THE NEVER ENDING NON-STORY

Let me be clear - right up front.  The so-called SNC Lavelin "Scandal" is a non-story.  It's a big fat nothing burger.  It is arguably the biggest piece of artificial indignation ever perpetrated on the Canadian public by our media.  And yes, it's entirely a media creation.
It's easy to sell papers (or click bait) if you can get people to focus on a narrative you control - just ask Trump.  One way to do it is the let a bunch of opinion writers take something they barely understand and then, because you don't like "The System" behind it, let them make a big fuss about it.  And this is what SNC is.  A bunch of people who don't like the system.
Yes, SNC bribed foreign governments for foreign contracts.  They were caught.  There is no arguing that.  Under Canadian law this sort of behaviour could result in them being banned from Canadian and Provincial Government tenders.
For a company like SNC that is likely something they could never recover from.  Their shareholders would be hurt, their employees would be hurt, the areas they operated in would be hurt and in many instances a "Canadian made" solution to various engineering things wouldn't be available.
In short, SNC going under from this malfeasance - which cost the Canadian Taxpayer NOTHING - would result in more Canadian tax dollars going to non-Canadian companies - and sadly, many of those are major stakeholders in... you guessed it, Canadian Media.
So claims by Canadian Media that SNC was corrupt and any attempt to hit them with the maximum penalties is tainted by their own corporate conflict of interests.
Does this mean that SNC wasn't going to be punished?  No.  The Prime Minister was arguing the best course was a Deferred Prosecution Agreement.  A DPA would've included an admission of guilt, fines, restrictions, additional hurdles and probation.  It would hurt SNC in fighting charges of bribery in those foreign lands, but it would not eliminate SNC from competing against foreign corporations that hold partial or controlling stake in the very media groups trying to destroy them.
By not wanting the harshest of penalties the Government of Canada is being accused of trying to circumvent the law.  This is ridiculous.  No government would want a major employer, a Canadian engineer powerhouse and in many cases the ONLY CANADIAN OPTION for tendering of Government contracts paid for by Canadian taxpayers destroyed.
Stephen Harper's Government came to the rescue of mining and oil companies who ran afoul of environmental clean up requirements - Harper even wrote off $4.5 BILLION in World Trade Organization rulings in favour of Canada and the Lumber industry, not because he believed American claims were right, but because American stockholders were heavily donating to the Conservative party war chest through their Canadian subsidiaries.
Is that wrong?  Yes.
Was Harper found in Contempt of Parliament for doing wrong? Yes.
Did he resign over it?  No.
Was it a crime?  Of course not.
Harper didn't even prorogue Parliament or call a snap election over these things and that was his favourite "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat instead" trick.
Whether you or the media groups like it, DPA's are a tool in the government's belt for dealing with companies who have done wrong.  It's no different from probation.  It saves jobs.  It's legal.
And a Prime Minister telling another member of Cabinet that he'd rather this be done isn't doing anything illegal. Some people may see it as troubling, a few may erroneously consider it unethical (you won't find a former Minister of Justice or currently serving Lawyer in Canada who agrees with the the Ethics Commissioner's interpretation of the Act) but it isn't a crime.
Why did I bring this up now?  Well, the latest Conservative claim is that the Prime Minister is blocking the RCMP from further investigating the SNC affair.  He isn't.  The Clerk of the Privy Council is and the Canada Evidence Acts says if: “the Clerk of the Privy Council objects to the disclosure of information...by certifying in writing that the info constitutes a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, disclosure of that info shall be refused."
So this is not the Prime Minister's call, any more than whether SNC got a DPA was his call - they didn't, by the way.  Despite all the claims of interference, Jody's replacement as Attorney General also didn't give them a DPA - it's the call of the Clerk of the Privy Council.  And it's not only legal to say "no" during an election, it's the correct call.  
Because any investigation during an election, particularly on an issue that could not possibly be resolved before the election on October 21st, would interfere with the election, distract the electorate from the real issues and platforms and policy statements of the people who want to run this country for the next four years, and possibly delivery a result similar to what American ended up with in 2016 - namely a moron at the helm.  All with the Canadian equivalent of "Hillary's emails".  That must not be allowed.
Period.