Ironically, businesspeople who seek ways of influence-peddling need look no farther than Democracy Watch (DW), the organization trying to stop the practice. That's because, as it shines its light on shady dealings, it teaches us how such deals work.
DW is not alone in this irony. It applies to the Gomery inquiry AND the ethics commissioner. Each has brought a new, heightened awareness to a smorgasbord of options that business leaders can pursue to sway Ottawa's decision-makers.
Duff Conacher is the co-ordinator and central force behind DW. It's been boom times in his business, which means, ironically, that democracy is on a bit of a deathwatch.
But irony is DW's middle name.
With the recently released report from ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro concerning former immigration minister Judy Sgro's ill-timed, ill-directed allocations of temporary residency permits, more icing was put on an already thickly topped conflict-of-interest cake.
People might be forgiven for assuming that Sgro was unfairly benefiting her campaign volunteers - and abusing the tools she had as immigration minister - even though Shapiro (lamely) assumed it was simply unthinking staff who created the conflict of interest.
The same might be said of Gomery witnesses. Despite his entertaining golf-ball antics, former prime minister Jean Chretien treated people at the centre of the ad-scam controversy more like heroes than criminals. It's guilt by implication when Chretien gives unwise guys such as Alfonso Gagliano, the former public works minister, ambassadorships to Denmark. I hope Chretien will forgive those of us who find his actions more suspicious than sublime.
But in all this, at least we can rest assured that shady practices come to light, right?
In fact, what we're seeing is simply that the "bad apples" were not careful enough to avoid crossing the legal lines. Conacher, ironically again, pointed this out to me. There are many legal ways for businesses to earn government favouritism.
No. 1: If you are in business, you may legally donate an unlimited number of volunteers (a.k.a. employees on paid leave) to political candidates, thereby creating an implicit obligation for that politician to return the favour. Just make sure you don't negotiate a quid pro quo with any politicians, which is illegal. They are cognizant enough to know if you scratch their back, you'll expect a scratch in return.
No. 2: The time to give large, legal, untraceable cash "gifts" is just after a candidate has been elected - when he is no longer a "candidate," but before he has been sworn in and therefore not governed by rules for MPs. To undertake this option, make sure the electee is not in cabinet. This way, you will quickly become "friends" with the politician and yet another exception will apply to your gifts. As in No. 1, make sure you never overtly discuss any such deals as "deals."
No. 3: Large numbers of small, registered cash donations are perfectly legal. The larger your business, the easier this will be, as each executive of a company or group of companies may legally donate up to $5,000. This can add up fast.
Conacher does not fault government alone for allowing such loopholes. He puts direct blame on the media, for example, for failing to expose such issues. Howard Wilson - appointed as ethics counsellor in 1994 - was the "front man" in a charade, he told me in a phone interview last April.
"He just rubber-stamped everything these 20 people did, including Chretien, as ethical," Conacher said. "And the media reported it, always, as 'Ethics watchdog clears so and so.' He wasn't clearing anybody. He was just giving his opinion to the prime minister. So every single headline should have said, 'Prime minister clears himself' or 'Prime minister clears one of his cabinet ministers.' Because that's what he was doing."
I find it ironic that you just read that media criticism in the media.
It's ironic, too, that in trying to make democracy stronger, Conacher is making it look so bleak. He points out that no elected parties are striving to close these gaping omissions of accountability.
But the final irony is that, if Conacher's laser beams of criticisms directed at the seams of our democracy - such as trust in government and the media - don't split it apart, they will make that trust, and ultimately the system, stronger.
"I'm trying to point out the loopholes, which may be helping (abusers) in the short term. But we'll hopefully get them closed."
And it's my fervent prayer that he succeeds, even if it means taking some of the blame upon myself.
Maybe Conacher should slip a few hundred grand to the PM's office to get that job done. Wouldn't that be ironic?
(Ian van de Burgt can be reached at ian@businessedge.ca)
