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

Three key political finance questions for federal party leaders

Posted on by Bradford

Which financial institution gave them an election loan? For how much? What will their deficit/surplus be after election subsidies are received?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, November 6, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than 3 million members), joined by almost 90,000 voters, called on the media to ask federal party leaders 3 key questions that will very likely effect the timing of the next election:

  1. Which financial institution gave them a loan to pay their election expenses?
  2. How much was the loan?
  3. What will their estimated deficit/surplus be in 4 months after they receive the subsidies the public pays for any candidate or party that wins 10% of the popular vote?

The parties know the details of their loans, and can now make fairly accurate projections, based on the election results and past fundraising patterns for November-January post-election periods, of what their financial position will be mid-February when they receive the post-election subsidies.

The public has a right to know this information, and shouldn’t have to wait and always be guessing the financial position of the parties, especially not in a minority government situation when the finances of each party is a big factor affecting when the next election will happen, given the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Bloc (and, possibly the Greens) all some power in making that decision. Unfortunately, due to unwritten rules, the Prime Minister still has the most power, and the ability to abuse that power.

“The public has a right to know which financial institutions bankrolled the parties’ election campaigns, and what the debt levels are of each party, as those are major factors in federal Cabinet ministers’ and MPs’ conflicts of interest concerning banking law decisions, and in the timing of the next election given the minority government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “Hopefully the media will ask the federal party leaders the key questions about the state of their party finances, and they will soon give the public the information they have a right to know.”

“Banks and other financial institutions should not be allowed to loan parties and candidates any more than individuals are allowed to donate, as it creates a real conflict of interest for federal ministers and MPs,” said Conacher. “Instead, any loans should come from a public fund, but only after parties can prove they actually need the money to reach voters and run election campaigns.”

The media hasn’t paid much attention to these key questions, and any coverage is always out of date by six months or more because of weak federal party finance disclosure rules. Looking over the past year, there is only this CBC article about the financial status of most of the main federal parties as of December 31, 2018, and then this follow-up CBC article about the NDP’s finances as of December 31, 2018. This Canadian Press article a couple of months later covered the same figures for 2018.

The CBC then did this article about the parties’ first-quarter fundraising totals, and this iPolitics article summarized the parties’ fundraising totals for 2019 up to June 30, 2019. However, neither of these articles contain any statistics on how much the parties spent up to June 30, 2019, or after.

As a result, no one except the parties knew how much money they had in the bank when the federal election began, nor how big their loans are, from which financial institution(s). Voters have a right to know before they vote who bankrolled each party’s, and each candidate’s, campaign, but this information is still hidden from them by weak disclosure rules.

Many commentators were saying at the beginning of the election that the Conservatives had tons of money for their campaign, the Liberals had an adequate amount of money, the Greens had some money, and that the NDP was in a lot of debt. But all of those comments were inaccurate guesses based on the information in the above articles, none of which took into account what the parties spent since Jan. 1, 2019.

For example, the Conservatives had $9.9 million in the bank at the end of 2018, and raised $16.5 million up June 30, 2019, and may have raised $5 million up to the beginning of the election. However, they may have spent $25 million from January to September 2019, which means they may have actually only had $6.4 million in the bank going into the election.

As a result, if the Conservatives planned to spend the full estimated $28 million allowed (under the election spending limit) on their campaign, they must have had a loan or loans of about $21 million from some financial institution or institutions.

The Liberals had $2.3 million in the bank at the end of 2018, and raised $8.85 million up to June 30, 2019, and may have raised $3.5 million up to the beginning of the election. However, they may have spent $10 million so far in 2019, which means they may have actually only had $4.65 million in the bank going into the election campaign, and likely needed a loan or loans of about $23 million in order to spend the maximum allowed during the election campaign.

The other parties have also likely gone into debt with a loan or loans from a financial institution(s). If any party’s loan(s) come from a bank, the bank is regulated by the federal government under the Bank Act, so the bank will have done a huge favour to the party by lending them millions for their election campaign.

Democracy Watch’s position is that loans to parties should be limited just like donations are, to prevent the conflict of interest created by the big banks lending so much money to the federal parties’ election campaigns. It would be much more democratic if election loans to parties came from a public fund, with the amount each party would be allowed to borrow based on the number of donors and members it has, combined with the average amount it has raised in the previous two years.

Many other changes are needed to make Canada’s political finance system democratic and ethical. See details on Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign page.

– 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 Money in Politics Campaign

Democracy Watch files application challenging Ontario Integrity Commissioner’s refusal to issue public rulings on Premier Ford’s staff and former deputy minister possibly violating provincial ethics rules

Posted on by Bradford

Integrity Commissioner’s ruling last March on OPP Commissioner appointment contained clear evidence Ford’s former Chief of Staff, deputy minister and possibly others gave preferential treatment to Ron Taverner and others

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 29, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the application it has filed in Ontario Divisional Court challenging Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake’s refusal to issue a public ruling on Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff Dean French (and possibly other Ford staff) providing preferential treatment to Ford’s friend Ron Taverner, and also to Mario Di Tommaso and Chris Froggatt, which Democracy Watch believes constitutes a violation of the provincial government’s ethics laws. Democracy Watch is represented by Rebecca Shoom of the law firm Lerners LLP.

On March 25, 2019, Democracy Watch sent a letter to Integrity Commissioner Wake and also then-Conflict of Interest Commissioner Sidney Linden calling on them to issue a public ruling on Ford’s staff, and also former Secretary to the Cabinet Steve Orsini, providing preferential treatment in violation of Public Service of Ontario Act (PSOA) ethics regulations.

Both commissioners refused to issue public rulings — then-Commissioner Linden in late March, and Commissioner Wake in early April. Commissioner Linden retired on May 1, 2019 when his office was merged into Integrity Commissioner Wake’s office.

On September 30, 2019, Democracy Watch sent another letter to Commissioner Wake requesting a public ruling. Commissioner Wake responded with the same position he had expressed in early April.

There is nothing in the PSOA that prohibits Commissioner Wake from issuing a public ruling, and the public has a clear right to know if these public servants violated the law.

“There is clear evidence in Integrity Commissioner Wake’s ruling on the OPP Commissioner appointment process that Premier Ford’s former Chief of Staff Dean French and his former deputy minister violated Ontario government ethics rules by giving preferential treatment to Ron Taverner more than once, and also to Mario Di Tommaso, and that French also gave preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt, and that other Ford staff may have violated the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully Integrity Commissioner Wake will do the right thing and issue a public ruling finding Premier Ford’s staff guilty of violating provincial ethics rules.”

“The public has a clear right to know whether its watchdog has found its government employees guilty of wrongdoing, and government watchdogs must also issue public rulings so the public can be sure they are enforcing the law fairly and properly,” said Conacher.

Commissioner Wake’s March 20, 2019 ruling on Premier Ford’s actions concerning Ron Taverner’s proposed appointment contained clear evidence that Mr. French and Mr. Orsini provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner in the offer of an executive job with the government’s Ontario Cannabis store, and to him and Mario di Tommaso also throughout the OPP Commissioner appointment process.

The ruling also contained clear evidence that Mr. French also provided preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt by connecting him (and him only) to give communications advice to Mr. Taverner. There was also some evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Derek O’Toole, then-Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, then-Policy Advisor to Mr. French, also provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner.

See the Evidence from the Integrity Commissioner’s Ruling on Premier Ford that, in Democracy Watch’s view, details the extent of this preferential treatment.

All public servants in the Ontario government, including ministers’ staff and the Secretary to the Cabinet, are prohibited by regulations under the Public Service of Ontario Act from giving preferential treatment to any person or entity, and are required to “endeavour to avoid creating the appearance that preferential treatment is being given to a person or entity…” See the Summary of the Ontario Government Ethics Law and Regulations for details.

– 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

Bill C-76 weakened law making election more like 2016 U.S. Presidential election – full of false online election posts and ads, and false claims

Posted on by Bradford

Liberals ignored experts, House Committee, Chief Electoral Officer, Commissioner of Canada Elections, and tens of thousands of Canadians, who all called for changes to stop false claims

New bill needed as soon as possible to make these key changes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 28, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch highlighted key problems with the changes made by the Trudeau Liberals’ Bill C-76, and the federal government’s initiatives announced in January and last May, that ignored the call by all experts, a House Committee, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and tens of thousands of Canadians, for more effective changes to the Canada Elections Act to actually stop fake online election posts and ads, false claims about candidates, and big money interest group ad campaigns, and to protect voters’ privacy.

Incredibly, Bill C-76 actually gutted the rule in the Act prohibiting on false claims about candidates, even though the CEO and Commissioner warned that the Bill would have that bad effect. The Bill also failed to strengthen the general rule in the law that prohibits false claims. The rule needs to be strengthened because the Commissioner negligently refuses to enforce it in some cases (For details of one of those cases, click here and click here).

Bill C-76 also increased the advertising spending limit for wealthy, big money third party interest groups by 250% (from about $200,000 to $511,700) — a really bad move in the wrong direction given social media advertising costs are only 10-20% of what traditional TV, radio and print media ads cost. In other words, the new limit multiplies the ad spending power of wealthy interests by 12-25 times, giving them much greater power to dominate election debates than they had in elections from 2006 to 2015.

Almost 90,000 Canadians have supported Democracy Watch’s campaign to stop big money in Canadian politics, and more than 17,000 Canadians have either signed Democracy Watch’s online petition on Change.org or its letter-writing campaign calling for changes to stop secret, false online election ads or signed its online petition calling for political parties to be covered by the federal privacy law, and other key privacy protection changes.

“Bill C-76 severely weakened the rule that prohibits false claims about candidates, more than doubled the spending limit for wealthy interest groups, and didn’t do enough to stop false, online election ads, false election promises or big money donations,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “As a result, the fall 2019 federal election was much like the 2016 U.S. presidential election – dishonest, unfair and driven by false claims of wealthy interest groups, party leaders and parties.”

“If the Trudeau Liberals actually want to ensure that the next election is fair and democratic, they should introduce a short, simple bill as soon as possible to reverse the bad, weak changes made by Bill C-76 and to strengthen other key rules,” said Conacher. “The bill should prohibit all false claims and false promises, lower donation limits, reverse the increase in interest group ad spending, require all media and social media companies to disclose to the Commissioner of Canada Elections all election-related ads, empower the Commissioner to delete any false post or ad from social media, and extend the privacy law to political parties with penalties high enough to actually discourage violations by social media companies that have tens of billions in annual profits.”

“All parties should support the introduction and quick passage of this bill as soon as possible to ensure the next election is fair and democratic, and to ensure the privacy of Canadians is protected,” said Conacher.

Instead of protecting the integrity of Canada’s elections, the Trudeau Liberals’ actions protected their friends at social media companies, and their own data mining of voters’ private information.

As CTV detailed in March 2017, the Liberal Party uses Data Sciences Inc., run by Prime Minister Trudeau’s friend Tom Pitfield, for its data management of the private, personal information it gathered on Canadian voters. And as CTV also detailed in that article, and also Maclean’s magazine detailed in October 2017, Mr. Pitfield also heads up the think tank Canada 2020, which has Facebook and Google as partners (see logos at bottom of page) and executives from Facebook Canada and Google Canada as advisers.

As the Ottawa Citizen detailed in May 2018, Liberal Party-connected lobbyists and executives work for Facebook, Google, Microsoft, while their friends and/or former colleagues worked for Trudeau Cabinet ministers.

See Backgrounder for details about the key changes needed to:

  1. Stop secret, false, online election ads;
  2. Require honesty during pre-election and election periods;
  3. Stop wealthy interests from dominating pre-election and election periods, and;
  4. Protect the privacy of voters’ and all Canadians.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign, and Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

Backgrounder on Key Changes to Ensure Honest, Fair Canadian Elections

Posted on by Bradford

BACKGROUNDER
(October 28, 2019)

Democracy Watch testified at the House Committee’s hearings on Bill C-76 in June 2018 and highlighted all the serious flaws in the bill that are set out below, along with 20 or so other changes needed to ensure fair, democratic elections and strong enforcement – changes that Democracy Watch submitted to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform and to the government in fall 2016.

Democracy Watch’s recommendations were almost completely ignored by the Trudeau Liberals, as were the recommendations of many experts, a House Committee (made up of a majority of Liberal MPs), the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

The key changes needed to ensure honest, fair, democratic federal elections in the future are as follows:

To stop secret, fake online election advertising by anyone (not just foreigners)

  1. Bill C-76 only prohibited big social media companies from knowingly running an ad paid for by a foreigner or foreign entity (section 190 of the Bill, adding new subsection 282.4(5) to the CEA), and requires them to publish a registry of election-related ads and maintain it for two years (section 208.1 of the Bill, adding new section 325.1 to the CEA). Those measures will do nothing to stop secret, fake online election ads paid for by Canadians or Canadian entities, and will do little to stop foreign-paid ads as the social media companies will just claim they didn’t know the ads were paid for by foreigners.
To see details of the key changes needed to actually stop secret, false, online election ads by foreigners and Canadians, click here.

To require honesty by everyone during the pre-election and election periods

  1. Bill C-76 does nothing to strengthen subsection 482(b)) of the Canada Elections Act, which prohibits false election promises by parties and candidates but needs to be strengthened because the Commissioner of Canada Elections negligently refuses to enforce it. The Commissioner responded to Democracy Watch’s complaint about Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau baiting voters with his false promise of electoral reform during the 2015 election with a decision refusing to enforce the rule;
  2. Bill C-76 also made false claims about candidates legal by narrowing the rule that prohibit false claims, and requiring proof of intent to affect the election (section 91 of the Canada Elections Act). The current rule prohibits any false claim “in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate or prospective candidate.” Bill C-76 narrows the rule so it only covers false claims that these people (or a party leader or officials) violated the law or have been charged or investigated for a violation, and false claims about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of these people. Senators tried to amend Bill C-76 to restore the broader rule but the amendment was rejected.
  3. The words in section 91 requiring that to charge someone with making a false claim you have to prove they made the claim with the “intention of affecting the results of an election” also must be deleted because it is almost impossible in many cases that they had that intention (the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections both called for this change, and the change summarized above in #2, when testifying before the Senate Committee that review Bill C-76).

To stop wealthy interests from dominating pre-election and election campaigns

  1. Bill C-76 more than doubled the spending limits for third party interest groups and individuals during election campaigns from approximately $200,000 up to $500,000 (section 224 of Bill C-76 changing subsections 350(1) to 350(4.1) of the Canada Elections Act (CEA)). The Trudeau Cabinet claimed this increase was needed because the spending limit is being extended to cover election surveys and “partisan activities” such as door-knocking, phone calls and rallies. However, only citizen groups do those kinds of activities (businesses usually only spend money on ads), and social media and email have significantly lowered ad costs for third parties. The limit for ad spending should be decreased back to at least $200,000 (if not lower, an assessment is needed to determine the actual current costs of reaching voters across Canada), and new, separate limits should be set for spending on surveys, and spending on partisan activities.
  2. Bill C-76 also set meaninglessly high limits of $1.5 million for party ad spending and $1 million for third-party (interest group) ad spending during the 60-75 days before the election campaign period begins (section 223 of Bill C-76, adding sections 349.1 to 349.94 to the CEA). The pre-electionm limits are meaningless because, as this past summer proved, it is highly unlikely that any party or third-party will spend anywhere near those amounts during July and August – the only times the limits apply (as the pre-campaign limits only apply when the election is held on the fixed election date of the third Monday in October). As well, the pre-campaign limit only applies to “partisan advertising” that promotes or opposes a party or a candidate, not to issue-based advertising. The limit should be lowered, and extended to cover issue ads.
  3. Bill C-76 also didn’t lower the much too high donations limits that allow wealthy people to use money as a way to influence politicians, including the annual individual donation limits for 2019 of $1,600 to each party and another $1,600 to the riding associations of each party (both increase each year by $25). Bill C-76 also doesn’t lower the $5,000 amount an election candidate can give to their own campaign or the $25,000 a party leadership candidate can give to their campaign. To actually have a democratic political finance system, all these limits shold be lowered to $100 and, if the parties can prove they need it, per-vote and matching public funding should be established.
To see details, click here.

To protect privacy of voters, and all Canadians

Bill C-76 also didn’t do enough to require political parties to protect the private, personal information they collect about voters, as it only requires that they publish their privacy protection policy on their website (sections 254-255 of the Bill, changing section 385 and adding section 385.1 to the CEA) instead of extending federal privacy laws to cover parties.

The House of Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics issued its report in December 2018 on stopping secret, false online election ads, and protecting voters’ privacy, and recommendations 1-3, 6-8, 10, 19, 22-24 match the changes that Democracy Watch has been calling for in these areas.

Federal party leaders should agree on eight key rules for fair, democratic minority government

Posted on by Bradford

80%+ of Canadians, 78% of constitutional scholars surveyed, and former Governor General all say write down the rules, as the UK, Australia and New Zealand have done

Rules should make it clear when the legislature will open, what a vote of non-confidence is, what will trigger next election etc.

Should issue public statement of agreement on the rules, and then first bill passed by legislature should make the rules a law (as many other countries have)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 23, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on federal political party leaders to learn the lesson of the minority governments from 2004-2011 and agree this week on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Agreeing on the rules now will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

The rules should make clear: when the legislature will open; when it can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date and; which party will get to try governing first after the next election.

The current rules are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw. A large majority (78%) of constitutional scholars surveyed in fall 2012 supported writing down the conventions (See pp. 111-112). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Prime Minister and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Governor General to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Prime Minister from doing what they want.

The Governor General, and lieutenant governors in several provinces, have almost never stopped a Prime Minister or Premier from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

In England, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public rules so what happens after an election is fair for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public post-election rules.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said in August 2016 in an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for Canada’s political party leaders and the Governor General to fail to approve eight key rules for a minority government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It is clearly in the public interest that the rules be approved to stop unfair abuses of power by the Prime Minister and ruling party that violate the rights of Parliament and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, Parliament should, as the legislatures in England, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen, and; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

“As long as the federal rules for Parliament are unwritten and unclear, the Prime Minister and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and Parliament’s ability to hold the government accountable will be undemocratically restricted,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for 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 will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister’s to call an election;
  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, and;
  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 give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister that the Governor General call an election.

Report Card on the Federal Parties’ 2019 Democratic Reform Platforms

Posted on by Bradford

Given lack of honesty-in-politics law, and past pattern of ruling party breaking half of democratic reform promises, voters should be skeptical of all parties’ promises

8 key, written rules needed to have a fair post-election, and minority government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, October 18, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its Report Card on the Federal Parties’ 2019 Democratic Reform Platforms (See the full Report Card chart below, and click here to see the Report Card Backgrounder).

Voters should be very skeptical of all the parties’ promises given the lack of an honesty-in-politics law, and the fact that Prime Minister Chrétien, Prime Minister Harper, and Prime Minister Trudeau all failed to keep half of their democratic reform promises, and the fact that no party promised an honesty law covering promises in their platforms.

The Green Party received the best grade B- as it promised 25 key, systemic democratic reforms and had good grades in four of the five areas graded in the Report Card.

“Given only the Green Party has a strong democracy platform, hopefully all the parties will get serious after the election and work together to finally make the key changes needed to give Canadians the fully democratic and accountable federal government that many surveys over the past 15 years have shown a large majority of voters want,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Liberals and the Conservatives especially made a big mistake in this election thinking they could ignore key democracy reforms and still have voters hand them power – voters have clearly been disappointed too many times by past Liberal and Conservative governments abusing their power.”

“Unfortunately, even if the Green Party is able to push through all the changes it promised, everyone in federal politics would still be allowed to lie to voters, politicians would still be allowed to make money from their decisions, secret lobbying would still be legal, wealthy individuals would still be allowed to use money to have unethical influence, and enforcement and penalties would still be too weak to stop wrongdoing,” said Conacher.

Hundreds of thousands of messages have been sent to federal party leaders and politicians through Democracy Watch’s campaigns calling for the 100 key changes needed to ensure fully honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing federal politics, and accountability for everyone who violates any rule.

Democracy Watch and the coalitions it leads will continue to push for all 100 key changes.

The NDP received the next best grade of D+ because it had only a dozen vague promises in its platform, and no promises in the area of open government.

The Conservatives failed to make any promises in three of the five categories measured by the Report Card, and ended up with a D- grade. This is a big change from their 2006 election platform – in that platform the Conservatives promised 60 democratic reform and government accountability changes in their so-called “Federal Accountability Act”, which earned them a B grade.

The Liberals failed to make any promises in two of the five categories measured by the Report Card, and also ended up with a D- grade. This is a big change from their 2015 election platform – in that platform the Liberals promised about 75 democratic reform and government accountability changes, which earned them a B grade.

The Liberals’ 2019 platform is as weak as their democratic reform record since 2015:

  1. they broke most of their open government promises;
  2. Prime Minister Trudeau broke his electoral reform promise;
  3. they failed to make the political finance system more democratic;
  4. they ignored recommendations to strengthen whistleblower protection in a unanimous House Committee report;
  5. they ignored recommendations to stop secret, fake online election ads in a unanimous House Committee report, and weakened a key honest election rule;
  6. Prime Minister Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet ministers have been involved in many secrecy and ethics scandals.

The Bloc received an F as it had no promises in four of the five categories of the Report Card, and the People’s Party of Canada received an Incomplete as it had no democratic reform promises in its platform.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page

Democracy Watch’s
Report Card on the Federal Parties’
2019 Democratic Reform Platforms

Sources:

Bloc Québécois platform webpage
(NOTE: nothing in platform, just these Oct. 16th proposals)

Conservative Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 54-55, 71, and 75-76 of platform PDF, and Oct. 16th news release)

Green Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 31-32, 47, 73-79 of platform PDF, and many other pages containing proposals to strengthen law enforcement and penalties in many areas of platform)

Liberal Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 39-41, 44, 47, 53-55 of platform PDF, and some other pages containing proposals to strengthen law enforcement in some areas)

NDP platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 21-22, 24, 32, 54, 94-97, 99-103 of platform PDF

People’s Party of Canada platform webpage

Democracy Watch calls on Commissioner of Canada Elections to investigate Manning Centre and five “Proud” groups it funded for possible third party election disclosure and collusion violations

Posted on by Bradford

Given election law, and past court rulings, DWatch believes either Manning Centre or the groups are required to disclose the donors who funded the groups’ election ads

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 17, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté calling for an investigation into possible disclosure and election collusion violations by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy and five “Proud” groups it has funded to do election advertising this election.

According to this Globe and Mail article published yesterday, and this earlier Canadian Press article, the Manning Centre raised funds from donors for election advertising spending during the election, then transferred the funds (along with general revenues, more than $300,000 in total) to the five groups who have used it to pay for advertising.

The Manning Centre didn’t register as a third party even though the groups are really a front for its advertising spending, and the groups haven’t disclosed the identities of the Manning Centre’s donors, making the Manning Centre essentially a front group for the donors.

The Canada Elections Act (CEA) requires individuals, businesses, unions and other organizations to register as a third party if they spending more than $500 on partisan activities, election advertising or surveys during the election campaign period and, if they spending more than $10,000, to disclose (21 days and 7 days before election day), the identities of contributors who donate to pay for activities, ads or surveys.

The arrangement between the Manning Centre and the five “Proud” groups also raises the questions of whether any of the funds that the Manning Centre transferred to the groups was donated by foreign entities (which is prohibited under the CEA), and whether the six organizations are attempting to exceed the third party spending limit of $511,700 for this election by colluding together (which is also prohibited by the CEA).

The Supreme Court ruled in the 2004 Harper v. Canada case that the third party registration and donation disclosure requirements are intended to ensure voters and enforcement agencies are fully informed of who is actually bankrolling each third party, and so the law can be effectively enforced (See paragraphs 140 to 145 of the ruling).

“Given the rules in the federal election law, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in a past case, the Commissioner should investigate and rule that either the Manning Centre or the five Proud groups are required to disclose the identities of the donors who funded the election advertising they have done,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Supreme Court also ruled in the Harper case that the third party spending limit, and the anti-collusion rule, are needed to ensure fair, democratic election debates that are not dominated by wealthy interest groups, and so the Commissioner should also investigate whether the Manning Centre and the five Proud groups colluded in an attempt to violate that spending limit.”

No matter how the Commissioner rules on its complaint, Democracy Watch called on federal parties to cooperate to strengthen the rules, and the penalties which are much too low to discourage violations, before the next federal by-election or election.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Federal party leaders should agree on eight key rules for minority government to ensure fair post-election decisions

Posted on by Bradford

Rules should make clear which party will try governing first, when the legislature will open, what a vote of non-confidence is, what will trigger next election etc.

Should issue public statement of agreement on the rules, and then first bill passed by legislature should make the rules a law (as many other countries have)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 15, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on federal political party leaders to learn the lesson of the post-Sept. 2018 election chaos in New Brunswick and agree this week on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Even if Canada does not have a minority government after next week’s election, agreeing on the rules now will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election.

The rules should make clear: which party will get to try governing first; when the legislature will open; when it can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern and; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

The current rules are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw. The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Prime Minister and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Governor General to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Prime Minister from doing what they want.

The Governor General, and lieutenant governors in several provinces, have almost never stopped a Prime Minister or Premier from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

In England, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public rules so what happens after an election is fair for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public post-election rules.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said last August in an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for Canada’s political party leaders and the Governor General to fail to approve eight key rules for a minority government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It is clearly in the public interest that the rules be approved to stop unfair abuses of power by the Prime Minister and ruling party that violate the rights of Parliament and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, Parliament should, as the legislatures in England, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen, and; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

“As long as the federal rules for Parliament are unwritten and unclear, the Prime Minister and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and Parliament’s ability to hold the government accountable will be undemocratically restricted,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for 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 will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister’s to call an election;
  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, and;
  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 give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister that the Governor General call an election.

More celebrities coming to the VoteParty.ca to help young voters Make a #VoteDate — National #VoteParty on October 21st

Posted on by Bradford

Celebrity promo videos showing before movies in 160 Cineplex theatres across Canada

Please air the videos as PSAs on your TV or radio station (the audio track) before Oct. 21st – click here to see them on the VoteParty.ca website, and click here to see them on VoteParty.ca’s YouTube channel, and please contact [email protected] if you need them sent to you in order to air them as a PSA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, October 11, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, VoteParty.ca released its second Canadian celebrity montage video calling on voters to Make a #VoteDate with a non-voter – all part of VoteParty.ca’s campaign to increase the number of voters, especially young voters, who vote. The video will be shown before movies in 160 Cineplex Entertainment theatres across Canada starting this Friday until Oct. 17th.

The second video features David Suzuki (environmentalist and host of CBC TV’s “The Nature of Things”), Lindsay Broughton (country singer), Greg Bryk (actor on Space TV’s “Bitten” and in Brad Pitt’s latest film “Ad Astra”), Mary Walsh (comedian and former co-host of CBC TV’s “This Hour Has 22 Minutes”) and Rick Miller (comedian, creator of the “BOOM” and “BOOM X” theatre shows, and former host of “Just for Laughs” TV show).

Last Friday Cineplex starting showing VoteParty.ca’s first Canadian celebrity montage video featuring Rick Mercer (comedian and former host of CBC TV’s “Rick Mercer Report”), Elena Juatco (actress from ABC’s “Open Heart” and CTV’s “JANN” show), MAGIC! (#1 song “Rude” and other top songs), Ashley Callingbull (actress and Mrs. Universe), and Michelle Morgan (actress from CBC’s “Heartland”).

Cineplex Entertainment has generously donated the cost of showing the videos at its theatres. Both videos are also available on VoteParty.ca’s homepage, and along with many other videos can also be seen on VoteParty.ca’s Celebrity Videos webpage.

VoteParty.ca isn’t urging young voters to vote, it’s inviting young voters to Make a #VoteDate at VoteParty.ca with a non-voter and take them to vote with you.

Don’t vote alone, Vote Party together.

Many other celebrities are also supporting the partner initiative VotePromise.ca including George Stroumboulopoulos, Patrick McKenna and Julian Taylor.

All are invited to come to the national #VoteParty on October 21st election night. Share your reaction to the election results, and what’s going at your local Vote Party, on Twitter with #VoteParty, and on Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/events/394589891203780/.

Vote Party promises to be a great party.

VoteParty.ca is an initiative of Democracy Education Network, since 1993 one of Canada’s leading civics education organizations.

Let’s get this Vote Party started!

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of VoteParty.ca
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]
Internet: http://VoteParty.ca

Democracy Watch calls on Commissioner of Canada Elections to investigate Conservative Party and CAPP for possible illegal collusion

Posted on by Bradford

Conservatives and CAPP sharing same ad firm, and party leader shared events with CAPP members in spring

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 10, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté calling for an investigation into possible illegal election collusion between the Conservative Party and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

Set out in the letter to Commissioner Côté is the evidence that raises the question of whether the Conservatives and CAPP have violated the new rule in the Canada Elections Act (subsection 351.01(1)) that prohibits a party and a third party from colluding, including by sharing information, in order to influence the third party’s partisan activities, advertising or surveys during the election campaign period.

According to an article in the Globe and Mail, the advertising firm One Persuasion Inc., co-founded by Hamish Marshall who has been on leave since last June to be the Conservatives campaign manager, is providing services to both the Conservatives and CAPP.

This is the latest in a series of situations that raise questions about collaboration and support between the Conservatives and CAPP. According to another Globe and Mail article, last April CPC Leader Andrew Scheer and Mr. Marshall attended a private meeting with oil-industry executives that included Mr. Marshall speaking on a panel about using third-party interest groups to rally support for the party. Some of the executives at the meeting are members of the Board of Governors of CAPP.

According to a National Observer article, Imperial Oil sponsored a gala dinner event that was held on May 15th in Ottawa and then, due to a “last minute” seating change, Imperial Oil’s CEO Rich Kruger, who is a member of the Board of Governors of CAPP, sat beside Andrew Scheer and lobbied him. And according to another Globe and Mail article, a June 4th fundraising event for the CPC attended by Andrew Scheer was organized by several energy company executives.

“The anti-collusion rules are aimed at ensuring fair and democratic elections, and preventing lobby groups from unethically helping political parties and leaders get elected, and the relationship between the Conservatives and oil and gas companies warrants investigation by the elections commissioner to ensure the rules have not been violated,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch’s position is that, to find a violation of the anti-collusion rule, the Commissioner is not required to find proof that CAPP undertook an activity, advertisement or survey because of the sharing of information with the Conservatives. Instead, all the Commissioner needs to find is evidence that information was shared “in order to influence” CAPP’s activities, ads or surveys.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign