,
21 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I know I'll regret it, but the SNC-Lavalin / AG "scandal" is an interesting issue. There are people better versed in this than I, but I keep coming up with "what if" scenarios. Here's one that just occurred to me... 2/...
The AG can legally take charge and change direction of a prosecution (like SNC-Lavalin) being run by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under Section 15 of the DPP Act. /3... 
This is not an "abuse of power" or "obstruction of justice", unless of course it is done for some improper purpose. Decisions to take charge have to be "used sparingly" and "ensure that decisions are taken in the public interest." /4...
What is "public interest"? Beats me, because it is not defined, but seems to be a broad basket of legal, political, economic, and constitutional considerations. Because s. 15 is supposed to be an extraordinary remedy, I assume the test is strict. /5...
However (and this is where I'm going with this, so bear with me), suppose the AG is considering using its legit s. 15 power because it disagrees with the DPP and thinks a Deferred Prosecution Agreement is appropriate for Lavalin? /6...
Maybe it can be justified because SNC-Lavalin is so big (insert too-big-to-fail argument here) and important to Canada's economy, blah, blah, blah... I personally don't think it's a good argument, but we're just testing the idea. /7...
Using s. 15 power is a big deal because it has to be done publicly and is rarely invoked, and SNC-Lavalin is a political hot potato. You can bet SNC-Lavalin has come up at the cabinet table, since they've been lobbying everyone for years... /8...
So, AG asks PMO what they think about exercising its legitimate s. 15 powers and taking the Lavalin prosecution away from the DPP, because it is such a hot potato. Now AG is supposed to be free from political influence... /9...
But, a "vigorous discussion" ensues, which would be expected given the hot potato nature of it. This discussion would be subject to "solicitor client privilege" because it involves possible legal ramifications of invoking s. 15... /10...
So that would explain the apparent stonewall by the former and present AGs saying the discussions were subject to "solicitor client privilege". Legal matters were discussed as the AG explored options with the PMO/PCO and privileged. /11...
I personally think invoking s. 15 powers to cut a DPA deal with SNC-Lavalin would be political suicide because of its history, but I think you can safely assume it was discussed (and probably dismissed) when looking at all legal options. /12...
As I discussed elsewhere, the AG can't really walk into the DPP's office and demand a change in prosecution of SNC-Lavalin because of the independence of the ODPP threadreaderapp.com/thread/1094103… /13...
Because the DPP is a Deputy Minister and the responsibility of the AG, no doubt there were similar briefings discussing options regarding the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin with the AG, but AG can't direct the DPP to do anything. /14...
Which is why trying to strong arm the AG into "making a deal" with SNC-Lavalin doesn't make sense. AG can't put pressure on the DPP to comply since they are independent of the AG, and would probably result in a call by the DPP to the RCMP. /15...
Now, if you believe everyone and everything is corrupt, I can't help you. I believe in the independence of the DPP and the special place the AG has in our cabinet system (insider and outsider a the same time) even if the line is sometimes hard to discern... /16...
But, I put the above forward as a scenario that shows how it would be possible (if really a bad idea) for the AG to legitimately and legally consider taking over the SNC-Lavalin prosecution and have it subject to sol/client privilege. /17...
The idea of the PMO "forcing" the AG to invoke its s. 15 legal right to directly assume the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin to cut a deal seems so politically dangerous that I doubt anyone would do it. Whatever you think, the PMO is not full of dummies. /18...
In that case, the AG would have to publicly declare in the Canada Gazette it was taking over prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and then publicly cut a sweeter deal. "Corruption" doesn't enjoy being in the public spotlight, so I don't see this as plausible. /19...
This is also why I think it is highly unlikely the PMO/PCO "told" the AG to take control of the prosecution under s. 15 - the consequences would be nuclear, and I am sure that if it was discussed it would be quickly dismissed as a really bad idea. /20...
Anyway, just a few thoughts about fitting the available and legal remedies to the tiny handful of facts we have. Thanks for reading.
PPS - Here is the head of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is in charge of the SNC-Lavalin case, discussing her independence from political interference in court documents: thestar.com/news/canada/20… #cdnpoli
