Article content

When the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights held its first hearings into the SNC-Lavalin affair last week, there was an opportunity for the three government witnesses to clear up some misconceptions about the remediation-agreement regime introduced by the government last year.

Instead, for the most part, Attorney General David Lametti, Deputy Minister of Justice Nathalie Drouin and Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick perpetuated these misconceptions or failed to nuance what they were saying.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Ottawa officials keep pushing myths about 'remediation agreements' amid the SNC-Lavalin scandal Back to video

Let’s set the record straight on three serious misconceptions about remediation agreements (RAs).

Misconception 1: Eligibility for remediation agreements can be established by the need to protect innocent third parties.

All three witnesses referred to RAs as a means of protecting innocent third parties from the possibly catastrophic consequences of a conviction. The focus seemed to be on heavy financial penalties and possible debarment from federal contracts upon conviction (even though debarment would be the result of a government procurement policy, not a criminal sanction). That would inevitably have an impact on the bottom line with ripple effects on employees, pensioners and shareholders among other stakeholders.