Legal action targets sweeping undemocratic Cabinet powers under Special Economic Zones Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, April 8, 2026

TORONTO – A coalition of public interest and environmental organizations has launched a constitutional challenge to one of Ontario’s most controversial new laws, warning it creates “lawless zones” where legal rights, protections, and accountability give way to Cabinet discretion.

Ecojustice, on behalf of Democracy Watch, Environmental Defence Canada, Friends of the Earth Canada, and Wildlands League, announced today that it has commenced a court challenge to Ontario’s Special Economic Zones Act (SEZA).

Advocates say the SEZA is an alarming bypassing of democratic processes to accelerate development.

The government can pick winners, draw a boundary on a map, and decide that inside it, the rules no longer apply. Safeguards people rely on — for clean air, safe water, and a say in decisions — simply disappear, says the coalition.

“This case is about whether Ontario is governed by laws passed through public legislative debate or behind closed doors by Cabinet members picking and choosing,” said Lindsay Beck, Ecojustice lawyer.

“The Premier and his cabinet now have unfettered power to exempt any person or business they like (“trusted proponents” and “designated projects”) from any provincial or municipal law they choose in as much of the province as they like (“special economic zones”), for any purpose, and based on whatever criteria they themselves decide,” said Phil Pothen, Counsel with Environmental Defence.

“The law is dangerously undemocratic as it gives the Doug Ford cabinet unconstitutional, king-like powers to change any law without a review or vote of approval by Ontario’s legislature,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “These excessive powers are a recipe for corruption, trading of favours and preferential treatment by the Ford Cabinet of lobbyists, businesses, unions and other organizations that they favour, waste of the public’s money on boondoggles and pie-in-the-sky pet projects, and other abuses of power that benefit friends of Premier Ford and his Cabinet ministers.”

The coalition argues the law violates the Constitution by concentrating law-making authority in the Cabinet, bypassing the legislature. They warn it opens the door to environmental harm, weakened oversight, reduced public participation, and corruption. Environmental assessments, labour laws, and health and safety requirements could all be set aside for designated projects and proponents.

The Premier has already indicated he would like to use these extreme powers to pave the path the way for development including building a tunnelled expressway under Highway 401, expediting mining in northern Ontario, building nuclear power generating stations; a deep-sea port in James Bay; massive expansion to the GO Train system, among others.

“Doug Ford is doing what Donald Trump does, opening the door for corrupt backroom deals,” said Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada.  “Bill 5 gives billionaires free reign to pollute. No one will be enforcing environmental laws that protect vulnerable people and their communities from toxic dumps, dirty air, and overuse and contamination of water and land.”

The challenge comes as recent polling shows a majority of Ontarians believe the government is failing to protect key aspects of daily life, including housing, health care, and affordability.

Advocates say the Special Economic Zones Act reflects a broader trend — one where democratic processes are weakened, and environmental safeguards are treated as obstacles rather than protections.

“When vital safeguards are recklessly sacrificed to create private profits for proponents, we all pay the price,” says Jan Sumner, Executive Director of Wildlands League. “This new law is the culmination of years of attacks on threatened wildlife, our natural world and treating the environment, Indigenous rights and public consultation as red tape.”

The applicants are asking the court to strike down the law and reaffirm a core democratic principle: laws must be made openly, by elected representatives — not quietly, by executive decree.

The case is expected to have implications beyond Ontario, as governments across Canada consider similar “fast-track” legislation.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign and Stop Bill 5 Court Challenge Fund

Did the Commissioner let off the lobbyists, hide her investigation records, and gut key ethical lobbying rules in Lobbyists’ Code, to get reappointed by the Trudeau Cabinet in December 2024 for another 7-year term?

Did the RCMP Commissioner let off the lobbyists and hide investigation records to get appointed by the Trudeau Cabinet in 2023-2024?

RCMP record confirms violations by SNC-Lavalin lobbyists were investigated, and reveals federal prosecutors’ secret decision not to prosecute violations of key rule in Lobbying Act – do other cases include violations by lobbyists from Facebook, WE Charity, Imperial Oil and associates of Jenni Byrne?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 9, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, as federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger is scheduled to testify this afternoon before the House Ethics Committee as it begins its 10-year overdue review of the federal Lobbying Act, Democracy Watch criticized Commissioner Bélanger for abusing her discretionary powers in secret rulings since 2018 letting off all lobbyists in 13 separate situations even though she had concluded they violated the federal Lobbying Act (and, therefore, she could have issued a public ruling identifying all the lobbyists and finding that they all violated the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct).

Democracy Watch also criticized Commissioner Bélanger for clearly violating the federal Access to Information Act (ATIA) by delaying for 18 months (from June 2024 to December 2025) disclosure of her investigation records in the 13 cases, and then redacting 80-90% of key information, using invalid reasons that violate the ATIA’s disclosure requirements, in the almost 6,000 total pages of records she has disclosed.

Subsection 16.2(2) of the ATIA clearly requires the Commissioner to disclose all investigation records of completed cases within 30 days of receiving an ATIA request (with a reasonable extension of a few months allowed). The Commissioner’s records show that all 13 cases have been completed.

The Commissioner is hiding the following information about all 13 cases that she could have legally disclosed under the ATIA: the identity of the federal politicians, public officials and government institutions that were lobbied (and interviewed for the investigation); the business/organization lobbied for; any general issue lobbied about; the number of lobbyists involved in each case; all the allegations that were investigated (some are redacted); the date she initiated her investigation; the date she referred each case to the RCMP, and; the date the RCMP referred each case back to her.  If the allegations of illegal lobbying were made publicly in any of the cases, it is also legal for the Commissioner to disclose the identities of the lobbyists who were investigated.

Commissioner Bélanger’s annual reports since 2018 also show that she has let off 98% of lobbyists she has found violating the Lobbying Act. Previous Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd had an almost as bad enforcement record from 2007 to the end of 2017. And the Act has a “dirty dozen” loopholes that allow for secret lobbying, and the Code has huge loopholes that allow for unethical lobbying, and 10 key changes are needed to strengthen the enforcement system to make it independent, timely, transparent, effective and accountable.  In her submission to the House Ethics Committee, Commissioner Bélanger has only recommended closing half of the dozen secret lobbying loopholes, none of the unethical lobbying loopholes, and making only two of the 10 needed enforcement changes.

Democracy Watch also criticized the RCMP for failing to prosecute fully any of the lobbyists involved in the 13 situations, and for continuing to fail to disclose almost all of its investigation records.  Democracy Watch filed a request with the RCMP for its investigation records in 6 of the 13 cases in October 2023, and it clearly violated the ATIA for more than two years before it finally disclosed last week one heavily redacted (with no reasons given for any of the redactions), unclear document containing its mixed up combined investigation records for only 4 of the 6 cases.

Once Commissioner Bélanger concluded in each of the 13 cases that a lobbyist or lobbyists had violated the Act, she referred (as required under Lobbying Act ss. 10.4(7)) each case to the RCMP at undisclosed times since January 2018, and the RCMP referred the cases back to her at undisclosed times after letting the lobbyists off.

Commissioner Bélanger could then have issued a public ruling in each of the 13 cases naming the lobbyist and finding them guilty of violating the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct (which requires lobbyists to comply with the Act, and has no limitation period on ruling on violations, and only requires proof on balance of probability, and has no penalty other than being named and shamed). A former Commissioner did this in a past case. Instead, Commissioner Bélanger buried all 13 cases and covered up the wrongdoing by the lobbyists without issuing a public ruling or identifying any of the lobbyists.

While the RCMP’s document is an unclear mix of records from 4 cases, it does reveal on one page (accidentally it seems) that one case involved investigating SNC-Lavalin lobbyists, very likely concerning lobbying during the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin scandal by former PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch for SNC-Lavalin that was not registered by CEO Neil Bruce (click here to see DWatch’s March 2019 complaint), and by SNC-Lavalin lawyer Robert Pritchard and others.  This is clearly the same case as File #8 of the Commissioner of Lobbying’s 13 case files.

The RCMP’s document also reveals that it let off the lobbyists involved in at least one of the 4 cases (and likely more) because a federal Crown prosecutor told an RCMP investigating officer on an undisclosed date that one of the key provisions of the Lobbying Act known as “the 20% rule” (which sets the threshold for registration of officers and employees lobbying for a business or organization) was unenforceable and so would never lead to a prosecution.

This raises key questions: When did Crown prosecutors or the Commissioner make that this key provision of the Act was unenforceable?  Did they inform the Commissioner of Lobbying and, if so, when did they do that?  Why didn’t Crown prosecutors make that information public?  The RCMP’s document also hides other reasons why none of the lobbyists were prosecuted.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner about the violations of the ATIA by the Commissioner of Lobbying’s redactions of 80-90% of the disclosed investigation records, and the Information Commissioner is investigating the complaint.  Democracy Watch also filed a complaint about the ATIA violations by the RCMP, and the Information Commissioner is investigating that complaint.  Democracy Watch has also requested the RCMP’s records in the other 7 of the 13 cases.

Click here to see charts summarizing and linking to the heavily redacted almost 6,000 pages of records in the Commissioner’s 13 case files (Chart 1), and the RCMP’s one, heavily redacted, mixed up 227-page document about 4 of the cases (Chart 2).

Democracy Watch’s conclusion is that the letting off of all the lobbyists, and the multi-year disclosure delays and ongoing hiding of most of the investigation records, by Commissioner Bélanger and RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme amount to a cover-up, quite possibly done by both to secure appointments to their positions by the Trudeau Cabinet in 2024.

“By negligently letting off all of the lobbyists in 13 cases who violated the federal lobbying law since 2018, and violating the law by hiding almost all their investigation records, the Commissioner of Lobbying and RCMP are covering up scandalous situations, protecting the lobbyists and the politicians and public officials they were lobbying, encouraging further violations, and making it even more clear the Commissioner should not have been re-appointed for a second seven-year term,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “It’s shameful that the RCMP, whose top officers are chosen by and serve at the pleasure of the ruling party Cabinet, continues to take so long to investigate lobbyists who violate the law given they receive clear evidence from the Commissioner of Lobbying, and it’s shameful that they fail to prosecute fully all violations.”

“The RCMP’s negligently bad enforcement record of Canada’s lobbying law, similar to its negligently bad enforcement in the SNC-Lavalin and Aga Khan scandals involving former Prime Minister Trudeau, is more clear evidence that a new, fully independent federal anti-corruption police and prosecution force is needed, said Conacher.

If and when the full investigation records are disclosed, beyond the one disclosed RCMP document that reveals it and the Commissioner both investigated SNC-Lavalin lobbyists, the records may reveal that of the other 12 cases some are about:

1. The unregistered lobbying and favours for Trudeau Liberal Cabinet ministers that Kevin Chan and others at Facebook did (click here to see DWatch’s April 2018 complaint to the Commissioner);

2. The unregistered lobbying that WE Charity lobbyists did of Trudeau Liberal Cabinet ministers from January 2019 to August 2020, and the trip gifts they gave to former Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his family;

3. The lobbying by Imperial Oil of then-Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer, and by CPA Canada of Minister Karina Gould, at a May 2019 event they sponsored, and/or;

4. The lobbying done by associates of Jenni Byrne, then at top adviser to Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre.

Did Commissioner Bélanger hide her rulings (9 of the 13 cases were shut down by her and the RCMP from February 2023 to May 2024), fail to enforce the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code, and gut key rules in the Lobbyists’ Code (ignoring the opposition to the changes from a coalition of 26 citizen groups with 1.5 million total supporters, and 41 lawyers and professors, and 20,000+ voters – Click here for details), in order to have the Trudeau Cabinet reappoint her to a second seven-year term in November 2024?

Did former RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki let off the lobbyists because she was appointed by and served at the pleasure of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?  Did former Deputy RCMP Commissioner and current RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme fail to enforce the Lobbying Act effectively and hide investigation records from October 2023 until February 2026 (with more records still hidden) so Trudeau would appoint him first as Interim Commissioner in March 2023 and then as Commissioner in April 2024?  The RCMP similarly covered up its investigation of the Trudeau Cabinet SNC-Lavalin scandal from July 2022 through to May 2024, and let Trudeau off also for unjustifiable reasons.

A national survey commissioned by Democracy Watch in January 2025 showed that more than 80% of Canadians are concerned about the corrupting effects of secret, unethical lobbying on politicians’ policy-making decisions, and want to know the details of all lobbying activities.

“The public’s high level of concern about secret, unethical lobbying, and the negligently weak enforcement records and excessive secrecy of the Commissioner of Lobbying and the RCMP, make it clear that all the secret lobbying loopholes need to be closed, along with all the unethical lobbying loopholes, and that the enforcement system must be made independent and strengthened to require the Commissioner to issue a public ruling in every case, and to empower and require her to penalize every violation with a sliding scale of high fines and prohibitions on lobbying for long time periods,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Open Government Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Fraud costing Canadian bank customers $640 million + each year

Key measures also needed (which U.S., Australia and/or England have enacted), to stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse and ensure banks pay their fair share in taxes – Liberals have done little since 2015

Big Six Banks gouged out $70 billion in profits in 2025 (almost $50 billion more than 2010), paid their CEOs more than $12 million each, and gave out more than $27 billion in bonuses to employees

Five of the Big 6 are in top 50 most profitable banks in the world despite being much smaller than many banks in other countries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 26, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch criticized Liberal and Conservative MPs on the House Finance Committee for rejecting measures proposed by NDP and Bloc Québecois MPs that would have amended budget Bill C-15 to make proposed bank account fraud measures actually effective at ensuring consumers are compensated for frauds they are not responsible for, like the measures Australia has enacted.  Canadian bank customers are being defrauded of more than $640 million each year due to bank account fraud.

“By rejecting changes to Bill C-15 proposed by NDP and Bloc MPs to make its bank account fraud protection measures effective, the Liberals and Conservatives have condemned customers of Canada’s big banks to waste years and money trying to get their lost money back in the same way that customers of Canada’s big airlines waste years and money trying to get compensation for delayed or cancelled flights because of weak, ineffective measures the Liberals enacted for airline passengers,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“The Carney Liberal government’s proposed anti-bank account fraud measures, which the Conservatives have backed, amount to more hot air promises of future ineffective, mostly voluntary measures that, even if they are undertaken, are much weaker than the actual bank customer protection Australia has already imposed on banks, telecom and Internet companies that require them to pay customers back when they lose their money to fraudsters,” said Conacher.  (Click here to see a summary of the Australian anti-fraud measures).

Democracy Watch also called on the Carney Liberals to stop protecting his Big Bank executive friends and work with all federal parties to make key changes that the U.S., Australia and/or England have already made to protect bank customers from gouging, discrimination and other abuses.

More than 120,000 voters have signed on to Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign or Change.org petition calling for these key changes, some of which the U.S. enacted decades ago, and some of which Australia and England have enacted in the past several years (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

The Carney Liberals re-hashed old 2021 election promises made by the Trudeau government by proposing only weak, ineffective, largely voluntary measures in the 2025 budget Bill C-15 (Part V, Division 16, sections 333-336) that only require the bank to have policies and procedures aimed at preventing account fraud.  The measures will do nothing to address the role of telecom and Internet companies in allowing fraud scam calls and websites, and will let those companies and the Big Banks off when they allow or facilitate bank account fraud.  The Conservatives promised similarly weak and incomplete anti-fraud measures in their 2025 federal election platform.

The banks often blame their customers for the fraud and refuse to compensate them for lost money even if the fraudsters do account transactions that the customer has never done in decades or if bank staff allow or facilitate the fraud.

In its submission to the federal Finance Department in response to its recent consultation paper on bank account fraud, and in its submission to the Finance Committee, Democracy Watch called for key changes to Bill C-15 to immediately require banks to compensate customers partially for fraud losses right away (given the banks are almost always partially responsible for the losses), and to require banks to compensate the customer for their entire loss unless the bank can prove to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) that they have adequate safeguards to prevent fraudulent account transactions, have fully trained their staff in those safeguards, and did their due diligence to prevent the fraud from happening.

In addition, the OBSI must be given the power to make binding orders on the banks, and the banks must be required to disclose quarterly exactly how many fraud cases their customers have suffered, and what they did in each case, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) must also be required to report on how they held the bank accountable for the fraud, and to audit the banks and penalize them with high fines for every violation.  (See details re: weak financial consumer and investor protection enforcement in Canada).

At the House Finance Committee meeting on Monday, NDP MP Don Davies proposed the changes described above to Bill C-15, and Bloc MP Jean-Denis Garon proposed an amendment to make the banks liable for customer fraud losses unless the customer was grossly negligent.  Liberal and Conservative MPs on the Committee voted against these measures.

All federal parties should also work together to enact the same requirements for telecom and Internet companies.

The Liberals’ Budget 2025 document (pp. 116-122 and 163-164) also repeats the Liberals’ 2021 election promise to have the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) review banking fees, and says nothing about decreasing fees or credit card interest rates from their current gouging levels, or doing anything to stop gender or racial discrimination in lending.

Democracy Watch’s submissions also call for several other key bank accountability measures, neasures that the U.S., Australia and/or England enacted years ago, to stop gouging fees and interest rates, discrimination in lending and services, and other banking abuses.  (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

“The Liberals continue to protect the big bank’s excessive gouging profits and their executives’ excessive multi-million salaries instead of making the changes needed to stop banks from gouging billions from their 28 million customers and to protect bank customers from discrimination and other abuses,” said Conacher.

“Every dollar of excessive profit for the banks, and every person and business the banks unjustifiably refuse to loan to, costs the Canadian economy because it means that the banks are overcharging for their essential services and loans, and choking off job creation and spending,” said Conacher.

Canada’s big banks recorded huge, gouging profits in 2025 of $70 billion, almost $50 billion more than in 2010.

All of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 300 of Fortune’s Global 2000 for 2025 (based on 2024 size, assets, profits and market value).  RBC (13th), TD (32nd), BMO (38th), CIBC (44th) and Scotiabank (48th) were also in the top 50 most profitable banks in the world in 2024 (more profitable than most other larger banks) and RBC, TD, BMO, CIBC and Scotiabank were the top five most profitable Canadian companies in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also handed out $27.3 billion in 2025 in bonuses to their employees, 15% more than the $23.75 billion in bonuses to their employees in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also paid their CEOs an average of $12.3 million in 2024 – 55% higher than in 2008.

See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Bank Accountability Campaign

Key measures also needed (which U.S., Australia and/or England have enacted), to stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse and ensure banks pay their fair share in taxes – Liberals have done little since 2015

Big Six Banks gouged out $70 billion in profits in 2025 (almost $50 billion more than 2010), paid their CEOs more than $12 million each, and gave out more than $27 billion in bonuses to employees

Five of the Big 6 are in top 50 most profitable banks in the world despite being much smaller than many banks in other countries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 18, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the House Finance Committee to amend budget Bill C-15 to make proposed bank account fraud measures actually effective at ensuring consumers are compensated for frauds they are not responsible for, like the measures Australia has enacted.  Democracy Watch also called on the Carney Liberals to stop protecting his Big Bank executive friends and work with all federal parties to make key changes that the U.S., Australia and/or England have already made to protect bank customers from gouging, discrimination and other abuses.

More than 120,000 voters have signed on to Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign or Change.org petition calling for these key changes, some of which the U.S. enacted decades ago, and some of which Australia and England have enacted in the past several years (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

The Carney Liberals re-hashed old 2021 election promises made by the Trudeau government by proposing only weak, ineffective, largely voluntary measures in the 2025 budget Bill C-15 (Part V, Division 16, sections 333-336) that only require the bank to have policies and procedures aimed at preventing account fraud.  The measures will do nothing to address the role of telecom and Internet companies in allowing fraud scam calls and websites, and will let those companies and the Big Banks off when they allow or facilitate bank account fraud.  The Conservatives promised similarly weak and incomplete anti-fraud measures in their 2025 federal election platform.

The banks often blame their customers for the fraud and refuse to compensate them for lost money even if the fraudsters do account transactions that the customer has never done in decades or if bank staff allow or facilitate the fraud.

In its submission to the federal Finance Department in response to its recent consultation paper on bank account fraud, and in its submission to the Finance Committee, Democracy Watch called for key changes to Bill C-15 to immediately require banks to compensate customers partially for fraud losses right away (given the banks are almost always partially responsible for the losses), and to require banks to compensate the customer for their entire loss unless the bank can prove to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) that they have adequate safeguards to prevent fraudulent account transactions, have fully trained their staff in those safeguards, and did their due diligence to prevent the fraud from happening.

In addition, the OBSI must be given the power to make binding orders on the banks, and the banks must be required to disclose quarterly exactly how many fraud cases their customers have suffered, and what they did in each case, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) must also be required to report on how they held the bank accountable for the fraud, and to audit the banks and penalize them with high fines for every violation.  (See details re: weak financial consumer and investor protection enforcement in Canada).

All federal parties should also work together to enact the same requirements for telecom and Internet companies.

“The Carney Liberal government’s proposed anti-bank account fraud measures amount to more hot air promises of future ineffective, mostly voluntary measures that, even if they are undertaken, are much weaker than the actual bank customer protection Australia has already imposed on banks, telecom and Internet companies that require them to pay customers back when they lose their money to fraudsters,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  (Click here to see a summary of the Australian anti-fraud measures).

“If budget Bill C-15 is not strengthened to make its bank account fraud protection measures effective, customers of Canada’s big banks will waste years and money trying to get their lost money back in the same way that customers of Canada’s big airlines waste years and money trying to get compensation for delayed or cancelled flights,” said Conacher.

The Liberals’ Budget 2025 document (pp. 116-122 and 163-164) also repeats the Liberals’ 2021 election promise to have the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) review banking fees, and says nothing about decreasing fees or credit card interest rates from their current gouging levels, or doing anything to stop gender or racial discrimination in lending.

Democracy Watch’s submissions also call for several other key bank accountability measures, neasures that the U.S., Australia and/or England enacted years ago, to stop gouging fees and interest rates, discrimination in lending and services, and other banking abuses. The U.S. measures apply to the banks that 4 of Canada’s Big 6 Banks own in the U.S. (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

“The Liberals continue to protect the big bank’s excessive gouging profits and their executives’ excessive multi-million salaries instead of making the changes needed to stop banks from gouging billions from their 28 million customers and to protect bank customers from discrimination and other abuses,” said Conacher.

“Every dollar of excessive profit for the banks, and every person and business the banks unjustifiably refuse to loan to, costs the Canadian economy because it means that the banks are overcharging for their essential services and loans, and choking off job creation and spending,” said Conacher.

Canada’s big banks recorded huge, gouging profits in 2025 of $70 billion, almost $50 billion more than in 2010.

All of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 300 of Fortune’s Global 2000 for 2025 (based on 2024 size, assets, profits and market value).  RBC (13th), TD (32nd), BMO (38th), CIBC (44th) and Scotiabank (48th) were also in the top 50 most profitable banks in the world in 2024 (more profitable than most other larger banks) and RBC, TD, BMO, CIBC and Scotiabank were the top five most profitable Canadian companies in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also handed out $27.3 billion in 2025 in bonuses to their employees, 15% more than the $23.75 billion in bonuses to their employees in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also paid their CEOs an average of $12.3 million in 2024 – 55% higher than in 2008.

See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Bank Accountability Campaign

NDP’s rules prohibit collusion between contestants and lobby groups, but lack of disclosure law for lobby groups makes rules unenforceable, and other loopholes make it legal to bribe most contestants

Unlike in U.S., lobby groups allowed to secretly spend unlimited amounts and secretly fundraise and campaign for party leadership contestants, which makes foreign interference easy to do without getting caught

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 17, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the federal NDP to establish a system to ensure that only citizens and permanent residents who are 18 or older can vote in its leadership contest to prevent foreign interference in the contest.  The NDP does not currently have any process in place to ensure that foreigners don’t vote in their contest, and anyone age 12-14 or older is allowed to vote.

In addition, while the NDP’s leadership contest rules (p. 12, Part 2, sub-part F), prohibit contestants from colluding with interest groups and individuals who are trying to influence the contest (known as “third parties”), loopholes in federal laws covering third parties mean that (unlike in the U.S.) they are not required to disclose their activities, donors or spending during leadership contests (or nomination contests), which makes it almost impossible to track or prevent collusion or other unethical, undemocratic influence activities by third parties.

As well, only one of the NDP leadership contestants is an MP, and non-MPs are not covered by the Criminal Code anti-bribery provisions, nor are they covered by any ethics rules requiring disclosure of changes in their financial assets and liabilities, gifts they have received, etc. (though the federal MP ethics Code is also loophole-filled and weakly enforced).  In other words, it is essentially legal to secretly bribe or buy-off party leadership contestants who are not MPs.

These loopholes also make it easy for foreign governments, entities and foreigners to buy off contestants and/or to use third parties as front groups to influence leadership and nomination contests (and there are also loopholes that make it easy for third parties to secretly, undemocratically and unethically influence elections and by-elections).

Democracy Watch called on all parties a year ago to work together to close these and other foreign interference loopholes before the federal election was called.  The federal Liberals are the most to blame for the delay as they denied and tried to bury evidence of foreign interference for years, and then delayed for years, and tried to rig the inquiry, and then refused to disclose key information to the Hogue Inquiry that was finally held into foreign interference, which ignored key evidence and refused to call key witnesses and produced a negligently weak report that essentially amounted to a cover-up.

“If it cared about fair and democratic elections, the NDP should have established a comprehensive voter verification process by now to ensure that foreigners don’t vote in their leadership contest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “And if they cared about fair and democratic elections, all federal parties should have long ago worked together to close all the loopholes that allow for secret, unethical and undemocratic interference, including by foreign government and foreign business-sponsored front groups and individuals, in party leadership contests and other Canadian federal political processes.”

Another comprehensive bill is needed to close the many huge loopholes ignored by Commissioner Hogue, and left open by Bill C-70, which was passed by the House and Senate in five weeks in May-June 2024, but is full of loopholes.  Despite the Bill being rushed through Parliament, 20 months later the federal Liberal government has still not implemented the bill to require foreign agents to disclose their activities in the yet-to-be-established Foreign Influence Registry (FIR), overseen by the yet-to-be-appointed Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner.

Article III, section 1 of the federal NDP’s Constitution allows any resident of Canada to become a member of the party as long as they are not a member of another party.  The NDP website’s “Become a Member” link leads to a membership form that does not require verification of any of the information entered except the credit card information provided, and only at the third step of the form does it require that a box be clicked for the statement:

“I’m a Canadian Citizen or Permanent Resident of Canada and I’m making this contribution with my personal account and not a corporate account. I understand that the NDP may follow-up with me to confirm the validity of the information I have provided.”

The NDP’s Leadership 2026 website has the same “Become a Member” link that leads to the same membership form.  The link is still there even though the NDP’s leadership contest rules (p. 16, Part 4, section 1) state that anyone wanting to vote in the contest must have joined by Wednesday, January 28th.

Beyond being a citizen or permanent resident and making a donation, the only self-claimed qualification for becoming a member of the NDP, which is a federation of the federal party and provincial parties, is to be older than 12 or 14 depending on the province your residence is located.

None of the news releases about the party’s leadership contest issued by the NDP on September 2, 2025, September 12, 2025, October 21, 2025, November 17, 2025, January 16, 2026 or January 29, 2026 mention anything about the party screening or verifying that people who have joined are citizens or permanent residents.

A second leadership contestant debate will be held on February 19th, and the contest vote (by ranked ballot) will take place by mail, telephone or online (or a combination of those methods) over a period of no longer than 21 days, culminating on March 28 at the NDP’s convention in Winnipeg (according to the leadership contest rules, p. 17, Part 5, sub-part A, sections 6-7).

According to the rules (p. 17, Part 5, sub-part A, section 8), the party’s Chief Electoral Officer was required to communicate by December 30, 2025 to leadership contestants the schedule and methods of voting, but the party has not made the schedule or method public.

Under “How do I vote?” on the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) webpage on the Leadership 2026 site, it only says “Further information on how to vote, including voting methods and the voting period will be made available in the coming weeks.”

In its leadership contest last year, the federal Liberal Party established a voter verification process to ensure foreigners did not vote in the contest.

Click here to see the Backgrounder that summarizes all the loopholes and weak enforcement problems that make foreign interference legal and easy to do across Canada at every level of government.

Click here to see summary list of 17 key changes that need to be made to stop foreign interference.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

Current investigation by regulatory commission is undermined by conflicts of interest, and the commission failed to complete an investigation in 2018

RCMP also has questionable record of investigating such activities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 3, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch joined with the Save PEI Association in calling on all parties in the PEI legislature to work together with the provincial government to stop the current Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (IRAC) investigation of land purchases and other activities in PEI by the Great Enlightenment Buddhist Institute (GEBIS) and Great Wisdom Buddhist Institute (GWBI) in the past 15 years.

Instead, the government should establish a fully independent, fully-empowered, expert and well-resourced public inquiry, to investigate the activities of GEBIS and GWBI, which operate under the umbrella of the multi-billion-dollar, multi-national, integrated monastic and business conglomerate headed by Bliss & Wisdom Monastery Corporation, which multiple reports have alleged has been infiltrated and taken over by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The two citizen groups also called on the PEI government to establish a second provincial public inquiry, in coordination with the federal authorities, also staffed by a truly independent commissioner and investigators having the expertise and resources required to investigate the national security and potential criminal issues and the broader issues of land purchases by foreigners across Canada, and to recommend solutions, as was done by the Cullen Commission in British Columbia.

The current IRAC investigation is compromised by conflicts of interest because IRAC’s entire senior management all worked at various times during their career with the same law firm that has for the past 14 years represented GWBI, the very institution now being investigated. As well, current IRAC Chair Pamela Williams was the Chief of Staff of the PEI Premier from 2019 to 2025 when the provincial Cabinet and government were approving development permits for the Bliss & Wisdom organizations, and making decisions about IRAC’s recommendations for approvals of transfers of land by non-residents and corporations under the Lands Protection Act, including transactions potentially under investigation.

As well, Scott MacKenzie, the former Chair of IRAC who oversaw the first IRAC investigation into these land transfers in 2018, retired and joined the law firm advising GEBIS and Bliss & Wisdom.  It appears also that IRAC has assigned only one labour lawyer as special counsel for its current investigation.

In addition, a PEI legislative committee determined in October that IRAC didn’t complete its 2018 investigation into the land purchases by GEBIS and GWBI.

While the PEI government in October called on the RCMP and FINTRAC to investigate the land purchases and other activities of GEBIS and GWBI, the RCMP’s past track record on investigating the activities of these organizations is weak.  The RCMP issued a press announcement in response to the PEI government’s request for an investigation claiming that it investigated similar accusations previously and found no wrongdoing. However, the RCMP didn’t provide any details, and no one with relevant information was ever contacted by the RCMP.  The RCMP has unfortunately also closed several active investigations in PEI involving immigration fraud and related issues, without any explanation.

Former CSIS and RCMP investigators have also called for a public inquiry.

For both public inquiries to be independent and effective:

1. The inquiry commissioner (or, even better, three commissioners) must not have even an appearance of a conflict of interest concerning the matters to be investigated, and should come from outside of the province, and should be appointed through a merit-based candidate review process;
2. The inquiry must also be staffed with investigators who also must not have even an appearance of a conflict of interest concerning the matters to be investigated, and should also come from outside of the province, and must have the necessary financial, legal and international qualifications and expertise, and be given the funding and technical resources needed to complete a timely, full and detailed investigation of the situation;
3. In addition, given the international structure and activities of the organizations, the inquiry commissioners must retain a forensic investigations firm with international expertise and reach that also must not have even an appearance of a conflict of interest concerning the matters to be investigated and should also come from outside of the province, and;
4. The public should be allowed to participate as intervenors.

“The recent discovery that the long awaited IRAC report from 2018 does not exist and the public discussions surrounding the leadership elections taking place in PEI brought the islanders’ long standing concern about land issues and the Buddhist landholding into sharp focus. It became clear that IRAC had lost the confidence of the public. The position of our organization and its members is that only a fully independent, fully transparent public inquiry staffed by experts with the skills  and resources to investigate a multibillion-dollar multinational religious and business conglomerate, will arrive at the truth and ensure the islanders truly understand the plans of this organization,” said Jan Matejcek of the Save PEI Association.

“The PEI government, its land transfer approval commission and the RCMP have all failed for the past 15 years to stop land purchases in the province and other questionable activities by organizations allegedly connected to China’s government, and a fully independent, fully empowered, expert and well-resourced public inquiry is the only effective way to investigate why this has happened, and what can be done to finally reverse this land grab and stop these activities,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “A second fully independent, fully empowered, expert and well-resourced public inquiry is also needed into land purchases by foreigners across Canada and other forms of foreign interference in Canada’s economy.”

The Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions issued a negligently weak, cover-up final report at the end of January recommending only a few of many key changes needed to stop foreign interference in Canadian political processes.

Another comprehensive bill is needed to close the many huge loopholes ignored by Commissioner Hogue, and left open by Bill C-70, which was passed by the House and Senate in five weeks in May-June 2024, but is full of loopholes.  More than 20 months later, the federal Liberal government has still failed to establish the Foreign Influence Registry (FIR) to require foreign agents to disclose their activities, and failed to establish the new Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner (who, under Bill C-70, will lack independence and key investigation powers and public accountability requirements).

Click here to see the Backgrounder that summarizes all the loopholes and weak enforcement problems that make foreign interference legal and easy to do across Canada at every level of government.

Click here to see summary list of 17 key changes that need to be made to stop foreign interference.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Jan Matejcek, Save PEI Association
Cell: 902-394-3733
Email: [email protected]

Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

Stage 1 hearing of case is about whether errors in Ethics Commissioner rulings can be challenged in court when government tries to prohibit challenges

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that Trudeau had with WE Charity

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, January 12, 2026

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that its Stage 1 appeal in the court case it filed in June 2021 will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Wednesday and Thursday.  The case challenges Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.

The appeal is SCC file #41576, and the hearing is at the SCC in Ottawa at 301 Wellington St.:

Wednesday, Jan. 14 at 9:30 am ET
   (Lawyers for Democracy Watch and the Attorney General of Canada will present their arguments)
Thursday, Jan. 15 at 9:30 am ET
   (15 interveners will present their arguments, and Democracy Watch’s lawyers will reply)
To watch the hearings online, click here.

Democracy Watch is represented by Sujit Choudry of Circle Barristers and Paul Daly of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.

The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, even though the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other members of the federal Cabinet.  Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA).  In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case, and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.

Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider at Stage 1 whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors of fact and law in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.

The FCA subsequently issued a ruling in October 2024 that did not decide the partial privative clause issue but, instead, concluded (in paras. 79-92) that the Ethics Commissioner operates under Parliament and, therefore, appeals of errors of facts and law in Ethics Commissioner rulings should be filed with the Prime Minister and Parliament.  The SCC approved DWatch’s appeal application last spring.

Democracy Watch’s legal arguments (and reply arguments) at the SCC contend that the Parliament of Canada Act states clearly that the Ethics Commissioner does not operate under Parliament when enforcing the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), and that Parliament has no legal role in reviewing the Commissioner’s rulings.  As the FCA acknowledged in its ruling, the Commissioner was established in 2004 to take ruling on alleged violations out of the hands of partisan politicians.  In addition, DWatch (and the eight citizen organizations intervening in the appeal) argue that it is essential under the Constitution and the rule of law principle that the courts can review decisions of tribunals like the Ethics Commissioner to ensure they are enforcing laws properly.

The ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case will set a precedent that will not only determine whether DWatch’s Stage 2 case challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s Trudeau-WE Charity ruling will go ahead, but also will determine whether court cases can challenge errors in the rulings of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the statute that governs it.

Click here to see the Backgrounder summarizing the four key errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling.

“We are arguing that it would be absurd to appeal to the Prime Minister and MPs to have them review errors in a ruling by the Ethics Commissioner, especially when the ruling, as in this case, involves the Prime Minister who would be judging his own actions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “We say that insisting that an Ethics Commissioner ruling about any federal Cabinet minister, ministerial staff person or Cabinet appointee can only be reviewed by federal politicians is an inadequate safeguard for the rule of law and the profoundly important federal government ethics law.”

“Hopefully the Supreme Court will overturn the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling and allow the case to go ahead challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau participating in the WE Charity grant approval, and also set a precedent that allows all future cases challenging of errors in rulings by the Ethics Commissioner and all agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals across Canada to ensure that they always enforce the law properly,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign