The House of Commons has not considered any bills since the beginning of October, and it could be disrupted for some time, awaiting documents from a disgraced federal green fund.
“The Liberals have paralyzed Parliament by refusing to respect your judgment: they must give the documents to the RCMP regarding a $400 million scandal,” chanted the leader of the official opposition, Pierre Poilievre, at the start of the question period in Ottawa on Monday.
Here is what we know about this recent chapter of the scandal involving Sustainable Development Technologies Canada (SDTC), a file for which the majority opposition parties are choosing obstruction.
Where does the obstruction come from?
Since last summer, conservative elected officials have asked the government to publish documents related to the misuse of public funds by SDTC, a federal green fund currently being dismantled.
In June, a motion put forward by the Conservatives called for the government to provide, to send to the police, all documents related to the case within 30 days. It was adopted with the support of the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party (NDP), despite the rejection of the Liberals.
“In some cases, information was only shared in part, with documents having been redacted or withheld. In other cases, the House encountered a categorical refusal,” the Speaker of the House of Commons, Greg Fergus, finally ruled on September 26. Parliamentary work has not returned to normal since.
What is SDTC?
Sustainable Development Technology Canada was a federal fund intended to provide financial assistance to companies developing sustainable technologies. Its activities took place between 2017 and 2023. Its board of directors approved the financing of a total of 226 projects during these years, totaling $836 million.
However, a devastating report on its management lifted the veil on major management problems with this green fund, which led the government to suspend its activities.
SDTC has not funded anything for a year, an external firm is reviewing all the contracts it has concluded, and a new management team must merge it with the Department of Natural Resources Canada.
What did the Auditor General say?
While SDTC was already on the radar of opposition in Ottawa, and its activities were already suspended for review, the Auditor General of Canada published, last June, a comprehensive report highlighting serious deficiencies in the way funds public were allocated.
Projects totaling tens of millions of dollars did not meet program requirements, noted auditor Karen Hogan. Worse: its board of directors was in a conflict of interest when making 90 decisions representing nearly $76 million in project financing.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) confirmed that they have opened an investigation into the matter, and that they already have certain documents in their hands.
What exactly is the opposition demanding?
On June 10, Conservative parliamentary leader Andrew Scheer obtained the support of the other opposition parties in the House to order the government, SDTC and the Auditor General of Canada to table “all files, documents, briefing notes, memos, emails and other types of correspondence relating to SDTC that have been exchanged between government officials” – and that the documents are then forwarded to the RCMP.
On September 16, Mr. Scheer returned to the charge, maintaining that several government departments and agencies had not respected the House’s order. The President of the House finally agreed with him, two weeks later.
“The only way to resolve this, the only way to ensure that the RCMP can do its job and that Parliament can continue, is for the government to give the police access to these documents,” summarized the Conservative MP Gérard Deltell in the House on Monday.
How do the liberals defend themselves?
The Liberals argue that the request to grant documents to the RCMP would “blur” the boundaries between the legislative and judicial powers of the government.
“Never before has the House of Commons requested that documents not be used for its own purposes and for its own study, but rather intended for transmission to a third party, and in this case, to the police,” denounced the Liberal parliamentary leader, Karina Gould, while speaking to journalists last week.
Justice Minister Arif Virani also condemned the idea of providing documents to the police. “We have this fundamental principle of police independence, which we protect in Canada. Who doesn’t protect her? Authoritarian regimes. I suppose the Leader of the Opposition and his acolytes share their favoritism towards authoritarian tactics in this House,” he said during question period on Monday.
What is the consequence of paralysis?
All regular work of Parliament — such as the adoption of bills or the introduction of new texts — is postponed until this question of privilege is dealt with. For example, a vote of confidence on a budget motion to ratify the new rules on capital gains tax has been postponed since last week.
“The main motivation of the oppositions is this idea of parliamentary supremacy. It’s the idea that parliament should have more power than the government,” he explains. Duty Alex Marland, professor in the politics department at Acadia University.
The majority opposition parties are thus sending a message to the Trudeau government: its time in power, already numbered, could be wasted without further ado, unless it shows its credentials.
When will all this end?
The various experts and government sources consulted by Duty do not know exactly how long this little merry-go-round will last. However, they agree on one thing: the House of Commons could be disrupted for several days, even weeks.
Unless MPs tire of their outrage speeches, or one party agrees with the government to force a closure motion, debates could theoretically continue until all MPs have spoken for 30 minutes, not counting the amendments. There are 183 opposition or independent MPs in the Commons.
This is not the first time that Canada has experienced an episode like this, recalls Professor Alex Marland. The Harper government fought, and lost, a battle against Parliament to withhold documents relating to the war in Afghanistan.