It’s obvious now that Finance Minister Bill Morneau has been seriously conflicted on two files — Bill C-27 and the government’s renewal of his family firm’s contract to manage the Bank of Canada’s employee pensions.

As executive chair of Morneau Shepell in 2014 and 2015, Morneau made a strong case on defined vs. target pension plans — the former benefitting employees, the latter favouring employers. It’s a good debate on human resource and pension management and Morneau Shepell is one of the top competitors in a small field.

But as finance minister in 2016, he shouldn’t have gone anywhere near sponsoring C-27 because of his vested interest in the ongoing legislative process, no matter how it turns out in the end.

Similarly, on the Bank of Canada file, the family business won an $8 million pension and benefit management contract when Morneau was head of the business in 2012. Well done. But the contract was renewed in 2017, when he was finance minister. His department talks to the central bank every day as its sole shareholder. In fact, in the BoC’s 1938 enabling legislation, its shares are “issued to and held by the minister.”

That Morneau himself didn’t see this — that he failed to recuse himself from both C-27 and the BoC client renewal — offers up a case study in bad judgment. That his advisers didn’t get it and point it out to him suggests a stunning failure at the staff level — a case study in bad management.

At a strict minimum, Morneau never should have been the sponsor of C-27. In the circumstances, Finance probably shouldn’t have been involved either. It arguably could have been introduced by the main HR department — Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. The BoC renewal could have been kicked over to Treasury Board.

Morneau wouldn’t have been within miles of either file had his senior staff acted to protect him from himself — as they clearly failed to do from the moment of his swearing-in two years ago by failing to ask if he’d put his Morneau Shepell shares, and all his other investments, in a blind trust.

Never mind that he evidently obtained a permission slip from Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to hold his shares in a numbered company. That’s not the same as a blind trust. And she recently slapped him on the wrist with a $200 fine for not reporting (until last month) that another of his numbered companies owned a villa in the south of France. Now Dawson, at the request of NDP ethics critic Nathan Cullen, is doing an “examination” on whether Morneau is conflicted on C-27.

Perhaps the ethics commissioner will absolve Morneau of any wrongdoing, but if she finds him conflicted on C-27 it will difficult for him to remain in Finance. Perhaps the ethics commissioner will absolve Morneau of any wrongdoing, but if she finds him conflicted on C-27 it will difficult for him to remain in Finance.

There’s more. The Globe and Mail reported Monday that the Canada Post Pension Advisory Council complained in writing to Dawson on September 18 that “Morneau was receiving dividends and income from his shares in his family’s human resources and pension planning firm when he introduced the bill (C-27), which would shift the retirement savings risk to employees.” Dawson, reportedly, has not responded to this letter of complaint.

Which brings us to the Category 5 political storm that hit question period on Monday, which is certain to continue blowing until Dawson issues her ruling on whether Morneau is conflicted, or until the Christmas break — whichever comes first. Tuesday’s QP only brought more of the same.

Both the Conservatives and the NDP have had Morneau in their sights throughout the fall sitting. It began with the government’s completely bungled communications rollout on small business tax reform in mid-July, when farmers, doctors, dentists, accountants, and owners of numbered companies accused the Liberals of calling them “tax cheats.”

It turned out Morneau also has a few numbered companies of his own. Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen stood up in QP Monday to ask how many. “Let us just rip the band-aid off,” she said. “What shares did the minister of finance own in what companies over the last two years?” Fair question.

Bergen was only one of several Conservative front benchers on Morneau’s case, starting with Tory Leader Andrew Scheer and Quebec lieutenant Alain Rayes, on down to finance critic Pierre Poilievre, who is laser-focused on the Morneau file. For the NDP, House Leader Guy Caron and Cullen are unrelenting on C-27 and Morneau’s perceived conflict of interest. Cullen is particularly scathing on what he calls the “massive” conflict of interest. “Guess who stands to benefit if C-27 becomes law?” he asked. “Well, Morneau Shepell, owned by our finance minister.”

Once again, Morneau seemed tone-deaf to the tumult around him.

“Now that I’ve sold off my Morneau Shepell shares and made a large donation to charity, I’m looking forward to continuing this effort on behalf of Canadians,” he began in one QP reply, to a chorus of hoots and howls from the opposition.

Morneau sold about 1 million shares in the family firm, donating a profit of about $5 million on Morneau Shepell’s gains since assuming office in 2015 to unnamed charities. While that’s very generous on his part, it doesn’t cause the negative narrative to change course. He should have sold his shares, or put them in a blind trust, immediately upon taking office.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau didn’t make things any better for the Liberals when he said it was “disappointing to see the Opposition has nothing but cheap shots and slinging mud, when this government is focused on working with the ethics commissioner.”

It isn’t helpful for the Liberals that the Paradise Papers story, with its tale of tax-free offshore trusts, broke in the midst of all this. The negative Morneau story segues into a larger narrative: the Liberals and their rich friends. The 1 per cent and those working hard to join them.

Perhaps the ethics commissioner will absolve Morneau of any wrongdoing, but if she finds him conflicted on C-27 it will difficult for him to remain in Finance.

No one is questioning his personal honesty or integrity. But he also seems burdened by a sense of noblesse oblige, one which prevents him from seeing himself knowingly doing anything wrong. Welcome to the majors.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.