Hugh Mackenzie
Huntsville Doppler
Time to Stop the Gravy Train
Sometimes politics can suck and often politicians have only themselves to blame for it. Take Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne, for instance. Her approval rating currently sits at about 26 per cent which means, if you believe in polls, that almost three quarters of the province thinks she is doing a poor job and that has to include a lot of folks who are of the Liberal persuasion. That number has to be dangerously close to a record for a sitting Premier in Ontario.
Kathleen Wynne has been in hot water almost since the day she became Premier. Some of this she inherited but much of it she brought upon herself. Although she said it in different words, she too promised “sunny ways” when she was elected, distancing herself from her former boss, Dalton McGuinty. But it didn’t happen. From gas plants, to selling part of Hydro, to soaring electricity prices, to incurring the highest debt of any sub-sovereign government in the entire world, to questionable fundraising, and now yet another police probe into the alleged destruction of evidence, it is a wonder she can get out of bed in the morning.
Against this backdrop, it is no surprise to see Premier Wynne battling to be seen as a reformer, as one who shows leadership in dealing with issues that make folks angry at government and completely fed up with the politicians who run it. It is a huge uphill battle, however, as she is seen by many to be so much of the problem in the first place.
A case in point is political fundraising, a huge issue that has been a problem for decades across all political lines and at all levels of government. In this province it raised its ugly head again recently because of a huge political fundraiser for the Liberal Party at an obscene price of $18,000 per dinner table and the revelation that Cabinet Ministers in the Wynne Government were given fundraising targets so high one could not help but believe that their success was tied to some form of reward, influence, or preference, when it came to dealing with the government.
Let me state again that this is not a scandal unique to the Liberal party alone. Legislation on election financing and party fundraising at the federal, provincial and municipal levels have enough loopholes in them to drive a truck through. All political parties have taken advantage of this over the years, exploiting every angle including one party, the Ontario NDP, creating a holding company to manage funds and expenses they could not properly deal with directly. Similar to the Duffy scandal in Ottawa, the issue is not so much the legality of the situation as it is about the ethics and morality of it.
It is the parties or individuals who actually hold power, however, that are in a position to dispense favours to those who support them. As one high ranking Ontario Tory told me recently (and they were no slouches at fundraising when they were in power), the Wynne Liberals have brought the science of fundraising and political favours to a new high level of obscenity.
For example, it is reported that over the last several years seven renewable energy companies donated a total of $255,000 to the Ontario Liberal Party and, in a competition for renewable energy procurements, each and every one of them received lucrative government contracts. Three other renewable energy firms, who also bid for contracts in the same competition, got nothing. These three companies also donated nothing to the Liberal Party of Ontario. Coincidence you think? In another instance an ethanol producer who donated $480,000 to the Liberal party over nine years, received very substantial grants from the Provincial government. Another coincidence?
Now Premier Wynne is front and centre in proposing serious reform to political financing in Ontario. This of course is good, if not hypocritical, given how hard she worked to ensure Liberal coffers were filled to overflowing before public opinion forced her sudden conversion.
Hopefully legislation put forward by the Wynne Government will close the door and the loopholes that allow the potential for political influence resulting from financial donations. It is important that it also include election financing reform at the municipal level where potential abuse is also a problem.
Using Huntsville as an example, during an election period donations by corporations or individuals are limited to $750. The intent is to keep the amount of donation below a number that could be seen to influence municipal decisions. However, an examination of financial statements filed for the 2014 Huntsville municipal election reveals that four donations for the maximum amount allowed came from the same corporate address in Toronto where at least two of them have a financial interest in a Muskoka company that seeks and receives business from local municipalities. There are other examples as well. While these donations do not add up collectively to a huge amount of money given that the maximum amount of money any candidate for Municipal election in Huntsville is allowed to spend is about $22,000, these combined donations can pay for a considerable portion of a candidate’s expenses for which they could not help being grateful. Again, there is nothing illegal about this, but it does appear to circumvent the intent of legislation to prevent any potential special influence or preference by elected officials.
Election financing and political fundraising needs serious reform to prevent special interests having undue influence on government decisions. To her credit, Kathleen Wynne has finally taken the lead in doing just that. It will be interesting to see how it all actually turns out.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
I usually try to give politicians the benefit of the doubt but in Wynne’s case there is no doubt!
As for the fund raising, this issue has needed reform for a long time.
Good grief!
Wynne supporters want us to give her credit for proposing adjustments to the regulations which she had just used to fill up Liberal coffers AFTER they are full !
After being caught with her sticky fingers in the cookie jar she suddenly wants to be seen as the virtuous reformer. She originally said that the opposition would be consulted before bringing in requlations. Then she thought better of it and came out with unilateral proposals with no real input from any one else. No points earned for that IMO.
I wonder how long Liberals will continue to blame previous governments (who haven’t been in office for a decade) for Liberal shortcomings?
It is obvious that there is no shortage of apologists ready to defend Wynne no matter what horrific revelations surface.
Poor Ontario.
I can’t help but wonder if Kathleen Wynne had some lessons from Stephen Harper and his friends in the ways to fund-raise – eg the in -and-out scandal, for one. True, the rules are probably too broad but as the Judge said to Duffy – if you follow the rules you aren’t breaking them. Let’s give Wynne credit for at least trying to close the loop-holes.
The Tories have been a fund-raising juggernaut as long as I’ve been reading newspapers. I think it’s a bit unfair then to use a single (albeit pretty outrageous) example of a Liberal fundraiser as the bench mark when there are plenty of Conservative examples that might fit the bill quite nicely.
And….it’s somewhat specious to attack Premiere Wynne’s motives for reform as hypocritical. The FACT is that she has put forward legislation to “close the door and the loopholes that allow the potential for political influence resulting from financial donations.”
I know that you say this is not a scandal unique to the Liberal party but you act like it is. That “to her credit” remark in the last paragraph sounds very half-hearted and grudging methinks.
There are many problems around campaign financing which cry out for redress.
Wynn’s arrival at reform is too conveniently and blatantly an attempt at survival and clearly not motivated by any sincere striving for a more ethical approach.
Yes, kind of reminds one of the Duffy thing. No laws broken ( maybe ) but still stinks to high Heaven.
Corporations and unions , professional associations and any other similar entities should be prohibited from donating to political parties and individual candidates or riding associations.
Such groups should be prohibited from political advertising or participation in an election. Also such organizations should be forbidden from providing funds to be used in any indirect way for the purposes of influencing an election.
Individuals should be limited to $250 per year and donations should not be tax deductible.
Union dues should not be tax deductible.
The goal should be to ensure that only individuals can financially support a candidate through a limited personal donation. These limitations must include schemes involving social media.
Also and very importantly taxpayers should not be forced by any means to pay for election costs through any scheme which pays parties on a per vote received basis. This is a corrupt scheme to reward and retain in power the incumbent party. Elections should simply be about individuals supporting their preferred candidate or party under strict financial limits.
Anything beyond that is basically corruption.
Keep it simple and keep it honest.
Very good article Hugh. We need to get the issue of campaign financing under control before it gets to the destructive state that it is in for our good neighbour to the South (The USA) where it is one root cause of the current dysfunctional presidential campaign.
Thanks and keep up the good work.