Source: https://canucklaw.ca/category/types-of-law/criminal/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:20:44+00:00

Document:
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for a prior review on Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for the climate change scam.
CLICK HERE, for Bill C-75, watering down penalties for terrorism.
130 Despite section 161 of the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act, as amended by section 233 of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities or the Minister of State (Indigenous Services), in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, in addition to the sum referred to in that section 161, a sum not exceeding $2,200,000,000 to provinces, territories, municipalities, municipal associations, provincial, territorial and municipal entities and First Nations for the purpose of municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure.
131 (1) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Natural Resources, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (2), a sum not exceeding $950,000,000 to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Green Municipal Fund.
(3) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (4), a sum not exceeding $60,000,000 to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Asset Management Fund.
132 (1) There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in accordance with the terms and conditions provided for in the agreement referred to in subsection (2), a sum not exceeding $65,000,000 to the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service for the acquisition of new emergency ambulance helicopters.
This “price on pollution” will result in $3.275B being spent, and this is just for now. There is nothing to indicate that spending won’t go up.
Bill C-97 references the “Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act” (a.k.a. Carbon tax act). Here it is, and it is well worth a read. The more interesting sections are in Division 6, which have to do with enforcement.
Chilling, considering this is bogus pseudo-science.
Probably the most irritating part of Bill C-97 is that it is an omnibus bill. This means that it is a mismatch of many unrelated areas of law, being rammed through Parliament.
When in opposition, Liberals claimed to be against omnibus bills. Different story when they are in power.
28.‍1 (1) Despite anything in the Weights and Measures Act, the Minister may make regulations prescribing units of measurement for electricity and gas sales in addition to the units specified in section 3.
(c) the day on which it is repealed.
Is this to mean the government will be controlling how energy will be sold and in what amounts?
(d) in the case of an individual, if the individual is deemed under any of paragraphs 250(1)(b) to (f) of the Income Tax Act to be resident in Canada at that time.
Is there anyone who “doesn’t” make the list? Individuals, partnerships, labour unions and corporations are all included in this law.
(d) a corporation that is authorized under the laws of Canada or a province to accept deposits from the public and that carries on the business of lending money on the security of real property or immovables or investing in indebtedness on the security of mortgages on real property or hypothecs on immovables.
Wow. So the government seems to “expect” that people will be writing very large cheques to cover these carbon costs. In fact, if your bill is over $50,000 … as if this is to be normal. Guess the fears of companies being put out of business is legitimate.
Also, here are portions of the “penalties” provisions.
(c) both a fine referred to in paragraph (a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
(c) both a fine referred to in paragraph (a) and imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(4) A person that is convicted of an offence under this section is not liable to pay a penalty imposed under this Part for the same evasion or attempt unless a notice of assessment for that penalty was issued before the information or complaint giving rise to the conviction was laid or made.
(5) If, in any appeal under this Part, substantially the same facts are at issue as those that are at issue in a prosecution under this section, the Minister may file a stay of proceedings with the Tax Court of Canada and, upon that filing, the proceedings before the Tax Court of Canada are stayed pending a final determination of the outcome of the prosecution.
(b) knowingly contravenes an order made under subsection 107(12).
(2) Every person to whom confidential information has been provided for a particular purpose under subsection 107(6) and that for any other purpose knowingly uses, provides to any person, allows the provision to any person of, or allows any person access to, that information is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both.
Yes, you can get up to 5 years in prison for not playing ball with the Carbon tax collectors. Considering that Bill C-75 (among other things) made terrorism offences hybrid offences (prosecutors can charge summarily), Carbon taxes are an odd thing to focus on.
CLICK HERE, for the CBC article.
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Master List.
CLICK HERE, for a related CBC “safe injection” article review.
CLICK HERE, for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act of Canada.
CLICK HERE, for an article from the Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies.
CLICK HERE, for the 1991 Regulated Health Professionals Act.
CLICK HERE, for an interesting malpractice case.
Correctional service ‘exploring’ new harm-reduction measure, union says Drumheller Institution a possible site.
Let’s clear something up. Needle exchange is “already” operational, and at least 5 prisons have them. Apparently being complicit in drug use in prison is harm reduction.
And these “overdose prevention sites” are essentially free narcotics except with doctor supervision.
The needle exchange program isn’t staffed properly, so let’s scrap it and start outright providing drugs directly to prisoners. This is harm reduction? And should prison staff be in the business of providing illicit drugs to inmates?
Wouldn’t this actually have the opposite effect of rehabilitation? Won’t people find it more advantageous to get arrested more in order to obtain free drugs?
I can sympathise with the guards wanting safer work atmosphere, but this might be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. And are taxpayers expected to foot the bill?
The Nova Institution for Women in Truro, N.S., implemented a prisoner needle-exchange program earlier this month after it was introduced last June at Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, Ont., and the Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B.
It was expanded to the Fraser Valley Institution for Women in Abbotsford, B.C., and the Edmonton Institution for Women this year.
Oh, the cognitive dissonance here. Prison staff say that this is aimed at preventing the spread of diseases, yet admits that human error can very easily cause more people to be put in danger.
And again, why are the prisons aiding and abetting in drug use? Isn’t that … “ILLEGAL”? And as for these supervised injection sites, does illicit drug use become legal as long as a doctor writes a prescription?
This is absurd. If inmates and cells are routinely searched for safety and contraband measures, “why” would requiring selected inmates to have it in their cells be a good idea? They are criminals. Moreover, couldn’t anyone who knows about their status rob them at almost any time.
Drug use is common in prison? That is true, but “why” should the public be allowing and financing it?
The staff is aware of the problem, and provides bleach, which can be extremely dangerous in the hands of drug addicted inmates. No concern for prison staff, just for the inmates shooting up.
Yes, drug use is often a problem among inmates. However, getting them treatment, and re-establishing something of a normal life would be much more beneficial to everyone in the long term.
As for the needle exchange, and the proposed “safe-injection” sites, shouldn’t the public have some say in the matter?
4 (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
4.1 (1) For the purposes of this section, medical emergency means a physiological event induced by the introduction of a psychoactive substance into the body of a person that results in a life-threatening situation and in respect of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person requires emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.
(2) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency is to be charged or convicted of an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assist­ance or having remained at the scene.
(3) The exemption under subsection (2) also applies to any person, including the person suffering from the medical emergency, who is at the scene on the arrival of the emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.
(4) No person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency, or who is at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is to be charged with an offence concerning a violation of any condition of a pre-trial release or probation order relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assistance or having remained at the scene.
(5) Any condition of a person’s pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence or parole relating to an offence under subsection 4(1) that may be violated as a result of the person seeking emergency medical or law enforcement assistance for their, or another person’s, medical emergency, or as a result of having been at the scene on the arrival of the assistance, is deemed not to be violated.
2017, c. 4, s. 2; 2018, c. 16, s. 195.1.
(b) to traffic in a controlled substance.
(b) to attend a treatment program under subsection 720(2) of the Criminal Code.
So what can we take away here?
Although the review might seem like a cold indifference to people with drug problems this is not the case. I want them to be treated and move on with their lives.
However, supplying drugs and drug paraphernalia is (in my view) a very bad way to handle the problem.
CLICK HERE, for link to the CBC article.
CLICK HERE, for the CBC propaganda masterlist.
CLICK HERE, for Judy Sgro’s “questionable” past, which involved getting a visa fast tracked for a stripper.
Liberal MP Judy Sgro openly puts party unity and re-election prospects over ethics and transparency. CBC, at least in the article, doesn’t seem to press her on it.
In an explosive interview with Maclean’s — her first media interview since she resigned from the Liberal cabinet on March 4 — Philpott said there is “much more” to the SNC-Lavalin affair and Canadians have concerns about the government’s attempts to “shut down” the story.
From the opening, Sgro seems to show no concern for the allegations, which are not only unethical but most likely criminal. Instead, she complains that is harming the party itself, despite the continuing story.
Both the interview and the letter landed in the midst of a parliamentary uproar over the Liberals’ move to end the Commons justice committee’s probe of Wilson-Raybould’s claim that she was pressured by senior government officials to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid a criminal trial on bribery charges.
Philpott, who resigned from cabinet over the government’s handling of the file, said she believes Canadians need answers to maintain their confidence in the independence of the justice system.
“It’s either put up or shut up,” Sgro told Chris Hall, host of CBC Radio’s The House, in an interview airing Saturday.
The Liberals use their majority to shut down the committee. Sgro glosses over that and suggests that this is being used by opposition members against them. Again, no concern for ethics here.
I bet it was awkward.
Is Philpott supposed to give Trudeau a free pass because some of here agenda (assisted suicide), and since her ethics stains had been shrugged off?
Don’t take notes… Why? Harder to create a paper trail perhaps.
Sgro said she thinks the ongoing affair is hurting the Liberal government’s chance of re-election this year and some of her fellow MPs are worried.
Exactly, this is all about being re-elected.
Trudeau’s brand as a feminist has taken hits since the SNC-Lavalin affair began, including Opposition House Leader Candice Bergen accusing him of being a “fake feminist”. Sgro fiercely defended Trudeau, saying that of the five prime ministers she’s served with, she’s never had a prime minister as caring and compassionate as him.
No care for ethics breaches, just how it impacts MPs. And interesting that Sgro shifts from “ethics” to “compassion”. Guess she thinks that if people see Trudeau as compassionate, he can’t be unethical.
Despite her challenge to her caucus colleagues, Sgro said she thinks the justice committee probe shouldn’t be reopened and that any further probe should be handled by the ethics commissioner.
“Let the commissioner do his job. He’ll come back with a recommendation to the House of Commons, with a report, and then whatever action … if any action needs to be done, it’ll be done then,” she said.
Shouldn’t be reopened. Nothing to see here. And if committees are so useless, why have them in the first place?
CLICK HERE, for the Morgane Oger Foundation.
CLICK HERE, for MFO information on hate crimes.
CLICK HERE, for Federal Liberals contemplating censorship under the guise of “removing extremist content”.
CLICK HERE, for Proud Boys lawsuit against SPLC.
What is the Morgane Oger Foundation?
The Morgane Oger Foundation is a small volunteer-driven organization entirely run and funded by people who care about justice and inclusion, like you. We focus on opportunities to reduce prejudice-driven inequality in Canada a few projects at a time and pride ourselves with a 100% success rate to date. We are working on several initiatives where we feel we can best help change things for the better..
Sounds harmless and well meaning enough. Let’s see some details.
“An advocacy organization says it wants to map hatred and discrimination across Canada in a move that is prompting warnings of caution from one civil liberties group.
1/ Okay, nice to know they won’t make false accusations of being a murderer unless the person actually is one. However, that is where the reasonableness seems to end.
2/ The examples cited are vague at best.
(a) So called trans activists seem to think “everything” is transphobia. Express any doubt about transgender children, or the never ending demands for accommodation, and you’re a bigot.
(b) Also what white supremacist groups? To left wing activists, anyone opposing open borders or forced multiculturalism is a white supremacist apparently.
3/Serious question: will create this “hate network” lead to innocent people being doxed for no other reason than you have different opinions? Seem very intolerant.
4/ A call for volunteers? What screening will be put in place to ensure that these people don’t have malintent and are actually capable of distinguishing what is hate?
298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Just a few laws this group might want to know if they are serious about starting up this “database”.
Prior to getting a media makeover and coming out as a conservative, Candice Owens launched a website called “social autopsy”. This was billed as an anti-bullying database. But it relied on people making personal complaints and sending personal information on others. See above videos.
Does Morgane Oger Foundation Want To Be Like That?
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and Social Autopsy are just 2 of the more well known examples of attempts to dox people they disagree with.
Bad ideas should be countered with good ideas. They shouldn’t be doxxed, threatened, or otherwise bullied.
CLICK HERE, for text of the ruling.
CLICK HERE, for media on the subject.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order (“Motion”), ECF No. . The Court has considered the Motion, the Defendant’s Response in Opposition, ECF No. , and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
The Government asks the Court to reconsider its ruling dismissing the Superseding Indictment against the Defendant. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for motions for reconsideration. In ruling on a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case, federal district courts apply civil standards and exercise substantial discretion. See United States v. Sabooni, No. 09-20298-CR, 2014 WL 4385446, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014) (Seitz, J.) (citing United States v. Pugh, 426 F. App’x 876, 876 (11th Cir. 2011)). “The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Smith v. Ocwen Fin., 488 F. App’x 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)). “A motion for reconsideration should not simply rehash previously litigated issues[.]” United States v. Russo, No. 11-6337-RSR, 2011 WL 3044844, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2011) (Rosenbaum, J.); see also Smith, 488 F. App’x at 428 (“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment” (citing Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343))).
In its Motion, the Government rehashes essentially the same arguments raised in its Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal, during argument at calendar call, and in its Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum. The Government disagrees with the Court’s conclusion that the Government has failed to identify any federal statute or regulation prescribing an Order of Supervision as evidence of authorized stay in the United States. Yet the Government fails to point to any new facts or law, demonstrate clear error or manifest injustice, or identify any federal statute or regulation that would require the Court to change its prior finding. Simply put, the Government’s arguments amount to “mere disagreement” with the Court and do not warrant reconsideration. See Linet Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Florida, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming denial of reconsideration where plaintiff merely “disagreed with the district court’s treatment of certain facts and its legal conclusions” in the earlier order under review); see also Roggio v. United States, No. 11-22847-CIV, 2013 WL 11320226, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013) (Goodman, J.).
It appears the Government argues that evidence of authorized employment in the United States necessarily equates to evidence of authorized stay in the United States. However, this argument is not persuasive because Section 1546(a) clearly delineates documents evidencing “authorized stay” and documents evidencing “authorized employment” as two distinct forms of authorization. By equating these two forms of authorization, the Government’s interpretation of Section 1546(a) necessarily renders the words “or [authorized] employment” superfluous. See In Re Walter Energy, Inc., 911 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e generally construe a statute so that ‘no clause, sentence, or word’ is rendered superfluous, void, or insignificant.” (quoting TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001))). While the Court agrees with the Government that, when amending Section 1546(a) in 1986, Congress intended to broaden the types of documents encompassed by Section 1546(a) beyond those “required for entry into the United States,” see ECF No. , the Government’s Superseding Indictment did not provide the Defendant notice of any intent to prove that an Order of Supervision is “prescribed by statute or regulation… as evidence of authorized… employment in the United States,” ECF No. .
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal Order, ECF No. , is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of March, 2019.
This is absurd. The driver’s license was obtained under false pretenses. Shrugging this off as “procedural” is setting a dangerous precedent. It will be interesting to see if this is appealed.
Hopefully either it is overturned, or the State Congress will enact legislation to prevent this from happening again.
CLICK HERE, for the direct link.
CLICK HERE, for UN Resolution 2178.
That title is a direct quote. The UN promotes “human rights-compliant responses” to terrorists who have left their country to take up arms against them, commit atrocities, then expect to be welcomed back.
1/ In 2014, 12,000 people across 80 countries travelled to Iraq and Syria.
2/ In 2015, that number thought to be 30,000.
3/ In 2017, thought to be 40,000.
4/ At least 5,600 thought to have returned home.
How is this not a crisis?
“2. There is no clear profile for foreign terrorist fighters. Some are motivated by extremist ideology, while others appear more driven by alienation and boredom. Motivation may also change over time. Motivational factors may also include the desire to belong to a group or to gain peer acceptance; kinship, nationalism or patriotism; and humanitarian reasons, namely to protect the local population. Financial or material gain may also be a factor. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy points to prolonged unresolved conflicts, dehumanization of victims of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, lack of the rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization and lack of good governance conditions among the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism”.
This seems deliberately designed to avoid the obvious: above, 12,000-40,000 people were thought to have joined ISIS. You know what motivates them? ISLAM. This UN report dances around that point, and implies that any form of unhappiness or social exclusion leads to people joining.
That’s right. The UN expects host nations to “manage” the return of foreign fighters, who — to be frank — are overwhelmingly muslim. Nations have an obligation to ensure that “their” human rights are not violated in any way.
Curious to know: how does punishing them “further fuel violent extremism”? They are already violent, and anyone looking to join ISIS is a radical anyway.
This is asinine. Somehow, if nations were nice and tolerant to returning terrorists, and ensured they have all the human rights they rejected…. then people won’t turn to terrorism. Perhaps there is a flow of terrorists because host countries are weak. Something to consider.
“7. In December 2017, the Security Council adopted resolution 2396 (2017), building on resolution 2178 (2014) and providing greater focus on measures to address returning and relocating foreign terrorist fighters and their families, and requiring States to strengthen their efforts in border security, information-sharing, and criminal justice. In order to protect public order and safety in the countries to which foreign terrorist fighters return or relocate, resolution 2396 (2017) sets out additional measures beyond those in resolution 2178 (2014), which may raise concerns from a human rights perspective”.
Interesting. Not only do we have obligations to terrorists, but to their families as well.
Wouldn’t be the UN without a few gender references.
You read that right: rehabilitation and reintegration of returnees.
What do you consider reasonable then? Is leaving to go join ISIS not a valid reason for the host country to fear for the safety of its citizens, should you return? As far as legal process goes: how does one investigate in a war zone across the world?
Okay, from your criteria: #1 is met. These fighters are a threat to the public.
As for #2, “why” must a public declaration be made?
14. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, along with regional refugee instruments,22 are the core legal instruments of the international refugee regime, complemented by customary international law and international human rights law. These instruments define the term “refugee” and establish an international framework for the protection of refugees.
These people are not refugees. UN is deliberately obfuscating here. They are terrorists, who “chose” to leave their country.
This is not an official war. People can’t just leave their country, join a foreign army, then expect to return afterwards. They have committed treason. It’s idiotic to claim that humanitarian law would apply to these people.
Here’s the thing: very few people would actually care if any terrorists were left stateless as a result. If you leave to take up arms against a nation or it’s allies, you are a TRAITOR. You have forfeited your rights to be a citizen.
It would be nice if the UN at some point starts listing rights and protections that society should have.
I’ll stop it here, but it goes on about ensuring that foreign fighters and terrorists have their human rights met. Ironic, since this group would never extend human rights or life to others.
Noticeably absent is any concern for the populations of these countries. Returning terrorists will pose a risk to the public, most likely for life. However, the UN talks about “managing” those risks.
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
I think that terrorism would certainly qualify under the first 3 criteria. We must (a) denounce the conduct; (b) deter the offender, and others, and (c) separate the offender from society. The other 3 are of much less concern.
CLICK HERE, for useful information.
Primary – You may not go to court when required.
Secondary – You may commit another crime, or the public may not be safe while you’re out on bail.
Tertiary – Because of the circumstances of your offence, the public might feel that the justice system is not working if you’re let out of custody.
Terrorists would qualify on all 3 grounds.
Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public does not want these people coming back. Not now, not ever.
(Then President George W. Bush, arguing for an invasion of Iraq under blatantly false pretenses. The UN Security Council approved the use of force in 2002 by a 15-0 vote. War was launched on March 20, 2003).
CLICK HERE, for UN Security Council home page.
CLICK HERE, for the page on sanctions.
CLICK HERE, the UN Charter.
CLICK HERE, for Article 41 of the UN Charter (Sanctions).
CLICK HERE, for an index of voting records.
CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia page on “Proxy Wars”.
The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.
The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
That is correct. 15 nations can decide what is “in the interest of global peace and security”. Hardly seems that other nations get much of a say in international matters. Would your own sovereignty be limited by what these 15 members of the “Global Community” have to say?
Even more undemocratic is the make up of the Security Council. There are 15 members, 5 of which are permanent, and 10 others which are chosen on a rotational basis.
The 5 permanent members are: 1/ the United States; 2/ Russia (formerly the Soviet Union); 3/ Britain; 4/ France; and 5/ China. These were the “winners” of World War II, when the UN was founded. Each of the 5 permanent members has “veto” power, meaning they can unilaterally block any resolution from passing.
In order to pass a Security Council resolution, a majority of members have to approve it. Additionally, none of the “Permanent 5” can veto. They each have to abstain or support.
What if the UN doesn’t opt for military force? There are less direct, but more passive-aggressive measures called “sanctions”. These are essentially punishments the Security Council imposes.
Does UN Security Council Create World Peace?
Not really. This is especially true when one of the “Permanent 5” has veto power over any resolution to stop or condemn the aggression. Though the major powers may not directly be involved, they may provide aid to others and fight proxy wars.
Though not always the best site, Wikipedia is great for a quick reference.
This isn’t even a complete list. But when researching conflicts, you will find that it is most often one or more of the “Permanent 5” behind these conflicts. How can the UN actually help world peace when its own Security Council members can flaunt the principles without consequences?
Why are a nation’s well being and sovereignty dependant on the will of 15 nations, 5 of whom appointed themselves as permanent members with a veto.
This is not to say that nations should not be free to enter into military alliances and pacts. However, this arrangement seems stacked against smaller and weaker nations.
What Does UN Say About Security Council?
-to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.
There has been much speculation within Canada that Justin Trudeau is being so “UN compliant” because he is aiming for a seat on the Security Council. Not sure if this is true, though it’s certainly possible.
CLICK HERE, for the version of the Bill which received Royal Assent, June 21, 2018.
CLICK HERE, for an interesting article about Bill C-74.
CLICK HERE, for AG Jody Wilson-Raybould resigning over pressure for her to enact DPA with SNC Lavalin.
CLICK HERE, for David Lametti becoming new AG.
CLICK HERE, for former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould appearing to testify.
CLICK HERE, for OECD getting involved.
CLICK HERE, for the OEDC Convention on Combatting Bribery of Public Officials.
CLICK HERE, for the Convention text.
This is supposedly a budget bill, but is in fact an omnibus bill (a bloated bill with many unrelated provisions), At the very end is Part 6, Division 20. Presumably it was tacked on as an afterthought.
The “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” (or DPA), is a mechanism which corporations can avoid criminal penalties in Canada. Under Canadian law, a company found guilty in criminal court would be prohibited from bidding on government contracts for a period of 10 years. Obviously, this would hurt the company.
Of course, if it looks like Government influence helped a company avoid criminal penalties, it would stink of corruption, as seems to be the case with Quebec engineering firm SNC Lavalin.
Former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned from her post after being pressured by the Trudeau Government to cut such a deal for SNC Lavalin, and help the company avoid criminal penalties.
If that didn’t stink enough, her successor, David Lametti, claimed he knew nothing, about the deal when he took over. He also took Trudeau’s word that nothing inappropriate happened. It doesn’t help that Lametti is from Montreal (as is SNC Lavalin).
Worse still, is that Lametti seems content with letting SNC Lavalin get its DPA anyway, which is what Wilson-Raybould had been pressured to do.
The Organization for Economic Development & Cooperation (OEDC), would also consider such actions to violate the multi-nation Anti-Bribery Agreement. So the fallout seems to be spreading, not being contained.
Division 20 of Part 6 amends the Criminal Code to establish a remediation agreement regime. Under this regime, the prosecutor may negotiate a remediation agreement with an organization that is alleged to have committed an offence of an economic character referred to in the schedule to Part XXII.‍1 of that Act and the proceedings related to that offence are stayed if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement.
715.‍3 (1) The following definitions apply in this Part.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, a third party not referred to in section 2.‍2 may also act on a victim’s behalf when authorized to do so by the court, if the victim requests it or the prosecutor deems it appropriate.
(f) to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons — employees, customers, pensioners and others — who did not engage in the wrongdoing, while holding responsible those individuals who did engage in that wrongdoing.
(d) the Attorney General has consented to the negotiation of the agreement.
(i) any other factor that the prosecutor considers relevant.
(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.
(j) a deadline to accept the offer to negotiate according to the terms of the notice.
(2) No admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by the organization during the negotiations is admissible in evidence against that organization in any civil or criminal proceedings related to that act or omission, except those contained in the statement of facts or admission of responsibility referred to in paragraphs 715.‍34(1)‍(a) and (b), if the parties reach an agreement and it is approved by the court.
(p) an indication of the deadline by which the organization must meet the terms of the agreement.
(2) No admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by the organization as a result of the agreement is admissible in evidence against that organization in any civil or criminal proceedings related to that act or omission, except those contained in the statement of facts and admission of responsibility referred to in paragraphs (1)‍(a) and (b), if the agreement is approved by the court.
(c) an indication of the fact that an independent monitor has been appointed, as selected with the prosecutor’s approval, to verify and report to the prosecutor on the organization’s compliance with the obligation referred to in paragraph (a), or any other obligation in the agreement identified by the prosecutor, as well as an indication of the organization’s obligations with respect to that monitor, including the obligations to cooperate with the monitor and pay the monitor’s costs.
Each Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish that it is a criminal offence under its law for any person intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a foreign public official, for that official or for a third party, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.
Each Party shall take any measures necessary to establish that complicity in, including incitement, aiding and abetting, or authorisation of an act of bribery of a foreign public official shall be a criminal offence. Attempt and conspiracy to bribe a foreign public official shall be criminal offences to the same extent as attempt and conspiracy to bribe a public official of that Party.
The offences set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above are hereinafter referred to as “bribery of a foreign public official”.
The document is quite long, and a read it recommended.
1/ The Federal Government added this “Deferred Prosecution Agreement” into the Criminal Code to allow companies to avoid criminal penalties (and the bulk of financial penalties), under this arrangement. This is stuffed into the end of a completely unrelated budget bill.
4/ New AG says he sees nothing wrong, and may still give DPA to SNC Lavalin.
5/ Public interest and outrage in story is growing.
6/ This DPA appears to violate international anti-bribery agreement.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.