Skip to main content

Today, readers are responding to a column arguing that Andrew Scheer has a chance to be Canada’s moral leader, in the wake of the Jody Wilson-Raybould story, and asking whether will he seize the moment. Readers also continue to follow and discuss the latest from Robert Fife and Steven Chase Trudeau spoke to Wilson-Raybould after prosecutors refused SNC-Lavalin deal.

Open this photo in gallery:

There is, right now, a golden opportunity for a politician to seize the high ground in Ottawa, argues Peter White in his columnJames West/The Canadian Press


I don't think Canadians are looking for a media focused super hero. We have already proven that does not work. Other countries (France and the U.S., for example) have proven the same thing. What is needed is ethics and competence. So my advice for Scheer would be to just do a very good job as leader of the opposition by keeping this government accountable. In short, do the right thing and keep your ego in check. So far he has done that even though the media has given him little credit.


Scheer's greatest weakness is that he is unknown - awesome, because Trudeau's greatest strength was that he was a celebrity and look at the damage he has done to our great nation. I'll take, an unknown, competent, hardworking, diligent, kind, middle class thoughtful leader all day long. The drama teacher who traded on his father's hard work and name is done like dinner.


I remain unconvinced about Mr. Scheer, but your criticism of Justin Trudeau is accurate. And, like many, I resent being preached to by smug, arrogant and self-righteous activists of any political or moral persuasion.


The shortcomings of Trudeau's government are exaggerated. Some criticisms expressed here are valid, but certainly not enough for me to even entertain the idea of voting for an empty suit. It is unfortunate, but for years, conservatives have had little in the way of something productive and constructive to offer.

Glenn Cunningham0:

Andrew Scheer is a zero, a non event. The PC's really blew it electing him leader.

Not the Alliance:

Scheer clapped along with all of the other clapping seals during a decade of Harper. He is no leader, let alone a “moral leader.” He’s an accident of the ranked balloting process and thin ranks of contenders during the 2017 leadership convention.


Scheer's allegations on Liberal handling of SNC-Lavalin's bribery transgressions do not make him a "moral leader." It's just attack politics where conservatives, including Peter White, are desperate to manufacture a scandal before the election. When large companies commit crimes, the responsible executives should be jailed. Fines don't work on corporations or rich people. Sanctions against companies, as Scheer seems to advocate for with SNC-Lavalin, hurt many innocent employees and shareholders. As a Prime Minister, would Scheer allow a major Canadian company to fail without considering possible actions to save it? Would he throw out cabinet confidentiality to allow the opposition to go scandal fishing? I think not.

Sanctimonious in response:

So you were fine with Stephen Harper when he bailed out General Motors?

Wilkins_P in response:

Every situation is different. I am certainly fine with any government having internal discussions about the pros and cons of measures to help a large employer in difficulty.

Readers are also discussing the latest reporting from Robert Fife and Steven Chase, Trudeau spoke to Wilson-Raybould after prosecutors refused SNC-Lavalin deal.

Open this photo in gallery:

Jody Wilson-Raybould, former Canadian justice minister, walks on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada February 19, 2019.CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters

The work Farce:

The real scandal is corporate corruption on a world-wide scale, not this futile "He-said-she-said-who said" distraction from corporate criminality.


So why did Kathleen Roussel decide in her “infinite wisdom” to proceed with prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, a decision clearly not in the best interests of Canada and Canadians? Was she bound to make this decision based on her interpretation of the law or did she simply feel she needed her “pound of flesh.” What is the point of a deferred prosecution agreement if it can't be used in Canada's best overall interests? Clearly supporting Canadian business and jobs is in the country's best interests. As such, the Liberals have acted no differently than than the Conservatives would have in the same situation.

C Parsons in response:

She is the chief prosecutor of Canada. Her job is to make these tough decisions, free of any political influence.


So the decisions was made without political interference, and afterwards the PM expressed his concern? It all sounds pretty reasonable, so why was the Minister demoted, why did she then quit, and why did Butts resign?


I'm still unclear about why this is a "scandal" and not what it really was, a difficult political decision with thousands of high quality jobs at stake for the largest engineering firm in Canada. Critics are playing games when there is no better alternative. And Liberals need to get a backbone and not apologize for making the right decision.

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

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.

Follow related authors and topics

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following.

Interact with The Globe