Problem: Experts share their insights on implications for businesses following changes in the anti-graft Act Why was there a need to amend the anti-graft law? The Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted three decades ago in 1988. Since then, several major socio-economic changes have taken place. During this time the international stance on bribery and corruption has also become way more stringent. In May 2011, India ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. In this context, the 1988 Act was being considered a bit archaic, if not completely obsolete. Therefore, a need for ...

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "The 1988 anti-graft law was antiquated"?

A: Yes

Problem: That motion, like this one, arose out of parliamentary debate during the Thirty-fifth Parliament on Bill C-41, to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "to not amend any Divorce Act"?

A: No

Problem: The debate on the bill is whether a proper balance is being struck between the rights of the accused and the rights of society as represented by law enforcement agencies charged with the responsibility and duty to bring criminals to justice, investigate crimes and have a sufficiently strong record in terms of success that it would be a deterrent to those who plan and commit premeditated acts against an individual.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "The bill being debated is not intended to serve as a deterrent."?

A:
No