Angry in the Great White North

Let's start with Conservative candidate Rene Soetens.

Soetens received 78 donations from individuals, totalling $24,320.

A total of 22 local corporations donated another $10,600.00.

Soetens took out no loans.

The Conservative Party, via the local riding association, donated an additional $25,404.71.

Soetens raised $1,719.90 via local fundraising events, and received a federal rebate cheque from Elections Canada of $11,064.27.

Adding it up, you get $76,313.98, broken down as follows:

• 31% from dozens of individuals
• 13% from over twenty local businesses
• 0% from loans
• 33% from the Conservative Party
• 17% from other sources

Compare this with Liberal candidate Mark Holland.

Holland received 2 donations from individuals, totalling $902.00.

No local businesses donated to the Holland campaign.

Holland accepted a loan from local developer Ron Halliday of Coghlan Homes for $17,000.00. Halliday is charging 0% interest.

The Liberal Party, via the local riding association, donated a whopping $72,729.21.

Holland did not raise any additional funds from any other sources, such as fund raisers.

Adding it up, you get $89,729.21, broken down as follows:

• 1% from two individuals
• nothing from local businesses
• 19% from one local developer in the form of an interest-free loan
• 80% from the Liberal Party
• nothing from other sources

Quite the contrast, eh?

From Mark Holland's website:

Whether or not you supported me in the recent election, my responsibility is to serve all constituents of Ajax-Pickering.

Let's hope so, because it appears that just about no one supported his re-election, at least not with money. On the face of it, it looks like Mark Holland will be considering the interests of the Liberal Party in Ottawa first, Ron Halliday second, and the constituents and businesses of Ajax-Pickering a distant third.

Ron Halliday, by the way, is not new to the notion of bankrolling local elected officials. Consider the local member of the provincial parliament, Wayne Arthurs, who sat on the Regional Planning Committee, and is now the assistant to the Minister of Finance. Arthurs is on record supprting the opening some large tracts of protected land in Durham region to new development:

I would also like to point out from another media article in the Metroland newspapers that there were some financial contributions that went to Mr. Arthurs from developers, which certainly raise some concerns: "Arthurs Draws Red Flags; Says $25,000 in Donations Recognizes `Common Interest in Growth.'" This is from Wednesday, August 4, 2004.

"Despite concerns from Pickering residents, MPP Wayne Arthurs is defending his election campaign contributions, including $25,000 from one address.

"The concerns about the Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge MPP's donation list have been raised in public meetings by local individuals and groups, including Lorne Almack, a member of the local environmental group the Green Door Alliance.

"The $25,000 came in 25 separate $1,000 donations from one address -- 27 Buggey Lane in Ajax. The address is the head office of Coughlan Homes, owned by developer Jerry Coughlan.

"Mr. Coughlan and his business partner Ron Halliday briefly addressed the issue in a telephone interview, saying the donations reflect their belief in Mr. Arthurs and the Liberal Party. They did not comment further.

Belief in the Liberal Party. Right.

The federal party finance rules are clear -- donations from corporations are capped at $1,000 per year. But loans are a different story. Clearly, there is no ceiling, and in 2004, Mark Holland was happy to receive $17,000 in a loan from a local developer. It certainly helped make up for the shortfall in donations from people and businesses, which added up to a paltry $902.00.

And interest free to boot! When's the last time someone loaned you $17,000, charged you no interest, and expected no special favours or consideration in return?

By definition, a loan is money lent with a condition attached. That is different from a donation, for which there are no conditions. The condition attached to a loan is usually repayment with interest. But what if there is no interest? What is the condition attached in that case?

And doesn't the interest saved (compared to the prime interest rate set by the Bank of Canada) constitute yet another donation?

Mark Holland won the riding on January 23, so I'm stuck with him. I didn't arrange an interest-free $17,000.00 loan, so I won't be expecting much in return when it comes to representation in parliament.

When the 2006 financial statements come out, you can be certain I'll be delving into the details.

Updates:

First, I've explored further into the issue of loans. Unfortunately, I'm becoming more confused.

Second, the way a candidate's return to Elections Canada is structured, he or she is required to fill in a sheet entitled "Summary of Contributions, Transfers and Other Cash Inflows - (Does not include loans)".

Why not loans?

On the Financial Summary, loans are factored back in. The candidate then takes his expenses, and subtracts them. Note that the expenses are limited by law. In the case of Ajax-Pickering, each candidate could spend a maximum of $73,761.78. Mark Holland, for example, spent $73,168.59, just under the limit. Counting his loan, that means he ends the election with a surplus of $17,231.31.

So what did the $16,000 loan succeed at doing? Holland wasn't allowed to spend it, and according to his returns, he didn't spend it. I guess he just give the money back to Halliday.

Was the loan bridge money to address temporary cashflow problems, with the intention of paying it back out of the surplus at the end of the election? But even then that's still a big favour for Halliday to do for Holland.

Seems like there is no limit to how big this kind of favour can be. It's the sort of short-term help that can save a struggling campaign.