Home | About | Donate

Morneau and Trudeau Are Looking Out for the Rich


Morneau and Trudeau Are Looking Out for the Rich

Linda McQuaig

The finance minister’s company has been involved in converting workers into riskier pensions, which of course haven’t affected managers.

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. (Photo: DoD News/flickr/cc)


Upon purchasing enough US Congresscritters to get everything they want at the expense of the 99%, the 1% started buying politicians in other nations. Looks like the 1% are already getting a good return on investment (ROI) on the Canadian politicians they own.

Current GOP tax cuts being pushed through the US Congress will give the 1% even more money to buy politicians around the world.


The argument that is the basis of this effort to pull pensions away from people who need these pensions at their current level is the same argument underpinning many economic decisions made by ‘centrist’ politics.
What is that argument? We can’t afford it … . . deficits and surpluses, blah blah blah.
But that argument rests on a false article of faith - that is, that at the basis of our monetary system is a hard commodity which rigorously enforces traditional currency management. But, we do not have a commodity based (read ‘gold standard’) currency that concretely and unequivocally establishes actual monetary value.
Our currency is a fiat currency, and fiat currencies are not bound by deficit/surplus arguments, since fiat currencies allow their governments to create money and manage deficits. Governments can and do create money as needed, and our Canadian government can create the money needed for guaranteed annual incomes and proper pensions for everyone.
A sign of the extremism of our times, is that false thinking, completely detached from reality, still governs monetary management. It also governs our politics despite its falsehoods. This is why ‘centrism’ is at its heart extremist. At the bottom of this anti democratic, authoritarian tradition is the domination of the very many by the very few. Those few refuse to adjust monetary policy to modern facts, just like they refuse to allow democracy to be born and fully function for the benefit of all.
If you want decent pensions, democracy, modern monetary policy and freedom from servitude to a tradition of lies, don’t vote center. Look for candidates free from traditional fictions, likely unfunded by the corporate apparatus.


I wish it hadn’t come to this, yet it is undeniable:

The current party politics structure in Canada and here is designed to perpetuate service to the wealthy. And the only way around the system is destruction of the system. Strip the parties of their legitimacy, and replace them with people-powered organizations free from the yoke of corporate money.


This is the very reason Bernie Sanders and democratic socialism hits the head of the nail square on. Look at what he did $27.00 at a time. For me this is the only way out.


Too bad Bernie chose to make his deal with D-party devil so early in the game.

Now he’s perceived as little more than a D-party sheepdog. That perception will only get worse when those he supported through Our Revolution conform to establishment Dem, party-first-principles-second strictures.


I fear you may be correct but I will not waiver.



It is a stroke of luck for the ruling elite that the ‘workers’ (consumers, mindless masses, useless eaters… formerly known as ‘citizens’) are as clueless, naïve and easily duped as they are. Otherwise it would be far more difficult for them to continue along with and expand their ‘grand scam.’ They would have to do a lot more than merely tell the same lies over and over again, year after year, decade after decade.

“I voted for him because he has nice hair,” explained the consumer.


Does the pension changes relate to Morneau’s conflict of interest (i.e. the shares in his company which went up dramatically and know he claims he will sell and give the proceeds away)?? Anybody have a wider lens on this story?


Well that all comes as no surprise given the Liberal’s love affair with the corrupt pack of liars in the U.S. known as the Democratic party lead by slimy, corrupt war criminals like Obama and Clinton. I realize the Republicans are worse but I would still hope that Canadian progressives would at least hold their noses and shower thoroughly after coming into close contact with scum like Clinton and Obama. But no because Canadian Liberals and U.S. Democrats are cut of the same cloth … they are neo-liberal corporatists who merely seek to serve the interests of corporations who can promise them and their families so much to make their lives easier and more comfortable as the rest of the people flounder and perish in the economic and climatic storms they unleash with their deceptive, self-serving practices.


Well, I hate to differ with people but changing the pension scheme is not a bad idea. The basic problem with the current defined benefit approach is that 1) it is highly restrictive; and 2) rates of return are generally poor. As to the first point, defined benefit is structured around the idea that you will work for the same employer for at least decades if not your entire career (In today’s world, that is highly unlikely). If you leave that employer, you are often required by law to liquidate your defined benefit plan and place your dollars in a private pension account. This is a serious pain in the butt and liquidation cost dollars. I have been through the process and was forced to liquidate and to pay tax on part of my contributions. It would have been far better if the pension was portable between jobs which is what the current bill addresses. As to the second point, given that defined benefit plans guarantee a benefit, they are conservatively structured, trading rate-of-return for security. This strategy is a big money loser in the long run. People are far better served by contributing to a portable pension plan (with a match from the employer) and managing their money from within that plan. Usually, the pension plan operator (example Manulife) has 10-12 mutual funds to choose and with about 20 minutes of work you can distribute your funds accordingly. It is not difficult at all and in your best interests. This isn’t the 1950’s.


Thanks for the differing perspective. I can see your point re: a company like Chrysler, but not the big 5 banks and other govt. workers. On the other hand, my guess is Morneau’s plan would certainly have been better for the Sears workers.


thank you Linda McQuaig. All three north American political highest office people are perverted creeps who serve primitive people who stash cash with the zeal and intelligence of squirrels storing nuts for winter.

Squirrels are of course acting based on reason, in contrast to rich people driven by insatiable want…


Yes, the Sears example is a good additional point. When companies get in trouble, they can under a restructuring order access pension holdings. This rarely works out to the average employee’s benefit.

There was a need for defined benefit plans 50 years ago when the average person had no real access to the market, albeit it stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs or derivatives. Ironically, we have the opposite issue today (too much choice for the average consumer). To address this, large employers usually set up an arrangement with a portable pension plan operator (generally larger insurance companies). They in turn provide a set of fund options that cover different aspects of the market for a very respectable MER. This approach has benefits for those who change work frequently. This includes the laborers and trade workers.

I appreciate Linda’s perspective but she assumes the Canadian pension system is structured similarly to the American. It isn’t and she needs to do more research on the topic.