,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
The head of SNC-Lavalin spoke with @BNNBloomberg's @amberkanwar today. I wrote up his comments below.
Some highlights:
(thread)
Some highlights:
(thread)
He said a couple things that could be misinterpreted.
"I've never talked to the prime minister about the DPA or about jobs" -- but he did talk with PMO staff, and wrote a letter to the PM.
"We've never asked for charges to be dropped." (Not the same as seeking a DPA).
"I've never talked to the prime minister about the DPA or about jobs" -- but he did talk with PMO staff, and wrote a letter to the PM.
"We've never asked for charges to be dropped." (Not the same as seeking a DPA).
He said he never threatened to move the company. "This is where we want to be, in terms of our base." ("Base" seems key there.)
I mean, judge for yourself, where they once said they need a DPA to "flourish and grow in Quebec and Canada." snclavalin.com/en/media/artic…
I mean, judge for yourself, where they once said they need a DPA to "flourish and grow in Quebec and Canada." snclavalin.com/en/media/artic…
So they might not move the HQ -- but may "dial down" still.
“We’re a global company, we’ve got over 50,000 people. We can dial up, dial down, where we work. And if we are not in a position to do federal contracts, then that’s really clear. We don’t do that, we do something else”
“We’re a global company, we’ve got over 50,000 people. We can dial up, dial down, where we work. And if we are not in a position to do federal contracts, then that’s really clear. We don’t do that, we do something else”
He warned of job losses, saying the company had 20,000 Canadian staff in 2012 and is already down to around 9,000.
``If we can't put some of this behind us, it's highly likely that we'll have less.''
``If we can't put some of this behind us, it's highly likely that we'll have less.''
He thinks the prosecutors should go after executives, rather than the company. ``You need to pursue the people responsible and you need to protect the innocents," like workers, he said. (He also mentioned shareholders.)
He hit this point a lot -- why bash the company, and not the people, he asked. "Justice is upside down on this."
He fundamentally thinks, or wants people to think he thinks, that this is all just silly election-year stuff.
``It's politics, it's politics, it's not actually anything to do with us. We've gone through the right channels, we've been really transparent and we've been clear."
``It's politics, it's politics, it's not actually anything to do with us. We've gone through the right channels, we've been really transparent and we've been clear."
He talked about meeting Andrew Scheer. ``He seemed pro-business and seemed supportive, so I'm sort of puzzled by the reaction.''
Going forward, he made it clear he still prefers a DPA, and that the court case could take another 3 or 4 years. He was frustrated by how long this stuff says. He says SNC is paying the price already without a verdict.
"We believe that we've met the criteria" for a DPA, he said.
"We believe that we've met the criteria" for a DPA, he said.
He also says they haven't been approached recently about a takeover, but that it's ``always a possibility,'' that the company is looking at "every single option," including spinning off part of the business, and that "the company is undervalued."
Add it all together, and it was a guy basically saying: hey, we admitted the wrongdoing; why is it that we're still the whipping boy when execs are walking free; we want to put this behind us; it'd be bad for everyone if we can't; and a lot of the crisis is simply politics.
