[steveintoronto]

SNC-Lavalin still under investigation from RCMP in Quebec

As Quebec company was lobbying for deferred prosecution last spring, officers were searching its offices

Jonathan Montpetit · CBC News · Posted: Feb 12, 2019 6:59 PM ET | Last Updated: February 13
[...]
SNC-Lavalin's legal troubles aren't limited to charges from federal authorities, as the RCMP is working with prosecutors in Quebec in an investigation into a bridge renovation project.

An affidavit filed in support of a search warrant application last May indicates the RCMP suspects "high-level company officials were aware" of kickback payments made to the former head of Canada's Federal Bridge Corporation, Michel Fournier.

He pleaded guilty in 2017 to receiving $2.3 million from an SNC subsidiary between 2001 and 2003. Fournier admitted that, in exchange, he helped the corporation secure a $127-million contract to refurbish Montreal's Jacques Cartier Bridge.

The RCMP's investigation continued after Fournier's guilty plea. Officers carried out a series of searches at SNC-Lavalin's Montreal headquarters last spring and summer.

"As this is an ongoing criminal investigation, we are not in a position to comment at this time," an RCMP spokesperson told CBC News on Tuesday.

At the same time as those search warrants were being carried out, company representatives were lobbying the federal government, and opposition politicians as well, for a new legal provision known as a remediation agreement.

The agreement — which was passed into law in June as part of the Liberal government's budget implementation bill — allows companies to negotiate a fine in order to avoid prosecution.

In 2015, federal prosecutors charged SNC-Lavalin with bribing Libyan government officials and defrauding Libyan organizations.

Those charges have been a source of uncertainty for the company. If found guilty, it would be slapped with a 10-year ban on receiving federal government contracts.
When prosecutors announced in October they would not be pursuing a remediation deal, the company's shares tumbled to their lowest level in six years.
RCMP working with Quebec Crown
According to the Globe and Mail, former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould came under pressure from the Prime Minister Office's to push her department to strike an agreement with SNC.
That allegation, denied by the PMO, set off a controversy on Parliament Hill that reached a new inflection point Tuesday with Wilson-Raybould's decision to resign from cabinet.

• Companies guilty of wrongdoing should be hit where it hurts — in their pockets, says business prof

Also this week, the federal ethics commissioner announced he will investigate claims that the PMO pressured Wilson-Raybould to try to ensure SNC-Lavalin would avoid prosecution.
Details of the RCMP's bridge investigation were first reported by Montreal's La Presse.
CBC News consulted court documents on Tuesday that confirmed not only is an RCMP investigation ongoing, but that the Mounties are working with provincial prosecutors as well.

Crown attorneys in Quebec applied in December for the right to hold on to material seized during the RCMP searches at SNC-Lavalin headquarters. It would be up to the province to prosecute any suspected Criminal Code infractions.
A spokesperson for the Quebec Crown declined to comment on the case.
Takeover concerns
The federal charges SNC-Lavalin is facing differ from other recent criminal prosecutions, which have targeted former company executives as opposed to the company itself.
Earlier this month, for example, ex-CEO Pierre Duhaime pleaded guilty to playing a minor role in a $22.5-million bribery scheme that saw company money buy privileged information, allowing it to win a huge contract to build and maintain Montreal's first superhospital, the McGill University Health Centre.
SNC-Lavalin did not respond to a request for comment. In the past, it has said it brought in a new management team after Duhaime left the company in 2012 and implemented tougher corporate governance practices.

It is unclear whether the RCMP investigation into the Jacques Cartier Bridge project is targeted at former employees or the company itself.
The search warrants state that officers believe four counts of fraud on the government were committed. When the RCMP searched SNC-Lavalin's headquarters last year, they were looking for documents dating from 2000 to 2004.
Premier François Legault expressed his concern Tuesday about the prospect of protracted court cases involving the company, worrying they could devalue SNC shares and make it vulnerable to a foreign takeover.
"If the federal process takes two years, then there could be uncertainty for two years," Legault told reporters in Quebec City.
"SNC-Lavalin doesn't have a majority shareholder, so there is a risk of it being an easy target for a buyer."
The company's shares rose 28 cents on the TSX Tuesday, closing at $34.28.

SNC-Lavalin still under investigation from RCMP in Quebec | CBC News

SNC-Lavalin's legal troubles aren't limited to charges from federal authorities, as the RCMP is working with prosecutors in Quebec in an investigation into a bridge renovation project.

www.cbc.ca

Investigations are Ongoing!

How can a DPA be granted under these conditions?

ANALYSIS
What's at stake for RCMP, prosecutors in the SNC-Lavalin case
Social Sharing

Zero convictions despite 7 years and millions spent on SNC investigation, prosecution

Dave Seglins · CBC News · Posted: Feb 25, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: February 27
[...]
But beyond the political scandal, consider the failures of the RCMP and federal prosecutors in the case. Since 2012, the RCMP have charged eight people tied to allegations SNC engaged in bribery of foreign officials. Seven of those accused have had their cases tossed out of court due to delays or problems with evidence. RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada have yet to convict anyone from the company.
[...]
Many are asking whether they are really up to the job.

"Canada has a very poor record of enforcement," says James Cohen, head of the watchdog group Transparency International Canada. "Canadian companies who engage in corruption have sadly been playing the odds that they will not get caught."

The RCMP and PPSC's umbrella case against the company itself, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc and its subsidiaries, could be prosecutors' last hope.

To put it bluntly — they desperately need a win.
[...]
In April 2012, that executive, Riadh Ben Aïssa, was arrested in Switzerland where he was held for two and a half years. He pleaded guilty in Switzerland to bribery and laundering millions to win SNC-Lavalin contracts in Libya.

'We've done nothing wrong'
The company has long maintained that any bribes or kickbacks were the work of rogue employees.

The company's latest CEO Neil Bruce told investors on Friday the company will vigorously defend itself against the charge its international construction arm paid bribes.

"We've done nothing wrong as a company and none of our current employees have done anything wrong," Bruce said.
[...]
To date, the only conviction of anyone at SNC-Lavalin related to foreign bribery was the guilty plea from Ben Aïssa secured by Switzerland.

In Canada, so far every single charge the RCMP has laid has either not stuck — or not yet been to trial.

This month, a charge of obstruction of justice was thrown out against Sami Bebawi due to court delays.
[...]
Bebawi was SNC-Lavalin's top construction executive in the years before Riadh Ben Aïssa. RCMP charged Bebawi in 2014, accusing him of sending a lawyer to visit Ben Aïssa in a Swiss prison to offer $10 million if he covered up Bebawi's involvement in Libya. What Bebawi didn't know is that he'd walked into a sting operation. Ben Aïssa has become a vital co-operating witness for the RCMP.

Bebawi still awaits trial in Montreal on fraud and bribery charges tied to SNC-Lavalin's Libya operations..

Roy, the SNC-Lavalin money man detained briefly in Mexico in 2011, also walked out of court freethis month. As vice-president of finance under Ben Aïssa, Roy was charged with fraud and bribery tied to Libya. But last week a judge tossed all charges due to "unreasonable" delays by the prosecution.
[...continued at length with many more examples and details...]

SNC-Lavalin, the RCMP and a litany of failed prosecutions | CBC News

The political storm over SNC-Lavalin has sparked important debate over alleged political interference in Canada’s justice system, but beyond that, millions have been spent in investigating the company's overseas record, with no Canadian convictions.

www.cbc.ca

Mexico north...

 

[lenaitch]

I agree that SNC-L doesn't seem to be the poster child for remediation agreement. There were issues of improper campaign contributions a few years ago and they are implicated in a recent bribery conviction in Montreal (I wasn't aware of the ongoing investigation). Perhaps that helped form JWR's perspective. Contrition and self-remediation doesn't seem to be their strong suit and throwing an employee or two under the bus doesn't signal good corporate governance.

During the hearing today they kept alluding to the perspective that a prosecutor needs to be open to new information. It seems what they were attempting to offer wasn't evidence or factual information - just perspectives, some of which the legislation clearly indicates she or the DPP is not allowed to consider. Wenick's view on the issue of 'national economic interest', which is in the legislation, sounded like a lawyer arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Videodrome]

Didn't the CPC have some kind of dealings with SNC under Harper? It seems like you can't avoid them when dealing with Quebec,

 

[steveintoronto]

Didn't the CPC have some kind of dealings with SNC under Harper? It seems like you can't avoid them when dealing with Quebec,

They did, The Cons are far from being lily-white on this. It appears to be a Cdn tradition. Both sides of the canola bread are buttered. You especially see this with the Dairy Cartels and other 'protected' enclaves. But screw you or me. We don't count. We're not Family Compact royalty. The Libs via Quebec are favoured lovers though.

It seems what they were attempting to offer wasn't evidence or factual information - just perspectives, some of which the legislation clearly indicates she or the DPP is not allowed to consider.

JWR has been 'shut down' from further testimony. The Libs can either choose bad, or worse as to outcome. By doing this, it guarantees them worse. This is not going to go away.

Wenick's view on the issue of 'national economic interest', which is in the legislation, sounded like a lawyer arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Umm...at least Butts passed the sanity test, even if everything he stated was and is suspect. Wernick? He's Mayor of Flip City. He's going to be the easy one to hang.

Do you have a link or reference for that?

I've spent the last couple of hours on and off looking for definitive reference for that. I can't find it, may have to withdraw the claim, but what I have found is allusion in earlier media coverage that all witnesses were to be sworn in. And that reference occurs in quite a few places. What's curious is when the requirement was dropped, and by whose decision (as if we didn't know).

I apologize for the poor answer right now, but will reference a better one later. It's a very good question.

 

[PinkLucy]

I was looking also and couldn’t find it. Any video I could find wasn’t helpful. I looked for a transcript of the full proceedings and couldn’t find it.

 

[steveintoronto]

I was looking also and couldn’t find it. Any video I could find wasn’t helpful. I looked for a transcript of the full proceedings and couldn’t find it.

Just taking another stab at it, no luck, but I will find out more, the right tags to search with are eluding me right now...but did just trip across this. It leaves me livid for obvious reasons:

Liberal MP Randy Boissonnault says committee still deciding on further Wilson-Raybould testimony | Watch News Videos Online

Watch Liberal MP Randy Boissonnault says committee still deciding on further Wilson-Raybould testimony Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca

globalnews.ca

I'm biting my tongue (fingers really) but my reaction is shared. The media aren't taking this lying down. The Libs are inviting hell and damnation, and they shall receive it!

Addendum:
I continue to be highly impressed with Lisa Raitt's composure and presentation. This has to transcend partisanship, and she does, as a lawyer more than a politician:

Lisa Raitt says it’s very important that Wilson-Raybould testify again | Watch News Videos Online

Watch Lisa Raitt says it’s very important that Wilson-Raybould testify again Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca

globalnews.ca

But here's the political strength to her performance, non-partisan or otherwise: Many women are going to watch this, hold their noses to the general Con stench, and think: "Hey, I don't care for the Cons, and Scheer is just creepy, but this woman speaks to me more than anyone left in the Lib Cabinet at this time".

Raitt isn't my 'cup of tea', but if I were to meet her, I'd shake her hand and congratulate her for this...and ask her if there isn't some way that she could take the reins of the FedCons?

 

[Northern Light]

Apparently nobody has been put under oath in 25 years for the purposes of such testimonies. What did you expect the Liberals to do?

I'm not unreasonable. I didn't expect them to go out of their way to solicit an oath where this would be out of the norm.

What I expect is that they understand optics.

The opposition made a motion to place him (Butts) under oath. That hardly seems unreasonable on its face. If he's telling the truth there is no risk of consequence (and indeed since the consequence would fall to the same committee to impose, and it has a Liberal majority, he's pretty safe).

You have to face the fact that defeating such a motion appears to protect the witness in the event he is lying.

That maybe totally unfair.

But it doesn't matter. Optics demands you support the request.

There is no adverse impact in the event of honest testimony.

Butts is (or should be) smart enough not get caught in a lie.

Appearing to give him a free pass to lie, looks terrible.

Its just a fail on politics 101.

 

[Northern Light]

I found today’s testimony compelling. Can it really be true that the attorney general never put in writing that she was refusing the DPA?

Can it also be true that the decision on the DPA is not supposed to occur until after the conviction?

Wouldn't it be nice is the committee had voted yes to an order to produce all texts, emails and other written records pertinent to this matter, so that we the public could evaluate the veracity of the testimony on that question?

But they voted against, 5-4 on partisan lines.

 

[steveintoronto]

What I expect is that they understand optics.

The Court of Public Opinion has a jury. And the polls are showing which way they're leaning at this point.

Many are claiming (gist) "This will all be forgotten come the election". I somehow doubt that. And my cause for believing that? The Media.

I don't have a vote in this nation at this time due to residency rules. But if I did, as much as I've voted Conservative in decades past, what's on offer from them now is the other side of the fence from where I stand. But like a lot of folks, a good size minority of whom voted Liberal, I have a sense of disgust and betrayal as to what's unfolding. This isn't a case of 'grin, hold your nose, and bear it'...it's a case of being taken for a fool. And the standing of this nation in international rankings of honesty taking a massive hit.

Trudeau's missives on our rule of law and moral superiority are looking and smelling just a bit rancid of late.

 

[steveintoronto]

Sworn testimony under oath:

I've found some very recent articles on the expectation (Raitt is referenced for presuming this) that the Justice Cmte would be conducted under oath, but here's something to consider, as I'm sure the media will:

Swearing-in of Witnesses
A witness appearing before a committee may be required to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation; however, under normal circumstances, witnesses are not sworn in. The decision as to the swearing-in of witnesses is entirely at the discretion of the committee. A witness who refuses to be sworn in might face a charge of contempt. Likewise, the refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not. In addition, witnesses who lie under oath may be charged with perjury.

Committee Proceedings - Committees - House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third edition, 2017

The web-page is a worthy read!

 

[PinkLucy]

Here are the transcripts. I can't see that she was sworn in: http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-135/evidence. I also checked the Twitter feeds of reporters who were live-tweeting her evidence, but no one mentioned anything about a swearing in.

 

[steveintoronto]

Here are the transcripts. I can't see that she was sworn in: http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-135/evidence. I also checked the Twitter feeds of reporters who were live-tweeting her evidence, but no one mentioned anything about a swearing in.

Here's apparently what has happened, and I too can't find any reference to her being 'sworn in'. I'll dig later to see if Butt's also supplied written notes:
(our point of discussion is whether the playing field was/is level or not..."he said, she said")

If witnesses use speaking notes (even if they are handwritten), they must usually submit five copies to the clerk. These copies will assist with the simultaneous interpretation of the witness's testimony.

Please note that if witnesses need to distribute documents to committee members at the meeting, the witnesses must submit the documents in both official languages to the clerk upon their arrival at the meeting room. The clerk can confirm before the meeting the exact number of copies required and will ensure the proper distribution of the documents if they meet the committee's requirements. If the documents are not available in both official languages at the time of the meeting, they will be distributed to committee members at a later date after they have been translated. [...]

Guide for Witnesses Appearing Before House of Commons Committees - ProceduralInfo - House of Commons of Canada

And here are her notes:

http://jwilson-raybould.liberal.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/1565/2019/02/02272019Speaking-Notes-JWR-FINAL-.pdf

I'm now having no luck in finding Butts' notes. I've found his "opening statement" but not as a submission to the Cmte:

Gerald Butts testifies at justice committee: Full opening statement - Macleans.ca

Justin Trudeau's longtime confidant told MPs his side of the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Read his full prepared remarks here—including additions and omissions he made on delivery

www.macleans.ca

Addendum: Being an appendage of Parliament, Members of the House may not have to be 'sworn in' per-se, as the rules of the House would continue to pertain to Members....but not to those who aren't.

Digging on that reveals a cornucopia of views, starting here:

Canadian Parliamentary Review - Article

And using the Westminster example (which is referenced in Cdn Parliamentary Law)

What are the legal implications of lying to a select committee?
Imprisonment or a substantial fine could theoretically be imposed as a punishment by parliament on anyone who told lies in evidence to a select committee. Misleading MPs is deemed to amount to a "contempt of the house" in the same way that refusing to answer a summons to appear before a committee is reported to the Commons. The offender would be summoned to the bar of the house.

What about sanctions?
The problem is that the sanctions – involving fine or imprisonment – to enforce any punishment are constitutionally somewhat rusty. Vernon Bogdanor, the former professor of government at Oxford University, has suggested they may have fallen into "desuetude" [disuse]. The House of Commons is not believed to have fined anybody since 1666 and has not "committed anyone to custody", apart from temporarily detaining them, since the 19th century.

The last time the Commons attempted to reprimand anyone at the bar of the house was in 1957 when the Sunday Express editor John Junor was criticised after offending MPs by publishing an editorial accusing them of abusing their petrol allowances. "Such a sanction would now appear high-handed," the recent standard and privileges committee report acknowledged.[...]

Lying to a select committee: the law | Owen Bowcott

Owen Bowcott: Decoding the news: In the phone-hacking scandal, what are the legal implications for those who appear before a select committee?

www.theguardian.com

And a very cynical view here: (and deja vu)

Their toothlessness is in stark contrast to influential, authoritative Senate committees in the United States or Commons committees in Great Britain.

Franks says there's actually been considerable improvement since parliamentary committees were first created in Canada, with little expectation that they'd ever actually meet or do any work. Reforms, starting in the 1960s, mandated committees to launch studies and examine legislation.

Still, compared to Britain, the U.S. or Australia, he says, "it's a pretty weak system."

Indeed, opposition MPs maintain the system has become downright meaningless since the Tories won their coveted majority last May and started using their domination of committees to control their work.

Parliamentary committees are 'weak', 'waste of time' | CBC News

I'll continue to dig later.

 

[steveintoronto]

The thing is, he's not a politician. He is (was) not accountable to a constituency or parliament; he's a hired minion.

And we're seeing scant reference to this point in most media coverage. JWR is beholden to the Rules of Parliament. Butts isn't.

Not the way I read the legislation(Part XXII.1 Criminal Code). A "remediation agreement" may be instituted where an organization has alleged to have committed a scheduled offence. It is an alternative to prosecution. If it was applicable after conviction it would a sentencing agreement. When you look at the words, the agreement 'defers' the 'prosecution'.

This point resonated as I was just reading this:

[...]
(Butts) insisted Ms. Wilson-Raybould never indicated she had made a final decision – and that by law, she can’t have made a final decision, because she must keep an open mind to new considerations until the day a judge delivers a verdict.

That’s important, because Ms. Wilson-Raybould testified that she made up her mind in September yet the PM’s operatives kept hounding her for months. Mr. Butts insisted she didn’t say she’d made up her mind, and kept asking for feedback. He said Ms. Wilson-Raybould asked to meet him in what became a two-hour dinner at the Château Laurier in December, and she was the one who raised the topic.
[...]

Canadians must now judge who is more credible: Gerald Butts or Jody Wilson-Raybould

He insists that there would’ve been no cabinet shuffle in January if former Treasury Board president Scott Brison hadn’t resigned. But the explanation for why that required a move for Wilson-Raybould doesn’t seem quite right

www.theglobeandmail.com

There's a disconnect in there no matter how it's stacked...

 

[steveintoronto]

SNC-Lavalin still under investigation from RCMP in Quebec | CBC News

SNC-Lavalin's legal troubles aren't limited to charges from federal authorities, as the RCMP is working with prosecutors in Quebec in an investigation into a bridge renovation project.

www.cbc.ca

Investigations are Ongoing!

How can a DPA be granted under these conditions?

SNC-Lavalin, the RCMP and a litany of failed prosecutions | CBC News

The political storm over SNC-Lavalin has sparked important debate over alleged political interference in Canada’s justice system, but beyond that, millions have been spent in investigating the company's overseas record, with no Canadian convictions.

www.cbc.ca

Mexico north...

Did Canada’s top prosecutor make the right call on SNC-Lavalin?

KONRAD YAKABUSKI
PUBLISHED MARCH 5, 2019UPDATED 1 DAY AGO
FOR SUBSCRIBERS
[...]
In SNC-Lavalin’s case, the company does not appear to have disclosed information to police about alleged wrongdoing involving the former head of its international operations, Riadh Ben Aissa, before the RCMP conducted a raid on the company’s Montreal head office in April, 2012, at the behest of Swiss authorities. This failure by SNC-Lavalin to alert police in a timely fashion may be at the root of the DPP’s decision.

Allowing a company to negotiate a remediation agreement after it or its employees get caught by police might decrease the incentive for other companies to voluntarily come forward and admit wrongdoing. In the United States, where deferred prosecution agreements have existed for years, voluntary disclosure is considered a critical factor by the Department of Justice in whether to grant a DPA.

Unless Ms. Roussel is required to elaborate on her reasons for refusing to negotiate a remediation agreement, we cannot know what specific factors swayed her decision. It may not matter with respect to the allegations of political interference by the PMO. But it would certainly shed light on whether she made the right call in the first place.

Did Canada’s top prosecutor make the right call on SNC-Lavalin?

The answer to that question would help Canadians figure out whether former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould was correct in upholding the Director of Public Prosecutions’s decision

www.theglobeandmail.com

And note the PM et al are meticulously avoiding that point.

 

[lenaitch]

(Butts) insisted Ms. Wilson-Raybould never indicated she had made a final decision – and that by law, she can’t have made a final decision, because she must keep an open mind to new considerations until the day a judge delivers a verdict.

I don't know the source of that quote but whoever said it might need to source their reference. If a judge delivers a verdict it is either an acquittal or a conviction; if it's an acquittal, jurisdiction is lost - if it's a conviction then jurisdiction is limited to sentencing.

Here's a defining piece of the legislation (emphasis mine):

remediation agreement means an agreement, between an organization accused of having committed an offence and a prosecutor, to stay any proceedings related to that offence if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement. (accord de réparation)