With the House justice committee set to hold a mid-hiatus working session to discuss whether to invite former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to make a return appearance, it may be time to start looking at some other procedural protocols that the opposition parties could deploy to keep the SNC-Lavalin saga in the parliamentary crosshairs.

It is, of course, always possible that the Liberal MPs could end up supporting the opposition-backed pitch to bring back the one-time attorney general, but as of right now, that seems a distinctly unlikely turn of events, given how quickly they shut down a previous proposal that would have extended invitations not just to Wilson-Raybould, but her former chief of staff Jessica Prince, as well as prime minister’s chief of staff Katie Telford and his two senior advisers, Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard.

While they didn’t technically vote that motion down, the five Liberal members used their majority clout to remove all references to specific witnesses, agreeing only to book a meeting for March 19 to “consider next steps and potential additional witnesses.”

If that date rings a bell, that might be because it’s also the day that Finance Minister Bill Morneau will unveil his pre-election fiscal road map, which will almost certainly dominate the news cycle.

Even more discouraging from the perspective of the opposition, of course, is the growing likelihood that, having duly given airtime to allow Wilson-Raybould, former PMO principal secretary Gerry Butts and Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick to provide their respective accounts of what happened, those same Liberal committee members may be laying the groundwork to wrap up the committee probe entirely — possibly without hearing from any other witnesses at all.

So, given all that, what, exactly, might Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre have had in mind when, during a weekend appearance on the West Block, he pledged to “use every parliamentary tool in the toolkit” to get the prime minister to answer what he describes as “falsehoods that he appears to have stated” as far as the potential risk of job losses if the Quebec-based engineering firm is convicted on bribery and fraud charges?

For that matter, without a steady series of must-see committee hearings, how can he and his fellow opposition members prevent the SNC-Lavalin saga from dropping off the political radar entirely?

At the risk of being accused of aiding and abetting the government’s adversaries, here are a few suggestions, starting with the most obvious:

1) Introduce a budget amendment that highlights the SNC-Lavalin allegations as a reason to vote non-confidence in the government

So far, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has been oddly reluctant to publicly muse over the possibility of a formal non-confidence vote — which, it’s fair to say, seems to be at odds with his demand that the prime minister step down — but with the House set for a vote on the traditional budget motion, he and his party (or, alternately, the New Democrats) are free to go ahead and put their lack of faith in Team Trudeau’s ethical compass on the record. Barring a Liberal caucus revolt, it’s unlikely to succeed, but it would, at least, keep the story in the spotlight, if not necessarily the headlines.

2) Work it into literally every parliamentary proceeding, no matter how routine

The 45-minute daily cross-aisle back-and-forth of question period may be the main event on the daily House program, but that doesn’t mean opposition parties can’t make use of the rest of the Commons sitting day, from the pre-QP members’ statements to petitions to legislative debate — and that’s not even counting the designated supply days that give them temporary control of the Chamber agenda.

Both the Conservatives and the New Democrats have already used opposition days to make the case to, respectively, force Trudeau to testify before the justice committee, and convene an independent public inquiry into the allegations, both of which went down to defeat but not without a full vote that, in the case of the NDP push for an inquiry, saw two Liberal MPs vote with the opposition parties.

Even when that control reverts back to the government, there’s always a way to segue back to the SNC-Lavalin scandal — yes, even while debating the pros and cons of new regulations on fisheries habitat, or a non-controversial trade deal. Will it ultimately lead to answers on what went down behind the closed doors of the prime minister’s office? Probably not, but at least it will keep the issue alive.

3) Use procedural stalling tactics to get the government to let the House justice committee probe continue

Assuming that the Liberal majority on the justice committee does start winding down the SNC-Lavalin probe, Poilievre and his colleagues can retaliate by effectively shutting down House business until the government agrees to cut a deal to keep the investigation going, via tried-and-true tactics like forcing votes on basic housekeeping matters, delaying government business with time-wasting motions to concur in committee reports and other staples of a functioning parliamentary democracy.

It’s a risky move, to be sure — there’s always the chance that public opinion could turn against you, particularly if it starts looking like your protest is motivated by partisan interest. But with the countdown to the end of the current parliament already underway, coupled with this government’s dismal record in shuttling its legislative priorities through the process, even a short-duration blockade could make the Liberals more receptive to allowing the committee to get back to work.

All of the above manoeuvring does, of course, require a caveat: The collective level of interest in the Canadian public in a particular political scandal can be surprisingly mercurial, particularly if it seems to drag on for weeks without any significant developments or fresh revelations — and once the audience starts to drift, it can be difficult to get them back.

Still, from a strategic perspective, it may be worth breaking out the heavy procedural machinery.