It was probably supposed to be New Democrat leader Thomas Mulcair’s fourth question, but since he spent all his time on that occasion hectoring the government over its lack of a sustainable environmental plan, he had to hold on to it.

“Peter Penashue has finally resigned after breaking the law. The prime minister has to answer a simple question. If Penashue did nothing wrong, why did he resign? If he did something wrong, why is the prime minister allowing him to run again?” Mulcair asked Prime Minister Harper, who sat across the aisle, placidly.

“Elections Canada has not even finished its investigation into Mr. Penashue’s last campaign and the Prime Minister’s Office, using taxpayers’ money, has already started the next one,” Mulcair went on, before he wondered whether Harper would allow Elections Canada to finish its investigation before calling a byelection.

Mulcair was right on one thing. The Penashue 2013 re-election campaign was indeed just about to kick off — right in front of him.

Here’s what we know about Peter Penashue: His 2011 election campaign accepted 28 ineligible donations, totaling $27,850. He also received $18,710 from Provincial Airlines. Innu Development Limited Partnership, which was run at the time by Penashue’s brother-in-law, loaned the campaign $25,000. In fall 2012, the Conservative party transferred a total of $30,000 in two payments to Penashue’s campaign, and then a further $14,350 this month to settle his debts. Records obtained by the CBC show Penashue overspent his allowed campaign limit by over $5,000.

Last week, Penashue resigned both from his position as minister for intergovernmental affairs and as the MP for Labrador. The government has promised a byelection soon in the riding, which will no doubt be hard fought. Penashue is already preparing to run again, having taken out ads in local media and directing people to a campaign website — one that was registered days before he stepped down. In fact, as Kady O’Malley at the CBC noted Monday, it was registered the same day Penashue was in North West River, presenting $1.35 million in federal funding for “broadband improvements.”

“Minister Penashue has done the right thing under difficult circumstances,” the prime minister said in response to Mulcair’s question, mistakenly (?) referring to Penashue’s previous job description. “And he is prepared to take his record and be accountable to the people of Labrador, everything from defending the seal hunt to promoting the Lower Churchill project. This is the best member of Parliament Labrador has ever had.”

Liberal interim leader Bob Rae stood next and expressed his disbelief a moment later.

“This is truly incredible,” he sputtered from the far end of the chamber.

“A prime minister is refusing to admit that his member of Parliament broke the law, that the investigation by Elections Canada is not yet over and already on the floor of the House of Commons he has started a campaign with the same disgraced member of Parliament,” Rae summarized. “When does the Prime Minister start to apply some standards of shame to his conduct and the conduct of the members of his cabinet?”

Prime Minister Harper stood again, this time to explain something.

“Of course, it is the Liberal party and the Opposition which raised this particular issue today on the floor of the House of Commons,” he said. “While they are doing it, let me point out the work that minister Penashue did, not just securing the Lower Churchill falls…” Here, he was interrupted by groans and catcalls from the opposite benches.

This is the government’s strategy. Or game. Let’s call it a game. Game is a better word. The term “strategy” probably overly implies that anyone on the government side was taking anything seriously Tuesday. The game was explained to me quickly – or reiterated, really, as the prime minster hinted at it earlier in the House – by a Conservative staffer as I left Centre Block after question period. It’s very simple: If the opposition wants to ask questions about former minister Peter Penashue, the Conservatives will answer. The other parties might not like the answer, but one is provided. Isn’t that what everyone wants — for the government to answer questions in question period?

It’s the kind of thing – this defence by deference of accountability – that’s designed to annoy the opposition. Harper knows this well. It used to annoy him a lot, too, when he was on the other side of the House.

“If a minister engages in misconduct or gross incompetence… or outrageous statements, they are backed to the hilt by this prime minister,” then-leader of the Opposition, Stephen Harper disparaged during a speech on conduct in the House in June, 2002, referring to then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. “Then six months or a year later there is a cabinet shuffle and they are floating at the bottom of the Rideau River. However, he can say that there has been no misconduct and no one has ever been fired in his government.”

“All of this of course just generates cynicism,” Harper continued that summer day. “It is worse because after talking about it and opportunistically getting elected on it, the Liberals have turned around and have done nothing about it.”

Four years later, Harper had a message for voters on page one of his Conservative party campaign platform. “For those Canadians seeking accountability, the question is clear: which party can deliver the change of government that’s needed to ensure political accountability in Ottawa?” Harper asked Canadians. “We need change of government to replace old style politics with a new vision.”

Behold, Canada, the change.