SNC-Lavalin (Canadian politics)

Several points that are forgotten in the fog of escalated rhetoric:

First and foremost:

There was no pressure to “cut a deal”. There was pressure to consider political criteria, which is perfectly proper. It’s what we expect our MPs to do on our behalf.

Further points:

a) SNC-Lavalin is legally a person. But in fact it is a team of employees and managers, whose work produces profits for the shareholders. A guilty verdict on SNC-Lavalin could result in its bankruptcy. That would not punish the shareholders, who are the first in line when sharing out any leftover money. But it would punish the employees, many (probably most) of whom would lose their jobs when and if SNC-Lavalin assets were bought by a competitor.

b) SNC-Lavalin was not only within its rights to lobby as hard as they could to achieve a DPA. It was their duty to their shareholders and their employees. A DPA would cost SNC-Lavalin tens and possibly hundreds millions of dollars in penalties and confiscated profits. It would be subject to a two-year prohibition against bidding on Canadian government contracts. A guilty verdict would extend that prohibition to ten years. A ten-year prohibition could result in bankruptcy. Or a dissolution of the company, and the sale of its assets to a non-Canadian competitor. Or some other result that would save shareholder value.

In other words, a DPA amounts to an admission of guilt and an acceptance of precisely defined penalties. Included in those penalties is oversight of managment in order to prevent further wrongdoing, and to shift the corporate culture away from its defects.

c) Part of SNC-Lavalin’s lobbying effort was a meeting with Andrew Scheer. We do not know the details of that conversation. We need to know whether Mr Scheer offered any kind of support to SNC-Lavalin, and if so, what that offer included.

d) As a member of Cabinet, Ms Wilson Reybould was first and foremost a Minister of the Crown. Her role was primarily political, not legal. Since a DPA was (and remains) a legal alternative to a criminal trial, political considerations would be the primary criteria in deciding which way to go. I emphasise again: A DPA would certainly cost the company tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. A trial might not find guilt, in which case SNC-Lavalin would get off with legal costs only, which would be much lower.