Let's be clear, the PM created a dpa and passed it into law hiding it in an omnibus bill.
actually, the Liberal government brought forward the DPA legislation... that was passed into (criminal code) law. Nothing was hidden:
=> there were formal consultations leading up to the bill; consultations which drew 370 participants (370 Canadians, industry associations, businesses, non-governmental organizations and others participated.), and 75 written submissions - all public record.
=> members of the House had opportunity to scrutinize the DPA related provisions within the bill - note: the government of the day isn't responsible for doing the Opposition parties due diligence.
=> there was extensive review of the bill provisions at a Senate committee level - all public record
as an aside: during her recent testimony before the Justice Committee, JWR was asked several times for her personal view on remediation agreements (DPAs) - she refused to answer, advising that her personal view is irrelevant. A most curious/interesting response given:
Wilson-Raybould snubbed Senate committee on corporate corruption billFormer justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould angered senators by refusing to give testimony on a change to the Criminal Code that is now at the centre of allegations that she was improperly pressured to help SNC-Lavalin avoid criminal prosecution.
.
The {Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs} committee held extensive hearings last May and heard from an array of expert witnesses, including Justice Department officials, who suggested that some questions were best put to the minister of justice. The committee invited Wilson-Raybould but she did not show up.
.
Senators on the committee were sufficiently miffed by Wilson-Raybould's no-show to make an "observation" about it in their final report: "The committee notes it did not have the opportunity to hear the testimony of the minister of justice on the proposed amendments that are under her ministerial mandate, although she was invited to appear."
.
In the case of a minister who personally disagrees with a bill that falls under his or her responsibility, Joyal said: "If the decision of the government is to proceed with the bill, you have no choice than to stand by the bill. And if you don't want to stand by the bill, well, the option is to resign from the portfolio. It's quite clear."