Public Inquiry - Demanding Truth to Power - The SNC Lavalin Affair

PART I Public Inquiries

Marginal note:Inquiry

2 The Governor in Council may, whenever the Governor in Council deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 2.

Marginal note:Appointment of commissioners

3 Where an inquiry as described in section 2 is not regulated by any special law, the Governor in Council may, by a commission, appoint persons as commissioners by whom the inquiry shall be conducted.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 3.

Marginal note:Powers of commissioners concerning evidence

4 The commissioners have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to


(a) give evidence, orally or in writing, and on oath or, if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters on solemn affirmation; and


(b) produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.

R.S., c. I-13, s. 4.

Marginal note:Idem, enforcement

5 The commissioners have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.

__________________________________________________________________________________

It is important to reiterate:  "cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.."

There is no doubt - regardless of any partisan viewpoint - that an Inquiry regarding the SNC debacle is a matter of "the good government of Canada".

Canadians - despite their political stripe are very concerned about the system of Justice in our country. They need to be reassured or otherwise advised that good government is what exists in Canada right now.

There is also a need for Canadians and in fact many parliamentarians to understand fully what our justice system looks like.

From an education perspective - an Inquiry could provide information through testimony written or oral to Canadians and many parliamentarians about the role of the Attorney General and the role of Minister of Justice. This piece alone would allow Canadians and our lawmakers a good foundation in order to review the roles and the benefits of having the roles separated.

This is evidenced by the ignorant remarks of many politicians, pundits, some journalists,  and the Twitterati. Many are struggling to understand the difference in the two positions.

If the objective is to have a more engaged and participatory electorate - which all Parties say they are interested in achieving - an Inquiry on this affair would be very helpful.

Yesterday, when listening to the testimony by Jody Wilson-Raybould (hereinafter referred to as JWR) and the questions from some committee members I have no choice but to conclude they (some committee members) do not understand the roles of the AG and Minister of Justice. If I don't find they are ignorant - I must find they are playing partisan games with an extremely important issue for Canadians.

Subsequent to the testimony of JWR - I observed further juvenile attempts at making the former Attorney General appear as a rigid person with no sympathy for jobs and a Canadian company. Why not join with and cooperate with her colleagues in Cabinet? The fact that she cannot do that as the Attorney General does not seem to faze them. That represents an extreme disrespect for the Justice system and must not be tolerated - particularly by lawmakers.

Let's run it through this way. As Minister of Justice JWR would sit in the Cabinet room and participate in making decisions about changing laws - and referencing the SNC affair the change to the Criminal Code making Remediation agreements a "tool" for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider and then perhaps offered to a company facing corporate corruption charges.

As the Attorney General - JWR's role was not that of Cabinet solidarity and reasoned consensus among equals.

The fact that the two roles are being used in a politically expedient way to justify twisting the story to Canadians is not acceptable. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues to answer all questions with "we are interested in protecting good jobs in Canada" - he is deliberately confusing the reality of what occurs during the process of Justice.

From JWR's testimony last evening, I got the distinct impression that she as Minister of Justice may not have agreed with her Cabinet colleagues in making the change to the Criminal Code - when they did. JWR may have taken exception to the haste in which the legislation was occurring - the manner in which it was presented (under a Budget Bill) and further the promise by her own party that the report on DPA's or RA's would be reviewed and time would be given under "Next Steps" for people to comment on the findings of the report. Instead the report was made public for Canadians to see and just five days later a law was drafted and presented in a Budget Bill. This is another example of Justin Trudeau's leadership and the desire to satisfy SNC instead of satisfying the need for good laws and how and when to utilize an RA. Hence why we might be hearing she was too rigid. If what I stated above is the case - JWR once again, made a good decision to slow down the process of changing the Criminal Code simply to satisfy one corporate entity.

I did find it remarkable that while JWR did support the Budget Omnibus Bill as a consolidated member of Cabinet - she was not out extolling the benefits of such a change.

It would be instructive for Canadians to hear what process was used to push through a change in the Criminal Code for potentiially corrupt corporations to escape prosecution. It would be instructive to know why the government reneged on its promise to review the consultation report on RA's DPA's and allow Canadians to comment further on the findings. This certainly leads one to believe that SNC Lavalin was getting preferred treatment even before the law was passed.

An Inquiry would also be very constructive with respect to Canada's global participation and agreement with conventions to deal with Corporate Crime worldwide - particularly in third world nations with emerging economies. There is a reason the World Bank has guidelines for companies - such as SNC Lavalin - for bidding on projects they are financing. There is a reason SNC Lavalin is under debarment by the World Bank. Further having been found in violation of these rules for procurement - SNC would be of concern to emerging economies and the safety of people living in them.

It is important for Canadians to know exactly what has gone on with SNC globally (where the majority of their "employees" work) and why the debarment occurred. It is equally important for Canadians to know why that matters to them and to the commitments made on behalf of our citizens by our government. An Inquiry could achieve this.

Then there are the outlying situations that should be reviewed by an independent body such as an Inquiry. They can call witnesses and it would be beneficial to Canadians if such were to occur.

Upon trying unsuccessfully many times to influence a decision of the Attorney General regarding SNC Lavalin - the government set upon finding another way to change the mind of the Attorney General. The government can and probably will change procurement policy to allow SNC the ability to bid on federal projects regardless of conviction or not. The bigger worry to SNC Lavalin and the majority of its work in the global marketplace is the debarment by the World Bank. In that regard SNC needed to keep its nose clean and if they were convicted by the courts in Canada of corporate crimes - additional penalties may apply.

An Inquiry would be able to examine and call witnesses regarding the miraculous event of Scott Brison retiring from politics thereby allowing a shuffle under less suspicious events. Even today the Prime Minister states that if Scott Brison had not resigned JWR would still be the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. In other words, it would not look so obvious that she was being removed for saying NO as the Attorney General. A quick note on Trudeau's insistance that JWR would still hold the portfolio - it does not jive with the smear campaign that she was rigid, incompetent, and difficult to deal with etc. Let's see what possibly could have happened to make this miraculous opportunity occur. Brison was clearly offered a prestigious position with BMO.

Please read the following:


The Honourable Kevin G. Lynch, P.C., O.C., PH. D, LL.D
Vice-Chair, BMO Financial Group
The Honourable Kevin Lynch has been Vice Chairman of BMO Financial Group since 2010. Prior to that, he was a distinguished former public servant with 33 years of service with the Government of Canada, serving as Clerk of the Privy Council, Secretary to the Cabinet, Deputy Minister of Finance, Deputy Minister of Industry, as well as Executive Director for Canada at the International Monetary Fund.
Kevin is Chancellor of the University of King’s College, a senior Fellow of Massey College and the past Chair of the Board of Governors of the University of Waterloo. He chairs the Board of SNC Lavalin and is a director of CN Railway and CNOOC Ltd (China National Overseas Oil Company). As well, Kevin is a Trustee of the Killam Trusts and a Director of Communitech, the Governor General’s Rideau Hall Foundation and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Previously, Kevin served on the boards of the Ditchley Foundation of Canada (Chair), the Accounting Standards Oversight Council (ASOC), the Ontario Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee, the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, the Gairdner Foundation, the Perimeter Institute, the Bank of Canada, Empire (Sobeys), Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC), the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), BMO China and the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Kevin earned his BA from Mount Allison University, a Masters in Economics from the University of Manchester and a doctorate in Economics from McMaster University. He was made a Member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada in 2009, was appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2011, has received 11 honorary doctorates from Canadian Universities, and was awarded the Queen’s Golden and Diamond Jubilee Medals for public service.

This CV alone can draw questions as to why an offer to Scott Brison ever occurred and particularly when it occurred.

Interestingly most media outlets and politicians will not delve into this side of things. After all the bankers hold a little bit of influence over them all.

An Inquiry could be very useful in vetting this occurrence and any role it may have played in the miraculous opportunity to shuffle Cabinet. It could sniff out any improper or potentially illegal interference by SNC in the governance of our country. Certainly, the past operations of SNC would lend credit to such interference being possible. They have proven the lengths they will go to get a desired result either in law or for a contract - both inside and outside Canada.

An Inquiry could review the lobbying efforts of a company while under criminal charges and look at real measures to ensure this type of activity is regulated to benefit the best interests of Canadians not SNC Lavalin or any other company in the same position.

Canadians are concerned about transparency and ethical behaviors in government. They are concerned about undue influence by powerful corporations and the people employed by them. They are concerned about the system of Justice and whether our system has the necessary protections to avoid negating the independence of Justice.

The fact that our country has been tied up by this messy SNC Lavalin for this long certainly adds to the need for a Public Inquiry and the clarity it could bring to the broader issues of law and independence of it.

With respect to the Ethics Commissioner and an investigation into these matters - it is limited in scope. It will not - because it cannot - look at the broad implications of interference. By all means carry on looking at ethics and potential conflicts of interest of parliamentarians and some staff - however this must be augmented by an Inquiry to fully review what has taken place here.

An Inquiry into these matters may produce a Shawcross like document - which for Canada and Canadians would be positive and be very relevant to Canadian laws and interpretation. This must only be seen as a good benefit that could be achieved from a very questionable affair.

Positively - an Inquiry may teach a very important lesson to parliamentarians. This sad sorry state of affairs may well have been avoided completely if Trudeau and his government took the transparent approach to SNC Lavalin and its plight. Trudeau's real problem is he was in large part elected because he was not Stephen Harper. He was going to shed light on our system, be transparent, be socially advanced with women in Cabinet and bringing equality to our system. He and his government could have come out and made a public case for DPR's or RA's - particularly for SNC - instead of some backroom deal attempt with the Attorney General and guaranteeing her good op-eds if she would be onside. SNC was not served well by this approach and they clearly believed that Trudeau et al would only respond to the dark backroom of lobbying and potential interference. His commitment to women has been destroyed by this approach - he is willing to throw a woman of integrity under the bus for having integrity and taking her role seriously. Once again the irony exudes as Trudeau uses the words "we take seriously" in his spin lines of preference.

Finally - unless Trudeau removes the gag from JWR - allowing her to continue to provide Canadians the remaining information since her departure from Justice and AG - the Public Inquiry could get to the bottom of that relevant information.

All one has to do is to watch the concerns of Canadians on this matter - to agree there is a need for a Public Inquiry. The Prime Minister of Canada could make this happen and prove his commitment to transparency and the rule of law.

What could possibly be negative about a Public Inquiry unless - you know of course - the findings would be horrific. How about we demand truth to power.

JPT, JWR, SNC, LPC, BMO, PMO, GMB and DPP

Battle of the Initials

If we put aside the unnecessarily quiet and pretzel gymnastics process to get a Remediation Agreement for SNC Lavalin we can pretty much figure out the mess.

JWR would not overturn the DPP position that SNC would not be invited to achieve a Remediation Agreement?

SNC had a fit?

PMO and JPT sort of expressed their desire to see SNC get an invitation to the RA party.?

JWR did not agree but JPT told her it was her call?

Cabinet shuffle required to get desired result for SNC?

Obvious choice Scott Brison perhaps for more than one reason - gets offered plum position with BMO?

After-all BMO would also be very interested in seeing a favourable deal for SNC?

BMO executive who is also SNC executive makes that happen?

GMB probably facilitated and assisted with strategy on above?

JPT has shuffle to deal with Brison departure and removes JWR from post?

JWR gets enraged at the realization that is was her decision on SNC but not her call on who gets to serve in what capacity in the Cabinet of JPT. (this is real evident in body language at second swearing in)

JPT chooses SNC RA friendly new Justice Minister?

JWR and GMB feel all under control until the Globe and Mail story?

After quick strategy review - standard speaking note was achieved and PMO JPT and GMB confident in solicitor-client privilege will keep JWR quiet?

JWR hears JPT speak for her (I spoke to her 2 times and everything ok) further inflamed by Liberals saying things like "Jody-Centric" "difficult" etc.

JWR quits Cabinet retains counsel. 

GMB and JPT and PMO have new crisis.

Throughout the communications strategy has been horrible.

So JWR wants GMB gone - wants new Cabinet post - wants to be publicly justified?

GMB takes hit - Liberals make-up - nothing to see here returns?

New speaking notes for JPT. He reads out legislative authority of DPP (perhaps he should have done that when the Budget contained the change to the Criminal Code for SNC)?

Controlled committee? Ethics violations have not hurt JPT yet - so probably won't now? 

Will Canadians ever learn the truth? Unlikely 

What happens with SNC  now?

How is it SNC Executive has case thrown out?  Who dropped the ball there?

Will the parliament repeal the RA DPA and do the process more openly and properly? 

Transparency? no 
Truth? no
Punish Corruption? no
somebody leaked something to Globe and Mail right? Who's benefit was that for?
Meanwhile Vice-Admiral Mark Norman charged with breach of trust?Who's benefit was that for?


Speaking truth to power? We'll see if the electorate does that this year. 

 

 







 

The legislative sprint for SNC Lavalin

Sometimes it is worthwhile to review a sequence of events.

As it relates to the SNC situation that we find our Country transfixed by - the discussion around the  deluge of lobbying by the company as they sat charged with serious criminal offences - has been somewhat vetted. 

Many have also talked about the fact that changes to the Criminal Code were buried in a Budget Bill. Most seem to find that inappropriate.

Obviously there are continued questions and escalating mistrust which will likely continue to haunt the PMO and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - as long as there are no comments from Jody Wilson-Raybould.

This post however will review a surely impossible sequence of events that lead up to the tabled change to the Criminal Code within the Budget Bill.

Let's make this short. It will add to the call for investigative measures to take place regarding this SNC mess.

You've probably heard by now that Canadians were told that the government was considering Deferred Prosecution Agreements. The spin - partially true - was that the public could have commented on this idea. Let's say the MP's did not do a full court press to constituents on this very important matter. The MSM were not all aflutter with advising Canadians of this very important consultation process.

Putting that aside - the consultation took place between September 25th - December 08 2017.

The report on the consultations found (PRESS HERE) was dated February 22nd 2018. The report is a general summary of what was heard or submitted by participants, a copy of the questions given to participants to answer, and a paragraph at the end of report titles "Next Steps", The following is that paragraph: The Government of Canada will further review the feedback received and assess whether enhancements to the Integrity Regime are warranted to ensure that the Regime continues to achieve its objectives, is efficient in doing so, and addresses new trends and risks in a constantly changing marketplace. Feedback will also be used by the Government of Canada in considering the possibility of introducing a Canadian DPA regime as an additional tool for prosecutors, to be used in appropriate circumstances, to address corporate crime. (emphasis added)

Further the last paragraph reads: While this public consultation has ended, the Government of Canada remains committed to hearing from interested parties regarding both the Integrity Regime and DPAs.

So on February 22nd of 2018 the report for consideration - to be assessed and reviewed - and even to possibly continue to hear from other people was released. It could be reviewed by Canadians and Parliamentarians alike. Let's have a discussion kind of tone.

5 days later there is a Budget Bill presented to the House of Commons that included the changes to the Criminal Code on these matters.

The proposed law was written and presented to Parliament 5 days after the report is released for assessment, review, and even more invited commentary. 

Please take the time to think about that. In 5 short days 3 months of material and findings were reviewed - assessed - and already presented for passage of the Budget Bill.

Any reasonably minded person would conclude the proposed changes to the Criminal Code were already written before the report was released.

Any reasonably minded person knows that Criminal Code changes just don't happen that way or that fast.

The report does not allow Canadians to see who said what - and what exactly was being submitted. 

But lucky for Canadians - SNC Lavalin put its submission on their site.

Have a look at the report referenced above and then the changes to the Criminal Code (PRESS HERE)  and then decide who influenced our law.

Undue influence? Need to get the fix in place for SNC in a timely manner?

Next post will deal with the change in language from Deferred Prosecution Agreements to Remediation Agreements. Funny that when GM Butts resigned - he actually used the term Deferred Prosecution Agreements instead of Remediation Agreements - the latter of which is actually law. 









 

YES NC Trudeau

By now most Canadians are asking what happened between former Justice Minister and Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould (JWR), the Prime Minister, the PMO and SNC Lavalin.

After watching and reading many different news stories, commentaries/opinions, social media discourse, legal filings, banking information, global conventions, and documents of the World Bank - I am prepared to put together a maybe.

The following represents my thoughts, speculations, and opinions based on what really seems plausible to me.

Please note that not all the statements below are facts - rather a group of facts and hypothesis based on what we know and don't.

SNC Lavalin is experiencing difficulties primarily do to their self-made legal troubles. I do not believe losing the Canadian marketplace is where they are most worried (easy for government to get around that).

The companies urgent concerns are anywhere where the World Bank is backing developments wherein SNC is likely and able to bid for work.

I believe it's possible that JWR - the former Justice Minister was chosen by Trudeau and strategists for that Cabinet post for 2 reasons.  The first is to enhance and display their branding - indigenous woman holding a top portfolio - the second they estimated that JWR was malleable to execute a saving agreement for SNC Lavalin. I find the first reason insulting as I do not believe it was sincere - just part of a large scale marketing plan and the second was one of the the greatest miscalculations of a person and their integrity, intelligence, and backbone I have ever seen.

SNC Lavalin knew what they needed long ago. They pegged the Liberals for delivery and worked their back-room magic for insurance.

They "lobbied" that is to say they prettied up influence to make an attempt at a legal process to direct their reward.

They did not want - they needed - very desperately for the bribery and fraud allegations and charges to disappear.

They could not suffer an additional blow to their already trashed reputation at the World Bank.

The Liberals did the first thing that was necessary and that was to change the Criminal Code. They did so under a Budget Bill. That was more due to urgency than it was anything else. If it had gone through a proper process - a process expected when one proposes to change the Criminal Code it would likely have been too late for SNC Lavalin.

Once the Budget Bill passed - the rush was on to get SNC Lavalin the fix they needed.

They needed a Remediation Agreement (RA) applied to the company.

No doubt SNC Lavalin went through the motions of "lobbying" while who knows what other methods of communication to get this process moving.

The prosecutor was not budging - so the deed was passed to JWR.

One can guess that this whole compromise deal was raised in Cabinet and probably the majority of Cabinet agreed to the proposed fix for the company. Unlike other Cabinet Posts the Department of Justice and the Attorney General must be independent. It's only proper. It was then no doubt that JWR started to feel the pressure. It may have come from a combined effort applied by Cabinet colleagues and the PMO.

It may have been at this point that JWR started to put it all together and began to wonder what was truly her "role" in the Trudeau administration.

She started to smell a rat and felt that she must do what was expected or she would end up under a political bus.

At that time she probably did want reassurance from the man who had praised her so highly and made a very compelling public case for equality in the Cabinet. Surely this man - who had embraced her and praised her skills and intelligence would provide some assurance that making - what she felt was the right decision - would be welcome by this Prime Minister.

Whatever happened at the meeting and the tone of which words were spoken will only be known when JWR speaks.

Trudeau however had his answer and it was not what he or SNC wanted to hear. No deal!

It could have been real tidy, a Minister that played her role - for the sake of saving Quebec enterprise. Gazetted by Minister JWR and in the event of a backlash (spin did not work on the SNC file) she could have been sacrificed while the rest stayed "clean". No deal!

That presented a unique and difficult situation for the Liberals and their buddies. Now what?

Well if he hauled her out of the portfolio it may very well be seen as pandering to SNC and firing her for not doing what they expected she would.

BMO and other banks and their investment divisions certainly are affected  by the potential outcomes of a potential SNC Lavalin failure or takeover.

This part is a bit trickier because I have mixed thoughts on whether Scott Brison knew or not - regarding a needed Cabinet Shuffle. BMO might have offered him what is a very lucrative and prestigious position at a time when Brison may have wanted a change for more than one reason. They all might have played him like a fiddle or he might have taken one for the larger corporate/political team (so to speak) as the cushion he landed on was quite soft.

Trudeau said it perfectly today - if Brison had not resigned JWR would have remained and still be the Minister of Justice and AG. Reread above - yes we can assume that just throwing her out on her own without another reason for a shuffle would have been too obvious.

Regardless of why Brison took the leap - he did and this gave the PM an opportunity to shuffle. The shuffle was ridiculous and clearly a demotion for JWR. That is part of the Liberal's incompetent attempt at covering.

The PM then appointed a person who could certainly be seen to enjoy towing the line and getting done what JWR would not.

The new Minister and AG did a poor job of playing it coy and generally delivered an amateur attempt at being a master "politician" - at a time when the Liberals needed one most.

JWR stayed in Cabinet and probably learned that SNC would be taken care of - so to speak.

Between that and the mixed, confused, and inconsistent messaging attempts of Trudeau and his overrated cast of cohorts - JWR decided it was time to pull out.

One thing remains if Trudeau can be taken at his word - being she would have remained as Minister of Justice had Brison not resigned - then certainly we can assume that the decisions she made re: SNC would be continued and would have been acceptable (not). This is what makes the whole thing ridiculous, unbelievable, and and likely the reason the Liberals may be defeated.

Then again - I am of the belief that SNC will be saved at the cost of losing government if necessary. All those who deliver would certainly expect to land as softly as let's say Scott Brison.

As Trudeau likes to say we are working for the middle class and those trying to join the middle class - just like his loyal backbench is working hard to join the Cabinet.

They might just want to pause and really think about what their actual role is.

Everything you have read above makes coincidence unlikely but political/corporate collusion more than likely.

One last note - remember this:
On December 17, 1997, Canada signed the Convention on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD Convention). In 1998 Parliament passed the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) to implement Canada’s obligations under the OECD Convention into Canadian law.
The OECD Convention aims to stop the flow of bribes and to remove bribery as a non-tariff barrier to trade, producing a level playing field in international business.  The OECD Convention came into force on February 15, 1999, following Canada’s ratification. To date, 44 states have ratified the OECD Convention, including the 36 member states of the OECD and eight non-member states: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru, Russia and South Africa.
In June 2013 Parliament amended the CFPOA to increase the maximum penalty for convicted individuals, to create a new books and records offence and to expand jurisdiction based on nationality.  In addition, the 2013 amendment stated that at a later date the Government would eliminate the exception for facilitation payments. Facilitation payments are those made to foreign public officials to secure or expedite the performance of acts of a routine nature that are within the scope of the official's duties. The repeal came into force on October 31, 2017 and such payments are now included under the foreign bribery offences listed in the CFPOA.


and now in 2018 The Trudeau government did this:
In September 2018, a Remediation Agreement (RA) regime came into force through the creation of a new Part (Part XXII.1) of the Criminal Code. An RA is a new tool available for use by prosecutorial authorities – at their discretion, in the public interest and in appropriate circumstances – to address corporate criminal wrongdoing. It is an agreement, between an organization accused of committing a listed offence and a prosecutor, to stay any proceedings related to that offence, if the organization complies with the terms of the agreement.


Perhaps it's time the World Bank amended its position to ignore such weakening of commitment to cleaning up the global market by not recognizing such RA's.  

and there is this last little bit: (emphasis added for easier read)


The Honourable Kevin G. Lynch, P.C., O.C., PH. D, LL.D
Vice-Chair, BMO Financial Group
The Honourable Kevin Lynch has been Vice Chairman of BMO Financial Group since 2010. Prior to that, he was a distinguished former public servant with 33 years of service with the Government of Canada, serving as Clerk of the Privy Council, Secretary to the Cabinet, Deputy Minister of Finance, Deputy Minister of Industry, as well as Executive Director for Canada at the International Monetary Fund.
Kevin is Chancellor of the University of King’s College, a senior Fellow of Massey College and the past Chair of the Board of Governors of the University of Waterloo. He chairs the Board of SNC Lavalin and is a director of CN Railway and CNOOC Ltd (China National Overseas Oil Company). As well, Kevin is a Trustee of the Killam Trusts and a Director of Communitech, the Governor General’s Rideau Hall Foundation and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Previously, Kevin served on the boards of the Ditchley Foundation of Canada (Chair), the Accounting Standards Oversight Council (ASOC), the Ontario Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee, the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, the Gairdner Foundation, the Perimeter Institute, the Bank of Canada, Empire (Sobeys), Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC), the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), BMO China and the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

Come on now.... Really?  Yes Canada they really do believe we are stupid.... but they also underestimated Jody Wilson-Raybould...