ANALYSIS | Parliament grinds to an anticlimactic halt — but 2024 could be chaotic | Breaking:

One morning last week, Pierre Poilievre invited journalists to watch him give a speech to his group. With cameras rolling, the Conservative leader vowed to “block” the government’s agenda until the Liberals accepted his demand to roll back the federal carbon tax.

“You have ruined Christmas for Canadians, [so] “Tories with common sense are going to ruin your holiday too,” he said, addressing the prime minister directly. “They won’t rest until the tax is gone.”

The Conservatives proceeded to force 136 votes on the government’s spending estimates, a streak of votes that kept the House of Commons seated all night on Thursday and into Friday night.

But when the House reconvened on Monday, it was the Liberals who seemed ecstatic.

Whatever difficulties the Conservatives imposed on the ruling side (in addition to forcing voting around the clock, the Conservatives effectively erased Friday’s schedule), they also gifted the government with a series of votes against specific items.

On Monday, the Liberals were happy to list all the things the Conservatives explicitly voted against: funding to build new affordable housing, support for those affected by Hurricane Fiona, military assistance to Ukraine, money for historic site maintenance national on the Plains of Abraham.

And in the meantime the House has proceeded more or less as usual. The government passed housing and competition legislation on Monday and made progress on Tuesday on modernizing Canada’s free trade agreement with Ukraine.

There may be more procedural games to come: the Conservatives are proposing 173 amendments to a government bill that could be debated as early as Thursday. But it is unclear how the Conservatives would be able to keep the House together long (if at all) after the previously agreed adjournment, scheduled for Friday afternoon.

In other words, the prime minister’s vacation seems assured.

But even as Parliament’s year moves towards what promises to be a disappointing end, it is fair to wonder whether the past few weeks portend a particularly tumultuous 2024.

The power of the opposition to obstruct

Obstruction and delay are legitimate tools in the opposition’s parliamentary toolbox, just as the government has ways of making things move faster. But both sides have to make tactical decisions about when and how forcefully those tools are used.

The modern federal standard for vote-a-thons was set when opposition parties used dozens of amendments to force hours and hours of voting on a budget bill introduced by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in 2012. But in that case, the obstruction was directly related to the issue. that was being obstructed: opposition MPs objected to the general nature of the bill and therefore decided to organize what amounted to a public protest.

In the case of the Conservatives’ tactics last week, the connection was tenuous. While claiming they were taking a stance against the carbon tax, the Conservatives forced dozens of votes on one of the bills through which the government obtains Parliament’s consent to spend money.

And conservatives don’t seem to have thought through the explicit implications of each vote. Which explains why, on Tuesday, they were left trying to argue that what they voted against was not what they voted against.

“Last week, we were proud to vote against increased inflationary bureaucratic spending that does not benefit the Canadian working class,” Poilievre said.

The threat of filibuster and marathon voting was not a total loss for conservatives. Poilievre’s team still found material for a half-dozen tweets and a handful of YouTube videos, including one showing Poilievre delivering fast food to her grateful MPs.

The Speaker’s narrow escape

While liberals mocked conservatives for their votes, the other big flashpoint from a week ago – the controversy surrounding President Greg Fergus – seemed to be fading.

Although the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois continue to demand Fergus’ resignation, the committee’s hearings on the president’s video address produced no major new revelations. And the NDP announced Tuesday that it would only seek disciplinary action against Fergus, perhaps in the form of a fine.

That probably means Fergus can enjoy Christmas at the Speaker’s official residence, if he so chooses. But Fergus can’t start the new year feeling completely secure in his job. It remains to be seen how well he will be able to preside over a House that is divided over his right to the presidency, and how willing some MPs might be to challenge him.

At the very least, he could still face a vote of confidence, pushed by Conservative House leader Andrew Scheer, possibly as soon as Thursday.

Of course, the president’s job security is not the only question facing this Parliament. There is still the small question of the Liberal government’s ability to maintain its confidence and supply agreement with the NDP, although NDP health critic Don Davies and Health Minister Mark Holland appeared to be competing during question period on Monday to see who among them might be most excited about the latest advances in dental care.

“Hats off to any party that stands up for ideas and gets things done in this country,” Holland said.

Despite their mutual appreciation, Holland and Davies have yet to reach an agreement on a pharmaceutical care bill. But if a deal is reached, the confidence and supply agreement could celebrate its second anniversary in March.

Whether Tory threats of obstruction resume in January may depend on what they think they got, if anything, from their threats to ruin the Prime Minister’s Christmas.

Liberals might be delighted to see them try again. Beyond pointing out the votes that were officially recorded, liberals have been happy to compare conservative tactics with the filibuster practiced by Republican lawmakers in the United States Congress.

That might be a comparison conservatives don’t want to encourage. But maybe conservatives will be happy with anything that keeps the word “carbon tax” in the news. And perhaps the fight was a useful rallying cry for Conservative Party supporters.

One of the specific concerns on the conservative side, Bill S-234, which would further exempt farms from the carbon tax, returned to the House on Wednesday after being amended by the Senate. Liberals might be content to let that bill gather dust. If so, the conservatives could decide to put up a fight.

And if there are enough likes and retweets to be gained, there may be more vote-a-thons to come, even if this one didn’t live up to the hype.