Usually like your columns Margaret, but I don't understand the point of this one. The whole article explains why the settlement makes sense, but you use someone else's "smell test" to explain why shouldn't. I didn't see anywhere explaining why a settlement was the best choice, because a court imposed settlement following actions from the Chrétien and Harper errors would have probably been stiffer - maybe that part didn't support this narrative. You actually call Trudeau a coward for closing a chapter from the Chrétien and Harper era. For a writer who I like, I say shame on you and that lazy description of the real context.