OTTAWA — Jody Wilson-Raybould made a last-minute pitch Tuesday to remain in the Liberal fold but it appeared to have little effect on her colleagues as they prepared to turf her and former cabinet ally Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus.
“Too little, too late,” summed up Toronto Liberal MP Judy Sgro.
“Same old, same old,” said fellow Toronto Liberal John McKay.
“My own view is this has gone on way too long,” said Kenora, Ont., MP Bob Nault.
The final decision on the fate of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott rests with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in consultation with Liberal MPs. He spent the day Tuesday talking with MPs and then called an emergency meeting of the national caucus, to be held Tuesday evening.
Wilson-Raybould sent a letter to all Liberal MPs, just minutes before the Ontario caucus, the largest provincial group of Liberals on Parliament Hill, met to discuss the question of whether she and Philpott should be allowed to remain in the governing party’s national caucus. Philpott, who represents a Toronto-area riding, showed up for the meeting but left less than 10 minutes later.
Philpott would not say whether she was asked to leave.
“My colleagues are having a really important meeting right now and I don’t believe, out of respect for them, it would be appropriate for me,” she said.
In her letter, Wilson-Raybould reiterated that she still believes in Liberal values and policies and wants to run for re-election as a Liberal. But she made no apologies for the politically damaging furor that has engulfed the Trudeau government for two months over allegations she was improperly pressured last fall to stop the criminal prosecution of Montreal engineering giant SNC-Lavalin.
“Now I know many of you are angry, hurt and frustrated. And frankly so am I … because I feel and believe I was upholding the values that we all committed to,” she wrote.
In refusing to intervene to secure a remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin, Wilson-Raybould said: “I was trying to help protect the Prime Minister and the government from a horrible mess.
“I am not the one who tried to interfere in sensitive proceedings, I am not the one who made it public, and I am not the one who publicly denied what happened. But I am not going to go over all of the details here again. Enough has been said.”
Wilson-Raybould told her colleagues that the choice before them is “about what kind of party” they want, whether they’ll be “a caucus of inclusion or exclusion; of dialogue and searching for understanding or shutting out challenging views and perspectives; and ultimately of the old ways of doing business or new ones that look to the future.”
Toronto MP Rob Oliphant called it “a very odd letter that doesn’t advance her cause.”
Among other things, the letter did not address the biggest issue that is driving the push to kick Wilson-Raybould out of caucus: the revelation last week that she had surreptitiously recorded a phone conversation with the country’s top public servant, Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick.
Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said that left many Liberal MPs feeling that they can’t trust Wilson-Raybould.
“I think she would have to be able to convince many of the folks in caucus that there is a pathway to a trusting relationship,” he said.
Science Minister Kirsty Duncan called the secret recording “shocking,” “unethical” and “deceitful.” Tourism Minister Melanie Joly called it “fundamentally wrong.”
While Philpott has not done anything similar, Liberal MPs did not seem willing to keep her in caucus either. Philpott quit the cabinet in early March, a few weeks after Wilson-Raybould, saying she no longer had confidence in the government’s handling of the SNC-Lavalin file. She has since given one interview, in which she stoked the flames of the controversy by saying there was much more to come from Wilson-Raybould.
McKay said he sees no way for either Wilson-Raybould or Philpott to stay in the Liberal caucus, saying the duo are “joined at the hip.”
“Ms. Philpott’s actions have been highly supportive of and consistent with Ms. Wilson-Raybould. I see them as frankly supporting each other and a decision for one is a decision for both.”