The day, which was already off to a cranky start for most MPs who were voting all night, got an early, crankier start – for the Liberals, in any case – as a bombshell interview with Jane Philpott was released, in which she stated that there was more to the Double-Hyphen Affair story that needed to be told. But…she’s not going to do it. Oh, and by the way, she has no leadership ambitions, so this isn’t about that. And that was pretty much throwing a cat among the pigeons in the Commons, as suddenly the Conservatives started waving this interview about as further ammunition in their so-called protest vote-a-thon to “let her speak” (never mind that the votes have absolutely nothing to do with this Affair in any way, shape or form). And as the day wore on, other nonsense crept in, such as the Liberals fumbling a “shift change” during the votes and almost losing one of them. And incidentally, Philpott and Wilson-Raybould have been excused from the vote-a-thon, so as to not exacerbate any tensions with their sleep-deprived colleagues.
They are not gagged, period. The demands are empty.
— kady o'malley (@kady) March 21, 2019
And it becomes increasingly more obvious that the way both Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are handling this is becoming a problem for all involved. Other MPs like John McKay and Judy Sgro vented by saying that if they’ve got something so important to say, that they should just raise it as a point of personal privilege in the Commons and get it over with. The former Law Clerk of the Commons, Rob Walsh, also said that they have absolute immunity in the Commons if they want to speak, and there would be no real consequences as they are no longer in Cabinet – except possibly being booted from caucus, and Trudeau reiterated that he was fine to let them stay in caucus because they’re okay with disagreement in the Liberal caucus. (He also insisted that Wilson-Raybould was not shuffled over the SNC-Lavalin DPA, yet again).
NEW – Liberal MP Judy Sgro told @glen_mcgregor that "there's no reason that Jane or Jody cannot go into the house of commons, parliamentary privilege, talk for as long as they want, say anything they want, they'll be clear of any cabinet issues” #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/J2gc6I0qId
— Mackenzie Gray (@Gray_Mackenzie) March 21, 2019
Former House of Commons law clerk @toccataprima says he doesn't see any significant legal consequences for Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott if they were to break cabinet confidence OUTSIDE of parliamentary privilege on the SNC-Lavalin affair. pic.twitter.com/hvM7IuLCMp
— Power & Politics (@PnPCBC) March 21, 2019
In hot takes, Matt Gurney says that Philpott is waving a red flag and we should hear what she has to say. Justice committee chair Anthony Housefather gives his reflections of what the committee heard, but also cautions that they are not a legal process and can’t be expected to behave like one. Susan Delacourt, however, is running out of patience with the drama, and notes that speaking truth to power isn’t acting like you’ve got a big secret you can be coy about. If it’s that important, then they should take any advantage they have and say what it is.
That’s a point that we in the media should reflect on, as well. We’ve all just gone along with the “they couldn’t possibly speak publicly” assumption. Why?
— Alex Boutilier (@alexboutilier) March 22, 2019
https://twitter.com/PhilippeLagasse/status/1108917885676601344