He said, she said: Butts, Wilson-Raybould at odds,

OTTAWA— Gerald Butts, Justin Trudeau’s former principal secretary, has strongly disputed allegations levelled by former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould that she was subjected to a sustained pressure to intervene in the criminal case against SNC-Lavalin.

Here’s a look at some key contradictions in the testimony each gave to the House of Commons justice committee

The finality of the decision

She said: “I told (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at a Sept. 17 meeting) that I had done my due diligence and had made up my mind on SNC and that I was not going to interfere with the decision of the director (of public prosecutions Kathleen Roussel) ... I then explained how this came about and that I had received a Section 13 note from the DPP early in September and that I had considered the matter very closely. I further stated that I was very clear on my role as the attorney general and that I was not prepared to issue a directive in this case, that it would not be appropriate.”

He said: “We learned last week that the director of public prosecutions made her decision not to pursue a remediation agreement on Sept. 4 ... I learned for the first time while watching the former attorney general’s testimony (on Feb. 27) that she had made a final decision on the 16th of September.

“My understanding is that nobody in the (Prime Minister’s Office) or (Privy Council Office) knew that at the time either.”

Unwanted meetings

She said: “In mid-November, the PMO requested that I meet with Matthew Bouchard and Elder Marques to discuss the matter, which I did on Nov. 22 ... (They) continued to plead their case, talking about if I’m not sure in my decision that we could hire an eminent person to advise me. They were kicking the tires. I said no. My mind had been made up and they needed to stop. This was enough.”

He said: “If the attorney general had made a decision, and communicated it to the prime minister and clerk (of the Privy Council), why would there be a next step at all? Why would the attorney general take and solicit meetings on a closed matter?”

Appropriateness of seeking external legal advice

She said: “All of those individuals knew that I was firm on my decision not to interfere with the discretion of the director of public prosecutions, and having conversations about hiring external legal counsels in that environment is entirely inappropriate.”

He said: “We had a view that it would be appropriate for her to seek independent advice from an eminent Canadian jurist or panel of jurists. We believed that this was appropriate, first, because the law empowering the attorney general to use remediation agreements is new … Second, we felt that outside advice was appropriate because of the extraordinary consequences of a conviction.”

Allegations of a campaign of political interference

She said: “Between September and December of 2018, I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the attorney general of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin.

He said: “When you boil it all down, all we ever asked the attorney general to consider was a second opinion ... I firmly believe nothing inappropriate occurred here and nothing inappropriate was alleged until after the cabinet shuffle.”

The January cabinet shuffle

She said: “I stated (to Trudeau on the Jan. 7 phone call) I believed the reason was because of the SNC matter.”

He said: “Minister Wilson-Raybould said (to Trudeau on the Jan. 7 phone call), “I feel I’m being shifted out of justice for other reasons.”