Canadian Politics Today

It's expensive to the corporations but the 'sweet deal' results in only comfortable living to end of life.

And who would not want that? But my point is the people with such a sweet deal are, by definition, much better off than the average person and if some lose the 'retirement lottery' then they are no worse off that the many Canadians who never had a chance at such a windfall.

I feel this is a characteristic of rules and not a reflection of the real economic situation.  After all, such collapses end up smoothing out in the long run.  I don't have enough wonk to weigh in with a suggestion but something tells me that a rules tweak would fix this.  Or maybe reducing the defined benefits.

I would argue that the number of retirees affected by pension fund shortfalls that could be fixed by changing the rules is not large enough to justify the potential harm caused. Not every perceived injustice can be fixed. Often trying to fix them only creates greater injustice.

The most important part of the current rules are secured lending. Companies need to be able to use their assets to secure loans. Changing the rules so pensions had priority over secured loans would have huge effect on the ability of companies to get financing even if their pensions are fully funded because lenders would have now worry about another 2008 event wiping out their claim on the secured assets in the future. Putting pensioners at the front of the line for unsecured creditors would not be so bad but it would also create unfairness because I don't see why a pensioner holding a corporate bond is less worthy than a worker with a pension fund.

In any case, the 'rules' are clearly being gamed now so that people can count on raiding pension funds during bankruptcy.

Can you show any stats that demonstrate that a significant number of employees would be helped by a rule change? Seems like you are over reacting to a few anecdotes.

In other words, if the company goes bust the pension gets cut - by 1/3 or some level - that guarantees a level of security.

The devil is in the details. If secured creditors are not affected then it would work. That said, I am not sure what guidelines a bankruptcy judge has when it comes to splitting assets among unsecured creditors. The regime you suggest may already be in place but it does not help if there is not enough money left to make a difference.

Well, that's valid.  I am a human being and a single poor person getting ripped off by a corporate raider makes my blood boil.  But for the record I am not any different than the conservatives who - on facebook - are asking Premier Doug Ford to charge school principles for flying an LGBT flag on the same pole as a Canadian one.

Remember that argument the next time someone complains about men competing in women's sport or migrants coming from the US. FWIW it is worth my blood boils too when financiers resort to legal but grossly unethical tactics. The main difference is I see the system as a massive jenga tower and know that "fixing" one problem can often create 10 more.

Perhaps a rule change along the lines of what governments are already forced to do with natives: pensions can get priority over secured creditors if it can be shown that the management of the company failed to take reasonable measures to protect the assets of the pensions. A variation on the "honour of the crown" doctrine.

I try to split my outrage into "this should never happen" outrage.  (For example, innocent people punished.  Wealthy people buying their way out of illegal transgressions, or spending their money to hurt people.) and "the system needs to approve" annoyance.

Sure.  Or a means test for impacted people ?

In criminal law, aboriginal laws believe a crime impacts negatively on an entire community not just the perpetrator and victim. Spiritually that makes sense especially when you live in a smaller or rural community where its impact is more obvious because of its immediacy to the people it impacts.

However in a larger society we get into a very dangerous and perhaps unrealistic slippery slope widening that scope of impact to wide. If that scope is made too wide, it could be too easy to justify lenient treatment of criminals causing a direct conflict between financial interests of a minority in society that leniency is designed to protect and the larger society as a whole who it in fact endangers.

Take the classic example of Quebecers employed by Lavalin who may very well be innocent and negatively financially impacted by a criminal sentence issued against Lavalin. They are in fact a minority. Does it make logical sense to say their need to stay working is more important when considering public policy than protecting the rest of Canada and even the world from Lavalin?

Well? If you believe it justifies special leniency for Lavalin it necessarily means the needs of a minority of Quebecers prevails.

How is that logical let alone sensical?

Does this mean any criminal who employs people should get a lenient sentence to protect his or her employees? Where would that end?

The current government of the day gave that no thought. They have no thought to why the role of Minister of Justice is distinct from the role of AG, and in the role of AG, no consideration is given for considerations that do not deal with the elements of the crime itself and that crime's impact on society as a result of the crime not its hiring people.

Think about it. Should a government promote people working or criminals? Is that enunciation of social values that put the needs of the public first?

What is so noble about Lavalin employing people, if it means to do that it can commit crimes?

Why not just say any form of legitimate employment that results from criminal activies makes the crime acceptable? Why not come right out and say that. Of course Trudeau won't, it would mean he condones corruption and crime as long as it employs people.

Look this is not rocket science. The Criminal Code in s.718 provided a list of considerations when determining criminal sentencing.

Its not closed, its subject to additions but not additions that do not deal with the crime itself.

When considering the crime, we have to consider that crime's impact on society. The fact that the crime was committed by a criminal who also employs someone is not germaine to the crime's impact on society. The crime does not employ-the crime does not become magically pure and unethical because its perpetrator also employs innocent people. The crime itself has not changed in substance or meaning simply because its criminal perpetrator does other things that might not be bad.

Many criminals donate to charity. Does that mean they should not go to jail because they won't be able to continue donating to the charity? Is that how we define public values and standards?

This is a silly debate. Most of us understand if you create special treatment for certain criminals based on partisan politics of the day, you undermine the entire legal system

Look at the level of this debate. We have Liberals who claim to be progressive and concerned about corporations putting the needs of their profit above the environmental needs of the country in one breath, then in the next saying yes but if they employ people they should not be subject to criminal proceedings? Well? Since a carbon tax might negatively impact on companies requiring them to lay off employees does that mean we should not charge a carbon tax? Ask the Liberals how they can be so disconnected on such issues.

You have the Finance Minister a man who engaged in insider trading and traded his shares of his family company away before a new law was announced devaluing he shares of his company. It should sound familiar. In 2015 the day before the feds were to announce Lavalin would be charged criminally, its senior execs sold the shares of their company knowing they would plummet in value. The next day when the announcement was made, the shares devalued 15% in one day. As a result when shareholders saw how the execs dumpled their shares the day before, they initiated a litigation action still pending accusing these execs of benefitting from their insider knowledge.

This is the kind of company Trudeau is defending, and you want to know where Bill Morneau gets his insider trading scheme from? Was Morneau fired for insider trading? Hell no. Trudeau defended him. Then again Trudeau has no ethical dilemma taking personal gifts from the Aga Kahn who at the same time as giving those gifts was asking the federal government for funding.

This is a Prime Minister who sees nothing wrong with illegal entrants to Canada being given preferential legal treatment to legal entrants.

This is a Prime Minister who lectures China on how he can not as PM get involved in on-going criminal proceedings while he does just that at the same time as he lectures he can not...

This is a man who said if a woman says she feels harassed we must accept her at her word and then when his AG says stop harassing me he announces to the public, he was not harassing, he was pressuring and she is not to be believed that it was harassment.

Then we have Bill Morneau saying, the reason Philpott resigned was not because of her ethical beliefs but simply because she was JWR's friend. Nah it had nothing to do with ethics, it was just a bunch of vaginas and you know vaginas, they support each other wink wink nudge nudge.

This is precisely why I call Trudeau out. I call him an effeminate women hater surrounded by effeminate women haters no different than he and Moreau and O'Reagan et al , have reduced the women in their caucus to hens putting their vaginas before their principals.

Oh to hell with couching such a topic with politically correct words.

MH we live in a world now where ethics is fluid like diaheria. It has no shape. It just squirts itself out when someone feels upset.

It takes on whatever smelly shape we want it to.

Enough.

Western society and our approach to ethical values needs Kaopectate or Imodium. We need to solidify our damn code of ethicsand give it some substance.At this point our values are such that everyone and anyone is a victim and needs special treatment, i.e., Lavalin and Trudeau...he's misunderstood his influence peddling is innocent. Its not for his benefit. Its not about placing the negative impact of unemployment to specific Quebecers ahead of all Canadians, its just him doing his job.

Oh horseshit.

What if SNCL employed 10,000 and only ONE guy bribed the Libyan officials ?  What if it was 100K employees and the CEO jaywalked and didn't pay the ticket ?

That is the problem with corporate law, we have created a loophole to allow individuals hide their crimes behind an artificial "person". All too often, those who commit these crimes simply leave the company and go somewhere else to continue doing the same thing.

That is the problem with corporate law, we have created a loophole to allow individuals hide their crimes behind an artificial "person". All too often, those who commit these crimes simply leave the company and go somewhere else to continue doing the same thing.

No - individuals can be charged and are charged.  Our corporate ethics training tells us that we can be charged individually.