News
SNC Lavalin – Just the Facts Ma’am
Opinion by Cory Litizenberger
Let’s take emotion out of it. Let’s take a look at the legislation. While I am not a lawyer, I do interpret tax legislation for a living, and so I decided to take a closer look at the criminal legislation pertaining to the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
The relevant legislation is in 《parentheses》below, but here is the Coles notes:
FACT – in 2015 SNC was charged by the RCMP under Section 3 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act
《3 (1) Every person commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain an advantage in the course of business, directly or indirectly gives, offers or agrees to give or offer a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind to a foreign public official or to any person for the benefit of a foreign public official
(a) as consideration for an act or omission by the official in connection with the performance of the official’s duties or functions; or
(b) to induce the official to use his or her position to influence any acts or decisions of the foreign state or public international organization for which the official performs duties or functions.》
FACT – In 2015, the RCMP charged SNC-Lavalin, along with its international division, with corruption and fraud in relation with their business dealings in Libya. The RCMP said officials at the company attempted to bribe several public officials in the country, including dictator Moammar Gadhafi, as well as other businesses in Libya.
FACT – The prosecutor is allowed to enter into a remediation agreement under Section 715.32 of the Criminal Code of Canada , if ALL conditions are met under 715.32(1).
《715.32 (1) The prosecutor may enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement with an organization alleged to have committed an offence if the following conditions are met:
(a) the prosecutor is of the opinion that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence;
(b) the prosecutor is of the opinion that the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence did not cause and was not likely to have caused serious bodily harm or death, or injury to national defence or national security, and was not committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization or terrorist group;
(c) the prosecutor is of the opinion that negotiating the agreement is in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances; and
(d) the Attorney General has consented to the negotiation of the agreement.》
FACT – for the prosecutor to evaluate their public interest opinion, they must consider subsection 715.32(2) in its entirety which includes many relevant pieces of information except when 715.32(3) overrides it
《 Factors to consider
715.32(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the prosecutor must consider the following factors:
[(a) to (h)]; and
(i) any other factor that the prosecutor considers relevant.》
FACT – 715.32(3) says even with all those factors to consider, you can NOT factor in the national economic interest (ie: the jobs argument) if they were charged the way the RCMP charged them
《Factors not to consider
715.32(3) Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved.》
CONCLUSION – the jobs argument is irrelevant under the law in these circumstances – The prosecution knows this – The former Attorney General knows this – and based on the provisions as written, the jobs argument for SNC does not meet the legal requirement for a remediation agreement.
For these reasons, I find in favour of the former Attorney General.
— — — —
Update: While being interviewed on the afternoon of March 7, 2019, I looked even closer at the legislation and caught something I didn’t realize on first glance when reading it.
Notice at the end of 715.32(1)(c) the word “and”.
While I said this means that all of the tests in (a) through (d) must be met, I neglected to say that this means no one person has the sole final decision. The prosecutor is mentioned in (a), (b), and (c); while the Attorney General is only mentioned in (d).
To put another way, this law is written so that it is not solely the decision of the Attorney General, nor the prosecutor. Rather, it requires both the Attorney General and the Prosecutor to agree to proceed with negotiations.
Similar to a scene in the movies where you see nuclear codes kept between two different military heads before proceeding with the launch, such is the wording of this provision.
This means that the Attorney General does not have the final decision and so any suggestion that she does is incorrect. The decision is a joint one with most of the leg work having to be done by the prosecutor, not the Attorney General.
So let me recap: I think it is quite simple, that a Remediation Agreement (aka Deferred Prosecution Agreement) cannot be considered under the “national economic interest” (jobs) argument based on what legislation the RCMP used for the charges.
If that’s the argument, then the answer is “no” and the repeated number of times asking for the former Attorney General to revisit it over a four month period for something that appears so black and white might be considered workplace harassment if I were to do such a thing to one of my colleagues.
So, since the economic argument is moot, what other argument is there?
We heard in testimony that the parties may have wanted the Attorney General to look at it from a stance that does not imply economic interest.
Ironically, “we need to win an election” may actually be legal as “any other factor that the prosecutor considers relevant” but then we would have to assume the prosecutor would have to be partisan, and that is highly not likely in my experience.
So we now know that there must be an agreement between the prosecutor and the Attorney General.
We also know that “economic interest” cannot be the reason under the law.
So, if the law is that clear on economic interest, why would the Attorney General be asked repeatedly for reconsideration, unless it was not “economic interest” they wanted her to consider?
For these additional reasons, I still find in favour of the former Attorney General
—
Click to listen to Red Deer Accountant Cory Litzenberger on Charles Adler Tonight
Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr is the President & Founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors; you can find out more about Cory’s biography at http://www.CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html
NEERA TANDEN: “The military requires accountability. It’s the most accountable organization. You are supposed to be accountable to higher-ups. Politics isn’t supposed to have to do with any of this, and the fact that that’s happening, that they’re just basically saying nothing to do here, is a big problem, I think, for those who believe in accountability.”
@ScottJenningsKY: “I think Republicans aren’t interested in any lectures on accountability in the military after the Biden administration. I mean, the bar for getting rid of a Secretary of Defense is apparently pretty high. You can get 13 people killed and go AWOL and not tell the commander in chief, and that’s not a fireable offense.”
“But these lectures about accountability and national security after letting 10 million people into the country who raped and murdered and committed violent acts and no remorse or accountability.”
NEERA TANDEN: “What are you talking about? They closed the border.”
#4 – Bill Gates says we won’t need humans “for most things.”
During an appearance on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon asked Gates a pretty direct question: “Will we still need humans?”
Gates responded, “Not for most things. We’ll decide … There will be some things that we reserve for ourselves, but in terms of making things and moving things and growing food, over time those will be basically solved problems.”
VIDEO: @TheChiefNerd
REP JORDAN: “Is NPR biased?”
MAHER: “I have never seen any political bias.”
JORDAN: “In the DC area, editorial positions at NPR have 87 registered Democrats and 0 Republicans.”
MAHER: “We do not track the voter registration, but I find that concerning.”
JORDAN: “87-0 and you’re not biased?”
MAHER: “I think that is concerning if those numbers are accurate.”
JORDAN: “October 2020, the NYPost had the Hunter Biden laptop story, and one of those 87 Democrat editors said, ‘We don’t want to waste our readers and listeners’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.’ Was that story a pure distraction?”
Video + Transcript via @Kanekoathegreat
While you’re here, don’t forget to subscribe to this page for more weekly news roundups.
#2 – Utah becomes the first state to officially BAN fluoride in all public drinking water.
For decades, fluoride was accepted as a safe way to prevent tooth decay. Few questioned it.
But last year, in a dramatic legal twist, a federal judge ruled that fluoride may actually lower children’s IQ—and cited evidence that could upend everything we thought we knew.
That ruling sent shockwaves through the public health world.
Judge Edward Chen pointed to scientific studies showing a “high level of certainty” that fluoride exposure “poses a risk” to developing brains.
He ordered the EPA to reexamine its safety standards, warning that the margin for safety may be far too narrow.
At the center of the case: dozens of peer-reviewed studies linking everyday fluoride exposure—even at levels found in U.S. tap water—to reduced intellectual capacity in children.
It wasn’t just one paper. The National Toxicology Program, a branch of the U.S. government, also concluded that higher fluoride levels were “consistently associated” with lower IQ in kids.
They flagged 1.5 mg/L as a risk threshold. Some communities hover right near it.
In response to the growing evidence, Utah passed HB 81, banning all fluoride additives in public water.
The law takes effect May 7. It doesn’t ban fluoride completely. Anyone who wants it can still get it—like any other prescription.
And that’s the point: Utah’s lawmakers say this is about informed consent and personal choice.
This issue is no longer on the fringe. Across the country, cities and towns are quietly rethinking water fluoridation—and some have already pulled out. Utah is the first state to take bold action. It may not be the last.
The conversation surrounding fluoride has shifted from “Is it helpful?” to “Is it safe?” And for the first time in nearly a century, that question is being taken seriously.
VIDEO: @TheChiefNerd
#1 – RFK Jr. Drops Stunning Vaccine Announcement
Kennedy revealed that the CDC is creating a new sub-agency focused entirely on vaccine injuries—a long-overdue shift for patients who’ve spent years searching for answers without any support from the government.
“We’re incorporating an agency within CDC that is going to specialize in vaccine injuries,” Kennedy announced.
“These are priorities for the American people. More and more people are suffering from these injuries, and we are committed to having gold-standard science make sure that we can figure out what the treatments are and that we can deliver the best treatments possible to the American people.”
For years, the vaccine-injured have felt ignored or dismissed, as public health agencies refused to even acknowledge the problem. Now, there’s finally an initiative underway to investigate their injuries and to provide support.
Thanks for reading! This weekly roundup takes time and care to put together—and I do my best to make it your go-to source for the stories that matter most but rarely get the attention they deserve.
If you like my work and want to support me and my family and help keep this page alive, the most powerful thing you can do is sign up for the email list and become a paid subscriber.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Hailey Gomez
Special Adviser for the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) Kari Lake announced Friday that Voice of America (VOA) will terminate its contracts with The Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse.
VOA, an international broadcasting state media network, is funded by USAGM, with former President Joe Biden requesting in March 2024 a budget increase for the 2025 fiscal year to further support the radio network. In an X post on Friday, Lake announced USAGM will end its “expensive and unnecessary newswire contracts,” adding that some of the major agreements included “tens-of-millions of dollars in contracts” with AP News, Reuters and Agence France-Presse.
“USAGM is an American taxpayer funded News Organization with an 83-year history. We should not be paying outside news companies to tell us what the news is—with nearly a billion-dollar budget, we should be producing news ourselves,” Lake wrote. “And if that’s not possible, the American taxpayer should demand to know why.”
During a meeting with VOA staffers Friday, employees were reportedly told to “stop using wire service material for their reports,” according to Newsmax. Notably, audio, video, and text reports have often been used to supplement coverage from locations where reporters are not present, the outlet reported.
In an interview with Newsmax prior to the official contract cuts, Lake discussed how the agency was finding “a lot of nonsense that the American taxpayer shouldn’t be paying for.”
“Today, I started the process of terminating the agency’s contracts with the Associated Press, Reuters, & the Agence France-Presse. This will save taxpayers about 53 million dollars. The purpose of our agency is to tell the American story. We don’t need to outsource that responsibility to anyone else,” Lake wrote in an X post regarding the interview.
Disputes between The AP and the White House began in February after the corporate media outlet was revoked press access for refusing to call the Gulf of America by its new name. The AP filed a lawsuit on Feb. 21 against White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich for injunctive relief.
Lake was sworn in as USAGM’s special adviser on March 3, saying she’s “looking forward” to serving America and “streamlining” the agency. The cuts from the agency follow President Donald Trump’s push for his second administration to review the government’s wasteful spending.
The High Cost Of Continued Western Canadian Alienation
DOGE discovered $330M in Small Business loans awarded to children under 11
Possible Criminal Charges for US Institute for Peace Officials who barricade office in effort to thwart DOGE
Dr. Pierre Kory Exposes the Truth About the Texas ‘Measles Death’ Hoax
Apple faces proposed class action over its lag in Apple Intelligence
Pope Francis appears frail as he returns to Vatican following 38-day hospital stay
Poilievre refuses to bash Trump via trick question, says it’s possible to work with him and be ‘firm’
-
Alberta2 days agoProvince announces plans for nine new ‘urgent care centres’ – redirecting 200,000 hospital visits
-
Health2 days agoArkansas approves ivermectin for purchase without prescription
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoDonald Trump suggests Mark Carney will win Canadian election, touts ‘productive call’ with leader
-
Business2 days agoElon Musk, DOGE officials reveal ‘astonishing’ government waste, fraud in viral interview
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoNext federal government should recognize Alberta’s important role in the federation
-
Health2 days agoRFK Jr. says ‘everything is going to change’ with CDC vaccine policy in Michael Knowles interview
-
Economy1 day agoClearing the Path: Why Canada Needs Energy Corridors to Compete
-
Business2 days agoLabor Department cancels “America Last” spending spree spanning five continents