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
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.
“Early Tuesday, protesters chose to escalate to an alarming and untenable situation – including by vandalizing property, breaking doors and windows, blockading entrances, and forcing our facilities and public safety workers out – and we are responding appropriately”
Following weeks of tense standoffs between pro-Palestinian demonstrators leading to violent escalation at Columbia University, officials at the Ivy League institution finally gave the green light for the New York Police Department to enter a recently seized building, resulting in dozens of arrests.
Flanked with heavy armor, NYPD officers stormed Hamilton Hall late Tuesday night “at the University’s request.”
The university released a statement after NYPD took action, saying the decision was “made to restore safety and order to our community.”
The university said it was “left with no choice” after university public safety personnel “were forced out of the building,” by agitators. The school added that a member of their facilities teams was threatened.
“Early Tuesday, protesters chose to escalate to an alarming and untenable situation – including by vandalizing property, breaking doors and windows, blockading entrances, and forcing our facilities and public safety workers out – and we are responding appropriately as we have long made clear we would. The safety of our community, especially our students, remains our top priority,” the statement said.
The statement emphasized the school “will not risk the safety of our community or the potential for further escalation.”
The school appears to have examined all its options before calling in NYPD to help resolve the tense situation.
“The leadership team, including the Board of Trustees, met throughout the night and into the early morning, consulting with security experts and law enforcement to determine the best plan to protect our students and the entire Columbia community. We made the decision, early in the morning, that this was a law enforcement matter, and that the NYPD were best positioned to determine and execute an appropriate response,” according to the statement.
City officials, including Mayor Eric Adams and members of the NYPD, held a press briefing Tuesday night, warning Columbia students and protesters to leave the area before the situation “escalated,” pointing the blame for violence on “outside agitators” and “professional actors.”
The university echoed city officials, pointing fingers at outside agitators for the violent uprising.
“We believe that the group that broke into and occupied the building is led by individuals who are not affiliated with the University,” the statement said.
Both city and university officials warned protesters to leave the hall and area before eventual action by NYPD, using the press briefing to issue one final warning.
Videos from the chaotic scene showed several people under restraints, hulled away in a large bus.
The recently published Cass Review found that ‘gender medicine’ is ‘built on shaky foundations’ and recommended against surgical or pharmaceutical intervention for gender-confused children.
Dr. Jordan Peterson has condemned the government-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for handpicking doctors to discuss evidence against the gender “transitioning” of children.
In an April 15 X post, Peterson blasted the CBC for only selecting pro-LBGT doctors to discuss the U.K. National Health Service’s Cass Review, which exposes the dangers of “transitioning” children through mutilating means, such as pharmaceutical drugs and surgeries.
“All the truth the unrepentant butcher-enablers at @CBCNews are capable of is invisibly hidden in this one line: ‘Canadian doctors who spoke to CBC disagree…’” he slammed.
All the truth the unrepentant butcher-enablers at @CBCNews are capable of is invisibly hidden in this one line: "Canadian doctors who spoke to CBC disagree…"
Right. All the "doctors" who spoke to @CBCNews were chosen because they disagreed.
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) April 15, 2024
“Right. All the ‘doctors’ who spoke to @CBCNews were chosen because they disagreed,” Peterson asserted.
“I find them detestable,” he added. “Everything they publish is a lie in one damned way or another.”
“And these lies lead to the crimes against humanity denounced by the Cass report.”
The Cass Review, published earlier this month, is the world’s largest review into “transgender” interventions for minors. Dr. Hilary Cass, the pediatrician commissioned by the UK’s National Health Service to review the transgender “services” being made available to gender-confused minors, is scathing in her analysis.
Cass found that “gender medicine” is “built on shaky foundations,” and that while these drastic interventions should be approached with extreme caution, “quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care [sic] for children.”
She determined that there is insufficient evidence to support giving medical treatment to children and “for most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress.”
However, the report was not well received by the CBC, which ran an article criticizing the report and the U.K.’s recent decision to ban puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for youth under 16.
“While experts in the field say more studies should be done, Canadian doctors who spoke to CBC News disagree with the finding that there isn’t enough evidence puberty blockers can help,” the CBC wrote.
However, as Peterson pointed out, the CBC only interviewed pro-LGBT doctors who supported their agenda, including one who suggested that “transgender” surgeries are as natural as giving birth.
“That would be kind of like saying for a pregnant woman, since we lacked randomized clinical trials for the care of people in pregnancy, we’re not going to provide care for you… It’s completely unethical,” Dr. Jake Donaldson, a Calgary physician who treats “transgender” patients, told CBC.
“There actually is a lot of evidence, just not in the form of randomized clinical trials,” he added.
On the same day as the CBC report, Calgary pediatrician Dr. J. Edward Les wrote an article published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, agreeing with the Cass Review conclusions.
“If nothing else, the scathing final report of the Cass Review released this week (but commissioned four years ago to investigate the disturbing practices of the UK’s Gender Identity Service), is a reminder that doctors historically are guilty of many sins,” he wrote in his opening line.
Les also blasted the Canadian law, particularly Bill C-4, which banned a number of practices considered to be “conversion therapy,” including “any practice, service or treatment designed to change a person’s gender identity.”
“As far as I know, no one has been charged, let alone imprisoned, since the bill was passed into law,” wrote the doctor. “But it certainly has cast a chill on the willingness of providers to deliver appropriate counselling to gender-confused children: few dare to risk it.”
Indeed, while the CBC was unable or perhaps unwilling to find doctors who agreed with the Cass report, Les is hardly alone in challenging the LGBT narrative surrounding the mutilation of the gender-confused, especially minors.
LifeSiteNews has compiled a list of medical professions and experts who warn against “transgender” surgeries, warning of irreversible changes and lifelong side effects.
Moreover, internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) have shown that doctors who offer so-called “gender-affirming care” know that transgender hormones cause serious diseases, including cancer, but prescribed them anyway.
The internal documents, dubbed the “WPATH FILES,” include emails and messages from a private discussion forum by doctors, as well as statements from a video call of WPATH members. The files reveal that the doctors working for WPATH know that so-called “gender-affirming care” can cause severe mental and physical disease and that it is impossible for minors to give “informed consent” to it.
As LifeSiteNews has previously noted, research does not support the assertions from transgender activists that surgical or pharmaceutical intervention to “affirm” confusion is “necessary medical care” or that it is helpful in preventing the suicides of gender-confused individuals.
There is also overwhelming evidence that those who undergo “gender transitioning” are more likely to commit suicide than those who are not given irreversible surgery. A Swedish study found that those who underwent “gender reassignment” surgery ended up with a 19.2 times greater risk of suicide.
Indeed, there is proof that the most loving and helpful approach to people who think they are a different sex is not to validate them in their confusion but to show them the truth.
A new study on the side effects of transgender “sex change” surgeries discovered that 81 percent of those who had undergone “sex change” surgeries in the past five years reported experiencing pain simply from normal movement in the weeks and months that followed — and that many other side effects manifest as well.
