Hogue Inquiry has downplayed and almost buried this excessive Cabinet secrecy – should be pushing publicly for full disclosure of all docs

Loopholes in election, political finance, lobbying and ethics rules and weak enforcement make secret, unethical interference and misinformation legal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 28, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) Committee to vote at its meeting this afternoon from 3:30 to 5:30 pm to call Trudeau Cabinet ministers and officials to testify and be questioned on why the Cabinet is redacting about 3,000 documents and withholding an unknown number of other documents from the Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Canadian politics.

Last Thursday, the Globe and Mail published an article based Democracy Watch’s submission filed on February 8th with the Hogue Inquiry (released by DWatch on April 11th) requesting that the Inquiry demand written, public answers from the Trudeau Cabinet about why it is redacting and withholding Cabinet documents from the Inquiry, and also withheld them from Special Rapporteur David Johnston, and to ensure the Cabinet discloses the documents to the Inquiry.  Democracy Watch is an intervener in the Inquiry and is represented at the Inquiry by Wade Poziomka and Nick Papageorge of Ross & McBride LLP.

In the Globe article, a spokesperson from the Cabinet office (Privy Council Office (PCO)) disclosed that “As of May 17, 2024, approximately 9% of the 33,000 documents provided by the government contain one or more redactions. Other documents covered entirely by these exemptions have not been provided to the commission.”  In other words, about 3,000 documents the Trudeau Cabinet submitted to the Inquiry contained redactions, and the Cabinet is hiding exactly how many other documents have been fully withheld from the Inquiry.

In response to the Globe article, the four Conservative MPs and the Bloc Quebecois MP on the PROC Committee forced the meeting this afternoon by writing a letter last Friday to the Committee Chair, as the Globe reported in an article on Saturday.  The NDP MP or a Liberal MP on the Committee will have to vote with the Conservative and Bloc MPs this afternoon in favour of calling Cabinet ministers and officials to testify in order for hearings to happen.

Democracy Watch’s February 8th submission is also posted on the Inquiry’s website.  Inquiry Commissioner Hogue and staff did not respond to the requests set out in the submission, and have downplayed and almost buried the fact that the Cabinet is withholding documents.

For example, in the Commissioner’s Initial Report released on May 3rd, it says at the top of p. 5 “I have had access to the relevant documents without any redactions for reasons of national security” and in the third last paragraph on p. 17 it says “the Commission was given access to the unredacted versions of all relevant documents” (claims that were repeated in the third paragraph of the news release about the Report) and in the first paragraph on p. 77 it says “The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure take into account that the Commission will receive unredacted documents from the government…”

However, buried in footnote 1 on p. 5 it says “Some documents contained redactions for Cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege or protection of personal information. Discussions as to the application of these privileges is ongoing” and buried in footnote 2 on p. 17 it says: “Save for a small number of documents that have been redacted to protect Cabinet confidences, solicitor-client privilege and personal information.”

“Canada’s spy agencies have disclosed to the inquiry all their foreign-interference related documents without redactions, and the Trudeau Cabinet disclosed Cabinet confidence documents to last year’s inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act, so the Cabinet clearly can disclose all its records to the inquiry,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“It has been disappointing to see the inquiry downplaying and almost burying this excessive secrecy by the Trudeau Cabinet.  The inquiry should be publicly demanding disclosure of all the Cabinet documents because the secrecy makes it impossible for the inquiry commissioner to determine who knew what, when they knew it, and what they did,” said Conacher.

“If the Trudeau Cabinet continues to hide records from the inquiry into foreign interference, Canadians are justified in assuming that disclosure of the records would make the Cabinet look bad, and that is why the records are being kept secret,” said Conacher.

On March 23, 2024, Democracy Watch also submitted to the Hogue Inquiry a list of 10 key witnesses and about 140 key questions to ask them.  The questions are aimed mainly at revealing the many loopholes in Canadian federal election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, and the lack of independent, effective enforcement of those laws.

DWatch also highlighted the Trudeau Cabinet’s secrecy and some of the key loopholes in its April 15th submission to the Hogue Inquiry at the end of the first set of fact-finding hearings that took place in March-April. Click here to see the submission on the Inquiry’s website.

The loopholes in the laws make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation activities legal, so no watchdog is even monitoring the activities, which makes it impossible to determine the extent of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, or after those elections up to now, or to stop the interference.

Almost all the watchdogs who are supposed to enforce the few rules that exist are chosen in secret by the ruling party Cabinet, many of them serve at the pleasure of the Cabinet, most don’t do inspections or audits, most are not required to issue public rulings on every allegation they investigate, and in many cases there are no penalties for violating the laws.  As a result, their enforcement is weak and ineffective and does little to discourage violations.

“A foreign-agent registry as proposed in Bill C-70 will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Conacher. “Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

“All our key democracy laws, including laws that claim to be aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, and they operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.

Click here to see the Backgrounder that summarizes all the loopholes and weak enforcement problems that make foreign interference legal and easy to do across Canada at every level of government.

Click here to see summary list of 17 key changes that need to be made to stop foreign interference.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign and Open Government Campaign

DWatch intervening in SCC hearing to argue that limits are needed for democratic, fair elections, but limits also need to be democratic and fair

First time Supreme Court has considered third-party spending limits since landmark ruling 20 years ago in Harper case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 21, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it is intervening in the online Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) hearing today and tomorrow on whether the Ontario Doug Ford PC Party government’s limits on advertising spending by individuals, businesses and interest groups (“third parties”) for 12 months before each election are unconstitutional.

This is the first time the SCC has fully considered the issue of third-party spending limits since its precedent-setting 2004 ruling in the Harper case, which Democracy Watch also intervened in (archive website), with its arguments providing part of the SCC’s emphasis in its ruling on the importance of ensuring opportunity for equal participation and influence of all voters in political processes (the SCC’s “egalitarian model”).

The SCC is hearing the Ford government’s appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) March 2023 ruling that the limits are unconstitutional because they are the same limits that used to apply to only a six-month pre-election period.  In other words, the ONCA ruled that when the Ford government extended the time period during which the limits apply to 12 months, it should have increased the spending limit proportionally (paras. 95-122).  The ONCA’s ruling rejected the Ontario Superior Court March 2022 ruling that found that it was reasonable to have the same spending limit for the longer time period of 12 months.

The hearing starts this morning.  Democracy Watch is scheduled to present its arguments, along with 12 other interveners, tomorrow morning, Wednesday, May 22nd.  The media and the public can click here to watch the May 21st hearing, and can click here to watch the May 22nd hearing.  Democracy Watch’s intervention is being presented by Crawford Smith of the law firm LOLG, assisted by William Maidment.

Unlike the “Working Families” coalition of unions who filed the court case, and other interveners, Democracy Watch is arguing that limits on third-party interest group ad spending between elections can be constitutional if the limits are democratic, established democratically, and based on the actual cost of reaching voters through advertising on any issue.

In contrast, the limits set by the Ford government Bill 307 allow a wealthy individual voter, or a private corporation with only a few shareholders, or a few executives of a big business to spend $600,000 on issue ads – the same amount as a citizen group with thousands or tens of thousands of supporters.  DWatch argues that’s not democratic – to be constitutional by ensuring equal voice for all voters, there should be a much lower spending limit for individual voters, private corporations and big business executives than for broad-based citizen groups that have thousands of supporters (as the SCC ruled in 1997 in the Libman case).

This is a different reason than the ONCA used for finding the Ford government’s spending limits unconstitutional – again the ONCA ruled (paras. 95-122) that to be constitutional the limits should have been increased given the time period was increased from six months to 12 months.

In addition, the Ford government did not study the actual cost of reaching voters on any issue – the government just imposed an arbitrary limit based on the arbitrary limit set in 2017 by the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government.  DWatch is urging the SCC to affirm the part of the ONCA ruling (paras. 123-136) that said governments are required to undertake comprehensive studies to determine the actual cost of informing voters before setting third-party advertising limits, and to set realistic limits based on the results of the studies.

A significant issue the SCC will consider for the first time is whether it is constitutional for spending limits to apply during the period between elections.  The Ontario courts, and DWatch, argue that it is constitutional because it is important to restrict the undemocratic influence of the wealthy interests not only during elections, but also during between-election policy-making processes.  The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in 2012 that spending limits that apply during the between-election period are unconstitutional.

Whether the Ford government’s use of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to try to protect his third-party spending limits was illegal is not part of the appeal to the SCC.

“The Ford government’s spending restrictions on advertising by interest groups for the year before the election should be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because they are undemocratic, arbitrary, and were rammed through the legislature without proper study or consultation,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition.  “Restricting massive ad campaigns by wealthy interest groups and individuals in the months leading up to an election is a good, democratic idea, as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, as is prohibiting huge ad campaigns by wealthy individuals and lobby groups all the time, but an independent commission should be set up to study the actual costs of reaching voters to ensure the spending limit is realistic, and the limit must be much higher for citizen groups that have thousands of supporters than it is for an individual voter or a few business executives.”

Ford first imposed the limits in April 2021 in Bill 254 which was introduced without any consultation with opposition parties or stakeholders.  However, in a case filed by several unions, the limits were struck down by Ontario’s Superior Court in June for unreasonably restricting Charter free expression rights (Charter s. 2(b)).

Then, in just a few days, despite many calling for a re-consideration of the limits, including Democracy Watch backed by 35,000 Ontario voters, Ford’s PC Party introduced and passed Bill 307 to impose the limits again, and included the notwithstanding clause in the bill in an attempt to prevent anyone from challenging the limits in court.  However, several unions again challenged the limits as a violation of the right of voters under Charter s. 3 to play a meaningful role in elections.  The notwithstanding clause cannot be used to shield violations of s. 3 from court challenges.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Ford doubled donation limits in spring 2021, and allowed leaders to attend events – so wealthy donors can use legalized bribery to buy even more influence over politicians

Ford also changed disclosure requirements in spring 2021, making it impossible to determine average and median donation amounts and overall statistics

To make system democratic and ethical, donations should be limited to $100 annually (as in Quebec), with donation-matching public funding if parties can prove they need it

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, May 9, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its analysis showing that the Doug Ford PC Party’s doubling of Ontario’s political donation limit in spring 2021 (to now $3,350 annually) has made the system even more undemocratic.  The PC Party is supported more now by big money wealthy donors than they were before, and much more than the other three parties.  Click here to see DWatch’s analysis.

According to data from Elections Ontario’s donations database, in 2021-2022 Ford’s PC Party received on average just under 61% of its total donations from donors who each donated $1,000 or more.  That’s 12% more than in 2020, when the PCs received just under 50% of their total donations from donors who each donated $1,000 or more.

The other main parties’ top donors in 2021-2022 also provided a much higher amount of funding than in 2020. The Ontario Liberals received just over 43% of their total donations from donors who donated $1,000 or more (in 2020 they received 15%); the NDP received just under 26% (in 2020 they received 8%), and the Greens received just over 20% (in 2020 they received 14.5%).

Ford’s PC Party also received in 2021-2022 a much higher percentage of total donations (just over 14%) from donors who donated the maximum amount allowed. The Liberals received just under 8%; the NDP just over 4% and the Greens just under 3% from these max. donors.

Ford’s PC Party also received in 2021-2022 a much lower average percentage of total donations from low-level donors donating less than $250 of all the parties, at just over 11%.  The Green Party received the highest average percentage of low-level donations at just over 36% of their total donations.  The Liberals received just over 23% and the NDP received 21% of their totals.

Democracy Watch thanks Justin Myers for his assistance in calculating the above statistics.

The Ford government’s Bill 254, enacted in May 2021, doubled the annual donation limit, which has allowed wealthy donors to buy even more unethical influence over parties and politicians, including by having business executives and their family members all make donations.

In fall 2018, the Ford government also repealed the prohibition (in s. 23.1) on Cabinet ministers and their staff attending high-priced cash-for-access fundraising events that the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government had enacted in 2016.  Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa of Elections Ontario has also rolled over like a lapdog by allowing parties, riding associations, politicians and candidates to hide whether lobbyists are holding events for them by only requiring them to disclose the city where the event is held, not the specific address of the event.

“The Ford PC Party’s doubling of the donation limit in 2021, and allowing political party leaders to again attend exclusive fundraising events, along with Elections Ontario allowing parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants to hide the location of fundraising events, has made Ontario’s pay-to-play, cash-for-access, legalized bribery system much worse as wealthy donors can buy even more unethical influence over parties and politicians behind closed doors in secret,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition.

Years of experience and scandals across Canada show clearly that setting a donation limit that allows individuals to donate more than $1,000 each year allows the unethical influence of big money donations, and cash-for-access fundraising schemes, to continue.  To see a summary of donation funneling scandals across Canada.  Click here to see a summary of big money donation scandals across Canada over the past 20 years.

“As donation scandals across Canada show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of money in Ontario politics is to stop big money donations by allowing only individuals to donate only $100 a year, a change Quebec made a decade ago,” said Conacher.

Ford’s PC Party Bill 254 also changed the disclosure requirements so that parties, riding associations, nomination contestants, election candidates and party leadership contestants are no longer required to disclose the number of donors who donate less than $100.  This makes it impossible to calculate the average and median donation to each party and accurate overall statistics concerning numbers and percentages of total donors donating low, medium and top-level donations.

Based on the donation patterns in 2021-2022, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than 3 million members), joined by thousands of Ontario voters who support the call for these changes, called on Ontario’s political parties to make the following changes to get big money out of Ontario politics finally:

1. set an individual donation limit of $100 per year (as in Quebec);
2. set a limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign of $100 per year;
3. prohibit loans to parties except from a public fund;
4. cancel the per-vote annual public funding and, if the parties can actually prove they need public funding, instead use annual donation-matching public funding as that is a more democratic system than per-vote funding, and;
5. strengthen enforcement and penalties for violations.

Democracy Watch also called on Elections Ontario to conduct an audit, like Elections Quebec did in 2012, to ensure that businesses and organizations are not funneling donations through their executives and family members, and to ensure that lobbyists are not holding fundraising events to be “bundlers” of donations as a way of having undue influence over parties or politicians.

“Ontario’s too-high donation limit is also likely encouraging funneling of donations from businesses and organizations through their executives and employees and their families, and bundling of donations by lobbyists, both of which happened in Quebec and at the federal level, and Elections Ontario must conduct an audit to ensure these things are not happening,” said Conacher.  Click here to see a summary of donation-funneling scandals across Canada.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Commissioner also confirms she is reviewing lobbying by associates of Pierre Poilievre’s top advisor Jenni Byrne

Procedure and House Affairs Committee and Board of Internal Economy still ignoring Ethics Committee’s call to ban all sponsored travel

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 18, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch highlighted key information revealed in Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger’s testimony before the House Ethics Committee on Tuesday.  In her testimony, Commissioner Bélanger confirmed she is dedicated lapdog as she let the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) violate the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct twice in the past year.

Commissioner Bélanger also confirmed that she is reviewing the activities of lobbyists registered under lobbying firm Forecheck Strategies, which has several interconnections with the lobbying firm of Jenni Byrne, who is one of the top advisors to Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre and also advised him during his party leadership campaign.  Democracy Watch filed a complaint recently alleging violations of the Lobbyists’ Code by the Forecheck lobbyists who placed Mr. Poilievre in an appearance of a conflict of interest by lobbying his staff and 13 of his Shadow Cabinet ministers.

Click here to see Commissioner Bélanger discussing her review of the Forecheck/Jenni Byrne/Poilievre situation from the 12:22:35 mark to the 12:26:25 mark of the video of the hearing, and again from the 12:45:10 mark to 12:49:50 mark.

Concerning letting CIJA off twice for violations of the Lobbyists’ Code, as revealed in questioning by NDP MP Matthew Green on Tuesday, Commissioner Bélanger first exempted CIJA’s sponsored travel July 16-24, 2023 trip given to six MPs from the new $40 limit on any gift and hospitality (and $200 annual limit) in the new Lobbyists Code that came into effect July 1, 2023.  The new limits essentially prohibit lobbyists from giving sponsored travel as a gift to any public office holder.

As disclosed in the 2023 annual report on sponsored travel by MPs, the following seven MPs went on the trip with their total costs of $134,255.13 paid by CIJA:

---

MP (others) who went on CIJA trip	Their costs paid by CIJA
Conservative MP Scott Aitchison	$13,994.14
Liberal MP Kody Blois (accompanied by his spouse Kimberley MacLachlan)	$23,930.48
Liberal MP Valerie Bradford	$14,007.89
Liberal MP George Chahal (accompanied by Amandeep Chahal)	$23,744.00
Conservative MP Kerry-Lynne Findlay (accompanied by her spouse Brent Chapman)	$23,833
Conservative MP Jasrah Singh Hallan	$23,017.04
Conservative MP Shelby Kramp-Neuman (accompanied by her spouse Tadum Neuman)	$11,728.58
Total costs paid by CIJA	$134,255.13

---

NOTE: Before July 2023, CIJA regularly paid for MPs to go on their sponsored travel trips, including trips that a total of 14 Bloc, Conservative and Liberal MPs went on in January 2023 or March 2023, as listed in the 2023 travel report.

Secondly, Commissioner Bélanger let off CIJA even though, according to her, the CIJA they invited all seven MPs to a lobbying reception on January 30, 2024, which MP Scott Aitchison attended.  Commissioner Bélanger had told CIJA that they were prohibited under the Lobbyists Code from lobbying the MPs for two years after giving them the July 2024 trip gift.

Click here to see Commissioner Bélanger discussing how she has let CIJA violate the Lobbyists’ Code twice from the 12:34:22 mark to 12:37:30 mark of the video of the hearing.

“In addition to her past rulings that let off lobbyists who clearly violated the lobbying ethics code, Commissioner of Lobbying Bélanger has again confirmed that she is a dedicated lapdog by letting off the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs even though they violated the ethics code twice,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch has been campaigning since the MP Code and Senate Code were enacted in 2004-2005 for a ban on sponsored travel.  In a March 2023 letter to Commissioner Bélanger, the House Ethics Committee tried to convince her to exempt sponsored travel from the new gift limits in the new Lobbyists’ Code.  However, the Committee reversed its position and passed a motion at the end of January calling on the Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) and Board of Internal Economy (BOIE) to work together to delete the exemption in the MP Code that allows for sponsored travel.  When PROC reviewed the MP Code in spring 2023 behind closed doors, it ignored the sponsored travel loophole and 9 other unethical loopholes in the Code, as it has in every review of the Code it has undertaken since 2004.

Several organizations that try to influence MPs (such as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Canada) are not required to register as lobbyists because of huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act, and so are not covered by the new gift limits in the Lobbyists’ Code.  As a result, the only way to stop them offering the unethical gift of sponsored travel to MPs is to ban all sponsored travel.

“Sponsored travel worth thousands of dollars is, like political donations and loans worth thousands, a form of legalized bribery, and it should have been banned long ago,” said Conacher.  “Studies conducted by psychologists worldwide have found that even small gifts influence decisions.”

– 30 –

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

See Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret Unethical Lobbying Campaign page and Government Ethics Campaign page

Case alleges Trudeau Liberal’s consultation with only Liberals across Canada taints appointments with partisan bias that violates independence of courts and public’s Charter right to courts that appear, and are, impartial

Trudeau Cabinet still trying to stop court from considering government emails reported on in La Presse, and evidence that lawyer associations, law professors, experts and media all think the Liberals’ appointment process is too political

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 15, 2024

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch is at the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Toronto challenging the Federal Court ruling in January 2023 that the federal government’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to the federal courts and all provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, and promoting judges within those courts, is constitutional. Ross & McBride LLP is representing Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case.

The case is being heard in person at the FCA at 180 Queen St. W., 7th floor, Toronto, and you click here to register to watch the hearing on Zoom.

Click here to see DWatch’s arguments that the federal appointments system is too open to political interference that violates the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts under Part VII of the Constitution, and the public’s Charter right to impartial courts under sections 7, 11(d) (and, indirectly, 24(1)).

Click here to see the Backgrounder on how political and partisan the federal appointments system is compared to the Quebec and UK systems.  The federal Minister has too much political control of the process from start to finish, from choosing the majority of the members of the advisory committees, to receiving long lists of candidates from those committees, to circulating those lists secretly to MPs, Cabinet ministers and ruling party officials before making the final choice.  The Minister also makes decisions, without any restrictions, about promoting sitting judges to a court of appeal.

The appointment process for the federal and provincial superior and appeal courts matters a lot because the Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear 90% of appeals from these courts, and many appeals are also refused by provincial appeal courts, so in many cases the provincial superior courts are the public’s actual court of last resort.

In addition, the Ford Conservative government in Ontario used the federal system as cover for changes to Ontario’s judicial appointment system made in 2021 to allow Ford to appoint only Conservatives who agree with his government’s agenda.

Details about how the federal Minister of Justice only consults with officials from Liberal Party not other parties, and only the Liberal Party’s database, in reviewing the long lists of candidates for judicial appointments submitted by advisory committees made up of people chosen mostly by the Minister have been confirmed by whistleblowers disclosing internal government emails to the Globe and Mail and CBC and Radio-Canada and La Presse, and the appointments system has been shown to favour Liberal donors.

Democracy Watch has also submitted to the court public letters and articles that lawyer associations (including the Canadian Bar Association), law professors, lawyers, experts and media have produced in the last few years expressing their concerns about how political the federal judicial appointment is, and how that undermines the public’s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.  In April 2020, the Canadian Judicial Council found that Justice Colleen Suche, spouse of then-federal Natural Resources Cabinet Minister Jim Carr, had violated the judiciary’s ethics code by providing suggestions about who the federal Cabinet should appoint as judges.

There are also concerns that the partisan nature of the appointment process may be inhibiting the appointment of judges that reflect Canada’s diversity.  In June 2020, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed the need for “our courts, including our highest court, to reflect the diversity of Canadians.”  In September 2020, 36 lawyers associations, legal clinics and advocacy groups called for changes to the appointment process, as did the Canadian Bar Association, to increase the appointment of more Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) judges.

Department of Justice lawyers are asking the FCA to ignore almost all this evidence that Democracy Watch filed in a December 2020 affidavit (PDF) and in a second affidavit (PDF) about internal government emails reported on in La Presse October 2020.

– 30 –

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

See more at Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Trudeau Cabinet also withheld the documents from David Johnston – no sign inquiry is pressing Trudeau Cabinet to disclose the documents

Loopholes in election, political finance, lobbying and ethics rules and weak enforcement make secret, unethical interference and misinformation legal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 11, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the submission it made on February 8th to the Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Canadian politics requesting that the Inquiry demand written, public answers from the Trudeau Cabinet about why it is withholding some Cabinet documents from the Inquiry, and also withheld them from Special Rapporteur David Johnston, and to ensure the Cabinet discloses the documents to the Inquiry.

Canada’s spy agencies have disclosed all foreign-interference related documents they have without redactions to the Inquiry so Commissioner Hogue can see all the details to determine what actually happened. The Trudeau Cabinet disclosed Cabinet confidence documents to last year’s inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act, so it clearly can disclose such records to the Hogue Inquiry.

The submission is also posted on the Inquiry’s website.  The Inquiry Commissioner and staff have not responded to the requests set out in the submission.  Democracy Watch is an intervener in the Inquiry and is represented at the Inquiry by Wade Poziomka and Nick Papageorge of Ross & McBride LLP.

“The foreign interference inquiry commissioner should not tolerate this excessive secrecy by the Trudeau Cabinet and should demand disclosure of the records,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “If the Trudeau Cabinet continues to hide records from the inquiry into foreign interference, Canadians are justified in assuming that disclosure of the records would make the Cabinet look bad, and that is why the records are being kept secret.”

On March 23, 2024, Democracy Watch also submitted to the Hogue Inquiry a list of 10 key witnesses and about 140 key questions to ask them.  The questions are aimed mainly at revealing the many loopholes in Canadian federal election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, and the lack of independent, effective enforcement of those laws.

The loopholes in the laws make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation activities legal, so no watchdog is even monitoring the activities, which makes it impossible to determine the extent of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, or after those elections up to now, or to stop the interference.

Almost all the watchdogs who are supposed to enforce the few rules that exist chosen in secret by the ruling party Cabinet, many of them serve at the pleasure of the Cabinet, most don’t do inspections or audits, most are not required to issue public rulings on every allegation they investigate, and in many cases there are no penalties for violating the laws.  As a result, their enforcement is weak and ineffective and does little to discourage violations.

“A foreign-agent registry will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Conacher. “Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes and flaws in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

“All our key democracy laws, including laws that claim to be aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, and they operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.

Click here to see the Backgrounder that summarizes all the loopholes and weak enforcement problems that make foreign interference legal and easy to do.

Click here to see summary list of 17 key changes to stop foreign interference.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign and Open Government Campaign

If lobbyists are allowed to campaign for and assist politicians and then lobby them, then unethical, favour-trading lobbying will be allowed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 8, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is at the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Ottawa appealing the June 2023 Federal Court ruling that it was reasonable for federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger to let lobbyists Ben Bergen and Dana O’Born of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) off the hook even though they lobbied Liberal Cabinet minister Chrystia Freeland’s department and staff soon after co-managing her election campaign and serving on her riding association executive.

Democracy Watch’s two cases are being heard together given they are about the same situation, and DWatch argues that Bergen and O’Born’s lobbying violated the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct Rule 6 which was in force at the time and which, according to the Commissioner’s own website, prohibits lobbyists from putting a politician in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, and Rule 9 which prohibits lobbying a politician or their staff for years after campaign or fundraising for them or assisting them in any other significant way.

Democracy Watch is asking the FCA to overturn the Commissioner’s and Federal Court’s rulings and find that lobbyists who campaign for or assist politicians and then lobby them soon afterwards put them in an apparent conflict of interest.  Another similar situation came to light recently involving Jenni Byrne, who assisted Pierre Poilievre’s campaign to win the Conservative Party leadership, and has served as an adviser since, has been linked to lobbying of Poilievre’s staff and Shadow Cabinet ministers.

The hearing of the appeal is at 9:30 am at the Federal Court Building, 90 Sparks St., 10^th floor, Ottawa, and also online on Zoom (click here to register to watch the hearing on Zoom).  The case is FCA File No. A-181-23.  Democracy Watch is represented by Andrew Montague-Reinholdt and Rhian Foley of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP.

“The federal lobbying ethics code prohibits anyone from lobbying a Cabinet minister or their officials for years after helping them get elected or assisting them in a significant way, and so hopefully the Federal Court of Appeal will overrule the Commissioner of Lobbying and find Minister Freeland’s former election campaign and riding association managers guilty of violating the code given they lobbied many senior officials in Minister Freeland’s former department soon after co-managing her election campaign,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

 “By letting the CCI lobbyists off the hook, issuing other similarly weak rulings in recent years letting off other unethical lobbyists, and by gutting key ethical lobbying rules, Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger is continuing the negligent enforcement record of her predecessor Karen Shepherd who let off 84% of the lobbyists who violated the law during her decade as commissioner,” said Conacher.

Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger finally issued two rulings in March 2020 (a completely unjustifiable delay of almost three years after Democracy Watch filed its complaint) that Mr. Bergen and Ms. O’Born did not violate Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct rules 6, 8, 9 or 10 which prohibit assisting a politician in any significant way and then lobbying their office or officials afterwards.

The cases have been delayed multiple times.  First in fall 2020 waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) to decide whether to allow DWatch to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling on its case challenging former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd’s decision not to investigate the Aga Khan for giving Justin Trudeau’s family and friends a trip to his private Bahamas island.  Incredibly, the FCA ruled that the public has no right to have a complaint ruled on by the Commissioner, and therefore no right to challenge a decision not to investigate a complaint.  The SCC decided not to hear DWatch’s appeal.

Then, the Trudeau Cabinet filed a motion to have Democracy Watch’s cases thrown out, but the Federal Court rejected the motion because in the Bergen and O’Born cases DWatch is challenging the Commissioner’s final rulings under section 10.5 of the Lobbying Act after completing her investigations.  In contrast, in the Aga Khan case, the Commissioner refused to investigate under subsection 10.4(1) of the Act.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Nine court cases challenge Commissioner’s first three public rulings on lobbying ethics rule since July 2016, and failure to penalize six lobbyists who violated law

Eight other cases DWatch has filed challenging Commissioner’s rulings from 2021-2023 on hold while courts decide the first nine cases

Huge loopholes in law allow for secret, unethical lobbying, which Premier Ford promised to review after Auditor General’s report on the Greenbelt scandal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, April 5, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is at the Ontario Court of Appeal appealing an August 2022 ruling of a Divisional Court panel of justices that upheld a November 2021 ruling by a judge that unjustifiably blocked nine court cases Democracy Watch filed in December 2020 challenging nine rulings by Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner J. David Wake that let lobbyists off even though they clearly violated Ontario’s lobbying law.

DWatch is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the Divisional Court rulings and let DWatch’s nine cases go ahead so the courts will review the Integrity Commissioner’s rulings and hopefully reject them. Nick Papageorge and Wade Poziomka of Ross McBride LLP are representing DWatch for the cases.

To watch the appeal hearing on Zoom at 10 am ET today, click here (Meeting passcode is: 442189) or it can be viewed in person at Courtroom #1, Court of Appeal for Ontario, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto.

See in this Backgrounder details about the nine cases, and about an additional eight cases DWatch filed in 2021, 2022 and 2023 challenging eight other Commissioner rulings.  The other eight cases are hold until the rulings are issued in the initial nine cases.  In total, Democracy Watch is challenging 17 rulings issued by the Integrity Commissioner from 2020-2023.

Three of the nine cases challenge the first three public rulings of the Integrity Commissioner’s unknown number of decisions in the past few years that have let dozens of people (and maybe more) violate section 3.4 of Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (LR Act) by fundraising or campaigning or working for a politician and lobbying them at the same time or soon afterwards.

It is likely that many of the lobbyists involved in the situations ruled on were advising Ford and/or in senior PC Party positions while they continued to lobby Ford’s Cabinet on long-term care, property development, COVID-19 relief, mining, and other big issues.  Click here to see a fairly complete list of lobbyists who were lobbying unethically from 2018-2020, and click here to see Toronto Star articles from 2021 about even more lobbyists lobbying the Ford Cabinet unethically.

Commissioner Wake’s three rulings are based on a very weak Interpretation Bulletin he issued in June 2020 that claims when a lobbyist assists a politician with fundraising or campaigning or gives them a gift, the conflict of interest created by the assistance or gift disappears soon afterwards, so the lobbyist can then lobby the politician and their staff.

All other commissioners in Canada have ruled that the conflict of interest created by assisting a politician in any significant way lasts for several years.  For example, until recent changes, the federal Commissioner of Lobbying’s ruling said the conflict lasts four years.  The federal lobbying law also prohibits Cabinet staff from lobbying for five years after leaving their position (s. 10.11 – though it has loopholes).  Click here to see Backgrounder on Conflict of Interest Rule in Ontario’s Lobbying Law.

The other six cases challenge Commissioner Wake’s arbitrary failure to penalize six lobbyists who violated Ontario’s lobbying law in serious ways, mainly by failing to register and disclose their lobbying for a year or more.  The Commissioner failed to penalize 23 of 27 lobbyists (85%) who violated the law from 2018-2020.

During the 2019-2020 fiscal year, Commissioner Wake only penalized one lobbyist, Lawrence Gold, for violating LR Act by failing to register and disclose his lobbying for a long period of time.  The Commissioner only imposed the minimum penalty of naming Mr. Gold publicly.  Four of the other six lobbyists who were not penalized by the Commissioner did exactly the same thing as Mr. Gold.  The other two lobbyists violated the law by lobbying politicians after campaigning for them or giving them gifts, in violation of section 3.4 of the LR Act.

All nine cases also ask the courts to rule that Commissioner Wake was biased when he issued the six rulings, given he knew that he would need the unanimous approval of Ford’s Cabinet and all MPPs to be re-appointed for a second five-year term, which happened on December 1, 2020 (although many MPPs were not present for that snap vote).

“Dozens of people who have helped or worked for Doug Ford or his Cabinet ministers or the PC Party have set themselves up in lobbying firms and, even though many of them have never lobbied before, big businesses are hiring them because they know it will get them inside access to Ford and his ministers,” Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “Democracy Watch is challenging the first three very weak decisions that Ontario’s so-called Integrity Commissioner has made public that have allowed lobbyists to corrupt Ontario government policy-making as they cash in on their so-called public service. Hopefully the court of appeal will allow these cases to go ahead and, in the end, order the Commissioner to stop this unethical lobbying of Ford’s Cabinet.”

“Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner has also failed to penalize almost all the lobbyists he has found in violation of the lobbying law since 2018, and so Democracy Watch is taking the commissioner to court to challenge the worst of his many bad rulings,” said Conacher.  “Hopefully the courts will issue rulings that require the Commissioner to start enforcing the lobbying rules strictly by penalizing all lobbyists who violate the law.”

Huge loopholes in the LR Act allow countless other lobbyists to lobby in secret and unethically.  None of the following lobbying activities are required to be disclosed: unpaid lobbying, business lobbying or non-profit organization lobbying of less than 50 hours a year, lobbying about the enforcement of a law, or in response to a request for feedback from a Minister, official or MPP.  As a result, anyone lobbying in these ways is also allowed to lobby secretly and unethically.

In response to the August 2023 Auditor General report on the scandal-plagued decision by the Ford government to open up development in the Greenbelt, Premier Ford created a working group and promised to review and strengthen Ontario’s political finance, ethics and lobbying laws, but it seems that all that has happened since is that a memo was sent to political staff reminding them to follow ethics rules.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Lobbying firm interconnected with Byrne’s firm, with lobbyists who seem to work for both firms lobbying top federal Conservatives, puts Poilievre in an appearance of a conflict of interest in violation of ethical lobbying code

Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger biased as she was handpicked by Trudeau Cabinet through secretive, PMO-controlled process, and is up for reappointment by the Cabinet at end of year – she should not investigate

Ruling on complaint should come after ruling in DWatch court case about activities by lobbyists that create an apparent conflict of interest

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 1, 2024

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 the activities of lobbyists registered under lobbying firm Forecheck Strategies, which has several interconnections with the lobbying firm of Jenni Byrne, who is one of the top advisors to Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre and also advised him during his party leadership campaign.

The evidence set out in the letter points to Forecheck Strategies, which was created the first business day after Pierre Poilievre became Conservative Party leader, as being a façade or front for Jenni Byrne and Associates, created solely to allow Jenni Byrne’s associates to lobby the associates of the politician she is advising (and possibly, an investigation may show, also to lobby Mr. Poilievre directly).

As section 2 of the letter details, as revealed recently in a Globe and Mail article and a CBC.ca article and in the federal Registry of Lobbyists and LinkedIn, Forecheck Strategies and Jenni Byrne and Associates share senior executives and staff and an office, and have staff registered to lobby under Forecheck’s name who are listed (and identify themselves) only as staff of Ms. Byrne’s firm, and they have lobbied at least two of Mr. Poilievre’s staff, at least 13 of his Shadow Cabinet Ministers, and at least one Conservative MP, and possibly even Mr. Poilievre directly, given that loopholes in the Lobbying Act mean not all details of lobbying are disclosed in the Registry.

As section 1 of the letter details, it is a violation of the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct to create an appearance of a conflict of interest for a politician or other public official by lobbying them whenever they have a sense of obligation to you or your clients (Rule 4.3) or when they have close relationship with you or your clients (Rule 4.2), or by lobbying them at the same time or after doing favours or assisting them in some way that makes them feel a sense of obligation to protect your or your clients’ interests (Rule 4.1).  It is a violation of the Lobbying Act to fail to register paid lobbying accurately.

The Commissioner of Lobbying is required by the Act to investigate and issue a public ruling when a situation raises enough questions that an investigation is needed to ensure compliance with the Act or the Code, which is a low threshold.

Any reasonable person, knowing the above facts (which are all the facts that can be known as an outside observer), would conclude that Ms. Byrne’s work for Mr. Poilievre, combined with her direct connections with Forecheck’s founders and many interconnections between Forecheck and her firm, creates an appearance of a conflict for Mr. Poilievre and other Conservatives when someone from Forecheck lobbies them between their duty as MPs to uphold the public interest and their sense of obligation to do something to help the private interests the lobbyist represents.

If the Commissioner of Lobbying fails to enforce Rules 4.1 to 4.3 of the Lobbyists’ Code in this way, it will create another huge loophole in the Code (adding to the loopholes put into the new version of the Code last year by the Commissioner and House Ethics Committee).  Any lobby firm would be able to have its partners or lobbyists fundraise or campaign for or do other favours for party leaders, parties, MPs and senators and their staff, and then use a partner lobbying firm as  a facade or front to lobby those party leaders, MPs and senators and their staff.

“If Commissioner Bélanger handles this complaint, and does not interpret the lobbying code rules in a way that prohibits the sham scheme that associates of Jenni Byrne concocted to make money through unethical lobbying of federal Conservative politicians, then the Commissioner will not only add to the evidence that she is a dedicated lapdog who will do almost anything to encourage and allow unethical lobbying, but also that the new lobbyists’ code that she drafted and has claimed is aimed at ensuring transparent and ethical lobbying actually has a huge loophole that allows for clearly unethical lobbying,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Section 3 of 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, and she is also possibly up for re-appointment for a second seven-year term by the Trudeau Cabinet at the end of 2024.

For these reasons, Democracy Watch’s position is that Commissioner Bélanger is biased against enforcing the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code effectively, especially in situations involving the Trudeau Cabinet.

“Given that she was handpicked by Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process, and is up for reappointment by the Trudeau Cabinet at the end of this year, 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,” said Conacher.

Finally, section 4 of Democracy Watch’s letter requests that a ruling not be issued on the situation described in this letter until the FCA and Supreme Court of Canada have issued final rulings in DWatch ongoing court case challenging two rulings by the Commissioner concerning lobbying by people who co-chaired Chrystia Freeland’s 2015 election campaign and whether that created a sense of obligation/appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of Ms. Freeland.

The Lobbying Act was required to be reviewed by the House Ethics Committee 2017 and 2022, and the Committee will hopefully finally undertake the review in the next couple of months.  Click here to see details about the changes needed to close loopholes and strengthen enforcement and penalties for the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret Unethical Lobbying Campaign page and Government Ethics Campaign page

Loopholes in election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics rules make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation legal

Loopholes and weak, partisan enforcement mean it’s impossible to know extent of interference during past elections or since then, or to stop it

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, March 28, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the list of 10 key witnesses and about 140 key questions to ask them that it has submitted to the Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Canadian politics.  Democracy Watch is an intervener in the Inquiry and is represented at the Inquiry by Wade Poziomka and Nick Papageorge of Ross & McBride LLP.

About half of the questions are for the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, both of whom are testifying today.

The questions are aimed mainly at revealing the many loopholes in Canadian federal election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, and the lack of independent, effective enforcement of those laws.

The loopholes in the laws make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation activities legal, so no watchdog is even monitoring the activities, which makes it impossible to determine the extent of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, or before or after those elections up to now, or to stop the interference.

Almost all the watchdogs who are supposed to enforce the few effective rules that exist are chosen in secret by the ruling party Cabinet, many of them serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister or Cabinet ministers, most don’t do inspections or audits, most are not required to issue public rulings on every allegation they investigate, and in many cases there are no penalties for violating the laws.

As a result, their enforcement is weak and ineffective and does little to discourage violations.

“A foreign-agent registry will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes and flaws in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

“All our key democracy laws, including laws that claim to be aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, and they operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.

Click here to see the Backgrounder that summarizes all the loopholes and weak enforcement problems that make foreign interference legal and easy to do.

Click here to see summary list of 17 key changes to stop foreign interference.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign, Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, and Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign