Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned from cabinet on Tuesday.Chris Wattie/Reuters
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
..................................................................................................................................
Wilson-Raybould’s door
Re Wilson-Raybould Resigns From Trudeau Cabinet In Wake Of SNC-Lavalin Claims (online, Feb. 12): That Jody Wilson-Raybould felt the need to resign from cabinet is worrying indeed. It was shocking when she was demoted as justice minister, a position commensurate with her training and her keen intelligence. What a loss: Her time as justice minister was ambitious and forward-looking. I was thrilled that Indigenous people were being represented in such high-profile work.
My fervent hope is that, as an elected MP, she will seek the leadership of the Liberal Party, and ultimately become prime minister of Canada. We need ethical, smart people like her.
Deborah McLean, Napanee, Ont.
......................................
How about this for a marriage made in Ottawa: Jody Wilson-Raybould and the New Democrats? Ms. Wilson-Raybould, who resigned from cabinet Tuesday, has worn out her welcome with the folks in the PMO and seems to have no future in the Liberal Party. She is a strong woman, whose principles, apparently, may be too strong for Justin Trudeau; on the other hand, the NDP is badly in need of such a person at its helm. How does this sound within the next five years: prime minister Jody Wilson-Raybould?
I suspect many of us would vote for her leadership in the coming elections, which after 2019 may arrive more quickly. The Liberals are unlikely to win another majority after all the blunders they have made and promises they have broken since 2015.
Joe Spence, Ottawa
......................................
I hope the Conservatives are knocking on Jody Wilson-Raybould’s door. With her as leader, perhaps they could begin to offer concrete policy options, not just criticism, and principled, progressive leadership of the sort you so ably detailed in your editorial on Michael Wilson (Giving Thanks For Michael Wilson’s GST, Feb. 12).
Cathy Nichols, Winnipeg
Lines. Crossed?
Justice Minister David Lametti is right: “There is a line that cannot be crossed. Telling the attorney-general what his decision ought to be – that would be interference” (Trudeau Says He Discussed SNC Case With Wilson-Raybould, Feb. 12).
While he provides an example that would clearly cross the line, he does not clarify where the line is and what other actions might amount to interference. Likewise, the officials quoted as saying that we should not conflate or confuse a vigorous debate with an effort to put pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould are correct. But the reverse is true as well. Interference with the A-G’s decision-making responsibility should not be confused with debate and thereby excused. The line exists somewhere between debate and directing the A-G how to decide.
Government statements so far have sidestepped the question of where the line lies, but suggest strongly a view that almost nothing short of giving specific directions to the A-G would cross it.
Donald W. Smith, Ottawa
......................................
Opinion appears to be divided over whether it was appropriate for the PM to discuss with the attorney-general the political implications of a decision in the SNC-Lavalin case over which she had discretion, but the pivotal question in the matter would seem to be: “Was she removed from the Justice portfolio for refusing to consider other opinions?”
If, as you reported, Jody Wilson-Raybould made four speeches last fall in which she criticized the government’s efforts on Indigenous issues, sufficiently out of line for her to earn a private rebuke from the Clerk of the Privy Council, then there was more than one reason for the decision to move her in the recent cabinet shuffle.
Peter Conroy, Ottawa
SNC: Prosecute
SNC-Lavalin should be prosecuted because public confidence in the administration of justice is damaged by the perception that there is different set of rules for the big, the wealthy or the politically connected than for ordinary persons.
The law is intended to punish corruption, and remove the profit incentive to grow by cheating. Handicapping companies which engaged in corruption, and providing advantage for other companies in bidding for new contracts for a limited period of time, is a fair, appropriate deterrent.
Remediation agreements offer insufficient deterrence, as can be seen in the United States by the incidence of repeat offenders and voter frustration with politicians of all parties. Such agreements also shine little light on the mechanisms that permitted the abuse, or the individuals and intermediaries who were either participants or complicit.
History has shown that cheaters often rationalize their behaviour as being good for the company, helping it to grow and thereby supporting the share price. Individuals are risk averse – the possibility of personal consequences is logically a more effective deterrent for bad behaviour than a company fine.
Shedding light on mechanisms and individuals helps improve both policy and governance best practices – such as making sure that whistle-blower concerns go to an independent board via a legal intermediary, rather than to management.
Patricia Lorenz, Toronto
SNC: Remediate
It strikes me that this whole SNC “scandal” is a storm in a teapot. We are talking about a company getting gutted, costing thousands of jobs, because our Justice Department was unwilling to extend a legal, available “remediation agreement” to SNC in the same manner the U.S. and the U.K. treat their domiciled companies.
Of course the PMO should have a word in the ear of the attorney-general to expedite the matter.
Instead of jumping on their high horses, the Conservatives and NDP should be applauding the PMO for trying to do the right thing and save those jobs.
John Nicholson, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.
......................................
Why is Canada choosing to be holier than thou in the SNC-Lavalin case? Laws were changed in order to allow for a deferral of prosecution in cases like this, as they do in other countries.
SNC was doing what any corporation would do in this situation. The PMO is absolutely right to be providing its opinion in this instance. What was the reason for the intransigence of the Justice Department in this matter?
Was Jody WIlson-Raybould acting (un)reasonably?
What were her motivations?
Marc Doré, Montreal
Wisdom and wit
Re Reporter Led A Life Of Daring Escapes As A Refugee And CBC Correspondent (Obituaries, Feb. 12): In addition to being an outstanding reporter, Joe Schlesinger had a wonderful sense of humour.
During a speech at Pier 21 many years ago, he spoke about immigrating to Canada. He recounted that as he sailed up the St. Lawrence, he saw a huge sign: “Drink Canada Dry.”
“This,” Mr. Schlesinger said he thought, “is the country for me.”
Joe O’Brien, Halifax