harper Government passed legislation establishing a fixed four year term for the Commons, with an election scheduled for the third Monday of October every four years. The rationale for this change was to prevent Prime Ministers from calling snap elections when it suited their purpose. Because the principle of responsible government continues to apply, however, an election will occur before the four years are up if a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons.
Ironically, only one year after the new fixed term was established it was ignored – by the Prime Minister who had created it. In September 2008, Harper asked the Governor General (Michaëlle Jean) to dissolve parliament because “it had become dysfunctional” and he required a new mandate. In my view, this is in no way a justifiable grounds for dissolution, but the Governor General granted it. Since, we are told, Jean had apparently granted Harper’s request for prorogation (described above) because she feared that a refusal would lead to a crisis of confidence in Canada’s political system, one presumes that consideration may have also influenced her position response to the dissolution request.
Our other example of attempted misuse of the power of dissolution has recently occurred in Britain as part of the ongoing Brexit soap opera. As if proroguing parliament to prevent efforts to resolve the Brexit crisis was not enough, Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently attempted to dissolve parliament and trigger an election on the very eve of the Brexit deadline – in spite of the fact that Britain also has a fixed term of four years. He was thwarted, however, because Britain also has a provision not found in our Canadian system. A British Prime Minister can request dissolution only with the approval of two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons. Johnson did not receive this approval, with a number of his own Conservative members (including his brother) voting against the Prime Minister. Had there been such a two-thirds provision in the Canadian system, Harper’s abuse of the power of dissolution in 2008 would have been prevented.
To recap:
If you have managed to wade through all of these parliamentary perambulations, you are almost ready to start dazzling your friends with your insights at upcoming cocktail parties. To sum up, what you now know is that (a) adjourning parliament is usually a routine action for times like Christmas and summer break, (b) proroguing parliament usually happens about three times in a term of government, with each pause followed by a Throne Speech and a new session of that parliament and (c) dissolving parliament means that the term of the incumbent government is over and that an election will follow. You also know that these relatively straightforward arrangements can be (and have been) abused by those who don’t play by the rules and should suffer the consequences!