SASKATCHEWAN — (This story is a collaboration between the IJF and CBC Saskatchewan)
Saskatchewan is home to some of the largest political donors in Canada. And the province’s unrestricted political finance rules make it difficult to identify who is behind the five-and-six-figure contributions or to pinpoint where in the country the money is coming from.
Several of the biggest donations made to Saskatchewan political parties in 2025 came from companies for which there is virtually no public information available. A joint investigation by the IJF and CBC found many of these companies share directors, shareholders and even physical addresses, revealing a system of personal and corporate accounts used to mask influence.
Saskatchewan is one of only three jurisdictions that allows corporations, unions and associations from anywhere in Canada to finance provincial political parties and puts no limit on the amount of money that can be donated.
The government says the province’s disclosure requirements provide transparency. But voters would currently need to pay extra for corporate searches to learn who is behind the top corporate donation to the Saskatchewan New Democrats and five of the six top corporate donations to the Saskatchewan Party.
Christopher Cochrane, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, said that because there isn’t great data about the controlling influences and beneficial owners of companies in Canada, corporate donations open up an “invasion of transparency” in the sense that it's not clear who the donor is behind a company.
“So for all we know, there are dozens and dozens and dozens of numbered companies making donations. Any number of them could be controlled by one person behind the scenes,” Cochrane said.
“And they can use those numbered companies to donate to political parties while keeping their names entirely off the political donations register.”
Brandt Tractor’s donation of $10,000 was the largest single corporate contribution made to the Saskatchewan Party last year. As a core business in the Brandt Group of Companies empire, the province’s largest privately held company, Brandt Tractor and its owners in the Semple family are a highly visible part of the Saskatchewan business community.
In contrast, none of the next five top corporate donors appear to even have a website or single storefront location. Corporate records show these five companies, registered in three provinces, are all owned by members of Saskatchewan’s influential Rawlinson family.
The Rawlinson family, whose broadcasting network operates six radio stations in Saskatoon and Regina, has consistently made financial contributions to the governing Saskatchewan Party through affiliated companies Rawlco Radio and Rawlco Capital, which gave a combined $9,200 in 2025.
Agincourt Investments Ltd. donated $9,800 to the Saskatchewan Party last year. The company is registered in Alberta, and provincial corporate registry documents list Gordon S. Rawlinson as the primary contact.
Lana J. Rawlinson is listed in Saskatchewan’s corporate registry as the director and shareholder of JILLTD Investments, which donated $7,700 to the party in 2025.
With a contribution of $9,200, Tropical Way Properties Ltd. was the third largest corporate donor to the Saskatchewan Party in 2025. The company does not appear to have a website or any online footprint, but registration documents name Gordon Rawlinson as its officer and director.
These three companies all listed the same Saskatoon address as their physical office location. JILLTD Investments and Tropical Way Properties also included the Rawlco Radio office in Calgary as their primary mailing address.
Airwaves Radio Ltd., another company with no public profile, is registered in Ontario. It gave $8,800 to the party last year. Douglas Rawlinson is the company’s sole director.
A numbered Saskatchewan corporation, also registered to Douglas Rawlinson, contributed another $8,300.
Over the last ten years, the seven companies connected to the Rawlinson family have given more than $460,000 to the Saskatchewan Party, according to political finance documents from Elections Saskatchewan. All of these donations are allowed under Saskatchewan’s political donation rules.
Simon Enoch, senior researcher for Saskatchewan issues at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said he finds the use of multiple companies by members of the Rawlinson family “very puzzling.”
The province doesn’t put a limit on how much any one person or company can give to a party, Enoch said, “so why go through all these shell companies? Is it because they don't want to be seen to be putting too much largesse to the party via Rawlco?”
Enoch noted that Rawlco and affiliated companies don’t appear to have lobbied the provincial government on any issue or policy over the last ten years, raising more questions about why they are “putting all this money through all these various vehicles.”
“This pattern of donations made through these numbered companies smells really badly. It smells like the family trying to hide just how much they're giving to the party as a means of influencing the party's decisions,” said Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.
The IJF and CBC Saskatchewan reached out to Rawlco Radio and Gordon and Douglas Rawlinson for comment, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
‘Recipe for corruption’
Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon are the only places in Canada that don’t put a cap on political donations or bar donations from outside of the province. With minimal regulation to reign in big spenders, Saskatchewan’s current system “is a recipe for corruption, waste of the public's money, trading of favors and other abuses of power,” Conacher said.
“Psychologists have done studies worldwide and have found that even small gifts influence decisions,” Conacher said. “Any politician that says, ‘Oh, this amount of money, a few thousand dollars, would never change how I make decisions,’ is essentially saying they're not human.”
The potential for money to buy influence in government is one reason meaningful disclosure is important, Cochrane said. He added that a lack of transparency about who is funding a political party also tends to produce cynicism and an environment where rumours circulate and allegations fly.
On paper, registered political parties or candidates can’t accept an anonymous donation in excess of $250. But through the use of numerous numbered companies to move money to parties or candidates, those with the means to do so can essentially buy anonymity, Cochrane said.
“That's a privilege reserved exclusively for those with really high affluence. No question about it,” he said.
NDP got largest single donation from numbered company
Over the last 10 years, numbered corporations have given $438,955 to registered parties in Saskatchewan.
In 2025, the largest corporate donation in Saskatchewan came from a numbered company that gave $11,784 to the Saskatchewan New Democrats. The same company, 101154547 Saskatchewan, has donated nearly $74,000 in the last decade, more than any other numbered company.
Documents from Saskatchewan’s corporate registry name William Leach of Regina as president and director, and lawyer G. Gregory Willows as the sole shareholder and trustee of the company.
Douglas Rawlinson’s numbered company, 565509 Saskatchewan Ltd., has contributed just shy of $65,000 between 2016 and 2025.
One Alberta numbered corporation gave $25,000 to the Saskatchewan Party in 2024, the largest single contribution from a numbered company in the last decade and 100 times the maximum allowable anonymous donation permitted by Elections Saskatchewan.
The company is owned by Rocky Mountain Dealerships chairman Matthew Campbell, according to Alberta corporate registry documents.
The NDP said in a statement that in 2024 the party introduced a bill that would have capped donations and banned corporate, union and out-of-province donations.
“We remain committed to reforming Saskatchewan's broken election finance laws,” the NDP said.
Willows and Campbell were reached by email but did not respond before publication.
Party spending creates ‘a real money hunger’
A Government of Saskatchewan spokesperson said in a statement that the province’s political financing system is “well-established and transparent” and that election legislation is reviewed following every election.
“No specific instances of misuse of public funds, corruption, or abuse of power related to political donations have been identified. These activities are already illegal under existing laws and are subject to investigation and prosecution where warranted,” the spokesperson said.
“While Saskatchewan’s framework differs from other provinces, it reflects a balance that allows participation in the democratic process while maintaining disclosure requirements for transparency.”
Whether a donation is coming from an anonymous source or not, Conacher said that having a system that allows unlimited donations is at odds with the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote.
“Businesses, unions and organizations don't vote, so they shouldn't be funnelling money into the political system either,” Conacher said.
In 2025, Alberta ended its ban on political donations from corporations, unions and other associations. But while these entities are again free to contribute, they are limited by the same $5,000 spending cap that applies to individuals.
For Conacher, these attempts to regulate corporate and union influence aren’t enough.
“You have to ban them,” he said. “It's just completely undemocratic to allow an entity — a business, union or organization — that doesn't vote to buy influence through donations.”
Cochrane said that for any province thinking about a donation policy, it’s important to consider what they want to accomplish and the different types of behaviours being incentivized. If the amount or sources of political donations are restricted through legislation, but there’s no change in how much a party or candidate is allowed to spend, the effect might be to merely change political fundraising strategies and not impact the influence money has on government.
“It's that gap between the amount of money that parties need and the amount of money that parties spend that creates a real money hunger,” Cochrane said.
“It's simply not as straightforward as ‘reduce the donation limit: reduce the influence of money in politics.’”
