OTTAWA— Former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould has got a story to tell. That much we know.As all eyes turn to the Commons justice committee, the biggest questions are simple: was she pressed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or his officials to drop charges against SNC-Lavalin and cut a deal? Did she feel unduly pressured? If so, why didn’t she resign in protest as attorney general at any point? If not, why then did she resign from cabinet as veterans affairs minister on Feb. 11?But to tease out answers that will tell a fuller picture — one that will be judged by legal, not just political standards — MPs will have to bear in mind some big principles at play when Wilson-Raybould finally takes a seat, and ask her probing questions even though she still complains she is not fully free to, as she put it, “speak (her) truth.” Independence of the prosecutionThis is a sacrosanct principle in Canada’s legal system. It means prosecutors make decisions on who to prosecute and how to apply the law free from partisan or political influence. It ensures everyone is equal under the law, and the criminal law will be applied equally to accused persons or corporations, no matter how much money or influence they have.Yet even before Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, academics suggested there was a “troubling” pattern of PMO meetings with Wilson-Raybould under the guise that “robust” and “vigorous” discussions were permissible.The questions here for Wilson-Raybould boil down to what was her view of the prosecution underway? Did she have a preferred course, or did she leave the decision entirely to Kathleen Roussel, her deputy attorney general and the independent director of public prosecutions? And did Wilson-Raybould regard Roussel’s decision — conveyed on Sept. 4 to the company — not to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin as final? Deferred Prosecution Agr ...
|
