Article content continued

Yet when committee members raised Wilson-Raybould’s allegations about PMO staffers Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard – that they suggested “an informal reach-out” to the director of public prosecutions and talked about “the need to get re-elected” – he could only say the idea that “accomplished lawyers with sterling reputations” might act that way was “inconceivable”.

Similarly, when NDP MP Charlie Angus raised the allegation that Michael Wernick, the clerk of the Privy Council, threatened Wilson-Raybould, Butts said the accusation was “inconsistent with his character”.

(Wernick testified later in the day and denied he threatened the former attorney general. “I wasn’t wearing a wire but that is not my recollection of the way the conversation flowed,” he said, when it was suggested he warned Wilson-Raybould not to get on the wrong side of the prime minister.)

Despite its shortcomings, Butts’ account was the first coherent counter-narrative to the one offered by Wilson-Raybould that outlined an uncontrollable government machine running roughshod over prosecutorial independence.

Butts at least offered the impression of someone who believes Canadians deserve an explanation – in stark contrast to his former boss, who has offered little more than fragmented talking points.

We respected the attorney general’s authority at all times

He said that everyone working on the file knew the decision on whether to direct the director of public prosecutions to negotiate a remediation deal with SNC Lavalin was the attorney general’s to make.

“We respected the attorney general’s authority at all times and did our jobs with integrity at all times,” he said.

In one curious episode, Butts said he learned just last week in her testimony that Wilson-Raybould made her final decision not to overrule the DPP on September 16 – even though in her testimony she said she told Trudeau she had made up her mind during their meeting on September 17.

It seems inconceivable that this information was not passed on to Butts, but this blissful ignorance allowed him and others in the PMO to continue to urge Wilson-Raybould to take another look at the file.

Butts pointed out that the attorney general has the power to direct the DPP at any time before a verdict is reached. In the absence of a written decision, Butts could claim that he was in the dark, even if it was clear everyone knew which way she was leaning.

There was obviously a concern in the PMO that Wilson-Raybould had made a decision in haste and that she should consider a second opinion from an eminent jurist like former chief justice, Beverley McLachlin.