Up to now, I’ve been focusing on the optics of this. I know a few people assume this means I think that giving SNC Lavalin a DPA is a bad idea.
In truth, I have no idea if it’s a good or a bad idea. I do support following the rule of law that says it’s the Solicitor General’s purview to make that decision. But is it the right decision? No idea, and I suspect most people don’t know either and just choose the “right” answer based on partisan beliefs.
This article https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-deferred-prosecution-agreement-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/ does a great job of explaining what it is and a bit of the hypocrisy of the media and the opposition about it.
Again, I think people who focus on the “real” root of the issue of if SNC Lavalin should or shouldn’t get a PDA are missing the point of why people are angry or feel betrayed. Paul Wells has a take on it that I think is close to the mark. It’s a bit overly dramatic but I think it explains why the public is shaken. It’s not about the outcome, it’s about the optics of how they tried to get that outcome.
For all most of us know, a DPA is the “best” outcome, but I think that’s missing the point now.