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
FBI Director Kash Patel issued a blunt warning over the weekend as federal investigators continue unraveling a sprawling fraud operation centered in Minnesota, saying the hundreds of millions already uncovered represent “just the tip of a very large iceberg.”
In a lengthy statement posted to social media, Patel said the Federal Bureau of Investigation had quietly surged agents and investigative resources into the state well before the scandal gained traction online. That effort, he said, led to the takedown of an estimated $250 million fraud scheme that stole federal food aid intended for vulnerable children during the COVID pandemic.
According to Patel, the investigation exposed a network of sham vendors, shell companies, and large-scale money laundering operations tied to the Feeding Our Future case. Defendants named by the FBI include Abdiwahab Ahmed Mohamud, Ahmed Ali, Hussein Farah, Abdullahe Nur Jesow, Asha Farhan Hassan, Ousman Camara, and Abdirashid Bixi Dool, each charged with offenses ranging from wire fraud to conspiracy and money laundering.
Patel also said Abdimajid Mohamed Nur and others were charged in a separate attempt to bribe a juror with $120,000 in cash. He noted that several related cases have already resulted in guilty pleas, prison sentences of up to 10 years, and nearly $48 million in restitution orders.
Despite those outcomes, Patel warned the case is far from finished.
“The FBI believes this is just the tip of a very large iceberg,” he said, adding that investigators will continue following the money and that the probe remains ongoing. Patel further confirmed that many of those convicted are being referred to immigration authorities for possible denaturalization and deportation proceedings where legally applicable.
The renewed focus follows a viral video circulated by independent journalist Nick Shirley, which appeared to show multiple childcare and learning centers operating as empty or nonfunctional storefronts. The footage sparked immediate backlash from Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance.
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer accused Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of sitting idle while massive sums were stolen from taxpayers. Walz addressed the allegations during a November press conference, before the full scope of the fraud became public, saying the scandal “undermines trust in government” and threatens programs meant to help vulnerable residents.
“If you’re committing fraud, no matter where you come from or what you believe, you are going to go to jail,” Walz said at the time.
Authorities say the alleged schemes date back to at least 2015, beginning with overbilling Minnesota’s Child Care Assistance Program and later expanding into Medicaid-funded disability and housing programs. One such housing initiative, aimed at helping seniors and disabled residents secure stable housing, was shut down earlier this year after officials cited what they described as large-scale fraud.
The fallout has already reached the federal level. Last month, President Trump announced the suspension of Temporary Protected Status for Somali nationals, arguing that Minnesota had become a hub for organized welfare fraud and money laundering activity.
Vice President JD Vance is giving public credit to a YouTube journalist for doing what he says legacy media and elite institutions have failed to do: follow the money in Minnesota. In a post on X, Vance praised independent reporter Nick Shirley for digging into alleged fraud networks tied to the state, saying Shirley “has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 Pulitzer prizes.” The comment was a direct response to a video Shirley shared online documenting what he described as widespread fraud, with Shirley claiming his team identified more than $110 million in suspicious activity in a single day while confronting facilities allegedly receiving millions in public funds.
Shirley’s reporting has been circulating widely among conservatives, with commentators amplifying clips of him visiting supposed daycare and education centers that appeared inactive despite receiving massive federal aid. Conservative media personality Benny Johnson said Shirley had exposed more than $100 million in Minnesota Somali-linked fraud routed through fake daycare and healthcare fronts, adding to the pressure on state leadership. The issue gained further traction after Tom Emmer, Minnesota’s top House Republican, demanded answers from Gov. Tim Walz following a viral clip showing Shirley confronting workers at an alleged daycare in South Minneapolis. Shirley reported the center, called the “Quality Learning Center,” showed no visible activity despite claims it served up to 99 children, and even misspelled “learning” on its signage. As Shirley approached, a woman inside was heard shouting “Don’t open up,” while incorrectly accusing him of being an ICE agent.
🚨 Here is the full 42 minutes of my crew and I exposing Minnesota fraud, this might be my most important work yet. We uncovered over $110,000,000 in ONE day. Like it and share it around like wildfire! Its time to hold these corrupt politicians and fraudsters accountable
We ALL… pic.twitter.com/E3Penx2o7a
— Nick shirley (@nickshirleyy) December 26, 2025
The controversy builds on earlier reporting from City Journal, which published a November investigation citing federal counterterrorism sources who said millions of dollars siphoned through Minnesota fraud schemes had been sent overseas, with some of the money allegedly ending up in the hands of Al-Shabaab. One confidential source quoted in the report bluntly claimed, “The largest funder of Al-Shabaab is the Minnesota taxpayer.” Since that report, the scrutiny has widened inside the Trump administration. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced that the Treasury Department is examining whether Minnesota taxpayer funds were diverted to terrorist-linked groups, while Education Secretary Linda McMahon has publicly called on Walz to resign amid separate allegations of large-scale education fraud within the state’s college system.
Taken together, the attention from Vance, congressional Republicans, and multiple federal agencies has elevated Shirley’s reporting from viral internet content to a flashpoint in a broader debate over fraud, accountability, and the role of independent journalists. For the vice president, the message was clear: real accountability sometimes comes not from prize committees or press rooms, but from outsiders willing to ask uncomfortable questions and stand in front of locked doors with a camera rolling.
Ottawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
Carney Floor Crossing Raises Counterintelligence Questions aimed at China, Former Senior Mountie Argues
All 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Found the Same Thing: Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier
Ottawa is still dodging the China interference threat
-
Digital ID22 hours agoCanadian government launches trial version of digital ID for certain licenses, permits
-
Agriculture1 day agoEnd Supply Management—For the Sake of Canadian Consumers
-
Alberta21 hours agoAlberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works
-
Business19 hours agoThe “Disruptor-in-Chief” places Canada in the crosshairs
-
International16 hours agoGeorgia county admits illegally certifying 315k ballots in 2020 presidential election
-
Artificial Intelligence20 hours agoUK Police Pilot AI System to Track “Suspicious” Driver Journeys
-
Energy15 hours ago‘The electric story is over’
-
International23 hours agoWorld-leading biochemist debunks evolutionary theory