Opinion

UPDATED: SNC Lavalin – Just the Facts Ma’am

Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr

Published

7 years ago

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

Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr

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

Escape Room 2 – The NEW Real Estate Owner Tax Game – High Stakes Edition

Community / 5 years ago

Black Entrepreneur Support Announcement: Well Intentioned but not Black and White

Business / 5 years ago

CEWS 2.0 – Why I see it as another attack on the small business owner

Crime

U.S. seizes Cuba-bound ship with illicit Iranian oil history

Published on December 10, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

President Trump revealed Wednesday afternoon that U.S. authorities intercepted a Cuba-bound oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, a dramatic move aimed at tightening the squeeze on illicit oil networks operating throughout the region. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump described the vessel as “a very large tanker — the largest one ever seized in action,” hinting that more developments are coming. He declined to get into specifics, saying only that the operation happened “for a very good reason.” When asked about the tanker’s crude, Trump didn’t overcomplicate it. “Well, we keep it, I guess,” he said.

According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the seizure was executed by the Coast Guard with support from the U.S. Navy after a federal judge green-lit the warrant roughly two weeks ago. Another official told the New York Times the ship — identified as the Skipper — had been sailing under a falsified flag and has a documented history of trafficking illicit Iranian oil. The vessel, although carrying Venezuelan crude at the time, was seized because of those Iranian smuggling ties, not because of any direct connection to Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. For multiple… pic.twitter.com/dNr0oAGl5x

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) December 10, 2025

Vanguard, a UK-based maritime risk firm, confirmed Wednesday that the Skipper fits the profile of a tanker previously sanctioned by the United States for operating under the alias Adisa while moving banned Iranian oil. A source speaking to Politico said the ship was on its way to Cuba, where state-run Cubametales intended to flip the cargo to Asian brokers — an increasingly common workaround as U.S. sanctions isolate both Havana and Caracas from traditional buyers. With most Venezuelan product now flowing to China under the sanctions regime, oil traders began recalibrating almost immediately after the news broke. Prices ticked upward modestly as markets waited to learn whether any Venezuelan crude was on board and how much would be effectively taken off the table.

Maduro, for his part, avoided directly mentioning the seizure during a speech later Wednesday, instead railing against the United States and claiming Venezuela’s military stands ready “to break the teeth of the North American empire, if necessary.” His bluster did little to obscure the reality: the Trump administration just disrupted yet another shadowy oil operation linking Caracas, Havana, and Tehran — and sent a clear signal that these networks will be confronted, tanker by tanker.

International

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s ’60 Minutes’ interview reveals power struggle between populists and RINOs

Published on December 10, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Charles Richards

The Republican Congresswoman said that President Donald Trump has turned his back on those who helped get him elected.

Outgoing firebrand Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s combative interview with 60 Minutes anchor Leslie Stahl is the perfect encapsulation of the war being waged between grassroots conservatives and establishment RINOs currently seeking to suppress the America First movement and reassert their dominance over the GOP.

Stahl interviewed Greene when her popularity was at its highest several years ago. She has always been the voice of what President Donald Trump once called “the Swamp” in Washington D.C. Her line of questioning toward Greene during their conversation that aired earlier this month revealed her biased agenda. At one point during the interview, a fed-up Greene hit back, “You’ve contributed to (the toxicity in politics) as well, with your own … accusatory … questions (toward me).”

Greene’s decision to step down from Congress sent shockwaves across the U.S. when she announced she would resign this coming year. A true believer in the MAGA cause right from the start, she told Stahl that Trump has turned his back on those who helped get him elected.

“He passed the crypto bill that helped out all the crypto donors. He has served Israel’s interest, even attacking Iran. He has served Big Pharma, he didn’t take away the COVID vaccines that we want to see taken away,” Greene exclaimed. “We want to see action on areas for the American people, not for the major industries and the big donors.”

True to form, Stahl brought up the fact that Greene has called Israel’s bombing of Gaza a genocide while also noting she voted against the “anti Semitism Awareness Act.”

“Since I’ve been a member of Congress, we’ve had several resolutions that constantly denounce anti-Semitism,” Greene explained. “I’ve already voted denouncing anti-Semitism many times before. It becomes an exercise that they force on Congress, and I simply got tired of it.”

“Is there no value in having the United States Congress reaffirm the fact that they denounce anti-Semitism in the face of a growing issue, a growing problem?” Stahl replied.

“We don’t have to get on our knees and say it over and over again,” Greene shot back.

“Well, most members of Congress disagree with you,” Stahl responded.

Over the past year, Greene and fellow Republican Congressman Thomas Massie have boasted about the fact that they don’t take donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. For their efforts, they have been increasingly targeted by Trump as well as by Miriam Adelson, an Israeli-born Zionist mega-donor to the president who is funding a PAC to prevent Massie’s re-election next year.

Massie, meanwhile, is not backing down. “Israeli citizen Miriam Adelson bought the Dallas Mavericks for $3.5 billion; now she’s buying politicians. She’s spending millions in Kentucky to buy Ed Gallrein, my primary opponent, a Congressional seat in Kentucky. Why? Because I won’t vote to send your tax dollars overseas,” he explained.

Greene further told Stahl that Trump’s decision to attack her is all the more hypocritical given his decision to not want the Epstein files released and welcome multiple politicians who share nothing in common with conservative principles to the White House.

“He did this in the same time span where President Trump brought in the al-Qaeda leader that was wanted by the U.S. government (Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa), who is now the President of Syria. Then within a week, he brought in the Crown Prince (of Saudi Arabia) who murdered an American journalist. And then he brought in the newly elected Democrat socialist mayor of New York (Zohram Mamdani). That was the time span that he called me a traitor.”

Greene has repeatedly said she will not be running for office in the coming years. The system is broken, essentially, and it cannot be fixed. And she’s right. For many decades, U.S. politicians have not served the will of the people but rather an elite, technocratic donor class that wants to use America’s influence to wage foreign wars and promote a globalist agenda. President Trump knew that once and promised he would bring it to an end but now it seems he won’t be one to put a stop to it. Greene, like millions of Americans, believed he would. She’s right to step down and spend her life doing something other than fight a losing battle.