Connect with us

Opinion

UPDATED: SNC Lavalin – Just the Facts Ma’am

Published

10 minute read

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

CEO | Director CGL Tax Professional Corporation With the Income Tax Act always by his side on his smart-phone, Cory has taken tax-nerd to a whole other level. His background in strategic planning, tax-efficient corporate reorganizations, business management, and financial planning bring a well-rounded approach to assist private corporations and their owners increase their wealth through the strategies that work best for them. An entrepreneur himself, Cory started CGL with the idea that he wanted to help clients adapt to the ever-changing tax and economic environment and increase their wealth through optimizing the use of tax legislation coupled with strategic business planning and financial analysis. His relaxed blue-collar approach in a traditionally white-collar industry can raise a few eyebrows, but in his own words: “People don’t pay me for my looks. My modeling career ended at birth.” More info: https://CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

Follow Author

Automotive

The EV ‘Bloodbath’ Arrives Early

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

 

Ever since March 16, when presidential candidate Donald Trump created a controversy by predicting President Joe Biden’s efforts to force Americans to convert their lives to electric-vehicle (EV) lifestyles would end in a “bloodbath” for the U.S. auto industry, the industry’s own disastrous results have consistently proven him accurate.

The latest example came this week when Ford Motor Company reported that it had somehow managed to lose $132,000 per unit sold during Q1 2024 in its Model e EV division. The disastrous first quarter results follow the equally disastrous results for 2023, when the company said it lost $4.7 billion in Model e for the full 12-month period.

While the company has remained profitable overall thanks to strong demand for its legacy internal combustion SUV, pickup, and heavy vehicle models, the string of major losses in its EV line led the company to announce a shift in strategic vision in early April. Ford CEO Jim Farley said then that the company would delay the introduction of additional planned all-electric models and scale back production of current models like the F-150 Lightning pickup while refocusing efforts on introducing new hybrid models across its business line.

General Motors reported it had good overall Q1 results, but they were based on strong sales of its gas-powered SUV and truck models, not its EVs. GM is so gun-shy about reporting EV-specific results that it doesn’t break them out in its quarterly reports, so there is no way of knowing what the real bottom line amounts to from that part of the business. This is possibly a practice Ford should consider adopting.

After reporting its own disappointing Q1 results in which adjusted earnings collapsed by 48% and deliveries dropped by 20% from the previous quarter, Tesla announced it is laying off 10 percent of its global workforce, including 2,688 employees at its Austin plant, where its vaunted Cybertruck is manufactured. Since its introduction in November, the Cybertruck has been beset by buyer complaints ranging from breakdowns within minutes after taking delivery, to its $3,000 camping tent feature failing to deploy, to an incident in which one buyer complained his vehicle shut down for 5 hours after he failed to put the truck in “carwash mode” before running it through a local car wash.

Meanwhile, international auto rental company Hertz is now fire selling its own fleet of Teslas and other EV models in its efforts to salvage a little final value from what is turning out to be a disastrous EV gamble. In a giant fit of green virtue-signaling, the company invested whole hog into the Biden subsidy program in 2021 with a mass purchase of as many as 100,000 Teslas and 50,000 Polestar models, only to find that customer demand for renting electric cars was as tepid as demand to buy them outright. For its troubles, Hertz reported it had lost $392 million during Q1, attributing $195 million of the loss to its EV struggles. Hertz’s share price plummeted by about 20% on April 25, and was down by 55% for the year.

If all this financial carnage does not yet constitute a “bloodbath” for the U.S. EV sector, it is difficult to imagine what would. But wait: It really isn’t all that hard to imagine at all, is it? When he used that term back in March, Trump was referring not just to the ruinous Biden subsidy program, but also to plans by China to establish an EV-manufacturing beachhead in Mexico, from which it would be able to flood the U.S. market with its cheap but high-quality electric models. That would definitely cause an already disastrous domestic EV market to get even worse, wouldn’t it?

The bottom line here is that it is becoming obvious even to ardent EV fans that US consumer demand for EVs has reached a peak long before the industry and government expected it would.

It’s a bit of a perfect storm, one that rent-seeking company executives and obliging policymakers brought upon themselves. Given that this outcome was highly predictable, with so many warning that it was in fact inevitable, a reckoning from investors and corporate boards and voters will soon come due. It could become a bloodbath of its own, and perhaps it should.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

conflict

Col. Douglas Macgregor torches Trump over support for bill funding wars in Ukraine and Israel

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

” He’s essentially throwing his principles overboard and his supporters under the bus.

If I were working for him right now and he were president I would have advised him under no circumstances to support the bill and instead focus our attention on the on the borders of the United States [and] restoring the rule of law. “

With another interview appearance, retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor has warned the United States is no longer in control of the wars it continues to fund, against overwhelming public opposition.

According to Macgregor and host Clayton Morris, a former Fox News anchor, “70 percent of the American people” now oppose sending money to fund wars present and future in Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

What is more, Macgregor says that given Donald Trump’s “catastrophically stupid” support of the $95 billion funding bill passed by Congress on April 20, if he were working for Trump now he “would have to resign.”

Speaking of Trump’s approval for the bill, Macgregor said, “What he did… is essentially align himself with the money pigs in Washington who were interested in everything other than the American people.”

Macgregor’s verdict on Trump was damning:

He’s essentially throwing his principles overboard and his supporters under the bus.

If I were working for him right now and he were president I would have advised him under no circumstances to support the bill and instead focus our attention on the on the borders of the United States [and] restoring the rule of law.

So why did Trump go ahead and endorse billions more for two wars which are widely acknowledged as having been disastrous – if not genocidal – failures?

“I think Mr. Trump wants desperately to be president,” explained Macgregor. “So, he is turning to everyone and anyone who has money willing to support him and will promise to do so – whatever they’re asking.”

The retired colonel is the CEO of Our Country, Our Choice, an organization which appeals to Americans “to come together to save America.” It’s motto is “Truth sets you free,” echoing the Christian roots of the American dream which is, according to Macgregor, verging on becoming a nightmare.

Instead of supporting the funding bill, Macgregor says Trump “should have stood with the 21 members” of Congress who opposed it because, “quite frankly, most of America stands with those 21 members.”

Macgregor is aware that this is about political power, not the interests of the people – whether they be in the U.S. or in Ukraine. He is practically alone in noting that throughout the proxy war, the Ukrainian people seldom get a mention.

“No one expresses any interest in what’s happened to the Ukrainian people,” he said, before citing the horrendous toll of deaths and injuries which has devastated the Ukrainian populace.

“Ukrainians are exhausted. They’re tired of this war. They’ve lost now, we think, 600,000 dead and another million or two wounded.”

Added to these sobering figures is the fact that much of the surviving population has fled.

“Millions have left. The country is destroyed. It desperately needs peace.”

As the Washington Post claimed last December, up to “90 percent” of the money given in “aid” stays in the U.S. anyway. On April 21, the U.K.’s Financial Times concluded that the aid package “would not stop Russia.” On April 23, it reported that Ukraine now “pressures draft-age men abroad to join the war effort,” following a Politico report of last month titled “Draft-dodging plagues Ukraine as Kyiv faces acute soldier shortage.” The report cites the BBC in claiming up to “650,000 military aged men have fled the country” in the past two years, despite a law forbidding them to do so.

Former humanitarian volunteer and Catholic convert Ryan Miller told LifeSiteNews last month of how human traffickers operate freely on the Ukrainian border, preying on women and children separated by this law from their husbands and fathers.

This news portrays a grim reality behind the Ukraine flag-waving seen on the United States House floor. It is a narrative of ugly truths supporting Macgregor’s assessment of a war he has consistently claimed could never have been won. Against the notion that America must “stop Putin,” he said:

We’ve never had any option other than to accept his [Putin’s] victory because, as we said from the very beginning, Ukraine had no more chance against Russia than Mexico would have against us in the United States.

The second war funded in this package has, according to Israeli media, already ended in “total defeat.”

Israeli newspaper Haaretz published this story on April 11, “Saying What Can’t Be Said: Israel Has Been Defeated – a Total Defeat”

The story by Chaim Levinson displayed a remarkable level of candor.

“The war’s aims won’t be achieved, the hostages won’t be returned through military pressure, security won’t be restored and Israel’s international ostracism won’t end.”

Macgregor shares this assessment, which he couples with a warning that “Biden is not in control” of events in the Middle East, and neither is the U.S. “Mr. Netanyahu is in control. And he cannot back down. If he does not escalate, he is finished.”

Macgregor warns that the “world has turned against Israel, we are increasingly isolated, but we are not in control. Mr. Netanyahu owns us. What do we do?”

Macgregor stressed that U.S. backing for Netanyahu is the result of his having more influence in the U.S. government than the president. This means, in effect, that the U.S. is funding a man whose only option is to escalate to war with Iran.

“Mr. Netanyahu is in a difficult position,” explains Macgregor, “we can’t help him. All we can do is tell him to back down. He can’t back down.”

“Netanyahu has to escalate or he’s finished. So I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the Israeli-Iranian confrontation.”

Warning that Netanyahu is likely going to “kill women, children, and men with no connection to Hamas in Gaza’s Rafah area,” he foresees a real potential for the outbreak of a major regional war involving the U.S.

I don’t think we’ve even seen the beginnings of what could happen in the region because, if anything, we’re seeing more and more and more solidarity across national lines inside the Muslim world.

As this develops, Macgregor claims even the Western military alliance is leaderless:

NATO is essentially a battleship with no one on the bridge and engines that don’t power the ship anymore. It’s adrift.

He says in previous years the “stupid comments” of French President Emmanuel Macron to threaten to send French troops to Ukraine would have been unimaginable. Responding to claims that French and American soldiers are now on the ground in Odessa in Ukraine, he replied, “A Russian this morning contacted me… and said that he sees no French or American troops in Odessa.”

His relief at this news was tempered by a stern reminder that such an action would lead to a U.S. war with Russia, which has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth.

I sincerely hope that that condition does not change. If it does, then I think the Russians will accelerate all of their movements and we will find ourselves at war with Russia unnecessarily.

He asks, “For what particular purpose?”

The direct funding of two major flashpoints for a global war left the host, Clayton Morris, unable to explain Trump’s support of the move.

“This rises to the level of coming out and supporting the COVID vaccines,” he said, speaking of Trump’s recent praise for the mRNA injections.

“I think there was a lot of MAGA Republicans who said ‘Wait a second – did Trump just praise COVID vacc [sic] – wait did I hear that right?’”

The news of Trump’s backing for the war funding has left Morris equally baffled, as he quoted Trump’s recent comments:

In the same week [Trump] says we’ve spent 7 to 9 trillion dollars on boondoggle wars in the Middle East… where we have blood on our hands… we’ve got nothing but blood and misery, we should have never supported those Wars.

He added, “and then four days later… supporting speaker Johnson supporting all of this money to Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan? I just can’t wrap my head around it.”

For Colonel Macgregor, this is a decision which will follow Trump long into the future.

“So we have to be realistic about this whole business. He’s let a lot of people down. I think it will come back to haunt him.”

The dangerous business of funding death no longer haunts only the politicians – like Trump and Netanyahu – who rely on it to secure their power. If Macgregor is right, the world may be engulfed in a nuclear war as a result of these bargains with the devil.

Continue Reading

Trending

X