https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-more-than-half-of-canadians-say-charges-against-snc-lavalin-should-go/
Canadians clearly don't care about jobs.
Of course. "Too big to fail"/"Too big to jail" are wildly unpopular narratives, and those are essentially Trudeau's rationales for not dropping the ban-hammer on SNC-Lavalin.
SNC CEO Neal Bruce hasn't exactly charmed people either, delightful Scottish accent notwithstanding. His comments smack of an air of entitlement-- they feel
entitled to a deferred prosecution agreement-- which is a pretty galling attitude for a guy running a company with such a disgraceful track record. "That was all before 2012! It was all the work of a few rogue executives who are no longer with the company! It's not the company's fault that a few rogue executives broke the law! We've put in place a new ethics program!" The company's conduct in this Libya business and a number of other instances, such as the McGill hospital bid, was just shameful. Nobody likes the idea of letting them off the hook for it. When you have such a number of notable ethics violation in such a short span of time, what you have isn't "a few rogue executives", what you have is a cultural problem. Despite paying lip service to the idea that "what happened before 2012 should never have happened", Mr Bruce and SNC take no ownership of it and show no contrition for it. This kind of arrogance and entitlement from a profligate serial offender rubs people the wrong way, to say the least.
I think people are also not convinced that these jobs will just evaporate. The work will be done whether it's by SNC or by other companies, and those other companies will need employees to do the work that SNC won't be able to bid. And maybe competitors who've lost bids because of SNC corruption deserve to make some money while SNC sits in the penalty box. People talk as if SNC is the only engineering company in Canada or the only one in Quebec, but it isn't. There are many, including Montreal-based WSP, which is almost as large as SNC. SNC's competitors have been cheated by SNC corruption. Where's the justice for them?
I also think people aren't swayed by the "what about investors?" argument. Investors have known for years that they own shares in a corrupt company. Investors profited directly from said corruption. If they still own shares in spite of the numerous publicly known scandals SNC has been involved in, they deserve to take a hit. In hanging on to those shares, they've gambled that SNC could escape financial consequences of their misdeeds, and I don't feel much sympathy for people who gamble and lose.
-k