Thursday of last week, the Governor General issued a proclamation proroguing the Parliament of Canada, thus ending the first session of the 40th Parliament.¹ The political reasons for this action, and the consequences thereof, have been thoroughly discussed in Canadian news media in recent days, but the story is also interesting from a parliamentary procedural perspective, as it has no analogue in the rules used by ordinary assemblies, such as Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.

Prorogation is the simultaneous ending of the legislative session of two deliberative assemblies by executive order, without the advice or consent of either. It has an effect similar to adjournment sine die, however the word “adjourn” is not generally used, and the assemblies themselves have no control over the decision.² If either the House of Commons or the Senate happen to be sitting when the proclamation is issued, the prorogation is implemented by means of a point of order raised by a minister of the crown, which is in order even while another member has the floor. The Speaker then leaves the chair, without ruling on the point of order, and the members disperse.³ If a particular house is not sitting at the time the proclamation is issued, it simply does not meet again at the time to which it had previously adjourned, and an extra-cameral notation to that effect is added to the record of the last meeting.⁴

As a result of the prorogation, all unfinished business falls to the ground in both Houses, and all committees are prohibited from meeting. The houses of Parliament do not meet again until such time as they are summoned to Ottawa by proclamation, at which point a new session begins.² Some rules exist to expedite certain items of business that were left unfinished during the previous session, but those rules are an exception to the general principle.⁵ In the present case, the Governor General issued a second proclamation on the same day, summoning Parliament to meet again on January 26, 2009.⁶

In ordinary assemblies, no person or body has the power of prorogation. Each deliberative assembly has full control over the conduct of its own business, and that includes the decision of when and whether to adjourn and the time to which to adjourn. Often, parliamentarians will see (or hear about) chairmen who believe they have the power to unilaterally adjourn an assembly, but who in reality do not. Only in the case of a fire or riot, or other similarly dangerous situation, can the chair declare a meeting adjourned without the consent of the members.⁷

Although the parliamentary procedure used in ordinary clubs and associations is loosely based on the way Parliament operates,⁸ this is one area where the two systems depart considerably. This is important to remember especially now, since the concept of prorogation has become daily front page news in Canada.

1. ”Proclamation Proroguing Parliament to January 26, 2009.” Canada Gazette Part II. 5 Dec. 2008. Vol. 142. Extra No. 6. SI/2008-144. [↩]
2. ”Prorogation and Dissolution.” House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Ed. Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit. Montreal: Chenelière/McGraw-Hill, 2000. [↩] [↩]
3. ”Prorogation of Parliament.” House of Commons Debates. House of Commons of Canada. 4 Dec. 2008. Vol. 143. No. 013. 40th Parl. 1st Session. [↩]
4. ”Message from the Senate.” House of Commons Debates. House of Commons of Canada. 22 Jun. 2007. Vol. 141. No. 175-A. 39th Parl. 1st Session. [↩]
5. ”Private Members’ Business.” §86.1 and §86.2 (1). Standing Orders of the House of Commons. House of Commons of Canada. Nov. 2008. [↩]
6. ”Proclamation Summoning Parliament to Meet January 26, 2009.” Canada Gazette Part II. 5 Dec. 2008. Vol. 142. Extra No. 6. SI/2008-145. [↩]
7. RONR (10th ed.), p. 84-85 [↩]
8. RONR (10th ed.), p. xxv-xxxi [↩]