Caught in the middle of a perfect “pay to play” storm this week, the government needs to find a safe harbour. The catchy slogan (also known as “cash for access”), which suggests money is exchanged for favours, or access to government officials, is a high-profile issue on both sides of our border.

Serious allegations that donations to the Clinton Foundation functioned as a doorway to Hillary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, have found similar resonance in Ontario, as Premier Kathleen Wynne struggles with overdue legislation to tighten up Ontario’s political fundraising rules. With awkward timing, the federal minister of finance wandered into the eye of the storm by scheduling several fundraisers, one of which is to be held in a private Toronto house owned by a businessman whose company lobbies the Department of Finance.

The thunder in the House of Commons from the media, the opposition parties and two independent officers of Parliament, asked a simple question.

Must you spend $1,525 to have access to a federal cabinet minister or the prime minister? The correct answer is no.

Let’s begin with the word access. The reality is that ministers are happy to meet you for free! Ask for an appointment through their constituency offices or attend any one of many consultations “pop up” meetings in various locations throughout their districts. Ministers are even known to knock on doors between elections. Alternatively, you can join Google hang outs or “live streamed” events. If all else fails, Tweet them.

Ministers do not live in bubbles. They are approached by both media and voters in airports, train stations, restaurants, subways, gyms and their children’s schools. It is a way of life and one to which they are accustomed. Their job is to be visible.

So, the real question is not access, but whether something invisible is occurring. Are people who can afford the $1,525 annual fundraising limit, gaining privileged access which is denied to others? Are legitimate fundraisers used as a smokescreen, to circumvent rules prescribed for a transparent lobbying regime? And even if the answers are no, is there a perception that this “unsavory” practice (as the ethics commissioner describes it) is taking place without third party oversight? Given the events of the past week, the correct answer is yes.

Part of the problem is the maximum legal limit, which may seem excessive in 2016. Part of the problem is the private nature of some events. Many fundraisers are held in hotels or restaurants, which is more transparent (but also more expensive). Part of the problem is that disclosure regarding attendees is not necessarily timely or fulsome. And part of the problem is the lack of clear conflict of interest regulations regarding fundraisers.

However, the thorniest challenge is the revelation of an ethical gap between the expectations/aspirations of a new government and implementation of old practices.

Politics is as much about perception as it is about policy, a reality acknowledged in Justin Trudeau’s 2015 Open and Accountable Government document. “There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties.”

In addition, ministers were warned to expect close scrutiny of their actions. Those were wise words, given that political fundraisers have always been a source of controversy.

In recent years, two former prime ministers of two different parties, offered different fundraising solutions. In 2004, Jean Chrétien capped donation limits and in 2006 Stephen Harper banned monies from corporations and unions. To offset the decrease in revenue to parties, a government allowance or subsidy per vote was introduced. It paid out $266 million over 11 years before it was finally eliminated by Stephen Harper. The 2015 election was the first that parties were not able to rely on taxpayers’ dollars. Therefore, fundraising is a priority.

So, what to do? Unless we discard political parties (which would elevate the issue of electoral reform to a new level) or unless parties are told they can’t spend money, fundraisers are a necessity of public life. The irony is that most politicians would rather avoid them all together. Time is better spent at their departments, in their constituencies or at home with their families.

Perhaps in the long term we should once again discuss party and electoral financing reform. But in the meantime, the government must come to grips with a yawning political crevice that been exposed.

They must mind that gap. The government’s very good reputation is on the line.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Penny Collenette is an adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa and was a senior director of the Prime Minister’s Office for Jean Chrétien.

Correction – October 31, 2016: This article was edited from a previous version that mistakenly said former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien banned corporate and union donations to political candidates in 2004.

Read more about: