Question to ask your candidates

Dear Editor:

The core of the ethics case against the prime minister and his staff is that they crossed a law/politics line in urging on the Attorney General and director of public prosecutions to proceed with a deferred prosecution against SNC-Lavalin. Did the facts of the corruption allegations against the company meet the standards set out in the DPA, and was there a public policy interest in proceeding by DPA rather than by prosecution?

The prime minister and his staff say yes to the DPA and the wider public policy interest, the AG and DPP and the ethics commissioner say the company’s private interest and the prime minister’s partisan interests pushed the case over a line.

When we have regained our breath after ventilating on these issues, let’s step back a bit and look at the DPA itself.

If there was no DPA, the line apparently crossed by the PMO and PCO would have been in a very different place and a much simpler decision: prosecute or don’t prosecute. The DPA provisions were put in place, apparently expressly for SNC to avoid prosecution on the corruption allegations claimed against it, buried in an omnibus budget bill after vigorous lobbying by SNC.

During the election, ask your candidates if they support letting companies side-step serious legal challenges in court through the instrument of the DPA and if instruments such as DPA in other countries achieve the public interest they should be expected to serve.

Ernie Keenes Kelowna