"The monastery is poor, but the monks are rich," Italian politician Rino Formica used to say when corruption was raging in Italy during the 1970s and the 1980s. The monastery was like the government and the central parties’ organizations, while the monks were the various ministers and the leeches around them.

Stephen LeDrew, president of the Liberal Party of Canada, must feel just like Mr. Formica whose axiom can be entirely applied to the Canadian political picture. I don’t know if we have corruption in Canada, however 70 per cent of the Canadian people believe we do. In fact, if we add up the number of people involved in federal, provincial and municipal politics and multiply that number by four — the average number of people per household — we might even assume that all Canadians not involved in politics, believe that the Canadian political system is corrupt.

"Corruption," according to my Webster's dictionary, is an act of bribery, and a "bribe," also according to Webster's, is an act “to induce to a certain course of action, especially a wrong course." We all read the Auditor General's recent report, including how billions of dollars have been spent and unaccounted for. Of course people make mistakes, we're only human, but if these mistakes persist, we have to conclude that corruption or stupidity is to be blamed. In both cases there is not much enjoyment in evaluating the action of our governments.

And, by governments, I mean the entire political system, including the opposition parties and the bureaucracy. One example: we heard plenty of accusations about the mishandling of billions of dollars by Human Resources Development Canada. And we saw that the department's minister Jane Stewart, targeted as the culprit. But did anybody ask questions about her predecessor? And what was the role of the bureaucrats? Who was the deputy minister? Did they know that it was wrong? If they didn’t what is their role? We hear these days many Torquemadas from the opposition benches talking about corruption within the government. Reading that 70 per cent of Canadians believe the government is corrupt makes the Torquemadas on the opposition benches purr with delight.

Unfortunately, the most effective defence offered by Deputy Prime Minister John Manley against the corruption charges levelled by the Alliance is that Canadians are talking about the entire system and not just the government. That may settle the score with the opposition, but not with Canadians. Good programs are important for every citizen, but honesty and trust take paramount precedence.

The former Tory government of Brian Mulroney was voted in twice because Canadians believed in their policies. People approved of the free trade agreements, the reform of the taxation system and even the financial policies during one of the worst recessions of the post-war era. Yet, the Mulroney government was reduced to a “party of two” because Canadians no longer trusted them. In order to understand what happened you don’t just have to read Stevie Cameron's On the take, you can get more details by reading The House is not a Home, by an unsuspected source, Eric Nielsen.

The Chrétien government has guided Canadians out of a very difficult time: the economy is booming and Canadians are generally happy with their lives. Nonetheless, Chrétien’s government is heading towards a very slippery slope, one already paved by his Tory predecessor. The list of what is wrong, or what is perceived to be wrong, is very long. Tory MP Peter MacKay had an opportunity to give some highlights last week in the House. Things now, however, are much more dangerous. In 1993 Canadians were upset, but they had an alternative, as they had an alternative in 1984 after they were slapped in the face by the patronage appointments made by the retiring Pierre Trudeau. They felt betrayed but they had hope in some changes.

Now there is no hope. If the government side looks like a house some want to sell while the tenant is still inside, the opposition doesn’t look much better. MacKay made an impressive case with his list of mistakes but, with his leader looking like a stoned fighter kicking the air, hoping for a knock out of his opponent, he is not an alternative. We cannot look at the Bloc hoping for a sinecure for the Canadian problems, and the NDP is still alive but only because political euthanasia is illegal in Canada.

Then we have the Canadian Alliance. A few weeks ago they had no policies and no leader. Now it seems they do have a leader and in the House they are screaming louder. Still, there are no policies. One example: when Manley asked former Canadian Alliance leadership candidates how they raised their money, the answer was basically that, being in the opposition you don’t need rules because you are not in government.

It seems that principles in politics are based on where you sit, not were you stand. Having followed closely the events of Italian politics in the past, I see today a scary déjà-vu. When citizens didn't react to the dishonesty of institutions and the politicians thought that they could get away with murder because they had outsmarted the voters, Italy entered a very dangerous period from which it only starting coming out of in 1992.

The people were not outsmarted by their politicians; indeed, they did not take them seriously anymore and tried to emulate them. At that time polling was not widely used as it is today; however, I’m sure that had they asked Italians about their politicians, 70 per cent would have believed they were corrupt.