Trudeau willing to consider reforms to reduce influence of money on politics

Justin Trudeau on Thursday did not rule out reforms aimed at further reducing the influence of money on politics and the need for parties to engage in non-stop fundraising. (PMO photo)

OTTAWA—Justin Trudeau says he’s open to considering some dramatic reforms to political financing laws to counter the perception that wealthy Canadians are buying privileged access to him and his cabinet ministers.

The prime minister has been under fire for several weeks over so-called “cash-for-access” fundraisers, where donors have paid up to $1,500 to attend exclusive events featuring a minister.

Trudeau has maintained throughout that federal political financing rules are sufficiently strict to prevent any appearance of preferential access. But on Thursday he did not rule out reforms aimed at further reducing the influence of money on politics and the need for parties to engage in non-stop fundraising.

At a news conference, the prime minister was asked specifically if he’d consider dramatically reducing the $1,500 limit on individual donations, reinstating the per-vote public subsidy for political parties and severely restricting how much money parties can spend between elections.

“I’m always open to discussions about how we can improve our democracy, how we can better earn every day the trust of Canadians that is required for government to work well,” Trudeau responded.

“So, I’m always open to conversations about how to improve our systems of government and I look forward to continuing these conversations in the years to come.”

Trudeau’s comments came just as the Conservatives were hoping to hoist the prime minister, who took office one year ago promising more ethical government, on his own ethical petard.

The Conservatives have kept up a steady barrage of flak over the fundraisers, accusing Trudeau of breaking his own directive that cabinet ministers must avoid even the appearance of giving preferential access to individuals who donate to the Liberal cause.

They debated a motion on Thursday calling on the House of Commons to give the ethics commissioner power to enforce the prime minister’s directive.

The motion, which will be put to a vote later this month, is clearly aimed at putting Trudeau on the spot: either vote against his own ethics directive or support the motion and risk having ethics commissioner Mary Dawson rule against the practice of allowing cabinet ministers to be the feature attraction at fundraisers.

Dawson has called these so-called “cash-for-access” fundraisers “not very savoury” but says she has no legal authority to enforce Trudeau’s directive on avoiding the perception of preferential access.

Trudeau insisted that he and his ministers are “fully following and respecting” his directive on fundraising, contained in a publicly available document entitled Open and Accountable Government, in which the prime minister outlined the standard of conduct expected of ministers.

But that argument could make it harder for Liberals to vote against the Conservative motion: If they feel they are following Trudeau’s directive, they have no reason to fear letting Dawson enforce it.

Trudeau also reminded Canadians that federal parties are subject to “some of the strictest rules and principles around fundraising of any level of government” — the annual $1,500 cap on individual donations and a total ban on corporate or union donations — and that all contributions are disclosed publicly.

And he pushed back at the Conservatives, accusing them appointing their own party fundraisers — like Mike Duffy and Irving Gerstein — to the Senate, where they could continue raising money.

During debate on the Tory motion, Conservative MP Blaine Calkins said his party has found more than 90 Liberal fundraisers have been held in which cabinet ministers were the main draw. He said a “vast number” of those events charged the maximum donation to hob nob with ministers.

“That is a lot of coin … We are talking about people who can shell out $1,525 without even blinking about it and having direct access to ministers who are responsible for making decisions on behalf of the Government of Canada,” Calkins said.

Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux shot back: “When the rules are followed, no conflicts of interest can exist and we will continue to follow all of the rules.”

However, like the prime minister, some Liberals also expressed an openness to tightening up political financing rules.

“If we want to change or improve some of the laws, let us propose a study in a committee and have a debate,” Lamoureux said at one point.

At another point, Liberal MP Omar Alghabra noted that Conservative cabinet ministers also attended fundraisers in the past. He then added: “Let us have a discussion about fundraisers. The previous government ended public subsidies. Why did it end subsidies?”

When donations were first restricted in 2004, political parties were compensated by the creation of a subsidy worth $1 for every vote they received in the preceding election. The Harper government phased out the subsidy even as it further tightened the limits on donations.