More voters think it’s ‘time for change,’ poll finds

ACCUSATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ADDING TENSION TO TAX REFORMS

The late Doug Finley, who was Stephen Harper’s backroom general, was asked shortly before his death in May 2013 how best to sabotage Justin Trudeau, who had recently been elected Liberal leader.

Having helped torpedo the ambitions of three of Trudeau’s predecessors, Finley had some form when it came to attack ads. He harrumphed in typical Finley fashion and proposed the campaign should focus on the Liberal leader’s wealth and lack of first-hand experience of the lives of the people he was championing. The suggested payoff line: “He’s not like you.”

Four years, and one election defeat later, the Conservatives have finally taken him up on the idea.

Not only is the prime minister’s “family fortune” the focus of opposition attacks over the government’s proposed tax reforms, but the finance minister’s wealth is also being contrasted with the struggles faced by mom-and-pop business owners and farmers, who fear they will be side-swiped by the proposed changes to private corporations.

It’s all slightly unseemly, coming from a party that claims it is the Trudeau Liberals who are vilifying the rich and engaging in class warfare.

But it’s working.

A new poll from the Angus Reid Institute found the number of voters who believe it is “time for change” has risen to 45 per cent, against 34 per cent who don’t agree. The same poll had Conservative leader Andrew Scheer as the federal party leader best suited to deal with economic policy.

A new front opened Thursday when the Conservatives raised the issue of conflict of interest.

When he became finance minister, Bill Morneau set up a conflictof-interest screen with ethics commissioner Mary Dawson “to assist with my obligation to abstain from any participation in any matters of decisions, other than those of a general application, relating to Morneau Shepell Inc.,” where until his election in October 2015 he had been executive chair.

During question period, Conservative after Conservative pointed out that earlier in the day at a meeting of the finance committee, expert testimony had indicated that Morneau Shepell would be one of the main beneficiaries of the move to increase taxes on passive investment in private corporations.

“The minister said he would recuse himself. Why did he not recuse himself when the proposals so clearly affect his family company?” asked Candice Bergen, the Conservative House leader.

Morneau has previously refused to talk about his own finances. He responded to Bergen by saying that taxes affect all Canadians and all business — apparently a reference to the “general application” provision in the conflict-of-interest screen.

He did tell the Globe and Mail that he found it “absolutely absurd” to suggest that the changes would benefit Morneau Shepell because its sale of individual pension plans represented “less than 1 per cent of revenues” when he was the boss.

But it’s likely to be a lot more than one per cent once these proposals pass through the House.

Cathren Ronberg, communications director at Morneau Shepell, said that since his resignation the finance minister has had no involvement with the company and his shares have been held in a blind trust. Asked how much of the publicly owned company is owned by Morneau and his family, Ronberg said the company has no knowledge of whether the blind trust continues to own shares.

I don’t buy conspiracy theories — “the exhaust fumes of democracy,” in the words of Christopher Hitchens.

The finance department was trying to flog the proposals to tax private corporations long before Morneau entered politics. But it does look too cozy, and provides buckshot for the drive-by smearmerchants in the opposition ranks.

The finance committee meeting, where Morneau was star witness, offered fresh indications of the how much trouble the government is in. Whereas to this point the reforms have been about “fairness,” apparently they are now also intended to “encourage investment” by incentivizing the active use of capital by taxing its passive use more heavily.

Morneau went further than he has gone before in offering hints about the concessions to come after the public consultation period ends Monday.

“We are always open to better ways to fix the problems identified in our consultations. But we are going to fix them,” Morneau told the committee.

Specifically, he said he’d heard from farmers about the need to keep money in private corporations to cope with down-years and equipment purchases. He added he is conscious about concerns that the proposals would make passing the family farm on to the next generation more expensive than selling it to a third party. “There is nothing intended to make it more difficult to pass the farm to the next generation. We will make sure they are not concerned and I hope they can take some comfort from this,” he said.

But there will be no comfort for Morneau or his leader until the revised proposals emerge and make clear that they only apply to the wealthiest Canadians.

Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative finance critic, was born to the role of political agent-provocateur and has been effective in inciting opinion against the government.

“Can you at all understand why owners of corner stores or family farms are offended that you would impose higher taxes on their businesses but multi-million companies don’t pay a penny?” he asked Morneau.

The response — “I’m happy to talk about the approach taken to tax fairness,” etc. etc. — indicated the finance minister has a tin ear when it comes to the guiding principle of politics, taking the fear out of common life.

The explanation may be simple: neither he nor his leader are really like you.