Canadians will go to the polls this spring or early next year. But even if voters opt for a change in government, they have few guarantees the next bunch of rascals won't produce their own Adscam. Corruption seems to eventually afflict all parties: Consider that Chuck Guité, the bureaucrat who managed the scandal-plagued sponsorship program until 1999, recently told the Gomery inquiry that advertising procurement practices were actually worse under the old Progressive Conservative government. So whether or not the Grits manage to hang on - with help from the New Democrats - malfeasance will likely continue without fundamental changes.

Parliament is in need of an overhaul. A long string of spending scandals and audits reveal there is a systemic lack of accountability. Taxpayers are all too familiar with the headline-grabbing stories of financial irregularities reported by Canada's auditor-general. But other inspections are no less damning. A 2004 audit of the Canada Revenue Agency, for instance, revealed a casual attitude toward protecting taxpayers and their private data. Most alarming are four computers stolen in 2003 from a tax office, which contain information on 120,000 Canadians - including social insurance numbers.

Canadians need safeguards to protect taxpayers, and a more muscular system - beyond ejecting one party from office for another - to ensure greater oversight of lawmakers. Allowing more free votes and permitting MPs to evaluate major appointments to heads of Crown corporations and agencies represent a good start, but additional reforms are needed.

A wise proposal is to hand the auditor-general greater powers. It may shock readers to know that Crown corporations, as well as the foundations tasked with spending $9-billion of tax money, cannot currently be inspected by the auditor-general. About $7-billion is now sitting in foundation bank accounts, yet no one in the Government of Canada can access these funds or review how they are spent.

Likewise, Parliament must pass a powerful whistleblower law to protect civil servants who report government waste or corruption from retribution by senior officials. Prime Minister Paul Martin's proposals confine government employees to working within their own departmental systems. This is simply not acceptable.

The many shortcomings of Ottawa's Access to Information law must also be strengthened to include a large swath of government activity currently exempt from scrutiny. Canada's freedom of information law was introduced in 1985, and was designed to ensure the government is open and transparent. It is a citizen's tool to determine how tax money is being spent and a safeguard against abuse. Yet the principle of open government has been eroded as information requests are routinely rejected. Bombardier, for example, has received $772-million since 1982 in direct government aid, yet Ottawa refuses to report the aerospace company's repayment record - "trust us" is their answer. So-called third-party exemptions have placed $15-billion in tax dollars beyond the public's prying eyes.

Enacting these reforms will not stamp out government corruption, but they will improve our odds of finding it before it festers, Adscam-style, for years. If Mr. Martin is serious about making Parliament work, he should table and amend legislation to ensure meaningful accountability. Should he fail to do so, Stephen Harper will be handed an opportunity. And if he disappoints as well, Canadians will know both major parties are more interested in switching seats than they are in granting Canadian taxpayers the tools they need to check up on their government.