Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

News

SNC Lavalin – Just the Facts Ma’am

Published

6 years ago

9 minute read

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

Related Topics:

Todayville is an independently-owned digital media company. We specialize in helping community groups, local businesses and organizations tell their story. Our team has years of media and video production experience. Talk to us about advertising, brand journalism stories, opinion pieces, event promotion, or other ideas you have to make our product better. We also own and operate Todayville Red Deer and Todayville Calgary.

Follow Author

More from this author
Community / 5 months ago

New Documentary “Cooking with Hot Stones” Explores History of Fort Assiniboine, Alberta

Alberta / 2 years ago

Alberta’s environmental leaders recognized

Community / 2 years ago

Family Day fun in City Hall & Churchill Square

International

CBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview

Published on July 2, 2025

By

MXM logo MxM News

CBS will pay Donald Trump more than $30 million to settle a lawsuit over a 2024 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. The deal also includes a new rule requiring unedited transcripts of future candidate interviews.

Key Details:

  • Trump will receive $16 million immediately to cover legal costs, with remaining funds earmarked for pro-conservative messaging and future causes, including his presidential library.
  • CBS agreed to release full, unedited transcripts of all future presidential candidate interviews—a policy insiders are calling the “Trump Rule.”
  • Trump’s lawsuit accused CBS of deceptively editing a 60 Minutes interview with Harris in 2024 to protect her ahead of the election; the FCC later obtained the full transcript after a complaint was filed.

Diving Deeper:

CBS and Paramount Global have agreed to pay President Donald Trump more than $30 million to settle a lawsuit over a 2024 60 Minutes interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris, Fox News Digital reported Tuesday. Trump accused the network of election interference, saying CBS selectively edited Harris to shield her from backlash in the final stretch of the campaign.

The settlement includes a $16 million upfront payment to cover legal expenses and other discretionary uses, including funding for Trump’s future presidential library. Additional funds—expected to push the total package well above $30 million—will support conservative-aligned messaging such as advertisements and public service announcements.

As part of the deal, CBS also agreed to a new editorial policy mandating the public release of full, unedited transcripts of any future interviews with presidential candidates. The internal nickname for the new rule is reportedly the “Trump Rule.”

Trump initially sought $20 billion in damages, citing a Face the Nation preview that aired Harris’s rambling response to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That portion of the interview was widely mocked. A more polished answer was aired separately during a primetime 60 Minutes special, prompting allegations that CBS intentionally split Harris’s answer to minimize political fallout.

The FCC later ordered CBS to release the full transcript and raw footage after a complaint was filed. The materials confirmed that both versions came from the same response—cut in half across different broadcasts.

CBS denied wrongdoing but the fallout rocked the network. 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned in April after losing control over editorial decisions. CBS News President Wendy McMahon also stepped down in May, saying the company’s direction no longer aligned with her own.

Several CBS veterans strongly opposed any settlement. “The unanimous view at 60 Minutes is that there should be no settlement, and no money paid, because the lawsuit is complete bulls***,” one producer told Fox News Digital. Correspondent Scott Pelley had warned that settling would be “very damaging” to the network’s reputation.

The final agreement includes no admission of guilt and no direct personal payment to Trump—but it locks in a substantial cash payout and forces a new standard for transparency in how networks handle presidential interviews.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Watch As Tucker Carlson And Glenn Greenwald Get A Good Laugh Over CNN Pretending Biden’s Decline Is Breaking News

Published on May 30, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

During a podcast Friday, Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson and independent journalist Glenn Greenwald couldn’t stop laughing over CNN’s sudden realization of former President Joe Biden’s mental decline.

CNN’s Jake Tapper along with Axios’ Alex Thompson released their book, “Original Sin,” on May 20, which details Biden’s cognitive slide over the last four years — a concern Republicans had raised even before the 2020 election. While appearing on “The Tucker Carlson Show,” Carlson joked that Greenwald had been “scooped” by CNN on Biden’s mental fitness.

“So you are, I think, the dean of alternative media. You’ve been doing this longer than anybody that I know personally. So it must be a little weird to get scooped by CNN on Joe Biden’s dementia, like you had no idea,” Carlson said. “None of us knew.”

“None of us knew,” Greenwald teased. ” There was that debate, and we were all shocked, but we were told he had a cold. So I was like, ‘OK, he’s on some cold medication. Who hasn’t been there before? It makes you a little dragged, a little groggy, a little just like dragged.’ But no, now Jake Tapper has uncovered the truth. It turns out Joe Biden was in cognitive decline.”

Sources told Tapper and Thompson that Biden’s mental fitness had declined rapidly during his time as president, with his mental state becoming so severe at one point that aides discussed putting him in a wheelchair.

WATCH:

Tapper has faced pushback from both Democrats and Republicans over the timing of his book and the revelations it includes. The CNN host has long defended the former president.

Carlson went on to joke with Greenwald about how he believed Tapper gathered the material for the book.

“Just a hardcore shoe leather investigative reporting,” Greenwald joked. “He’s working his sources, calling all the people in Washington, digging up FOIA documents.”

“It’s one of those things where you kind of can’t believe what you’re witnessing because Jake Tapper is pretending to have uncovered a scandal that he himself led the way in the media, or one of the leaders in the media, in covering up,” Greenwald added. “To the point where if somebody would go on his show and say ‘Joe Biden is obviously in cognitive decline.’ He would say ‘How dare you bully kids who stutter?’”

Greenwald went on to reference how Tapper had accused President Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, of “mocking” the former president over his stutter during a 2020 interview.

Despite Lara Trump pointing to what she believed were signs of Biden’s problems, Tapper dismissed her remarks at the time, saying she had “no standing to diagnose somebody’s cognitive decline.”

In addition to Lara Trump, Tapper also dismissed former Democratic presidential candidate Dean Phillips during a 2024 interview after Phillips expressed his “concerns” about Biden running for a second term.

“Obviously, he wanted Biden to win desperately and would not tolerate anyone going on the show and saying that Biden was in cognitive decline,” Greenwald said. “Now he’s making millions of dollars off a book.”

Following the media coverage of Tapper’s and Thompson’s book, Biden appeared to tell reporters on Friday he could “beat the hell out of” the two journalists.

Continue Reading

Trending

X