23 Oct 2017

Journalists, MPs are missing
the real Bill Morneau scandal

The so-called “Morneau Scandal” has been a farce in many ways, with mainstream media failing to recognize the real scandal plaguing the government’s financial control system.

First, the tempest in a teapot. While he wasn’t legally required to do so, Finance Minister Bill Morneau made the mistake of not putting his financial holdings, which may run to $40-million, into a blind trust.

The office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner  didn’t object to the fact that Morneau didn’t put his fortune in a blind trust.

Nevertheless, the jackals saw an opportunity to embarrass and possibly bring down the Trudeau government’s Number 2 man. 

“This finance minister used a loophole to keep himself invested in a financial company which he regulates,” Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre said in the House of Commons, “all the while going across the country calling honest plumbers and farmers tax cheats.”

National Post columnist Brian Platt criticized Morneau for not being in Parliament all week, and instead travelling out-of-province to make announcements on the government’s small business tax reforms.

But this was a case of Parliamentary Press Gallery journalists being so hungry for blood that most of them ignored the truth about blind trusts and never looked for the bigger issues behind the story.


Duff Conacher, co-founder of the advocacy group Democracy Watch, said that a blind trust would offer no guarantees that Morneau — or any elected official — can operate without conflicts of interest.

Conacher called blind trusts “a sham” because they don’t absolve a politician of the knowledge of the shares they own or investments they’ve previously made.

If some economic development threatened Morneau’s fortune, I’m sure he would find a way of signalling the trustees as to what they should do.

Morneau’s assets are so wide-spread that it would be almost impossible for him to create a budget that would not touch companies and funds he owns shares in. And his wife Nancy McCain   – yes, of that family of McCains – must also be worth a few million and she must have shares in many corporations.


One conflict has popped up already. Morneau has been pushing a bill through Parliament, Bill C-27, that would improve business opportunities for firms like Morneau Shepell.

Incidentally, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) wants the bill withdrawn because it says it would open the door to a disturbing trend of shifting all the risk of pension plans onto workers and retirees. So much for progresivism!

Now that the Liberals have dipped into the Bay Street pool to get their man, it comes down to a matter of trust. Do we trust Bill Morneau not to fiddle with the government budget to benefit himself?

Aside from  Morneau being a capitalist and a card-carrying neo-liberal, I think he can be trusted when it comes to his personal ethics.

Interestingly, when this all blew up on Morneau, he was trying to put a tax change in place that would have accomplished a little to improve tax fairness in the country. Morneau’s old Bay Street crowd and others had such privileged access to mainstream media that they’ve been able to beat up on the plans.

The larger issues not discussed concern the tax masquerade system that aids the already wealthy created by the Liberals and Conservatives over many years.


Should a man who is part of the most wealthy and powerful clique in the country be made Minister of Finance? The conflicts and decisions he has to make are much more complicated than whether he has a blind trust for his own money.

Morneau has all kinds of numbered companies. Writes Kelly McPharland in The National Post: “He has holdings in Alberta, though he lives in Ontario, perhaps because Alberta offered tax advantages. He has a chateau in France owned by a company he forgot to mention. He has holding companies for his own family, and participates in one for his wife’s family. He’s got investment companies, real estate companies and condos in Florida. And, of course, he has the companies that hold his shares in the family firm, if technically indirectly.”

This is the Liberal way, and I think the job calls for someone who does not have so many complicated assets and doesn’t have all those connections and obligations to serve the power elite on Bay Street.

A greater test will come for Morneau, Trudeau and the Liberals: Are they serious about creating a more just tax system?

 Bill Morneau not only belongs to the 1 per cent of the most wealthy people in the country. He’s almost certainly part of the .5 percent. The gap between the 1 per cent of and the rest of Canadians keeps widening.

Will Morneau reverse any major parts of the terribly unfair system we live under? I doubt it.


The capital gains exemption should be one target.  It benefits the wealthy by giving them a 50 per cent tax break when they make profits from investing in things like the stock market. The break was created based on the largely belief that those profits would be reinvested in the economy. This costs the government about $5-billion a year. About 50 per cent of the savings go to the top1 per cent of income earners.

Corporate taxation should be re-evaluated. Already the government’s knee jerk reaction to drop the Small Business Tax to nine per cent from 11 per cent in 2019 is not a progressive move.

The country’s main Corporate tax rate, now 15 per cent , is just about half of what it was a few years ago. Neo-liberals would abolish corporate taxes entirely. Hopefully, this is not where the Liberals are headed. Further reductions in corporate taxes would mean a larger burden for Trudeau’s fabled middle class, as well as fewer funds to provide the services Canadians expect.

Canadian corporations and individuals hold billions of dollars offshore under somewhat shady circumstances.  There has been a lot of talk from government that it will go after taxes owed to the country. Let’s see the proof, and let’s name names.


CLICK HERE, to subscribe to my blog.
Thanks Nick


  1. Yes Bill Morneau should be Finance Minister. It would impossible to fill the Finance Ministerial post with a Canadian citizen that could not be accused of or perceived as having a conflict of interest regarding some aspect of tax legislation or budget program. Morneau's alleged conflicts of interest or no worse than any previous Finance Minister's.
    If the Opposition parties want to improve the system (rather than their popularity), then they should produce constructive legislation that addresses the real problem: How to can Parliament effectively manage real or perceived conflicts of interest without require every minister to divest him/herself of their entire assets? Obviously the current rules are not effective and blind trusts do not really achieve anything.

    1. Morneau is up to his neck in Bay Street and his company has major conflicts. If he did the right things with the tax system, he'd be tossed out of his social clubs. It seems to me that some others have been better representatives of Canada. Allan MacEachen, tossed because he was too progressive. Marc Lalonde, Ralph Goodale?? I wonder if the Scandinavians make their most wealthy business people Finance Minister? I'll bet not.

  2. I appreciate all that you have researched and encapsulated in this article; however, I am also concerned that Morneau is just the face of the Liberal platform on Finances. As a former civil servant, I can assure you that once a course of action has been decided upon by ANY political party, it really is a misnomer to think that one person is responsible and that ultimately that "platform" will disintegrate with the fall of it's "face." It begs the question, is it better "the devil you know or the devil you don't know." Civil Servants were well aware of a frontal attack by Tony Clement as head of Treasury Board and were to some degree able to minimize his objectives until the Harper government was defeated. There is really a lot of problems in Canadian politics today, with lack of leadership in any of the mainstream political parties and the "peaceable take-over" of Canadian society as we know it at every level of government.

  3. Another Trudeau dud.
    One of the few things they do that I like (tax fairness reform), they mess up so badly it will be radioactive for a political generation.
    I hate the PPP infrastructure plan he came up with ... it is just privatization under a different marketing label ... not surprised he's trying the same thing on pensions.
    I voted Lib in 2015 to help kill off the Harper regime.
    Don't like any party that's on offer for 2019.

  4. Sorry it this is too simplistic .. I think excessive wealth should disqualify a person from serving in an elected public office period. Ordinary people are quite capable of serving. I threw up when I learned that Morneau would be our finance minister. What is excessive for this situation? $ a billion for sure .. probably a million would be a reasonable benchmark to guard against really big conflicts of interest.

  5. First, let me admit that I may be part of the 1%. I was 'forced' into capitalism because my pension was too small . . .
    Nevertheless, I am annoyed by the gift tax treatment of investment income bestows on the wealthy! I want 'ordinary' Canadians to invest in our economy. To this end I would allow investment income of, say, $50,000 per year to be entirely tax-free. Any income above that (or some other) level would be taxed in the usual way. That should be sufficient encouragement for many Canadians while forcing the uber-wealthy to pay their fair share.

  6. I really love reading your columns. I am especially grateful on your now being afraid or intimidated with saying what really needs to be said. Thanks