Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on OPP Commissioner appointment contains clear evidence Ford’s Chief of Staff, deputy minister and possibly others gave preferential treatment to Ron Taverner and Mario di Tomasso

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 9, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Ontario Ombudsman Paul Dubé calling on him to investigate Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff Dean French (and possibly other Ford staff) and former deputy minister Steve Orsini providing preferential treatment to Ford’s friend Ron Taverner, and also to Mario Di Tomasso and Chris Froggatt, which would violate the provincial government ethics law.

Democracy Watch sent a similar letter to Ontario Integrity Commissioner J. David Wake on March 25th but he has refused to confirm even receiving that letter even though Democracy Watch has contacted him multiple times. Democracy Watch also sent that letter to Ontario Conflict of Interest Commissioner Sydney Linden but he refused to issue a public ruling.

In its letter to Ombudsman Dubé, Democracy Watch also requested an investigation of Premier Ford’s staff intervening in the purchase by the OPP of a van for the Premier’s travel, in violation of government spending rules.

Integrity Commissioner J. David Wake’s ruling on March 20th concerning the OPP Commissioner appointment process contains clear evidence that Dean French, and former Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini, and likely others, provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner with regard to the offer Premier Ford made to Taverner of an executive job with the government’s Ontario Cannabis store, and also throughout the OPP Commissioner appointment process that resulted in Premier Ford’s attempted appointment of his friend Mr. Taverner.

There is also evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Mr. French and Mr. Orsini provided preferential treatment to Mario Di Tomasso by considering only him for the position of Deputy Minister of Community Safety, which helped ensure Mr. Taverner’s appointment as OPP Commissioner given Mr. Di Tomasso was Mr. Taverner’s former boss at the Toronto Police Service.

There is also evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Mr. French provided preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt in connecting him (and him only) with Mr. Taverner after the Ford Cabinet appointed him as OPP Commissioner to have him give Mr. Taverner communications advice and assistance.

Further investigation is needed by Commissioner Wake to determine if the actions of Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, also crossed the line in the ethics law. There is some evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that they also provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner.

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…”

“There is clear evidence in the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on the OPP Commissioner appointment process that Premier Ford’s 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 Tomasso,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully Ontario’s Ombudsman will do the right thing and investigate and issue a public ruling on these violations.”

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on OPP Commissioner appointment contains clear evidence Ford’s Chief of Staff, deputy minister and possibly others gave preferential treatment to Ron Taverner and Mario di Tomasso

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 9, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Ontario Ombudsman Paul Dubé calling on him to investigate Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff Dean French (and possibly other Ford staff) and former deputy minister Steve Orsini providing preferential treatment to Ford’s friend Ron Taverner, and also to Mario Di Tomasso and Chris Froggatt, which would violate the provincial government ethics law.

Democracy Watch sent a similar letter to Ontario Integrity Commissioner J. David Wake on March 25th but he has refused to confirm even receiving that letter even though Democracy Watch has contacted him multiple times. Democracy Watch also sent that letter to Ontario Conflict of Interest Commissioner Sydney Linden but he refused to issue a public ruling.

In its letter to Ombudsman Dubé, Democracy Watch also requested an investigation of Premier Ford’s staff intervening in the purchase by the OPP of a van for the Premier’s travel, in violation of government spending rules.

Integrity Commissioner J. David Wake’s ruling on March 20th concerning the OPP Commissioner appointment process contains clear evidence that Dean French, and former Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini, and likely others, provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner with regard to the offer Premier Ford made to Taverner of an executive job with the government’s Ontario Cannabis store, and also throughout the OPP Commissioner appointment process that resulted in Premier Ford’s attempted appointment of his friend Mr. Taverner.

There is also evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Mr. French and Mr. Orsini provided preferential treatment to Mario Di Tomasso by considering only him for the position of Deputy Minister of Community Safety, which helped ensure Mr. Taverner’s appointment as OPP Commissioner given Mr. Di Tomasso was Mr. Taverner’s former boss at the Toronto Police Service.

There is also evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Mr. French provided preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt in connecting him (and him only) with Mr. Taverner after the Ford Cabinet appointed him as OPP Commissioner to have him give Mr. Taverner communications advice and assistance.

Further investigation is needed by Commissioner Wake to determine if the actions of Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, also crossed the line in the ethics law. There is some evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that they also provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner.

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…”

“There is clear evidence in the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on the OPP Commissioner appointment process that Premier Ford’s 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 Tomasso,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully Ontario’s Ombudsman will do the right thing and investigate and issue a public ruling on these violations.”

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Again calls on Ethics Commissioner to delegate investigation of PMO/AG/SNC-Lavalin situation to a provincial ethics commissioner – Commissioner biased as Trudeau Cabinet chose him after secretive, dishonest process, and senior lawyer also has appearance of bias

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 8, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch raised questions about whether federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s senior lawyer, Martine Richard, is the sister of Jolène Richard, who is married to Trudeau Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc (see also here). Ms. Richard heads the Investigations and Legal Services division of the Ethics Commissioner’s office.

If so, in addition to this conflict of interest, Mr. Dion was chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet after a secretive, Cabinet-controlled process that failed to consult with opposition parties as required by the Parliament of Canada Act. As well, Mr. Dion also has a record 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner.

If Ms. Richard has this connection with Minister LeBlanc, and given Mr. Dion’s current prolonged medical leave, Democracy Watch again called on Commissioner Dion to delegate to a provincial ethics commissioner (who has no ties to any political party) the investigation of its complaint concerning who tried to influence former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene and stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC).

Democracy Watch filed the first complaint with Ethics Commissioner Dion about the PMO/Attorney General/SNC-Lavalin situation on February 8th, alleging that anyone covered by the federal Conflict of Interest Act, including the Prime Minister and PMO staff, who tried to pressure the Attorney General violated section 9 of the Act by using “his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to… improperly further another person’s private interests.”

Ethics Commissioner Dion sent Democracy Watch a letter on February 26^th confirming his investigation of its complaint. Democracy Watch sent a second letter to Ethics Commissioner Dion on March 5th requesting that he expand the investigation into all 11 people whom Ms. Wilson-Raybould named in her testimony before the Justice Committee on February 27th.

“The federal Ethics Commissioner’s office is tainted by bias in favour of the Trudeau Cabinet, and must delegate the investigation of the SNC-Lavalin scandal to a provincial ethics commissioner who is fully independent of any political party,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Ethics Commissioner Dion should not be ruling on any situations involving Liberals as he was hand-picked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, very questionable process, has a senior lawyer with a family connection to a Cabinet minister, and has an unethical past enforcement record.”

Democracy Watch also called for an independent investigation of Ms. Richard’s family connection to Minister LeBlanc, and her actions and decisions in all investigations and situations since she joined the Ethics Commissioner’s office. It is unclear when Ms. Richard joined the office – although according to a newsletter on the website of her former employer, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, she started sometime in September-October 2013.

Incredibly, it seems that employees in the Ethics Commissioner’s office are exempt from the federal, government-wide Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment, and the office seems to be exempt from the requirement to have an internal ethics code set out in section 6 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

However, the Ethics Commissioner’s office does have an internal code that, like the government-wide code, requires all employees to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and to resolve any conflict of interest in the public interest (for example, by not participating in a decision-making process when they have an appearance of a conflict – p. 9). The code also prohibits employees from “granting preferential treatment or advantages to family, friends or any other person or entity” (p. 10). All federal ethics rules define “family” as including family by marriage.

Federal Integrity Commissioner Joe Friday should issue a public statement whether his office has the legal power to investigate Ms. Richard if she is related to Dominic LeBlanc, and if he does he should delegate the investigation to a provincial ethics commissioner given he has an appearance of bias as his former boss was current Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion.

If Ms. Richard, is Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law, the key question is whether Ms. Richard has effectively removed herself from investigations and decisions that affect Trudeau Cabinet ministers, their staff and Liberal MPs since she started in the office, including the investigation of the SNC-Lavalin affair, and also past investigations including the one that led to the ruling finding Dominic LeBlanc guilty of handing out a surf clam licence to a company connected to a cousin of his wife? And an overall question is whether Ms. Richard can serve in such a position given her family relationship to Dominic LeBlanc?

“If Martine Richard has a family relationship with Liberal Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc, a fully independent investigation is needed into the actions and decisions of the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer in all investigations and situations since she joined the office, along with a public ruling detailing whether and how she can actually remain in this job,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Again calls on Ethics Commissioner to delegate investigation of PMO/AG/SNC-Lavalin situation to a provincial ethics commissioner – Commissioner biased as Trudeau Cabinet chose him after secretive, dishonest process, and senior lawyer also has appearance of bias

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 8, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch raised questions about whether federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s senior lawyer, Martine Richard, is the sister of Jolène Richard, who is married to Trudeau Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc (see also here). Ms. Richard heads the Investigations and Legal Services division of the Ethics Commissioner’s office.

If so, in addition to this conflict of interest, Mr. Dion was chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet after a secretive, Cabinet-controlled process that failed to consult with opposition parties as required by the Parliament of Canada Act. As well, Mr. Dion also has a record 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner.

If Ms. Richard has this connection with Minister LeBlanc, and given Mr. Dion’s current prolonged medical leave, Democracy Watch again called on Commissioner Dion to delegate to a provincial ethics commissioner (who has no ties to any political party) the investigation of its complaint concerning who tried to influence former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene and stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC).

Democracy Watch filed the first complaint with Ethics Commissioner Dion about the PMO/Attorney General/SNC-Lavalin situation on February 8th, alleging that anyone covered by the federal Conflict of Interest Act, including the Prime Minister and PMO staff, who tried to pressure the Attorney General violated section 9 of the Act by using “his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to… improperly further another person’s private interests.”

Ethics Commissioner Dion sent Democracy Watch a letter on February 26^th confirming his investigation of its complaint. Democracy Watch sent a second letter to Ethics Commissioner Dion on March 5th requesting that he expand the investigation into all 11 people whom Ms. Wilson-Raybould named in her testimony before the Justice Committee on February 27th.

“The federal Ethics Commissioner’s office is tainted by bias in favour of the Trudeau Cabinet, and must delegate the investigation of the SNC-Lavalin scandal to a provincial ethics commissioner who is fully independent of any political party,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Ethics Commissioner Dion should not be ruling on any situations involving Liberals as he was hand-picked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, very questionable process, has a senior lawyer with a family connection to a Cabinet minister, and has an unethical past enforcement record.”

Democracy Watch also called for an independent investigation of Ms. Richard’s family connection to Minister LeBlanc, and her actions and decisions in all investigations and situations since she joined the Ethics Commissioner’s office. It is unclear when Ms. Richard joined the office – although according to a newsletter on the website of her former employer, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, she started sometime in September-October 2013.

Incredibly, it seems that employees in the Ethics Commissioner’s office are exempt from the federal, government-wide Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment, and the office seems to be exempt from the requirement to have an internal ethics code set out in section 6 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

However, the Ethics Commissioner’s office does have an internal code that, like the government-wide code, requires all employees to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and to resolve any conflict of interest in the public interest (for example, by not participating in a decision-making process when they have an appearance of a conflict – p. 9). The code also prohibits employees from “granting preferential treatment or advantages to family, friends or any other person or entity” (p. 10). All federal ethics rules define “family” as including family by marriage.

Federal Integrity Commissioner Joe Friday should issue a public statement whether his office has the legal power to investigate Ms. Richard if she is related to Dominic LeBlanc, and if he does he should delegate the investigation to a provincial ethics commissioner given he has an appearance of bias as his former boss was current Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion.

If Ms. Richard, is Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law, the key question is whether Ms. Richard has effectively removed herself from investigations and decisions that affect Trudeau Cabinet ministers, their staff and Liberal MPs since she started in the office, including the investigation of the SNC-Lavalin affair, and also past investigations including the one that led to the ruling finding Dominic LeBlanc guilty of handing out a surf clam licence to a company connected to a cousin of his wife? And an overall question is whether Ms. Richard can serve in such a position given her family relationship to Dominic LeBlanc?

“If Martine Richard has a family relationship with Liberal Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc, a fully independent investigation is needed into the actions and decisions of the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer in all investigations and situations since she joined the office, along with a public ruling detailing whether and how she can actually remain in this job,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on OPP Commissioner appointment contains clear evidence that Ford offered the job only to Taverner

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 2, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake calling on him to issue a public ruling on Premier Ford violating the provincial ethics law by offering an executive position at the Ontario Cannabis Store to his friend Ron Taverner, with an annual salary of $270,000.

The letter raises questions about whether the Premier’s offer to Mr. Taverner violates the rules in the provincial Members’ Integrity Act that prohibit provincial politicians from participating in (section 2) or trying to influence (section 4) any decision that could further their own interests or improperly further another person’s interests.

Commissioner Wake’s ruling on March 20th concerning the OPP Commissioner appointment process contains clear evidence that Premier Ford’s made a direct job offer to Taverner, and only Taverner (See pages 21-24 of your ruling (paras. 78-90)).

Ford’s offer skipped four key steps in the hiring process for Ontario government jobs, and also violated key requirements for government appointments and pay rates.

“There is clear evidence in the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on the OPP Commissioner appointment process that Premier Ford violated Ontario’s ethics law by directly offering an executive job to his friend Ron Taverner at the Ontario Cannabis Store,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given the clear evidence, hopefully the Integrity Commissioner will do the right thing and issue a public ruling very soon finding Premier Ford guilty of violating the provincial ethics law.”

The Premier and Cabinet ministers are allowed to hire anyone they want as their staff as it is considered acceptable that, despite the fact staff are paid for with the public’s money, Cabinet ministers would want them all to be loyal supporters of the ruling party.

However, Democracy Watch’s position is that, based on Part 3 of a key Cabinet policy, it is improper for the Premier or any other Cabinet minister to appoint party loyalists or friends to any other government position. It is especially improper when the government hasn’t done a public, merit-based search for qualified candidates, and the person appointed lacks expertise in the area.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on OPP Commissioner appointment contains clear evidence that Ford offered the job only to Taverner

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 2, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake calling on him to issue a public ruling on Premier Ford violating the provincial ethics law by offering an executive position at the Ontario Cannabis Store to his friend Ron Taverner, with an annual salary of $270,000.

The letter raises questions about whether the Premier’s offer to Mr. Taverner violates the rules in the provincial Members’ Integrity Act that prohibit provincial politicians from participating in (section 2) or trying to influence (section 4) any decision that could further their own interests or improperly further another person’s interests.

Commissioner Wake’s ruling on March 20th concerning the OPP Commissioner appointment process contains clear evidence that Premier Ford’s made a direct job offer to Taverner, and only Taverner (See pages 21-24 of your ruling (paras. 78-90)).

Ford’s offer skipped four key steps in the hiring process for Ontario government jobs, and also violated key requirements for government appointments and pay rates.

“There is clear evidence in the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on the OPP Commissioner appointment process that Premier Ford violated Ontario’s ethics law by directly offering an executive job to his friend Ron Taverner at the Ontario Cannabis Store,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given the clear evidence, hopefully the Integrity Commissioner will do the right thing and issue a public ruling very soon finding Premier Ford guilty of violating the provincial ethics law.”

The Premier and Cabinet ministers are allowed to hire anyone they want as their staff as it is considered acceptable that, despite the fact staff are paid for with the public’s money, Cabinet ministers would want them all to be loyal supporters of the ruling party.

However, Democracy Watch’s position is that, based on Part 3 of a key Cabinet policy, it is improper for the Premier or any other Cabinet minister to appoint party loyalists or friends to any other government position. It is especially improper when the government hasn’t done a public, merit-based search for qualified candidates, and the person appointed lacks expertise in the area.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Did he talk about SNC-Lavalin or his call with AG with PM from Dec. 19-Jan. 7?

Did he communicate with PM about SNC-Lavalin or his call from Dec. 19-Jan. 7?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 1, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the media and House and Senate committees to ask former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick two simple questions that remain unanswered:

Did Mr. Wernick talk about SNC-Lavalin, or his phone call with then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, with Prime Minister Trudeau or other members of the PM’s staff from December 19, 2018 through to the beginning of January 2019 when everyone returned from vacation?

Did Mr. Wernick communicate in any way about SNC-Lavalin, or his phone call with then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, with Prime Minister Trudeau or other members of the PM’s staff from December 19, 2018 through to the beginning of January 2019 when everyone returned from vacation?

The statement issued on Saturday by Mr. Wernick’s lawyer Frank Addario does not answer these two questions. It says, very carefully, only that Mr. Wernick did not discuss SNC-Lavalin with the PM after the beginning of January.

The statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office says, very carefully, only that Mr. Wernick did not brief the Prime Minister on the call with the former Attorney General. This does not answer whether Mr. Wernick briefed someone on the PM’s staff about the call, who then briefed the PM about the call.

The statement says:

“Michael Wernick must answer two key questions about whether he communicated in any way with the PM or the PM’s staff after his call with the Attorney General about SNC-Lavalin,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The answers to these questions are key to both the investigation concerning who may have violated the federal government ethics law, and whether any obstruction of justice occurred.”

Answering these two questions is key for the Ethics Commissioner, and the RCMP, in their investigations. Democracy Watch’s February 8^th and March 5th letters to Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, which are the basis of the Commissioner’s current investigation, requested an investigation of everyone who may have tried to influence the former Attorney General. Ethics Commissioner Dion sent Democracy Watch a letter on February 26th confirming his investigation of its complaint.

Democracy Watch’s position is still that Ethics Commissioner Dion should delegate the investigation and ruling on the situation to a provincial ethics commissioner who has no ties to any federal party, given that he was chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet after a secretive, Cabinet-controlled process that failed to consult with opposition parties as required by the Parliament of Canada Act. Mr. Dion also has a record 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner.

It is a violation for anyone covered by the federal the Conflict of Interest Act, including the Prime Minister and PMO staff, to “use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to… improperly further another person’s private interests” (section 9).

Democracy Watch’s position is that stopping the prosecution would clearly further SNC-Lavalin’s private interests, and that it would be improper to pressure the Attorney General to intervene to stop the prosecution because the PPSC was established explicitly to prevent such political interference in prosecutions.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign

Did he talk about SNC-Lavalin or his call with AG with PM from Dec. 19-Jan. 7?

Did he communicate with PM about SNC-Lavalin or his call from Dec. 19-Jan. 7?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 1, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the media and House and Senate committees to ask former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick two simple questions that remain unanswered:

Did Mr. Wernick talk about SNC-Lavalin, or his phone call with then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, with Prime Minister Trudeau or other members of the PM’s staff from December 19, 2018 through to the beginning of January 2019 when everyone returned from vacation?

Did Mr. Wernick communicate in any way about SNC-Lavalin, or his phone call with then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, with Prime Minister Trudeau or other members of the PM’s staff from December 19, 2018 through to the beginning of January 2019 when everyone returned from vacation?

The statement issued on Saturday by Mr. Wernick’s lawyer Frank Addario does not answer these two questions. It says, very carefully, only that Mr. Wernick did not discuss SNC-Lavalin with the PM after the beginning of January.

The statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office says, very carefully, only that Mr. Wernick did not brief the Prime Minister on the call with the former Attorney General. This does not answer whether Mr. Wernick briefed someone on the PM’s staff about the call, who then briefed the PM about the call.

The statement says:

“Michael Wernick must answer two key questions about whether he communicated in any way with the PM or the PM’s staff after his call with the Attorney General about SNC-Lavalin,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The answers to these questions are key to both the investigation concerning who may have violated the federal government ethics law, and whether any obstruction of justice occurred.”

Answering these two questions is key for the Ethics Commissioner, and the RCMP, in their investigations. Democracy Watch’s February 8^th and March 5th letters to Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, which are the basis of the Commissioner’s current investigation, requested an investigation of everyone who may have tried to influence the former Attorney General. Ethics Commissioner Dion sent Democracy Watch a letter on February 26th confirming his investigation of its complaint.

Democracy Watch’s position is still that Ethics Commissioner Dion should delegate the investigation and ruling on the situation to a provincial ethics commissioner who has no ties to any federal party, given that he was chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet after a secretive, Cabinet-controlled process that failed to consult with opposition parties as required by the Parliament of Canada Act. Mr. Dion also has a record 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner.

It is a violation for anyone covered by the federal the Conflict of Interest Act, including the Prime Minister and PMO staff, to “use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to… improperly further another person’s private interests” (section 9).

Democracy Watch’s position is that stopping the prosecution would clearly further SNC-Lavalin’s private interests, and that it would be improper to pressure the Attorney General to intervene to stop the prosecution because the PPSC was established explicitly to prevent such political interference in prosecutions.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign

Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on OPP Commissioner appointment contains clear evidence Ford’s Chief of Staff, deputy minister and possibly others gave preferential treatment to Ron Taverner and Mario di Tomasso

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 25, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake calling on him 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 Tomasso and Chris Froggatt, which would violate the provincial government ethics law.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Commissioner Wake to investigate whether Ford violated the rules in the ethics law that require him to ensure his staff are familiar with the ethics rules, and to promote ethical conduct by his staff.

The letter was also sent to Ontario Conflict of Interest Commissioner Sidney Linden calling on him to issue a public ruling on former Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini also providing preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner and Mr. Di Tomasso. Commissioner Linden is still the person who enforces the ethics law for the Secretary (under clause 62(1)4 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, until May 1, 2019, when Commissioner Linden’s office will be merged with Integrity Commissioner Wake’s office).

Commissioner Wake’s ruling issued last Wednesday concerning the OPP Commissioner appointment process contains clear evidence that Dean French, and former Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini, provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner with regard to the offer Premier Ford made to Taverner of an executive job with the government’s Ontario Cannabis store, and also throughout the OPP Commissioner appointment process that resulted in Premier Ford’s attempted appointment of his friend Mr. Taverner.

There is also evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Mr. French and Mr. Orsini provided preferential treatment to Mario Di Tomasso by considering only him for the position of Deputy Minister of Community Safety, which helped ensure Mr. Taverner’s appointment as OPP Commissioner given Mr. Di Tomasso was Mr. Taverner’s former boss at the Toronto Police Service.

Finally, there is also evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Mr. French provided preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt in connecting him (and him only) with Mr. Taverner after the Ford Cabinet appointed him as OPP Commissioner to have him give Mr. Taverner communications advice and assistance.

Further investigation is needed by Commissioner Wake to determine if the actions of Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, also crossed the line in the ethics law. There is some evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that they also provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner.

See the Evidence from the Integrity Commissioner’s Ruling set out below that details the evidence of this preferential treatment in Commissioner Wake’s ruling.

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…”

Premier Ford, like all ministers, is required to ensure his staff know this rule and the other ethics rules, and to promote ethical conduct by his staff.

See the Details on the Ontario Government Ethics Law and Regulations set out below.

“There is clear evidence in the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on the OPP Commissioner appointment process that Premier Ford’s 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 Tomasso,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully the Integrity Commissioner will do the right thing and stop ignoring the clear evidence of violations that he gathered in his investigation of the OPP Commissioner appointment process, and will issue a public ruling finding Premier Ford’s staff guilty of violating provincial ethics rules.”

“Hopefully Premier Ford will do the right thing and penalize his staff for violating these key rules that are aimed at ensuring democratic good government for all the people of Ontario, not just for Premier Ford’s friends,” said Conacher.

Premier Ford has the power to penalize his staff for violations of the ethics rules under section 70 of the Act. The question is, will he penalize them?

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

---

---

Details on the Ontario Government Ethics Law and Regulations

As summarized on the website of Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake, ministers’ staff are subject to various ethics measures by the Public Service of Ontario Act (sections 2, 4, 66 to 69 and 94 to 98) and a regulation under that Act (O.Reg. 382/07).

Section 6 of the regulation prohibits giving “preferential treatment to any person or entity” and requires ministers’ staff to “endeavour to avoid creating the appearance that preferential treatment is being given to a person or entity…”

For the Secretary of the Cabinet, different parts of the Act apply (sections 56-65) and a different regulation (O.Reg. 381/07) but it has the same section 6 rules prohibiting preferential treatment, as set out on the website of Ontario Conflict of Interest Commissioner Sydney Linden.

Section 67 of the Act requires Premier Ford and other ministers to ensure their staff are familiar with the ethics rules, and to promote ethical conduct by his staff.

Premier Ford has the power to penalize his staff for violations of the ethics rules under section 70 of the Act.

---

---

Evidence from the Integrity Commissioner’s Ruling of Preferential Treatment

The following is the clear evidence in Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake’s March 20^th ruling on the Ford’s government’s attempted appointment of Ron Taverner as OPP Commissioner that Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff Dean French, and Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini, provided preferential treatment to Premier Ford’s friend Ron Taverner, and also Mario Di Tomasso, and also that Dean French provided preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt. Also below is some evidence that Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, participated in this preferential treatment offered to Mr. Taverner, although further investigation and confirmation is needed. It is a violation of section 6 of O.Reg. 382/07 for public servants in a minister’s office (as defined under (sections 2, 4, 66 to 69) of the Public Service of Ontario Act even to appear to give preferential treatment to anyone or any entity. It is a violation of section 6 of O.Reg. 381/07 for the Secretary of the Cabinet even to appear to give preferential treatment to anyone or any entity.

1. On pp. 21-24 of his ruling (paras. 78-90), Commissioner Wake details how Premier Ford offered his friend Ron Taverner a job on the executive of the government’s new Ontario Cannabis Store, and how Dean French also made the offer to Mr. Taverner, and how Mr. French and Steve Orsini made the offer process happen officially, at a salary of $270,000 annually for four years, through the Deputy Minister for the Ministry of Finance – all of which is clear evidence that Mr. Taverner was given preferential treatment;
2. Commissioner Wake gathered all of the following evidence of preferential treatment given to Mr. Taverner through the OPP Commissioner appointment process, and also to Mario Di Tomasso during that process:

(a) On p. 30 of his ruling, in the transcript of Commissioner Wake’s interview with Dean French, Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff, Mr. French says both he and Premier Ford both recommended to then-Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini (who serves at the pleasure of Premier Ford) that Ron Taverner be considered for the OPP Commissioner job (and then French corrects himself to say that only he recommended that to Orsini);
(b) On p. 31 (para. 115), Mr. French is cited as saying to Mr. Orsini that the Premier held Taverner “in high regard” and (para. 116) that he recommended to Taverner that he apply for OPP Commissioner;
(c) On p. 33 (para. 127), Mr. French confirms that he suggested to Mr. Orsini that Mario Di Tommaso be made Deputy Minister to the Minister of Community Safety;
(d) Also on pp. 33-34 (paras. 129-132), former Deputy Minister to the Minister of Community Safety Matt Torigian (who was pushed out of his position by Mr. French, as detailed on pp. 31-32) says Mr. Orsini told Mr. Torigian that he was being “pressured” to find a job for Mr. Taverner (and Mr. Orsini confirms some aspects of this conversation);
(e) On p. 35, Deputy Attorney General Paul Boniferro states that Mr. Orsini told him that “…the Premier’s Office had suggested Mr. Taverner for a role at the OCS in the summer and that he thought that the Premier’s Office would also suggest Mr. Taverner for the deputy minister role. Mr. Boniferro stated that the Secretary thought that it would be more appropriate for Mr. Taverner to apply for the OPP Commissioner position.”
(f) Also on p. 35 (para. 135), Mr. Orsini confirms that Mr. Di Tomasso was the only person he interviewed for the Deputy Minister of Community Safety position;
(g) On pp. 37-40 (paras. 139-152), it is detailed that Mr. Orsini reached out to Mr. Taverner, met with him, and let Sal Badali of Odgers Berndtson (the search firm contracted to assist with the OPP Commissioner appointment) know that Mr. Taverner was interested in the OPP position;
(h) On pp. 43-44 (paras. 165-168), it is detailed that Mr. French called Mr. Orsini to request that the rank requirement in the OPP Commissioner job notice be changed;
(i) On pp. 44-45 (paras. 169-171), Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, confirm that they both spoke to Mr. Orsini about changing the rank requirements in the OPP Commissioner job notice;
(j) On p. 45 (para. 173), the Executive Assistant to the General Counsel for Mr. Orsini confirms that Mr. Orsini told her that Mr. French had asked him to change the job notice, and also told her that “he suspected that Mr. Taverner called Mr. French to notify him that he would not be able to apply to the job” unless the rank requirement was changed;
(k) On p. 52 (paras. 203-204), it is confirmed that Mr. French requested to be on the selection committee for OPP Commissioner and be involved “early in the process” and that Mr. Di Tomasso (Mr. Taverner’s former boss in the Toronto Police Service) was also on the selection committee;
(l) On pp. 53-54 (paras. 205-207), it is confirmed that Mr. Orsini texted Mr. French to let him know Mr. Taverner was on the short list of candidates for OPP Commissioner, and that Mr. French responded by texting that was the “Best news all day” and that Mr. Orsini knew “they were interested in” Mr. Taverner (with “they” very likely referring to the Premier and Mr. French);
(m) On pp. 55-56 (paras. 215-216), it is confirmed that Mr. Orsini sent a text to Mr. French to let him know the “Great news” that Mr. Taverner was one of three candidates approved after the first round of interviews and that “It is now up to the second panel of you, Mario, Sal and I to recommend to the Premier.”
(n) On pp. 56-59 (paras. 219-229), it is confirmed that Mr. French, Mr. O’Toole and Mr. Harrington all attended a meeting before the second round of interviews with Mr. Badali, Mr. Di Tomasso and Mr. Orsini (all members of the selection committee), and that subsequently Mr. French (after meeting again with Mr. Orsini, and after talking with Premier Ford) finally recognized the clear conflict of interest resulting from his involvement in the selection process up to that point, and so he finally withdrew from the second-round selection committee interview process the evening before it took place;
(o) On pp. 62-3 (paras. 239-242, and see also paras. 260-261), Mr. Wake concludes that; the selection process was not independent of Premier Ford; Mr. Orsini knew that Premier Ford wanted to give Taverner a government job and had taken actions to ensure Taverner applied for the OPP Commissioner job, and; Mr. Orsini had communications with Mr. French during the selection process that favoured Mr. Taverner, and the result was the selection process was unfairly tilted in favour of Mr. Taverner.

3. There is also evidence Dean French gave Chris Froggatt preferential treatment by contacting him (and him only) to connect him with Ron Taverner after he was appointed OPP Commissioner to give Taverner communications advice and assistance, as documented on p. 68 (paras. 262-263) and on pp. 75-76 (paras. 282-283) of the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling.

Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on OPP Commissioner appointment contains clear evidence Ford’s Chief of Staff, deputy minister and possibly others gave preferential treatment to Ron Taverner and Mario di Tomasso

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 25, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake calling on him 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 Tomasso and Chris Froggatt, which would violate the provincial government ethics law.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Commissioner Wake to investigate whether Ford violated the rules in the ethics law that require him to ensure his staff are familiar with the ethics rules, and to promote ethical conduct by his staff.

The letter was also sent to Ontario Conflict of Interest Commissioner Sidney Linden calling on him to issue a public ruling on former Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini also providing preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner and Mr. Di Tomasso. Commissioner Linden is still the person who enforces the ethics law for the Secretary (under clause 62(1)4 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, until May 1, 2019, when Commissioner Linden’s office will be merged with Integrity Commissioner Wake’s office).

Commissioner Wake’s ruling issued last Wednesday concerning the OPP Commissioner appointment process contains clear evidence that Dean French, and former Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini, provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner with regard to the offer Premier Ford made to Taverner of an executive job with the government’s Ontario Cannabis store, and also throughout the OPP Commissioner appointment process that resulted in Premier Ford’s attempted appointment of his friend Mr. Taverner.

There is also evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Mr. French and Mr. Orsini provided preferential treatment to Mario Di Tomasso by considering only him for the position of Deputy Minister of Community Safety, which helped ensure Mr. Taverner’s appointment as OPP Commissioner given Mr. Di Tomasso was Mr. Taverner’s former boss at the Toronto Police Service.

Finally, there is also evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Mr. French provided preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt in connecting him (and him only) with Mr. Taverner after the Ford Cabinet appointed him as OPP Commissioner to have him give Mr. Taverner communications advice and assistance.

Further investigation is needed by Commissioner Wake to determine if the actions of Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, also crossed the line in the ethics law. There is some evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that they also provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner.

See the Evidence from the Integrity Commissioner’s Ruling set out below that details the evidence of this preferential treatment in Commissioner Wake’s ruling.

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…”

Premier Ford, like all ministers, is required to ensure his staff know this rule and the other ethics rules, and to promote ethical conduct by his staff.

See the Details on the Ontario Government Ethics Law and Regulations set out below.

“There is clear evidence in the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling on the OPP Commissioner appointment process that Premier Ford’s 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 Tomasso,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully the Integrity Commissioner will do the right thing and stop ignoring the clear evidence of violations that he gathered in his investigation of the OPP Commissioner appointment process, and will issue a public ruling finding Premier Ford’s staff guilty of violating provincial ethics rules.”

“Hopefully Premier Ford will do the right thing and penalize his staff for violating these key rules that are aimed at ensuring democratic good government for all the people of Ontario, not just for Premier Ford’s friends,” said Conacher.

Premier Ford has the power to penalize his staff for violations of the ethics rules under section 70 of the Act. The question is, will he penalize them?

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

---

---

Details on the Ontario Government Ethics Law and Regulations

As summarized on the website of Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake, ministers’ staff are subject to various ethics measures by the Public Service of Ontario Act (sections 2, 4, 66 to 69 and 94 to 98) and a regulation under that Act (O.Reg. 382/07).

Section 6 of the regulation prohibits giving “preferential treatment to any person or entity” and requires ministers’ staff to “endeavour to avoid creating the appearance that preferential treatment is being given to a person or entity…”

For the Secretary of the Cabinet, different parts of the Act apply (sections 56-65) and a different regulation (O.Reg. 381/07) but it has the same section 6 rules prohibiting preferential treatment, as set out on the website of Ontario Conflict of Interest Commissioner Sydney Linden.

Section 67 of the Act requires Premier Ford and other ministers to ensure their staff are familiar with the ethics rules, and to promote ethical conduct by his staff.

Premier Ford has the power to penalize his staff for violations of the ethics rules under section 70 of the Act.

---

---

Evidence from the Integrity Commissioner’s Ruling of Preferential Treatment

The following is the clear evidence in Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake’s March 20^th ruling on the Ford’s government’s attempted appointment of Ron Taverner as OPP Commissioner that Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff Dean French, and Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini, provided preferential treatment to Premier Ford’s friend Ron Taverner, and also Mario Di Tomasso, and also that Dean French provided preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt. Also below is some evidence that Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, participated in this preferential treatment offered to Mr. Taverner, although further investigation and confirmation is needed. It is a violation of section 6 of O.Reg. 382/07 for public servants in a minister’s office (as defined under (sections 2, 4, 66 to 69) of the Public Service of Ontario Act even to appear to give preferential treatment to anyone or any entity. It is a violation of section 6 of O.Reg. 381/07 for the Secretary of the Cabinet even to appear to give preferential treatment to anyone or any entity.

1. On pp. 21-24 of his ruling (paras. 78-90), Commissioner Wake details how Premier Ford offered his friend Ron Taverner a job on the executive of the government’s new Ontario Cannabis Store, and how Dean French also made the offer to Mr. Taverner, and how Mr. French and Steve Orsini made the offer process happen officially, at a salary of $270,000 annually for four years, through the Deputy Minister for the Ministry of Finance – all of which is clear evidence that Mr. Taverner was given preferential treatment;
2. Commissioner Wake gathered all of the following evidence of preferential treatment given to Mr. Taverner through the OPP Commissioner appointment process, and also to Mario Di Tomasso during that process:

(a) On p. 30 of his ruling, in the transcript of Commissioner Wake’s interview with Dean French, Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff, Mr. French says both he and Premier Ford both recommended to then-Secretary of the Cabinet Steve Orsini (who serves at the pleasure of Premier Ford) that Ron Taverner be considered for the OPP Commissioner job (and then French corrects himself to say that only he recommended that to Orsini);
(b) On p. 31 (para. 115), Mr. French is cited as saying to Mr. Orsini that the Premier held Taverner “in high regard” and (para. 116) that he recommended to Taverner that he apply for OPP Commissioner;
(c) On p. 33 (para. 127), Mr. French confirms that he suggested to Mr. Orsini that Mario Di Tommaso be made Deputy Minister to the Minister of Community Safety;
(d) Also on pp. 33-34 (paras. 129-132), former Deputy Minister to the Minister of Community Safety Matt Torigian (who was pushed out of his position by Mr. French, as detailed on pp. 31-32) says Mr. Orsini told Mr. Torigian that he was being “pressured” to find a job for Mr. Taverner (and Mr. Orsini confirms some aspects of this conversation);
(e) On p. 35, Deputy Attorney General Paul Boniferro states that Mr. Orsini told him that “…the Premier’s Office had suggested Mr. Taverner for a role at the OCS in the summer and that he thought that the Premier’s Office would also suggest Mr. Taverner for the deputy minister role. Mr. Boniferro stated that the Secretary thought that it would be more appropriate for Mr. Taverner to apply for the OPP Commissioner position.”
(f) Also on p. 35 (para. 135), Mr. Orsini confirms that Mr. Di Tomasso was the only person he interviewed for the Deputy Minister of Community Safety position;
(g) On pp. 37-40 (paras. 139-152), it is detailed that Mr. Orsini reached out to Mr. Taverner, met with him, and let Sal Badali of Odgers Berndtson (the search firm contracted to assist with the OPP Commissioner appointment) know that Mr. Taverner was interested in the OPP position;
(h) On pp. 43-44 (paras. 165-168), it is detailed that Mr. French called Mr. Orsini to request that the rank requirement in the OPP Commissioner job notice be changed;
(i) On pp. 44-45 (paras. 169-171), Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, confirm that they both spoke to Mr. Orsini about changing the rank requirements in the OPP Commissioner job notice;
(j) On p. 45 (para. 173), the Executive Assistant to the General Counsel for Mr. Orsini confirms that Mr. Orsini told her that Mr. French had asked him to change the job notice, and also told her that “he suspected that Mr. Taverner called Mr. French to notify him that he would not be able to apply to the job” unless the rank requirement was changed;
(k) On p. 52 (paras. 203-204), it is confirmed that Mr. French requested to be on the selection committee for OPP Commissioner and be involved “early in the process” and that Mr. Di Tomasso (Mr. Taverner’s former boss in the Toronto Police Service) was also on the selection committee;
(l) On pp. 53-54 (paras. 205-207), it is confirmed that Mr. Orsini texted Mr. French to let him know Mr. Taverner was on the short list of candidates for OPP Commissioner, and that Mr. French responded by texting that was the “Best news all day” and that Mr. Orsini knew “they were interested in” Mr. Taverner (with “they” very likely referring to the Premier and Mr. French);
(m) On pp. 55-56 (paras. 215-216), it is confirmed that Mr. Orsini sent a text to Mr. French to let him know the “Great news” that Mr. Taverner was one of three candidates approved after the first round of interviews and that “It is now up to the second panel of you, Mario, Sal and I to recommend to the Premier.”
(n) On pp. 56-59 (paras. 219-229), it is confirmed that Mr. French, Mr. O’Toole and Mr. Harrington all attended a meeting before the second round of interviews with Mr. Badali, Mr. Di Tomasso and Mr. Orsini (all members of the selection committee), and that subsequently Mr. French (after meeting again with Mr. Orsini, and after talking with Premier Ford) finally recognized the clear conflict of interest resulting from his involvement in the selection process up to that point, and so he finally withdrew from the second-round selection committee interview process the evening before it took place;
(o) On pp. 62-3 (paras. 239-242, and see also paras. 260-261), Mr. Wake concludes that; the selection process was not independent of Premier Ford; Mr. Orsini knew that Premier Ford wanted to give Taverner a government job and had taken actions to ensure Taverner applied for the OPP Commissioner job, and; Mr. Orsini had communications with Mr. French during the selection process that favoured Mr. Taverner, and the result was the selection process was unfairly tilted in favour of Mr. Taverner.

3. There is also evidence Dean French gave Chris Froggatt preferential treatment by contacting him (and him only) to connect him with Ron Taverner after he was appointed OPP Commissioner to give Taverner communications advice and assistance, as documented on p. 68 (paras. 262-263) and on pp. 75-76 (paras. 282-283) of the Integrity Commissioner’s ruling.

Ignores clear evidence Premier Ford offered another job to his friend Ron Taverner, that Ford’s senior staff tried to influence the OPP appointment process to favour Taverner, and that Ford participated in final approval meeting – all of which clearly violates provincial government ethics law

Democracy Watch considering filing court case challenging Integrity Commissioner’s ruling for errors of fact and law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, March 22, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch responded to the negligently bad ruling by Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake on the Ford government’s attempted appointment of his close friend Ron Taverner as the new Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), a ruling that ignores clear evidence that several rules in the provincial government ethics law was violated by Premier Ford.

See the Backgrounder set out below that details the many flaws with Commissioner Wake’s ruling.

The ruling is as bad as Commissioner Wake’s August 2016 ruling that let the Wynne government off the hook after they held exclusive high-priced fundraising events involving lobbyists, in particular the event then-Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli and then-Finance Minister Charles Sousa attended that was organized in part by an executive at Scotiabank that was involved in privatizing part of Hydro One for the Wynne government. People at banks and law firms involved in the partial-privatization were all invited to the event.

“Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake’s ruling on the Ford government’s attempted appointment of Ford’s close friend Ron Taverner as OPP Commissioner is one of the most negligently bad rulings by a Canadian ethics commissioner that I have seen in the past 25 years,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Ford offered another government job to Taverner, and Ford’s senior staff person tried to influence the OPP appointment process to favour Taverner and Ford is responsible for his staff’s actions, and Ford also participated in the Cabinet meeting that approved Taverner’s appointment, and those are all clear violations of the provincial ethics law that Commissioner Wake negligently ignored.”

“For these reasons, Democracy Watch will consult with lawyers concerning filing a court challenge of Commissioner’s Wake’s ruling,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch was first to file a complaint about the attempted appointment of Taverner. The evidence Commissioner Wake gathered shows clearly that:

1. Premier Ford tried to hand a government job to his friend Ron Taverner, which clearly would be improper and also would further Mr. Taverner’s private interests (and therefore violates principles 2 and 4, and s. 2, of the Members’ Integrity Act);
2. Premier Ford’s Cabinet staff (especially his Chief of Staff Dean French) then intervened in the process for selecting the new OPP Commissioner to tilt the process in favour of Mr. Taverner (under the fundamental principle of ministerial responsibility, Premier Ford is responsible and accountable for the actions of his staff, and therefore these actions violated principles 2 and 4, and ss. 2 and 4, of the Act), and;
3. Premier Ford attended and spoke in favour of Mr. Taverner at the Cabinet meeting that approved his appointment as OPP Commissioner, which clearly violates the requirement in ss. 8 and 16 of the Act that Premier Ford remove himself from that meeting.

Sections 2 and 4 of the provincial Members’ Integrity Act prohibit provincial politicians from participating in or trying to influence any decision that could further their own interests or improperly further another person’s interests. Sections 8 and 16 of the Act require the Premier and Cabinet ministers to remove themselves from the legislature and/or a Cabinet meeting when they have a conflict of interest concerning a matter being considered or decided.

As well, an Ontario parliamentary convention that is enforceable under the Act is that Cabinet ministers and MPPs can’t use their position to help themselves, their friends or relatives (See paragraphs 24-26 on pp. 8-9 of this past Integrity Commissioner report).

That convention is reinforced in the Preamble of the Members’ Integrity Act that states the Act is based on the principles that Cabinet ministers and MPPs “are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny” (principle 4) and “are expected to perform their duties of office and arrange their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of each member, maintains the Assembly’s dignity and justifies the respect in which society holds the Assembly and its members” (principle 3).

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

---

---

Backgrounder

The following are the many negligent conclusions in Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake’s ruling on the Ford’s government’s attempted appointment of Ron Taverner as OPP Commissioner, conclusions that ignored clear evidence that Premier Ford violated principles 2 and 4 in the Preamble, and sections 2, 4, 8 and/or 16, of the Members’ Integrity Act:

1. On pp. 21-23 of his ruling, Commissioner Wake details how Premier Ford offered his friend Ron Taverner a job on the executive of the government’s new Ontario Cannabis Store. Yet Commissioner Wake ignores this clear evidence that Premier Ford violated section 2 of the Act by offering this job to Mr. Taverner. Commissioner Wake does not give any reasons in his report why he ignored this clear evidence of Premier Ford’s violation;

2. Commissioner Wake gathered all of the following evidence:
   (a) On p. 30 of his ruling, in the transcript of Commissioner Wake’s interview with Dean French, Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff, Mr. French says both he and Premier Ford both recommended to then-Secretary to the Cabinet Steve Orsini (who serves at the pleasure of Premier Ford) that Ron Taverner be considered for the OPP Commissioner job (and then French corrects himself to say that only he recommended that to Orsini);
   (b) On p. 31 (para. 115), Mr. French is cited as saying to Mr. Orsini that the Premier held Taverner “in high regard” and (para. 116) that he recommended to Taverner that he apply for OPP Commissioner;
   (c) On p. 33 (para. 127), Mr. French confirms that he suggested to Mr. Orsini that Mario Di Tommaso be made Deputy Minister to the Minister of Community Safety;
   (d) Also on pp. 33-34 (paras. 129-132), former Deputy Minister to the Minister of Community Safety Matt Torigian (who was pushed out of his position by Mr. French, as detailed on pp. 31-32) says Mr. Orsini told Mr. Torigian that he was being “pressured” to find a job for Mr. Taverner (and Mr. Orsini confirms some aspects of this conversation);
   (e) On p. 35, Deputy Attorney General Paul Boniferro states that Mr. Orsini told him that “…the Premier’s Office had suggested Mr. Taverner for a role at the OCS in the summer and that he thought that the Premier’s Office would also suggest Mr. Taverner for the deputy minister role. Mr. Boniferro stated that the Secretary thought that it would be more appropriate for Mr. Taverner to apply for the OPP Commissioner position.”
   (f) Also on p. 35 (para. 135), Mr. Orsini confirms that Mr. Di Tomasso was the only person he interviewed for the Deputy Minister of Community Safety position;
   (g) On pp. 37-40 (paras. 139-152), it is detailed that Mr. Orsini reached out to Mr. Taverner, met with him, and let Sal Badali of Odgers Berndtson (the search firm contracted to assist with the OPP Commissioner appointment) know that Mr. Taverner was interested in the OPP position;
   (h) On pp. 43-44 (paras. 165-168), it is detailed that Mr. French called Mr. Orsini to request that the rank requirement in the OPP Commissioner job notice be changed;
   (i) On pp. 44-45 (paras. 169-171), Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, confirm that they both spoke to Mr. Orsini about changing the rank requirements in the OPP Commissioner job notice;
   (j) On p. 45 (para. 173), the Executive Assistant to the General Counsel for Mr. Orsini confirms that Mr. Orsini told her that Mr. French had asked him to change the job notice, and also told her that “he suspected that Mr. Taverner called Mr. French to notify him that he would not be able to apply to the job” unless the rank requirement was changed;
   (k) On p. 52 (paras. 203-204), it is confirmed that Mr. French requested to be on the selection committee for OPP Commissioner and be involved “early in the process” and that Mr. Di Tomasso (Mr. Taverner’s former boss in the Toronto Police Service) was also on the selection committee;
   (l) On pp. 53-54 (paras. 205-207), it is confirmed that Mr. Orsini texted Mr. French to let him know Mr. Taverner was on the short list of candidates for OPP Commissioner, and that Mr. French responded by texting that was the “Best news all day” and that Mr. Orsini knew “they were interested in” Mr. Taverner (with “they” very likely referring to the Premier and Mr. French);
   (m) On pp. 55-56 (paras. 215-216), it is confirmed that Mr. Orsini sent a text to Mr. French to let him know the “Great news” that Mr. Taverner was one of three candidates approved after the first round of interviews and that “It is now up to the second panel of you, Mario, Sal and I to recommend to the Premier.”
   (n) On pp. 56-59 (paras. 219-229), it is confirmed that Mr. French, Mr. O’Toole and Mr. Harrington all attended a meeting before the second round of interviews with Mr. Badali, Mr. Di Tomasso and Mr. Orsini (all members of the selection committee), and that subsequently Mr. French (after meeting again with Mr. Orsini, and after talking with Premier Ford) finally recognized the clear conflict of interest resulting from his involvement in the selection process up to that point, and so he finally withdrew from the second-round selection committee interview process the evening before it took place;
   (o) On pp. 62-3 (paras. 239-242, and see also paras. 260-261), Mr. Wake concludes that; the selection process was not independent of Premier Ford; Mr. Orsini knew that Premier Ford wanted to give Taverner a government job and had taken actions to ensure Taverner applied for the OPP Commissioner job, and; Mr. Orsini had communications with Mr. French during the selection process that favoured Mr. Taverner, and the result was the selection process was unfairly tilted in favour of Mr. Taverner;

and yet, ignoring the weight of all of this evidence, and without even mentioning that under the fundamental principle of ministerial responsibility the Premier and all Cabinet ministers are responsible and accountable for the actions of their staff, Commissioner Wake concluded that Premier Ford did not violate principles 2 and 4, or section 4, of the Act even though his staff and the Cabinet Secretary intervened to tilt the appointment process in favour of Mr. Taverner (with some evidence that Premier Ford was involved at least in Mr. French’s actions). See Commissioner Wake’s reasons for ignoring this extensive evidence on pp. 79-90 of his ruling.

3. On pp. 63-67 (paras. 243-255), it is detailed that:
   (a) Orsini then proposed that Premier Ford not be involved in the Cabinet decision to approve Mr. Taverner as OPP Commissioner, but he was overruled by the Premier’s Office;
   (b) Premier Ford attended the Cabinet meeting at which the approval decision was made, with Cabinet ministers knowing he was friends with Mr. Taverner, and that Premier Ford made a comment in support of Mr. Taverner’s appointment;

but Commissioner Wake ignored that clear evidence that Mr. Ford violated principles 2 and 4, and sections 4, 8 and 16, of the Act by attending the meeting and speaking in favour of the appointment and failing to remove himself for the discussion and vote approving the appointment of his friend Mr. Taverner. See Commissioner Wake’s reasons for ignoring this clear evidence on pp. 93-96 of his ruling.

Ignores clear evidence Premier Ford offered another job to his friend Ron Taverner, that Ford’s senior staff tried to influence the OPP appointment process to favour Taverner, and that Ford participated in final approval meeting – all of which clearly violates provincial government ethics law

Democracy Watch considering filing court case challenging Integrity Commissioner’s ruling for errors of fact and law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, March 22, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch responded to the negligently bad ruling by Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake on the Ford government’s attempted appointment of his close friend Ron Taverner as the new Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), a ruling that ignores clear evidence that several rules in the provincial government ethics law was violated by Premier Ford.

See the Backgrounder set out below that details the many flaws with Commissioner Wake’s ruling.

The ruling is as bad as Commissioner Wake’s August 2016 ruling that let the Wynne government off the hook after they held exclusive high-priced fundraising events involving lobbyists, in particular the event then-Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli and then-Finance Minister Charles Sousa attended that was organized in part by an executive at Scotiabank that was involved in privatizing part of Hydro One for the Wynne government. People at banks and law firms involved in the partial-privatization were all invited to the event.

“Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake’s ruling on the Ford government’s attempted appointment of Ford’s close friend Ron Taverner as OPP Commissioner is one of the most negligently bad rulings by a Canadian ethics commissioner that I have seen in the past 25 years,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Ford offered another government job to Taverner, and Ford’s senior staff person tried to influence the OPP appointment process to favour Taverner and Ford is responsible for his staff’s actions, and Ford also participated in the Cabinet meeting that approved Taverner’s appointment, and those are all clear violations of the provincial ethics law that Commissioner Wake negligently ignored.”

“For these reasons, Democracy Watch will consult with lawyers concerning filing a court challenge of Commissioner’s Wake’s ruling,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch was first to file a complaint about the attempted appointment of Taverner. The evidence Commissioner Wake gathered shows clearly that:

1. Premier Ford tried to hand a government job to his friend Ron Taverner, which clearly would be improper and also would further Mr. Taverner’s private interests (and therefore violates principles 2 and 4, and s. 2, of the Members’ Integrity Act);
2. Premier Ford’s Cabinet staff (especially his Chief of Staff Dean French) then intervened in the process for selecting the new OPP Commissioner to tilt the process in favour of Mr. Taverner (under the fundamental principle of ministerial responsibility, Premier Ford is responsible and accountable for the actions of his staff, and therefore these actions violated principles 2 and 4, and ss. 2 and 4, of the Act), and;
3. Premier Ford attended and spoke in favour of Mr. Taverner at the Cabinet meeting that approved his appointment as OPP Commissioner, which clearly violates the requirement in ss. 8 and 16 of the Act that Premier Ford remove himself from that meeting.

Sections 2 and 4 of the provincial Members’ Integrity Act prohibit provincial politicians from participating in or trying to influence any decision that could further their own interests or improperly further another person’s interests. Sections 8 and 16 of the Act require the Premier and Cabinet ministers to remove themselves from the legislature and/or a Cabinet meeting when they have a conflict of interest concerning a matter being considered or decided.

As well, an Ontario parliamentary convention that is enforceable under the Act is that Cabinet ministers and MPPs can’t use their position to help themselves, their friends or relatives (See paragraphs 24-26 on pp. 8-9 of this past Integrity Commissioner report).

That convention is reinforced in the Preamble of the Members’ Integrity Act that states the Act is based on the principles that Cabinet ministers and MPPs “are expected to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny” (principle 4) and “are expected to perform their duties of office and arrange their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of each member, maintains the Assembly’s dignity and justifies the respect in which society holds the Assembly and its members” (principle 3).

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

---

---

Backgrounder

The following are the many negligent conclusions in Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake’s ruling on the Ford’s government’s attempted appointment of Ron Taverner as OPP Commissioner, conclusions that ignored clear evidence that Premier Ford violated principles 2 and 4 in the Preamble, and sections 2, 4, 8 and/or 16, of the Members’ Integrity Act:

1. On pp. 21-23 of his ruling, Commissioner Wake details how Premier Ford offered his friend Ron Taverner a job on the executive of the government’s new Ontario Cannabis Store. Yet Commissioner Wake ignores this clear evidence that Premier Ford violated section 2 of the Act by offering this job to Mr. Taverner. Commissioner Wake does not give any reasons in his report why he ignored this clear evidence of Premier Ford’s violation;

2. Commissioner Wake gathered all of the following evidence:
   (a) On p. 30 of his ruling, in the transcript of Commissioner Wake’s interview with Dean French, Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff, Mr. French says both he and Premier Ford both recommended to then-Secretary to the Cabinet Steve Orsini (who serves at the pleasure of Premier Ford) that Ron Taverner be considered for the OPP Commissioner job (and then French corrects himself to say that only he recommended that to Orsini);
   (b) On p. 31 (para. 115), Mr. French is cited as saying to Mr. Orsini that the Premier held Taverner “in high regard” and (para. 116) that he recommended to Taverner that he apply for OPP Commissioner;
   (c) On p. 33 (para. 127), Mr. French confirms that he suggested to Mr. Orsini that Mario Di Tommaso be made Deputy Minister to the Minister of Community Safety;
   (d) Also on pp. 33-34 (paras. 129-132), former Deputy Minister to the Minister of Community Safety Matt Torigian (who was pushed out of his position by Mr. French, as detailed on pp. 31-32) says Mr. Orsini told Mr. Torigian that he was being “pressured” to find a job for Mr. Taverner (and Mr. Orsini confirms some aspects of this conversation);
   (e) On p. 35, Deputy Attorney General Paul Boniferro states that Mr. Orsini told him that “…the Premier’s Office had suggested Mr. Taverner for a role at the OCS in the summer and that he thought that the Premier’s Office would also suggest Mr. Taverner for the deputy minister role. Mr. Boniferro stated that the Secretary thought that it would be more appropriate for Mr. Taverner to apply for the OPP Commissioner position.”
   (f) Also on p. 35 (para. 135), Mr. Orsini confirms that Mr. Di Tomasso was the only person he interviewed for the Deputy Minister of Community Safety position;
   (g) On pp. 37-40 (paras. 139-152), it is detailed that Mr. Orsini reached out to Mr. Taverner, met with him, and let Sal Badali of Odgers Berndtson (the search firm contracted to assist with the OPP Commissioner appointment) know that Mr. Taverner was interested in the OPP position;
   (h) On pp. 43-44 (paras. 165-168), it is detailed that Mr. French called Mr. Orsini to request that the rank requirement in the OPP Commissioner job notice be changed;
   (i) On pp. 44-45 (paras. 169-171), Derek O’Toole, Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, Policy Advisor to Mr. French, confirm that they both spoke to Mr. Orsini about changing the rank requirements in the OPP Commissioner job notice;
   (j) On p. 45 (para. 173), the Executive Assistant to the General Counsel for Mr. Orsini confirms that Mr. Orsini told her that Mr. French had asked him to change the job notice, and also told her that “he suspected that Mr. Taverner called Mr. French to notify him that he would not be able to apply to the job” unless the rank requirement was changed;
   (k) On p. 52 (paras. 203-204), it is confirmed that Mr. French requested to be on the selection committee for OPP Commissioner and be involved “early in the process” and that Mr. Di Tomasso (Mr. Taverner’s former boss in the Toronto Police Service) was also on the selection committee;
   (l) On pp. 53-54 (paras. 205-207), it is confirmed that Mr. Orsini texted Mr. French to let him know Mr. Taverner was on the short list of candidates for OPP Commissioner, and that Mr. French responded by texting that was the “Best news all day” and that Mr. Orsini knew “they were interested in” Mr. Taverner (with “they” very likely referring to the Premier and Mr. French);
   (m) On pp. 55-56 (paras. 215-216), it is confirmed that Mr. Orsini sent a text to Mr. French to let him know the “Great news” that Mr. Taverner was one of three candidates approved after the first round of interviews and that “It is now up to the second panel of you, Mario, Sal and I to recommend to the Premier.”
   (n) On pp. 56-59 (paras. 219-229), it is confirmed that Mr. French, Mr. O’Toole and Mr. Harrington all attended a meeting before the second round of interviews with Mr. Badali, Mr. Di Tomasso and Mr. Orsini (all members of the selection committee), and that subsequently Mr. French (after meeting again with Mr. Orsini, and after talking with Premier Ford) finally recognized the clear conflict of interest resulting from his involvement in the selection process up to that point, and so he finally withdrew from the second-round selection committee interview process the evening before it took place;
   (o) On pp. 62-3 (paras. 239-242, and see also paras. 260-261), Mr. Wake concludes that; the selection process was not independent of Premier Ford; Mr. Orsini knew that Premier Ford wanted to give Taverner a government job and had taken actions to ensure Taverner applied for the OPP Commissioner job, and; Mr. Orsini had communications with Mr. French during the selection process that favoured Mr. Taverner, and the result was the selection process was unfairly tilted in favour of Mr. Taverner;

and yet, ignoring the weight of all of this evidence, and without even mentioning that under the fundamental principle of ministerial responsibility the Premier and all Cabinet ministers are responsible and accountable for the actions of their staff, Commissioner Wake concluded that Premier Ford did not violate principles 2 and 4, or section 4, of the Act even though his staff and the Cabinet Secretary intervened to tilt the appointment process in favour of Mr. Taverner (with some evidence that Premier Ford was involved at least in Mr. French’s actions). See Commissioner Wake’s reasons for ignoring this extensive evidence on pp. 79-90 of his ruling.

3. On pp. 63-67 (paras. 243-255), it is detailed that:
   (a) Orsini then proposed that Premier Ford not be involved in the Cabinet decision to approve Mr. Taverner as OPP Commissioner, but he was overruled by the Premier’s Office;
   (b) Premier Ford attended the Cabinet meeting at which the approval decision was made, with Cabinet ministers knowing he was friends with Mr. Taverner, and that Premier Ford made a comment in support of Mr. Taverner’s appointment;

but Commissioner Wake ignored that clear evidence that Mr. Ford violated principles 2 and 4, and sections 4, 8 and 16, of the Act by attending the meeting and speaking in favour of the appointment and failing to remove himself for the discussion and vote approving the appointment of his friend Mr. Taverner. See Commissioner Wake’s reasons for ignoring this clear evidence on pp. 93-96 of his ruling.

Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger biased as she was handpicked by Trudeau through secretive, PMO-controlled process – so should not investigate situation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, March 13, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger requesting that she ensure an independent investigation and ruling on whether former Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch violated the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct by failing to register as a lobbyist for SNC-Lavalin.

According to an article published yesterday by the Hill Times, Mr. Lynch is very likely paid more than his expenses as Chair of the Board of SNC-Lavalin, and as a result he would be required by the Lobbying Act to register any lobbying he has done for the company in the Registry of Lobbyists as a consultant lobbyist.

According to the recent testimony of Mr. Lynch’s former government colleague and now-Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick before the House of Commons Justice Committee, Mr. Lynch called him last October to see what could be done to reverse the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute SNC-Lavalin for bribery of government officials in Libya.

Any paid lobbying by a consultant lobbyist “in respect of” a government decision is required to be disclosed in the Registry. Mr. Lynch’s phone call is not in the Registry. As a result, Democracy Watch’s letter requests an investigation of all of Mr. Lynch’s communications with federal government officials back to when he became a board member of SNC-Lavalin in May 2017.

Democracy Watch’s letter also requests an investigation into whether SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce violated the Lobbyists’ Code by not taking effective steps, as the responsible senior officer for the company, to ensure Mr. Lynch’s lobbying was registered.

As well, if the conclusion of the investigations is that Mr. Lynch lobbied for SNC-Lavalin without registering, or other unregistered lobbying by anyone connected to SNC-Lavalin is uncovered, Democracy Watch letter requests an investigation of all of SNC-Lavalin’s lobbying back to 2014.

Democracy Watch’s letter also requests that Commissioner Bélanger delegate the investigations and rulings to a provincial ethics or lobbying commissioner who has no ties to any political party. Commissioner Bélanger was handpicked by Prime Minister Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process, and has also made several public statements that she believes lobbyists are good and that public officials should be trusted.

For these reason, Democracy Watch’s position is the Commissioner Bélanger is biased against enforcing the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code effectively, especially in situations involving the Trudeau Cabinet. Democracy Watch has challenged Commissioner Bélanger’s appointment, and also challenged one of her rulings, in Federal Court.

“An independent investigation of Kevin Lynch’s communications with Trudeau Liberal government officials on behalf of SNC-Lavalin is needed to determine whether the lobbying disclosure law or lobbyists’ code were violated,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given that she was handpicked by Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process, the Lobbying Commissioner is in a conflict of interest in dealing with this situation and so must delegate the investigation to a person who is independent of her and all political parties.”

The Lobbying Act was required to be reviewed by the House Ethics Committee last year, and the Committee will hopefully finally undertake the review in the next couple of months. See details about the changes needed to close loopholes and strengthen enforcement and penalties for the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct here.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign

Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger biased as she was handpicked by Trudeau through secretive, PMO-controlled process – so should not investigate situation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, March 13, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger requesting that she ensure an independent investigation and ruling on whether former Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch violated the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct by failing to register as a lobbyist for SNC-Lavalin.

According to an article published yesterday by the Hill Times, Mr. Lynch is very likely paid more than his expenses as Chair of the Board of SNC-Lavalin, and as a result he would be required by the Lobbying Act to register any lobbying he has done for the company in the Registry of Lobbyists as a consultant lobbyist.

According to the recent testimony of Mr. Lynch’s former government colleague and now-Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick before the House of Commons Justice Committee, Mr. Lynch called him last October to see what could be done to reverse the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute SNC-Lavalin for bribery of government officials in Libya.

Any paid lobbying by a consultant lobbyist “in respect of” a government decision is required to be disclosed in the Registry. Mr. Lynch’s phone call is not in the Registry. As a result, Democracy Watch’s letter requests an investigation of all of Mr. Lynch’s communications with federal government officials back to when he became a board member of SNC-Lavalin in May 2017.

Democracy Watch’s letter also requests an investigation into whether SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce violated the Lobbyists’ Code by not taking effective steps, as the responsible senior officer for the company, to ensure Mr. Lynch’s lobbying was registered.

As well, if the conclusion of the investigations is that Mr. Lynch lobbied for SNC-Lavalin without registering, or other unregistered lobbying by anyone connected to SNC-Lavalin is uncovered, Democracy Watch letter requests an investigation of all of SNC-Lavalin’s lobbying back to 2014.

Democracy Watch’s letter also requests that Commissioner Bélanger delegate the investigations and rulings to a provincial ethics or lobbying commissioner who has no ties to any political party. Commissioner Bélanger was handpicked by Prime Minister Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process, and has also made several public statements that she believes lobbyists are good and that public officials should be trusted.

For these reason, Democracy Watch’s position is the Commissioner Bélanger is biased against enforcing the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code effectively, especially in situations involving the Trudeau Cabinet. Democracy Watch has challenged Commissioner Bélanger’s appointment, and also challenged one of her rulings, in Federal Court.

“An independent investigation of Kevin Lynch’s communications with Trudeau Liberal government officials on behalf of SNC-Lavalin is needed to determine whether the lobbying disclosure law or lobbyists’ code were violated,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given that she was handpicked by Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process, the Lobbying Commissioner is in a conflict of interest in dealing with this situation and so must delegate the investigation to a person who is independent of her and all political parties.”

The Lobbying Act was required to be reviewed by the House Ethics Committee last year, and the Committee will hopefully finally undertake the review in the next couple of months. See details about the changes needed to close loopholes and strengthen enforcement and penalties for the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct here.

– 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 Government Ethics Campaign