The question of the future of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott in the Liberal caucus is a very live question as sentiment seems to be turning against them – though one imagines that Wilson-Raybould’s ouster is probably of bigger concern to most Liberals given the revelation of the tape she made of her conversation with Michael Wernick. Apparently, the various caucus chairs have been meeting, and pushing for an emergency caucus meeting before the regularly scheduled Wednesday meeting to try and resolve the issue before then. Some of them want a declaration from the pair that they support the leader before they will consider letting them stay – and Wilson-Raybould would not give that when scrummed after QP yesterday, saying she believes in the party and what it stands for, but would not give any assurances about the leader. (She also scoffed at the idea of resigning, insisting that she was doing the best job she could). Of course, the fact that she made the secret recording means that she has broken the trust of colleagues, even though she has made the excuse that Wernick was neither a member of caucus, nor her client. (I would add that it doesn’t explain her conduct during that call, which contained a number of irregularities, leading questions and directed conversation in search of quotes). There are questions still about Philpott, and where she will position herself since the release of the tape, and some Liberals have suggested that perhaps she was “used” by Wilson-Raybould. (And one has to wonder if the tape would change her own notions about her support for Wilson-Raybould).

I have to say that I’m struggling on the question of whether or not Wilson-Raybould should remain in caucus, because while I believe there is room for dissent, and even for MPs who don’t support the leader – because it’s a gods damned political party and not a personality cult – I also find that the tape causes me a great deal of concern for the reasons articulated above, as do the opacity of her motivations for behaving in the way she has, particularly around the tactical use of silence on something that you would think she’s be pulling the fire alarm over if it was what she is hinting. Too many things don’t add up, which is both distressing and exhausting for someone trying to understand what is going on. I get that there are Liberals with battle scars who don’t want a replay of the Chrétien-Martin years (or the Dion-Ignatieff wars, or even Turner-Trudeau Senior if you want to go that far back), and there is the worry that Wilson-Raybould’s presence in caucus will be a potential source of internecine warfare that Liberals apparently excel at, or that Trudeau should be putting some metaphorical heads on spikes to reassert his dominance, or any of that, but again, this is a political party, not a personality cult. This is not and should not be Trudeau’s party, but there is a live question about the damage she has done to the party and its chances in the election given the way that this has rolled out, and members of caucus will need to consider that. It’s not an easy task, and they should think carefully, because expelling those two could create bigger narrative problems for them in the longer term. But it’s also not up to me to decide (and I’m not one of those journalists who enforces caucus loyalty), so I await to see what everyone in the caucus room decides.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives decided that their next pressure tactic would be for Pierre Poilievre to “filibuster” the budget debate – err, except it’s not really a filibuster because it can only take place during the time allotted for government orders, and the Standing Orders limit the budget debate to a maximum of four days, those days being at the government’s choosing. So essentially, Poilievre is holding himself hostage, and by him taking up all of the speaking time over those four allotted days, he’s essentially ensuring that nobody else has to prepare a speech of their own, so all of the MPs on House duty can simply spend their time doing paperwork at their desks while he carries on. So…I’m not sure what exactly the Conservatives are hoping to accomplish. It’s another ill-conceived move by a caucus who mistakes tactics for strategy.

Good reads:

• Here’s an exploration of why Justin Trudeau keeps mentioning Port Elgin when he talks about SNC-Lavalin job losses.
• A new report from Environment Canada shows that climate change is already affecting Canada twice as much as it is other countries.
• Here is yet another explainer on the federal carbon price backstop, if you missed the first eleventy of them.
• Canadian officials are still waiting on word from China regarding sending a delegation to discuss the canola issue.
• The Privacy Commissioner and Chief Electoral Officer are joining forces to call on the parties to voluntarily use the same privacy policies as private companies.
• There are calls from Indigenous groups for the Senate to pass Romeo Saganash’s UNDRIP bill, never mind that it’s sloppily drafted.
• Maclean’s collects photos of Conservative politicians, federally and provincially, filling up their gas tanks ahead of the carbon tax, never mind that it’s a waste of time.
• The NDP say they’re lagging in candidate nominations because it takes them longer to fulfil their diversity requirements (which they ignore when it suits them).
• The federal government has signed a new Atlantic Accord deal with Newfoundland and Labrador that front-end loads more payments for their stake in Hibernia.
• Colby Cosh explains some of the electoral math in the Alberta election, and how some of the polling doesn’t necessarily capture it.
• Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column considers three unresolved plotlines in the whole Double-Hyphen Affair.
• Matt Gurney notes that while everyone is praising New Zealand for their quick action on gun control, what they’re doing is catching up to Canada’s laws.

Odds and ends:

Tristin Hopper gives a tour of the fringe parties of Alberta politics.

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