Commissioner must also view unedited videotape of Boyd’s presentation in China, and all his receipts, cheques, bank and financial transactions

Legislature should review situation as well and issue decision on whether Boyd violated its code of ethical conduct

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 21, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Saskatchewan’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner Ron Barclay to consider possible insider information and gift rule violations in his investigation into MLA Bill Boyd’s business venture and presentation in China. As CBC Saskatchewan reported first last week, Boyd claimed to be the chairman of a company that he promoted on a trip to China last March to possible investors who would be able to use an investment in the company as a way of immigrating to Saskatchewan and obtaining Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Boyd was the provincial Minister of the Economy until last August, and as minister was responsible for regulation of these kind of companies. Mr. Boyd has asked Commissioner Barclay to investigate the situation, as has the Saskatchewan NDP. Democracy Watch called on Mr. Boyd to disclose the full video publicly, and all his bank and financial transaction records to the Commissioner, which in its opinion he must do to comply with the provincial legislature’s Code of Ethical Conduct (see more details about the Code in the last couple of paragraphs of this release).

“The Conflict of Interest Commissioner should investigate Bill Boyd’s actions to determine if he violated the provincial conflict of interest law by using inside information he gained as a minister to further the interests of his Chinese associates. The Commissioner should also investigate whether Boyd received an illegal gift or other benefit connected to his trip to China and his business venture. If Boyd violated the law, the Commissioner should not allow him to escape accountability just because he has resigned,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To do a thorough investigation, the Commissioner must review an unedited copy of Boyd’s presentation in China, and all of his financial and bank records from the trip and business.”

Section 4 of the provincial Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits MLAs from using inside information to further their own or family’s or associate’s interests:

“Inside Information
4. A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office and is not available to the general public to further or to seek to further the member’s private interest, his or her family’s private interest or the private interest of an associate.
1993, c.M-11.11, s.4.”

“Mr. Boyd couldn’t unlearn the inside information he learned while he was a Cabinet minister, and therefore it seems fairly clear that he would be using that inside information to further his own interests and the interests of his business associates,” said Conacher.

Secondly, if Mr. Boyd didn’t pay for any part of his trip to China, Democracy Watch’s opinion is that he violated subsection 7(1) of the Act:

“Accepting extra benefits
7.(1) Neither a member nor any of the member’s family shall accept a fee, gift or personal benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of the member’s duties of office.”

Mr. Boyd may argue that, since he is no longer minister, any gift or payment he may have accepted from his Chinese associates, or to pay for any part of his trip to China, is not connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his duties of office. However, the promotion for his seminar in China connects the seminar at least indirectly to his official position, so Democracy Watch’s opinion is that if he accepted any fee, gift, pay, reimbursement or other personal benefit connected to his trip or to his business venture, then he violated subsection 7(1) of the Act.

Democracy Watch also called on the Saskatchewan legislature to issue a decision about whether Mr. Boyd violated its Code of Ethical Conduct. Among other rules, the Code requires MLAs to uphold the highest ethical standards to “enhance public confidence and trust in government” and, like the Act, prohibits them from using inside information for personal gain, from accepting gifts, and from engaging “in personal conduct that exploits for private reasons their positions or authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to their offices.”

“All MLAs should be concerned by Boyd’s actions, and should use the results of the Commissioner’s investigation to pass a resolution concerning whether his actions violated the legislature’s code of ethical conduct,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Commissioner must also view unedited videotape of Boyd’s presentation in China, and all his receipts, cheques, bank and financial transactions

Legislature should review situation as well and issue decision on whether Boyd violated its code of ethical conduct

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 21, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Saskatchewan’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner Ron Barclay to consider possible insider information and gift rule violations in his investigation into MLA Bill Boyd’s business venture and presentation in China. As CBC Saskatchewan reported first last week, Boyd claimed to be the chairman of a company that he promoted on a trip to China last March to possible investors who would be able to use an investment in the company as a way of immigrating to Saskatchewan and obtaining Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Boyd was the provincial Minister of the Economy until last August, and as minister was responsible for regulation of these kind of companies. Mr. Boyd has asked Commissioner Barclay to investigate the situation, as has the Saskatchewan NDP. Democracy Watch called on Mr. Boyd to disclose the full video publicly, and all his bank and financial transaction records to the Commissioner, which in its opinion he must do to comply with the provincial legislature’s Code of Ethical Conduct (see more details about the Code in the last couple of paragraphs of this release).

“The Conflict of Interest Commissioner should investigate Bill Boyd’s actions to determine if he violated the provincial conflict of interest law by using inside information he gained as a minister to further the interests of his Chinese associates. The Commissioner should also investigate whether Boyd received an illegal gift or other benefit connected to his trip to China and his business venture. If Boyd violated the law, the Commissioner should not allow him to escape accountability just because he has resigned,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To do a thorough investigation, the Commissioner must review an unedited copy of Boyd’s presentation in China, and all of his financial and bank records from the trip and business.”

Section 4 of the provincial Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits MLAs from using inside information to further their own or family’s or associate’s interests:

“Inside Information
4. A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office and is not available to the general public to further or to seek to further the member’s private interest, his or her family’s private interest or the private interest of an associate.
1993, c.M-11.11, s.4.”

“Mr. Boyd couldn’t unlearn the inside information he learned while he was a Cabinet minister, and therefore it seems fairly clear that he would be using that inside information to further his own interests and the interests of his business associates,” said Conacher.

Secondly, if Mr. Boyd didn’t pay for any part of his trip to China, Democracy Watch’s opinion is that he violated subsection 7(1) of the Act:

“Accepting extra benefits
7.(1) Neither a member nor any of the member’s family shall accept a fee, gift or personal benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of the member’s duties of office.”

Mr. Boyd may argue that, since he is no longer minister, any gift or payment he may have accepted from his Chinese associates, or to pay for any part of his trip to China, is not connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his duties of office. However, the promotion for his seminar in China connects the seminar at least indirectly to his official position, so Democracy Watch’s opinion is that if he accepted any fee, gift, pay, reimbursement or other personal benefit connected to his trip or to his business venture, then he violated subsection 7(1) of the Act.

Democracy Watch also called on the Saskatchewan legislature to issue a decision about whether Mr. Boyd violated its Code of Ethical Conduct. Among other rules, the Code requires MLAs to uphold the highest ethical standards to “enhance public confidence and trust in government” and, like the Act, prohibits them from using inside information for personal gain, from accepting gifts, and from engaging “in personal conduct that exploits for private reasons their positions or authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to their offices.”

“All MLAs should be concerned by Boyd’s actions, and should use the results of the Commissioner’s investigation to pass a resolution concerning whether his actions violated the legislature’s code of ethical conduct,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner should both recuse themselves from investigating because Trudeau Cabinet gave them illegal 6-month contracts

Despite their false claims, Liberals’ appointment process still Cabinet-controlled not merit-based – 10,000+ call on Liberals to make changes to match Ontario’s and Britain’s world-leading appointment processes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced it is filing complaints with both federal Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson about the relationship and meetings between representatives of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) and Liberal Cabinet officials, and decisions Cabinet ministers may have made about those relationships and meetings.

In both complaints, Democracy Watch will request that the commissioners recuse themselves from ruling on the situation because they are both in a conflict of interest currently as they are serving their third six-month contract handed to them by the Trudeau Cabinet. Democracy Watch recently filed court challenges of both commissioners’ contracts based on the claim the contracts are illegal.

“Given that the former election campaign managers for Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland head up the Council of Canadian Innovators it raises questions of whether government officials are giving them preferential treatment that is illegal under the federal ethics law,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The federal lobbyists’ code prohibits anyone from lobbying a Cabinet minister or their officials for five years after helping them get elected, it’s reasonable to question whether Minister Freeland’s former campaign managers have violated that code given that the Council has lobbied many senior officials at the foreign affairs and trade department.”

Democracy Watch is filing the complaint with the Ethics Commissioner because it believes the evidence shows reasonable grounds to believe that Liberal Cabinet officials may have violated section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act (possibly with the approval of Liberal Cabinet ministers):

“Preferential treatment
7. No public office holder shall, in the exercise of an official power, duty or function, give preferential treatment to any person or organization based on the identity of the person or organization that represents the first-mentioned person or organization.”

The evidence Democracy Watch points to is from a report by Radio-Canada about the CCI’s “Membership Prospectus” document that states the CEOs of so-called “cleantech” companies who are members of CCI participate in “Monthly meetings with the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.” An article in the Globe and Mail states that the CCI claims it changed the prospectus in June to promise only regular meetings with the minister’s chief of staff.

The CCI document also states:

“CCI is a unique forum where CEOs speak directly with government decision makers about ideas that can improve the ecosystem for their companies. The Council hosts regular meetings between government civil servants and our CEOs. Our events have attracted Privy Council Officials, Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers and many others.”
and
“The Council is the only non-governmental referral partner to the Accelerated Growth Service (AGS). All CCI companies that are under 500 employees are enrolled into this new concierge service from the Federal Government.”
and
“Starting in May 2017, a permanent Federal Trade Commissioner from Global Affairs Canada will be part of CCI, exclusively dedicated to helping CCI member companies navigate new markets and advance their companies’ growth globally.”

This evidence of preferential treatment amounts to a violation of section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act unless Liberal Cabinet officials, and ministers who may have approved of their actions, can show that they did not give CCI preferential treatment based on the facts:

• that since March 2016 the CCI’s Executive Director has Benjamin Bergen, who according to the Globe and Mail article, and this CanTechLetter.com article, played a senior management role in the 2015 federal election campaign of former International Trade Minister and, since January 2017, Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland, and/or;
• that Dana O’Born is CCI’s Director of Policy (according to Mr. Bergen (as cited in the Globe article), Ms. O’Born was Ms. Freeland’s 2015 campaign manager).

Democracy Watch is filing the complaint with the Lobbying Commissioner based on the fact that former rule 8 and (since December 2015) current rules 6-9 of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, prohibit people who help in senior positions in election campaigns from lobbying for five years the politician they helped get elected or their staff or department. According to the Registry of Lobbyists, CCI has been registered to lobby the federal government (including Ms. Freeland’s Global Affairs ministry) with Mr. Bergen as the listed senior official since April 4, 2016 and has had 202 registered communications with government officials since then (although many more could have occurred as only oral, pre-arranged communications initiated by the lobbyist are required to be disclosed (unless the communication is about a financial benefit and then even if the government official initiates the communication it must be disclosed)).

The CCI’s monthly communications reports in the registry show that on the following dates (and, again, possibly many more) CCI communicated with Global Affairs Canada officials (when Ms. Freeland was Minister of Foreign Affairs or Minister of International Trade) including deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, special assistants, and the minister’s Parliamentary Secretary: April 21, 2017; April 10, 2017; March 30, 2017; March 24, 2017; March 1, 2017; February 8, 2017; November 4, 2016; November 2, 2016; October 21, 2017; October 20, 2017 (two meetings); October 17, 2016, and; October 13, 2016.

If Mr. Bergen or Ms. O’Born played a role in any of these communications it raises the issue especially of a violation of rule 6 of the current Lobbyists’ Code which is a general prohibition on lobbying a government department when there is even an appearance of conflict of interest for the minister who heads the department.

Democracy Watch wants both commissioners to recuse themselves from ruling on the situations, and has filed court cases challenging their re-appointments to their third six-month term, based on the concern that when Cabinet hands out repeated six-month contracts to government watchdogs who judge and issue rulings about situations involving Cabinet ministers, the contracts create conflicts of interest for those watchdogs as they have an incentive to issue rulings that favour Cabinet, MPs and supporters of their political party (and an incentive to fail to issue rulings on situations in which the evidence clearly shows that a minister or ruling party supporter violated the law).

“The federal lobbying and ethics laws clearly intend that the commissioners who enforce those laws be appointed for seven-year terms to ensure their independence as watchdogs who rule on situations involving Cabinet ministers and their political party supporters. The Trudeau Cabinet is abusing those laws and undermining the independence of those watchdogs by repeatedly handing six-month contracts to the Lobbying Commissioner and Ethics Commissioner,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Both the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner are currently investigating (or refusing to investigate) situations involving Prime Minister Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers. The Ethics Commissioner is investigating complaints filed by Conservative MP Blaine Calkins and Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer about the Aga Khan’s December 2016 trip gift to Trudeau. The Ethics Commissioner has also refused to investigate complaints other situations involving Trudeau and other Liberals.

As far as Democracy Watch knows (it is difficult to tell because the Lobbying Commissioner’s 2016-2017 annual report fails to provide details), the Lobbying Commissioner’s office: 1. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about an August 26, 2015 fundraising event attended by Justin Trudeau and hosted by Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman (Apotex lobbies the PMO); 2. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about an August 25, 2014 fundraising event attended by Justin Trudeau hosted by a Clearwater Seafoods co-founder and board member (Clearwater lobbies the PMO), and; 3. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about the situation revealed in an October 25th Globe and Mail article involving Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman who assisted with selling tickets for a fundraising event that Finance Minister Bill Morneau attended (Apotex lobbies Finance Canada).

However, the Lobbying Commissioner seems to be failing to investigate Democracy Watch’s complaint filed in May 2016 about travel junket gifts given by 16 businesses and lobby organizations to federal MPs (including several Liberal MPs) from 2009 to 2016. There is no mention of the complaint in the compliance section of the Lobbying Commissioner’s 2016-2017 annual report.

That section of the report also states that the Lobbying Commissioner let 10 lobbyists off the hook for clear violations during the 2016-2017 fiscal year (while only finding two guilty). As well the compliance section of the Commissioner’s 2015-2016 annual report states that the Commissioner let seven lobbyists off the hook for clear violations (while only finding two guilty). How many of the lobbyists who broke the Lobbying Act or Lobbyists’ Code since the 2015 election and are Liberal Party supporters is not known because the Commissioner does not disclose the identity of lobbyists she let off the hook (nor the reasons why she let each lobbyist off the hook).

In all of the complaints it has filed in the past year, because they have been essentially serving at the pleasure of the Trudeau Cabinet on six-month contracts, Democracy Watch has requested that the Lobbying Commissioner and Ethics Commissioner recuse themselves from investigating and ruling on the complaints and instead have someone independent of the Trudeau Cabinet rule on the complaint.

“Prime Minister Trudeau finally acknowledged in May that the Ethics Commissioner investigating him causes a conflict of interest that prohibits him from taking part in decisions about the Ethics Commissioner position. The Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner have both failed to acknowledge that they are in a conflict of interest because they have been handed six-month contracts by the Trudeau Cabinet while investigating Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers,” said Conacher.

The case against the Ethics Commissioner’s reappointment replaces an earlier case that Democracy Watch had filed in the Federal Court of Appeal that has been discontinued.

More than 10,000 Canadians have signed Democracy Watch’s Stop Political Lapdog Appointments petition on Change.org in the past few weeks. The petition calls on the federal Liberals to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent and merit-based (as Britain has) for appointments of all judges, officers of parliament, and members of agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals. The petition was launched as part of Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign.

The Liberals haven’t changed the federal Cabinet appointment process at all from what the Conservatives used (other than adding the goal of diversity). In the answer to the third question in the “Frequently Asked Questions” document describing the Liberals’ Cabinet appointment process (which was updated on April 28th), it says Cabinet ministers “manage” all appointment processes.

That means Cabinet appointments are still partisan, political processes, not merit-based as the Liberals claim (as the recent appointment of former Ontario Liberal Cabinet minister Madeleine Meilleur as the federal Languages Commissioner has revealed so clearly). And the government’s website listing openings and qualifications for Cabinet appointments that the Liberals claim makes the appointment process more open and transparent has existed for several years.

As well, the Liberals have made the very questionable claim that they can’t find anyone qualified to be the next Lobbying Commissioner or next Ethics Commissioner.

“The Liberals’ false claims smell very fishy and are clearly an attempt to cover up the fact that their Cabinet appointment system is essentially the same as the Harper Conservatives used, and that it’s still political and partisan, not merit-based, and allows Trudeau Cabinet ministers to choose their own Liberal Party cronies as government and law enforcement lapdogs,” said Conacher.

“The Trudeau Cabinet is in a conflict of interest when choosing any government or law enforcement watchdog because those watchdogs enforce laws that apply to Cabinet ministers or their departments,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process for judges and watchdogs is to establish a fully independent public appointment commission, as Ontario and Britain have, to conduct public, merit-based searches for nominees and send a short list to Cabinet, with Cabinet required to choose from the list.”

The independent commission, whose members are approved by all federal party leaders (and entities such as the Canadian Judicial Council) should be mandated to do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for candidates, and the Trudeau Cabinet should be required to choose appointees from a short-list of one to three candidates that the commission nominates.

Ontario uses this kind of independent appointment system to appoint provincial judges (the advisory committee provides a shortlist of three candidates to the Cabinet). Britain uses it to appoint judges and judicial tribunal members (like the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are) – its advisory committee provides only one candidate to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has to accept the candidate or reject the candidate and provide written reasons. Both of their systems are considered to be world leading.

The new appointment process, and prohibition on being reappointed, should apply to the judicial advisory committees and appointments of all 1,123 federal and provincial superior court judicial appointments listed here, and to the new public appointments commission that must be established to ensure a merit-based selection process for a short list of candidates for appointment to the 32 federal administrative tribunals and 108 agencies/boards listed here.

Democracy Watch also called on the Liberals, and all governments, to change the law to ensure all Cabinet appointees who watch over the government or oversee key democracy laws and processes (especially every Officer of Parliament) serve only one term.

“Like judges, all government and democracy watchdogs must only serve one term, with no possibility that the government can reappoint them, to ensure watchdogs don’t try to please the government in order to keep their job,” said Conacher. “To safeguard our democracy the ruling party must not be allowed to reappoint any government watchdog.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign amd Government Ethics Campaign

Laws for both commissioners say interim appointments limited to no more than six months per person, and only allowed when commissioner is absent or incapacitated

Cases also based on concern that Cabinet handing out repeated six-month contracts to government watchdogs creates a conflict of interest for those watchdogs

Despite their false claims, Liberals’ appointment process still Cabinet-controlled not merit-based – 10,000+ call on Liberals to make changes to match Ontario’s and Britain’s world-leading appointment processes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, July 11, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced its court cases challenging the Trudeau Cabinet’s reappointment of both federal Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to their third six-month terms since their multi-year term in office expired in July 2016. Yavar Hameed of Hameed Law and Bijon Roy of Champ and Associates in Ottawa are providing counsel to Democracy Watch for the cases.

The cases are based on the claim that the commissioners’ reappointments for their current third six-month terms are illegal. Clause 4.1(4) of the Lobbying Act says that any qualified person can only be appointed as Lobbying Commissioner for an interim term of no longer than six months, and that such interim appointments are only allowed when there is no commissioner or the commissioner is incapacitated (which was not the situation when the Cabinet made the reappointment).

The Parliament of Canada Act subsection 82(2) says the same things about appointments of anyone as interim Ethics Commissioner. Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd began her third six-month term on June 30th, and Ethics Commissioner began her third six-month term on July 9th.

“The federal lobbying and ethics laws clearly intend that the commissioners who enforce those laws be appointed for seven-year terms to ensure their independence as watchdogs who rule on situations involving Cabinet ministers and their political party supporters. The Trudeau Cabinet is abusing those laws and undermining the independence of those watchdogs by repeatedly handing six-month contracts to the Lobbying Commissioner and Ethics Commissioner,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The cases are also based on the concern that when Cabinet hands out repeated six-month contracts to government watchdogs who judge and issue rulings about situations involving Cabinet ministers, the contracts create conflicts of interest for those watchdogs as they have an incentive to issue rulings that favour Cabinet, MPs and supporters of their political party (and an incentive to fail to issue rulings on situations in which the evidence clearly shows that a minister or ruling party supporter violated the law).

Both the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner are currently investigating (or refusing to investigate) situations involving Prime Minister Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers. The Ethics Commissioner is investigating complaints filed by Conservative MP Blaine Calkins and Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer about the Aga Khan’s December 2016 trip gift to Trudeau. The Ethics Commissioner has also refused to investigate complaints other situations involving Trudeau and other Liberals.

As far as Democracy Watch knows (it is difficult to tell because the Lobbying Commissioner’s 2016-2017 annual report fails to provide details), the Lobbying Commissioner’s office: 1. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about an August 26, 2015 fundraising event attended by Justin Trudeau and hosted by Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman (Apotex lobbies the PMO); 2. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about an August 25, 2014 fundraising event attended by Justin Trudeau hosted by a Clearwater Seafoods co-founder and board member (Clearwater lobbies the PMO), and; 3. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about the situation revealed in an October 25th Globe and Mail article involving Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman who assisted with selling tickets for a fundraising event that Finance Minister Bill Morneau attended (Apotex lobbies Finance Canada).

However, the Lobbying Commissioner seems to be failing to investigate Democracy Watch’s complaint filed in May 2016 about travel junket gifts given by 16 businesses and lobby organizations to federal MPs (including several Liberal MPs) from 2009 to 2016. There is no mention of the complaint in the compliance section of the Lobbying Commissioner’s 2016-2017 annual report.

That section of the report also states that the Lobbying Commissioner let 10 lobbyists off the hook for clear violations during the 2016-2017 fiscal year (while only finding two guilty). As well the compliance section of the Commissioner’s 2015-2016 annual report states that the Commissioner let seven lobbyists off the hook for clear violations (while only finding two guilty). How many of the lobbyists who broke the Lobbying Act or Lobbyists’ Code since the 2015 election and are Liberal Party supporters is not known because the Commissioner does not disclose the identity of lobbyists she let off the hook (nor the reasons why she let each lobbyist off the hook).

In all of the complaints it has filed in the past year, because they have been essentially serving at the pleasure of the Trudeau Cabinet on six-month contracts, Democracy Watch has requested that the Lobbying Commissioner and Ethics Commissioner recuse themselves from investigating and ruling on the complaints and instead have someone independent of the Trudeau Cabinet rule on the complaint.

“Prime Minister Trudeau finally acknowledged in May that the Ethics Commissioner investigating him causes a conflict of interest that prohibits him from taking part in decisions about the Ethics Commissioner position. The Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner have both failed to acknowledge that they are in a conflict of interest because they have been handed six-month contracts by the Trudeau Cabinet while investigating Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers,” said Conacher.

The case against the Ethics Commissioner’s reappointment replaces an earlier case that Democracy Watch had filed in the Federal Court of Appeal that has been discontinued.

More than 10,000 Canadians have signed Democracy Watch’s Stop Political Lapdog Appointments petition on Change.org in the past few weeks. The petition calls on the federal Liberals to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent and merit-based (as Britain has) for appointments of all judges, officers of parliament, and members of agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals. The petition was launched as part of Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign.

The Liberals haven’t changed the federal Cabinet appointment process at all from what the Conservatives used (other than adding the goal of diversity). In the answer to the third question in the “Frequently Asked Questions” document describing the Liberals’ Cabinet appointment process (which was updated on April 28th), it says Cabinet ministers “manage” all appointment processes.

That means Cabinet appointments are still partisan, political processes, not merit-based as the Liberals claim (as the recent appointment of former Ontario Liberal Cabinet minister Madeleine Meilleur as the federal Languages Commissioner has revealed so clearly). And the government’s website listing openings and qualifications for Cabinet appointments that the Liberals claim makes the appointment process more open and transparent has existed for several years.

As well, the Liberals have made the very questionable claim that they can’t find anyone qualified to be the next Lobbying Commissioner or next Ethics Commissioner.

“The Liberals’ false claims smell very fishy and are clearly an attempt to cover up the fact that their Cabinet appointment system is essentially the same as the Harper Conservatives used, and that it’s still political and partisan, not merit-based, and allows Trudeau Cabinet ministers to choose their own Liberal Party cronies as government and law enforcement lapdogs,” said Conacher.

“The Trudeau Cabinet is in a conflict of interest when choosing any government or law enforcement watchdog because those watchdogs enforce laws that apply to Cabinet ministers or their departments,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process for judges and watchdogs is to establish a fully independent public appointment commission, as Ontario and Britain have, to conduct public, merit-based searches for nominees and send a short list to Cabinet, with Cabinet required to choose from the list.”

The independent commission, whose members are approved by all federal party leaders (and entities such as the Canadian Judicial Council) should be mandated to do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for candidates, and the Trudeau Cabinet should be required to choose appointees from a short-list of one to three candidates that the commission nominates.

Ontario uses this kind of independent appointment system to appoint provincial judges (the advisory committee provides a shortlist of three candidates to the Cabinet). Britain uses it to appoint judges and judicial tribunal members (like the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are) – its advisory committee provides only one candidate to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has to accept the candidate or reject the candidate and provide written reasons. Both of their systems are considered to be world leading.

The new appointment process, and prohibition on being reappointed, should apply to the judicial advisory committees and appointments of all 1,123 federal and provincial superior court judicial appointments listed here, and to the new public appointments commission that must be established to ensure a merit-based selection process for a short list of candidates for appointment to the 32 federal administrative tribunals and 108 agencies/boards listed here.

Democracy Watch also called on the Liberals, and all governments, to change the law to ensure all Cabinet appointees who watch over the government or oversee key democracy laws and processes (especially every Officer of Parliament) serve only one term.

“Like judges, all government and democracy watchdogs must only serve one term, with no possibility that the government can reappoint them, to ensure watchdogs don’t try to please the government in order to keep their job,” said Conacher. “To safeguard our democracy the ruling party must not be allowed to reappoint any government watchdog.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign amd Government Ethics Campaign

Complaint argues BlackRock executives and staff violated rules in the Conflict of Interest Act by acting as advisers to Cabinet while BlackRock lobbied government

Complaint also argues federal Cabinet gave preferential treatment to BlackRock

Ethics Commissioner must recuse herself as she is serving at the pleasure of Cabinet – appointment process for all government watchdogs must be made merit-based

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 24, 2017

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch released the letter it sent today to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson concerning the situation revealed in an article in the May 5th edition of the Globe and Mail, and in documents (NOTE: 50 MB PDF) obtained by Ken Rubin and the Globe and Mail through an Access to Information Act request. The letter calls for an investigation and ruling on whether Privy Council Office staff and Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi and his staff violated the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) by giving preferential treatment to BlackRock Asset Management Canada Ltd. because Mark Wiseman of BlackRock is serving as a member of the federal government’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls for an investigation of whether executives and staff at BlackRock Asset Management Canada Ltd. violated the COIA given that they served as ministerial advisers to Minister Sohi and department officials at the same time that BlackRock was registered to lobby the federal government. BlackRock executives and staff organized a meeting last November for Minister Sohi, Prime Minister Trudeau and eight other Cabinet ministers to appeal to BlackRock’s clients to invest in the federal government’s proposed Infrastructure Bank and infrastructure spending. BlackRock’s conflict of interest that violates the COIA is also based on the fact that BlackRock clients were at the meeting, and that BlackRock will benefit from the public money the government will spend on infrastructure through the Infrastructure Bank.

On May 8th, Democracy Watch also filed a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner about similar conflicts of interest and preferential treatment by Finance Minister Morneau and members of his Advisory Council on Economic Growth.

“It’s illegal under the federal ethics law for BlackRock executives and staff to be advisers to the Privy Council Office, Minister Sohi and the Liberal Cabinet at the same time as BlackRock was trying to influence federal government and Finance Minister Morneau’s decisions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“The ruling on this situation must uphold the rule in the federal ethics law that people lobbying the federal government can’t also work for or with the government,” said Conacher. “If it doesn’t, the law will be gutted and it will become effectively legal for big business executives and lobbyists to be inside government advisers.”

Section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act prohibits ministers and other public office holders from giving preferential treatment to any organization based on the organization’s representative. “An independent investigation is needed to determine whether Privy Council Office staff, Minister Sohi and his staff, and any other senior government officials, gave BlackRock preferential treatment because BlackRock executive Mark Wiseman was serving as Minister Morneau’s adviser,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to recuse herself from ruling on the complaint because the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet gave her the gift of a $100,000, six-month contract in mid-December. Under subsection 82(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Cabinet is not required to consult opposition party leaders before appointing anyone to a six-month term like the one the Ethics Commissioner is currently serving.

Before the Cabinet gave her the contract in December, Democracy Watch filed a complaint calling on the Ethics Commissioner to rule that the Trudeau Cabinet was in a conflict of interest and could not choose its own ethics watchdog.

“It would be outrageous if someone filed a lawsuit against a Trudeau Cabinet minister and Prime Minister Trudeau chose the judge to rule on the lawsuit and handed the judge a six-month contract worth $100,000, and it is equally outrageous for ethics complaints against Trudeau Cabinet ministers to be ruled on by an ethics commissioner Prime Minister Trudeau has chosen,” said Conacher.

The COIA covers anyone who is “ministerial adviser” – defined as anyone, other than a public servant, who “occupies a position in the office of a minister” and provides policy advice to a minister on issues relating to his/her powers and duties, even if they don’t work full time and are not paid or compensated in any way.

Democracy Watch’s opinion is that BlackRock executives and staff were ministerial advisers (the details are in the letter) from mid-August 2016 to November 14, 2016 when the meeting took place, and are therefore covered by the COIA. While they didn’t physically work in the Privy Council Office or the office of Infrastructure Minister Sohi, they were: working with and advising those offices directly; had access to confidential government information, and; were described by the federal government as participating in “working groups” with several government officials.

Section 4 and subsection 6(1) of the COIA together prohibit public office holders, including “ministerial advisers” from making or taking part in decisions when they have an opportunity to further their own, their family’s or their friends’ private interests or to improperly further another person’s interests.

Democracy Watch’s opinion is that, based on the information in May 5th’s Globe and Mail article and the government’s documents, BlackRock executives took part in decision-making processes in which they had the opportunity to further their own interests given that their positions in BlackRock meant that if BlackRock benefited they would also benefit.

Beyond Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s own conflict of interest, which means she must recuse herself from ruling on Democracy Watch’s complaint, another reason not to have Ethics Commissioner Dawson rule on the complaints is her negligently weak enforcement record since 2007 and lack of accountability (See Backgrounder below for details). Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition continue to call for key changes to strengthen federal political ethics rules and the enforcement system (See Backgrounder for details).

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign proposes that the way to ensure the appointment of a fully independent, merit-based Ethics Commissioner is to have a fully independent commission whose members are approved by all federal party leaders along with entities such as the Canadian Judicial Council do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for candidates, and to require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of candidates that the commission nominates, with approval still by the House of Commons.

Ontario uses this kind of independent appointment system to appoint provincial judges (with the advisory committee provides a shortlist of three candidates to the Cabinet). The United Kingdom uses it to appoint judges and judicial tribunal members (like the Ethics Commissioner is) – its advisory committee provides only one candidate to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has to accept the candidate or reject the candidate and provide written reasons. Both of their systems are considered to be world leading.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

---

Backgrounder

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson has greatly undermined various sections of the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) in past rulings by creating loopholes in the COIA that do not exist – such as:

1. her April 29, 2010 “Cheques Report” ruling claiming that political parties are not “persons” under the COIA and therefore it was fine for Conservative MPs and Cabinet ministers to hand out government cheques with the Conservative Party logo on them;
2. her May 13, 2010 “Raitt Report” ruling that it was fine for two lobbyists who were lobbying Minister Lisa Raitt to help raise thousands of dollars for her riding association because, you claimed, that only helped the association not her;
3. her December 2016 ruling that it was fine for Health Minister Jane Philpott to use the driving service company of one of her former campaign volunteers because it was the only such company Minister Philpott claimed she knew about (a ruling that creates a loophole allowing any Minister or other senior government officlal to use the same invalid excuse Minister Philpott used to give contracts to their friends or other party loyalists);
4. her baseless decision that the COIA only applies to financial interests despite the fact that the COIA’s section 2 definition of “private interest” does not in any way even suggest that the definition of “private interest” is restricted to only financial interests, and;
5. her baseless decision that the COIA only applies to close personal friends (there is no such definition of “friends” in the COIA).

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Federal ethics law and codes missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest. Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises to close the huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

B.C. parties failed to promise to make most of the changes needed ensure democratic politics – will they still make the changes?

Voter turnout up to about 57%, but voting system and other reforms needed as Liberals and NDP both won about 49% of seats with support of only 23.5% of eligible voters, and many accountability loopholes exist

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 17, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on B.C.’s provincial parties, no matter which party forms the government, to make all the changes needed to ensure democratic politics across the province.

While the final seat totals for each party won’t be known for a couple of weeks after the final count and recounts, and while voter turnout increased to about 57%, voting system and other key democracy and accountability reforms are needed as the Liberals and NDP both won about 48 percent of the seats in the legislature even though they were each supported by only about 40 percent of people who voted (and only 23 percent of total eligible voters).

“The B.C parties promised some key changes but nowhere near enough changes to ensure everyone in B.C. politics will, finally be effectively required to act honestly, ethically, openly, representatively and to prevent waste.” said Conacher. “As with every jurisdiction in Canada, about 100 specific changes are needed in B.C. to ensure democratic good government and democratic politics.”

If the B.C. parties and voters want not just a new but also a democratic government, the top 10 most important changes that need to be made for everyone (politicians, appointees, political staff, public servants) in the provincial and municipal governments, and in every government and government-funded institution across the province, are as follows:

1. Enact an honesty-in-politics law that allows for complaints to the provincial Ethics Commissioner about broken promises, and about dishonest statements made anywhere (including in the legislature) by anyone involved in politics, with mandatory high fines as the penalty;
2. Require all provincially regulated industry and service sectors (property and auto insurance, financial and investment services, health care institutions, energy and water) to include a notice in their mailings and emails to customers inviting them to join and fund citizen watchdog groups for each industry and sector, and increase royalties for all resource development sectors and put part of the increase into a fund that citizen watchdog groups jointly oversee and use for jointly decided initiatives;
3. Establish a Public Appointments Commission whose members are approved of by the leaders of parties that receive more than 5 percent of the popular vote in the election, and require the Commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and choose a short list of a maximum of 3 candidates for all Cabinet appointments, with the Cabinet required to choose from the short list;
4. Enact a meaningful public consultation law that requires broad, in-depth public consultation with voters (including legislature committee hearings) before any government or government institution makes a significant decision, and free and empower MLAs to represent voters and hold the government accountable by restricting the powers of the Premier and party leaders;
5. Ban political donations and gifts from businesses, unions and other organizations, and (as in Quebec) limit individual donations to $100 annually and establish per-vote and donation-matching public funding, and limit election spending by parties and candidates to about $1 per voter, and advertising spending by third parties to $50,000;
6. Prohibit everyone in politics from participating in any way in any decision-making process if they have even the appearance of a conflict of interest (even if the decision applies generally), including banning anyone who leaves politics from communicating with anyone involved in politics about their decisions for 3-5 years;
7. Require everyone in politics to disclose through an online registry any communication they have with anyone with regard to decisions they are making (to close the secret lobbying loopholes that now exist) and prohibit lobbyists from helping with political campaigns or fundraising;
8. Change the voting system to ensure a more accurate representation of the popular vote results of each election in the seats held by each party in the legislature (and in city councilors elected) while ensuring that all elected officials are supported by, and are accountable to, voters in each riding/constituency (with a safeguard to ensure that a party with a low-level, narrow-base of support does not have a disproportionately high level of power in the legislature) – and actually fix election dates (as Britain has);
9. Strengthen the access-to-information law by reducing loopholes, applying it to all government and government-funded institutions, requiring that records of all decisions and actions be disclosed regularly, and giving the Information Commissioner the power and mandate to order disclosure (as in B.C., Ontario and Quebec) and changes to government institutions’ information systems (as in Britain), and to penalize violators, and ensure whistleblower protection by strengthening the rules and empowering the Public Interest Commissioner to protect all whistleblowers in the public and private sectors; and
10. Reduce waste by prohibiting omnibus budget bills, and empowering the Auditor General to: audit all government and government-funded institutions; audit projected spending to ensure truth-in-budgetting; prohibit government advertising if it is misleading or partisan; order changes to clean up the financial management of any institution, and; penalize violators of spending or procurement rules.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page