Morneau backlash sign of greater ills

I am not a friend of Bill Morneau. Never met him. And what I have seen of him from a distance suggests he is an inept politician.

But the media and opposition gang-up on him in recent days has given me an uneasy feeling.

Yes, Morneau should have voluntarily put his financial assets into a blind trust when he was first appointed as finance minister rather than be embarrassed into it two years later.

But the ethics commissioner said he didn’t have to. Those are the rules. Essentially, then, he is being pilloried for following the rules.

Plus there is the underlying accusation that he is rich. Or, as a local tabloid put it in a front-page headline last week, “filthy rich,” a phrase that implies misbegotten gains.

Then there is the suggestion, voiced repeatedly in Parliament last week, that Morneau used his position as finance minister to make himself even richer by rigging the system in favour of his old firm, Morneau Shepell.

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said “the minister has vast powers at his hands that he would be able to use to advantage the company in which he had tens of millions of dollars of secret holdings.”

NDP MP Nathan Cullen suggested he had personally benefitted (to the tune of $2 million) from a pension bill that advantaged firms like Morneau Shepell.

Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs pointed out that Morneau Shepell has a subsidiary in Barbados and concluded that means Morneau himself “currently benefits from the (Canadian) tax treaty with Barbados.”

Really? Does anyone seriously believe Morneau entered politics to make money? Of course not. If making more money were Morneau’s concern, he would have been far better off staying in the business world.

But conflict of interest, real or imagined, is a familiar trope in the ad hominem attacks that have come to characterize our politics. If you can’t attack the minister’s policies, go after him or her for “corruption.”

It didn’t used to be this way. Politics in Canada used to be an engagement of ideas. Ad hominem attacks were kept to a minimum. Personal lives were rarely mentioned. Now anything goes. Partly, I blame the media for this. And I say that as someone who toiled for four decades in the media vineyards. For the media, it is far easier to report on conflicts of interest or other perceived wrongdoings by politicians than to dissect and analyze complicated issues like tax reform or climate change.

This trend has been exacerbated in recent years by the growth of social media, where facts are never allowed to stand in the way of a good story. (If you think the mainstream media has been harsh on Morneau, take a look at the online commentary.)

I also partly blame the politicians themselves. Gone is the mutual respect between individuals who are willing to put their names on a ballot. Now politics is a blood sport. The more damage you can do to the other guy’s reputation, the better.

And partly I blame all of us, for the media and the politicians are merely reflecting our own propensity (borrowed from the Americans) to see politicians in the worst possible light.

Why should we care about this? Surely politicians know what they are signing up for when they run for office. Isn’t it their problem, not ours?

We should care because what we are witnessing with Morneau is a textbook example of why parties of all stripes are having so much difficulty recruiting good candidates.

Now when the parties approach someone who has been successful in business or the professions or academia or the labour movement, the response is even more likely to be: “Are you kidding? Look what happened to Morneau.”

As a result, we increasingly end up being governed by professional politicians or mediocrities. And we are all worse off for it.

So criticize Morneau, if you will, for his “tin ear” (his own self-description).

But before indulging in a feeding frenzy at his expense, keep in mind the potential negative consequences.