Opinion
UPDATED: SNC Lavalin – Just the Facts Ma’am
Opinion by Cory Litzenberger
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
—
Update #2: On March 8, 2019, the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Public Prosecution Service on SNC Lavalin’s request for judicial review citing:
“The law is clear that prosecutorial discretion is not subject to judicial review, except for abuse of process.” – Federal Court of Canada Justice Kane
Then, on March 11, 2019, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) came to the same conclusion as my interpretation of the law regarding the intention of the 1999 agreement, and said:
“political factors such as a country’s national economic interest and the identity of the alleged perpetrators must not influence foreign bribery investigations and prosecutions.” – OECD
We now have confirmation that there is no legal way that a country’s national economic interest can be considered under the law.
For these additional reasons, jurisprudence about the authority of the Public Prosecution Service, and third party reports about the intentions of the 1999 agreement from the OECD, I still find in favour of the former Attorney General for a third time.
—
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
$3.97 BILLION Cut From Veterans Affairs. Cannabis Benefits Slashed. Hypocrisy in Full Bloom.
They’re quietly dismantling the only lifeline veterans have left. The federal government just carved $3.97 billion out of Veterans Affairs Canada’s budget.
That’s not trimming fat, that’s cutting into the bone and burning the body.
And as if that weren’t disgusting enough, they’re also slashing medical cannabis reimbursements for veterans from $8.50 down to $6.00 per gram.
Kelsi Sheren is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The same medicine that’s keeping thousands of veterans alive through PTSD, chronic pain, and TBI recovery gutted by bureaucrats who’ve never had to bury a friend who lost the battle at home.
I testified in Canada’s first veteran suicide study and I warned them. I sat in front of Parliament and told them this would happen. I told them this LAST WEEK. I told them veterans were being failed by their own government ignored, delayed, and dismissed until they broke.
The study exposed it the chronic failure of the liberal veteran system. Suicide rates among veterans were higher than the national average. VAC systems were drowning in paperwork and apathy. Those who found stability through medical cannabis were finally regaining their lives.
So what did this government do with that data?
They buried it then cut the funding anyway.
This isn’t mismanagement. It’s betrayal with a signature and a smile while they wear a poppy and pretend to smile for photo ops. Jill McKnight and Mark Carney need to be held accountable for this. Canadians will DIE. Make no mistake.
This week, cannabis providers like MyMedi.ca confirmed what Ottawa buried in bureaucratic language:
“The Federal Government released its potential new budget, which includes a proposed policy change reducing the Veterans Affairs Canada reimbursement rate for medical cannabis from $8.50 per gram to $6.00 per gram.”
That’s a 30% cut to a life-saving medicine. It forces veterans to downgrade their treatment or pay out of pocket, the empty pockets that is. Standing in food bank lines and now having to find medicine on the black market to be able to function.
To justify it, the Liberals cited “declining market prices.” Let’s get one thing straight, recreational weed is not medical cannabis.
Medical cannabis is pharmaceutical-grade regulated for purity, potency, and consistency. It’s prescribed by doctors, not dealers. It’s the difference between numbing your pain and healing from it. Cutting that is like telling a diabetic to use cheaper insulin or less of it because the government found a “better price.”
It’s criminal, make no mistake.
Every November, the liberal government stands at podiums wrapped in poppies, preaching about “honouring our heroes.”
Then, when the cameras turn off, they quietly gut the budget that keeps those heroes alive.
They say they’re increasing “overall government spending” by $141 billion over the next five years. Yet they’re carving out $4 billion from the very department that’s supposed to prevent veteran suicide.
They can find billions for consultants, media subsidies, and overseas virtue projects but not to keep veterans from killing themselves. That’s not just hypocrisy. That’s moral rot and our government needs to be dismantled, held accountable and re built.
This is what corruption looks like, it’s just in polite Canadian form. There doesn’t need to be a bribe to call it corruption. Corruption is when a government pretends to care while quietly dismantling the systems that hold lives together.
Corruption is cutting medical support for veterans, then gaslighting the public with talk of “efficiency.” Corruption is using Remembrance Day for photo ops while veterans wait years for their disability claims.
Every one of these decisions sends a message – You were useful once. Now you’re expensive.
Every dollar cut equals blood on their hands and it will be your fault.
I will tell anyone who wants to join: don’t.
They will leave you to die, and step over your body to hand an immigrant your benefits the ones you fought your whole career for. This isn’t abstract. This isn’t about numbers on a spreadsheet. Every cut means, longer delays for mental health treatment. More vets turning to opioids or alcohol.
More suicides that could have been prevented. More suicides, MORE SUICIDES, MORE SUICIDES!!!
And when those suicides happen, the same politicians will stand at the next memorial and talk about “honour” while wearing crocodile tears.
Fucking liars.
Veterans aren’t asking for charity. We’re demanding the promises that were made.
If this government truly cared, they’d fund what works, not gut it. What they just did says everything. They’d protect cannabis access, streamline claims, fund the psychedelic assisted life saving therapy and actually listen to the data from the studies they commissioned.
Instead, they’re too busy protecting their image.
This isn’t about politics anymore. It’s about integrity. A country that forgets its warriors doesn’t deserve to be called free.
We fought for this land, bled for it, and came home to a system that’s now turning its back on us. No more quiet compliance. No more polite outrage.
Somewhere in this country a country that used to look and act like Canada a veteran won’t make it to morning.
A family will lose their loved one. Children will grow up without a parent. And the void they leave will never, ever be filled.
It won’t be because they were weak. Not because they didn’t try every minute of every day just to keep breathing.
It’ll be because a country that sent them to war and keeps sending kids to wars built on lies refused to bring them all the way home.
Canadians veterans are officially being left to die.
And the liberals are holding the knife.
KELSI SHEREN
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Support the show here! – Paypal – https://paypal.me/
Buy me a coffee! – https://buymeacoffee.com/
Subscribe, like and comment! Let’s connect!
Youtube – https://www.youtube.com/@
Substack: https://substack.com/@
TikTok – https://x.com/KelsiBurns
Listen on Spotify –
 |
The Kelsi Sheren Perspective
Kelsi Sheren Podcast |
Listen on Apple:
|
|
The Kelsi Sheren Perspective
Kelsi Sheren 310 episodes |
Censorship Industrial Complex
School Cannot Force Students To Use Preferred Pronouns, US Federal Court Rules
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
“Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”
A federal appeals court in Ohio ruled Thursday that students cannot be forced to use preferred pronouns in school.
Defending Education (DE) filed the suit against Olentangy Local School District (OLSD) in 2023, arguing the district’s anti-harassment policy that requires students to use the “preferred pronouns” of others violates students’ First Amendment rights by “compelling students to affirm beliefs about sex and gender that are contrary to their own deeply held beliefs.” Although a lower court attempted to shoot down the challenge, the appeals court ruled in a 10-7 decision that the school cannot “wield their authority to compel speech or demand silence from citizens who disagree with the regulators’ politically controversial preferred new form of grammar.”
Because the school considers transgender students to be a protected class, students who violated the anti-harassment policy by referring to such students by their biological sex risked punishments such as suspension and expulsion, according to DE.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“American history and tradition uphold the majority’s decision to strike down the school’s pronoun policy,” the court wrote in its opinion. “Over hundreds of years, grammar has developed in America without governmental interference. Consistent with our historical tradition and our cherished First Amendment, the pronoun debate must be won through individual persuasion, not government coercion. Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”
OLSD did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
“We are deeply gratified by the Sixth Circuit’s intensive analysis not only of our case but the state of student First Amendment rights in the modern era,” Nicole Neily, founder and president of DE, said in a statement. “The court’s decision – and its many concurrences – articulate the importance of free speech, the limits and perils of public schools claiming to act in loco parentis, and the critical role of persuasion – rather than coercion – in America’s public square.”
“Despite its ham-fisted attempt to moot the case, Olentangy School District was sternly reminded by the 6th circuit en banc court that it cannot force students to express a viewpoint on gender identity with which they disagree, nor extend its reach beyond the schoolhouse threshold into matters better suited to an exercise of parental authority,” Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at DE, said in a statement. “A resounding victory for student speech and parental rights was long overdue for families in the school district and we are thrilled the court’s ruling will benefit others seeking to vindicate their rights in the classroom and beyond.”
Danish Cows Collapsing Under Mandatory Methane-Reducing Additive
Bizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves
Canada’s heavy oil finds new fans as global demand rises
Alberta government’s plan will improve access to MRIs and CT scans
-
Business2 days agoCarney budget doubles down on Trudeau-era policies
-
espionage2 days agoU.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs
-
COVID-192 days agoCrown still working to put Lich and Barber in jail
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s Deficit Numbers Deserve Scrutiny After Trudeau’s Forecasting Failures
-
Business2 days agoCarney budget continues misguided ‘Build Canada Homes’ approach
-
International1 day agoKazakhstan joins Abraham Accords, Trump says more nations lining up for peace
-
armed forces18 hours agoIt’s time for Canada to remember, the heroes of Kapyong
-
Business1 day agoHere’s what pundits and analysts get wrong about the Carney government’s first budget