‘Obstructing their own obstruction’: Liberals, Conservatives spar in protracted privilege debate over documents
Parliamentary proceedings stagnated for a seventh straight day as tensions ran high in the House of Commons with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre absent after the Speaker ruled he could not speak Tuesday without withdrawing “unparliamentary” language.
The ongoing privilege debate has dominated parliamentary proceedings for a week with Conservatives demanding the release of all documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to be turned over to the RCMP for a criminal investigation. The government has said the green technology fund’s records should be reviewed by a parliamentary committee, instead of being sent to the police, citing concerns the order threatens the separation of Parliament and the judiciary.
While all opposition parties support the Conservative motion referring the matter to a committee, MPs across parties agree that the Conservatives are continuing to filibuster the debate.
Meanwhile, conflict from the previous day carried over into the House, with Poilievre facing a ruling from House Speaker Greg Fergus (Hull-Aylmer, Que.) about his heated exchange with Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly (Ahuntsic-Cartierville, Que.) on Oct. 7.
Poilievre (Carleton, Ont.) did not attend the Question Period on Oct. 8 after Fergus said he would not “recognize him for the remainder” of Tuesday’s sitting unless he retracted previous comments towards Joly. In a scrum on Oct. 8, Poilievre refused to withdraw the remark, and said Joly should apologize for not forcefully condemning antisemitism.
“A foreign affairs minister in Canada should find it very easy to condemn those kinds of remarks but she didn’t, because she’s pandering politically,” Poilievre said.
Fergus said “ignoring the authority of the chair who is in charge of enforcing parliamentary rules has a corrosive effect on our discussions.” Once an MP is “not recognized” by the Speaker, they can still attend the parliamentary sessions and vote, but would not be given the right to speak.
Conservative Deputy Leader Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, Ont.), kicked off the Question Period saying the Liberals “grinded this place to a halt” by not submitting the unredacted records related to SDTC. The green-tech fund was the subject of a federal audit and ethics commissioner investigation, which found conflict-of-interest breaches. In June, the government disbanded the agency’s board and folded the non-profit into the National Research Council (NRC).
“Canadians can get accountability today if they hand over the documents to the police. What’s in those documents, and how bad is it?” asked Lantsman.
Government House Leader Karina Gould (Burlington, Ont.), meanwhile, said the government is “ready for this matter to move on” to be studied at the House Procedure and Affairs Committee.
“The only party that doesn’t want that to happen are the Conservatives. They’re trying to spin out of their own obstruction because they don’t want this to go to committee,” she said in her response to Lantsman. “It’s only the Conservatives that are afraid of a vote.”
“Conservatives are trying to stop Parliament from functioning and are holding every member of this Parliament hostage. On the other hand, the Liberals are unable to find a way out of this deadlock,” said Bloc Québécois MP Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Que.) speaking in the House on Oct. 7.
Conservative House Leader Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask.), who put forward the initial motion requesting the SDTC documents, accused the government of “effectively obstructing justice.”
“Why not let Parliament get back to work and hand over the evidence to the RCMP?” he said.
Gould responded, saying, “I’m not even sure if [Scheer] believes his own spin,” and said the Conservatives are “obstructing their own obstruction.”
Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne (Saint Maurice-Champlain, Que.) who is responsible for the SDTC file, argued that the government “got to the bottom of this” issue through independent investigations into the allegations prior to the greentech fund being folded into the NRC.
“We already have the Bloc [Québécois], but now we learn we have the block in the Conservatives,” Champagne said jokingly. “How ridiculous for Canadians watching at home—they’re blocking their own motion. … Let’s get back to work,” Champagne added, echoing Gould’s point.
Bloc Québécois MP Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, Que.), one of the MPs studying SDTC at the House Public Accounts Committee, supported the Conservative motion that asks for the release of the documents.
Sinclair-Desgagné said it is the “duty” of the parliamentarians “to do absolutely everything” they can to obtain the unredacted documents, whether they are sent to a parliamentary committee or elsewhere. “We need the documents from the government,” she said.
The day before, her caucus colleague blamed both the Liberals and Conservatives for the lengthy standoff.
“Conservatives are trying to stop Parliament from functioning and are holding every member of this Parliament hostage,” said Bloc Québécois MP Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Que.). “On the other hand, the Liberals are unable to find a way out of this deadlock,”
Joly says Poilievre is ‘unfit’ to govern Canada
Meanwhile, in a scrum before Question Period on Oct. 8, Poilievre doubled down on his criticism that the Joly and the Liberal government are remaining silent on what he described as antisemitic chants.
The day before, on the one-year anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel, Poilievre said Joly “continues to pander to Hamas supporters” and pressed her to denounce “genocidal chants from hateful mobs” during Canadian protests of Israel. Joly repeatedly said in her response that she is “against any form of antisemitism,” and had asked Poilievre to apologize on Oct 7.
In the Oct. 8 scrum, Poilievre said he gave her every chance to condemn the chants.
“But she didn’t, because she’s pandering politically, just as Justin Trudeau has been doing for the last nine years,” he said. “She should apologize.”
Joly pushed back in her response to Poilievre’s remarks, and called his actions “the height of hypocrisy,” speaking to reporters before Question Period on Tuesday. She accused Poilievre of seeking political gain, and said he is “unfit to govern this country.”
“While he’s saying that he’s fighting antisemitism he never condemned those waving a Nazi flag during the Freedom Convoy on Parliament Hill. Why didn’t he?” she asked.
NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ont.) told reporters that after Question Period on Tuesday that the leader of the opposition is expected to set a standard and that “he just refused” to do so.
“I’m amazed that someone who throws such a cheap, and vicious slur, gets a day in the dog house and then comes back and then throws vicious slurs the next day,” Angus said.
The day before, he questioned the Conservative’s actions in the House.
“If Conservatives are serious about this, why are they filibustering a motion to get this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so we can deal with it?” Angus said on Oct 7. “We have work to get done in the House.”
Standstill stems from Sept. 26 privilege ruling
The House has been at an impasse with the privilege debate since last week. MPs are currently in the stage of debating an amendment to the initial Conservative motion to obtain documents related to the SDTC. Both NDP and Bloc MPs support this motion but say the ongoing debate has stalled other government business and opportunities to discuss important legislation.
The standstill began when Fergus ruled on Sept. 26 that the government’s failure to provide records related to the now-defunct green-tech fund constituted a violation of parliamentary privilege. This request comes from a June 10 motion from Scheer and backed by the opposition parties that asked Ottawa to hand over all documents involving SDTC going back to 2017. The request covers financial records, memos, emails, and any other communications shared between government officials and the fund. The motion also asks Parliament to share these papers with the RCMP, which has confirmed that it is investigating the fund.
More than a dozen departments and entities have provided the House with records, some of which were redacted or withheld. SDTC also handed over documents on Aug. 29, some of which were partially redacted, while others were withheld on the grounds of legal privilege, according to a letter from Michel Bédard, law clerk and parliamentary counsel to the House.
On Sept. 26, Fergus ruled that the House’s order to produce the documents has “clearly not been fully complied with.” He said that he “cannot come to any other conclusion,” but to find that a question of privilege has been established.
Ever since, the Conservatives have intensified pressure on the government, pressing the Liberals to release documents concerning what they call a “green slush fund.”
Scheer revised his initial motion to refer the matter to the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee in line with the Speaker’s ruling on Sept. 26, which stemmed from a suggestion from Gould.
Conservative MP Luc Berthold (Mégantic-L’Érable, Que.) introduced an amendment to the motion last week, calling for witnesses to appear before the committee, including Auditor General Karen Hogan, the RCMP commissioner, Champagne, and the clerk of the Privy Council.
Debate on a privilege motion has priority over all orders of the day, including government orders and private members’ business, which is why House business is at a standstill. However, it does not interfere with routine proceedings, statements by members, Question Period, royal assent, recorded votes, or the adjournment of the House, according to Mathieu Gravel, director of media relations for the House Speaker.
The Conservative push to involve the RCMP in the SDTC debacle goes back to a series of parliamentary committee hearings, which also prompted investigations by Hogan and by Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein.
According to Hogan’s June 4 report, SDTC violated its own conflict-of-interest policies in 90 cases that were connected to approval of nearly $76-million in funding awarded to projects. The report also found the foundation gave cash to 10 ineligible projects out of the 58 reviewed. These 10 projects were awarded $59-million despite not meeting key requirements set out between the government and the foundation.
The now-defunct not-for-profit SDTC was established in 2001. It supported the development and implementation of clean technologies that provide solutions to climate change. The agency had $1-billion to distribute to small- and medium-sized enterprises in the clean-tech sector under its five-year agreement with Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada that started in 2021.
The Hill Times
LICENSING
PODCAST
ALERTS
