Finally, Mr. Butts claimed that there was new evidence, which would be reason to intervene in a public prosecution but, Mr. Wernick, you said that this new evidence consisted of SNC's share price.
When the Prime Minister's Office wrote that legislation, it specifically exempted the economic argument. Ms. Wilson-Raybould was very clear that this could not be, and yet you believe that if it's something that you think can happen, “Well, we'll just make it happen.”
If “economic argument” was written by the Prime Minister's Office as not allowable, how do you get to claim that's new? That's not new evidence. That's new opinion.