Accounting firm partners donations to federal Liberals and Conservatives "a little troubling"

[dapaterson]

On several occasions, multiple partners of Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, an accounting / consulting firm, made donations en masse on the same day to federal Conservative and Liberals.

According to François Rocher, the director of the University of Ottawa’s school of political studies, these donations aren’t illegal in and of themselves, because they come from individuals.

"What is, I would say, a little troubling is to see that many of these partners contributed the same day," Rocher said.

He underlined that corporate donations to political parties are prohibited.

"We can ask ourselves if all of this is part of a company's strategy to make itself known by political parties and eventually receive benefits as a result of these significant contributions. From this point of view, obviously, it would contravene the principles and spirit of Canada's electoral law," Rocher said.

The management of Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton declined to comment on its associates' donations because, according to the company, they were of a personal nature and had nothing to do with the business.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/political-donations-from-quebec-firm-s-employees-raise-questions-1.1327254

 

[FSTO]

Who you know in the PMO.

Life in Canada never changes.

 

[brihard]

Thank God we don’t have a court decision like Citizens United…

 

[Brad Sallows]

A decision like CU would be a useful counterweight to the politicians who find it convenient to scapegoat corporations and to the tendency of some parties to capitalize on very close relationships with unions. Should either have all three, or none of them.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Given the hoops we have to jump through for sole source contracts it boggles my mind how much less scrutiny these ministerial contracts get and they seem to be able to sole source it to friends or have limited tendering pools no problem.

Meanwhile took a year to renew a contract for maintenance of a piece of equipment with the OEM after they provided a letter that they hadn't licensed the IP for anyone else to do that work, which is basically the easiest sole source justification, and the same we'd been using for the previous 12 years of the same contract. If they had to work within the same rules and actual application of the rules as us plebs maybe we might get headway on fixing procurement.

 

[brihard]

A decision like CU would be a useful counterweight to the politicians who find it convenient to scapegoat corporations and to the tendency of some parties to capitalize on very close relationships with unions. Should either have all three, or none of them.

To hell with that noise. You think unbridled political donations by corporations and unions would be a net good for democracy? Not a chance. If we think corporate hooks into politics are bad already, that would be a sure path to it becoming massively, massively worse.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Unbridled in-kind contributions by unions and irresponsible political rhetoric which might tend to damage public perception of corporations are already a "net bad" for democracy. Either counterbalance them by allowing corporations freedom of expression, or remove the ability of unions to contribute or advocate anything, and enact harsh fiscal penalties for politicians who express themselves irresponsibly whether intended or not.

 

[dapaterson]

Corporations are not, despite the best efforts of the courts, persons.

 

[Brad Sallows]

No, corporations are composed of persons. That was the basis for CU.

 

[brihard]

Corporations are not, despite the best efforts of the courts, persons.

Very much depends on the legal context. “Persons” under the law generally mean an entity upon whom the law operates and which enjoys certain legal responsibilities and rights. Fortunately Canada has not interpreted the rights side of that nearly as broadly as the US.

 

[FJAG]

Corporations are not, despite the best efforts of the courts, persons.

It has nothing to do with courts. Corporate personhood comes from legislation. See for example the Canada Business Corporations Act.

person means an individual, partnership, association, body corporate, or personal representative; (personne)

body corporate includes a company or other body corporate wherever or however incorporated; (personne morale)

individual means a natural person; (particulier)

It's easy in law to distinguish an individual from a person if you want to.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Treating corporations like persons in law is a convenience.

What would alternatives look like?

 

[Spencer100]

Thank God we don’t have a court decision like Citizens United…

We did. It had a more controlled outcome though

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc33/2004scc33.html

Harper v Canada

Funny part was it decided after Harper was PM

At the time it was filed he was President of the National Citizens Coalition.

 

[brihard]

Sorry, I

We did. It had a more controlled outcome though

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc33/2004scc33.html

Harper v Canada

Funny part was it decided after Harper was PM

At the time it was filed he was President of the National Citizens Coalition.

Sorry, I meant in terms of outcome. The SCC took a very different tack in Harper than SCOTUS did in Citizens United. In the US there was a broad application of free speech as a right enjoyed by corporations, which extended to political donations. In Harper, although restrictions on third party spending were found to infringe 2(b) of the Charter, they were saved by s. 1, the reasonable limitations clause. A good decision.