Stock Day's Excellent Adventure in Letter Writing

We'll never know who the $70,000 contribution to the Alliance belonged to or whether it's connected with Day's choice of defence lawyers, but we know a lot more now about money and politics

By: Robert MacDermid

  Once every while we get a glimpse of how money, election and party finance laws and powerful and wealthy people influence our political process and the positions and beliefs of our parties and leaders. It is almost as if someone lifted the corner of the blanket for a moment, and we were able to see and smell a whole other side of how our democratic politics really operates. We caught just such an eyeful in the events that surrounded Alliance Leader Stockwell Day's settlement of a defamation suit. But the glimpse we caught was very brief, and reports were garbled, unconnected and in need of a context and an interpretation. This story is about those events and the forces that were present behind them.

Alliance fundraising co-chair Bruce McDonald must have been pleased about the $70k donation because he's a partner in Bennett Jones - the firm that made the "gift"

The saga begins: Day confuses lawyer with client
  It all began when Lorne Goddard launched a defamation suit against the then Finance Minister of Alberta. The defense lawyer sued Stockwell Day in June 1999 for $600,000. The cause of the suit was a letter Day had sent to a local newspaper suggesting that Goddard shared the views of a client who claimed a right to possess child pornography. It is not the defamation suit that is interesting, the Alberta Justice Department advised Day to settle shortly after the suit was brought and everyone but Mr. Day seemed to know that lawyers don't always share the views of their clients. What is more interesting is the large contribution to Alliance party funds around the time that the case was settled, just before last Christmas and after the election of November 27th. Different parts of the entire incident could occupy us with interesting questions for some time, but I want to focus on the money side of things - what the incident says about our campaign finance laws, who gives money to parties and all those things that parties usually try to avoid talking about and rarely find the media spotlight.
  The suit against Mr. Day ground on through 2000 and a series of seven proposed settlements offered by one or both sides. It was finally settled on December 22nd, at the height of the shopping season. As usual, there were no details of who paid who what or how much the misadventure had cost. Alberta taxpayers would find out that they would pay the bill if the cost of the suit was less than the $1 million deductible on a $35 million risk management fund the government had purchased for MPs and government employees.

Pennies from heaven
  On December 14, just over a week before the announcement of the settlement, and a couple of weeks after the end of a disastrous Alliance election campaign, William L. Britton, a lawyer and the past chairman and national managing partner of the law firm Bennett Jones, sent a note to Gwyn Morgan, head of Alberta Energy Company, and an Alliance fund-raiser: ``I enclose herewith a Bennett Jones LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) cheque in the amount of $70,000. May I wish the Canadian Alliance the best of luck in the future.'' The cheque was drawn on one of the firm's managed trust accounts and was signed by Britton and two other partners whose names we do not know.
  Bennett Jones is an old, large and well-known firm and the Bennett in the title was R.B. Bennett, Canadian Prime Minister from 1930 to 1935. Peter Loughheed, the revered former Premier of Alberta is a member of the firm and his family has even older ties to it.
  In later newspaper accounts, William Britton was described as a commercial or corporate lawyer, partly to show that he could never have been involved with a defamation suit, because, as would later become known, lawyers from Bennet Jones acted for Stockwell Day.
  Britton has close ties to the Alberta-based R.D. Southern group and sits on the board of directors of at least six firms owned by the group including ATCO, Canadian Utilities and Akita Drilling. Mr Britton will have known Gwyn Morgan, the Alliance fund-raiser, through their common involvement in the Alberta energy industry. Both AEC and the Southern group are major energy companies in the gas, oil, tar sands, pipeline and electricity industries and strong proponents of market deregulation and free trade. In 1999, a low estimate of energy sector contributions reveals the industry contributed about 15% of the total of $1.5 million in corporate money that the party received.

A history of Canadian law firms and political giving
  There is nothing unusual about a cheque from a law firm ending up in the fund-raising offices of a political party. Many of the largest law firms are frequent contributors to federal and provincial political parties. Between 1997 and 1999, Bennet Jones or Bennett Jones Verchere gave $73,793 to the Liberals, $32,033 to the Conservatives, $29,406 to Reform/Alliance and nothing to the NDP. The table below shows the sum of contributions to parties from major law firms between 1997 and 1999. From its founding and until 2000, the Bloc Quebecois voluntarily followed Quebec's provincial law that does not permit contributions from corporations or trade unions.

Law firm contributions to Federal parties between 1997 and 1999
	Liberals	PC	Reform	NDP
Bennet Jones	$73,793	$32,033	$29,406	$0
McCarthy Tétrault	$98,394	$61,397	$1,680	$0
Fraser Milner	$52,479	$20,551	$7,957	$0
Tory Tory Deslaurier & Binnington	$47,982	$29,461	$4,500	$0
Gowling Strathy & Henderson	$16,767	$34,908	$0	$0
Milner Fenerty	$54,671	$15,439	$11,880	$0
McMillan Binch	$28,476	$21,459	$4,180	$0
Howard Mackie	$33,545	$12,575	$8,416	$0
Martineau Walker	$25,543	$4,740	$0	$0
Parlee McLaws	$34,915	$8,005	$0	$0
Guy & Gilbert	$20,323	$0	$0	$0
Fraser & Beatty	$20,119	$7,111	$0	$0
Blake Cassels & Graydon	$59,846	$37,210	$2,000	$0
Osler Hoskin & Harcourt	$50,840	$27,326	$1,552	$27,250
Cassels Brock & Blackwell	$29,640	$25,747	$0	$0
others	$349,472	$255,224	$50,167	$7,438
Total	$996,805	$593,187	$121,738	$34,688

  Every firm on the list with the exception of Guy & Gilbert can be found on the Federal Government's lobbyist's registration list and several represent or lobby on behalf of many major firms. Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt lobbies for more than 70 firms.
  While McCarthy Tétrault is the biggest donor to parties over this period, Bennet Jones is not far behind. But both of these firms are surpassed in total contributions by one that does not appear in the table. Fraser Milner Casgrain is the result of mergers between Fraser Beatty and Milner Fenerty in 1998 and Fraser Milner, and Byers Casgrain in 2000. Assuming that the goodwill created by contributions of firms prior to the merger is carried over to the new merged company, it has given the Liberals $151,052, the Tories $50,604, and the Reform/Alliance party just $19,837 over this period.

It is hard to image that anyone in the party hierarchy would not have known about the largest donation to the party from any disclosed source

A big cheque, even by law firms' standards
  The $70,000 cheque that seemed to be from Bennett Jones would have been the largest annual contribution from a law firm to a party in any one year over this period. Bennett Jones gave $53,242 to the Liberals in 1999, McCarthy Tétrault gave $43,400 to the Liberals in 1997, Fraser Milner gave $41,036 to the Liberal's in 1999, and McCarthy Tétrault gave $31,226 to the Liberals in 1998. So as single year contributions from a law firm, the cheque that Britton and his two partners signed, apparently on behalf of the firm, was a very large contribution when stacked up against other major firms. It is also worth noting that over this period, Bennett Jones was the largest law firm contributor to the Reform/Alliance party although they gave even more to the Liberals. Perhaps it was more than a coincidence that Bennett Jones ended up as Stockwell Day's legal counsel.
  While the contribution totals of law firms may seem large, they are a fraction of the contributions from other firms and sectors of the economy. The 1995-1997 contribution totals of about 30 corporations surpassed what McCarthy Tétrault gave to the Liberals. And just to put things in perspective, the Bank of Nova Scotia and its owned or controlled divisions such as the stock brokerage Scotia McLeod, gave $287,891 to the Liberals in 1997.

Suspect timing
  According to the Alliance, the cheque and note were forwarded to the party's national office in Calgary on December 22, coincidentally, the same day as the settlement of the suit was announced. An enclosed note from the "fundraiser to the party's national office says his expectation of a big donation had come through, and 'Bennett Jones through, senior partner William Britton has made a substantial contribution to the Canadian Alliance.'" (Toronto Star, Feb. 21). Later on, the Alliance party would say that the cheque had been formally received, presumably by the party's financial officer, on December 28. It must have made a nice Christmas present for the fund-raising wing of the party and for the party executive. Alliance Fund co-chair, Bruce McDonald, must have been particularly pleased about the donation, he too is a partner in Bennett Jones.
  Alliance party officials will have discussed many times the need to move their funding base from a reliance on small donations from numerous individuals toward more corporate funding if they were to compete with the Liberals. In 1999, the party took in 12,102 donations over $100 from individuals. But the vast majority of those donations, 65%, were for $200 or less and the average contribution from an individual was $240. If the party had to raise $70,000 in the form of small contributions from party members, it would have to get almost 300 donations of the average size plus money from a number of other contributors just to pay for the costs of raising the rest. Not surprisingly, all fund-raisers have an understandable attraction to large donations from a single source, for there is no cheaper way to raise money quickly and to build the reputation of a fund-raiser.

$70k makes a hard secret to keep
  It is hard to image that anyone in the party hierarchy would not have known about the largest donation to the party from any disclosed source. Canadian National Railways gave $70,000 to Reform in 1997, but between then and 1999, Reform had taken in just 17 annual donations of $40,000 or more and some of these were from their own constituency associations. Fund-raisers knew that the Conservatives were far more popular with the corporate set, taking in 46 annual payments of $40,000 or greater. Reform's lack of success in raising large sums in the corporate community limited its ability to fight a national election. The metamorphosis from Reform into the Alliance was as much about attracting the needed corporate funds as it was about the merger with the Tories. Leaving behind its small town socially conservative roots, and recasting itself as a fiscally conservative but "modern" party would, the strategists believed, help attract corporate money and free the party from the western roots that had kept it from growing eastward. We won't really know whether corporate Canada was convinced to invest in this new project until the Conservative and Alliance financial records for 2000 are available in June.
  Over the holiday and into the new year, there was increasing pressure on an election- bound Ralph Klein to reveal the costs of the legal defense of his former Minister of Finance. Not wishing to carry any of the political blame for the settlement, the Alberta Government announced many of the details on January 16. At that point, the taxpayers of Alberta found out that the cost of Mr. Day's ill-advised letter to the editor would be $792,064.40. The sum included $60,000 dollars in damages for the defamed lawyer and another $246,000 for his legal costs. Almost the entire remaining sum was paid for Mr Day's defense costs, in total, something like $474,000. Apparently Mr. Day went through several lawyers and at least two firms, first Fraser Milner and finally Bennett Jones. At least one lawyer in the chain, Gerald Chipeur of Fraser Milner, admitted to charging the Government $57,000 before the case got to Bennett Jones (Calgary Herald, January 18). There are no newspaper reports of other firms or what they were paid. Newspaper accounts repeated over and over that Bennet Jones was paid "the lion's share of $474,000," and some later accounts placed the figure at $300,000. On the evidence available, the figure was probably close to $400,000.

Alliance officials must have squirmed a little about the "optics" of accepting the cheque. It couldn't help but look like a kickback.

More mere coincidence?
  At a much later date, Stockwell Day would admit that he had some say in choosing the lawyers to defend him even though the bill was being paid by the province. It is probably no more than a coincidence that the two firms chosen should be the two that gave the most money to the Alliance and that both firms had representatives on the Alliance National Council: Clifford Fryers from Milner Fenerty and Bruce MacDonald from Bennett Jones.
  Newspapers from coast to coast carried news about the settlement costs and Ralph Klein's election-motivated comments about the legal bill being "obscene." On January 18, The Calgary Herald interviewed the Bennett Jones lawyer handling the case, Bob Thompson, who it was said charged the taxpayers of Alberta just $190 an hour for his work. The story went on to say that some unnamed "legal insiders" had "said a lawyer of Thompson's experience and stature would regularly command $300-plus per hour." The reporter provided other quotes to show that public-spirited lawyers had actually saved Albertans a lot of money.
  In the days after the announcement, Alliance party headquarters must have been abuzz with the details of the settlement. The party executive and PR people must have been working overtime to plan a response. Staff would have been monitoring newspapers, everyone must have been aware of the details. Day himself was away on vacation and all that got into the newspapers by way of a defense were comments from his lawyer Rob Seidel, who in a written release [said] that Day had no choice but to use taxpayer money after the provincial ethics commissioner ruled it would be inappropriate for an elected person to raise private funds to mount a defence. "Mr. Day's first preference in financing his defence of the lawsuit was a legal defence fund." (National Post, Jan 16).

Kickback optics
  For three days, someone, and more likely several party executives, knew that they were sitting on a cheque for $70,000 that, as far as they understood, was from the law firm that had been paid $400,000 to defend their leader. Some party officials must have squirmed a little about the "optics" of accepting the cheque. It couldn't help but look like a kickback. But, on January 19th, the party issued a tax receipt to Bennett Jones.
  At this point, we can only assume that because the party acknowledged receiving the money in December, the contribution will be on the disclosed list of contributors from the year 2000 that will become public in June. The party could have processed the contribution in at least two other ways. Gwyn Morgan, who received the donation, and presumably originally asked for the contribution, could have initially requested that the cheque to be dated after January 1, which would have put it in the party 2001 contribution list, not to be publically disclosed until June of 2002, a long time in the future. Of course at that time, Morgan probably wasn't aware of Bennett Jones involvement in the defamation case, although Britton probably did know about it. The party could also have made the contribution disappear. I am not suggesting anything illegal or corrupt, just taking advantage of one of the loopholes in the Elections Act that both Conservative and Liberal governments have refused to close. The Elections Act is silent about the financial affairs of constituency parties. There is no requirement for constituency organizations to report any of their financial transactions, income or expenditures. There is no requirement to disclose the identities of contributors or the sums they contribute. Only at election time must the party's candidate's campaign keep track and file reports on expenditures and disclose the names of contributors. But constituency parties can transfer money to the central party without disclosing the names of the original contributors. This is a common practice and some of the largest contributions to central parties come from constituency parties. In 1999, the Calgary Southwest Reform party transferred $51,025 to central party accounts. There appears to be no way of knowing the total sum of undisclosed money transferred from constituency associations to the central party but it is probably safe to say that large sums of money, perhaps millions of dollar flow into the parties' accounts in this fashion, without the need to disclose the names of donors as long as they are not interested in the tax credit for the contribution.

Why deposit the money in 2000 - and get found out?
  Why didn't the Alliance fund-raisers and party executive try to delay or completely hide the $70,000 contribution? In all things, one can never discount the possibility of mistakes or even lack of knowledge of party finance rules. The person who wrote the cheque may also have had tax reasons to date it in the year 2000, although the maximum tax credit from this large donation would be just $500, and hardly an incentive to a person or company that could afford to make such a huge outlay.
  Another possibility relates to Alliance spending on what some, both inside and outside of the party, saw as a disastrous campaign. Since its inception, the Reform party had been committed to operating in the black, a party principle parallel to their belief that the national accounts should be treated in the same way Unlike the old parties, there would be no large campaign debts for Reform, no borrowing of money to pay election expenses followed by years of indebtedness. The Alliance proved less committed to the idea of a debt-free existence. At the outset of the campaign, the co-chairs MP Jason Kenney and backroom fund-raiser and Conrad Black executive, Peter White, announced that the party was willing to go into debt to defeat the Liberals and planned a campaign of about $9 million. While close to twice the $4.9 million that Reform had spent in 1997, it was still less than the election cap of about $12.7 million which the Liberals would surely approach.

Alliance bleeds red ink in 2000 created pressure to accept cheque
  The Reform/Alliance party spent about $6.2 million in each of 1998 and 1999 and raised $5.8 million in 1998 and $6.3 million in 1999. While they had most of 2000 to raise money for the election, the early call probably caught the party fund-raising machine by surprise and still recovering from the costs of the leadership contest. It is hard to believe that they went into the campaign with much more than half of what they expected to spend. The not uncommon optimism of a losing campaign team, probably drove the loan upwards. The Alliance break-through in Ontario and the defeat of the Liberals must have seemed tantalizingly close. And then the very disappointing election result and the looming campaign debt. On top of those disappointments would be the need to explain a large campaign debt to party members. The difficult task of raising funds after the loss in order to improve the party's 2000 balance sheet will have been impressed on everyone. When a large cheque arrived around Christmas, the pressure to accept it must have been enormous.
  At this point, on January 19, nothing about the large contribution was public knowledge. It was known by Mr. Britton and some people in Bennett Jones and the Alliance fund-raising staff. The party Co-President, Ken Kalopsis, also knew about the cheque because later on he would say that sometime in January, when there was concern about the "in trust" designation on the cheque, the party had asked independent lawyer Don Watkins to review the donation. Watkins is an Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt lawyer who practices corporate law in the Alberta energy sector. Stockwell Day also knew about the cheque, though he later tried to tell reporters that he was not aware of it until the story began to surface in mid-February.

Day's deniability gap
  That Day was told about the contribution is an interesting side-issue. In order to deflect any suggestions that they have acted in the interest of large donors, party leaders and elected members will often say that they know nothing at all about who gives money to the party. Frankly, such statements shouldn't be taken seriously. At fund-raising functions, the party leader usually shares drinks and eats at the table of those who have purchased the highest priced ticket. All political leaders know who their financial backers are, they see them regularly, speak with them, share ideas and principles. If they hadn't cultivated such a group of wealthy individuals and corporations, they probably wouldn't be the leader.
  After the story broke in February, it was said that shortly after the tax receipt was issued on January 19, some members of the executive were concerned about the cheque being drawn on a Bennett Jones trust account. When the Law Society of Alberta announced a preliminary investigation of the donation on February 23, a spokesperson said that the Law Society's rules state that lawyers "may not maintain more than $100 of the firm's money in each of the firm's operating trust accounts." (National Post Feb. 23) Law firms routinely keep client's money in trust accounts and the prohibition against a lawyer's or firm's money being mixed with that of clients must be fairly well-known by lawyers. The cheque must also have raised some question about whose money was being contributed. Election finance rules are very clear about prohibiting a person or company from contributing money that was given to them for the sole purpose of donating to a party. You can imagine how difficult this might be to prove.
  If the money was Britton's, then the cheque had to be drawn on his own accounts, otherwise he would be evading the Elections Act requirement that the identity of all contributors who give more than $200 must be disclosed. Given the revelation of Bennett Jones involvement in the law suit, some party officials must have very much wanted the money to be from Britton, who, while a member of the firm, could be shown to have had nothing to do with the costly legal defense of Stockwell Day.
  On February 1, Glenn McMurray, the executive director of the Canadian Alliance, wrote to Bruce McDonald, the Alliance Fund co-chair to say that "Today, it has come to our attention that a $70,000 contribution is not from Bennett Jones (as we were originally informed)." The letter requested immediate clarification and advised that if the identity of the true contributor could not be established, according to the Elections Act the money would have to be forfeited to the Government. (Toronto Star, February 21) It's odd that such a formal letter would be written between key party officials. One possibility is that a dispute over the donation was in progress between different parts of the party leadership. I suspect that the concern over forfeiture wasn't serious. The Elections Act does say that any contribution that comes from an ineligible contributor, say a person who is not a Canadian citizen and a permanent resident, or a company that does not carry on business in Canada, must be returned within 30 days of the party becoming aware of the ineligibility of the donor or be forfeited to the government. But in this case, neither Britton nor Bennett Jones were ineligible donors, the question was which one of them was footing the bill and whose money was in the trust account, something which later became of interest to the Law Society. There is no forfeiture procedure in the Act for giving someone else's money though there are potential fines of up to $2,000 dollars and up to six months in jail for misrepresenting the source of a contribution.

Finding a suitable donor
  On February 5, McDonald wrote back to McMurray saying that William Britton was the donor and not Bennett Jones. He encloses the wrongly issued tax receipt and requests another be issued to Britton personally (Toronto Star, Feb. 21) The account of this incident in the Toronto Star on February 20 says that: "Two weeks later (after the first tax receipt was issued on January 19), Bennett Jones requested a second receipt to specify the donation was from Britton, but Alliance officials want more information from the firm before they do that." (Toronto Star, Feb 20). It seems that there was a lot of discussion about the donation between the issuance of the tax receipt and Glenn McMurray's letter of February 1. Party officials and presumably the independent counsel, Don Watkins, must have spoken with both Britton and Bennett Jones before the firm received the tax receipt. Of course the other possibility is that a person or persons within the party made a strong case for switching the donation from the firm to an individual in the firm because they were concerned about how the contribution would play in the media. If this was the case, then the investigation was less an inquiry than a discussion about how the money could be delivered with minimal embarrassment.

William Britton's sudden emergence as a major political donor
  While the appearance of Britton as the donor solved a problem, it created another. Britton as the donor could blunt the claims of the connection between the donation and the huge defense costs, but the credibility of Brittan as the donor would be sure to raise some questions. It would look as if the money was the firm's but Britton was being fronted as the contributor. Mr. Britton is probably wealthy enough and probably shares many of the ideological views of the Alliance party, but he had no past record of being a major financial supporter of the Alliance. Contribution records show a William L Britton gave $500 to the Conservatives in 1997 and a W.L Britton, possibly not "our" Britton, is recorded as having given $1,326 to the Liberals in 1997. Between 1997 and 1999, there are no donations to the Reform/Alliance party from William L. Britton. And then, there will be a donation of $70,000 in 2000.
  While Britton's contribution was inconsistent with his past behaviour, no explanation was offered either by him or the party when the details became known to all on February 17. Perhaps it is only our vantage point that makes the donation seem irregular, perhaps the wealthy often make snap investment decisions of this sort. But even that explanation doesn't fit with the record of large donations from individuals to Reform or any other party.
  Seventy-thousand is the largest donation from an individual (as opposed to a corporation) to the Alliance and its predecessor Reform, between 1997 and 1999, and probably the largest donation from a single individual ever given to the party. The next largest contribution was from party co-President Ken Kalopsis who gave $47,075 in 1997 and then $35,670 in 1999. But even these donations are huge by comparison to others to the party over this period, for the next biggest contribution from an individual was for about $30,000, then after that the size falls to $18,000, then to $12,000 and then quickly below $10,000. With its roots in the rural populism of the west, it is not surprising that the Reform party attracted few donations from the super-rich.

One of the biggest individual donations ever to any party
  Even the Liberals and Conservatives, whose fund-raising territory is more Bay Street than Main street, had a hard time attracting contributions the size of Britton's. The biggest donation from an individual to the Conservatives in this period was long time supporter Michael J. Meighen, a lawyer, who gave the Tories $101,568 in 1997. This enormous sum was followed closely by communication magnate Ted Roger's $101,000 donation to the party. Rogers is a very generous supporter of right-wing parties federally and provincially. Both Rogers and Meighen gave money to the Tories in other years. After those two sums, the $50,400 in 1997 from Anthony Fell, Chairman of RBC Dominion Securities, seems rather modest. Tony Fell is now a key fund-raiser for the Alliance and the Mike Harris Ontario Tories. In an unusual display of at least bi-partisanship, Mr Fell also gave $51,000 to the Liberals in 1997. The next biggest single Liberal contributor was Richard J Renaud who gave $28,407 1998 and then $26,000 to the Liberals in 1999.
  The circle of concern in the party was widening throughout this period as more and more party insiders became aware of the circumstances of the donation. Probably by the second week of February, the rumours were spreading to the party's executive council. There must have been internal differences over how the donation should be handled because even ten days later, the party had still not issued a tax receipt for what was now said to be Mr Britton's contribution. Don Watkins may have been making inquiries during this time, but it is difficult to imagine needing more than a day to get the details straight.
  On February 15 there was a "routine conference call of the national council" a standard way of communicating with the 43-person council (Star Feb 20). The members were told some or all of the details of the contribution. Probably they were initially given just the sum of the donation, the good news that people would want to pass on, and the rest of the details came out under questioning.
  The answers did not satisfy everyone for on February 16, someone decided to leak the whole matter to the media. The details of events from December 14 to February 15 dribbled out to the media for two or three days. On February 20 there was another conference call of members of the National Council. There must have been differences between members over the handling of the donation because the meeting was described by one source as "tense." Sources also said that a four-person committee had been struck to get further details. Ken Kalopsis was one of the committee members. The telephone conference also heard that the "independent counsel has given the party's handling a clean bill of health." (Star Feb. 21)
  On February 21, Alliance MPs had the chance in caucus to question Stockwell Day about the donation. There were a few cautious statements of support for the Leader.

Day's admitted lie makes the situation worse
  On the very next day, Leader Day admitted that he had known about the contribution for a month even though he had told the press for the prior few days that the first he knew of affair was when the media broke the story. Day's admitted lie only made the situation worse.
  On the next day, February 23, The Law Society of Alberta announced it would probe the trust account issues raised by the donation. On the same day, William Britton writes to Glenn McMurray regretting "any confusion relating to my donation which was intended to be supportive of your party," and stating that the contribution was "made by me in my personal capacity," and requests "the appropriate receipt." The national managing partner of Bennett Jones, Bill Rice, also writes to McMurray: "We regret the confusion that has arisen as a result of the donation having been delivered on our firm's trust cheque" and gives the assurance that the firm did not make the donation itself either directly or indirectly through Britton. (Star Feb 26)
  Three days later, on Monday the 26, after another tele-conference with the National Council, the party announces that it has "begun" the process of issuing Mr. Britton a tax receipt. The Federal political party contribution tax credit will allow him to deduct $500 from any taxes he will owe in 2000. One member of the Council suggests the two letters of Friday convinced the council to accept the donation.
  Jason Kenney, a member of the National Council, suggests that "apparently everybody is satisfied now that Bennett Jones has come forward and clarified that everything's completely appropriate… I trust the largest law firm in Western Canada to be completely transparent and forthcoming." (Star Feb 27) "It looks like this was just a miscommunication," said Ken Kalopsis (Post Feb 27). Day referred to the whole thing as an "administrative error." (Post Feb 27)

Day's sad dénoument
  But it was not quite over. On March 5 Stockwell Day issues a statement for the first time apologizing to Lorne Goddard: "I deeply regret and apologize for any hurt he has borne. It was never my intention to hurt him." Day also announces that he has taken out a $60,000 mortgage on his home in Red Deer, the amount of the damages paid to Goddard, and he announces that he intends to pay the money to the Alberta Treasury. "I am not a wealthy man. My wife Valorie and I, like most Canadians, own a modest home, and we have some savings in RSPs."
  We are never likely to know who the $70,000 contribution belonged to or whether the use of Bennett Jones to defend Day is connected to some partners' ties to the party.
  It is clear that we cannot look to political parties to reform the system of political finance in this country. The parties of business, the Liberals, Conservatives and Alliance all have an interest in maintaining the current regime of expensive elections and extensive fund-raising that has come to dominate all party activities. This is what brings them success. From time to time, one or other of the parties of business struggles financially while the other is in office. If it is able, it wins back the support of business and the funding that comes with that support in return for policies that are friendly to business. Mike Harris's Common Sense Revolution, that began while the party was in exile, was a classic example of this process.

Campaign and party finance law reform could make a difference
  How do we preserve some measure of democratic equality in the face of growing economic inequality? We have to begin with campaign and party finance laws that make it more difficult for money to skew the political process. We need to develop a different way of thinking about the process that does not require large sums of money that create obligations that are discharged in the form of public policy that has private ends and intents.
  The solutions are not difficult. Almost every suggestion I am about to make is now practiced in at least one Canadian province:

1. Cap the size of contributions to parties. If William Britton had only been permitted to write a cheque for $3,000, as is the case in Quebec, the perception and the reality of a political pay-off would have been much reduced. In Ontario, the cap on contributions is now $25,000 in an election year, a sum that is still fantastically large to a family on an average after tax income of $49,600.

2. We need to ban corporate and trade union donations. Union donations to the NDP are less than 10% of the value of corporate donations to the parties of business, but it is hard to see maintaining one while banning the other. Allowing corporate giving just allows powerful individuals to use the corporate resources at their command to assist their political beliefs. In a capped contribution system, wealthy individuals can multiply their contribution by giving through numerous owned and partly owned corporations. In Ontario, some wealthy individuals get around the cap by giving through 20 or 25 corporations. Of course it is naive to assume that corporations do not have political rights in a capitalist system, but should they have the same rights as citizens to participate in the political process?

3. We need to require that federal constituency parties file statement of income and expenditure and disclose the names of contributors annually. So long as this loophole remains, the federal regulatory regime will be ineffective and inadequate.

4. Move the parties toward computer filings of income and expenditure information. The US political finance system, whose excesses we love to cite, requires candidates and parties to file public contribution information quarterly. Voters can go into a campaign knowing who has been giving money to a party as little as one month ago.

[ Front Page ]