You Probably Don't Want To Hear This

.... but new research suggests that yet another climate-change feedback loop could be in the offing as we plunge headlong toward disaster:

The stratocumulus clouds, the layer of cloud shielding us from the direct rays of the sun could vanish one day. That’s according to a new research by a team of scientists. As Eric Sorensen reports, if this happens, it could lead to rapid global warming.

Watching the story, one is reminded of how, for millennia, the earth provided the kind of balance that allowed life to flourish. Clearly, all the signs suggest that nurturing environment is rapidly changing, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Corporate Corruption

With corrupt corporate practices so much in the news these days, thanks to the Trudeau government's attempts at subverting justice for SNC Lavalin, I couldn't help but be struck by the naked greed so evident in the practices of a pharmaceutical called Insys Therapeutics. Several of the company's executives

... are currently on trial in Boston on charges of racketeering, fraud, and conspiracy, in connection to an alleged nationwide scheme to pay doctors bribes and kickbacks in exchange for prescribing the company’s fentanyl-based pain medication Subsys to patients who would not otherwise require the drug. The executives are also accused of conspiring to mislead and defraud insurance providers that were reasonably reluctant to cover costs for a medication designed for cancer patients when prescribed to patients without cancer.

To appreciate the depth of the company's greed and depravity, go to the 9:16 mark of the following news report, which includes a video extolling the virtues of something called titration, the practice of increasing the dose of a drug:



The 'rap' video excerpted in the above report (I will provide links to the full video at the end of this post) was created for and shown at Insys' 2015 national sales meeting. The message was clear: the more you 'push' the drug, the higher your sales commission will be.

According to former Senator Claire McCaskill, who helped investigate Insys last year,

"What they are saying to their sales representatives is, 'It's not enough that you get a doctor to prescribe it," said McCaskill, now an NBC News analyst. She said the company was telling its employees, "'We're going to pay you five times as much if you can get him to prescribe the strongest dose possible.'"

Interestingly, the company's response to these charges echoes the one heard from SNC Lavalin about the 'rogue employees' who acted without company authority in bribery of Libyan officials to the tune of $48 Million - (their petty cash reserves must be a marvel, eh?):

"The company in no way defends the misconduct of former employees and is fully cooperating with the government."

Nothing to see here, eh?

NEW: Here's the internal Insys video to the tune of A$AP Rocky's "F--kin' Problems" in which employees dance around former sales VP Alec Burlakoff, who is dressed as a life-size bottle of fentanyl spray. It was shown to a jury in Boston federal court today. pic.twitter.com/0SPIEDRpnX

— Aaron Leibowitz (@aaron_leib) February 13, 2019

Here's Part 2. They're singing about "titration," a reference to the process of doctors increasing the dosage for patients as they build tolerance. pic.twitter.com/J60hYQw0PA

— Aaron Leibowitz (@aaron_leib) February 13, 2019

A Fascinating Rorschach Test

Reading the newspaper this morning, it occurred to me that the reactions to Jody Wilson Raybould's testimony before the Commons Justice Committee constitute a kind of political Rorschach Test, one that helps reveal people's values, psychology and moral sensibilities. As one would expect, it demonstrates that the Canadian psyche is a multi-faceted one, one that prompts reactions ranging from outright condemnation of the government as if it were the devil incarnate to a reflexive defence of the Liberals. While some of these public reactions constitute nothing more than political theatre, they are worthy of deeper examination.

First, there was the overblown call by Andrew Scheer for Justin Trudeau to resign. A risible attempt to suggest he occupies the high moral ground, his gesture would satisfy only inveterate Conservative supporters who think with their adrenaline, not their brains. In many ways, his stunt represents politics at its manipulative worst.

But extreme partisanship that abandons critical thinking is hardly limited to the right. A popular theme in so-called progressive circles found online and in Facebook political groups is that it is incumbent upon all to rally to the Liberal Party. The argument, simplistic in the extreme, is that to join in the criticism of Trudeau's tactics is to empower the Conservatives and risk handing over the next federal election to them.

This depiction of the political landscape through a Manichean filter benefits no one. Like the Conservative hysteria, it demands a surrender of critical thinking and morality in service of what is depicted as a far lesser evil than the party of Scheer. As well, there is a distressing tactic, taken right out of the reactionary's page, of shooting the messenger. The CBC, CTV, major newspapers, etc. are condemned as tools of the right for reporting on this scandal and keeping it alive. I choose to provide no links to demonstrate any of this, as I do not want to give them further exposure, but they are quite easy to find if you look.

The idea of voting for the lesser of evils no longer holds any appeal for me. Perhaps that sensibility is a function of my age as well as extensive reading and my ongoing efforts to be a critical thinker. The fact is that the Liberals and the Conservatives are not the only choice in the next election, and perhaps it is time for people to start taking their vote with greater seriousness and reflection. For a perspective on this, I highly recommend a post by The Mound that he wrote last month. As well, a post he wrote yesterday makes for worthwhile reading.

Finally, there is the reaction based, neither on pragmatics nor partisanship, but on morality and integrity. As I wrote yesterday, what I took away from Wilson-Raybould's testimony was a woman who fought hard to maintain her principles and integrity in the face of incredible pressure from both the Prime Minister and his operatives. It is a theme upon which Tanya Talaga writes:

Across Indigenous social media, this one quote of Wilson-Raybould’s was shared over and over again, “I was taught to always hold true to your core values, principles and to act with integrity. I come from a long line of matriarchs and I am a truth-teller in accordance with the laws and traditions of our Big House. This is who I am and who I always will be.”

An indigenous upbringing helped inform those principles:

“The history of Crown-Indigenous relations in this country, includes a history of the rule of law not being respected. Indeed, one of the main reasons for the urgent need for justice and reconciliation today is that in the history of our country we have not always upheld foundational values such as the rule of law in our relations with Indigenous peoples. And I have seen the negative impacts for freedom, equality and a just society this can have firsthand.”

For over 150 years Canada has bent laws, disrespected treaties, spent millions taking First Nations to court over resource sharing and tried to bully communities into pipelines.

But Wilson-Raybould refused to be complicit.

Integrity in public office is rarely seen, but I like to think I can recognize it when I see it. And judging by some of the reactions I have seen and read about, I am hardly alone in valuing it.

We have all witnessed politicians of various stripes come and go. Our cynicism, our pragmatism, our ideology clearly play a role in that revolving door. But sometimes the truth really is out there; all we have to do to see it is to try to shed some of our preconditioned responses.

The Dark Underside Of Sunny Ways

Her testimony was riveting, her aura of integrity palpable. One could only come away from the testimony of Jody Wilson-Raybould into the SNC-Lavalin scandal drawing at least two conclusions: politics really is a dirty game, and it is one that a person of principle cannot easily navigate while holding on to her integrity. It was also stunning to see someone who really believes that politics should and must be conducted in a principled way.

Wilson-Raybould's moral compass stands in sharp contrast to the players who fought tirelessly to try to change her mind. Here is but a taste of her testimony:



While the above is damning enough, the pressure didn't stop there.

In a 38-minute opening statement and repeatedly in answers to questions, Wilson-Raybould pointed the finger directly at Trudeau, as well as his top officials in the PMO, the Privy Council office and the office of the minister of finance, citing phone calls and in-person meetings that she felt amounted to a “barrage of people hounding me and my staff.”

“Within these conversations, there were express statements regarding the necessity of interference in the SNC-Lavalin matter, the potential of consequences and veiled threats if a DPA was not made available to SNC,” she said.

Wilson-Raybould also detailed interactions with Ben Chin, the chief of staff to Finance Minister Bill Morneau; Trudeau aides Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard; Butts, the prime minister’s principal secretary; and Katie Telford, Trudeau’s chief of staff.

She said Telford and Butts summoned her chief of staff Jessica Prince to a meeting on Dec. 18, where Butts told Prince they had to find a solution to the SNC issue. Reading from a transcript of Prince’s debriefing afterwards with her minister, Wilson-Raybould told the committee that “Gerry said ‘Jess, there is no solution here that doesn’t involve some interference.’”

According to Wilson-Raybould, Prince told her, “Katie was like, ‘We don’t want to debate legalities anymore’ … They kept being, like, ‘We aren’t lawyers, but there has to be some solution here.’”

No doubt, Trudeau operatives and fanboys whose sense of morality depend on party affiliation will be contorting themselves almost beyond human endurance to suggest that Jody Wilson Raybould's testimony exonerated Justin and his functionaries.

The critical thinker, on the other hand, will be deeply disturbed by yesterday's revelations.

And for voters like me, it is further fodder for the deep disenchantment and anger we cannot help but feel over the squandering of potential. Justin Trudeau and his team came to office promising so much. But from the betrayal of his electoral reform vow through to the purchase of a pipeline that gives the lie to climate change mitigation promises to the conducting of politics in the usual, corrupt way, the dark underside of the Prime Minister's "sunny ways" is now exposed for all to see.

A Cowardly Silence

Human nature is a strange, wondrous, and sometimes shameful thing. For every Nelson Mandela who takes a stand against arbitrary authority, there are countless millions who will simply go along to get along. If an edict, no matter how obviously wrong or unethical, is issued in the name of authority, it is usually obeyed.

"I was just following orders" is a refrain that echoes throughout modern history.

An egregious example of such is surely to be found in this story from Ontario.

The provincial government quietly ordered autism service providers last September to stop admitting new children for therapy and to keep parents in the dark about the move, documents obtained by the Star reveal.

Internal documents — from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services and senior administrators of nine regional service providers — state that the 23,000-child wait-list for autism therapy was closed because of “financial pressures.”

While the Ontario government, led by Doug Ford, and Lisa MacLeod, his Children’s Minister, deny any wrongdoing, memos obtained by The Star paint a totally different picture:

The documents obtained by the Star reveal that the waiting list for therapy has been closed for five months unbeknownst to parents. And while therapists could have been seeing new children during that time, they were instead ordered to spend their extra time elsewhere.

And autism service providers were asked to be complicit in this deception:

A Sept. 27 email to staff from a senior administrator at one service provider states: “As of this afternoon, we have been asked to ‘pause’ on making calls to families (on the wait-list) … We have been assured that this is very short term, and as soon as we get more information from the ministry on how to proceed we will share it.”

Another email to staff from a service provider the following month reveals how the ministry wanted inquiries from parents to be handled: “Note that the ministry has asked us not to stray outside of their messaging (e.g. we would not tell families directly that there will be no service offers…”

And the reason for this immoral obfuscation boils down to politics. One therapist, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisal,

... argued that there are far fewer than 23,000 children on the waiting list. But by freezing the list, the government has allowed the numbers to grow in an attempt to justify its changes...

Those changes include hard caps and severe reductions in funding for each family with an autistic child, changes that have provoked a firestorm of protest at Queens Park.

My point, however, is how readily autism service-providers complied with this government order of secrecy, while at the same time knowing they could be helping more children:

In an interview, one therapist said that she and her co-workers could have been helping new children on the wait-list all this time.

“There was capacity. We did have space on our caseload to pick up children from the wait list but we couldn’t,” said the therapist who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to give media interviews.

And yet they said nothing. Indeed, were it not for the investigative efforts of The Star, this sordid story would never have come to light.

To a one, autism therapists should be deeply and thoroughly ashamed of their collective silence. There can be no excuse for such craven collaboration.

Following The Trail Home

Letter-writers in today's Star ask questions that demand to be answered. The first makes a point that occurred to me early on when SNC-Lavalin averred that bribery and fraud charges were the result of rogue employees, an oft-used disclaimer by those seeking to evade criminal responsibility:

Re PM loses top aide, Feb. 19

This excellent article mentions that SNC-Lavalin has pleaded not guilty to bribery and fraud charges related to its work in Libya, saying any wrongdoing or illicit payments made to the regime of Moammar Gadhafi were made by employees without its consent.

It seems highly unlikely that those employees would fund such initiatives out of their own pockets. Once again, the key to unravelling sordid affairs of this nature is to follow the money.

Harry J. Rollo, Toronto

The SNC-Lavalin affair seems to be mostly about our prime minister doing all kinds of things to keep that company running as it is now. Why is he doing this? It smells like money.

First, the company is well-known to be a strong supporter of the Liberal Party. More importantly, the goods the company manufactures in Canada for export ensure a steady flow of money into the federal treasury.

Note that this includes war materials sold, indirectly, to Saudi Arabia. Does this not matter to us?

Alan Craig, Brampton

Then again, perhaps the above writers are clinging to a sense of morality and justice that is quickly becoming but a quaint notion. If so, our nation has deeper problems than the hyped-up loss of 50,000 jobs should SNC-Lavalin be held accountable for its crimes. (Have we no other engineering companies in Canada to bid on contracts and employ people?)

For What It's Worth

I would like to use this post to comment on one of the questions swirling around the resignation of Jody Wilson-Raybould, one that came up yet again on last night's At Issue panel:

Why did Wilson-Raybould wait until she was was moved to Veterans Affairs to resign from cabinet?

The implication of the question is that hers was a 'sour-grapes' resignation, not a principled one, since the time to resign was when she felt she was being pressured to change her mind about the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Indeed, early on in this scandal, Justin Trudeau cited her ongoing presence in the cabinet as evidence of her contentment, after which the former Justice Minister resigned.

I beg to differ. And I believe yesterday's testimony to the justice committee by Michael Wernick, the clerk of the privy council, sheds some light on this sordid episode; pertinent are three meetings in particular:

The first was a meeting on Sept. 17 between himself, the prime minister and Wilson-Raybould.

... Wilson-Raybould told the prime minister that a deferred prosecution agreement “was not a good course and she had no intention of intervening,” Wernick recalled. In turn, the prime minister told Wilson-Raybould the decision to intervene in the case was hers alone, he said.

Ergo, it is clear that Wilson-Raybould had made her decision not to direct the Public Prosecutor to offer SNC-Lavalin a DPA (deffered prosecution agreement). If we are to take Wernick's testimony at its face value, that should have been the end of the matter if, indeed, Trudeau said it were her decision alone.

The next event he predicted Wilson-Raybould would raise was a conversation between her chief of staff and officials from the Prime Minister’s Office on Dec. 18. Wernick, however, said he was not there and is not aware of what transpired.

Strangely, although Wernick claims no knowledge of the nature of the meeting, he predicts she will bring it up in her testimony.

Finally, Wernick highlighted his own conversation with Wilson-Raybould on Dec. 19. Wernick said he wanted to “check in” with her on SNC-Lavalin and the possibility of mediating the criminal charges against the company, as well as other legal issues before the government.

“I conveyed to her that a lot of her colleagues and the prime minister were quite anxious about what they were hearing and reading in the business press about the future of the company, the options that were being openly discussed in the business press about the company moving or closing,” Wernick said.

Asked later if he pressured Wilson-Raybould to intervene in the case and halt the SNC-Lavalin prosecution, Wernick said no — he doesn’t believe he improperly pressured her.

“There’s pressure to get it right on every decision, to approve, to not approve, to act, to not act. I am quite sure the minister felt pressure to get it right,” he said.

“Part of my conversation,” he added, “was conveying context that there were a lot of people worried about what would happen, the consequences — not for her — the consequences for the workers in the communities and the suppliers.”

Now, many will argue, as Wernick himself did, that there was nothing improper about these meetings and that he didn't consider them to constitute undue pressure. We all know that politics is a rough and tough arena, so that may well be. I do not have the expertise to make that assessment. But I do have some thinking ability, and here is where it has led:

To return to the point I began with, the character-undermining question being asked is why Raybould-Wilson did not immediately resign if she felt she was being pressured to change her decision. My question (and answer) is, why would she?

She had remained firm in her conviction that SNC-Lavalin should receive no preferential treatment. She had received the assurance from Mr. Trudeau that the decision was hers alone. She successfully weathered pressure from both the PM and the PMO to change her mind. Presumably, she felt that she had prevailed in upholding her own principles in the matter, and the issue was closed. Until, of course, it wasn't.

On February 11, Wilson-Raybould tendered her resignation, mere hours after Trudeau publicly declared all was well, attested to by her ongoing presence in the cabinet. I suspect this assertion was the breaking point for Raybould-Wilson, that and the likely belief that her replacement as Justice Minister, David Lametti, would ultimately order a DPA.

In his testimony yesterday, Michael Wernick expressed his fears about the direction in which Canada is heading. He

told MPs he’s worried Canadians could lose “faith in the institutions of governance in this country.”

As a citizen who loves Canada, I have the same fears. However, Messieurs Wernick and Trudeau should look to their own house as one source of this crisis of faith. Justin Trudeau came to office with great promises, including 'doing politics' in a new way.

In that, he would seem to have failed abysmally.