UPDATE: Okay, a bit more information is trickling in on what, exactly, these documents are -- or, more precisely, what they aren't. According to still more sources, these are not the specific documents requested by the committee, and listed in the House order to produce, but simply more material for the committee, which has been reviewed by government lawyers, and -- yes, redacted. So no, this doesn't look like an unexpectedly peaceful end to the privilege standoff after all. I'll post more when I find out.  At the moment, the clerk is making copies for the opposition parties, so we should have a better idea of what, exactly, it contains very soon. 

According to Jay Hill's office, meanwhile, these are "new" documents. 

OPPOSITION REACTION UPDATE: Well, the first wave of opposition reaction is in, and it doesn't sound as though NDP MP Paul Dewar is terribly impressed, at least, saying that it wasn't acceptable to "table a pile of documents and run away". He also noted that the documents in question didn't seem to be what the committee had requested, and dismissed it as "peekaboo." Also, cbc.ca now has a story on the documents up as well, for those of you want a slightly more orderly account of recent events. 

JACK LAYTON IS NOT AMUSED UPDATE: In fact, he's up on a point of order in the House as we speak, calling the government's action "an insult to this Chamber" - and to the rights of parliamentarians to have documents produced, not to mention tabling only one copy. "Our party has always been consistent," he notes, in calling for one thing: access to the documents it needs to do its job, without affecting national security. That's the only way, he says, to make sure that government is accountable to the people. Also, the documents in question are, as noted previously, censored; the government has violated the rights of parliament by invoking the Canada Evidence Act in the past, and now responds with ... censored documents. 

The Speaker, he says, has no choice but to rule on the question, and to uphold the supremacy of parliament, and the power to request document. Unfortunately, the speaker -- Speaker Milliken, that is -- doesn't seem to be in the Chair; it's Barry Devolin looking remarkably calm, considering. He notes that Journals branch is "proceeding on a priority basis" with copying the documents, but at the moment, he can't comment on the contents. 

Over to Lukiwski, who thanks Devolin for "making one of the points [he] was going to make" -- copies are in the process of being made. As for Layton's contention that the documents are "censored," he points out that there is a point of privilege before the House, at which point the speaker will be making a ruling; once the government has the opportunity to make "a more fulsome response" to the questions of privilege, only then will the House be able to determine if a breach has occurred. He then reiterates the government's main point -- that it has the "absolute right" to withhold material on the grounds of national security, and will maintain that "until otherwise advised by the chair." Over to you, Speaker Milliken. No, seriously -- it's getting to the point where I think it may be time for the speaker to start asking the government when that "fulsome response" will be forthcoming. He can't allow this to be stonewalled indefinitely. 

BLOC AGREES: Claude Bachand tells the chair that it is "urgent" that he come to a decision soon -- it is members of parliaments, not a judge -- retired or otherwise -- that represents Canadians, and the ultimate decision is in the hands of the House. It is up to them to be accountable when things go wrong, and they are responsible for collective well being. Here, they have proof that this government doesn't care about collective well being, he says -- it may be hiding evidence that ministers made mistakes. He calls today's gambit a "scheme" by the government to gain time and shield the incompetence "of certain members of this government." What they did today "makes no sense, and is unacceptable to us" -- and it does not comply with the Order of December 10th. 

AND NOW, THE LIBERALS: More specifically, Ralph Goodale, who calls it "a very serious issue" -- one that has been raised "seriously and conscientiously" in the past by opposition parties; he wants the chair to treat it "with the gravity that it deserves," as well as the government. Speaking of the government, he says bringing the documents to the House "in the condition that they have" is all sound and fury; they want to "leave the impression that they are being transparent," but transparency, he says, is "the least description you could use to characterize what goes on here." 

"Did they disconnect every photocopier in the Government of Canada," he wonders, to some tittering from the sidelines. "This is not effective tabling under the rules  ... what we've had here is a show, a charade, and it is not legitimate. The "attempt at tabling" doesn't meet any of the transparency or information requirements, and the government needs to get on "PDQ" with producing those requested documents. 

Back to Devolin, who notes that when he was responding to Layton, he said Journals was preparing copies for opposition members, now he's wondering if the government is doing the same thing. Apparently, yes, they are. More copies for everyone! Oh, goodness, now it's battling points of order. NOTE TO SPEAKER MILLIKEN: MIGHT WANT TO GET IN THERE AND RELIEVE YOUR DEPUTY. 

Oh, and Lukiwski reminds the opposition that the House gave unanimous consent to table the documents "without prejudice" to the pending privilege question. 

JACK HARRIS UP NOW: He notes that, glancing at some of the dates on the just-tabled documents, it appears that at least some of the material was available in January and February, which makes him wonder why it took so long to produce even this offering. He also seems to be getting a wee bit impatient with the government's foot-dragging in response to the speaker's "generous" invitation to take some time before replying. Devolin, meanwhile, seems to think the speaker is already considering the questions, and advises the House to give him time to come to the right ruling. 

Goodale wonders whether former Justice Iacobucci has seen -- and cleared -- the documents put on the table today, "or are we now facing a situation where there are two categories of documents" -- those he will see, and those that "will not be drawn to [his] attention"? 

Yikes, I just realized that I should've been adding timestamps throughout this post. My apologies! I wasn't really expecting this, although it's starting to seem like a Thursday morning habit: unscheduled parliamentary privilegeblogging, that is. Bloc House Leader Pierre Paquette is up now, by the way; he, too, advises the speaker not to wait too long before ruling; if he does, the situation may continue to degenerate, he says. 

Lukiwski -- who, frankly, has a lot of nerve to be spending so much time on his feet when his government refuses to submit its formal response to the speaker -- reminds the House that as far as said government is concerned, it is respecting the House order, albeit with the provision that national security laws will be respected; all legally discloseable documents, he says, will continue to be produced. The House order is "quite frankly, under review," he says. You know -- I don't think that's correct. There are privilege questions pending that are related to the government's alleged failure to respect it, but as far as I know, the legitimacy of the order has not been explicitly challenged by the government. "Until we hear otherwise, we will continue to produce the documents in a similar" -- redacted -- "fashion," Lukiwski says. 

As for Goodale's question, these documents have not been "vetted" by Iacobucci, but he will be examining all documents as part of his investigation to determine whether the redactions are proper; as such, these documents will, indeed, be reviewed by the former justice "in due course," who will report back to the government. "Let Justice Iacobucci do his work," he exhorts the opposition. 

Thomas Mulcair accuses the government of "changing its story and spinning wildly," and advises the speaker to be careful not to word his interventions in a way that the government could use to bolster its case. Yes, I was actually starting to wonder about that too -- honestly, it's absolutely scandalous that the speaker didn't head for the Chamber the second he heard what was going down today. I'm sorry, but this is far too contentious for a deputy speaker to handle. Anyway, Devolin assures the House that he knows the speaker is taking it seriously, but he can't deal with the points raised this morning, as it all ultimately depends on the ruling by the speaker. 

Oh, and Larry Bagnall wants to know how many copies PCO is making for opposition parties; Lukiwksi says there will be sufficient copies for all parties -- just give them some time. 

And that seems to be the end of debate -- the impromptu privilege debate, that is. Devolin looks relieved. Frankly, so am I -- I was starting to wonder if I'd be liveblogging until QP started. I'm going to sign off for the moment, but if there are any incidental updates, I'll post them here -- or if there are sufficiently dramatic developments that a new post is warranted, well, I'll do that. I hope you enjoyed the coverage so far!