Re: “A few basic points about prosecutors’ decision-making,” comment, March 9.
The decision to prosecute SNC-Lavalin was made by the director of public prosecutions. SNC-Lavalin had lobbied for the amendment that allows a deferred-prosecution agreement after the company faced new charges of bribery and corruption in 2015. The amendment came into law Sept. 21, 2018. On Oct. 9, the company learned the DPA option wasn’t on offer.
The Prime Minister’s Office says 12 days wasn’t long enough to consider the option. In fact, information had been going back and forth between the company and various ministries for months, if not years. The law specifies that: “The prosecutor, when considering such an agreement, must not factor in the ‘national economic interest.’ ”
What I read is that, in December when attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould said she had made up her mind, she was actually saying that she supported the independence of the director of public prosecutions. The various people asking her to consider economic and political issues were not providing new information that could appropriately override the director’s decision.
In my opinion, Wilson-Raybould was replaced so that a new AG could interfere in the case. I suspect another attorney general, Liberal or Conservative, might have readily interfered with the handling of the SNC Lavalin case. Would any of us even know?
Before condemning the federal Liberals, remember that neither of the two highly respected and professional women who quit the cabinet have left the federal Liberal Party. Maybe that tells us something.
Heather Phillips
Sooke
