OTTAWA – At 5:17 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 26, the regular activities of the House of Commons screeched to a halt.
That’s when Commons Speaker Greg Fergus ruled that the Liberal government appeared to have breached the Parliamentary privilege of MPs when it refused to fully comply with a June 10 order to supply all unredacted records on the so-called “green slush fund.”
Now, nearly all regular activities of the House of Commons are on hold as MPs debate how to address the government’s apparent contempt.
The hottest issue in the House has it all: accusations of corruption, Charter violations and obstructing one’s own obstruction, as well as words like “gobbledygook.”
Since most people aren’t versed in Parliamentary rules, the National Post has drafted this handy explainer so you can wow all your friends and family members during Thanksgiving dinner with your knowledge of the latest logjam in federal politics.
What was this June 10 motion exactly?
On June 10, opposition parties came together in support of a motion brought forward by the Conservatives that called on the government to provide all records relating to the embattled Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC).
SDTC, pejoratively renamed the “green slush fund” by Conservatives, is a $1-billion clean technology fund that is being shut down after a series of controversies and a scathing auditor general report that found serious issues with both the fund’s governance and management of taxpayer dollars.
The motion called for the SDTC records to be sent to Commons law clerk Michel Bédard, who would forward them to the RCMP. To be clear, it’s very unusual, if not unprecedented, for Parliament to order documents to be handed off to a third-party immediately.
Why was the government found to have apparently violated the order?
Over the summer, government departments and agencies started providing the requested documents.
Or at least, some of them. As previously reported by the National Post, over a dozen government departments and agencies either provided redacted documents or simply refused to comply with the order and withheld some or all their records.
That included Auditor General Karen Hogan, who twice wrote the House of Commons arguing that she could not comply because it could compromise her office’s independence.
When the House of Commons resumed sitting in September, Conservative House leader Andrew Scheer immediately stood up and raised what is called a “question of privilege.”
He pointed out that parliamentary privilege grants MPs tremendous power when it comes to fulfilling their duties. That includes an absolute and unfettered ability to send for documents, he noted. The Bloc Québécois and NDP largely agreed.
Government House leader Karina Gould vociferously disagreed, countering that ordering documents simply to pass them on to the RCMP is not a duty of the House of Commons. Rather, she said it’s a drastic overreach by Parliamentarians and a potential override of Canadians’ Charter right to avoid unreasonable police search and seizure.
Ultimately, the Speaker sided with the Conservatives in this “unusual, novel and unprecedented” case. He found the government appeared to have violated the powers of the Commons and helped Conservatives draft an “appropriate” privilege motion to address the alleged breach.
Scheer’s motion proposed to send the issue to the Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee for further study.
So, the government apparently did a bad thing. How does it get fixed?
That’s what brings us to the current paralysis. The first thing to know is that debate about MPs’ privilege superseded virtually all other orders in the House of Commons. In other words, no other bills, motions or private members’ business can be discussed until the privilege motion is voted on.
From the moment the motion is brought forward, all MPs are allowed 20 minutes to speak to it followed by 10 minutes of questions and comments (the only exception are the prime minister and leader of the Opposition, who have unlimited time).
The Conservatives may have brought forward the motion to send the issue to committee as recommended by the Speaker, but they obviously don’t like it. Scheer has said repeatedly that his party plans on clogging the House of Commons until the government stops trying to “cover up” its “corruption” and hands over all the unredacted documents.
Until then, they debate the motion. With 119 MPs, some quick napkin math suggests that if the Conservatives wanted to clog the House of Commons as long as possible, they could theoretically do so until Christmas … of next year.
That’s why this week, the Liberals accused the Conservatives of “obstructing their own obstruction” and clogging up Parliament for purely partisan reasons. They’ve also repeated the RCMP’s concerns that the documents would likely be unusable in a criminal investigation due to Charter rights concerns.
“Gobbledygook,” Conservative MP Kyle Seeback responded Monday.
Are you saying this debate will never actually end until an election or prorogation?
No. Here’s a dirty secret neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will tell you: they have the power to end the debate as long as they can secure support from a majority of MPs in the House.
To end a privilege debate, either all parties consent to vote on the motion or the Liberals negotiate support from an opposition party to pass a “closure motion” that would also end debate and force a vote.
Unless the government agrees to supply all the documents as requested by the Conservatives, the first option appears extremely unlikely.
Though more likely, the second option still seems out of reach for now because all opposition parties confirmed to the National Post on Monday that the Liberals had not reached out to negotiate support for a closure motion.
The Bloc Québécois said so far it hasn’t seen a single reason why it would feel the need to close the debate.
The NDP said Monday the Liberals had not reached out either. Then again, the NDP didn’t put up a member to speak on the privilege motion on Friday or Monday, which could mean the party is ready to negotiate with the Liberals. Read into that as you will.
What about the ‘p’ and ‘e’ words?
Ah yes, prorogation and election.
Rumours that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might prorogue Parliament — the parliamentary equivalent of sweeping everything off the dinner table and starting dinner over — have swirled for months.
But they’ve come to a headwind now that the House of Commons is at a stalemate and no party appears to be making real efforts to end it.
Proroguing Parliament allows the government to suspend the House for a certain period, then hopefully “reset” the agenda with a new throne speech.
Some on the Hill speculate that the Liberals could prorogue Parliament until after Christmas, return in time to table the 2025 budget and then send Canadians to the ballot box.
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland sought to put that rumour to bed Tuesday when asked if the government was considering prorogation. “No.”
Obviously, Trudeau asking the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and launch an election would also end the debate on privilege.
National Post
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.