All five promises must be fully kept, and five other key measures enacted (some of which U.S. enacted decades ago), to ensure banks pay their fair share in taxes, and to stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse

Big Six Banks gouged out record profits of $57.7 billion in 2021 – close to triple their 2010 profits, and higher than all similar banks worldwide

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 12, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, following the release last week of the federal government’s 2022 Budget, Democracy Watch called on the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to include in the budget bill not only the three promised measures mentioned in the budget, but also the two other measures also promised in the last election, and called for by 120,000 voters who have signed on to Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign or Change.org petition.

The campaign also calls on Finance Minister Freeland to enact five other key measures to close bank tax loopholes, reign in excessive executive pay, and actually stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse of customers (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes). A recent national poll also showed 70% of Canadians want governments to take these kind of actions.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks reported, yet again, record-high 2021 annual profits totalling $57.7 billion, almost triple their 2010 profits, and double-digit hikes in their 2022 first-quarter profits, all reaped through gouging of their customers. Four of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 50 of Fortune’s Global 500 for 2021, and are the 17th (TD), 18th (RBC), 34th (Scotiabank) and 47th (BMO) most profitable financial institutions in the world, and are four of the five most profitable Canadian companies in the Global 500. Canada’s Big 6 Banks also paid their CEOs a total of $74.4 million in 2021 (an average of $12.4 million each) in salary and bonuses (55% higher than in 2008) – See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder.

The Budget proposed to enact the following measures which partially keep three of five promises made by the Liberals in the 2021 election:

1. Impose a temporary excess profits tax on banks and insurance companies that earn more than $1 billion a year (of 15%, for one year only in 2022), and an increase in the annual tax rate for these companies of 1.5%) – the Liberals promised they would impose a higher 3% increase in the annual tax rate (England imposed a more than 8% tax hike on banks in 2011, and Australia increased the tax rate on banks in 2017);
2. Review closing tax loopholes to prevent banks and other financial institutions from pretending to make their money in low-tax countries in order to lower the taxes they pay in Canada (the Liberals promised to close the tax loopholes, not just to review them); and;
3. To establish and require all banks to use “single non-profit, external complaints body” (the Liberals promised a single ombudsperson “who has the power to impose binding arbitration”).

The Budget did not contain the following two other promised key bank accountability measures called for by 120,000 voters (all five promises were also listed in Minister Freeland’s mandate letter):

1. Require financial institutions to offer options to delay consumer debt payments when needed, and;
2. Empower the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to “review the prices charged by banks and impose changes if they are excessive” (which must also include reviewing interest rates, as Australia did in 2017).

(See Backgrounder on Weak Enforcement of Financial Consumer and Investment Protection)

“As usual, the Trudeau Liberals spouted half-truths with their election promises, and are now proposing half-measures that only partially keep their promises, as Finance Minister Freeland continues to protect the big bank’s gouging profits and their executives’ multi-million salaries instead of making the changes needed to actually require the banks to pay their fair share of taxes, to stop the banks from paying their extra taxes by gouging 30 million bank customers even more, and also to effectively protect bank customers from discrimination and other abuses,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

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

The following additional five key measures are needed to actually stop gouging and abuse, to stop discrimination in bank lending and service, and ensure the banks serve everyone across Canada fairly and well at fair prices and interest rates (See the Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes):

1. Require banks and insurance companies to promote a national financial consumer organization, and a national individual investor organization (as recommended in 1998 by the Liberal-controlled MacKay Task Force, House Finance and Senate Banking committees);
2. Require the banks to disclose detailed information annually about their lending and service records (as the U.S. has required banks to do for 30 years, including the U.S. banks that 4 of Canada’s Big 6 Banks own), categorized by race, gender, income level and neighbourhood, and require corrective action whenever banks discriminate against customers;
3. Require every bank to have basic branches in every neighbourhood (including through partnering with Canada Post outlets for postal banking, as TD has started to do);
4. Require the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to do unannounced, mystery-shopper audits to find violations of consumer protection laws, and to identify all violators and fine them a minimum of $1 million up to a maximum of $50 million, and;
5. Require the Big Banks and other financial institutions to cut the pay of their CEO and other top executives to no more than 40 times their lowest paid employee (as in some European countries).

– 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 Big Banks Coronavirus Accountability Campaign

All five promises must be fully kept, and five other key measures enacted (some of which U.S. enacted decades ago), to ensure banks pay their fair share in taxes, and to stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse

Big Six Banks gouged out record profits of $57.7 billion in 2021 – close to triple their 2010 profits, and higher than all similar banks worldwide

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 12, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, following the release last week of the federal government’s 2022 Budget, Democracy Watch called on the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to include in the budget bill not only the three promised measures mentioned in the budget, but also the two other measures also promised in the last election, and called for by 120,000 voters who have signed on to Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign or Change.org petition.

The campaign also calls on Finance Minister Freeland to enact five other key measures to close bank tax loopholes, reign in excessive executive pay, and actually stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse of customers (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes). A recent national poll also showed 70% of Canadians want governments to take these kind of actions.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks reported, yet again, record-high 2021 annual profits totalling $57.7 billion, almost triple their 2010 profits, and double-digit hikes in their 2022 first-quarter profits, all reaped through gouging of their customers. Four of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 50 of Fortune’s Global 500 for 2021, and are the 17th (TD), 18th (RBC), 34th (Scotiabank) and 47th (BMO) most profitable financial institutions in the world, and are four of the five most profitable Canadian companies in the Global 500. Canada’s Big 6 Banks also paid their CEOs a total of $74.4 million in 2021 (an average of $12.4 million each) in salary and bonuses (55% higher than in 2008) – See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder.

The Budget proposed to enact the following measures which partially keep three of five promises made by the Liberals in the 2021 election:

1. Impose a temporary excess profits tax on banks and insurance companies that earn more than $1 billion a year (of 15%, for one year only in 2022), and an increase in the annual tax rate for these companies of 1.5%) – the Liberals promised they would impose a higher 3% increase in the annual tax rate (England imposed a more than 8% tax hike on banks in 2011, and Australia increased the tax rate on banks in 2017);
2. Review closing tax loopholes to prevent banks and other financial institutions from pretending to make their money in low-tax countries in order to lower the taxes they pay in Canada (the Liberals promised to close the tax loopholes, not just to review them); and;
3. To establish and require all banks to use “single non-profit, external complaints body” (the Liberals promised a single ombudsperson “who has the power to impose binding arbitration”).

The Budget did not contain the following two other promised key bank accountability measures called for by 120,000 voters (all five promises were also listed in Minister Freeland’s mandate letter):

1. Require financial institutions to offer options to delay consumer debt payments when needed, and;
2. Empower the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to “review the prices charged by banks and impose changes if they are excessive” (which must also include reviewing interest rates, as Australia did in 2017).

(See Backgrounder on Weak Enforcement of Financial Consumer and Investment Protection)

“As usual, the Trudeau Liberals spouted half-truths with their election promises, and are now proposing half-measures that only partially keep their promises, as Finance Minister Freeland continues to protect the big bank’s gouging profits and their executives’ multi-million salaries instead of making the changes needed to actually require the banks to pay their fair share of taxes, to stop the banks from paying their extra taxes by gouging 30 million bank customers even more, and also to effectively protect bank customers from discrimination and other abuses,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

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

The following additional five key measures are needed to actually stop gouging and abuse, to stop discrimination in bank lending and service, and ensure the banks serve everyone across Canada fairly and well at fair prices and interest rates (See the Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes):

1. Require banks and insurance companies to promote a national financial consumer organization, and a national individual investor organization (as recommended in 1998 by the Liberal-controlled MacKay Task Force, House Finance and Senate Banking committees);
2. Require the banks to disclose detailed information annually about their lending and service records (as the U.S. has required banks to do for 30 years, including the U.S. banks that 4 of Canada’s Big 6 Banks own), categorized by race, gender, income level and neighbourhood, and require corrective action whenever banks discriminate against customers;
3. Require every bank to have basic branches in every neighbourhood (including through partnering with Canada Post outlets for postal banking, as TD has started to do);
4. Require the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to do unannounced, mystery-shopper audits to find violations of consumer protection laws, and to identify all violators and fine them a minimum of $1 million up to a maximum of $50 million, and;
5. Require the Big Banks and other financial institutions to cut the pay of their CEO and other top executives to no more than 40 times their lowest paid employee (as in some European countries).

– 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 Big Banks Coronavirus Accountability Campaign

Big Six Banks gouged out record profits of $57.7 billion in 2021 – close to triple their 2010 profits, and higher than all similar banks worldwide

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 4, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, following Canada’s Big 6 Banks reporting, yet again, record-high 2021 annual profits that are almost triple their 2010 profits, and double-digit hikes in their 2022 first-quarter profits, all reaped through gouging of their customers, Democracy Watch called on Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to use this week’s federal budget bill to make the key changes the Trudeau Liberals promised in their 2021 election platform to tax excess bank profits (but permanently not just for a few years), close tax reduction loopholes the Big Banks exploit, and to stop Big Bank gouging and abuse of customers.

Four of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 50 of Fortune’s Global 500 for 2021, and are the 17th (TD), 18th (RBC), 34th (Scotiabank) and 47th (BMO) most profitable financial institutions in the world (more profitable than most other larger banks) and are four of the five most profitable Canadian companies in the Global 500 (See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder).

The excess profits tax and tax loophole closure changes, and changes to stop gouging and abuse of bank customers, that the Liberals promised in their 2021 election platform are among the 11 Key Bank Accountability Changes called for by Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign and Change.org petition that a combined total of more than 120,000 voters have endorsed. A recent national poll also showed 70% of Canadians want governments to take these kind of actions.

The Liberals’ election platform promised the following five key measures called for by these 120,000 voters (all the promises were also listed in Minister Freeland’s mandate letter):

1. A temporary excess profits tax on banks and insurance companies that earn more than $1 billion a year (which should be permanent, as England has had since 2011, and Australia since 2017);
2. Close tax loopholes to prevent banks and other financial institutions from pretending to make their money in low-tax countries in order to lower the taxes they pay in Canada;
3. Require financial institutions to offer options to delay consumer debt payments when needed;
4. Require all banks to use one ombudsperson who has the power to impose binding arbitration, and;
5. Empower the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to “review the prices charged by banks and impose changes if they are excessive” (which must also include reviewing interest rates, as Australia did in 2017).

(See Backgrounder on Weak Enforcement of Financial Consumer and Investment Protection)

“Will the federal Liberals continue to protect big bank’s gouging profits and their executives’ multi-million salaries, or will they make the changes they promised to increase protections from gouging and abuse for 30 million bank customers, and to require the banks to pay their fair share of taxes?” asked Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The following other key measures are needed to actually stop gouging and abuse, and to stop discrimination in bank lending and service, and to wipe out predatory lending companies and ensure the banks serve everyone across Canada fairly and well at fair prices and interest rates (See the Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes):

1. Require banks and insurance companies to promote a national financial consumer organization, and a national individual investor organization, in their emails and mailings to their customers and investors, to give financial consumers and investors across Canada a very easy way to band together, without any cost to the government or financial instutions, to help and protect themselves through joining the organizations (as recommended in 1998 by the Liberal-controlled MacKay Task Force, House Finance and Senate Banking committees);
2. Require the banks to disclose detailed information annually about their lending and service records (as the U.S. has required banks to do for 30 years, including the U.S. banks that 4 of Canada’s Big 6 Banks own), categorized by race, gender, income level and neighbourhood, and require corrective action whenever banks discriminate against customers;
3. Require every bank to have basic branches in every neighbourhood (including through partnering with Canada Post outlets for postal banking, as TD has started to do);
4. Require the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to do unannounced, mystery-shopper audits to find violations of consumer protection laws, and to identify all violators and and fine them a minimum of $1 million up to a maximum of $50 million, and;
5. Require the Big Banks and other financial institutions to cut the pay of their CEO and other top executives to no more than 40 times their lowest paid employee (as in some European countries).

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

– 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 Big Banks Coronavirus Accountability Campaign

Big Six Banks gouged out record profits of $57.7 billion in 2021 – close to triple their 2010 profits, and higher than all similar banks worldwide

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 4, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, following Canada’s Big 6 Banks reporting, yet again, record-high 2021 annual profits that are almost triple their 2010 profits, and double-digit hikes in their 2022 first-quarter profits, all reaped through gouging of their customers, Democracy Watch called on Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to use this week’s federal budget bill to make the key changes the Trudeau Liberals promised in their 2021 election platform to tax excess bank profits (but permanently not just for a few years), close tax reduction loopholes the Big Banks exploit, and to stop Big Bank gouging and abuse of customers.

Four of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 50 of Fortune’s Global 500 for 2021, and are the 17th (TD), 18th (RBC), 34th (Scotiabank) and 47th (BMO) most profitable financial institutions in the world (more profitable than most other larger banks) and are four of the five most profitable Canadian companies in the Global 500 (See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder).

The excess profits tax and tax loophole closure changes, and changes to stop gouging and abuse of bank customers, that the Liberals promised in their 2021 election platform are among the 11 Key Bank Accountability Changes called for by Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign and Change.org petition that a combined total of more than 120,000 voters have endorsed. A recent national poll also showed 70% of Canadians want governments to take these kind of actions.

The Liberals’ election platform promised the following five key measures called for by these 120,000 voters (all the promises were also listed in Minister Freeland’s mandate letter):

1. A temporary excess profits tax on banks and insurance companies that earn more than $1 billion a year (which should be permanent, as England has had since 2011, and Australia since 2017);
2. Close tax loopholes to prevent banks and other financial institutions from pretending to make their money in low-tax countries in order to lower the taxes they pay in Canada;
3. Require financial institutions to offer options to delay consumer debt payments when needed;
4. Require all banks to use one ombudsperson who has the power to impose binding arbitration, and;
5. Empower the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to “review the prices charged by banks and impose changes if they are excessive” (which must also include reviewing interest rates, as Australia did in 2017).

(See Backgrounder on Weak Enforcement of Financial Consumer and Investment Protection)

“Will the federal Liberals continue to protect big bank’s gouging profits and their executives’ multi-million salaries, or will they make the changes they promised to increase protections from gouging and abuse for 30 million bank customers, and to require the banks to pay their fair share of taxes?” asked Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The following other key measures are needed to actually stop gouging and abuse, and to stop discrimination in bank lending and service, and to wipe out predatory lending companies and ensure the banks serve everyone across Canada fairly and well at fair prices and interest rates (See the Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes):

1. Require banks and insurance companies to promote a national financial consumer organization, and a national individual investor organization, in their emails and mailings to their customers and investors, to give financial consumers and investors across Canada a very easy way to band together, without any cost to the government or financial instutions, to help and protect themselves through joining the organizations (as recommended in 1998 by the Liberal-controlled MacKay Task Force, House Finance and Senate Banking committees);
2. Require the banks to disclose detailed information annually about their lending and service records (as the U.S. has required banks to do for 30 years, including the U.S. banks that 4 of Canada’s Big 6 Banks own), categorized by race, gender, income level and neighbourhood, and require corrective action whenever banks discriminate against customers;
3. Require every bank to have basic branches in every neighbourhood (including through partnering with Canada Post outlets for postal banking, as TD has started to do);
4. Require the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to do unannounced, mystery-shopper audits to find violations of consumer protection laws, and to identify all violators and and fine them a minimum of $1 million up to a maximum of $50 million, and;
5. Require the Big Banks and other financial institutions to cut the pay of their CEO and other top executives to no more than 40 times their lowest paid employee (as in some European countries).

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

– 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 Big Banks Coronavirus Accountability Campaign

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, March 22, 2022

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) to come out from behind closed doors at their meeting today discussing changes to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (“MP Code”), and to invite further experts and hold more open meetings before making changes to the Code.

Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, filed its submission to PROC on February 27th calling for changes to close huge loopholes in the MP Code that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a financial conflict of interest, and that allow MPs and their staff to accept unethical gifts and favours, and also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and for mandatory penalties to discourage violations.

The Committee is undertaking a secretive, rushed, superficial review of the Code for the first time in seven years (two years overdue). It held only three brief public meetings before it first went behind closed doors on Thursday, March 3rd to begin voting on proposed Code changes.

The public has a clear right to know how each party’s MPs are voting on Code changes, given the Code sets out key rules on all MPs’ decisions and interactions with voters.

The Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, but was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009, and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

Click here to see the Backgrounder listing the 10 key changes needed to make the MP Code effective at preventing, prohibiting and penalizing conflicts of interest and unethical gift- and favour-trading.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “MPs are rushing their first review of their ethics code in seven years and, unless they slow down and do their job properly and publicly, they will likely once again fail to close loopholes or strengthen enforcement or penalties, leaving it open for MPs to continue to corrupt federal politics by being inside lobbyists for their own interests, and the interests of their families, friends and their investments in big businesses.”

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him).

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to issue a clear guideline for every rule, investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws, including: closing similarly huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (which applies to Cabinet ministers, staff and appointees) and the Senate Ethics Code; closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes; decreasing the donation and loan limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current donation and loan limit of $3,300 is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make the maximum donation); closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act; strengthening the whistleblower protection law, and; changing the appointment process for the Ethics Commissioner and other democratic good government watchdogs (given MPs currently have a clear conflict of interest as they choose their own watchdogs) and banning re-appointments (as that gives a watchdog an incentive to please MPs in order to secure a re-appointment).

– 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 and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, March 22, 2022

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) to come out from behind closed doors at their meeting today discussing changes to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (“MP Code”), and to invite further experts and hold more open meetings before making changes to the Code.

Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, filed its submission to PROC on February 27th calling for changes to close huge loopholes in the MP Code that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a financial conflict of interest, and that allow MPs and their staff to accept unethical gifts and favours, and also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and for mandatory penalties to discourage violations.

The Committee is undertaking a secretive, rushed, superficial review of the Code for the first time in seven years (two years overdue). It held only three brief public meetings before it first went behind closed doors on Thursday, March 3rd to begin voting on proposed Code changes.

The public has a clear right to know how each party’s MPs are voting on Code changes, given the Code sets out key rules on all MPs’ decisions and interactions with voters.

The Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, but was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009, and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

Click here to see the Backgrounder listing the 10 key changes needed to make the MP Code effective at preventing, prohibiting and penalizing conflicts of interest and unethical gift- and favour-trading.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “MPs are rushing their first review of their ethics code in seven years and, unless they slow down and do their job properly and publicly, they will likely once again fail to close loopholes or strengthen enforcement or penalties, leaving it open for MPs to continue to corrupt federal politics by being inside lobbyists for their own interests, and the interests of their families, friends and their investments in big businesses.”

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him).

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to issue a clear guideline for every rule, investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws, including: closing similarly huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (which applies to Cabinet ministers, staff and appointees) and the Senate Ethics Code; closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes; decreasing the donation and loan limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current donation and loan limit of $3,300 is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make the maximum donation); closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act; strengthening the whistleblower protection law, and; changing the appointment process for the Ethics Commissioner and other democratic good government watchdogs (given MPs currently have a clear conflict of interest as they choose their own watchdogs) and banning re-appointments (as that gives a watchdog an incentive to please MPs in order to secure a re-appointment).

– 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 and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, March 1, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, released its submission to the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee calling for changes to close huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a financial conflict of interest, and allow MPs and their staff to accept unethical gifts and favours, and also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and for mandatory penalties to discourage violations.

The Committee is rushing a superficial, long-overdue review of the Code – having held only three brief meetings it will go behind closed doors this Thursday to review possible proposals for Code changes.

The Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, but was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009, and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

Click here to see the Backgrounder listing the 10 key changes needed to make the MP Code effective at preventing, prohibiting and penalizing conflicts of interest and unethical gift- and favour-trading.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “MPs are rushing their first review of their ethics code in seven years and, unless they slow down and do their job properly, they will likely once again fail to close loopholes or strengthen enforcement or penalties, leaving it open for MPs to continue to corrupt federal politics by being inside lobbyists for their own interests, and the interests of their families, friends and their investments in big businesses.”

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him.

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to issue a clear guideline for every rule, investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws, including closing similarly huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (which applies to Cabinet ministers, staff and appointees) and the Senate Ethics Code, closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes, decreasing the donation limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current donation limit of $3,300 is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make the maximum donation), closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act, strengthening the whistleblower protection law, and changing the way that the Ethics Commissioner and other democratic good government watchdogs are appointed (given MPs currently have a clear conflict of interest as they choose their own watchdogs) and banning re-appointments (as that gives a watchdog an incentive to please MPs in order to secure a re-appointment).

– 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

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, March 1, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, released its submission to the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee calling for changes to close huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a financial conflict of interest, and allow MPs and their staff to accept unethical gifts and favours, and also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and for mandatory penalties to discourage violations.

The Committee is rushing a superficial, long-overdue review of the Code – having held only three brief meetings it will go behind closed doors this Thursday to review possible proposals for Code changes.

The Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, but was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009, and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

Click here to see the Backgrounder listing the 10 key changes needed to make the MP Code effective at preventing, prohibiting and penalizing conflicts of interest and unethical gift- and favour-trading.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “MPs are rushing their first review of their ethics code in seven years and, unless they slow down and do their job properly, they will likely once again fail to close loopholes or strengthen enforcement or penalties, leaving it open for MPs to continue to corrupt federal politics by being inside lobbyists for their own interests, and the interests of their families, friends and their investments in big businesses.”

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him.

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to issue a clear guideline for every rule, investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws, including closing similarly huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (which applies to Cabinet ministers, staff and appointees) and the Senate Ethics Code, closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes, decreasing the donation limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current donation limit of $3,300 is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make the maximum donation), closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act, strengthening the whistleblower protection law, and changing the way that the Ethics Commissioner and other democratic good government watchdogs are appointed (given MPs currently have a clear conflict of interest as they choose their own watchdogs) and banning re-appointments (as that gives a watchdog an incentive to please MPs in order to secure a re-appointment).

– 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

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 15, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, is calling for key changes during testimony from 12 noon-1 pm before the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee to close huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a conflict of interest, and allow them to accept unethical gifts and favours, and is also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and penalties to discourage violations.

The Committee is conducting a long overdue review of the Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009 , and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The big question is whether MPs will finally close these loopholes, and strengthen enforcement and penalties, or will they again add more loopholes to their ethics code as they have after past reviews.”

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him.

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

The 10 key changes needed to make the MP Code effective at preventing conflicts of interest and unethical gift and favour trading are as follows:

1. Add a rule to require MPs and their staff to tell the truth to stop the misleading spin that regularly and fatally undermines reasonable policy debates and discussions, and another rule to prohibit MPs from switching parties in between elections except when their party leader violates the law or breaks significant election promises (and, generally, expand the Code to cover MPs as soon as their election is confirmed by Elections Canada, and to cover MP staff who, because they are not covered by the Code, can currently do the things that MPs are prohibited from doing on their MP’s behalf, and can also accept all gifts and favours);
2. Close the huge loophole in the definition of “private interest” (in ss. 3(2) and (3)) to cover all conflicts of interest, not only specific financial conflicts, because the loophole means the Code doesn’t apply to 95% of decisions MPs participate in, and that allows them to take part in decisions when they, their family or friends can profit from the decision (and extend the Code to cover the private interests of extended family and friends of MPs and their staff);
3. Prohibit MPs and their staff from having investments in businesses (which is allowed under ss. 17 and 24(3)(j)), and from having blind trusts, (both of which the Parker Commission recommended way back in 1987) and change s. 7 to prohibit them from other outside activities, because they create clear conflicts of interest (other than professional requirements like doctors who have to practise a specific amount each year in order to retain their licence);
4. Require MPs to work full-time, and to disclose a summary of their work activities, including communications with anyone or any entity who is trying to influence their decisions, in an online, searchable database;
5. Change the gifts and benefits rule to ban MPs and their staff from accepting anything from anyone (including volunteer assistance under ss. 3(1)), who is trying to influence their decisions because even small gifts influence decisions, and delete s. 15 of the Code to ban “sponsored travel” because it is an unethical gift and essentially a form of legalized bribery;
6. Add a new rule (as a restriction on s. 5 of the Code) to prohibit MPs from giving preferential treatment to anyone who has given them a gift or assisted them in any way;
7. Require MPs to disclose in the Public Registry their assets and liabilities worth more than $1,000 (the current disclosure requirement is for everything worth more than $10,000, which is much too high), and to disclose details about their past five year’s work before they became an MP to make it easy to track which organizations and issues they have ties to, and to disclose in the Public Registry which members of their extended family they have close relationships with including being aware of their business, investments and other private interests;
8. Prohibit MPs and their staff from communicating with their former colleagues and government officials for a sliding-scale time period after they leave depending on what positions and committees they served in and how close their relationships are with Cabinet ministers, officials etc., and require them to disclose their post-activities online during this time period in a searchable database;
9. Require MPs and their staff to take a formal training course when they first start their position, and annually, and require the Ethics Commissioner to publish online a summary of his/her advice each time advice is given that covers a new situation to any person covered by the Code, and to publish online all advisory opinions and guidelines issued by the Commissioner, and require the Ethics Commissioner to regularly conduct an audit of a randomly selected sample of MPs’ financial statements and activities;
10. Give members of the public, who employ and pay all MPs and their staff, the right to file a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner, and require the Commissioner to investigate and issue a public ruling on every complaint and situation s/he becomes aware of, and to impose a sliding scale of penalties depending the seriousness of the violation, and add a rule that anyone is allowed to challenge any decision by the Commissioner in court.

Many other changes are needed to the Conflict of Interest Act (which applies to Cabinet ministers, staff and appointees), and to other federal laws, including the whistleblower protection law, to stop unethical actions, wealthy interests, secret, unethical lobbying, and excessive government secrecy overall, from undermining good public policy-making.

– 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

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 15, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, is calling for key changes during testimony from 12 noon-1 pm before the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee to close huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a conflict of interest, and allow them to accept unethical gifts and favours, and is also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and penalties to discourage violations.

The Committee is conducting a long overdue review of the Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009 , and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The big question is whether MPs will finally close these loopholes, and strengthen enforcement and penalties, or will they again add more loopholes to their ethics code as they have after past reviews.”

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him.

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

The 10 key changes needed to make the MP Code effective at preventing conflicts of interest and unethical gift and favour trading are as follows:

1. Add a rule to require MPs and their staff to tell the truth to stop the misleading spin that regularly and fatally undermines reasonable policy debates and discussions, and another rule to prohibit MPs from switching parties in between elections except when their party leader violates the law or breaks significant election promises (and, generally, expand the Code to cover MPs as soon as their election is confirmed by Elections Canada, and to cover MP staff who, because they are not covered by the Code, can currently do the things that MPs are prohibited from doing on their MP’s behalf, and can also accept all gifts and favours);
2. Close the huge loophole in the definition of “private interest” (in ss. 3(2) and (3)) to cover all conflicts of interest, not only specific financial conflicts, because the loophole means the Code doesn’t apply to 95% of decisions MPs participate in, and that allows them to take part in decisions when they, their family or friends can profit from the decision (and extend the Code to cover the private interests of extended family and friends of MPs and their staff);
3. Prohibit MPs and their staff from having investments in businesses (which is allowed under ss. 17 and 24(3)(j)), and from having blind trusts, (both of which the Parker Commission recommended way back in 1987) and change s. 7 to prohibit them from other outside activities, because they create clear conflicts of interest (other than professional requirements like doctors who have to practise a specific amount each year in order to retain their licence);
4. Require MPs to work full-time, and to disclose a summary of their work activities, including communications with anyone or any entity who is trying to influence their decisions, in an online, searchable database;
5. Change the gifts and benefits rule to ban MPs and their staff from accepting anything from anyone (including volunteer assistance under ss. 3(1)), who is trying to influence their decisions because even small gifts influence decisions, and delete s. 15 of the Code to ban “sponsored travel” because it is an unethical gift and essentially a form of legalized bribery;
6. Add a new rule (as a restriction on s. 5 of the Code) to prohibit MPs from giving preferential treatment to anyone who has given them a gift or assisted them in any way;
7. Require MPs to disclose in the Public Registry their assets and liabilities worth more than $1,000 (the current disclosure requirement is for everything worth more than $10,000, which is much too high), and to disclose details about their past five year’s work before they became an MP to make it easy to track which organizations and issues they have ties to, and to disclose in the Public Registry which members of their extended family they have close relationships with including being aware of their business, investments and other private interests;
8. Prohibit MPs and their staff from communicating with their former colleagues and government officials for a sliding-scale time period after they leave depending on what positions and committees they served in and how close their relationships are with Cabinet ministers, officials etc., and require them to disclose their post-activities online during this time period in a searchable database;
9. Require MPs and their staff to take a formal training course when they first start their position, and annually, and require the Ethics Commissioner to publish online a summary of his/her advice each time advice is given that covers a new situation to any person covered by the Code, and to publish online all advisory opinions and guidelines issued by the Commissioner, and require the Ethics Commissioner to regularly conduct an audit of a randomly selected sample of MPs’ financial statements and activities;
10. Give members of the public, who employ and pay all MPs and their staff, the right to file a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner, and require the Commissioner to investigate and issue a public ruling on every complaint and situation s/he becomes aware of, and to impose a sliding scale of penalties depending the seriousness of the violation, and add a rule that anyone is allowed to challenge any decision by the Commissioner in court.

Many other changes are needed to the Conflict of Interest Act (which applies to Cabinet ministers, staff and appointees), and to other federal laws, including the whistleblower protection law, to stop unethical actions, wealthy interests, secret, unethical lobbying, and excessive government secrecy overall, from undermining good public policy-making.

– 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

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

The following op-ed by Democracy Watch Co-founder Duff Conacher was published in slightly edited form in the Hill Times on January 19, 2022.

---

The federal Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, and federal ethics rules in the Conflict of Interest Act, MPs’ and Senators’ ethics codes, and public servants’ code, continue to be a collective sad joke because of huge loopholes, fatal flaws, and weak, secretive enforcement by the Ethics Commissioner, Lobbying Commissioner, deputy ministers and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

These commissioners are handpicked by the Cabinet through secretive processes that the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled are biased. The appointment process for these and all other federal democratic good government watchdogs, including judges, needs to be made much more independent of Cabinet to remove the taint of self-interested partisanship that undermines public confidence.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that government ethics-related laws and codes must set high transparency and integrity standards, and be strictly and strongly enforced, or Canada will not be a democracy. More than 25 years later, we are still far from meeting the Supreme Court’s standard.

The loophole-filled, flawed federal rules: 1. allow for secret, unethical lobbying, mainly by big business lobbyists; 2. allow Cabinet ministers, their staff, top government officials, MPs and senators all to participate in decisions that they and their family members can profit or benefit from in secret, and; 3. do not even cover staff of MPs and senators.

Only one of the loopholes is usually mentioned in articles about the Lobbying Act – the rule that allows an employee of a business to lobby in secret without registering as long as they don’t lobby more than 20 percent of their work time. The House Ethics Committee unanimously called for that loophole to be closed 10 years ago, and again last June.

But there are other huge loopholes the Committee continues to ignore. Businesses often lobby enforcement agencies about the enforcement of a law or regulation – none of that lobbying is required to be disclosed. Many businesses also lobby for tax credits but in a highly questionable enforcement policy the Commissioner of Lobbying ruled that the credits are not a “financial benefit” (even though they clearly are) and, therefore, that lobbying also does not have to be disclosed.

No one is required to register and disclose their lobbying if they are not paid for it. Hired-gun “consultant” lobbyists can easily have their contract say their clients will pay them for advice, and then lobby for them in secret for free. This loophole also allows unpaid board members and retired executives of businesses and other organizations to lobby in secret.

Another loophole is that anyone can secretly lobby senior officials in any federal political party and they can pass on your demands to their party’s politicians.

Even if a person is required to register their lobbying, only oral, pre-arranged communications that they initiate with office holders are required to be disclosed. Emails, letters, and any communications initiated by the office holder (other than about a government financial benefit) can be kept secret.

If you can exploit a loophole so you are not required to register your lobbying, then the ethics rules in the Lobbyists’ Code don’t apply to you and you can do favours for politicians you are lobbying or will lobby, like fundraising and campaigning for them.

Even if you are a registered lobbyist, the Code together with a loophole in the MP and senator ethics codes legalize lobbyists giving MPs the gift of unlimited sponsored travel, and other loopholes allow all federal politicians to accept gifts from friends, even if they are lobbyists.

The Lobbying Commissioner is currently proposing to weaken other Code rules to allow for even more unethical lobbying.

The loopholes also allow federal politicians and officials to leave office and start lobbying federal politicians and government officials the next day, in secret and unregistered. The so-called “five-year ban” in the Lobbying Act only applies to registered lobbyists.

And while there is a cooling-off period in the ethics law for Cabinet ministers and top government officials after they leave office, it is also so full of loopholes that they can start working right away with most lobby groups. The stronger rules that prohibit giving advice based on secret information obtained in office, or taking improper advantage of your former office, have essentially been ignored by the Ethics Commissioner.

The much-too-high political donation and third-party spending limits in the Canada Elections Act, are additional layers in this smelly layer cake of unethical federal political decision-making. They allow people who can afford it to buy influence by donating up to $3,350 annually to each party and its riding associations, and wealthy individuals and lobby groups to spend more than $500,000 supporting parties during election campaigns, up to $1 million in the couple of months before that, and an unlimited amount between elections. Banks, which are regulated by the federal government, are also allowed to buy influence by making unlimited loans to parties and candidates.

Finally, the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are allowed to make secret rulings, both have let many people off for clear violations of the rules and, even if you are found guilty, the only penalty in most cases is a public report. The commissioners should be required to rule publicly on every situation they examine, and to impose significant fines on all violators.

Add it all up and it’s essentially a legalized bribery system of unethical, biased favour-trading – pay to play, cash for access and influence. This is not to say that every federal political decision-making process is undermined by politicians and officials returning favours – only that every process is vulnerable to being tainted, in secret, by serious conflicts of interests.

The key question is, will a critical mass of MPs in the current minority government situation work together to pass a bill to clean up this unethical mess, finally?

To join the call for key changes, go to the Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics CampaignThe following op-ed by Democracy Watch Co-founder Duff Conacher was published in slightly edited form in the Hill Times on January 19, 2022.

---

The federal Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, and federal ethics rules in the Conflict of Interest Act, MPs’ and Senators’ ethics codes, and public servants’ code, continue to be a collective sad joke because of huge loopholes, fatal flaws, and weak, secretive enforcement by the Ethics Commissioner, Lobbying Commissioner, deputy ministers and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

These commissioners are handpicked by the Cabinet through secretive processes that the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled are biased. The appointment process for these and all other federal democratic good government watchdogs, including judges, needs to be made much more independent of Cabinet to remove the taint of self-interested partisanship that undermines public confidence.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that government ethics-related laws and codes must set high transparency and integrity standards, and be strictly and strongly enforced, or Canada will not be a democracy. More than 25 years later, we are still far from meeting the Supreme Court’s standard.

The loophole-filled, flawed federal rules: 1. allow for secret, unethical lobbying, mainly by big business lobbyists; 2. allow Cabinet ministers, their staff, top government officials, MPs and senators all to participate in decisions that they and their family members can profit or benefit from in secret, and; 3. do not even cover staff of MPs and senators.

Only one of the loopholes is usually mentioned in articles about the Lobbying Act – the rule that allows an employee of a business to lobby in secret without registering as long as they don’t lobby more than 20 percent of their work time. The House Ethics Committee unanimously called for that loophole to be closed 10 years ago, and again last June.

But there are other huge loopholes the Committee continues to ignore. Businesses often lobby enforcement agencies about the enforcement of a law or regulation – none of that lobbying is required to be disclosed. Many businesses also lobby for tax credits but in a highly questionable enforcement policy the Commissioner of Lobbying ruled that the credits are not a “financial benefit” (even though they clearly are) and, therefore, that lobbying also does not have to be disclosed.

No one is required to register and disclose their lobbying if they are not paid for it. Hired-gun “consultant” lobbyists can easily have their contract say their clients will pay them for advice, and then lobby for them in secret for free. This loophole also allows unpaid board members and retired executives of businesses and other organizations to lobby in secret.

Another loophole is that anyone can secretly lobby senior officials in any federal political party and they can pass on your demands to their party’s politicians.

Even if a person is required to register their lobbying, only oral, pre-arranged communications that they initiate with office holders are required to be disclosed. Emails, letters, and any communications initiated by the office holder (other than about a government financial benefit) can be kept secret.

If you can exploit a loophole so you are not required to register your lobbying, then the ethics rules in the Lobbyists’ Code don’t apply to you and you can do favours for politicians you are lobbying or will lobby, like fundraising and campaigning for them.

Even if you are a registered lobbyist, the Code together with a loophole in the MP and senator ethics codes legalize lobbyists giving MPs the gift of unlimited sponsored travel, and other loopholes allow all federal politicians to accept gifts from friends, even if they are lobbyists.

The Lobbying Commissioner is currently proposing to weaken other Code rules to allow for even more unethical lobbying.

The loopholes also allow federal politicians and officials to leave office and start lobbying federal politicians and government officials the next day, in secret and unregistered. The so-called “five-year ban” in the Lobbying Act only applies to registered lobbyists.

And while there is a cooling-off period in the ethics law for Cabinet ministers and top government officials after they leave office, it is also so full of loopholes that they can start working right away with most lobby groups. The stronger rules that prohibit giving advice based on secret information obtained in office, or taking improper advantage of your former office, have essentially been ignored by the Ethics Commissioner.

The much-too-high political donation and third-party spending limits in the Canada Elections Act, are additional layers in this smelly layer cake of unethical federal political decision-making. They allow people who can afford it to buy influence by donating up to $3,350 annually to each party and its riding associations, and wealthy individuals and lobby groups to spend more than $500,000 supporting parties during election campaigns, up to $1 million in the couple of months before that, and an unlimited amount between elections. Banks, which are regulated by the federal government, are also allowed to buy influence by making unlimited loans to parties and candidates.

Finally, the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are allowed to make secret rulings, both have let many people off for clear violations of the rules and, even if you are found guilty, the only penalty in most cases is a public report. The commissioners should be required to rule publicly on every situation they examine, and to impose significant fines on all violators.

Add it all up and it’s essentially a legalized bribery system of unethical, biased favour-trading – pay to play, cash for access and influence. This is not to say that every federal political decision-making process is undermined by politicians and officials returning favours – only that every process is vulnerable to being tainted, in secret, by serious conflicts of interests.

The key question is, will a critical mass of MPs in the current minority government situation work together to pass a bill to clean up this unethical mess, finally?

To join the call for key changes, go to the Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.