For the Best Government Money Can't Buy

The ever-expanding Transitional Jobs Fund (TJF) scandal, in which donors to Prime Minister Chretien's election campaign received millions of dollars in grants and loans from the federal government with the help of Chretien's staff, is only the latest indication that our system of political finance invites corruption. And the Liberals' new bill to amend the Canada Elections Act, scheduled for final approval in February, will do almost nothing to improve this system.

Whether it's big banks trying to preserve their government protections and subsidies, brand-name pharmaceutical companies reaping billions of dollars from patent laws, defence and aerospace companies receiving lucrative government contracts, or petro-chemical companies opposing stronger environmental laws -- Canada's major political donors are invariably those with the greatest stake in government decisions. When these wealthy interests are bankrolling the political process, it's that much harder for other voices to be heard.

When one considers how reliant Canada's political parties are on those that depend on them for industry-friendly policies and perks, not to mention the wide array of choices available to donors who wish to hide their donations, the only surprising element to the TJF scandal is not how it could have happened, but how it ever became public.

The abuses of the current system are well known. A series of annual reports from Canada's Chief Electoral Officers, and even a Royal Commission, have thoroughly examined the flaws. Yet the Liberals' current bill to re-draft the Canada Elections Act almost completely ignores the secret and undemocratic ways in which parties and candidates are funded.

The problem is that every MP -- even opposition MPs -- got to Parliament Hill through the current system. As a result, MPs of all political stripes are in a conflict of interest when they review the rules, and are resisting pressure from voters and citizens groups to make the system more transparent and democratic.

Many of the solutions would be easy to implement. Requiring all donations to be disclosed to the public would be a good start, as sunshine acts as a disinfectant for corruption. Canada currently has what is best described as an optional system of disclosure. Unlike Ontario, federal riding associations do not have to report their donors, even though these associations often transfer huge sums to candidates at election time. Donations to MPs outside the election period, and donations to party leadership candidates, can also be made in secret.

Timely disclosure of donations would also help. Currently, if a donor gives in January this year, it is not reported until July of next year, 18 months later. Moreover, there is no way of knowing whether that donation was made in January or October, since the date of the donation is not reported.

Consider the following donors: Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and Onex Corporation -- the three parties in the airline merger debate last year. All have given to the Liberals in past years, and it is likely that they donated again in 1999. But when the numbers finally come out in July 2000, there will be no way of knowing whether their donations were made before the government intervened in the merger bid, during the bid, or after.

Closing the disclosure loopholes would be a good start, but there are other important ways to make the political finance system more democratic. Donations from corporations, unions and other organizations should be banned. These entities do not vote, and should not be able to use money to influence politicians. One person, one vote is democratic; one dollar, one vote is not.

To encourage parties to broaden their base of support, limits should be placed on all other donations, as in Quebec and Ontario. To compensate for the reduction in large donations from wealthy interests, a system of increased public financing could be easily financed by eliminating the corporate tax deduction on lobbying expenses, which currently costs taxpayers at least $50 million annually.

Parliament should also make it illegal to use taxpayer-subsidized official residences, like the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive, for fundraising purposes.

U.S. President Bill Clinton landed himself in hot water when he invited campaign contributors to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House. But in Canada, political parties can, and do, use official residences for such partisan purposes.

While some politicians and party bagmen argue that Canadian politics are clean, any system so full of loopholes cannot be clean. The loopholes only prevent the public from seeing the dirty details of what is really going on. Hopefully, when Parliament re-opens in February, the time MPs have spent in their ridings will have reminded them that they are elected to serve all voters in the public interest, not just those with the deepest pockets. MPs should serve the public interest by closing these loopholes and democratizing Canada's flawed and undemocratic political finance system.