The National Observer is an unabashedly left-wing site, but this article is still worth a read. It goes into some detail on how the UK has used their Deferred Prosecution Agreement law, on which ours is modeled, and talks about the case of Rolls-Royce, who were denied a DPA despite similar "economic impact" arguments being presented on their behalf.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/08/analysis/hidden-key-snc-lavalin-scandalKey factors in discussing whether SNC deserved a chance at a DPA:
The Criminal Code then sets out a number of circumstances that the prosecutor MUST consider, which are similar to the U.K. framework:
These include whether the accused organization self-reported to authorities (it did not); the nature and gravity of the offence (extremely serious); the involvement of senior officers (high); whether the organization has entered into a previous remediation agreement for similar conduct (multiple); whether the organization or its officers committed other offences (many).
Of special note is that the reported conduct continued over an extended period, almost a decade, with an extremely high dollar value.
On the positive side for SNC-Lavalin, it fired the people directly involved, had a complete turnover of senior management, and have instituted better internal checks and balances. So there's that.
In discussing SNC's eligibility for a DPA, this article sides with Ms Roussel:
In sum, SNC fails on all the primary tests a prosecutor would take into account, and passes only the most marginal or peripheral ones. Barring evidentiary issues that we have no way to assess, there is more than ample reason to support the determination of the DPP, and no substantial cause to overturn it.
Also discussed is the fact that the Gadaffi regime were awful people, and SNC cheerfully cozied up to them knowing full well how much blood was on their hands. This passage, while perhaps somewhat emotional, deserves some consideration by people who keep talking about "9000 jobs":
SNC, a corporate giant, bribed a bloody despot's regime in exchange for billions in contracts
(...)
Canadians need a lot more context about what this case is about.
We need to talk about where this money went and who got hurt
At its heart, the SNC prosecution is the embodiment of the OECD anti-bribery framework to which Canada has long been a signatory, and on which our legislation, including DPAs, is modeled.
Corruption strikes the weak and disenfranchised first, last, and hardest.
It’s not the affluent who find bodies dumped on the side of the road, or militias opening fire on rebels and dissidents. Or have to re-assemble brutalized women and girls.
As soon as priorities shift to the most vulnerable victims of corruption, it's not hard to see why the AG declined to overturn the decision of Kathleen Roussel, Canada's DPP, to proceed to trial.
A corruption prosecution of this gravity is unprecedented in Canada.
Moreover, had the Libyan regime not collapsed and the bribery discovered, would this company still be in the game, still arranging prostitute parties and funnelling money to the Gaddafis?
-k