Frustration is mounting among MPs from all parties, who are calling for an end to the privilege debate that has now been ongoing for two weeks—and counting—as the House reconvenes after a week-long break.

NDP MP Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, B.C.) said that MPs are at a point where they are not hearing anything new, with the Liberals and Conservatives pointing fingers at each other.

“The fact is that both of these parties are guilty of major scandals. They’re both guilty of having withheld documents. They don’t shine in this debate,” said MacGregor, speaking in the House on Oct. 21.

MacGregor argued that the Conservatives are filibustering their own motion. “When are we going to get to the part where the House can actually take action?” he said.

The privilege debate has stalled other government business for two weeks straight, as Conservatives insist that all documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC)—a now defunct green-tech fund—be handed over to the RCMP for a criminal investigation. Both NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs have repeatedly said they would support the Conservative motion to refer the matter to the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC). Yet, the debate carries on with sharp exchanges among MPs across parties despite the frustration with no agreement—at least yet— between Liberals and NDP or Bloc to end the impasse in the House.

Conservative MPs have linked the NDP with the Liberals in their comments about what they’re panning as the “green slush fund.” However, New Democrats have taken a distinct position on SDTC, challenging that characterization. Earlier in the day during the privilege debate, NDP MP Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, Ont.) called the notion that the NDP are part of a “cover up” with the Liberals “ridiculous,” and said that Conservatives are using “procedural shenanigans” to prolong the debate.

“The facts are the Conservative Party wrote a motion to send this to PROC. They are banking on their base being too stupid to understand the procedural shenanigans they’re doing in this House,” said Green, before urging Conservative MPs to have “the dignity to stand up, come clean with Canadians, send this to committee so we can get on with the good work.”

The House has been paralyzed since Speaker Greg Fergus (Hull–Aylmer, Que.) ruled on Sept. 26 that the government’s failure to provide records related to the now-defunct foundation constituted a violation of parliamentary privilege. The initial motion in June came from Conservative House Leader Andrew Scheer (Regina–Qu’Appelle, Sask.), asking the government to release all documents related to SDTC—and turn them over to the RCMP. More than a dozen departments have since submitted records, but some were withheld or redacted. In September, Scheer raised a question of privilege, saying the government was in contempt for not fully complying with the House order. Fergus then ruled there was a prima facie case of privilege but also recommended the matter be moved to PROC, addressing Government House Leader Karina Gould’s (Burlington, Ont.) concern that the order might threaten the separation of Parliament and the judiciary. Now, Scheer’s privilege motion technically asks for the issue to go to PROC. But, the Conservatives likely do not want the matter to go to committee despite having introduced this motion, as some observers previously argued.

MacGregor said every day on the privilege debate is costing Canadians, at a price of about $70,000 an hour to run Parliament.

“That’s a lot of money that’s being burned up right now, and we’re doing absolutely nothing,” he said speaking in the House.

Mathieu Gravel, director of media relations in the House Speaker’s Office told The Hill Times that his office does not have an hourly estimate for the cost to run Parliament. He said “too many factors come into play,” such as fixed versus variable costs, salary of employees, and the number of sitting days in a year. 

Despite frustration from the Bloc and NDP MPs who say in the House that they would like to see the matter moved to PROC, there does not seem to be agreement—at least yet—with the Liberals to end the impasse.

Gould reiterated her position on Oct. 21 that the “Conservatives are filibustering their own motion.” Again calling the document request “unprecedented,” she emphasized that the government has provided thousands of pages of documents but “done so in a way that protects the Charter rights of Canadians.”

“I think there’s only one thing the Conservatives are afraid of. They don’t want this House to get to work because they know that if there’s another confidence motion, the Conservative leader will lose it,” she said during Question Period on Oct. 21

Gould’s team did not respond to The Hill Times’ question as to whether the House leader is working on a closure motion to end the debate. Mark Kennedy, a spokesperson for Gould referred The Hill Times to a statement by Gould, in which she said: “As I have said from the start of the fall sitting, I meet with my counterparts from all parties on a regular basis. That will continue.”

Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne (Saint Maurice-Champlain, Que.) who is responsible for the SDTC file, said his government “acted timely to dissolve” the organization, with the former SDTC board members in question resigning, and the greentech fund being folded into the National Research Council.

“[Conservatives] should let the House do its important work and work for Canadians, instead of filibustering their own motion,” he said on Oct. 21. “It’s shameful what they’re doing.”

“What is shameful is cover up,” responded Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, Ont.)

“This Liberal government is still in contempt of Parliament by refusing to turn over the documents that could certainly reveal the depths of their corruption,” she said. “They have paralyzed Parliament in order to hide their scandal.”

Parliament work on pause

There are a number of government bills stuck at second reading in the House as well as opposition motions that expect to be dealt with—as well as a confidence vote on the capital gains tax—once the House moves on from the two debates on the questions of privilege put forward by Conservative MPs.  

These include: Bill C-63, An Act to enact the Online Harms Act; Bill C-66, An Act to amend the National Defence Act; Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024); Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act; and Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act.

Even if the privilege debate over the SDTC documents comes to an end, another privilege motion looms over the Liberals. On Oct. 10, Conservative MP Michael Barrett (Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ont.) raised a privilege question proposing that the House find Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault’s (Edmonton Centre, Alta.) former business partner Stephen Anderson—who he co-owned Global Health Imports with—to be found in contempt of Parliament for failing to provide records and responses to MPs in his testimony at the House Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics Committee over the summer, as well as to receive an admonishment from the Speaker.

The House is also not debating all private members’ business on the Order Paper, and other items on the agenda while the debate on the question of privilege continues.

ikoca@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

 

Irem Koca is a Turkish-Canadian journalist who joined The Hill Times in late 2023. She got her start in Canadian media in the Toronto Star's Ottawa bureau, covering federal politics and national stories under the paper's year-long fellowship. With a background in broadcast journalism, she spent several years as a world news reporter at CNN Turkey. Her freelance work on Turkish politics has been featured in The New York Times and Reuters. She is fluent in English and Turkish. See all stories BY IREM KOCA