Skip to main content

On Wednesday, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott sat down with The Globe’s Robert Fife and Laura Stone, respectively, to share their thoughts on the Prime Minister’s handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair. Today, readers are responding to those interviews.

Independent MPs Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould arrive to speak to journalists on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, April 3, 2019. REUTERS/Chris Wattie

CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters

StanD21:

These two women continue to act with integrity, a rare commodity in Ottawa. I do hope they stand for re-election because Canadians need politicians who seek truth and to protect our judicial system!

Davidb1948:

Story continues below advertisement

What I regret is that Jody Wilson-Raybould did not assume any responsibility for anything. Rather she refused to consider alternative, diverse view to a position she took on Sept 12th. This is entirety inconsistent with her declaration that listening to diverse views is a virtue in her letter to the caucus.

Res ipsa loquitor in response:

I agree, davidb. She should take responsibility for failing to do her job as a lawyer. It was her job to give legal advice to the government. If she felt she was unduly pressured, her responsibility was to go and see him or write to him and provide him with her legal advice as to why it was wrong. Any good lawyer would have done so.

M Popoff:

Trudeau spoke today about the need for trust within a caucus and a government. Trust needs to flow both ways. In this case, he did not trust Jody Wilson-Raybould’s legal opinion, her reading of the severity of the situation and the possible political consequences, and possibly her motivation. The responsibility for the breakdown in trust falls mainly on him. The ironic thing is that if he had let her do her job, he and the Liberal party would be in a much better place.

Nelson100:

What is astonishing is that even at this late hour in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Liberals continue to double down on suicidally attempting to destroy the reputations of their former colleagues. This despite numerous polls indicating that a very high percentage of Canadians believe Jody Wilson-Raybould's and Philpott's descriptions of events. Ethical concerns aside, they convey the complete opposite of a confident, capable competent organization. Instead they come across as an immature quarreling high school student council, who nonetheless have the impression that they are the "cool kids," and thus automatically worthy of admiration and veneration.

Leese1:

Jane Philpott made a mistake. I don't think she saw the big picture and now sounds regretful. She may not want Scheer to be PM but she sure has helped him along in the past couple of months. I'm not sure what ending she had envisioned. Maybe there's a naiveté there from inexperience.

Richard Roskell in response:

Cast aspersions on these two women if you like. No doubt they're not perfect, just like all the rest of us. Nevertheless, naivety is not one of their faults.

Doctor crs:

Jane Philpott is wrong. It is not that this “could: backfire, it already has. Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould have tremendous support over this issue from the Canadian people, and not just females!

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter.

Story continues below advertisement

From the Comments is designed to highlight interesting and thoughtful contributions from our readers. Some comments have been edited for clarity. Everyone can read the comments but only subscribers will be able to contribute. Thank you to everyone furthering debate across our site.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies