LETTER

SNC Lavalin’s rogues? 

William Finseth considers that not granting SNC Lavalin a Differed Prosecution Agreement was a “gross error in judgement”. His argument: “The senior individuals who perpetrated the crime of bribery in Libya, were a rogue element .... The remaining members of SNC Lavalin’s executive and its Board of Directors were not aware of the transgressions”. Seriously? It was done such that it was hard to understand? They shouldn’t be allowed to manage a hot-dog stand, in that case. Besides, says he, SNC has admitted its failings, canned the miscreants, and promised to behave. So, there. Plus, don’t we realize what dire consequences would befall the economy, were SNC to be found guilty of these crimes? As he sees it: “The AG willfully got it wrong”. As I see it, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As proper stewards, the Executive and the Board of SNC had to know what was going on. Over a hundred million dollars is not spent without somebody, on the Executive, having to explain to the rest and, ultimately to the Board, what the payments were for. If the Crown has solid evidence, then they should go forward against the company, not just some “rogue”. If SNC is found guilty of bribery and deprived of the right to bid on government contracts for years, that may serve as an example to all members of corporate Executives and Boards to take their responsibilities more seriously. Especially would that be the case, if SNC’s  Executive and Board, of that period, were to be fined and/or incarcerated for being complicit in the crime of bribery of a foreign public official.

Ronald Lefebvre

Aylmer