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
The single largest vaccine–dementia study ever conducted (n=13.3 million) finds risk intensifies with more doses, remains elevated for a full decade, and is strongest after flu and pneumococcal shots.
The single largest and most rigorous study ever conducted on vaccines and dementia — spanning 13.3 million UK adults — has uncovered a deeply troubling pattern: those who received common adult vaccines faced a significantly higher risk of both dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
The risk intensifies with more doses, remains elevated for a full decade, and is strongest after influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. With each layer of statistical adjustment, the signal doesn’t fade — it becomes sharper, more consistent, and increasingly difficult to explain away.
And critically, these associations persisted even after adjusting for an unusually wide range of potential confounders, including age, sex, socioeconomic status, BMI, smoking, alcohol-related disorders, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, coronary artery disease, stroke/TIA, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney and liver disease, depression, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, traumatic brain injury, hypothyroidism, osteoporosis, and dozens of medications ranging from NSAIDs and opioids to statins, antiplatelets, immunosuppressants, and antidepressants.
Even after controlling for this extensive list, the elevated risks remained strong and remarkably stable.
Vaccinated Adults Had a 38% Higher Risk of Dementia
The primary adjusted model showed that adults receiving common adult vaccines (influenza, pneumococcal, shingles, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis) had a:
38% increased risk of developing dementia (OR 1.38)
This alone dismantles the narrative of “vaccines protect the brain,” but the deeper findings are far worse.
Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Is Even Higher — 50% Increased Risk
Buried in the supplemental tables is a more shocking result: when the authors restricted analyses to Alzheimer’s disease specifically, the association grew even stronger.
50% increased risk of Alzheimer’s (Adjusted OR 1.50)
This indicates the effect is not random. The association intensifies for the most devastating subtype of dementia.
Clear Dose–Response Pattern: More Vaccines = Higher Risk
 |
The authors ran multiple dose–response models, and every one of them shows the same pattern:
Dementia (all types)
From eTable 2:
- 1 vaccine dose → Adjusted OR 1.26 (26% higher risk)
- 2–3 doses → Adjusted OR 1.32 (32% higher risk)
- 4–7 doses → Adjusted OR 1.42 (42% higher risk)
- 8–12 doses → Adjusted OR 1.50 (50% higher risk)
- ≥13 doses → Adjusted OR 1.55 (55% higher risk)
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) Shows the Same—and Even Stronger—Trend
From eTable 7:
- 1 dose → Adjusted OR 1.32 (32% higher risk)
- 2–3 doses → Adjusted OR 1.41 (41% higher risk)
- ≥4 doses → Adjusted OR 1.61 (61% higher risk)
This is one of the most powerful and unmistakable signals in epidemiology.
Time–Response Curve: Risk Peaks Soon After Vaccination and Remains Elevated for Years
 |
Another signal strongly inconsistent with mere bias: a time-response relationship.
The highest dementia risk occurs 2–4.9 years after vaccination (Adjusted OR 1.56). The risk then slowly attenuates but never returns to baseline, remaining elevated across all time windows.
After 12.5 years, the risk is still meaningfully elevated (Adjusted OR 1.28) — a persistence incompatible with short-term “detection bias” and suggestive of a long-lasting biological impact.
This pattern is what you expect from a biological trigger with long-latency neuroinflammatory or neurodegenerative consequences.
Even After a 10-Year Lag, the Increased Risk Does Not Disappear
When the authors apply a long 10-year lag — meant to eliminate early detection bias — the elevated risk persists:
- Dementia: OR 1.20
- Alzheimer’s: OR 1.26
If this were simply “people who see doctors more often get diagnosed earlier,” the association should disappear under long lag correction.
Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccines Drive the Signal
Two vaccines show particularly strong associations:
Influenza vaccine
- Dementia: OR 1.39 → 39% higher risk
- Alzheimer’s: OR 1.49 → 49% higher risk
Pneumococcal vaccine
- Dementia: OR 1.12 → 12% higher risk
- Alzheimer’s: OR 1.15 → 15% higher risk
And again, both exhibit dose–response escalation — the hallmark pattern of a genuine exposure–outcome relationship.
Taken together, the findings across primary, supplemental, dose–response, time–response, stratified, and sensitivity analyses paint the same picture:
• A consistent association between cumulative vaccination and increased dementia risk
• A stronger association for Alzheimer’s than for general dementia
• A dose–response effect — more vaccines, higher risk
• A time–response effect — risk peaks after exposure and persists long-term
• Influenza and pneumococcal vaccines strongly drive the signal
• The association remains after 10-year lag correction and active comparator controls
This is what a robust epidemiologic signal looks like.
In the largest single study ever conducted on vaccines and dementia, common adult vaccinations were associated with a 38% higher risk of dementia and a 50% higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease. The risk increases with more doses, persists for a decade, and is strongest for influenza and pneumococcal vaccines.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse) is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words but to live by them.”
— President John F. Kennedy, visiting the Arizona Memorial on June 9, 1963
I was on an Aston Hotels media junket to Hawaii, and I had a morning off.
My wife took our daughter Rica, to spend a day at Waikiki beach, while I headed to Pearl Harbor on a bus.
It was my only chance to see the Arizona Memorial, and I was determined to do so.
A small ferry boat takes you there, and I have to say, it is a silent trip.
Everyone on board, seemed to feel the same weight of the moment.
The memorial is simple, but very impactful, to the say the least.
A list of the names, of the 1,177 sailors who died on Dec. 7, 1941, is posted along a wall.
That’s a lot of sailors, to go down with the ship, folks.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor began at 7:55 that morning. The entire attack took only one hour and 15 minutes.
But the devastation, was immense.
Of the eight U.S. battleships present, all were damaged and four were sunk. All but Arizona were later raised, and six were returned to service during the war.
The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship, and a minelayer. More than 180 U.S. aircraft were destroyed.
Only six sailors were rescued from the burning USS Arizona, by a sailor from the nearby repair ship USS Vestal.
There is no evidence of men being trapped alive within the submerged hull of the Arizona after the ship settled on the harbor bottom, unlike on other ships like the USS Oklahoma and USS West Virginia, where trapped sailors were heard tapping on the hull for days.
SCUBA technology did not exist at that time, but at least one rescue was successful.
Civilian yard worker Julio DeCastro led a team that used pneumatic hammers to cut through the hull of the capsized USS Oklahoma and rescued 32 men who had been trapped for hours.
No U.S. aircraft carriers were present at Pearl Harbor during the attack, as USS Enterprise, USS Lexington, and USS Saratoga were all at sea on missions, while the six Japanese carriers that attacked; Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū, Shōkaku, Zuikaku — all returned to Japan safely after the raid, though most were sunk later in the war.
 |
I only remember one moment of that day. A young Japanese woman dropped a garland of flowers, into the water above the wreck.
Like magic, it floated directly over the length of the ship, which is still leaking oil.
A moment of time, I can never forget.
Most people don’t know, that the Airzona Memorial almost didn’t happen.
If not for Elvis Presley.
In the early 1960s, fundraising for the memorial had stalled.
Less than half of the roughly $500,000 needed had been raised, and the project was slipping from view.
After his manager, Colonel Tom Parker, read about the struggle, Elvis organized a benefit concert in Hawaii.
Newly discharged from the U.S. Army and on his way to film Blue Hawaii — the King stepped in to help without hesitation.
With one carefully staged benefit at Pearl Harbor’s Bloch Arena on March 25, 1961, he reignited public interest, raising over US $60,000 (equivalent to millions today) for the stalled fundraising effort, which helped push President John F. Kennedy and Congress to finish the job.
The memorial opened the following year.
Bloch Arena on the Navy base became the venue, and Parker handled the details with a fundraiser’s ruthlessness: tickets would range from $3 to $100, and no complimentary tickets would be issued — not even to admirals or VIPs.
Reports from the time underscore Parker’s insistence that everyone pay, a point that generated headlines and maximized proceeds.
A crowd of about 4,000 packed the hall to see Elvis in his gold lamé jacket deliver a rare live set — one of only a handful of concerts he performed between his Army service and the 1968 “Comeback Special.”
He later admitted forgetting lyrics due to being out of practice but was grateful for the crowd’s noise, which covered his mistakes.
He would visit the memorial in 1965 and place a wreath there, showing his deep respect.
The Arizona, launched in June 1915, measured 608 ft, with a beam of 97 ft. She was fully modernized in 1929, after which she was crewed by 92 officers and 1,639 enlisted men.
A Pennsylvania class battleship, she was the flagship of Battleship Division One at the time.
The final living survivor of the Arizona, Lou Conter, died last year, on April 1, 2024.
At Pearl Harbor, the Arizona was hit by four bombs just after 8 a.m., the final one of these is believed to have gone through the armoured deck and blown up the ship’s forward magazines with devastating effects.
Both the captain of the Arizona, Franklin Van Valkenburgh, and rear admiral Isaac Campbell Kidd, the head of the Battleship Division One were killed on the bridge of the Arizona.
More than two million people visit the memorial each year. It is only accessible by boat and straddles the sunken hull of the Arizona, without touching it.
THE MAKICHUK REPORT is free today.
But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell THE MAKICHUK REPORT that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.
You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.
Media bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
Sometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Business2 days ago
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
-
MAiD17 hours ago
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
MAiD2 days agoHealth Canada report finds euthanasia now accounts for over 5% of deaths nationwide
-
Daily Caller2 days agoTech Mogul Gives $6 Billion To 25 Million Kids To Boost Trump Investment Accounts
-
Automotive1 day agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
Energy2 days agoUnceded is uncertain
-
Business15 hours agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Business1 day agoNew Chevy ad celebrates marriage, raising children