At least 895 law-breaking lobbyists have been let off in secret rulings without being identified publicly, and without any penalty

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:
Wednesday, May 20, 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 October 2025.  Given her incredibly bad record, Bélanger should not have been re-appointed to a second term as Commissioner in November 2024, and the House Ethics Committee clearly needs to push the government to strengthen the Act and require effective enforcement.

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).

Democracy Watch’s 17-page report details that:

1. Commissioner Bélanger has let off 98% (895 out of 912) 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 895 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.

3. In addition, Commissioner Bélanger and the RCMP are both currently violating the Access to Information Act (ATIA) by hiding their investigation records in 13 key cases of 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.

4. 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.

5. Also, Commissioner Bélanger conducted annual audits of a sample of lobbyists’ monthly disclosures of their communications with public office holders from 2018 to 2023, but then stopped doing the audits without giving any reason, even though the audits were catching violations.

6. 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.

7. Commissioner Bélanger has also used her power to grant 31 exemptions to the (loophole-filled) 5-year prohibition on lobbying after leaving public office.

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).  Commissioner Bélanger’s horrible enforcement record makes it clear that many changes are needed to the Act to require the Commissioner 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 negligently weak enforcement record and has let hundreds of lobbyists violate the federal lobbying law and code without identified the lobbyists publicly or penalizing them in any way, 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 law must result in recommendations that call for closing all the loopholes, and requiring the Commissioner to enforce the law and code strictly, strongly, effectively and transparently, and to impose a penalty for all violations.”

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 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.  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 and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Government’s new review of IRAC does nothing to stop current, conflict-ridden investigation by IRAC of its own failure to complete its investigation in 2018

RCMP also has questionable record of investigating such activities – second fully independent cross-Canada inquiry needed into land purchases by foreigners

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 19, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch joined with the Save PEI Association in calling in an open letter to the provincial government and all party leaders in the PEI legislature to work together 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 and, instead, establish an independent inquiry.

The two groups also called for a second independent inquiry, in coordination with the federal government, to investigate national security and potential criminal issues in land purchases by foreigners across Canada.

The government’s new review of IRAC’s role, structure and responsibilities does not address the many outstanding and important questions about IRAC’s past decisions and actions.  Most importantly, a PEI legislative committee determined in October that IRAC didn’t complete its 2018 investigation into the land purchases by GEBIS and GWBI, which makes it clear that IRAC has a systemic conflict of interest and should not be trusted to investigate these land purchases.

As the letter details, IRAC’s current investigation:

•  is compromised by many other apparent conflicts of interest;

•  has only one special counsel from a relatively small labour law firm;

•  has a vague scope that is not comprehensive;

•  has not invited several expert witnesses to testify, and;

•  does not appear to be coordinated with the RCMP.

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.

To ensure an independent, expert and comprehensive review, 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.

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 interveners.

“It is clear that IRAC has lost the confidence of the public because of its many very questionable past decisions and actions, and only a fully independent, fully transparent public inquiry staffed by experts with the skills and resources needed to investigate a multibillion dollar, multinational religious and business conglomerate will arrive at the truth and ensure the islanders truly understand the plans of these China-connected organizations,” 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.  Almost two years later, the federal Liberal government has still failed to establish the Foreign Influence Registry (FIR) to require foreign agents to disclose their activities, only recently appointed 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
Cell: 902-394-3733
Save PEI Association
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

Trudeau’s process was not independent, and neither were the Senators appointed, as PM chose all advisory committee members, and could secretly ignore their secret recommendations

If Carney doesn’t make the appointment system fully independent, it will be more evidence of how power-mad he is – best solution is abolition

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, May 7, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, as nine Senate seats sit empty and six more senators will retire this year, and Liberal PM Mark Carney continues to refuse to answer questions about what exact process he will use for appointing senators (other than indicating he will likely use a partisan process as Justin Trudeau used), Democracy Watch called on federal party leaders to agree to move forward with a proposal:

1. To abolish the Senate;

2. To have an elected Senate, or;

3. To have an actually fully independent committee do a public, merit-based search for no more than 1-3 fully qualified candidates for each Senate seat, and then an all-party committee should, by consensus, make the final choice of each senator.

Given:

1. the partisan charade of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Senate appointment process, which didn’t change anything substantive (as DWatch pointed out in January 2016);

2. that having appointed Senators is fundamentally undemocratic;

3. the problems with any other possible Senate appointment reforms, and;

4. that the House can be reformed to give it the same regional balance and powers of review that the Senate has;

Democracy Watch’s position is still that abolition of the Senate is the best solution.  To give the House of Commons more of the key characteristics of the Senate, more seats from outside Central Canada should be added to the House, and changes made to free MPs from the control of their party leader.

Despite Trudeau’s claims, his Senate appointment advisory boards were not independent as he chose all the members, which made them partisan, and he could secretly ignore their secret list of nominees (and they had no power to disclose when he did this), and the system was policy that could be abandoned at any time (as opposed to being enacted in law).

Trudeau’s partisan, patronage-ridden process resulted in him appointing many partisan Liberals as senators overall, most in recent years, out of the 100 senators he appointed.   As well, all appointees were still required to meet the discriminatory constitutional requirements for senators of being at least 30 years old, and own property worth at least $4,000 and other assets worth at least $4,000.

“Trudeau’s change to the Senate appointment process was a partisan charade, as no one is independent if they are dependent on the Prime Minister for having their position on an advisory board or as a Senator,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “Just like past prime ministers, Trudeau chose a group of people to consult with in secret about who to appoint as senators, and then secretly chose whomever he wanted to appoint, including many ruling party supporters.”

“The Senate is fundamentally undemocratic and should be abolished for that reason alone, and a Senate loaded with ruling party patronage cronies is a useless waste of money so, if the Senate is not going to be abolished, then senators should at least be made fully independent through a fully independent appointment process,” said Conacher.

“If Mark Carney returns to ruling-party crony senator appointments, or does anything less than work with other party leaders to establish a fully independent appointment process, he will provide further evidence that he is a power-mad, fundamentally undemocratic prime minister,” said Conacher.

A fully independent Senate appointment process won’t change anything in terms of the Senate’s powers, which should always bow to the democratically elected House (which is part of the reason the Senate is an undemocratic waste of time and money).  However, an independent process would at least result in qualified, independent-minded people being appointed who wouldn’t roll over to protect the ruling party and would actually, expertly and effectively hold the government to account if it was lying or spinning about the effects of its legislative or spending proposals.

In addition, the Senate should change its rules to limit itself to, at most, a six-month delay of any bill passed by the House.  The UK House of Lords has had this limit on its powers since 1911.

– 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 Shut Down the Senate Campaign and Stop Muzzling MPs Campaign

 

Selection process for Governor General should be democratized and Canadianized also to strengthen Canada’s sovereignty, diminish monarchy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 5, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch criticized Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney for handpicking the new Governor General, who is a key guardian of democratic good government, through a secretive, partisan process.

Like the Officers of Parliament, the Governor General (GG) must be independent of the Prime Minister and ruling party Cabinet because s/he makes many key decisions about the operations of Parliament and the government.  The Prime Minister and Cabinet should not be choosing the GG (or any Officer of Parliament) alone because it taints the position with partisanship and makes them weak lapdogs of the PM.

Carney’s appointment process is even worse than former PM Trudeau’s process.  Trudeau tried to rig the selection of the Governor General (even more than former Prime Minister Harper did) by setting up a façade of an Advisory Panel, co-chaired by his friend and Cabinet appointee Dominic LeBlanc, with every other member of the Panel also appointed by Trudeau, after the fiasco of the appointment of former GG Julie Payette who wasn’t vetted properly by Trudeau’s PMO, and who resigned after an investigation report revealed she created a toxic work environment for her staff.

Power-mad PM Carney also missed an opportunity to work federal party leaders to learn the lessons of the past, and strengthen Canada’s sovereignty, by reaching an agreement on a new, democratic and Canadian selection process for the next Governor General (GG) that does not request approval from King Charles (all of which can be done without changing any law or Canada’s Constitution).

The PM not asking for the King’s approval of the GG would have sent a clear signal that Canada still doesn’t have full sovereignty.  It would have also sent a message to U.S. President Donald Trump that Canada does not approve of monarchs, which is a dangerous message to send given Trump is acting like he has king-like power and immunity from accountability, including the king-like power to annex Canada.

Survey results in 2023 (see also here and here and here) and 2024 show a majority or near majority of Canadians don’t want Canada to continue to be a constitutional monarchy.

“Given how important it is for the Governor General to be independent of the Prime Minister and impartial, Carney should not have handpicked his appointee through a secretive, partisan process,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The Governor General should have been chosen through a democratic process, and the Prime Minister should also have told King Charles who Canada chose, and not asked his approval, and if he had accepted that as the new protocol it would have become clear that Canada chooses its own head of state.”

“Carney and his cabal of old white guys are clearly power-mad as they are ignoring many democratic good government standards and voter concerns and are using many levers to consolidate and abuse the powers of the Prime Minister’s office, which has more unchecked powers than any democratically elected leader in the world,” said Conacher.

To democratize the selection of the Governor General, without needing any changes to any law or Canada’s Constitution, Democracy Watch proposes that an independent committee whose members are approved by all federal party leaders in the House of Commons be established to conduct a public, merit-based search for a shortlist of three nominees for GG, and then at least all federal party leaders should approve the final choice of GG, or better would be a secret, ranked ballot vote by MPs.

Even better, given that the GG appoints the Lieutenant Governors of each province, the Prime Minister should send the shortlist of three nominees to the recognized party leaders in each legislature across Canada and have them rank the nominees in a secret ballot.  The GG would be the person who receives the most votes from this ranked ballot vote.

This would give the GG the democratic legitimacy to say no to abuses of power by the PM, without tainting the GG with partisanship (as would happen if the GG was elected directly by voters, given candidates would very likely run under party banners).

To Canadianize the selection of the Governor General, Democracy Watch proposes that the Prime Minister should not request that King Charles approve of the person chosen through the process.  The King does have to approve the person formally, but if the Prime Minister does not request the approval, and the King agrees to whomever is nominated, then a new constitutional convention will be established that Canada chooses its own Head of State.  This will be a simple but significant step toward full independence for Canada, and would make our political system more a parliamentary democracy and less a constitutional monarchy.

For the appointment of every other federal good government watchdog, a fully independent committee with members approved by all federal party leaders should also be conducting public, merit-based searches for a shortlist of qualified candidates for each position.  Democracy Watch also proposes that this process be used to find qualified non-MP candidates for Speaker of the House of Commons.

– 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 Head Campaign and Stop PM/Premier Abuses Campaign

Case will target retroactive, excessive secrecy measures in Ford’s budget Bill 97, opposed by most voters, that hide communications between ministers and lobbyists and others trying to influence the government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 30, 2026

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it will soon file a constitutional challenge to the excessive government secrecy measures in the PC Party Doug Ford government’s recently enacted budget Bill 97.

The measures, which were rammed through the Ontario legislature along with the rest of Bill 97 without any committee hearings, make records in the custody or control of a Cabinet Minister’s or Parliamentary Assistant’s office (unless the records are in the custody of another institution) exempt from disclosure under Ontario’s open government law (the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)). The measures apply retroactively back to 1988.

The changes mean that communications of Cabinet ministers, Parliamentary Assistants or their staff with lobbyists and others outside the government who are trying to influence the Cabinet’s decisions can no longer be requested under Ontario’s open government law.  Because the measures apply retroactively, every past request back to 1988 in which the records have not yet been disclosed is effectively cancelled, even if Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner or a court has issued an order that those records be disclosed.

Premier Ford and his Cabinet ministers made many false claims about the measures, but Ford essentially admitted when responding to media questions, and in the legislature, that the measures are to protect his cellphone records from being disclosed to the public.

Ford uses his personal cellphone for government business calls.  Several years ago, a journalist and a member of the public requested Ford’s cellphone call log records (not including personal information contained in the records) concerning the Greenbelt scandal and decisions made during COVID.  Premier Ford refused to disclose the records.  The Information Commissioner’s office ordered Ford to disclose the records in November 2024.  Ford challenged the order in court, and in December 2025 the Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner’s order that Ford was required to disclose the records.

The changes make the Ford Cabinet the most secretive of all cabinets across Canada, and will derail freedom of information (FOI) requests that have revealed scandals in the past, including the Greenbelt scandal.  A survey showed that 60% of Ontario voters oppose the changes (including 53% of PC Party supporters), while only 24% support them, and 64% think the changes are aimed at reducing government accountability.

According to a survey in January 2025, more than 85% of Canadians want to know the details of all lobbying activities, and more than 80% are concerned about the corrupting effects of secret, unethical lobbying on politicians’ policy-making decisions.

“The changes that the Ford government rammed through the legislature are dangerously undemocratic and will make Cabinet ministers’ decisions and actions much more secretive, and that will lead to even more corruption, waste of the public’s money and other abuses of power,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch’s court case will challenge the constitutionality of both Ford’s excessive secrecy measures, and the fact that they apply retroactively and, in effect, overturn a binding court order.”

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that voters have a constitutional right to disclosure of government information that they need to have meaningful debates, and make informed choices, on matters of public importance, including concerning the conduct of politicians and government officials. As far as Democracy Watch has determined, the retroactivity issue in the case has not been ruled on by Canadian courts.

– 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 Open Government Campaign

The loopholes also make secret foreign interference in B.C. politics easy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 23, 2026

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch called on the MLAs on B.C.’s Special Committee on the Lobbyists Transparency Act to recommend all the changes needed to stop secret, unethical lobbying at the provincial and municipal level across B.C.

Last September, Democracy Watch filed a 26-page submission with the Special Committee during its public consultation phase that detailed all the loopholes in B.C.’s lobbying law, and set out 30 key measures needed to stop secret, unethical lobbying.  The Special Committee has until April 29, 2026 to release its report.

“B.C.’s lobbying law allows for secret, unethical lobbying and legalized bribery that corrupts policy-making by the provincial government and municipal councils and leads to decisions that protect private interests, ignore voters’ concerns, waste the public’s money, and harm the environment and cities and towns across the province,” said Duff Conacher, PhD and Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

B.C.’s lobbying law has the following huge loopholes that allow for secret, unethical lobbying at the provincial and municipal levels (and these loopholes also allow for secret foreign interference in B.C. politics):

1. The law only applies to lobbying of provincial politicians and government officials. Surrey and Kelowna have set up lobbying registries, but other municipalities in the province haven’t.  The province should establish a province-wide municipal registry to ensure best-practice lobbying disclosure and ethics requirements across the province.

2. Lobbyists are allowed to fundraise and campaign for, and assist in other ways, politicians they are lobbying (which is essentially legalized bribery), because B.C.’s lobbying law does not prohibit this (lobbyists are only required to comply with some non-governmental organization’s code of conduct);

3. While lobbyists can only give gifts worth $100 annually to provincial politicians and officials, they can give unlimited gifts to nomination contestants, and to political party officials and party leadership contestants who are not an MLA (which is also essentially legalized bribery);

4. Unpaid lobbying is not required to be disclosed;

5. Lobbying in response to a written request from a politician, political staff person or government official is not required to be disclosed;

6. Lobbying by a business or organization with fewer than six employees who collectively lobby less than 50 hours a year is not required to be disclosed (unless the organization’s primary purpose is advocacy, and then it is required to register all of its lobbying);

7. Lobbying of provincial political party officials (who can easily pass on the lobbyist’s message to party leaders) is not required to be disclosed;

8. Lobbying of an enforcement agency that oversees a business or organization is not required to be disclosed;

9. The amount spent on a lobbying effort (including the amount paid to “hired gun” consultant lobbyists) is not required to be disclosed;

10. Only donations of $1,000 or more to a lobby group are required to be disclosed;

11. The loopholes that allow for secret lobbying mean that the limits on gifts do not apply to lobbyists who are not required to register, and there is not actually a prohibition on Cabinet ministers and top government officials lobbying for 2 years after they leave office (it is only a prohibition on doing registrable lobbying – also, the prohibition should be for at least 5 years).

– 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 World’s Best Democracy Fund

 

Federal Court of Appeal should hear the appeal, and should issue ruling that not only rejects Trudeau’s unjustifiable prorogation, but also restricts PM’s power to prorogue Parliament in future

Prorogation was in Liberal’s self-interest, opposition parties intended to vote non-confidence in the government, other options were available

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, April 22, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is an intervener at the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in the first hearing of the first step of the appeal of the Federal Court’s ruling in the case challenging the January 6, 2025 request by Prime Minister Trudeau that the Governor General prorogue (shut down) Parliament until March 24, 2025.

Today’s hearing is focused solely on the issue of whether or not the FCA should hear the appeal given the prorogation ended long ago.  Both the appellants and the Attorney General of Canada want the appeal to go ahead, as does Democracy Watch, so that the FCA will issue a ruling on the important legal issues re:

1. Whether the Prime Minister can prorogue Parliament anytime the PM wants, or are their constitutional restrictions on prorogations?

2. Whether the courts should hear and rule on challenges to prorogations?

The hearing of this first step of the appeal is this morning, April 22nd from 9:30 am to about 11:30 am at 180 Queen St. W., 7th floor in Toronto or click here to register to watch it online (under Hearing Lists, File #A-131-25,  David Joseph MacKinnon et al v. Canada (Attorney General) et al).  Democracy Watch is represented at the hearing by Justyna Zukowski, and also Wade Poziomka, Nick Papageorge, of Ross & McBride LLP.

The prorogation was clearly in the Liberal Party’s self-interest as it gave the party time to hold its leadership contest to replace Trudeau, and happened at a time when the opposition parties were clearly intending to vote non-confidence in the government soon after Parliament’s usual winter break was scheduled to end on January 27, 2025.  (Click here to see DWatch’s legal arguments).

Democracy Watch is calling on the court to reject Trudeau’s unjustifiable prorogation and issue a ruling like the UK Supreme Court’s unanimous 2019 ruling that it was illegal for then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament for no justifiable reason when a majority of MPs wanted Parliament to stay open and operating.

Democracy Watch is also calling on the court to look forward and issue a ruling that will prevent the current bad situation from happening again.  The court should establish restrictions on the Prime Minister’s power to prorogue Parliament in the future, restrictions that comply with binding Supreme Court of Canada rulings that mandate courts to balance the power of the PM with Canada’s key constitutional principles that require the government (the PM and Cabinet) to have the support of a majority of MPs (known as the principles of responsible government, the sovereignty of Parliament, and democracy).

The three practical restrictions that Democracy Watch is calling on the court to establish on the PM’s power to prorogue, restrictions that will work in every future situation, especially during minority governments, are as follows:

1. Has notice of a motion of non-confidence in the government been given in Parliament, or has a vote on a matter of confidence (e.g. a supply measure) been scheduled in Parliament? If yes, then the Prime Minister is prohibited from proroguing until the motion or vote is decided.

2. If the answer to question #1 is no, have the leaders of opposition parties who represent a majority of MPs in the House of Commons clearly and publicly indicated that their parties’ MPs intend to vote non-confidence in the government? If yes, then the Prime Minister is prohibited from proroguing outside of, and longer than, a scheduled adjournment period of Parliament.

3. If the answer to question #2 is no, have a majority of MPs voted in favour of a prorogation at a time that is outside of and/or longer than a scheduled adjournment period of Parliament? If yes, then the Prime Minister is permitted prorogue Parliament for that time period.

“While a non-confidence motion was not being debated when Trudeau’s prorogation was requested, and while it is fair to allow a political party to change leaders before an election occurs, the Prime Minister dictating that Parliament must shut down for almost three months to avoid a non-confidence vote in his government that would trigger an election, without consulting any opposition leaders or even Liberal MPs, is fundamentally undemocratic and unjustifiable,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The Prime Minister had other options and, from all evidence, could have reached an agreement sometime in 2024 with one or more opposition parties to have the Liberals hold a party leadership contest while Parliament continued operating.”

“Hopefully the courts will take this opportunity to restrict this kind of abuse of power from happening in the future by issuing a ruling that makes it clear what is a legal, justifiable prorogation and what amounts to an illegal prorogation,” said Conacher.  “All federal parties should also work together to set out clear rules that restrict prorogations, snap elections, and other powers of the Prime Minister, like the rules enacted years ago by all parties in Britain, Australia and New Zealand parties.”

– 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 Prorogations and other Power Abuses Fund

Review confirmed PM Carney has millions in financial conflicts of interest he knows about with the Brookfield conglomerate, and he illegally enforces part of his so-called “ethics screen” himself, and has likely violated the ethics law

Ethics Commissioner misled the Committee re: loopholes that allow the PM, ministers, Cabinet staff and top government officials to secretly profit from their decisions without any penalties

Many other members of Cabinet, their staff and top government officials have “not-blind” trusts and unethical smokescreens, including Liberal PS Leslie Church who participated behind closed doors in the review of the ethics law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 16, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its second submission to the House Ethics Committee, which is completing its first review since 2012 of Canada’s federal government ethics law (the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA)) which applies to the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, their staff and almost 3,000 of the top Cabinet-appointed federal government officials.  The Committee has met five times behind closed doors for since February 23, 2026 to consider its draft report on recommendations for closing huge loopholes in the COIA and for strengthening enforcement of the law.

Liberal MP Leslie Church is a member of the Ethics Committee and is covered by the COIA’s rules as she is a Parliamentary Secretary (PS), and she has both a so-called “blind trust” and a conflict of interest screen (“ethics screen) established under the COIA (as do several Cabinet ministers, PMO and Cabinet staff and other top government officials).  Despite having this clear conflict of interest, Ms. Church has been participating in the hearings reviewing whether and how the COIA should be changed since last September, including five behind-closed-door meetings on February 23rd, March 12th, March 23rd, March 26th and April 13th.  As a result, she has a secret, inside avenue to further her own and Cabinet’s interests on the Committee.

“It’s dangerously undemocratic and unethical alone to have parliamentary secretaries, who are members of the executive branch Cabinet, sit on House committees which are supposed to operate independently of Cabinet and hold ministers accountable,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and PhD in ethics, political finance and lobbying law.  “It is even more dangerously undemocratic and unethical when a parliamentary secretary with financial and personal interests covered by the federal Cabinet ethics law participates in a committee’s review of that law that is focused on deciding whether or not to close huge loopholes in the law and strengthen enforcement and penalties for violations.”

Democracy Watch’s testimony before the Ethics Committee on October 1, 2025, and first submission to the Committee in November (en français), called on the Committee to recommend closing a “dirty dozen” unethical loopholes and seven key changes to strengthen enforcement of the COIA.

Key much-needed, long-overdue changes are to: 1. Close two huge loopholes in the COIA that mean it doesn’t apply to 99% of decisions and actions of office holders (it really should be called the “Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Act”); 2. Ban “not-blind” trusts and unethical smokescreens and business investments; 3. Establish a sliding scale of mandatory, significant penalties for violations (so people like recent COIA violator Deputy Minister Christiane Fox are not let off without any penalty), and; 4. To make the COIA enforcement system independent, transparent, timely, effective and publicly accountable (it is currently partisan, secretive, slow, ineffective and largely unaccountable).

Similar loopholes exist in the MP Code, but the Senate Code has fewer loopholes than the COIA.  The loopholes in those codes also need to be closed, and enforcement of those codes also needs to be strengthened, including by adding mandatory, significant penalties for violations.  In direct contrast, the Values and Ethics Code and Directive on Conflict of Interest, which the federal Cabinet imposed 30 years ago on all federal government employees (other than the people covered by the COIA), do not have the loopholes in them that the COIA has as they prohibit being in even an apparent conflict of interest (with no exceptions), and section 7 of the Directive sets out significant penalties for violations.  This shows clearly that the loopholes can be closed and penalties added in the COIA.

Democracy Watch’s second submission to the Committee highlights the following key facts that were confirmed by the Committee’s hearings reviewing the COIA since last September, and by DWatch’s own research:

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein misled the Committee three times re: federal ethics rules and re: loopholes in the COIA and MP Code that are not in the ethics codes for federal government employees, and could be easily closed in the COIA (See submission Part I).

2. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s so-called “blind trust” is a complete sham as he knows that he owns millions of dollars of stock options and other investments in Brookfield’s conglomerate of more than 2,000 companies that neither he nor his hand-picked trustee can sell until 2033-2024, and so he has a blatant, significant and ongoing financial conflict of interest until then (which he lied about during last year’s federal election), and he can personally profit from making decisions that affect those companies (See submission Part II).

3. PM Carney’s so-called “ethics screen” is a secretive, unethical smokescreen that he enforces himself, in violation of both the terms of his screen and the COIA, for emails, texts and calls on his cell phone and any discussions or meetings he has outside of the PMO (See submission Part III).

4. PM Carney has not been able to do his job on major issue files almost 50% of the time because of his conflicts of interest. He was prohibited from participating in 6 of 13 major files from federal government departments that were flagged for review under his ethics screen (See submission Part IV).

5. The federal Cabinet office continues to refuse to disclose many details re: whether and how PM Carney’s ethics screens have been enforced (in blatant violation of the federal Access to Information Act), especially exactly how many discussions, decisions and votes have been flagged for Carney conflicts, and how many he has not participated in because of conflicts, for both his initial two, secret, self-imposed and self-administered screens (from March to July 2025) and his Ethics Commissioner-approved screen that has been in force since July 10, 2025 (See submission Part V).

6. From the evidence available, it seems PM Carney has violated the COIA by participating in budget Bill C-15 decisions (which has a tax credit in it that specifically benefits a Brookfield-owned company), and by giving preferential treatment by meeting personally with Brookfield’s COO Justin Beber (See submission Part VI).

7. Again, closing the two biggest loopholes in the COIA, and banning not-blind trusts and unethical smokescreens and business investments, are the top priorities and can be done effectively. The loopholes mean the COIA doesn’t apply to 99% of decisions and actions of office holders, and their sham trusts and screens allow them to secretly profit from their decisions (See submission Part VII).

8. In addition to PM Carney, many other Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff and top government officials have sham “not-blind” trusts (See submission Part VIII).

9. In addition to PM Carney, many other Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff and top government officials have so-called “ethics screens” that are unethical smokescreens (See submission Part IX).

“Prime Minister Carney has as many financial conflicts of interest as Donald Trump, and Canada’s federal ethics law and enforcement system are so loophole-filled and weak that Carney is allowed profit from his decisions as much as Trump,” said Conacher. “The weak enforcement system has also failed to prevent Carney from participating in discussions and decisions that the evidence shows violated the federal ethics law.”

“Canada’s political ethics laws and codes for Cabinet ministers, their staff and top government officials are full of loopholes that allow them to secretly profit financially from their decisions, and are weaker than the rules for senators and federal government employees, and as weak as the rules for backbench MPs, which makes no sense at all,” said Conacher.  “Hopefully, the House Ethics Committee will make strong, comprehensive recommendations in its report for key changes to finally close all the loopholes in all federal political ethics laws and codes, and strengthen enforcement and establish mandatory, significant penalties for all violations, so politicians and their staff and top government officials are no longer allowed to make unethical, self-interested decisions or profit from their decisions in secret, and are held publicly accountable and penalized for violations.”

The Conservatives and Bloc together currently have a majority on the Ethics Committee and all other House Committees.  On March 31st, Prime Minister Mark Carney stated publicly that he would not prorogue Parliament or restructure House committees if the Liberals obtained a majority, which they have through dishonest, unethical floor-crossings by five MPs.

Prime Minister Mark Carney also needs to re-enact publicly the PM Code for ministers and their staff covering accountability, ethics, fundraising, relationships with lobbyists etc.  The PM Code sets out very important ethics rules that the Ethics Commissioner has stated repeatedly are enforceable requirements that define in detail key measures in the COIA.  The version of the PM Code on the PM’s website is from November 2015, and Carney has said nothing about it since becoming PM, including nothing in his May 21, 2025 Mandate Letter to Cabinet.  Click here to see details about the PM Code.

“If Prime Minister Carney doesn’t re-enact the code for ministers in his own name, or weakens or cancels it, it will gut Canada’s already weak, loophole-filled government ethics law, and add to his negligently weak record and attitude so far concerning ethics,” said Conacher.

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws to ensure democratic good government, including closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes, decreasing the donation limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current annual individual donation limit of $3,550 (which increases by $50 each year) is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make a top donation), closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act, and strengthening the whistleblower protection law.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign

Ethics law for PM, Cabinet ministers, their staff and top government officials has no penalties for violations of ethics rules – but PM can suspend, demote or fire any Deputy Minister as they all serve at his and Cabinet’s pleasure

In contrast, ethics code for federal government employees has penalties for violations including being fired – ethics law should have mandatory penalties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 14, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Prime Minister Mark Carney to penalize Department of Defence Deputy Minister Christiane Fox because she violated Canada’s federal government ethics law by, in her former position as  Deputy Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), giving preferential treatment to someone she and her husband had past direct connections with by improperly intervening in and trying to influence the hiring of that person even though he wasn’t qualified for the position at IRCC.

Federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein issued a ruling last week finding her guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), which applies to the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, their staff and almost 3,000 of the top Cabinet-appointed federal government officials.

Democracy Watch also called on the House Ethics Committee, which is completing its first review since 2012 of the ethics law, to recommend a sliding scale of significant, mandatory penalties for violations of key ethics rules in the COIA.  The Committee has met behind closed doors six times since February 23rd considering its draft report on recommendations for closing huge loopholes in the COIA and for strengthening enforcement of the law, including establishing penalties for ethics violations.

Democracy Watch’s testimony before the Ethics Committee on October 1, 2025, and first submission to the Committee in November (en français), called on the Committee to recommend closing a “dirty dozen” unethical loopholes and seven key changes to strengthen enforcement of the COIA, including establishing a sliding scale of mandatory, significant penalties for violations so people like Fox are not let off without any penalty as many others have been in the past including former Prime Minister Trudeau (twice) and past and still current Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc.

Have the Liberal MPs on the Ethics Committee deliberately delayed the finalizing of the report for six meetings with the hope that they would get a majority government through unethical floor-crossings and yesterday’s by-elections and, after that, prorogue Parliament or pass a resolution in the House to give the Liberals a majority of seats on each House committee so they could control what the report says?  On March 31st, Prime Minister Mark Carney stated publicly that he would not prorogue Parliament or restructure House committees if the Liberals obtain a majority.  In any case, the Liberals won’t have a majority of seats until the three new MPs actually enter Parliament which won’t likely happen for another week or so, which gives the Ethics Committee ample time to complete its report on the COIA.

Concerning penalizing Deputy Minister Fox, Prime Minister Carney can suspend with pay, suspend without pay, demote or fire any Cabinet minister, Cabinet staff, Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister or Associate Deputy Minister for any reason, including an ethics violation, as they all serve at his and Cabinet’s pleasure.  The PM can also impose these penalties on any of the hundreds of other top government officials who serve at his and Cabinet’s pleasure.

If the PM does not penalize Fox, she will not face any other penalty.  Currently, the Ethics Commissioner cannot impose monetary penalties for violations of the conflict-of-interest prohibition in the COIA that Fox violated, nor can the Commissioner impose monetary penalties for any of the other key conflict of interest and ethics prohibitions in the COIA.  Also, the Commissioner cannot recommend any other sanctions. The Commissioner can issue a compliance order, but that is not a penalty or sanction, it is just an order to comply with the COIA in the future.

The Ethics Commissioner can only impose a penalty for violating the requirements in the Act to disclose accurately to the Commissioner (and, in some cases, publicly): assets and liabilities; gifts received worth more than $200; job offers, recusals, outside activities, travel on a private plane, and; details concerning a blind trust. The maximum allowable penalty for violating these disclosure requirements is the ridiculously low amount of $500.

Ethics Commissioner von Finckenstein only proposed in his 2024-2025 Annual Report (pp. 9-10) increasing the fine for violating the disclosure requirements in COIA from maximum $500 to maximum $3,000, which is still a ridiculously low amount that will do very little to discourage violations given the Commissioner is not required to impose the maximum fine, and given almost all office holders covered by the law are paid more than $200,000 a year. Incredibly, he did not recommend any penalty for violating the conflict-of-interest prohibitions in the COIA, and his failure to do that was simply negligent.

In direct contrast, the Values and Ethics Code and Directive on Conflict of Interest, which the federal Cabinet imposed 30 years ago on all federal government employees (other than the people covered by the COIA), do not have the loopholes in them that the COIA has, and section 7 of the Directive sets out significant penalties for violations, which shows clearly that the loopholes can be closed and penalties added in the COIA.

Deputy Ministers are the top enforcement officer of the Directive for employees in their department, so Deputy Minister Fox could penalize an employee at the Department of Defence, or could have penalized an employee at IRCC, for doing what she did.

“If Prime Minister Carney doesn’t penalize his deputy minister even though she violated one of the most important laws that ensures democratic good government, he will show yet again that he doesn’t care about governing with integrity, as he has already shown by having an ongoing, significant financial conflict of interest due to the millions of dollars of stock options he knows he owns in Brookfield’s conglomerate of companies, and by lying to voters about his stock options during last year’s federal election, and by accepting floor-crossing MPs to the Liberal caucus,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and PhD in ethics, political finance and lobbying law.

“Incredibly, and deeply hypocritically, while federal Cabinet ministers imposed conflict of interest rules on all federal government employees with penalties including being fired for violations, they didn’t include any penalties for violations of the conflict of interest rules in the ethics law that applies to themselves, their staff, deputy ministers and other top government officials,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and PhD in ethics, political finance and lobbying law. “This is one of many loopholes and flaws that make the federal ethics law almost completely ineffective at stopping the most powerful people in the federal government from acting unethically, and hopefully the House Ethics Committee will recommend closing all the loopholes, correcting all the flaws, and establishing a sliding scale of significant, mandatory penalties for violations of the ethics law in its upcoming report on the law.”

Similar loopholes exist in the MP Code and the Senate Code and those loopholes also need to be closed, and enforcement of those codes also needs to be strengthened, including by adding mandatory, significant penalties for violations.

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws to ensure democratic good government, including closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes, decreasing the donation limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current annual individual donation limit of $3,500 (which increases by $50 each year) is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make a top donation), closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act, and strengthening the whistleblower protection law.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign

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