The first half of the Ottawa 2024/2025 parliamentary year was from a legislative perspective an utter and complete waste of parliamentary time and resources — because of hyperpartisan and irresponsible shenanigans by the opposition parties. What happened?
As discussed in my earlier “Sustainable Concerns” post, on June 10, 2024 the House of Commons, under its broad constitutional authority to call for documents, ordered an extensive production of documents related to the operations of the Sustainable Development Technologies Canada (SDTC) foundation thereupon to be delivered to the RCMP.
As I subsequently noted in my “Unsustainable Concerns” post regarding the RCMP response:“Holding people and organizations to account for criminal activity is arguably the whole point of the June 10, 2024, House Order, for there is no other reason to involve the RCMP. As we have seen, however, the RCMP cannot use nor do they need nor want documents obtained in this way — hence there is no remaining purpose to the Order itself.”Irrespective of whether the ordered documents could actually be used as directed, it is neverthless clear that some organizations withheld and/or redacted some documents.
I have no doubt that these redactions and withholdings were done by non-partisan public servants concientiously attempting to honour legislated constraints and to protect legal rights, confidentiality, privacy, and such, but it nevertheless remains a possible breach of parliamentary privilege. It remains a legitimate question and concern.
This matter was raised in the House in due course by Mr. Scheer as a Question of Privilege, and the Speaker upon due consideration ruled that it does appear, prima facie, “on its face,” as such.
On September 26, 2004, the Speaker accordingly invited Mr. Scheer to make the appropriate motion to refer the matter to the Procedure and House Affairs committee (PROC) so that the committee could fully examine the matter:
Motion September 26, 2024
Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu’Appelle), seconded by Mr. Berthold (Mégantic—L’Érable), moved:
That the government’s failure of fully providing documents, as ordered by the House on June 10, 2024, be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
(Debate begins September 26)
Amendment September 26, 2024
Mr. Berthold (Mégantic—L’Érable), seconded by Mr. Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets), moved the following amendment:
Provided that it be an instruction to the committee:
- that the following witnesses be ordered to appear before the committee separately for two hours each:
- the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry,
- the Clerk of the Privy Council,
- the Auditor General of Canada,
- the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
- the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Development,
- the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons,
- the Acting President of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and
- a panel consisting of the board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada; and
- that it report back to the House no later than Friday, November 22, 2024.
(Debate September 26, 27, October 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Subamendment October 10, 2024 (adopted)
Mr. Muys (Flamborough—Glanbrook), seconded by Mr. Scheer (Regina—Qu’Appelle), moved the following subamendment:
That the amendment be amended by adding, after subparagraph (a)(ii), the following:
- the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who respected the order of the House and deposited unredacted documents,
- Paul MacKinnon, the former Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Governance)
(Debated October 10, 11, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, November 1, 4, 5) Adopted 2024-11-05.
Subamendment November 11, 2024 (adopted)
Mr. Kmiec (Calgary Shepard), seconded by Mr. Maguire (Brandon—Souris), moved the following subamendment:
That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “Friday, November 22, 2024” with the following: “the 30th sitting day following the adoption of this order”.
Debate arose thereon. (Debated November 6, 7, 8, 18) Adopted 2024-11-18
Subamendment November 19, 2024
Mr. Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge), seconded by Mr. Falk (Provencher), moved the following subamendment:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “, except that the order for the committee to report back to the House within 30 sitting days shall be discharged if the Speaker has sooner laid upon the table a notice from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel confirming that all government institutions have fully complied with the order adopted on June 10, 2024, by depositing all of their responsive records in an unredacted form”.
(Debated November 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, December 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17) No decision made.
I could quibble about there not actuallly being any “government failure” here, but, rather, as said, non-partisan public servants and officials, most likely acting on advice of their own legal counsels not realizing the full sway of parliamentary privilege, and, as I’ve previously noted:“The documents are not intended to aid any Parlimentary study nor purpose. They are explicitly ordered solely for immediate delivery to a third party, i.e.: the RCMP. It is arguable that the intent of Parliament’s unconstrained privilege to call for documents is for the use of the Parliament itself, NOT for the purpose of delivering them to a third party, particularly an external one, nor to offer an end-run around statutes duly enacted by the Parliament.
“This is unprecedented. It is unprecedented and I believe beyond the scope of the Parliament itself to resolve. I suggest that it needs a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether this Order, calling for documents — not for the Parliament itself but for delivery to an external third-party — remains within the scope of Parliament’s constitutional privilege.”But, nevermind, let’s by all means get it to committee where the matter can be hashed out and explored in its full proper depth.
The initial amendment and first subamendment were about fleshing out the motion itself, specifying a list of witnesses to be invited before the committee, and though I might also quibble that the committee is better placed to determine this for itself, and for how long to invite each witness, but again, let’s have at it!
By this point it should have been well known to Opposition members, all of them, not just the Conservatives, that the RCMP could not and would not use documents procured in this way (RCMP, July 25), and there was therefore no further purpose to the original House Order.
I have no doubt that this motion and amendment could have been passed straight way so that the committee could get on with it.
But, no.
In parliamentary debate, except where the rules already provide specific limits, or where parties agree on length of debate, the debate continues as long as any member rises to speak to it. And, this, being a question of privilege, had top priority, pushing out debate on government legislation, private members bills and the like.
I don’t believe the Conservative opposition ever had any intention of passing this motion and sending it to committee to be properly considered.
Instead, upon moving the motion, they set about to filibuster it — their own motion! — to rant and bluster endlessly, so that it would never get to a vote! Because what they really wanted was a bully pulpit.
They did their best to break parliament, to bring it to its knees so that they could then say “See, it’s all broken! We need an election to fix it!”
They did their best. This was their best?
This, their best, was a gross and egregious abuse of their own Parliamentary Privilege — Not being used to ensure that the Parliament could get the information it needs to get its important work done, but quite entirely the opposite of that: to ensure that it got no work done whatsoever.
This, their best, clearly demonstrates how willing they are to abuse power when they have it.
This, their best, clearly demonstrates how little they can be entrusted with such power.
It is theoretically possible to force an end to such a debate, but to do so requires a majority vote in the House. We were never able to get any of the other opposition parties to support such closure, so in a minority government position as we were, there was no end to be had. This means that all of the opposition parties get to wear the responsibility for this abuse of parliamentary privilege.
To really see the extent and scope of waste, please take a look at the following depiction of the House of Commons calendar. This shows clearly how, after the first week and a bit of the new parliamentary session they rendered the House powerless — for a whole half of a parlliamentary year! — purely for partisan bluff and bluster:
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26* | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 |
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5* | 6* | 7 |
| 8 | 9* | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 |
| Non-sitting Day | |
| Sitting — Ordinary | |
| Sitting — Opposition Day BQ | |
| Sitting — Opposition Day NDP (* Plus Question of Privilege) | |
| Sitting — Opposition Day CPC (* Plus Question of Privilege) | |
| Sitting — Question of Privilege |
In the course of a parliamentary day there are Routine Proceedings, where committee reports, for example, can be submitted, and Question Period, of course, but outside of those, it was only this privilege question, from then on, and on, and on. (The later two subamendments were to adjust the timeframe specified in the initial amendment, which of course became meaningless as the debate was dragged on and on…)
The noted period for Routine Procedures also provides an opportunity to move Concurrence in any given committee report, which then gets a three and a half hour debate slot — so this was an alternate strategy: to move concurrence on any report whatsoever, and burn a bunch more time before resuming the everlasting debate on the motion of privilege itself; the situation prevailed thus until the House rose for the winter break.
Waste No More
On January 6, 2025, mid winter-break, Prime Minister Trudeau announced that he would step down as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and as Prime Minister of Canada, to take effect once the Party chose its new leader.
To provide time and opportunity for a leadership campaign to ensue in good order, he at that time requested the Governor General to prorogue the Parliament, to resume on March 24, 2025.
“Prorogation of a session brings to an end all proceedings before Parliament. With certain exceptions, unfinished business ‘dies’ on the Order Paper and must be started anew in a subsequent session.” — Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, Chapter 8
The effect of prorogation, then, is that Mr. Scheer’s original order for documents, since it was a matter already decided by the House and not itself at that time before the House, remains in effect and carries over from session to session.
Since Mr. Scheer’s September 26, 2004, motion of privilege along with its amendments and subamendments — were before the House at the time of prorogation — they do not survive.
So, the Conservatives’ irresponsible abuse of parliamentary privilege is over, at least for now. The motion could, however, be moved again and the debate restarted, once the Parliament resumes.
