Bill C-27: A Followup

In yesterday's post, I discussed Linda McQauig's article about the purpose of Bill C-27, the Trudeau- Morneau pension bill that would eviscerate Defined Benefit Plans for those working for the federal government and those industries that are federally regulated, including the obscenely profitable banking sector.

In today's Star, readers express sentiments that few would disagree with:

Morneau and Trudeau looking out for the rich, McQuaig, Nov. 23

Thanks to Linda McQuaig for highlighting the Liberal government’s plan to convert guaranteed pension plans to the much riskier defined plans, which guarantee nothing.

I have only read about this issue in articles about the conflict of interest issues around Finance Minister Bill Morneau.

In my opinion, people would be less outraged about Morneau if they were made aware of the pension change that could drastically change their lives.

I’m hoping that the Star will run a front-page weekend editorial about this pension issue, because I’m betting most people know nothing about the changes the Liberal government is quietly planning to pass.

We frankly have no opposition in the federal government to hold the Liberals accountable.

We should all be outraged and frankly very afraid about our financial futures.

The rich continue to get richer and the middle class poorer.

Marnie Archibald, Barrie, Ont.

It’s clear that the Trudeau government, for all its noise about the plight of the middle class, is still primarily in the service of the wealthy and the corporate elite. Why else would they follow Harper’s Tory path and try to put an end to defined pensions?

Thanks to the Star’s opinion piece by Linda McQuaig, we are reminded again of Finance Minister Morneau’s determination to maintain the priority and preferential position of corporate CEOs and shareholders over the interests of employees who thought they had a contractual retirement deal they could count on.

Of course, employers would rather have employees take their chances on retirement security. Of course, corporate officers prefer to maintain their own defined and generous pensions. But these are feudal attitudes. Our society is less and less fair, more jobs are more and more precarious and retirement security is available only to the wealthy. This is a situation that deserves far more editorial attention and the big headlines as well.

Bruce Rogers, Lindsay, Ont.

The Secret Handshake

In her column in today's Star (which does not yet appear to be available online), Linda McQuaig points out the remarkable similarities between the government of Justin Trudeau and that of Stephen Harper when it comes to facilitating the erosion of defined benefit pension plans. She observes that as a consequence, it is becoming easier for the rich to get richer while ordinary citizens become poorer.

An example of this is currently being played out in Ottawa as the Trudeau government — ostensibly a “progressive” government that champions the middle class — is moving forward with legislation aimed at stripping away pension benefits from potentially hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.

The most immediate problem stems from Finance Minister Bill Morneau's Bill C-27, whose details MoneySense recently provided:

Bill C-27 is an Act to amend the long-standing Pension Benefits Standards Act. Those in favour of pure Defined Benefit (DB) pension plans have criticized Bill C-27, saying it would allow federally regulated employers to replace DB plans, which provide a guaranteed retirement income for life with no risk, with Target Benefit Plans (TBPs) which are also generous pensions but because they count on employees taking on some risk, final retirement guaranteed payments may not be as iron-glad.

Both private sector and government employees will be affected by this bill:

It would allow federally regulated private sector and Crown Corporation employers to offer a TBP to their employees, or to convert an existing DB pension plan into a TBP [Target Benefit Plans, also known as Defined Contribution Plans].

While Moneysense, with its own biases, sees this as a good change, Linda McQuaig offers a different interpretation:

... Certainly, Morneau’s legislation puts the Trudeau government fully on the side of corporate interests who, in recent decades, have been trying to take away hard-won workplace benefits that helped workers enter the ranks of the middle class in the early postwar years.

A key corporate goal has been to replace old-style workplace pensions, where workers are guaranteed specific benefits in retirement, with new-style pensions, where benefits aren’t guaranteed and can shrink if markets fall.

When this kind of change was first championed by Harper, Trudeau appeared to be on the side of the angels, as he

sided strongly with the outraged workers, denouncing Harper’s pension changes as “wrong in principle” and “unacceptable.”

But, after Trudeau became prime minister in 2015, workers were surprised when his new government quietly introduced a strikingly similar version of Harper’s pension changes.

Mr. Trudeau appears to want it both ways, his public image apparently never far from his mind:

The Trudeau government defends its proposed changes on the grounds that workers must “consent” to having their pensions converted to the new riskier format.

But this is like the “consent” given by women who get groped by a powerful boss; employers can get their unionized workers to “consent” by locking them out if they don’t agree to the pension change at the bargaining table.

To provide some penetrating perspective, McQuaig discusses banking, one of the federally-regulated industries that stands to benefit from Trudeau's 'change of heart.'

The corporate keenness to foist riskier pensions on their workers is not driven by necessity. Corporate profits have risen significantly in recent years, even as companies have switched to the stingier pensions that transfer all risk to employees.

Even fabulously rich corporations are adopting the new pensions — not because they can’t afford to pay workers fixed pension benefits like they used to, but because they’d rather not be obliged to do so.

Take the Royal Bank — with staggering profits of $10.5 billion last year. In 2011, RBC adopted the new-style pensions for all new employees.

Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. With the secret handshake that exists between government and private interests, that seems guaranteed.

The Blindness Of Some

Were Bill Morneau the Conservative Minister of Finance, you can rest assured that 'progressives' would be howling for his political blood. However, because he is part of Team Trudeau, some choose to entirely ignore his massive conflict of interest and instead distort my views for their own twisted purposes. One such misrepresentation is the claim that I have said Trudeau is worse than Harper, a complete fabrication.

Were I another sort of person, the offending blogger's many libelous comments about me would result in legal action. But I am a self-assured person who can take criticism; what I steadfastly reject, however, are outright lies about me, the only reason I am making any reference at all to his overwrought posts.

I also realize now that there is likely something quite pathological in his rants and attempts at online bullying, and he is more to be pitied than rebuked. I will speak no more of him or his screeds; he is not worth more than the two minutes it took to write these opening paragraphs.

Those who are willing to examine the facts of Bill Morneau's ethical mess clearly see the damage he has done to his and his government's credibility. Tim Harper writes:

One is left with the unmistakable sense that he got caught by some enterprising reporting. What if the Globe and Mail had not found that Morneau’s substantial holdings were not in a blind trust?

One could easily believe that Morneau would have continued on his path, using a loophole in the conflict-of-interest legislation that allowed him to hold shares in the family company through an arm’s-length holding company.

When Morneau introduced Bill C-27, legislation to make it easier for federal employees to move to a targeted benefit pension, a move that would benefit Morneau Shepell, the company’s stock went up 4.8 per cent within days, Cullen says. Morneau, he said, would have made $2 million in five days from that jump. But it’s not known if Morneau was holding or selling stock at that time.

And Justin Trudeau's 'defence' of Morneau was to attack those with legitimate questions.

A day earlier, Trudeau seemed to wilt while taking 30 questions on Morneau, falling back on familiar tropes — referring to opposition questions as “mud-slinging,” accusing Conservatives of trying to sully Morneau’s good name, of “shrieking,” and playing “petty politics.”

Accusing opponents of getting down in the mud doesn’t work here. The charges against Morneau were sufficiently serious that they deserved more substantive answers.

This entire fiasco makes the Liberal government look very bad and has seriously undermined whatever agenda it has, as pointed out in today's Star editorial:

Over the last week, Morneau has retreated from the small-business tax-reform fiasco that no doubt ruined his summer. In an effort to quiet the uproar over the initiative, the government will drop or scale-back several of the proposed measures and significantly cut the small-business tax rate.

The result is that the push for reform will have had the opposite of its intended effect. The government started out with at least two important aims: reduce incentives for professionals to incorporate as a way to pay less tax on income; and increase government revenue at a time of rising debt. But in the end, Morneau will have, on balance, increased the incentives to incorporate and cost the government significant revenues.

Finally, last night's At Issue panel discussed both Morneau and the larger record of the Trudeau government thus far. It starts just after the one-minute mark:


Engagement with the political process is crucial for a healthy democracy. Willful blindness to its shortcomings is in no one's best interests.