Article content

The testimony of Jody Wilson-Raybould last week did little to explain the management of the SNC-Lavalin prosecution and why she opposed the company’s request for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). We still don’t know the reason, but fortunately, now that we have heard from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and from his former principal secretary Gerald Butts, a more complete picture begins to emerge.

I was surprised when some critics declared that questioning Wilson-Raybould’s rejection of a DPA put undue pressure on her and trampled on the rule of law. This curious criticism was reinforced by the resignation of Jane Philpott, who wrote, “There can be a cost to acting on one’s principles, but there is a bigger cost to abandoning them.” Hard to disagree with that. But what principles does she refer to?

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Opinion: Why didn't SNC-Lavalin get a deferred prosecution deal? Back to video

Butts and others, including the prime minister himself and the clerk of the privy council, agree that the decision on a DPA is an attorney general’s to make. Nothing illegal happened, as Wilson-Raybould admits. However in reaching a decision on a complex issue with major public policy considerations, should the minister not be open to advice? The captain of a ship, who has full authority, should still take advice as to where the shoals, rocks and sand bars are located.