Please support democracy

Without your support, Democracy Watch can't win key changes to stop governments and big businesses from abusing their power and hurting you and your family. Please click here to support democracy now

Author: Bradford

How Canadian Courts Have Ruled that Integrity, and Equality of Opportunity for Influence, in Government and Political Processes Must Always Be Strictly and Strongly Protected

Posted on by Bradford

(October 2026)

Canadian courts have ruled in several cases that integrity, and equality of opportunity for influence, in government and political processes must always be strictly and strongly protected in order to have democratic good government and in order for Canada to be a democracy.

A. Rulings requiring integrity in government and political processes

  1. Fraser v. P.S.S.R.B. (1985 Supreme Court of Canada ruling)

In the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1996 ruling in Fraser v. P.S.S.R.B., the Court stated that it is in “the public interest” to have both “actual, and apparent, impartiality of the public service” (para. 41) and based its ruling on “the importance and necessity of an impartial and effective public service” (para 39).

  1. R. v. Hinchey (1996 Supreme Court of Canada ruling)

In the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1996 ruling in R. v. Hinchey, a case involving a federal public servant who was charged with violating the Criminal Code for handing out contracts to his own company, Justice L’Heureux-Dube wrote the following for the majority judgment:

At paragraph 13, speaking of the purpose of s.121 of the Criminal Code (which, along with other sections, makes corruption and fraud by public officials illegal):

“[the Criminal Code is] one of the myriad ways in which the government seeks to achieve this purpose. … Obviously, the criminal law is not the only method utilized; a variety of other statutes contain provisions which deal with corrupt or fraudulent practices, while there are also conflict of interest and ethical guidelines to regulate behaviour. See for example Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11, ss. 80 and 81; Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (1994).”

And at paragraph 14:

“It is hardly necessary for me to expand on the importance of having a government which demonstrates integrity. Suffice it to say that our democratic system would have great difficulty functioning efficiently if its integrity was constantly in question. While this has not traditionally been a major problem in Canada, we are not immune to seeing officials fall from grace as the result of a violation of the important trust we place in their integrity…

“I would merely add that the importance of preserving integrity in the government has arguably increased given the need to maintain the public’s confidence in government in an age where it continues to play an ever increasing role in the quality of everyday people’s lives. As the U.S. Congress has stated about its own anti-corruption measures:

“The necessity for maintaining high ethical standards of behaviour in the Government becomes greater as its activities become more complex and bring it into closer and closer contact with the private sector of the Nation’s economy.”

As quoted in United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1978), at p. 480.”

And at paragraph 17 (with similar comments elsewhere):

“For a government, actual integrity is achieved when its employees remain free of any type of corruption. On the other hand, it is not necessary for a corrupt practice to take place in order for the appearance of integrity to be harmed. Protecting these appearances is more than a trivial concern.”

And at paragraph 18:

“In my view, given the heavy trust and responsibility taken on by the holding of a public office or employ, it is appropriate that government officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct which, for an ordinary person, would be quite severe. For the public, who is the ultimate beneficiary of honest government, it is not so easy to sort out which benefits are legitimate and which are laden with a sinister motivation. Moreover, it is inefficient for a government to be paralyzed by rumour and innuendo while an inquiry is made into the motivation behind a certain benefit or advantage conferred on an official.  What Parliament is saying through this provision is that the damage sought to be prevented is actually done once the benefit is conferred, and not after an ex post facto analysis which demonstrates that no harm was intended.  It is from the point of the conferral of the benefit forward that the appearance of integrity has been slighted.”

The minority judgment in R v Hinchey , delivered by Justice Cory, did not dissent on any of the above points. In fact, Justice Cory agreed with the need for an “appearance of integrity” standard for public officials, stating at paragraph 94:

“The magnitude and importance of government business requires not only the complete integrity of government employees and officers conducting government business but also that this integrity and trustworthiness be readily apparent to society as a whole.”

  1. Harvey v. New Brunswick (1996 Supreme Court of Canada ruling)

In the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1996 ruling in Harvey v. New Brunswick, the Court stated that ensuring the integrity of elections “is always of pressing and substantial concern in any society that purports to operate in accordance with the tenets of a free and democratic society” (para. 38) and that “If democracies are to survive, they must insist upon the integrity of those who seek and hold public office.” (para. 61)

B. Rulings requiring equality of opportunity for influence, transparency and integrity in government and political processes

  1. Libman v. Quebec (1997 Supreme Court of Canada ruling)

      and

  1. Harper v. Canada (2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling)

In the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Libman v. Quebec in 1997, the Court first set out key factors and constitutional principles that form the basis of what came to be called the “egalitarian model” for political processes.  In the Court’s ruling in Harper v. Canada in 2004, the Court reaffirmed the principles established in its Libman ruling.

An overall test established by the Court is that the rules and practices in each process are assessed based on the system itself, not based on outcomes that result from the system, such as the result of an election (Harper, paras. 64 and 95-99).

The first key principle is that the system should uphold, as much as possible, while taking into account social factors and practical considerations, the fundamental democratic equality principle of one person, one vote (Libman, paras. 41, 47 and 61; Harper, paras. 61-63) so as to ensure that, again as much as practically possible, every voter has a close to substantively equal opportunity to participate in, or influence, the electoral system or the government public policy-making system (Harper, para. 73).

The second key principle is that the public must perceive, and have confidence in, the fairness and integrity of every aspect of the system.  To express this in reverse, every aspect of the system must appear to be fair and to have integrity, and actually be fair and have integrity, in order for the public to have confidence in the system (Harper, paras. 23-24, 63, 79, 82-83, 91-92, 97, 99, 101-104, 108-109, 120, 122, 142 and 146; Libman, paras. 41, 52 and 84).

And the third key principle is that limits on spending cannot be so low as to prohibit expression and participation in the election at a level that is meaningful nor to prohibit the flow of adequate information for voters to make informed decisions and, by extension, information provided to voters must be required to be accurate or they will not be able to make informed decisions (Libman, para. 41; Harper, paras. 15, 61-63 and 67-70).

C. Rulings requiring integrity in lobbying

  1. Democracy Watch v. Campbell (2009 Federal Court of Appeal ruling)

In the Federal Court of Appeal’s (FCA) unanimous ruling in Democracy Watch v. Campbell in 2009, the FCA stated that “Any conflict of interest impairs public confidence in government decision-making” (para. 48).  The FCA went on to clarify the need for rules to restrict lobbyists from doing or giving things that create any conflict of interest:

A lobbyist’s stock in trade is his or her ability to gain access to decision makers, so as to attempt to influence them directly by persuasion and facts.  Where the lobbyist’s effectiveness depends upon the decision maker’s personal sense of obligation to the lobbyist, or on some other private interest created or facilitated by the lobbyist, the line between legitimate lobbying and illegitimate lobbying has been crossed (para. 53).

  1. R. v. Carson (2018 Supreme Court of Canada ruling)

In the Supreme Court of Canada’s 8-1 ruling in R. v. Carson in 2018 upholding the conviction of Bruce Carson for influence peddling the Court cited several past cases summarized above, and stated that the Criminal Code prohibition on influence peddling “aims to preserve both government integrity and the appearance of government integrity” and that:

“As this Court’s jurisprudence on both judicial independence and the impartiality of the public service demonstrates, the appearance of integrity, impartiality, and independence are tied to actual integrity, impartiality, and independence…”

The behaviour criminalized by this section risks depriving citizens of a true democracy predicated on free and open access to government. Corruption and the sale of influence, whether real or apparent, with government may undermine the integrity and transparency that are crucial to democracy. (paras. 38-39)

Results of Alberta’s referendums mean Premier has no mandate to do anything except abandon separation

Posted on by Bradford

Relatively low voter turnout and evenly split results mean Premier has no mandate on other 9 issues – especially given assumption should be that voters who did not vote would have voted “No” on each question

Too many questions, government-drafted questions, misleading questions, no court review of questions, government spending, flaws in donation and spending rules, lack of foreign interference and disinformation protections and lack of quorum all made the referendum processes undemocratic and unfair

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 26, 2026

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch’s conclusion is that the delayed, finally completed (but still unofficial) results of Alberta’s very flawed referendums (See details about the flaws further below) show clearly that Premier Danielle Smith and her UCP government have no mandate to do anything except abandon any moves toward the separation of Alberta from Canada (give just under 75% of voters voted Option 1 to not hold a referendum on separation).  See table further below for a detailed breakdown of the votes question by question.

It is clear that Premier Smith has no mandate to make any moves in any of the issue areas addressed by the other 9 referendum questions given that:

  1. The No side won on questions 6-9;
  2. On questions 1-5, there was relatively low voter turnout averaging 65.3% and roughly even split results so, at most, only 38% of the just under 3.15 million total eligible voters supported any of the proposed changes in those 5 questions, and;
  3. The assumption should be that most of the voters who did not vote would have voted “No” on each question, as not voting indicates fairly clearly that they were not interested in having the change made that was proposed in each question.

Why should the assumption be that most of the voters who did not vote would have voted No on all 9 questions (and for Option 1 in question #10)?
In an election under a first-past-the-post system like Canada uses, low voter turnout does not indicate such a clear lack of interest in who wins because voters in any riding that is consistently “safe” for one party (and there are many such ridings) have a rational reason for not voting (whether they are voting for or against the candidate of the party that always wins).

In contrast, in a referendum if a voter wants the “Yes” side to win they have no rational reason for not voting.  Voters who have no interest in having the change made that is proposed in a referendum question express their lack of support for the change (i.e. vote No) fairly clearly by not voting on the question.

“The results show clearly that Premier Smith and her UCP government have no mandate from the ten referendums to do anything except abandon support for Alberta separation,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The results in the following table show clearly that Premier Smith has no mandate to do anything in any issue area except abandon separation (winning side is in bold):

Democracy Watch’s position is that referendums can be a good complement to Canada’s parliamentary system, and that the barriers to voters initiating a referendum should not be excessively high.  However, as with elections, the referendum process must be structured in very specific ways to be democratic and fair, and the Alberta government has failed in many ways to ensure a democratic and fair process.

Undemocratic and unfair decision-making processes in the legislature or in referendums lead to undemocratic results.  Click here to see details about the 12 key ways that the Government of Alberta’s process for the 10 referendums was undemocratic and unfair, and also facilitated foreign interference.  In 1991, Conacher had published one of the first academic articles analyzing and proposing almost 90 key measures for democratic, fair referendum processes.

“Allowing voters to have their say through referendums doesn’t automatically make the process democratic and fair, and Alberta’s process was undemocratic and unfair in many key ways,” said Conacher.  “Too many questions, government-drafted questions, misleading and vague questions, no court review of the questions, government spending, undemocratic flaws in donation and spending rules, lack of foreign interference and disinformation protections and the lack of a quorum all combined to make Alberta’s referendum process undemocratic and unfair.”

“Undemocratic and unfair referendums should not be used to manipulate voters and further a government’s agenda, in the same way that using undemocratic and unfair processes in the legislature like omnibus bills and debate closure, and prorogations and snap election calls, should not be used to manipulate members of the legislature and voters in order to further a ruling party’s agenda,” said Conacher.  “The laws that set out the rules for referendum processes at the federal level, and in several provinces, have the same loopholes and flaws as Alberta’s laws, and referendums should not be held anywhere in Canada until these loopholes are closed and flaws corrected.”

– 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 Voting Systems Campaign

DWatch calls on Ethics Committee MPs to ask key questions of Commissioner of Lobbying today re: weak enforcement and loopholes

Posted on by Bradford

Commissioner of Lobbying has covered up almost 32,000 lobbying law violations (99.99% of all violations) since 2018

Commissioner also gutted key rules in the lobbying code in ways that allow for unethical lobbying

House Ethics Committee must recommend many key changes to close loopholes in the law and code, and to require effective enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 26, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, with federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger scheduled to testify before the House Ethics Committee from 11 am to 1 pm EDT, Democracy Watch called on MPs on the Committee to ask the Commissioner key questions about her negligently bad enforcement record of letting off almost 32,000 violations in secret rulings since 2018, including more than 5,000 serious violations, and about other enforcement problems, and loopholes in the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code that allow for rampant secret, unethical lobbying.

The House Ethics Committee is currently conducting an illegally long-overdue review of the Lobbying Act for the first time since 2012 (the Act is required to be reviewed by a committee every five years), and its report (which will likely be released in November) clearly needs to call on the government to close huge loopholes in the Act and Code that allow for secret lobbying, and unethical lobbying, and to require independent, timely, transparent, effective and accountable enforcement, including public rulings and mandatory penalties for all violations.

The 10 key questions for MPs on the Ethics Committee to ask Commissioner Bélanger today are:

1.  Is she aware of the national survey from January 2025 showing that more than 80% of Canadian voters want all lobbying disclosed, and don’t want lobbyists giving gifts to, or doing favours for, politicians and public officials?

2.  Given former Commissioner Karen Shepherd issued a public ruling identifying a lobbyist who violated the Lobbying Act by failing to register his lobbying, and found him guilty of violating the Lobbyists’ Code, and the Federal Courts ruled that the Commissioner has the clear legal power to do that, why did Commissioner Bélanger, in secret without identifying any of the lobbyists or finding them guilty of violating the Code, let off all the lobbyists who violated the Act a total of 31,803 times since 2018 by failing to register their lobbying on time and/or accurately as required by the Act?

3.  Many of the 31,803 violations were minor infractions, but almost 3,800 of the violations involved a lobbyist failing to register their lobbying for more than one month to more than 6 months after the Act’s registration deadline, and another more than 1,250 violations involved a lobbyist repeatedly failing to register their lobbying accurately. As the Commissioner herself has told the Committee on May 7th, “transparency delayed is no transparency at all” ( 7 of transcript above 1610 mark). So why did Commissioner Bélanger, in secret, let all of the lobbyists off who violated the Act in these serious ways more than 5,000 times?  Why didn’t she issue even one public ruling identifying even one of these lobbyists and finding them guilty of violating the Code, as the Federal Courts have ruled she is clearly empowered to do, and as she told the Committee she could do on March 9th (p. 14 of transcript above 1650 mark) and on May 7th (pp. 3 and 5 of transcript)?

4.  If Commissioner Bélanger makes the clearly false claim that she is only allowed to refer violations of the Act to the RCMP, then the question is why, since 2018, has she only referred 19 of the more than 5,000 serious violations of the Act to the RCMP?

5.  As of last May, the RCMP had only prosecuted 2 of the 19 violating lobbyists, and had referred 14 violations back to the Commissioner (with 3 still under RCMP investigation). Why did Commissioner Bélanger not issue even one public ruling identifying even one of the lobbyists involved in the 14 other cases and finding them guilty of violating the Code, as the Federal Courts have ruled she is clearly empowered to do, and as she told the Committee she could do on March 9th ( 14 of transcript above 1650 mark) and on May 7th (pp. 3 and 5 of transcript)? NOTE: The RCMP and Commissioner are currently violating the Access to Information Act by hiding their investigation records in these cases, and the Information Commissioner is investigating their violations.

6.  A federal Crown prosecutor told the RCMP sometime after January 2018 that the key “significant time of duties” lobbying registration provision of the Lobbying Act was unenforceable and so no lobbyist would ever be prosecuted for violating that provision (Click here for details). Did the RCMP tell Commissioner Bélanger that information and, if so, when did the RCMP tell her?

7.  Commissioner Bélanger has told the Ethics Committee several times that the biggest loophole in the Act is that it doesn’t cover unpaid lobbying, and “that should be changed” (October 6, 2025, 13 above and below 1220 mark) and is “something that we should be looking into” (March 9th, p. 5 of transcript above 1600 mark and pp. 6-7, 13-14).  So why didn’t Commissioner Bélanger recommend closing this biggest loophole in her submission to the Committee?

8.  In addition to the huge unpaid lobbying loophole, is it true that the Act does not require you to to register as a lobbyist if:

a.  You lobby about “the enforcement, interpretation or application of any Act of Parliament or regulation” (clause 4(2)(b) of the Act) which is what much business lobbying is about?

b.  You lobby for a tax credit (according to an interpretation bulletin issued by former Commissioner Shepherd that Commissioner Bélanger has not clearly repealed) which, again, is something businesses often lobby about?

c.  You lobby political party officials who then pass on your demands to the party leader and Cabinet ministers (or opposition critics)?

So why didn’t Commissioner Bélanger recommend closing these secret lobbying loopholes in her submission to the Committee?

9.  Is it also true that, if you register as a lobbyist, the Act does not require you to disclose whether you have fundraised or campaigned for or assisted politicians or political parties or party leaders in other significant ways, nor do you have to disclose how much your business, organization or client is spending on its lobbying effort? So why didn’t Commissioner Bélanger recommend closing these secret, unethical lobbying loopholes in her submission to the Committee?

10.  ls it true that people who come to the federal government under the Build Canada Exchange program (formerly the Interchange Canada program) are exempt from the five-year ban on being a registered lobbyist when they return to their business after working in government? And doesn’t that exemption, combined with the many loopholes that allow for unregistered lobbying, mean that there really is no five-year ban on lobbying by former public office holders?

Commissioner Bélanger’s and the RCMP’s negligently bad enforcement records make it clear that many changes are needed to the Act to require the Commissioner and the RCMP to enforce the Act and Lobbyists’ Code strictly, strongly, effectively and transparently (in addition to closing a “dirty dozen” secret lobbying loopholes in the Act, and closing unethical lobbying loopholes in the Code).

“Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger has a horribly negligent and weak enforcement record and has let thousands of lobbyists violate the federal lobbying law and code in serious ways without identifying the lobbyists publicly or penalizing them, and she also gutted the ethical lobbying code in ways that allow for unethical lobbying,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To stop rampant secret, unethical lobbying, the House Ethics Committee’s current review of the lobbying law must result in recommendations that call for closing all the loopholes in the law and code, and requiring the Commissioner to enforce the law and code strictly, strongly, effectively and transparently, including imposing a penalty on every lobbyist who violates the law or code.”

– 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, Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Open Government Campaign

Green Party receives overall C best grade, Conservatives a D and NDP an F in Report Card on BC parties’ weak democratic reform platforms

Posted on by Bradford

Despite high voter concern about democracy and trust, all parties fail to promise many needed changes to have effective democracy, government ethics and accountability in British Columbia

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, October 23, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch issued its Report Card on the B.C. Parties’ 2026 Democracy and Accountability Platforms (To see the criteria and grading system used to assess the parties, click here).

The Green Party received a C the best grade of bad overall grades in the Report Card — Conservatives receive a D, and the NDP an F.

However, voters should adjust all the grades down because past elections have shown that a Dishonesty Downgrade of one full grade is justified given usually only half of all promises are kept because of the lack of an honesty-in-politics law which is needed to effectively penalize promise-breakers and misleaders.

Many surveys over the past decade have shown that a large majority of voters do not trust politicians, and want honesty, ethics, lobbying, open government and other key reforms to stop politicians from abusing their power.  Unfortunately, all the B.C. parties are largely ignoring the many changes that the large majority of voters want.

“All the B.C. parties have failed to respond to high voter concern about democracy and trust issues so the party leaders should not be surprised by the lack of support they will receive from voters on election day and no one should be surprised by likely low voter turnout,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “One can only hope that the parties will actually address these concerns when the legislature opens again so that everyone in B.C. politics will finally be effectively required to act honestly, ethically, openly, representatively and to prevent waste.”

The Greens had their best grade of B in the area of Representative Government as they promised to change B.C.’s voting system to a proportional system, and to consult with the public in many policy areas, and to implement the report of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform (although its report was weak and failed to address many problems that make B.C. elections undemocratic and unfair).  The Greens also had a B in the area of General Accountability as they promised to increase accountability in several areas.

The Conservatives also had their best grade of B in the area of General Accountability as they also promised to increase promised to increase accountability in several areas. ndp also had their best grade of C- in the area of General Accountability as they also promised to increase promised to increase accountability in a few areas.

– 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 Campaign page

Democracy Watch’s Report Card on the Main B.C. Parties’ 2026 Democracy and Accountability Platforms

Sources

To see the criteria and grading system used to assess the parties’ platforms, click here

Lorne Doerkson’s Conservative Party of BC platform webpage
(NOTE: See in the platform PDF re: Representative Government page 27 (Re-establish the Small Business Roundtable), 30 (restore Premier’s Technology Council), 44 (Pass a Respect Local Democracy Act).  See re: Efficient Government and General Accountability pages 6 (home-building processes, childcare spaces), 9 (budget transparency), 10-11 (capital plan audit, competitive bidding), 13-14 (cut red tape, streamlining government), 17 (speed up permits, common-sense forest management), 19 (cut agricultural red tape, protect farm water), 20-21 (mine permit and approval timelines, defend BC mines, Expand First Nations participation, maintain high environmental, safety and reclamation standards), 24 (listen to fishing communities), 25 (tracking emissions accurately, manage wildlife responsibly, sustainable environmental protections), 27 (make trucking safety a priority), 29 (Review current fleet renewal contracts, Establish a BC Ferries Passenger Charter of Rights), 30 (Responsible AI strategy), 32 (Protect universal public health care and introduce a Universal Health-Care Guarantee, Launch the 100-day Patients First review), 36 (independent review of the Mental Health Act), 39-40 (Implement an Anti-Extortion Action Plan, Speed up justice)

Emily Lowan’s BC Green Party platform webpage
(NOTE: See in the platform PDF re: Honest, Ethical Government, Open Government, and Representative Government the brief list on pages 71-72 (and the relatively weak report of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform which the Greens promise to implement).  See re: Efficient Government and General Accountability pages 12 (grocery transparency), 22 (Health Governance), 24-25 (review of Mental Health Act and accountability mechanisms), 31 (Post-secondary school funding and system changes), 33 (police and justice system accountability measures), 35 (social work regulation), 38-39 (review of monopolies, environmental standards, tax reforms), 40 (employment standards review, pay transparency), 49 (ban on surveillance pricing, AI regulation, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act reform), 51 (tax enforcement), 54-55 (Indigenous peoples’ rights enforcement), 57-60 (climate change and electricity system regulation enforcement), 62 (forestry regulation), 66 (farmland protection regulation), 67-68 (clean air protection regulation), 70 (water protection regulation))

David Eby’s B.C. NDP platform webpage
(NOTE: The only measures in the NDP’s platform that address democracy or accountability issues are in the area of General Accountability – the proposals in the section entitled “Your Costs” re: stopping oil and gas price gouging (which don’t say how this will be done) and capping grocery store profits, and banning surveillance pricing, and the environmental protection proposals in the “Your Environment” section)

Alberta’s referendums undemocratic and unfair in a dozen ways

Posted on by Bradford

Too many questions, government-drafted questions, misleading questions, no court review of questions, government spending, flaws in donation and spending rules, lack of foreign interference and disinformation protections and lack of quorum all make the process undemocratic and unfair

Assumption should be that voters who do not vote would have voted “No” on each question, as not voting indicates they are not interested in having the change made that is proposed in the question

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 15, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, with voting day for Alberta’s 10 referendums coming up on Monday, October 19th, and advance voting already started, Democracy Watch’s analysis concludes that the process for the referendums is undemocratic and unfair in a dozen key ways.

Democracy Watch’s position is that referendums can be a good complement to Canada’s parliamentary system, and that the barriers to voters initiating a referendum should not be excessively high.  However, as with elections, the referendum process must be structured in very specific ways to be democratic and fair, and the Alberta government has failed in many ways to ensure a democratic and fair process.

In 1991, Democracy Watch’s Co-founder Duff Conacher, PhD (Law), wrote one of the first academic articles analyzing and proposing almost 90 key measures for a democratic, fair referendum process.

“Allowing voters to have their say through referendums doesn’t automatically make the process democratic and fair, and Alberta’s process is undemocratic and unfair in many key ways,” said Conacher.  “Too many questions, government-drafted questions, misleading questions, no court review of the questions, government spending, undemocratic flaws in donation and spending rules, lack of foreign interference and disinformation protections and the lack of a quorum all make Alberta’s referendum process undemocratic and unfair.”

The lack of a quorum means that a low voter turnout on any of the 10 referendum questions will result in essentially no legitimate mandate for government action on the issue addressed by any of the questions.  The assumption should be that voters who do not vote would have voted “No” on each question, as not voting indicates they are not interested in having the change made that is proposed in each question.

In an election under a first-past-the-post system like Canada uses, low voter turnout does not indicate such a clear lack of interest in who wins because voters in any riding that is consistently “safe” for one party (and there are many such ridings) have a rational reason for not voting (whether they are voting for or against the candidate of the party that always wins).

In contrast, in a referendum if a voter wants the “Yes” side to win they have no rational reason for not voting.  And voters who have no interest in the change made that is proposed in a referendum question express their lack of support for the change fairly clearly by not voting on the question.

“Undemocratic and unfair referendums should not be used to manipulate voters and further a government’s agenda, in the same way that using undemocratic and unfair processes in the legislature like omnibus bills and debate closure, and prorogations and snap election calls, should not be used to manipulate members of the legislature and voters in order to further a ruling party’s agenda,” said Conacher.  “The laws that set out the rules for referendum processes at the federal level, and in several provinces, have the same loopholes and flaws as Alberta’s laws, and referendums should not held anywhere in Canada until these loopholes are closed and flaws corrected.”

Click here to see details about the 12 key ways that Alberta’s process for the 10 referendums is undemocratic and unfair, and facilitates 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 Democratic Voting Systems Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Foreign Interference Campaign and Stop Disinformation and Misinformation Campaign

Coalition intervenes at Supreme Court tomorrow in case challenging Ontario government’s destruction of Ontario Place

Posted on by Bradford

SCC will decide whether a government can shield its decisions from existing laws and court review and whether Ontario Place is a protected “public trust”?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 14, 2026

TORONTO – A coalition of four citizen organizations – Ontario Place for All (OP4All), Toronto Field Naturalists, Democracy Watch, and the National Trust for Canada – will be intervening tomorrow in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) by Ontario Place Protectors (OPP) challenging the decision by the Ontario provincial government to destroy Ontario Place and replace it with a spa.

The appeal (File #41805), will be heard by the SCC tomorrow, Thursday, October 15, 2026 beginning at 9 am EDT.  Click here and then click on Webcasts to watch the hearing online.  The coalition is represented by Jackie Esmonde, Sydney Lang and Clémence Thabet of the law firm Cavalluzzo LLP.

The appeal focuses on whether a government can shield its decisions and development of land from the requirements of existing laws and court review, and whether Ontario Place is a protected “public trust”.

In 2023, OP4All launched a judicial review of the Ontario government’s Ontario Place redevelopment decisions.  Before the case could be heard, the government passed the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act (ROPA), a law that effectively extinguished OP4All’s ability to proceed. OP4All’s case was dismissed right after the legislation passed.

Ontario Place Protectors (OPP) then challenged ROPA in court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it essentially removes the public’s right to challenge any decisions of the government concerning Ontario Place under existing environmental and heritage protection laws and generally through court cases.  As a result, it shields the government’s decisions from review by the courts.

OPP also argued that there is, or should be, a legal “public trust doctrine” in Canada that protects land like Ontario Place that has environmental, ecological, historical and cultural significance.

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s March 11, 2025 ruling rejected both of those arguments.  The SCC approved OPP’s application to appeal on January 8, 2026.

The coalition’s factum agrees with OPP’s position that ROPA is unconstitutional, and that a “public trust doctrine” should be established and applied to protect Ontario Place and similar significant heritage properties.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine how far any government in Canada can go in carving out exemptions from environmental, heritage, and public participation law for projects it favours politically,” said Ann Elisabeth Samson, Co-Chair of Ontario Place for All.

“The Supreme Court has an opportunity to restore Canadians’ right to protest and prevent governments from arbitrarily restricting those rights to push controversial projects through without adequate environmental and heritage oversight,” said Lynn Miller, President of Toronto Field Naturalists.

“The Supreme Court will hopefully strike down the law that Doug Ford’s government enacted to destroy Ontario Place because it is dangerously undemocratic and gives him and his cabinet unconstitutional, king-like powers to bulldoze an important historical site without review under environmental or heritage laws, and unconstitutionally blocks the public from challenging the government’s actions in court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Legal approaches similar to those used in the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, overriding established protections for heritage and the environment, are now being used to advance projects elsewhere. The precedent established in this case, if unchallenged, would have devastating consequences for heritage places across the country,” said Dr. Patricia Kell, CEO of The National Trust for Canada.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher
Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 416-546-3443

Ann Elisabeth Samson
Co-Chair, Ontario Place for All
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 647-880-8237

Lynn Miller
President, Toronto Field Naturalists
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 647-828-5966

Dr. Patricia Kell
CEO, The National Trust for Canada
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 613-237-1066

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

Key Questions to Ask Candidates in Ontario Municipal Elections

Posted on by Bradford

(October 2026)

Do you want answers to key questions about whether candidates in your municipal election support voters’ right to know key information before they vote and democratic good government reforms?

You can get those answers by simply copying the letter to candidates below and pasting the letter into an email and sending it to all the candidates in your municipal election
   or
click here to download a PDF of the letter that you can attach to an email to all the candidates in your municipal election.

Dear Candidate,

Please send back an email as soon as possible, and definitely before election day, answering the 16 questions listed below about whether you support voters’ right to know key information before they vote, and whether you support key democratic good government reforms for municipal elections and governments.

Thank you in advance for answering these 16 key questions so that I can make an informed vote in the municipal election.

I. Do you support making misleading voters illegal?

Candidates and “third parties” (interest groups and individuals who are trying to affect the election results) are allowed to lie to voters in their election promises and statements about candidates and about issues and about anything else about which they want to mislead voters.

Please send back your responses to the following questions:

  1. Will you resign if you break any of your promises?
  2. Do you support a provincial law requiring candidates in Ontario municipal elections, and everyone in municipal politics (including third parties), to tell the truth during and between elections, with a high fine for misleaders?
  3. Do you support a provincial law with key measures to prevent, prohibit and penalize disinformation and misinformation during and between municipal elections?

(Click here to see details about how to have an honesty in politics law, and click here to see details about stopping disinformation)

II. Do you support making the political donations and loans system democratic by stopping big money donations and loans?

A candidate and their spouse are allowed, together, to donate to the candidate’s campaign a total of $7,500 + 20 cents per voter in the municipality (for a mayoral candidate), or $5,000 + 20 cents per voter in the ward (for a council candidate) up to a maximum of $25,000, which is much more than most candidates can afford (Democracy Watch’s research at the federal level and in Ontario shows a large majority of voters donate only $75 on average).

Donors are allowed to donate up to $1,200 to a municipal council or local board candidate (and up to $5,000 to the candidates for any one council or local board), and up to $2,500 to a Toronto mayoral candidate, which is much more than an average voter can afford.

Candidates and their spouses are also allowed to obtain unlimited amounts of money in loans from financial institutions to pay for their campaign, which undemocratically favours wealthy candidates and candidates with wealthy spouses.

Please send back your responses to the following questions:

  1. Did you and/or your spouse donate to your campaign?
  2. Are you refusing big donations and, if so, what is the maximum donation you are accepting?
  3. Did you obtain a loan from a financial institution to support your campaign? If so, what is the amount of the loan, and from which financial institution?
  4. Do you support limiting donations to an amount that an average voter can afford (i.e. no more than $100)?

(Click here to see details about the loopholes that allow for undemocratic, unethical large donations)

III.  Do you support making the “third-party” interest group spending system democratic?

Third parties are not even required to register (and be subject to donation limits, spending limits and donor and spending disclosure requirements) if they are only doing ads about issues (only third parties who do ads promoting or opposing candidates are required to register – click here to see section 1 definition of “third party advertisement”);

There is a $1,200 limit on other donations to third parties (to a maximum combined total of $5,000 to all third parties), which is much more than an average voter can afford.  Also, candidates are allowed to contribute to third parties and collude with them on their election campaign strategy and tactics.

Third parties are also allowed to obtain unlimited amounts of money in loans from financial institutions to pay for their activities, which undemocratically favours wealthy third parties.

The same spending limit applies to an individual who is a third party and a third-party group with thousands of members, which undemocratically allows a wealthy individual to spend as much as thousands of voters.

Please send back your response to the following question:

  1. Do you support limiting spending by individuals who are third parties and businesses to a very low amount (because they don’t represent any voters), and limiting spending by unions and other citizen organization third parties to a low amount per member/supporter?

(Click here to see details about the loopholes that allow for undemocratic “third-party” spending)

IV. Do you support transparency before voters vote of who is fundraising and campaigning for, and donating and loaning to, candidates and third parties?

Candidates are not required to disclose who is raising money for them, and people raising money are not required to disclose they are doing it nor how much they raised, even if they are lobbyists.

Candidates are not required to disclose who is campaigning for them, not even top level people, even if they are lobbyists.

Candidates are not required to disclose donations before voters vote (donor disclosure is only required months after voting day).

Third parties are not required to disclose how much they spent, nor who funded them, before voters vote (disclosure is only required months after voting day.

Please send back your responses to the following questions:

  1. Will you, ideally before voters start voting in advanced voting, and then regularly after that up to election day, disclose your donors?
  2. Will you, ideally before voters start voting in advanced voting, and then regularly after that up to election day, disclose who is fundraising for you and how much each person has raised?
  3. Will you, ideally before voters start voting in advanced voting, and then regularly after that up to election day, disclose who is working on your campaign?
  4. Do you support requiring disclosure before advanced voting begins, and right up to election day, of anyone who is fundraising for a candidate or third party so voters know who are key campaign supporters before they vote?
  5. Do you support requiring disclosure before advanced voting begins, and right up to election day, of anyone who is playing a senior or significant role in a candidate’s and third party’s activities so voters know who are key campaign supporters before they vote?
  6. Do you support requiring disclosure before advanced voting begins, and right up to election day, of candidate and third-party donors and lenders so voters know who are key supporters and who is bankrolling campaigns before they vote?

(Click here to see details about the loopholes that allow for secrecy in fundraising, campaigning, donations and loans)

V. Do you support voting system reform?

Because of the lack of a ranked ballot or run-off voting system, theoretically one the multiple candidates for many mayoral and municipal council elections could win the election with the support of only a small percentage of voters.

Please send back your response to the following question:

  1. Do you support a ranked ballot or runoff voting system for municipal elections? (Click here to see details)

VI. Do you support key democratic good government measures?

Click here to see the top 10 key changes to make Ontario’s municipal governments best-practice democratic governments plus the additional #11 change of cancelling Ontario’s strong mayor powers system that the Ford PC Party government enacted because it is fundamentally undemocratic.

Please send back your response to the following question:

  1. Referring to each of the 11 key changes by number, which of the 11 changes do you support to require everyone to municipal politics to be honest, ethical, transparent, and to make representative decisions and prevent waste?

Thank you for responding to these 16 key questions so that I can make an informed vote in the municipal election.

Commissioner of Lobbying has covered up almost 32,000 lobbying law violations (99.99% of all violations) since 2018

Posted on by Bradford

At least 5,000 were serious violations (likely more) – all have been let off in secret rulings without the lobbyist being identified, and without any penalty

Commissioner and the RCMP illegally hiding their investigation records in 13 cases of the most serious violations

Commissioner also gutted key rules in the lobbying code in ways that allow for unethical lobbying

House Ethics Committee must recommend many key changes to close loopholes in the law and code, and to require effective enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 1, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its report on Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger’s negligently weak enforcement record of the federal Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct since she started in the position in January 2018 through to the end of March 2026.  Given her incredibly bad record, it was negligent for federal parties to have re-appointed her to a second term as Commissioner in November 2024.

The House Ethics Committee is currently conducting an illegally long-overdue review of the Lobbying Act for the first time since 2012 (the Act is required to be reviewed by a committee every five years), and its report (which will likely be released in November) clearly needs to call on the government to close huge loopholes in the Act and Code that allow for secret lobbying, and unethical lobbying, and to require independent, timely, transparent, effective and accountable enforcement, including public rulings and mandatory penalties for all violations.

A national survey in January 2025 showed that more than 80% of Canadian voters want all secret, unethical lobbying stopped.

Commissioner Bélanger, in testimony on October 6, 2025 before the House of Commons Ethics Committee, admitted that she allows up to 10 violations of the Lobbying Act every week by lobbyists who fail to disclose their lobbying activities by the required deadlines (See p. 17 of testimony just above the 1245 mark, and p. 19 at the top of the second column).  And in her testimony before the Ethics Committee on May 7, 2026 she admitted that she lets off many violations (8% of all registrations in 2025-2026 were late in violation of the Act and she let them all off – see p. 3 of testimony above the 1545 mark).

Democracy Watch’s 32-page report details that:

1. Commissioner Bélanger has let off 99.99% (31,803 out of 31,806) of the lobbyists she has caught violating the Act or Code with a secret ruling that hid the identity of the violating lobbyist and did not penalize the violator in any way, according to her annual reports (and she has likely issued even more secret rulings letting off lobbyists that she has not disclosed).

2.  For all 31,806 violations, Commissioner Bélanger could have issued a public ruling identifying and finding the lobbyist guilty of violating the Lobbyists’ Code as a former Commissioner did in a past case, and as the Commissioner acknowledged in her Feb. 2024 ruling finding a lobbyist in violation of the Code, because violating the Act is a violation of the Code. While it is reasonable that the Commissioner allowed lobbyists who violated the Act one time in a less serious way to just take corrective action, she also let off lobbyists involved in at least 5,054 significant violations, such as failing to register and disclose lobbying for more than 30 days (many up to 6 months late), filing significantly inaccurate registrations and/or failing to correct inaccurate registrations for up to 6 months.

3.  There are very likely many more significant violations of the Lobbying Act out of the 31,806 total violations. Many of Commissioner Bélanger’s annual reports hide details about exactly how many significant violations there have been each year since 2018. As well, there is no evidence in the reports that the Commissioner is proactively enforcing the ethical lobbying rules in the Lobbyists’ Code and, as a result, there are likely many more violations of the Code happening that are not being caught.

4. In addition, Commissioner Bélanger and the RCMP are both currently violating the Access to Information Act (ATIA) by hiding their investigation records in 13 cases of the most serious violations of the Lobbying Act that they both let go without any charges or penalties, including violations by lobbyists for SNC-Lavalin, and likely also including violations by lobbyists for Facebook, WE Charity and others that would have embarrassed the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet. Click here to see details.  The federal Information Commissioner’s office confirmed in February 2026 that investigating the Commissioner and the RCMP for violating the ATIA, but seven months have passed and still no one in the office has been assigned to investigate.

5. As well, Commissioner Bélanger let off two lobbyists who clearly violated the Code by helping Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland win an election, and serving on her riding association executive, and then lobbying her office and department soon afterwards. Click here to see details.

6. Of the 19 total cases of some of the most serious violations of the Lobbying Act that Commissioner Bélanger referred to the RCMP for prosecution, the RCMP has let off 94% (15 out of 16) of the lobbyists. As of March 2026, the RCMP had 3 other cases still under investigation.

7. A federal Crown prosecutor told the RCMP sometime after January 2018 that one key provision of the Lobbying Act was unenforceable and so no lobbyist would ever be prosecuted for violating that provision. Did the RCMP tell the Commissioner, or the government, or anyone, that obviously key information about a huge loophole in the Act?

8. Commissioner Bélanger also gutted key rules in the Code in 2023 in ways that allow for rampant unethical lobbying, ignoring the opposition to the changes from a coalition of 26 citizen groups with 1.5 million total supporters, and 41 lawyers and professors from across Canada, and 20,000+ voters. Click here for details.

9. Commissioner Bélanger has also used her power from January 2018 to April 2026 to grant 30 exemptions to the (loophole-filled) 5-year prohibition on lobbying after leaving public office.

As a result of Commissioner Bélanger doing essentially nothing effective to stop thousands of lobbyists from failing to register their lobbying on time, and accurately, and letting them get away with registering for up to 6 months after they started lobbying, almost all media reports over the past 8 years about “who is lobbying whom” in federal politics are very likely inaccurate.

Commissioner Bélanger’s and the RCMP’s negligently bad enforcement records makes it clear that many changes are needed to the Act to require the Commissioner and the RCMP to enforce the Act and Lobbyists’ Code strictly, strongly, effectively and transparently (in addition to closing a “dirty dozen” secret lobbying loopholes in the Act, and closing unethical lobbying loopholes in the Code).

“Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger has a horribly negligent and weak enforcement record and has let thousands of lobbyists violate the federal lobbying law and code in serious ways without identifying the lobbyists publicly or penalizing them, and she also gutted the code in ways that allow for unethical lobbying,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To stop rampant secret, unethical lobbying, the House Ethics Committee’s current review of the lobbying law must result in recommendations that call for closing all the loopholes in the law and code, and requiring the Commissioner to enforce the law and code strictly, strongly, effectively and transparently, including imposing a penalty on every lobbyist who violates the law or code.”

The 13 violations Commissioner Bélanger and the RCMP are currently hiding include, in at least one of the 13 cases, lobbying by SNC-Lavalin lobbyists during the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin scandal, likely by former PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch that was not registered by SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce (click here to see DWatch’s March 2019 complaint), and by SNC-Lavalin lawyer Robert Pritchard and others.  The violations also likely include the following situations that have never been ruled on publicly by the Commissioner:

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.

– 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, Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Open Government Campaign

Ontario’s municipal elections undemocratic and unfair in many key ways

Posted on by Bradford

Media and voters should ask all candidates key questions re: disclosure of donors, fundraisers, campaigners and whether they support key democratic, fair election reforms

Changes needed to effectively require everyone in municipal politics to be honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing

Click here to see a list of key questions you can easily send to your municipal election candidates

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, September 24, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, with Ontario municipal voting day coming up on October 26th, and advance voting starting in a couple of weeks (on different dates depending on the municipality), Democracy Watch called on the media and voters to ask key questions of all candidates across the province, and to demand that candidates disclose key information that voters have a right to know before they vote, and to pledge to resign if they break any of their election promises, and to pledge to push for key changes to make Ontario’s municipal elections actually democratic and fair.

“Municipal elections across Ontario are undemocratic and unfair because candidates are allowed to mislead voters with false election promises and statements, the system favours wealthy candidates who have wealthy supporters as donating huge amounts of money to your own campaign or a third-party interest group advertising blitz is allowed, and voters are denied the right to know, before they vote, who is bankrolling and fundraising and campaigning for candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “Voters are also forced to choose only one out of a dizzying number of candidates instead of being allowed to rank them and have the candidate who is supported the most by the most voters win.”

“The media and voters should be asking key questions of all the candidates before advanced voting begins so that voters have key information they need to make an informed vote,” said Conacher.

Ontario’s municipal elections are undemocratic and unfair, and facilitate foreign interference, in the following key ways:

I. Misleading voters is legal

  1. Candidates and third parties (interest groups and individuals who are trying to affect the election results) are allowed to lie to voters in their election promises and statements about candidates or anything else;
Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Will you resign if you break any of your promises?  Do you support a provincial law requiring candidates in Ontario municipal elections, and everyone in municipal politics (including third parties), to tell the truth during and between elections, with a high fine for misleaders? Do you support a provincial law with key measures to prevent, prohibit and penalize disinformation and misinformation during and between municipal elections? (Click here to see details about how to have an honesty in politics law, and click here to see details about how to stop disinformation)

II. Tilted in favour of wealthy candidates who have wealthy donors

  1. A candidate and their spouse are allowed, together, to donate to the candidate’s campaign a total of $7,500 + 20 cents per voter in the municipality (for a mayoral candidate), or $5,000 + 20 cents per voter in the ward (for a council candidate) up to a maximum of $25,000, which is much more than most candidates can afford (Democracy Watch’s research at the federal level and in Ontario shows a large majority of voters donate only $75 on average);
  2. Donors are allowed to donate up to $1,200 to a municipal council or local board candidate (and up to $5,000 to the candidates for any one council or local board), and up to $2,500 to a Toronto mayoral candidate, which is much more than an average voter can afford;
Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Did you and/or your spouse donate to your campaign?  Are you refusing big donations and, if so, what is the maximum donation you are accepting? Do you support limiting donations to an amount that an average voter can afford (i.e. no more than $100)? (Click here to see details)

III.  Tilted in favour of wealthy “third-party” interest groups who have wealthy donors, and wealthy “third-party” individuals, and the candidates they support

  1. Third parties are not even required to register (and be subject to donation limits, spending limits and donor and spending disclosure requirements) if they are only doing ads about issues (only third parties who do ads promoting or opposing candidates are required to register – click here to see section 1 definition of “third party advertisement”);
  2. There is a $1,200 limit on donations to third parties (to a maximum combined total of $5,000), which is much more than an average voter can afford;
  3. The same spending limit applies to an individual who is a third party and a third-party group with thousands of members, which allows a wealthy individual to spend as much as thousands of voters;
Key questions for voters and media to ask third parties: Who runs the third party (whether it is registered or not)?  Who is raising money for the third party?  Who are the donors to the third party?  How many donors does the third party have?  Is the third party refusing big donations and, if so, what is the maximum donation the third party is accepting? And a key question to ask all candidates is: Do you support limiting spending by individuals who are third parties and businesses to a very low amount (because they don’t represent any voters), and limiting spending by unions and other citizen organization third parties to a low amount per member/supporter? (Click here to see details)

IV.  No disclosure of who is fundraising, campaigning or donating

  1. Candidates are not required to disclose who is raising money for them, and people raising money are not required to disclose they are doing it nor how much they raised, even if they are lobbyists;
  2. Candidates are not required to disclose who is campaigning for them, not even top level people, even if they are lobbyists;
  3. Candidates are not required to disclose donations before voters vote (donor disclosure is only required months after voting day);
  4. Third parties are not required to disclose how much they spent, nor who funded them, before voters vote (disclosure is only required months after voting day;
Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates and third parties: Will you, before voters start voting in advanced voting, and then regularly after that up to election day, disclose your donors, disclose who is fundraising for you and how much each person has raised, and disclose who is working on your campaign? And a key question to ask all candidates is: Do you support requiring disclosure before advanced voting begins, and right up to election day, of candidate and third-party fundraisers, significant campaigners and donors so voters know who are key supporters and who is bankrolling campaigns before they vote? (Click here to see details)

V. Voting system allows candidate to win with small % of vote

  1. Because of the lack of a ranked ballot or run-off voting system, theoretically one the multiple candidates for many mayoral and municipal council elections could win the election with the support of only a small percentage of voters;
Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Do you support a ranked ballot or runoff voting system for municipal elections?  (Click here to see details)

“Like federal, provincial and territorial elections, and politics, Ontario’s municipal elections and politics need to be cleaned up in many key ways to make elections democratic and fair, and to ensure everyone is required to be honest, ethical, transparent and waste-preventing, and to make representative decisions,” said Conacher.

Click here to see the top 10 key changes to make Ontario’s municipal governments best-practice democratic governments (similar changes are needed to the key democracy laws that apply to municipalities across Canada), plus the additional change of cancelling Ontario’s strong mayor powers system that the Ford PC Party government enacted because it is fundamentally undemocratic.

A final key question to ask all candidates is: do you support key changes to Ontario‘s laws to require everyone to municipal politics to be honest, ethical, transparent, and to make representative decisions and prevent waste?

– 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 Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

Top 10 key changes (+ 1) needed to make Ontario municipal governments best-practice, fully democratic governments

Posted on by Bradford

(September 2026)

The top 10 key changes needed to make Ontario municipal governments best-practice, fully democratic governments (meaning honest, ethical, transparent, representative and waste-preventing) are listed below (and similar changes are needed to the key democracy laws that apply to municipalities across Canada).

Cities and towns across Canada also have similar loopholes and gaps in key democracy laws, and weak enforcement of those laws, which makes them all vulnerable to authoritarian, dishonest, unethical, secretive and wasteful political leaders and their cronies, and also vulnerable to foreign interference.

The additional change needed in Ontario (and anywhere else it exists) is to cancel the strong mayor’s system that the Ford PC Party government enacted because it is fundamentally undemocratic, especially the part that allows the mayor and minority of councillors to make major changes.

  1. Enact an honesty-in-politics bylaw that allows for complaints to a fully independent commissioner about broken promises, and about dishonest statements made anywhere (including at council, and during elections) by anyone involved in politics, with mandatory high fines as the penalty;
  2. Create broad-based, citizen-funded and -driven watchdog groups in each mid-sized to large-municipality by requiring all hydro and water utilities, and the municipality when sending out property tax bills, to include a notice in their mailings and emails to households inviting them to join and fund citizen watchdog groups for hydro/water service, and for watching over government spending and ethics (as an umbrella group for ratepayer associations);
  3. Establish a Public Appointments Commission (preferably at the provincial or regional level) whose members are not connected to any councillor, and require the Commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and choose a short list of a maximum of 3 candidates for all council appointments (especially watchdogs), with the council required to choose from the short list;
  4. Enact a meaningful public consultation law provincially that requires all municipalities to undertake a broad, in-depth public consultation with voters before any council or municipal institution makes a significant decision;
  5. Limit individual political donations to $100 (as in Quebec) and establish donation-matching public funding, and limit third-party interest group spending on advertising and campaign activities (including on issue-related ads) to a low amount per voter that the third -party represents (and set a very low amount that any individual acting as a third party is allowed to spend, given they only represent one voter);
  6. Enact an actually effective bill to strengthen and close loopholes in Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (because the Ford government’s very weak Bill 9 which came into force recently is not enough to ensure ethical decision-making by municipal councils and strong mayors), to require councillors, their staff, municipal staff and local board officials and staff to only make truthful statements; and prohibit them from participating in any way in any decision-making process if they have even the appearance of a conflict of interest (even if the decision applies generally); and prohibit them from communicating with anyone in the municipal government (or advising others who to communicate with) about their decisions for 5 years after they leave their position, and; to make Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner the enforcer of the Act, and; establish high penalties for violators, and; require the Commissioner to issue a public ruling on every situation they review and to impose a penalty for every violation;
  7. Enact a bill that strengthens and closes loopholes in Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (LRA) to require councillors, their staff, municipal staff and local board officials and staff to disclose in an online registry any communication they have with anyone with regard to decisions they are making (to close the secret lobbying loopholes that now exist in municipalities across Ontario (except in Toronto, Ottawa and a few others); and to prohibit lobbyists from helping with political campaigns or fundraising (or, if they do, from lobbying until after then next election); and to make Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner the enforcer of the LRA for municipalities, and; establish high penalties for violators, and; require the Commissioner to issue a public ruling on every situation they review and to impose a penalty for every violation;
  8. Change the voting system to a ranked ballot system with a runoff for the top candidates, to ensure that everyone who is elected is supported the most by the most voters;
  9. Strengthen the municipal access-to-information law (Ontario’s MFIPPA) by closing loopholes, applying it to all government and government-funded institutions, requiring that records of all decisions and actions be disclosed regularly, and to establish high penalties for violators, and ensure effective whistleblower protection for people who reveal wrongdoing in government or by councillors, and;
  10. Reduce waste by empowering Ontario’s Auditor General and/or Financial Accountability Officer (FAO) to: audit projected municipal spending to ensure truth-in-budgeting; order changes to clean up the financial management of any municipal institution, and; penalize violators of spending or procurement rules.