Article content continued

Other sections in the law provide ample support for negotiating a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin, including a reasonable prospect of conviction at trial. Prosecutors must also be confident that the corporate crime “did not cause and was not likely to have caused serious bodily harm or death, or injury to national defence or national security.” The prosecutor must also be “of the opinion that negotiating the agreement is in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances.” And finally, the attorney general must consent to the negotiation of the agreement.

The SNC-Lavalin situation appears to meet many of those considerations for a remediation agreement, along with some others, including the company taking disciplinary action, terminating crooked employees and introducing organizational reforms. It seems reasonable to conclude — based on the company’s statements — that its anti-corruption reforms and internal reorganizations at least justify opening the door to begin negotiating a remediation agreement. But Wilson-Raybould apparently resisted the suggestion to do so, despite the risk that the prosecution alternative could produce the death of the company.

The minister’s motives and reasoning are unknown. Did she disagree with the legislation her government passed? Does she think SNC-Lavalin should be pushed under the bus regardless of the political and economic impacts? Are there other facts available only to the prosecutor’s office and the attorney general? Was it an ideological issue?

Until Wilson-Raybould delivers her version of events, there is reason to believe that the Prime Minister’s Office was at least justified in its attempts — illegal or not — to convince her that failing to pursue a legally available remediation agreement would be bad for the company, for Quebec, for Canada and for the Trudeau government.