UPDATED: A Sad Day In The House

It is indeed a sad day in public life when a worm like Pierre Poilievre can stand up in the House of Commons and seem to occupy the high moral ground as he renders ethical judgement on a minister of the Crown. Yet the government of Justin Trudeau has brought this odium on itself by harbouring Bill Morneau from the kind of standards all Canadians should expect from their politicians:



The Star reports that the sale of $10.5 million worth of shares in Morneau's company, Morneau Sheppell, occurred on Nov. 30, 2015,

a week before the Liberal government formally introduced changes to tax rates — dropping the income tax rate for middle-class Canadians while boosting it on high-income earners.

Those rates were to take effect on Jan. 1, 2016, prompting financial advisers to advise high-income earners to realize capital gains in the last weeks of 2015 to avoid the coming higher tax rates.

The 680,000 shares were sold for $15 apiece. By Dec. 14, a week after the tax rate announcement, they had dropped to $13.96.

Morneau held two million shares in Morneau Sheppell and sold half of those in the fall of 2015, a source has told the Star. Profits from those sales were donated to charity. The National Post has reported that the shares sold on Nov. 30 were held by Morneau.

Liberal loyalists and apologists will no doubt assert that the fact the profits from the sale were donated to charity means this is a non-issue. To argue thus, however, is to miss two key points:

The donation itself would have afforded Morneau a very handsome tax benefit.

That insider trading was committed by the Minister of Finance (that he refused to exonerate himself by answering the question suggests his guilt) renders him unfit for public office. How can Canadians believe the government has its best interests at heart if it shields such egregiously unethical behaviour?

Morneau should be compelled to answer the question. If the answer is what I think it is, he should finally do something honourable and resign.

UPDATE: Democracy Watch has a Government Ethics Campaign you may want to check out. It has already sent out over 170,000 letters about this issue.

Note To Justin And Rachel

Please explain again why your insistence that we need to build more pipelines is valid, given these facts:

A new world record price for electricity set earlier this month signals a radical disruption in global energy markets — and Canada, whose economy was once powered by some of the world's cheapest electricity, will not escape the effects.

The new price, described by the news site Electrek as the cheapest electricity on the planet, was less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour, "part of a pattern marching to 1 cent per kWh bids that are coming in 2019 (or sooner)," the site declared.

The record was not set in a place where energy is traditionally cheap. Nor is it from a traditional electricity source.

But the fact the power will come from solar is only one part of a series of profound changes, including mass battery storage, that is in the process of shaking up the world energy market.

[The University of Calgary's Blake] Shaffer says that in order to be effective in an integrated power network with backup systems like gas and hydro, intermittent power sources like wind only have to fall below the price of the of the cheapest alternative. Carbon pricing gives wind an even greater advantage over gas.

"It seems like at these prices, and that's what's really amazing about how low we're getting in solar, is that, yeah, it can compete, even though battery technology is expensive these days," says Shaffer. "You can out-compete coal and natural gas at these levels."

Given that 65% of the world's electrical power is currently generated by fossil fuels but is destined to fall with this new reality, I guess I just don't understand your pipeline passion, Justin and Rachel, especially given your seemingly contradictory position that we must move away from fossil fuels to mitigate climate change.

I await being enlightened on this issue.

Responding To The Outrage

Yesterday, I posted about the outrageous treatment graduate student Lindsay Shepherd experienced at the hands of the Wilfrid Laurier University thought police. As usual, Toronto Star readers had much to say about this shameful episode, and in the interest of balance, I am reprinting not only those who condemn what Shepherd was subjected to, but also the lone letter of support defending the process, which you will see as the first response.

First, however, is Shepherd talking about the timehonoured principles of teaching she tried to practise, and the charge of 'transphobia' that was leveled against her:



Now here are but a few of the letters revealing what Star readers think:

I am an academic working as an independent researcher and full-time faculty at George Brown College. I have an MA and PhD from the University of Toronto. I am writing to express my disappointment and concern with your coverage of recent incidents involving Wilfrid Laurier University Prof. Nathan Rambukkana and teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd.

Under the guise of protecting free speech, you published content that bullied Prof. Rambukkana, as well as the university at large, into apologizing for an act of intervention that was neither unfair nor unwarranted. Instead of taking a stand against hate speech, you have given dangerous credence to the views of (University of Toronto Prof.) Jordan Peterson and his supporters, flying in the face of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As the leaked recording of their meeting shows, Prof. Rambukkana did not attack or endanger Shepherd’s right to hold an opinion. Rather, he challenged her decision to represent that opinion in class without a critical acknowledgment of its social impact.

As recognized by federal law and nearly all progressive social institutions, gender pronouns are a basic site of self-representation. Peterson’s brazen disdain for these protections is a violation of the human rights of students with non-normative identities.

When Shepherd was reported for showing the video, Prof. Rambukkana acted as he should have: by challenging her pedagogy and working to make his classroom safer.

Instead of highlighting this incident as a reasonable defence of human rights in the face of reactionary ideology, you have fuelled the fire of Peterson and his supporters. This sets an extremely destructive precedent at a time when white supremacist and patriarchal logics are gaining traction in mainstream political discourse. Publishing think-pieces and editorials that rationalize thinly veiled prejudice calls into question the mission of your publication and the intentions of your leadership.

I urge you to reconsider your position on this matter and demonstrate public support for Prof. Rambukkana and his brave stance against hate speech in the classroom.

Griffin Epstein, George Brown College, Toronto

The majority of letter writers did not share Griffen Epstein's view, however:

The so-called apology from Wilfrid Laurier officials to Lindsay Shepherd, most particularly the equivocal tone from Prof. Nathan Rambukkana, borders on satire. You can almost imagine the brass at the school winking while they created it. These folks aren’t sorry at all about the shameful way they treated Ms. Shepherd; they’re sorry about getting caught.

The timing of this episode makes it even worse, in my mind, as this is the month where we offer our thanks to the brave men and women who have served and died over the years to protect our freedoms.

Yet here we have the latest example of progressive bullies trying to shut down a fellow academic for daring to posit a view that differs from the zeitgeist. For those struggling to understand why U.S. President Donald Trump appeals to many people sick of the scourge of identity politics, this is a clear example.

Jeff Barker, Mississauga

Despite the extensive coverage given to the case of Wilfrid Laurier teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd, I have yet to see anyone say the obvious: that the university treated her in exactly the same manner as they wrongly accused her of treating her students.

She was told she had made people uncomfortable and had created a toxic environment, an environment in which she had the advantage of power and position.

Imagine that Shepherd really did make people in her class feel uncomfortable, and when they objected she took advantage of her position in a power relationship by berating them, invoking Hitler, and making them cry. The university rightfully would have sanctioned her, or perhaps removed her from her position.

This leaves one to wonder, apologies aside, just what sanctions are being administered to the two professors, as well as the school official whose sole function appears to be to make sure people are treated equitably, sensitively and fairly.

Len Bulmer, Aurora

I would hope that respect for transgender people — or for any individual — and respect for freedom of debate and confrontation of ideas are compatible.

But the actions of Wilfrid Laurier University show there is no respect for ideas, for debate or for discussion; that students are encouraged to spy on each other, on instructors and on professors; and that they are encouraged to report any thought that is deviant from the inculcated dogma. The spying remains anonymous, inviting all sorts of abuses.

The inquisitors who interrogated the young woman demonstrated they were incredibly obtuse ideologues without even a basic understanding of the nature of intellectual debate or intellectual freedom.

This little secret process was shameful in almost every respect and does not serve the interests of transgender people or anyone else.

The inquisitors and the university showed no awareness of the basic tenets of freedom. If we create a society consisting of an amalgam of snitches and victims, and a cult of eternal victimhood, then we create a society of puppets and slaves, easy victims for any demagogue who comes along, from the right or left.

Gilbert Reid, Toronto

It is perhaps obvious to observe, in closing, the irony of an institution of higher learning acting and thinking in such a retrograde and untutored manner. Scratch the surface of a person and what you see, at least in this case, is the rapid unwinding of our evolution.

A Modern Witch Hunt

Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.
-The Trial, by Franz Kafka

Thus begins one of the most disturbing and compelling novels I have ever read. It centres around a man who, even those he is arrested, is never told what the charge is, nor is he incarcerated, although he does have to appear before strange tribunals throughout the novel. His punishment is meted out only at the end of the story.

A number of interpretations have been advanced over the years; one that has a certain currency is that the novel is a foretelling of the rise of the fascist state. If you get the chance, read it and form your own conclusions.

That we live in the age of surveillance should come as a surprise to no one. What some might find shocking, however, is that it has now infected academic institutions, supposed bastions of free thought, free expression and critical thinking.

You may have read about the profoundly disturbing 'trial' at Wilfred Laurier University of Lindsay Shepherd. If you haven't, here is a brief synopsis of her 'crime'.

Shepherd is a graduate student and teaching assistant. Her sin was to show a first-year communications class a video snippet from TV Ontario of two professors debating grammar.

Some transsexual people prefer that they be referred to with gender-neutral pronouns such as “they” or “ze” rather than “he” or “she.” That, in turn, has led some universities to adopt gender-neutral pronoun policies.

All of which is to say that when Shepherd ran her five-minute TVO clip featuring pronoun traditionalist Jordan Peterson debating another professor, she unleashed a storm.

Peterson’s views on pronouns are viewed by some as transphobic. So when Shepherd dared air the TVO segment featuring him, someone complained.

The teaching assistant was hauled before a three-person panel made up of her supervisor and boss, Nathan Rambukkana, another professor named Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel, Laurier’s acting manager of gendered violence prevention and support.

Fortunately Ms. Shepherd had the presence of mind to tape the 40-minute interrogation, which can be heard here. As well, you can read a transcript here.

It was, in fact, her recording of this kangaroo court that brought her situation to the nation's attention, something I'm sure the powers-that-be at WLU are apoplectic about, inasmuch as they tarnished the university's reputation, faced national censure, and had to apologize to Shepherd.

While The Toronto Star has lauded this apology as an opportunity for the renewal of academic freedom, the cynic in me says that the university's about-face is only because their hypocrisy was exposed, and other such incidents of free speech suppression may well occur far into the future.

Heather Mallick has an excellent piece in today's Star that, I think, does greater justice to the entire imbroglio:

The use of anonymity — in other words, cowardice — was one of the worst aspects of Wilfrid Laurier University’s ritual humiliation of a bright and thoughtful teaching assistant for the crime of WrongTeach.

So an unknown first-year student complained to Laurier about communications studies teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd, though to whom and in what manner we don’t know. Then her supervisor joined an “informal” panel, including the alarmingly titled Manager of Gendered Violence and Support, to tell her that that they’d been secretly informed of her creating a “toxic” environment.

And, like Kafka's Joseph K., she was not told anything about her accuser:

Shepherd was devastated to be told about the secret complaint. “How many? Who? How many? One?” she asked. “I have no concept of how many people complained, what their complaint was, you haven’t shown me the complaint.”

“I understand you’re upset but also confidentiality matters,” her supervisor said.

“The number of people is confidential?” Shepherd asked.

“Yes,” he answered.

It went on. Shepherd welled up again. “And I’m sorry I’m crying. I’m stressed out because this to me is wrong, so wrong.”

Who among us cannot empathize with her raging sense of injustice here?

Mallick, whose capacity for allusions from both popular culture and literature never fails to impress, aptly assesses the situation:

So Laurier is less a university than a corner on The Wire. A first-year with a scarf over his face shivs a young TA, another masked gang gathers to do the same at U of T and a posse beats down Shepherd who then produces a secret recording.

There was widespread anger, another of those civil brawls bred of an airy word, as Shakespeare so aptly put it, he’s good that way. But thanks to the posse, people grow leery of speaking too freely, of leaving the house for fear of being filmed and possibly publicly humiliated, of trusting others.

Wilfrid Laurier University has behaved with egregious dishonour and cowardice.

I hope they wear their disgrace for a long, long time.

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.

Fighting The Good Fight

That is what Robert Reich continues to do.