ST. JOHN'S, N.L. — Non-profit groups, academics and even members of the business community say it’s time to end corporate and union influence over political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Rob Nolan, co-chair of the Citizens’ Assembly for Stronger Elections NL (CASE NL), submitted a report to St. John’s city council calling for electoral reform. The city is currently reviewing the recommendations of the report.
Nolan – who donated $125 to the New Democratic Party in 2018 – says he’s not going to suggest politicians are corrupt because they take corporate and union donations, but the perception doesn’t help.
“From CASE’s perspective, we’ve taken the argument that potential for conflict is enough of a problem to call for change,” said Nolan.
“Politicians will respond and say no, contributions do not influence decision-making. That might be the case for the representatives that we have in the House right now. But it very probably won’t always be the case. The possibility of corruption, of conflict, is enough of a reason to call for substantial change.”
Nolan says the tricky part is figuring out how election funding would work after a ban is introduced.
For one example, Nova Scotia introduced a ban on corporate and union donations in 2007. In addition, the province introduced a cap on contributions of $100 per cash contribution, to a maximum of $5,000 annually. Political parties in that province receive public funds for their campaigns, to the tune of three cents per vote cast for each candidate in the most recent election.
Leslie Seidle, a research director with the Institute for Research on Public Policy, says the ban has served governments well.
A federal ban on corporate and union donations was enacted in 2004. An annual maximum individual donation of $3,150 is permitted to federal political parties.
Seidle says the intent of the ban is to reduce the appearance of conflicts of interest and to level the playing field among political parties, and it has been successful, overall.
“There’s considerable merit in having the financing of political parties and candidates solely in the hands of citizens,” said Seidle.
“One, it’s a better reflection of our democracy – it’s citizens who vote, after all. Perhaps more important, it creates an impetus for political parties to work harder.”
Not contributing
Terry Hussey, CEO of Paradise-based Vigilant Management, says his company decided early on to not contribute to political parties. Hussey’s father, Lloyd Hussey, is a senior project adviser for Vigilant, and did donate $200 to the Liberals, as an individual.
Hussey says when Vigilant Management first started, he attended a few fundraisers at the recommendation of colleagues in the field.
“I realized I didn’t really like that game,” said Hussey.
“It didn’t make me feel good. I left that dinner thinking I lit $1,000 on fire for a stuffed chicken. It was the worst stuffed chicken I ever had.”
Hussey says the decision to avoid political donations may have hurt his business in the early days, but overall his business is stronger for his anti-contribution stance.
Hussey wonders if the perceived quid pro quo, particularly in the construction industry, is actually limiting innovation in that sector.
“Most people, I think, hate this system. They just play along. The people that are really, really good at it, they don’t want the system to change, because it empowers them,” he said.
“Businesses in the construction sector haven’t had to innovate for the past 20 years. In my opinion, they’ve atrophied – they haven’t advanced their capabilities in terms of business process and how effective they are. We’ve become weaker.”
The all-party committee on democratic reform released its terms of reference in February. Justice Minister Andrew Parsons says the committee is structured in a way that it will be able to continue its work regardless of the outcome of the coming election.
Twitter: @DavidMaherNL
RELATED
