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
The 1,815 pages of Trudeau Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin scandal investigation records disclosed in September 2023 by the RCMP to Democracy Watch raise the following serious questions (Click here to see a summary of what the records revealed, and a detailed list of, and links to, the records with page references):
When will the RCMP disclose the 2,200 pages of investigation records that it has not disclosed since Democracy Watch requested them in July 2022 under the Access to Information Act? Why is the RCMP still hiding these records even though its ATIP Branch committed to disclose them in October 2023?
Why did the RCMP not even try to apply to court to obtain a search warrant for any of the Trudeau Cabinet documents and records of communications (or parts of the documents or records) that were claimed to be “Cabinet confidences” even though they could have likely obtained some or some parts of the documents and records? And, when former Privy Council Office (PCO) Clerk Michael Wernick testifies before the House Ethics Committee, he must be asked why the PCO/Trudeau Cabinet refused to disclose the documents, especially given that the Cabinet disclosed all Cabinet confidence documents to the inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act?
Why did the RCMP only interview three witnesses – former Attorney General and Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould, her assistant Jessica Prince, and former Deputy Minister of Justice Nathalie Drouin (who was appointed Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council in 2021, and then in January was appointed as the PM’s National Security Intelligence Adviser)?
Why did the RCMP rely almost entirely on public statements the PM, PMO staff, Cabinet ministers and their staff, and Mr. Wernick made, which of course were all aimed at trying to make it seem like they had done nothing wrong? And why did the RCMP always characterize their statements in a favourable way whenever possible, and always argue in favour of doubts concerning the success of a prosecution?
Why did the RCMP continue to call the investigation an “assessment” even though it was clearly an investigation (was it to hide the fact that they were investigating the Prime Minister and others re: a violation of the Criminal Code)?
Why did the RCMP national command wait almost two years (from March 2021 to January 2023) to make its decision to end its superficial investigation of the situation without even doing a full investigation, let alone prosecuting anyone? Why did the RCMP national command try, through its almost two-year delay, to bury and cover-up its investigation?
Who exactly in the RCMP was involved in making the delay decision and the decision not to prosecute anyone?
Who did they communicate with while making these delay and failure to prosecute decisions? Did they communicate with anyone in the PCO or Trudeau Cabinet or Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)?
Why did the RCMP’s investigating officer initially establish that, to prove obstruction of justice in court, pressure must have been placed on someone to obstruct a proceeding in the justice system (which the RCMP had clear evidence of), but then switched the standard to require proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere”? and;
What were the actual legal reasons no one was prosecuted (the RCMP redacted from the records that were disclosed last September the legal opinion it received)? Who made the decision not to prosecute, and who did they communicate with when making the decision? Did they communicate with anyone in the PCO or Trudeau Cabinet or PMO?
Unprecedented study of donations and loans from 2016-2022 shows about 75% of donors donate only about $75 a year, only 5% donate more than $1,000
Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funneling of donations, unethical influence, and foreign interference in Canadian politics
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, February 21, 2024
OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its unprecedented study of political donations, loans and taxpayer-funded subsidies to the main federal parties from 2016-2022 (2023 is not included because most final stats are not yet available).
The statistics show that the current political finance system is rigged in favour of a few wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks, and is unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and essentially a legalized bribery system.
The conclusions of the study are that to have fair, ethical and democratic federal elections and policy-making processes, the annual donation and loan limit should be lowered to $75, and if the parties can prove they can’t raise enough funding to inform voters, run their operations and election campaigns then public funding should be provided by matching donations, giving loans from a public fund (instead of allowing unethical loans from federally regulated banks), and giving election cost reimbursements to all parties (not just the main parties).
The same changes are needed across Canada (except in Quebec which already has a $100 donation limit, donation-matching and other public funding), especially in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon where unlimited donations are still allowed from businesses, unions, other organizations and individuals.
Click here to see an infographic webpage that summarizes the key findings of the study, and contains links to detailed charts and analytical documents.
The key findings of the study are as follows:
1. About 75% of donors to the main federal parties donate only about $75 a year;
2. Only 5% of donors donate more than $1,000 a year – only 11,000 voters out of Canada’s total of more than 27 million voters donate more than $1,000;
3. Because their donations are so much larger than other donors, these 11,000 donors who donate $1,000+ provide on average 30% of the total raised by the main parties each year (especially to the Liberals and Conservatives).
4. The system also favours wealthy nomination contestants as they are allowed to donate $1,000 to their own campaign, wealthy election candidates who are allowed to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy party leadership contestants who are allowed to donate $25,000 to their own campaign;
5. Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funnelling of large amounts of money to federal parties, including foreign governments funnelling donations through front-groups and individuals in Canada, and gives big money donors unethical influence over politicians;
6. Only about 240,000 voters donate each year out of more than 27 million voters, and 9 out of 10 donate less than $500, and they donate $52 million on average to the main parties;
7. Most of the main parties spend what they raise each year, and rely on huge loans from federally regulated banks and financial institutions to pay for their election campaigns (these loans should instead come from a public fund);
8. Lowering the donation limit to $75 would mean the parties would have to attract $75 donations from only about 500,000 more voters (out of the more than 26 million who don’t donate now) to raise the same amount they currently raise each year (the Conservatives would need about 220,000 more donors, the Liberals about 170,000, the NDP about 63,000, the Greens about 30,000 and the Bloc about 10,000), and;
9. Taxpayers subsidize the main parties with about $27 million each year in tax deductions for donations (that mostly go to wealthy donors, and tens of millions more during election years), and about $63 million in post-election campaign cost reimbursements (that almost always goes only to the main parties and their candidates). It would be much more democratic to use this public funding to match donations and reimburse all parties’ and candidates’ election costs.
“Canada’s current undemocratic and unfair big money political finance system is rigged in favour of wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, big parties and the big banks, and the best way to make the system fair and to stop the unethical influence of big money in Canadian politics is to stop big money donations and loans and, if the parties can prove they need it, provide donation-matching public funding, loans from a public fund and election campaign cost reimbursements to all parties and candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, whose PhD thesis contains most of the research, and detailed recommendations, in Chapters 3 and 6 of the thesis. Democracy Watch thanks Cameron Flanagan and Justin Myers for their assistance in completing the political donation calculations for each year.
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch Tel: (613) 241-5179 Cell: 416-546-3443 Email: [email protected]
The rules in Canada for donations and loans to political parties are unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and rigged in favour of a few wealthy voters, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks, and is essentially a legalized bribery system
The only way to stop the unethical influence of big money donations and loans is to prohibit big money donations and loans
This video gives a brief summary of key facts and figures, and all the details are set out below
Voters are allowed to donate thousands to federal political parties each year
The amount that a voter is allowed to donate each year to a federal political party grows each year by $25, so the amount was $1,525 in 2016 and the amount in 2024 is $1,725.
Each voter is also allowed in 2024 to donate another $1,725 to each party’s riding associations.
So the total amount each voter is allowed to donate in 2024 to each federal party and its riding associations is $3,450.
Wealthy nomination contestants that can afford it are also allowed to donate an additional $1,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy election candidates are allowed to donate an additional $5,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy party leadership contestants are allowed to donate an additional $25,000 to their own campaign.
But a large majority of voters only donate about $75 a year
Do you have an extra $3,450 laying around to donate to a federal party?
Did you know that, on average from 2016 to 2022, out of every 100 donors to the main Canadian federal political parties, approximately 75 donors donated only about $75 each year?
To see details about donations to the main federal parties from 2016 to 2022, click here.
NOTE: 2023 donation figures are not included in these calculations because final statistics for the number of voters who donated various amounts to a federal party in 2023 will not be available until summer 2023. To see the 2023 statistics that are available, click here.
Only about 5% of donors donate more than $1,000 to a federal party
Did you know that only about 5 out of every 100 donors donates more than $1,000 a year?
To put it another way, out of more than 27 million voters, on average only about 11,000 voters donate more than $1,000 a year to any of the main federal parties.
Wealthy donors use their big donations to buy influence
Because their donations are so much bigger than what most people give, those 11,000 donors, which again are only about 5% of all donors each year, donate on average
about 40% of the total amount donated each year to the Liberal Party
about 30% of the total amount donated to the Conservative Party
about 20% of the total amount donated to the NDP
about 17% of the total amount donated to Green Party
and about 11% of the total amount donated each year to the Bloc Quebecois
Donors who donate $1,000 or more donated on average 30% of the total average amount raised by the 5 main parties each year from 2016 to 2022.
So those wealthy donors who donate more than $1,000 are very valuable to the main federal parties, especially to the Liberals and Conservatives.
Studies conducted worldwide have shown that the best way to influence someone’s decisions is to give them something or do them a favour, and big money donors give a lot to politicians, which is a huge favour for them. Click here to see a summary of these studies.
There have been examples across Canada of wealthy donors using big donations to gain access to, and influence, politicians:
To see details about the top donors to the main federal parties, click here.
NOTE: 2023 donation figures are not included in these calculations because final statistics for the number of voters who donated various amounts to a federal party in 2023 will not be available until summer 2023. However, the available 2023 statistics show that donors who donated $1,000 or more donated about 46% of the total amount raised by the Liberals; about 35% of the Conservative total; about 19% of the NDP and Green Party total; about 17% of the PPC total, and about 15% of the Bloc total. To see the 2023 statistics that are available, click here.
Of course, parties supported most by wealthy donors benefit most from big money donations, as do nomination contestants, election candidates and party leadership contestants who are supported by wealthy donors.
Canada’s big money donation system also favours wealthy nomination contestants as they are allowed to donate an additional $1,000 to their own campaign, wealthy election candidates as they are allowed to donate an additional $5,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy party leadership contestants as they are allowed to donate an additional $25,000 to their own campaign.
Allowing big money donations also makes it easy to funnel large amounts of money to parties, including from foreign governments
Also, while it is illegal for a business, union, organization or voter to funnel money through other voters, because voters are allowed to donate more than $3,000 a year to federal political parties and their riding associations, it is easy to funnel tens of thousands of dollars annually.
Big businesses and other organizations can do this easily by giving their executives a bonus each year that they donate to the party that does the most for the business or organization.
It is impossible to charge or prosecute any business or organization that does this because all the executives have to do is say that they donated with their own money.
In fact, this has happened at the federal level and in every province and territory because they all, except Quebec, allow donations of more than $1,000 annually. To see details about all of these donation-funneling schemes across Canada, click here.
When big money donations are allowed, it also makes it easier for foreign governments to funnel large amounts of money through individuals and lobby groups to influence Canadian politicians and parties.
No matter what problems concern you, as long as wealthy interests can use big money donations to influence politicians, it is unlikely politicians will solve the problems that concern you.
Democracy Watch needs your support now to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money on politicians across Canada!
And please go to StopBigMoney.ca and join the tens of thousands of voters calling for these and other key changes to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money on politicians across Canada!
Only about 240,000 voters donate to a federal party each year, and 9 out of 10 donate less than $500
What about the people in the middle of the 5% or so of wealthy big money donors who donate more than $1,000 and the 75% or so of donors who donate only about $75 a year?
Only 6 out of every 100 donors donates between $500 and $1,000, while 16 out of every 100 donors donates between $200 and $500.
Only a very small percentage of Canadians donate to any of the main federal political parties. Out of more than 27 million voters, only about 240,000 donate each year, less than 1% of all voters:
about 173,000 voters donate only about $75 each year
about 38,000 donate between $200 and $500
about 15,000 donate between $500 and $1,000
and again only about 11,000 donate more than $1,000
In total, all the voters together donate an average of about $52 million each year to the main federal political parties.
To see details about donations to the main federal parties from 2016 to 2022, click here.
Federal parties spend most of what they raise each year, and rely on unethical big money loans from banks to pay for their election campaigns
However, most of the main federal parties spend almost all of the money they raise each year, and so when an election happens they don’t have very much money to pay for their election campaign.
So what do they do? The 3 main parties, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP, get huge loans of millions of dollars from banks and other financial institutions to pay 70% to 80% of their total election costs (and sometimes even more).
These banks and other financial institutions are covered by the federal Bank Act which is under the control of federal politicians. So giving these loans is a huge favour that the banks do for the main parties, a favour that creates an appearance of a conflict of interest for all the politicians in these parties.
To see details about bank loans to parties, click here.
Tens of millions of your tax money is given to the parties each year, mostly to help wealthy donors and the big parties
Canadian taxpayers support the main political parties just as much. Parties that receive more than 2% of the total number of votes each election – or 5% of the total votes in the ridings where the party runs candidates – get half, 50%, of the money they spent on the election back, reimbursed with our tax money.
Also, election candidates from any party who win 10% or more of the total votes in their riding get 60% of the money they spent on their election back.
On average, the 5 main federal parties all together receive about $34 million back after each election, and their candidates receive about $29 million in total back, paid for with our tax money.
Only 1 other party in one election (the People’s Party of Canada in 2021), and only a few other candidates in each election, have received these taxpayer subsidies since 2004.
To see details about how much the federal election reimbursement system is unfair and favours the main parties, click here.
You may be thinking – but aren’t small donations and big money donations equalized because small donors are allowed to deduct most of their donation from their taxes?
It’s true that all Canadians support federal political parties through the tax system as part of a donation can be deducted from income tax that a donor pays.
But, as with donations, the income tax deduction favours wealthy donors.
First, you have to pay taxes to benefit from the deduction, so people with low incomes, even if they have money to donate to a party, don’t benefit from the deduction because they don’t pay income tax.
Secondly, wealthy voters who make big money donations claim most of the tax deduction. On average from 2017 to 2020, voters who earn $100,000 or more claimed almost half, 50%, of the about $27 million in total tax deductions claimed each year for donations to federal political parties.
Meanwhile, voters who earn $45,000 or less, the amount most voters make each year, only claimed 13% of all the tax deductions for donations.
To see details about who claims tax deductions, click here.
Conclusion: We need to prohibit big money donations and loans and, if public funding is given, make it democratic
So that’s how the rules in Canada for donations and loans to political parties are unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and rigged in favour of a few wealthy voters, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks, and is essentially a legalized bribery system:
A small number of wealthy voters donates a large part of the money each of the main federal parties raise each year (especially to the Liberals and Conservatives).
The system favours wealthy contestants and candidates – if they can afford it, nomination contestants are allowed to donate an additional $1,000 to their own campaign; election candidates are allowed to donate an additional $5,000 to their own campaign, and party leadership contestants are allowed to donate an additional $25,000 to their own campaign.
A small number of banks loan the main parties 70% to 80% of the total amount of money they spend each election.
All taxpayers give about $27 million each year to the main parties in subsidies through tax deductions that mostly go to their wealthy big money donors.
And after each election all taxpayers give the main parties about $34 million, and their candidates about $29 million, in direct reimbursements of 50% and 60% of the money they spent on their election campaign.
None of this is fair, ethical or democratic.
If we want to have a fair, democratic political system that is not corrupted by wealthy big money interests, the amount that a voter is allowed to donate to each party should be limited to the amount most voters give – only about $75 a year.
And the amount that any voter can loan to a party should also be limited to $75.
If the amount that a voter is allowed to donate and loan to each party is limited to only $75, which is again the amount that about 75% of donors donate each year, what would happen?
The main political parties would likely claim that they would have much less money than they have now, and that would cause problems for them reaching and informing voters, running their operations, and running their election campaigns.
But these would be false claims.
Remember, only about 240,000 out of more than 27 million voters currently donate to any of the main federal parties each year. So the parties have more than 26 million other voters they could get donations from to make up the amount they would lose from stopping big money donations and limiting donations to $75 each year.
About 1 million voters belong to the 5 main federal parties. So all the parties have to do is get about 500,000 more of those 1 million voters to donation $75 each a year and they would raise the same amount of money they raise currently each year. Again, that’s only about 500,000 extra new donors out of the total of more than 26 million voters who currently don’t donate to any federal party.
The Conservatives would need to convince about 220,000 more voters to donate to them, the Liberals about 170,000, the NDP about 63,000, the Greens about 30,000 and the Bloc about 10,000.
NOTE: 2023 donation figures are not included in the calculations in the above chart because final statistics for the number of voters who donated various amounts to a federal party in 2023 will not be available until summer 2023. To see the 2023 statistics that are available, click here.
Lowering the donation limit to $75 a year would make all the parties more connected with more voters, and more connected with the concerns of more voters, which is democratic.
Lowering the donation limit to $75 a year would also prohibit wealthy individuals and businesses and lobby groups (including foreign government-sponsored lobby groups) from using big money donations and big money fundraising events as a way of unethically influencing the decisions of politicians and party leaders.
With a donation limit of $75 a year, the only voters who should receive a tax deduction or subsidy for making a donation should be voters who have very low incomes.
What if the parties can’t raise as much as they raise now if donations are limited to $75 a year?
If the parties claim they can’t raise enough from donations to inform voters and run their offices, or that they can’t save some of their money each year so that they have enough to pay for their next election campaign, they should be required to prove both those claims before they are given any public funding.
If the parties can prove either of these claims, the best way to provide public funding is to match the donations the parties raise with public funding, so that the parties always have to convince voters to donate in order to get public funding.
If matching donations still doesn’t give the parties enough to run their election campaigns, a public fund should be set up to lend them money for their campaign based on the number of candidates each party has.
This will stop the Big Banks from buying influence by giving the parties big loans worth millions of dollars for their election campaigns.
And, to make the public election subsidies fair, every party should receive 50% of the money they spend on elections back from public funds, and every candidate should receive 60% of what they spend back.
Making these changes will make Canada’s political donations and loans system fair and democratic, instead of unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and rigged in favour of a few wealthy voters, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks.
Making these changes will also help stop foreign interference in Canadian politics.
These same changes are also needed in all provinces and territories except Quebec which already has a $100 limit on donations each year and donation-matching public funding.
Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Yukon have no limits on donations, and still allow donations from businesses, unions and organizations even from outside the province or territory. They are the most undemocratic and unethical jurisdictions in Canada with their “best government money can buy” systems.
But all other provinces and territories also still allow big money interest to unethically influence politicians and parties, as they all still allow individual voters to donate from $1,200 up to $10,000 dollars annually to parties and their riding associations, which is much more than most voters can afford.
No matter what problems concern you, as long as wealthy interests can use big money donations to influence politicians, it is unlikely politicians will solve the problems that concern you.
Democracy Watch needs your support now to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money on politicians across Canada!
And please go to StopBigMoney.ca and join the tens of thousands of voters calling for these and other key changes to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money on politicians across Canada!
RCMP still violating law by failing to disclose 2,200 pages of investigation records that DWatch requested in July 2022
RCMP Commissioner and lead investigating officer still to be questioned by House Ethics Committee about their negligently weak investigation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, February 15, 2024
OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the records disclosed by the RCMP that explain how its Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Branch sent a misleading letter dated May 25, 2023 to Democracy Watch in response to D\Watch’s July 2022 Access to Information Act (ATIA) request.
The letter contained incorrect information saying that the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet members obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 “is currently under investigation”.
In statements issued to the media late in the afternoon on Monday, June 19, 2023 and in the afternoon of Wednesday, June 21, 2023, the RCMP said that the investigation ended in January 2023, and that the incorrect information in the May 25th letter was sent by its ATIP Branch to Democracy Watch “using information available at the time.” (Click here to see those two full statements from the RCMP posted in DWatch’s June 19, 2023 News Release).
The RCMP’s internal communications records, recently disclosed in response to Democracy Watch’s request under the Access to Information Act, show that while one division of the RCMP had closed the investigation, an administrative system still registered the investigation as ongoing. Click here to see the records, with the key information on pages 44-48, and 66-76 (especially 68-69).
“The RCMP’s records show that its internal communications system did not make it clear to all divisions and branches of the RCMP when an investigation has been completed, and that it was committing to correct that problem that caused it to mislead Democracy Watch in May 2023 about the status of the investigation into the Trudeau Cabinet SNC-Lavalin obstruction of justice scandal,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.
The RCMP’s June 21, 2023 statement said: “The RCMP will undertake a new review of the records, and, following necessary consultations, will provide a new release package to the requester within 90 days.” However, the RCMP only disclosed about 1,800 pages of documents in September, and said about 2,200 pages of records were still being reviewed.
The disclosed records made it clear that the RCMP’s investigation was very superficial and incomplete, didn’t challenge the Trudeau Cabinet’s withholding of key evidence, characterized all statements by everyone in the Cabinet who was alleged to have obstructed justice in a favourable way whenever possible, always argued in favour of doubts concerning the success of a prosecution, incorrectly claimed that the RCMP required proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere” before a prosecution for obstruction could be pursued, and that the RCMP’s national command tried to bury the investigation by delaying a key decision from March 2021 to January 2023. Click here to see details.
In an email dated September 29, 2023 on page 123 of the recently disclosed records, Rita Lattanzi-Thomas, Senior Consultant in the RCMP’s ATIP Branch writes that the documents are being reviewed to ensure they “will not reveal any investigation techniques etc.” and that the documents contain “the investigator’s notes (emails and notebook entries), witness interviews etc.”
Ms. Lattanzi-Thomas also writes that she is “hoping to have the remainder of the documents released on or before October 13, 2023.” Click here to see the record and email on page 123. Four months later, Democracy Watch is still waiting for disclosure of the documents.
“Given Democracy Watch requested the investigation records in July 2022, and the investigation ended in January 2023, it is completely unjustifiable and a clear violation of the federal open government law that the RCMP continues to fail to disclose all the investigation records,” said Conacher.
On December 11, 2023, the House Ethics Committee was supposed to hold a hearing to ask key questions of the RCMP Commissioner and lead investigating officer about the RCMP’s very, incomplete weak investigation, but the meeting was cancelled at the last minute by Committee Chair John Brassard. The Committee has not yet re-scheduled the hearing.
“All of the RCMP’s conflicting actions and statements and the problems they have caused in this situation are due to their systemic culture of excessive secrecy, and the lack of timely, effective enforcement of the federal access to information law, including penalties for disclosure delays and other violations. As a result, the public’s right to know have been violated, but no one will be held accountable, let alone penalized,” said Conacher. “This shows the importance of the Liberal government acting quickly to make the changes to strengthen the Access to Information Act and enforcement, and to establish penalties for violations, as recommended by a House Committee in its June 2023 report.”
If the RCMP was committed to transparency and independent, effective law enforcement, it would have made it clear back in 2019 when the allegations were first made that an independent special prosecutor would oversee the investigation and would issue a public report as soon as it ended that provided a summary of the investigation process and details about any prosecution decisions. Instead, the end of the investigation was only disclosed months later after unjustifiable delays and through conflicting, vague statements from the RCMP that provided limited information and raised even more questions.
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch Tel: (613) 241-5179 Cell: 416-546-3443 Email: [email protected]
He is required to disclose his financial interests, he has an active big business consulting website, and he is a Senior Fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute
He has buried 8 complaints, one about the PM, and created 6 new loopholes in rules – is he the handpicked lapdog Trudeau wants as Commissioner?
Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, February 7, 2024
OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the open letter it has sent to Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein calling on him to disclose his assets and liabilities, and his consulting clients, and all the communications and records of communications he had with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Privy Council Office (PCO) during his appointment process for his six-month term that began last September.
As well, as far as Democracy Watch can determine, the Interim Commissioner was required by December 31, 2023 to disclose a public summary of his assets and liabilities in the Public Registry under the Conflict of Interest Act (s. 2 “public office holder” and “reporting public office holder”, ss. 25-26, s. 62.2, and the related Cabinet order). However, there is no listing for him in the Public Registry.
In violation of the Access to Information Act, the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose Mr. von Finckenstein, and also details about how many qualified candidates have applied to be appointed as Ethics Commissioner for a 7-year term in the process that began in April 2023. Mr. von Finckenstein did not apply to be appointed for a 7-year term by the May 23, 2023 deadline, and so it would be a violation of the rules to appoint him.
Mr. von Finckenstein is now allowing Cabinet staff, Cabinet appointees and top government officials to secretly own up to $60,000 in shares in businesses they make decisions about, which allows them to profit from their own decisions;
He is now allowing the Prime Minister to appoint anyone to any government position, even family members and friends (like David Johnston) even when they are investigating wrongdoing by the PM;
He is now allowing Cabinet ministers (like Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources) and top government officials to participate in a decision-making process even if their spouses have significant financial interests that will be affect by the decision;
He is now allowing Cabinet staff and top government officials to leave their position and move to another position in the government, or take a contract with the government, without any cooling-off period, even if the position conflicts with the past position, and;
He has set a precedent by deciding not to investigate ethics complaints about a former MP simply because the MP is no longer an MP, which means all MPs have to do is hide their wrongdoing until they resign or retire or are defeated and then they will never be found guilty of violating the law.
“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, and has ties to big businesses that lobby the federal government, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch Tel: (613) 241-5179 Cell: 416-546-3443 Email: [email protected]
Backgrounder on Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein’s negligently bad enforcement record and the 6 new loopholes he has created in federal ethics laws (February 7, 2024)
In addition to being handpicked in secret by the ruling party Cabinet, Mr. von Finckenstein has a long history in the federal bureaucracy,as well as ties to big businesses, that raise serious questions about his independence and impartiality. Mario Dion was also handpicked in secret by the Trudeau Cabinet, and also had a long history in the federal bureaucracy, anda record of 8 unethical actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner.
Mr. von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints with secret rulingsthat let off everyone who was alleged to have violated conflict of interest or other ethics rules, based on what is known so far since September when he started his 6-month term in the position of Interim Ethics Commissioner.
In September he testified before the House Ethics Committee that he had “Eight open cases, which involve 11 people” (p. 3 of testimony). Then in October he testified again and said that the cases were “gone” (p. 18 of testimony). He has not issued any rulings finding anyone guilty, which means he let off all 11 of the alleged wrongdoers.
While Mr. von Finckenstein refused DWatch’s request that he disclose all 8 rulings (even though nothing in the Conflict of Interest Act nor in ss. 27(5.1) of the MP Code prohibits such disclosure), 2 of the 8 rulings address complaints that DWatch filed.
The first ruling is about DWatch’s complaint alleging Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Act by appointing his long-time friend David Johnston to investigate the PM’s actions on foreign interference. Mr. von Finckenstein refused to even investigate the complaint based on the bizarre claim that the PM has a “constitutional prerogative” to appoint whomever he wants to any public office. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that allows the PM to appoint family, relatives and close friends to any federal government position.
The second ruling is about DWatch’s complaint requesting an investigation into Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who is Trudeau’s senior B.C. minister, participating in meetings concerning B.C.-based Teck Resources Ltd. (which lobbied Wilkinson six times while his spouse has significant investments in financial institutions that are among the top investors in Teck). Mr. von Finckenstein also refused to even investigate the situation based on the equally bizarre claim that the private interests “are too remote and speculative to cause them to conflict” with Wilkinson’s public duties. This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent that allows Cabinet ministers and top government officials to participate in decisions when they have a financial conflict of interest.
The 6 new loopholes Mr. von Finckenstein has created are as follows:
He is doubling from $30,000 to $60,000 the value of shares that Cabinet staff and top government officials can own in businesses they regulate or make decisions about, (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #3 re: Doubling the minimum value exemption and #4 re: CER appointees). This will allow Cabinet staff, top government officials and CER appointees to be in a direct, significant financial conflict of interest and to profit from the decisions they make.
He is now allowing members of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to secretly invest in energy companies, which is possibly why the CER just approved Trans Mountain Corp. changing its pipeline construction plan. (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #4 re: CER appointees).
He is now allowing the Prime Minister to appoint anyone to any government position, even family members and friends (like David Johnston) even when they are investigating wrongdoing by the PM. As mentioned above, see for details his ruling on DWatch’s complaint alleging Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Act by appointing his long-time friend David Johnston to investigate the PM’s actions on foreign interference. Mr. von Finckenstein refused to even investigate the complaint based on the bizarre claim that the PM has a “constitutional prerogative” to appoint whomever he wants to any public office.
He is now allowing Cabinet ministers and top government officials to participate in a decision-making process even if their spouses have significant financial interests that will be affect by the decision. As mentioned above, see for details his ruling on DWatch’s complaint requesting an investigation into Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who is Trudeau’s senior B.C. minister, participating in meetings concerning B.C.-based Teck Resources Ltd. (which lobbied Wilkinson six times while his spouse has significant investments in financial institutions that are among the top investors in Teck). Mr. von Finckenstein also refused to even investigate the situation based on the equally bizarre claim that the private interests “are too remote and speculative to cause them to conflict” with Wilkinson’s public duties.
He is now allowing Cabinet staff and top government officials to leave their position and move to another position in the government, or take a contract with the government, without any cooling-off period, even if the position conflicts with the past position. He is doing this because, he told the House Ethics Committee in October, he believes “there cannot be any conflict of interest between different government departments or agencies” and no one in government ever has “confidential information that would be harmful to the government” (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #1 re: Definition of the term “entity”). Among many other conflicts of interest between government departments, his interpretation ignores the obvious reality that the interests and information held by ministers and their staff directly conflict with the interests of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that enforces laws that apply to the minister and his/her department. It also ignores the reason for the cooling-off period, which is to prevent ministerial staff from developing relationships with top department officials and then receiving preferential treatment in hiring processes.
He has set a precedent by deciding not to investigate ethics complaints about a former MP simply because the MP is no longer an MP, which means all MPs have to do is hide their wrongdoing until they resign or retire or are defeated and then they will never be found guilty of violating the law. Mr. von Finckenstein disclosed when he testified on January 20, 2024 before the House Ethics Committee that he had decided not to investigate 4 complaints about a former MP solely because the MP was no longer an MP.
He has buried 8 ethics complaints, including about PM Trudeau, and gutted 3 key rules – is he the handpicked lapdog Trudeau wants as Ethics Commissioner?
Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, January 30, 2024
OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House Ethics Committee to ask Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein the following key questions when he testifies before the Committee today at 11:00 am:
1. Why has he and Prime Minister Trudeau not disclosed the communications from the PMO/PCO concerning the Trudeau family’s Jamaica trip? Section 43 of the Conflict of Interest Act applies to the situation and only requires that the Commissioner’s advice be kept confidential – the Commissioner is allowed to disclose the information the office holder submitted. And there is no provision in any federal law that allows the PM to keep that information secret;
2. How was he appointed and will he disclose the secret communications he had with the Trudeau Cabinet/PMO/PCO during that process (given the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose him)?
3. What has the Cabinet communicated to him, if anything, about being reappointed for another 6-month term after his current term ends on February 29th? Will he disclose all those communications?
4. What has the Cabinet communicated to him, if anything, about the appointment process for the Ethics Commissioner to be appointed to a 7-year term (given the deadline to apply was May 23, 2023)? Will he disclose all those communications?
5. And what is his response to Democracy Watch’s analysis that concludes, after being on the job only a few months, von Finckenstein already has one of the worst government ethics enforcement records it has seen from commissioners across Canada in the past 20 years, given he has buried at least 8 ethics complaints and gutted 3 key ethics rules?
“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch Tel: (613) 241-5179 Cell: 416-546-3443 Email: [email protected]
He has buried 8 ethics complaints, including about PM Trudeau, and gutted 3 key rules – is he the lapdog Trudeau has been trying to get as Ethics Commissioner?
Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, January 26, 2024
OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its analysis that concludes, after being on the job only a few months, Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein already has one of the worst government ethics enforcement records it has seen from commissioners across Canada in the past 20 years.
In just five months, Mr. Von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints and gutted 3 key ethics rules in ways that will allow Cabinet staff and top government officials to secretly profit from their decisions and be in serious financial conflicts of interest.
“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”
Mr. von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints with secret rulingsthat let off everyone who was alleged to have violated conflict of interest or other ethics rules, based on what is known so far since September when he started his 6-month term in the position of Interim Ethics Commissioner.
In September he testified before the House Ethics Committee that he had “Eight open cases, which involve 11 people” (p. 3 of testimony). Then in October he testified again and said that the cases were “gone” (p. 18 of testimony). He has not issued any rulings finding anyone guilty, which means he let off all 11 of the alleged wrongdoers.
While Mr. von Finckenstein refused DWatch’s request that he disclose all 8 rulings (even though nothing in the Conflict of Interest Act nor in ss. 27(5.1) of the MP Code prohibits such disclosure), 2 of the 8 rulings address complaints that DWatch filed.
The first ruling is about DWatch’s complaint alleging Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Act by appointing his long-time friend David Johnston to investigate the PM’s actions on foreign interference. Mr. von Finckenstein refused to even investigate the complaint based on the bizarre claim that the PM has a “constitutional prerogative” to appoint whomever he wants to any public office. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that allows the PM to appoint family, relatives and close friends to any federal government position.
The second ruling is about DWatch’s complaint requesting an investigation into Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who is Trudeau’s senior B.C. minister, participating in meetings concerning B.C.-based Teck Resources Ltd. (which lobbied Wilkinson six times while his spouse has significant investments in financial institutions that are among the top investors in Teck). Mr. von Finckenstein also refused to even investigate the situation based on the equally bizarre claim that the private interests “are too remote and speculative to cause them to conflict” with Wilkinson’s public duties. This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent that allows Cabinet ministers and top government officials to participate in decisions when they have a financial conflict of interest.
Mr. von Finckenstein has also gutted 3 key rules in the Conflict of Interest Act by issuing in October bizarre, dangerously weak interpretations of the rules that will allow many government officials to participate in decisions and actions when they have a significant conflict of interest:
1.He is doubling from $30,000 to $60,000 the value of shares that Cabinet staff and top government officials can own in businesses they regulate or make decisions about, and specifically allowing members of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to invest in exchange-traded funds and mutual funds that own shares in energy companies. (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #3 re: Doubling the minimum value exemption and #4 re: CER appointees). This will allow Cabinet staff, top government officials and CER appointees to be in a direct, significant financial conflict of interest and to secretly profit from the decisions they make.
2.He is now allowing Cabinet staff and top government officials to leave their position and move to another position in the government, or take a contract with the government, without any cooling-off period because, he told the House Ethics Committee in October, he believes “there cannot be any conflict of interest between different government departments or agencies” and no one in government ever has “confidential information that would be harmful to the government” (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #1 re: Definition of the term “entity”). Among many other conflicts of interest between government departments, his interpretation ignores the obvious reality that the interests and information held by ministers and their staff directly conflict with the interests of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that enforces laws that apply to the minister and his/her department. It also ignores the reason for the cooling-off period, which is to prevent ministerial staff from developing relationships with top department officials and then receiving preferential treatment in hiring processes.
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch Tel: (613) 241-5179 Cell: 416-546-3443 Email: [email protected]
Interim appointment term over in early March – or will Trudeau again lie about lack of qualified candidates and renew von Finckenstein for another 6 months?
Commissioner who serves 7-year term must be chosen by all parties reviewing all applications for the position, to prevent Cabinet from rigging the appointment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, January 18, 2024
OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it received recently from the Trudeau Cabinet office that claims a 165-day extension to June 4, 2024 before the office will disclose the records of communications about the appointment of Konrad von Finckenstein as federal Interim Ethics Commissioner, and about the appointment of the next full-term Ethics Commissioner. Democracy Watch requested the records in November, and the deadline to disclose them under the Access to Information Act (ATIA) was December 21st. Democracy Watch filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner and the Commissioner’s office is investigating the excessive delay in disclosing the records.
The extension by Cabinet/Privy Council Office (PCO) will delay the disclosure of the records until after the end of February when von Finckenstein’s 6-month term as Interim Ethics Commissioner ends. He was appointed on August 30th after Mario Dion retired in February due to health problems, and the Trudeau Cabinet failed in its attempt to install Trudeau Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law Martine Richard as the Interim Commissioner (she resigned rather than face questions about her appointment, but continues to serve as the Ethics Commissioner’s Senior Lawyer).
The Trudeau Cabinet has said nothing about its secretive search for a person to appoint to a 7-year term as the next Ethics Commissioner, and is playing the same game as the Cabinet did in 2016-2017 by using a Cabinet-controlled, partisan, political and secretive process for reviewing applications, and hiding key information from opposition parties (in 2017 the Liberals misled opposition parties by falsely claiming that no qualified candidates had applied for the Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying positions) (Click here to see a summary of the Liberals’ undemocratic and unethical watchdog appointment process).
The deadline to apply for the Ethics Commissioner position was May 23, 2023. In September 18th, von Finckenstein testified at the House of Commons Ethics Committee but only disclosed a bit of information about how he was appointed:
1. Some unknown person asked him last April whether he would accept the position of Interim Ethics Commissioner, but he was going on a 40-day cruise at that time. Some unknown person contacted him again in June (p. 3 of testimony);
2. He was only asked to take, and only committed to, a 6-month term; he hadn’t thought about applying for a 7-year term and it wasn’t discussed, and; he wouldn’t know if he wanted a 7-year term until after the 6-month term (p. 4 of testimony).
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner. The Trudeau Cabinet should, finally, remove the bias by establishing a fully independent appointments advisory committee whose members are approved by all parties in the House of Commons (which Stephen Harper promised back in 2006), with the committee doing a public, merit-based search for a short list of qualified candidates, and then an all-party House Committee would make the final choice. This appointments system should be used for all the federal democratic good government watchdogs.
“The Trudeau Liberals are again playing secretive, dishonest games with the appointment process for the federal Ethics Commissioner, and opposition parties need to wake up and stop the Liberals from again choosing their own lapdog,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the Cabinet ministers are biased when they choose watchdogs who enforce laws that apply to them, and so an all-party committee must be given all the applications for the position of Ethics Commissioner so it can determine a short list of well-qualified candidates and make the final choice.”
“For all future appointments of watchdogs, and all other federal agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals that need to be independent from Cabinet, a fully independent appointments advisory committee whose members are approved by all parties in the House of Commons should be established to do a public, merit-based search for a short list of qualified candidates, and then an all-party House Committee should make the final choice of who will be appointed,” said Conacher.
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch Tel: (613) 241-5179 Cell: 416-546-3443 Email: [email protected]
Background on the Trudeau Cabinet’s partisan, political, secretive and dishonest appointment processes for Ethics Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying and other key democracy watchdogs
Through 2016, the Trudeau Cabinet claimed that it was changing the Cabinet appointment process for key democratic good government watchdogs and other positions. In fact, the Trudeau government did not change the appointment process at all other than adding the objective of diversity.
In a blatant violation of the federal Access to Information Act (ATIA), the Trudeau Cabinet hid the records for two years that made it clear there were five qualified candidates for Ethics Commissioner by spring 2017, and also qualified candidates for the position of Commissioner of Lobbying.
The Cabinet is still hiding the records concerning the appointment of Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger, also in violation of the ATIA.
Through the 2016-2017 time period, the Trudeau Cabinet reappointed then-Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to three 6-month interim terms after her 7-year term was over, as long as she kept letting Trudeau and her Cabinet ministers off for clear violations of ethics rules.
To replace Dawson, the Trudeau Cabinet handpicked in secret Mario Dion as Ethics Commissioner, even though he had a record of 8 unethical actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner.
The Cabinet failed to consult in any meaningful way with opposition parties about the appointment of Dion as Ethics Commissioner and Bélanger as Commissioner of Lobbying. All Trudeau did was send the opposition party leaders a letter saying the Cabinet had chosen Dion and Bélanger and the opposition leaders had seven days to let the Cabinet know what they thought about those choices.
Concerning other federal democratic good government watchdogs, former Ontario Liberal MPP Madeleine Meilleur admitted in spring 2017 before a House Committee that when she was considering ending her political career she had talked with Trudeau’s then-senior adviser Gerald Butts, and also his Chief of Staff Katie Telford, and asked to be appointed as federal Commissioner of Official Languages. Her statement became so politically costly to the Trudeau Cabinet that she ended up withdrawing her candidacy.
After Julie Payette resigned from her Governor General position in 2021, the Trudeau Cabinet admitted that she was not properly vetted for the position.
The Trudeau Cabinet has also handpicked, through partisan, political Cabinet-controlled processes, all of Canada’s other current democratic good government watchdogs: the Chief Electoral Officer (who was switched by the Trudeau Cabinet for secret reasons); Auditor General; Information Commissioner; Privacy Commissioner; Parliamentary Budget Officer, and; the Governor General (who plays a key role in judging whether a prorogation or snap election should be allowed, and who governs after an election).
