As expected, the justice committee meeting yesterday was short and went nowhere, as the Liberals on the committee (most of whom are not regular members of said committee) voted to respect the original schedule, which is to consider next steps on Tuesday, like the plan was all along. And predictably, there was much performative outrage and the pundit class all shook their fists in outrage that the Liberals would dare to shut down the inquiry (which they didn’t), and lo, why doesn’t the PMO get it right on this whole sordid affair, woe is us, woe is us. If you need any clues that this “emergency meeting” was anything other than a stunt, let’s consider the fact that despite the fact that the committee was going to deal with next steps when Parliament returned next week, they nevertheless demanded said “emergency meeting” in the middle of March Break to denote how seriousthey were about it. (Meanwhile, if any of these MPs complain about how hard parliamentary life is on their families and children, we need only remind them that they pulled stunts like this). But when most of the actual committee members are unavailable, it’s not exactly like the bodies they’re filling the seats with are in a position to do the work of the regular members of the committee for them and to evaluate what they’ve heard. Oh, and putting Pierre Poilievre in the lead seat for the Conservatives is a flashing red light with accompanying klaxon that this is a stunt. The opposition also wanted this debate on inviting Jody Wilson-Raybould back to be in public, despite the fact that committee deliberations on witnesses and timetables happen behind closed doors for a reason. I cannot stress this enough. This kind of meeting to demand a vote in public is showmanship designed for the cameras. The feigned outrage and unctuous sanctimony when the Liberals voted the way everyone expected them to is also indicative that this was entirely a stunt. And We The Media bought it all, and nobody I saw bothered to challenge them on any part of it. Well done us.

Now, the Liberals have a choice next week, and if they don’t invite Wilson-Raybould back, it’ll be a black eye for them, deservedly. I suspect they know this. As for Wilson-Raybould, I’m not sure that anyone believes she can’t speak to her resignation, because it has nothing to do with solicitor-client privilege, Michael Wernick stated that none of this was discussed at Cabinet (hence essentially waiving any Cabinet confidence on the matter), and Gerald Butts has also spoken about this time period. If she insists she can’t, the credibility of that assertion needs to be questioned. But until the Liberals on the justice committee actually vote to shut it down and write their report, can we hold off on the pearl-clutching until then? Otherwise, we’re playing into stunts.

Speaking of predictable pundit outrage, here’s Andrew Coyne decrying that prime ministers can get away with anything in this country. Well, except for the resignations, the committee study, the Ethics Commissioner investigation, strongly worded letter from the OECD and intense media scrutiny. As for his shaking his fist at “our system,” I don’t exactly see the system south of the border any better at dealing with the blatant corruption of their president, so…yay?

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106007982209294336

https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1106012461910581255

Good reads:

• Citing new evidence, Marc Garneau ordered all Boeing 737 Max 8/9 planes grounded in Canada and banned from Canadian airspace.
• Amarjeet Sohi says the Indigenous consultations on the Trans Mountain expansion are expected to wrap up within 90 days, with a hopeful decision by summer.
• The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that federal infrastructure spending hasn’t had the hoped-for impact because provinces aren’t stepping up.
• Government funding as part of their commitments to tackling guns and gangs is in the process of rolling out.
• Two of three companies who were vying for a contract for veterans’ job placement services were disqualified, leading to questions of political interference.
• As Brexit continues to be a gong show, Canada keeps insisting it’ll aim for a “seamless” trade transition once it happens.
• The chair of the OECD’s Working Group on Bribery wants Canada to explain itself regarding SNC-Lavalin at the next meeting in June, or face a review.
• Incidentally, this is only the second time the OECD has sent out a strongly worded letter on a specific case, where they tend to criticize entire anti-corruption regimes.
• Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy will lead Canada’s election observation mission to Ukraine.
• An SNC-Lavalin lobbyist attended two Liberal donor appreciation events, and we’re back to the cries of “cash for access.”
• Jagmeet Singh listed single-payer pharmacare and immediate action on housing as his budget demands.
• The NDP have recruited a candidate from Quebec Solidaire, who is a “not that much” sovereigntist, as the party is “open” to nationalists, but in a united country.
• Kevin Vickers is expected to announce whether or not he’ll run for the leadership of the New Brunswick Liberal Party tomorrow.
• Chantal Hébert tries to wedge Garneau’s changing his mind on grounding the 737s into the Liberal handling of the Double-Hyphen Affair, and…it’s all a bit forced.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.