Whenever and wherever members of Congress gather, a certain degree of parliamentary maneuvering is expected. But some days, it’s hard to look at the games that are being played and understand how anyone, especially the Canadians, can be said to be winning.
The Conservative Party sent out a fundraising appeal to its supporters last week with the subject line: “Liberal corruption paralyzes Parliament.”
“Parliament is dysfunctional due to liberal corruption,” the party said in an email.
That’s certainly one way to look at the current situation on Parliament Hill. The Conservative opposition says Parliament is dysfunctional because the government refuses to comply with House of Commons orders.
Strictly speaking, however, the extent to which Parliament is currently paralyzed is that Tory MPs must deal with Conservative motions before the House moves on to other business. Most directly related to the fact that we continue to stand and speak. Conservatives may believe they are justified in doing so, but they are effectively filibustering it.
The Liberals, on the other hand, argue that what the Conservatives are trying to do is an abuse of parliamentary power and a potential breach of Charter rights.
This root is strange struggle The motion can be traced back to a motion passed in the House of Commons before MPs went on summer recess.
On June 10, the House of Commons ordered the government to hand over documents related to the federal agency on sustainable development technology, the Government of Canada, with Opposition MPs voting in favor and Liberal MPs voting against the Conservatives. The motion was adopted. It was shut down in June after the Auditor General expressed serious concerns about its management..
Such production orders are not unprecedented, but in this case the Conservatives went a step further. According to the motion, the documents were to be provided to the House of Commons’ law clerk, who would then turn them over to the RCMP.
Over the summer, the government responded, at least in part. Some documents were provided, but in some cases the information was redacted, and in others documents were withheld entirely, with the government using privacy laws, attorney-client privilege, and other laws to explain the exclusions. He expressed confidence in the cabinet.
When the House of Commons reconvened on September 16, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said: was standing On the issue of privilege to complain that the Government has not fully complied with the orders of the House of Commons. And he received a sympathetic hearing from Speaker Greg Fergus.
as fergus explained The late September ruling gives the House broad powers to require disclosure, leaving it up to the House to decide whether those requests have been met.
But Fergus also acknowledged some unique issues raised by the original motion, particularly the direction to turn over documents to the RCMP.
RCMP not seeking help from parliament
In a letter to the House of Commons Law Clerk in July, RCMP Commissioner Mike Duhame said police had already reviewed the Auditor General’s findings and other investigations and information regarding the SDTC, and that they were “considering the available “The report does not identify any criminal offense or evidence of a crime,” it said. At this point, it’s a criminal act. ” (Duhame told reporters this week that the investigation was ongoing.)
But Duhem also warned that it may be useless, or even dangerous, for the House to submit any further documents to the RCMP.
“Before taking investigative steps to access documents that may give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, the RCMP must ensure that applicable legal standards must be complied with,” Duhem wrote.
“Parliament’s production order does not exempt these legal requirements. For the reasons set out above, the ability of the RCMP to receive and use information obtained through this production order in the course of a criminal investigation is limited to Canada. May raise concerns under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“Therefore, where a privacy interest exists, it is highly unlikely that any information obtained by the RCMP pursuant to the motion will be used to support a criminal prosecution or to assist in further criminal investigation.”
Duhem added that information obtained through Parliament must be kept separate from the RCMP investigation.
“There is a significant risk that the motion could be interpreted as circumventing normal investigative processes and Charter protections,” he said.
The prospect of the House ordering the release of documents forwarded to third parties, namely law enforcement, appears to raise some pretty serious questions about the exercise of Congress’ special powers. Even if there is no serious debate about the powers of Congress or the government’s obligation to obey its will, it is still possible to debate how those powers and will should be exercised.
Given these concerns, Mr. Fergus recommended that the issue of Mr. Scheer’s privilege be referred to a House of Commons committee for further investigation. Mr. Scheer then filed a motion to do just that. Once debate on Scheer’s motion concludes, lawmakers could vote to refer the matter.
Mr. Scheer filed the motion on September 26th. Two weeks later, the bill is still being debated in the House of Commons. Discussion of Mr. Scheer’s motion takes precedence over almost everything else because it relates to the issue of privilege. No government bill may be introduced or debated unless or until the House acts on this motion.
The Liberal Party understandably echoed the RCMP’s concerns, particularly in relation to the Charter of Rights. The Conservative Party dismissed these concerns. Scheer also suggested that the RCMP does not need to consider any documents sent by the House of Commons.
“The House order required only the clerk of the law and members of Congress to send the documents,” Scheer said. said House of Representatives in September. “There is no obligation on the RCMP to open the envelope or insert the USB key into the computer.”
But if so, what is the point of this battle?
Politics of parliamentary paralysis
For conservatives, paralysis may be the point.
“After nine years of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, this is just another reminder that everything has fallen apart,” Conservative Leader Pierre Poièvre said Tuesday.
The Conservative Party will no doubt be happy to revisit issues around mishandling and misspending of funds, whether or not anything that happened at SDTC rises to the level of corruption. But they also won’t be sad about standing in the way of government legislation at a time when the Liberals are undoubtedly trying to move things forward.
The simple idea of parliamentary dysfunction certainly feeds into the Conservative Party’s larger argument that it is time for an election.
If the Liberals can get support from other parties, they could introduce a closing motion to force an end to the current debate and send the matter to committee. The Conservatives may try to frame it as an attempt to bury the issue, but asking the committee to investigate the situation is what Mr Scheer did two weeks ago.
For now, it appears the Liberals want to use this episode as evidence against Poièvre.
“If he’s targeting the rights of other Canadians, it’s only a matter of time before his political vendetta targets the rights of all Canadians,” Government House of Commons Leader Karina Gould said Wednesday. .
Meanwhile, Congress hasn’t done much. Except for generating material for fundraising emails.
