Please support democracy

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

Author: Bradford

DWatch criticizes so-called Independent Senators Group for planning a kangaroo court hearing to expel Senator Marilou McPhedran for questioning weak, loophole-filled Senate ethics and harassment measures

Posted on by Bradford

Senate Ethics Officer has ignored how several senators’ business board and employee positions and investments violate key ethics code rules

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 18, 2021

OTTAWA –Democracy Watch criticized the so-called “Independent Senators Group” (ISG) for planning to hold a secretive, closed-door hearing today to decide whether to expel Senator Marilou McPhedran for questioning weak, loophole-filled Senate ethics and anti-harassment rules and enforcement.

“If they want to claim to be independent, senators in the so-called Independent Senators Group should have rejected the attempt to use a secretive, kangaroo court process to punish a senator for questioning the Senate’s weak, loophole-filled ethics and anti-harassment measures,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Senators in the ISG should be ashamed for trying to expel Senator McPhedran, and it shows yet again why the Senate should be abolished as senators continue to refuse to reform it in any meaningful ways to make it democratic, ethical and accountable.”

The Senate’s anti-harassment measures, like the measures across the federal government, are far from a best-practice system to protect complainants who blow the whistle on wrongdoing.

In terms of ethics, the Senate’s Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators is full of loopholes, and Senate Ethics Officer Pierre Legault continues to fail to issue guidelines for key (but vague) rules in the Code. In fact, in July 2021, the Ethics Officer finally issued the first guidelines ever issued since the office was created in 2005, but only for two of the many rules in the Code.

Specifically, the Senate Ethics Officer continues to fail to explain how more than 60 senators (To see list, click here) can be paid to be board members of businesses or organizations and/or have stock market or mutual fund investments (but not disclose which companies they are invested in) and/or other paid work, and yet not be in violation of:

  1. subsection 2(1) of the Code which requires senators to give precedence to their parliamentary duties and functions over any other duty or activity;
  2. subsection 2(2) which sets out principles senators are expected to uphold, including avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest,
  3. section 7.1 that requires senators to “uphold the highest standards of dignity” and prohibits acting in a way that “could reflect adversely” on the position of Senator or the Senate overall, and;
  4. section 7.2 requires senators to perform their parliamentary functions and duties with “dignity, honour and integrity.”

“No senator can claim to be independent or provide sober second thought on any issue when they are on the board of or working for a private business or firm or have secret financial investments in the stock market,” said Conacher. “Senators should be required to work only as senators, and should only be allowed to invest in term deposits and government bonds, to prevent conflicts with their duty to act in the public interest.”

Democracy Watch sent a letter in September 2018 to Ethics Officer Legault calling on him to issue a ruling that Senator Larry Campbell’s then-position as a board member with Great Canadian Gaming Corporation (with stock options in the company), a position he retired from only in June 2021, violated the purpose and rules 2(1), 2(2) and 7.2 of the Senate ethics code.

In the letter, Democracy Watch also called on the Ethics Officer Legault to review the board positions and investments of all senators, and to issue the same ruling for any senator who holds a position as a board member, executive or employee, or who has investments, in any corporation that has interests in the province they represent or interests affected by federal laws duties because their board and financial interests conflict with the overall public interest that senators have a duty to represent and uphold under their ethics code.

“The Senate ethics rules require senators to dedicate themselves to their duties as a senator over all other activities, and to always act with integrity and avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and no senator can comply with those rules when they are a board member, executive or investor in a corporation that is regulated by federal laws or operates in the province they are supposed to represent,” said Conacher. “Senators can unethically help their company’s interests not only by taking part in discussions, debates and votes that affect the company’s interests but also by not doing anything such as not making any public statements or proposals that would hurt the company’s interests.”

– 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 Shut Down the Senate Campaign

Backgrounder

Posted on by Bradford

10 Key Rules for Fair, Democratic Minority Government

  1. Until the Governor General has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Governor General will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in Parliament);
  2. The party that wins the most seats in the election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Governor General that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda;
  3. Within 30 days after the Governor General decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Governor General and the governing party/parties will open Parliament with a Speech from the Throne;
  4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the House of Commons do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the House of Commons;
  5. If a majority of members in the House of Commons vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Governor General, before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister’s to call an election, will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern if they present a written agreement to the Governor General for either a formal coalition or legislative agreement;
  6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in House of Commons that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The House of Commons does not have confidence in the government.”
  7. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister to prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the House of Commons;
  8. If a majority in the House of Commons votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Governor General will, before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister that the Governor General call an election, give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern if they present a written agreement to the Governor General for either a formal coalition or legislative agreement;
  9. As Britain’s fixed election date law set out, if a majority in the House of Commons votes to rescind the vote of non-confidence within two weeks after the vote passed, then an early election will not occur, but if the vote is not rescinded then the Prime Minister is required to request the Governor General to call an election, and;
  10. As Britain’s fixed election date law set out, the Prime Minister is prohibited from calling an early snap election before the fixed election date unless a majority in the House of Commons have approved a voted of non-confidence and the vote has not been rescinded by a majority.