Liberals failed democracy by not closing fundraising loopholes
The winning party has failed to earn the support of a majority of Canadians in 20 of the past 23 federal elections

With the passage of Bill C-2, the Liberals have failed to implement much needed democratic reforms to address widespread public cynicism about politics.

Canadians are profoundly discouraged about the influence of wealthy interests in politics. Shortly before the last election, Environics reported that only two per cent of Canadians expressed a lot of confidence in political leaders, while another poll by Ekos found that half of Canadians agreed that, "People like me have no influence on the political process." This sentiment is illustrated by voter participation rates, which have declined consistently since the 1970s, especially in the last few elections. One-third of Canadians now vote with their feet, by not voting at all.

Bill C-2 was one of the best opportunities to restore public confidence in politics. The bill, an overhaul of the Canada Elections Act, could have democratized the rules governing political fundraising and electoral campaigning. But the Liberals only implemented changes that benefit mainstream parties, ignoring broadly supported measures that would have truly modernized Canada's electoral system.

For instance, Canada is one of a few democracies that does not have some form of proportional representation. As a result, millions of votes don't really count in each election and the winning party has failed to earn the support of a majority of Canadians in 20 of the past 23 federal elections. Bill C-2 ignored this fundamental flaw in our system, while government officials exaggerated the difficulties and downplayed the benefits of proportional representation during debates about the bill.

Similarly, our political finance rules are in desperate need of being updated and, unlike some other electoral issues, experts agree on many of the solutions. Canada has had a royal commission thoroughly examine electoral finance and a series of reports from the Chief Electoral Officer Jean Pierre Kingsley has re-examined the many loopholes in the current system. Moreover, several other jurisdictions have closed these loopholes.

While provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan have limited government advertising during elections, especially "feel-good" ads that serve only to benefit the party in power, no such common-sense limits exist at the federal level. There are also virtually no limits on how much wealthy interests can donate to politicians to try to distort the democratic process. Many provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, have had such limits in place for more than a decade.

The federal political donations disclosure regime is best described as optional, since there is no requirement to disclose donations made to riding associations, to MPs between elections, or to party leadership candidates. The public still doesn't receive the information about what is disclosed until up to 18 months after the donation is made. And many practices that are legal in Canada -- such as the use of taxpayer-subsidized official residences for party fundraising activities -- are illegal elsewhere.

For example, in the United States, where the problems of money in politics are supposedly so much worse, these loopholes do not exist. The main difference between money in politics here and south of the border is that in Canada we have no idea how much money is really moving through the system, nor where it all comes from.

Many other countries have modernized their fundraising rules. Mexico, for example, has placed a ban on all corporate and union organization (such a ban also exists in Quebec), and implemented a full public financing scheme to help remove the influence of money in political decision-making.

Yet in Canada, the Liberals chose to leave the well-identified and well-used loopholes intact.

In politics, he who pays the piper calls the tune. This has been clearly demonstrated in the recent Alliance leadership race, in which candidates couldn't afford even to throw their hats in the ring unless they raised an initial $1-million.

Put simply, as long as our voting system gives winning parties undue representation and power in Parliament, and as long as wealthy special interests can use their money to have undue influence over the political process, the concerns of citizens will often not be heard or addressed.

Many MPs are not willing to change the system that delivered them to Parliament Hill. This is especially true of MPs who act as aggressive fundraisers for their parties, who opted to protect their interests by refusing to close the loopholes.

Some opposition MPs, as well as a nation-wide coalition of citizens groups, made common-sense recommendations to democratize the system. But the government rejected all but a few small changes. Even mild attempts to improve the system -- such as Quebec Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin's proposed amendment to close the riding association loophole -- were unjustifiably quashed by the Liberals.

The Liberals' failure to limit the influence of money in politics and to make our voting system more democratic, violates the democratic principles of transparency, impartiality, fairness and integrity. Unfortunately, it will only accelerate the decline of Canadians' faith in the integrity of our political system.