He has buried 8 ethics complaints, including about PM Trudeau, and gutted 3 key rules – is he the handpicked lapdog Trudeau wants as Ethics Commissioner?

Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, January 30, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House Ethics Committee to ask Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein the following key questions when he testifies before the Committee today at 11:00 am:

1.  Why has he and Prime Minister Trudeau not disclosed the communications from the PMO/PCO concerning the Trudeau family’s Jamaica trip? Section 43 of the Conflict of Interest Act applies to the situation and only requires that the Commissioner’s advice be kept confidential – the Commissioner is allowed to disclose the information the office holder submitted. And there is no provision in any federal law that allows the PM to keep that information secret;

2.  How was he appointed and will he disclose the secret communications he had with the Trudeau Cabinet/PMO/PCO during that process (given the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose him)?

3.  What has the Cabinet communicated to him, if anything, about being reappointed for another 6-month term after his current term ends on February 29th? Will he disclose all those communications?

4.  What has the Cabinet communicated to him, if anything, about the appointment process for the Ethics Commissioner to be appointed to a 7-year term (given the deadline to apply was May 23, 2023)? Will he disclose all those communications?

5.  And what is his response to Democracy Watch’s analysis that concludes, after being on the job only a few months, von Finckenstein already has one of the worst government ethics enforcement records it has seen from commissioners across Canada in the past 20 years, given he has buried at least 8 ethics complaints and gutted 3 key ethics rules?

Because of his negligently bad enforcement record, and because the Trudeau Cabinet handpicked von Finckenstein through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process, Democracy Watch also called on opposition parties to do everything they can to stop the Cabinet from renewing him for another 6-month term at the end of February or, even worse, appointing him to a 7-year term as Ethics Commissioner (the Cabinet is required to consult with opposition party leaders before making a 7-year term appointment).

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner.  The Trudeau Cabinet in 2016-2017 used a similar secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process to appoint several key democratic good government watchdogs, and the opposition parties pushed back a bit but then rolled over and let the Liberals get away with it.

“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”

– 30 –

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

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

He has buried 8 ethics complaints, including about PM Trudeau, and gutted 3 key rules – is he the lapdog Trudeau has been trying to get as Ethics Commissioner?

Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, January 26, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its analysis that concludes, after being on the job only a few months, Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein already has one of the worst government ethics enforcement records it has seen from commissioners across Canada in the past 20 years.

In just five months, Mr. Von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints and gutted 3 key ethics rules in ways that will allow Cabinet staff and top government officials to secretly profit from their decisions and be in serious financial conflicts of interest.

Because of his negligently bad enforcement record, and because the Trudeau Cabinet handpicked von Finckenstein through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process, Democracy Watch also called on opposition parties to do everything they can to stop the Cabinet from renewing him for another 6-month term at the end of February or, even worse, appointing him to a 7-year term as Ethics Commissioner (the Cabinet is required to consult with opposition party leaders before making a 7-year term appointment).

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner.  The Trudeau Cabinet in 2016-2017 used a similar secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process to appoint several key democratic good government watchdogs, and the opposition parties pushed back a bit but then rolled over and let the Liberals get away with it.

Mr. von Finckenstein testifies on Tuesday, January 30th before the House Ethics Committee on Tuesday, January 30 and MPs should grill him both about how he was chosen (the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose him), and his negligently bad enforcement record.

“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”

Mr. von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints with secret rulings that let off everyone who was alleged to have violated conflict of interest or other ethics rules, based on what is known so far since September when he started his 6-month term in the position of Interim Ethics Commissioner.

In September he testified before the House Ethics Committee that he had “Eight open cases, which involve 11 people” (p. 3 of testimony).  Then in October he testified again and said that the cases were “gone” (p. 18 of testimony).  He has not issued any rulings finding anyone guilty, which means he let off all 11 of the alleged wrongdoers.

While Mr. von Finckenstein refused DWatch’s request that he disclose all 8 rulings (even though nothing in the Conflict of Interest Act nor in ss. 27(5.1) of the MP Code prohibits such disclosure), 2 of the 8 rulings address complaints that DWatch filed.

The first ruling is about DWatch’s complaint alleging Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Act by appointing his long-time friend David Johnston to investigate the PM’s actions on foreign interference.  Mr. von Finckenstein refused to even investigate the complaint based on the bizarre claim that the PM has a “constitutional prerogative” to appoint whomever he wants to any public office.  This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that allows the PM to appoint family, relatives and close friends to any federal government position.

The second ruling is about DWatch’s complaint requesting an investigation into Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who is Trudeau’s senior B.C. minister, participating in meetings concerning B.C.-based Teck Resources Ltd. (which lobbied Wilkinson six times while his spouse has significant investments in financial institutions that are among the top investors in Teck).  Mr. von Finckenstein also refused to even investigate the situation based on the equally bizarre claim that the private interests “are too remote and speculative to cause them to conflict” with Wilkinson’s public duties.  This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent that allows Cabinet ministers and top government officials to participate in decisions when they have a financial conflict of interest.

Mr. von Finckenstein has also gutted 3 key rules in the Conflict of Interest Act by issuing in October bizarre, dangerously weak interpretations of the rules that will allow many government officials to participate in decisions and actions when they have a significant conflict of interest:

1. He is doubling from $30,000 to $60,000 the value of shares that Cabinet staff and top government officials can own in businesses they regulate or make decisions about, and specifically allowing members of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to invest in exchange-traded funds and mutual funds that own shares in energy companies. (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #3 re: Doubling the minimum value exemption and #4 re: CER appointees).  This will allow Cabinet staff, top government officials and CER appointees to be in a direct, significant financial conflict of interest and to secretly profit from the decisions they make.

2. He is now allowing Cabinet staff and top government officials to leave their position and move to another position in the government, or take a contract with the government, without any cooling-off period because, he told the House Ethics Committee in October, he believes “there cannot be any conflict of interest between different government departments or agencies” and no one in government ever has “confidential information that would be harmful to the government” (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #1 re: Definition of the term “entity”). Among many other conflicts of interest between government departments, his interpretation ignores the obvious reality that the interests and information held by ministers and their staff directly conflict with the interests of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that enforces laws that apply to the minister and his/her department.  It also ignores the reason for the cooling-off period, which is to prevent ministerial staff from developing relationships with top department officials and then receiving preferential treatment in hiring processes.

– 30 –

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

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

Interim appointment term over in early March – or will Trudeau again lie about lack of qualified candidates and renew von Finckenstein for another 6 months?

Commissioner who serves 7-year term must be chosen by all parties reviewing all applications for the position, to prevent Cabinet from rigging the appointment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, January 18, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it received recently from the Trudeau Cabinet office that claims a 165-day extension to June 4, 2024 before the office will disclose the records of communications about the appointment of Konrad von Finckenstein as federal Interim Ethics Commissioner, and about the appointment of the next full-term Ethics Commissioner.  Democracy Watch requested the records in November, and the deadline to disclose them under the Access to Information Act (ATIA) was December 21st. Democracy Watch filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner and the Commissioner’s office is investigating the excessive delay in disclosing the records.

The extension by Cabinet/Privy Council Office (PCO) will delay the disclosure of the records until after the end of February when von Finckenstein’s 6-month term as Interim Ethics Commissioner ends.  He was appointed on August 30th after Mario Dion retired in February due to health problems, and the Trudeau Cabinet failed in its attempt to install Trudeau Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law Martine Richard as the Interim Commissioner (she resigned rather than face questions about her appointment, but continues to serve as the Ethics Commissioner’s Senior Lawyer).

The Trudeau Cabinet has said nothing about its secretive search for a person to appoint to a 7-year term as the next Ethics Commissioner, and is playing the same game as the Cabinet did in 2016-2017 by using a Cabinet-controlled, partisan, political and secretive process for reviewing applications, and hiding key information from opposition parties (in 2017 the Liberals misled opposition parties by falsely claiming that no qualified candidates had applied for the Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying positions) (Click here to see a summary of the Liberals’ undemocratic and unethical watchdog appointment process).

The deadline to apply for the Ethics Commissioner position was May 23, 2023.  In September 18th, von Finckenstein testified at the House of Commons Ethics Committee but only disclosed a bit of information about how he was appointed:

1.  Some unknown person asked him last April whether he would accept the position of Interim Ethics Commissioner, but he was going on a 40-day cruise at that time. Some unknown person contacted him again in June (p. 3 of testimony);

2.  He was only asked to take, and only committed to, a 6-month term; he hadn’t thought about applying for a 7-year term and it wasn’t discussed, and; he wouldn’t know if he wanted a 7-year term until after the 6-month term (p. 4 of testimony).

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner.  The Trudeau Cabinet should, finally, remove the bias by establishing a fully independent appointments advisory committee whose members are approved by all parties in the House of Commons (which Stephen Harper promised back in 2006), with the committee doing a public, merit-based search for a short list of qualified candidates, and then an all-party House Committee would make the final choice.  This appointments system should be used for all the federal democratic good government watchdogs.

“The Trudeau Liberals are again playing secretive, dishonest games with the appointment process for the federal Ethics Commissioner, and opposition parties need to wake up and stop the Liberals from again choosing their own lapdog,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the Cabinet ministers are biased when they choose watchdogs who enforce laws that apply to them, and so an all-party committee must be given all the applications for the position of Ethics Commissioner so it can determine a short list of well-qualified candidates and make the final choice.”

“For all future appointments of watchdogs, and all other federal agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals that need to be independent from Cabinet, a fully independent appointments advisory committee whose members are approved by all parties in the House of Commons should be established to do a public, merit-based search for a short list of qualified candidates, and then an all-party House Committee should make the final choice of who will be appointed,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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

All five promises must be fully kept, and six other key measures enacted (some of which U.S. enacted decades ago), to stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse and ensure banks pay their fair share in taxes

Big Six Banks gouged out $58 billion in profits in 2023 (almost triple their 2010 profits), paid their CEOs an average of $12 million each, and gave out $21 billion in total bonuses to employees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, December 19, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to keep all five of the Liberals’ 2021 election promises to increase bank accountability in Canada.  The Liberals have only partially kept two of their five election promises, and they have broken their other three promises, leaving Canadians still vulnerable to bank gouging, discrimination and other abuses.

Democracy Watch called on all federal parties to work together to make all the key changes needed to stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse, as called for by 120,000+ voters who have signed on to Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign or Change.org petition, some of which the U.S. enacted decades ago (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

The Liberals are still breaking their 2021 election promises to enact the following three key bank accountability measures, measures called for by 120,000 voters (all five promises were also listed in Minister Freeland’s mandate letter):

1.  Empower the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to “review the prices charged by banks and impose changes if they are excessive” (including reviewing interest rates, as Australia did in 2017).

Instead, the Liberals have not given the FCAC the power to review or change any gouging interest rate or fee, and are only reviewing one gouging bank fee and consulting on low-cost, small-value credit;
(See Backgrounder on Weak Enforcement of Financial Consumer and Investment Protection).

2.  Require financial institutions to offer options to delay consumer debt payments when needed.

Instead, the Liberals have only issued unenforceable mortgage guidelines and an unenforceable Mortgage Charter.

3.  Review closing tax loopholes to prevent banks and other financial institutions from pretending to make their money in low-tax countries in order to lower the taxes they pay in Canada.

The Liberals promised to close the tax loopholes, not just to review them, and the review has not been completed.

“As usual, the Trudeau Liberals spouted half-truths with their 2021 election promises, and since then have proposed half-measures that only partially keep two of their five bank accountability promises while breaking the other three promises,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Finance Minister Freeland continues to protect the big bank’s gouging profits and their executives’ excessive multi-million salaries instead of making the changes needed to stop banks from gouging billions from their 30 million customers and to protect bank customers from discrimination and other abuses.”

“Every dollar of excessive profit for the banks, and every person and business the banks unjustifiably refuse to loan to, costs the Canadian economy because it means that the banks are overcharging for their essential services and loans, and choking off job creation and spending,” said Conacher.

The following additional six key measures, which 120,000 Canadians have called for, are needed to actually stop gouging and abuse, to stop discrimination in bank lending and service, and ensure the banks serve everyone across Canada fairly and well at fair prices and interest rates (See the Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes):

1.  Require banks to cut credit card interest rates in half now, and allow people renewing their mortgages to re-renew without a penalty at a lower interest rate if interest rates decrease over the next few years, and require banks to lower all their interest rates the same time as the Bank of Canada lowers its interest rate over the next few years;

2.  Require banks and insurance companies to promote a national financial consumer organization, and a national individual investor organization in their communications with individual customers and investors (as recommended in 1998 by the Liberal-controlled MacKay Task Force, House Finance and Senate Banking committees);

3.  Require the banks to disclose detailed information annually about their lending and service records (as the U.S. has required banks to do for 30 years, including the U.S. banks that 4 of Canada’s Big 6 Banks own), categorized by race, gender, income level and neighbourhood, and require corrective action whenever banks discriminate against customers;

4.  Require the banks to re-open basic banking branches in every neighbourhood that offer low-interest rate, small-value lines of credit to everyone (especially people who have a bad credit rating because of a past predatory loan) to stop predatory lending across Canada (including through partnering with Canada Post outlets for postal banking, as TD started to do in November 2022 but then paused and then cancelled);

5.  Require the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to do unannounced, mystery-shopper audits to find violations of consumer protection laws, and to identify all violators and fine them a minimum of $1 million for every violation (and the maximum $50 million for systemic violations, and;

6.  Require the Big Banks and other financial institutions to cut the pay of their CEO and top executives to no more than 40 times their lowest paid employee (as in some European countries).

The Liberals have only partially kept only the following two of their five 2021 election promises to increase banking accountability and fairness:

1.  They imposed a temporary excess profits tax on banks and insurance companies that earn more than $1 billion a year (of 15%, but for one year only in 2022), and an increase in their annual tax rate of 1.5%.

But the Liberals promised they would impose a higher 3% increase in the annual rate (England imposed a more than 8% tax hike on banks in 2011, and Australia increased its bank tax rate in 2017).

2.  They will, as of November 1, 2024, require all banks to use the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) as the complaint-appeal entity.

But banks will not be required to use OBSI until November 2024, and the Liberals are breaking their promise to give OBSI “the power to impose binding arbitration.”

Canada’s Big 6 Banks reported, yet again, excessively high annual profits totalling $58.3 billion in 2023 and record total profits of $61 billion in 2022, almost triple their 2010 profits, all reaped through gouging their customers with excessively high credit card and other credit interest rates and mutual fund and other banking fees.

Four of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in Fortune’s Global 500 for 2023 (based on 2022 profits), and TD, RBC, Scotiabank and BMO were also in the top 35 most profitable financial institutions in the world in 2022 (more profitable than most other larger banks) and two banks are among the five most profitable Canadian companies in the Global 500.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also paid their CEOs a total of $73.3 million in 2022 (an average of $12.2 million each – 55% higher than in 2008) and in 2023 handed out $21.2 billion total in bonuses to their employees. The Big Bank CEOs and employees were given these huge salaries and bonuses even though customer complaints about bank interest rates fees and poor service increased in 2023. See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder.

– 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 Bank Accountability Campaign

Case is not to overturn election – just to have court rule, as New Brunswick appeal court did last December, that Premier can’t call snap elections

UK Supreme Court in 2019, and New Brunswick appeal court in 2022, both ruled that courts can rule on whether a political decision violates the law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 19, 2023

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that, after a long delay caused mainly by a backlog in the B.C. courts, the B.C. Court of Appeal (BCCA) will today hear its appeal, filed together with Wayne Crookes (founder of IntegrityBC), of the June 21, 2022 ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court (BCSC) that contradicted itself in rejecting the lawsuit challenging former Premier John Horgan’s September 2020 snap election call one year before the fixed election date of October 2021.

The appeal, BCCA file #CA48434, is being heard today from 10 am to 4 pm PST in Courtroom 50 of the Vancouver courthouse at 800 Smithe St., and can be watched online by clicking the link on this webpage. Emily MacKinnon and associates at Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt LLP in Vancouver are providing legal counsel to Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes for the court case.

BCSC Justice Gomery’s June 21, 2022 ruling concluded that the B.C. Legislative Assembly intended to prohibit the Premier from calling snap election when it enacted changes under Bill 7 in 2001 to s. 23 of B.C.’s Constitution Act (which the Assembly confirmed when it changed the fixed election date from May to October with Bill 5 in 2017). He also ruled that the measures legally can prohibit the Premier from advising the Lieutenant Governor to call a snap election (every Premier had complied with the fixed election date requirement in the four elections before Premier Horgan’s 2020 snap election call).

However, the justice then contradicted himself by ruling that the measures don’t actually prohibit snap elections because that would give voters the right to challenge snap election calls in court, and courts shouldn’t rule on such political decisions.

Democracy Watch and Mr. Crookes are arguing that many laws have been enacted to prohibit premiers and prime ministers from doing many political things, just like the fixed election date law clearly prohibits the Premier from calling a snap election (unless a vote of non-confidence in the government occurs in the Legislative Assembly, based on the constitutional principle of the sovereignty of the legislature and the constitutional convention of responsible government).

As a result, it is the proper and constitutional role of the courts to issue a ruling if anyone files a lawsuit challenging the Premier’s violation of the legal prohibition on calling a snap election.

In further arguments filed in response to the B.C. government’s arguments, the lawyers for Democracy Watch and Mr. Crookes argue that the fixed election date measures don’t just require the Premier to call an election at least every four years, but also clearly prohibit the Premier from calling an election before the fixed date (again, unless a vote of non-confidence occurs in the Assembly).

“By calling a snap election during a pandemic instead of waiting for the fixed election date, Premier Horgan acted like an old-school power-crazed politician, not a new democrat committed to fair and democratic elections,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The B.C. legislature wanted to keep operating when the Premier called the snap election, and no single MLA, not even the Premier, has the right to shut down the legislature for no good reason, as the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled unanimously last year.”

“Hopefully the B.C. courts will rule that the Premier violated the law when he called his self-interested, hypocritical and unfair snap election, which will prevent snap elections in the future,” said Conacher.

The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of the British Parliament was illegal because it violated the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and responsible government. Last December, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled on the appeal filed by Democracy Watch and Mr. Crookes that the province’s fixed election date measures in its election law prohibit the Premier from calling a snap election for purely partisan purposes when an election favours the ruling party.

Calling a snap election in violation of B.C.’s constitution is bad – Premier Horgan calling a snap election during the COVID pandemic was even worse. Elections B.C. was forced by Premier Horgan’s cynical power grab-scheme to issue 16 emergency orders to change how polling stations will run and people will vote, and it will likely hurt voter turnout. Wayne Crookes filed an affidavit in support of the case setting out all the evidence about how bad the snap election call was.

Snap elections are unfair to opposition parties (as they are usually called when having an election favours the ruling party, as was the case in B.C.) and also to people who want to run as a candidate but can’t afford to suddenly drop everything and run. That’s why the federal Parliament, and every province, followed B.C.’s lead and have enacted fixed election date measures over the past 20 years.

– 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 Democratic Voting System Campaign and Stop PM/Premier Abuses Campaign

RCMP disclosure in May false in every way – records show failure to obtain key records, acceptance of Cabinet’s claims, two-year delay by top officers

Public inquiry needed into why RCMP’s national command tried to cover up its investigation, and why they rolled over and didn’t prosecute anyone

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 16, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the 1,815 pages of records contained in 19 documents that the RCMP recently disclosed in response to it’s July 2022 Access to Information Act (ATIA) request for all records of the RCMP’s investigation of the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet officials obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 (now operating under the name “AtkinsRéalis”).

Seven of the 19 documents have not been disclosed before. Three are fully redacted (Records #5-7 containing the RCMP’s legal opinion); one has several pages redacted (Record #4) and another a few pages (Record #2). The other 12 documents are already public. Click here to see the list and links to the records.

The RCMP’s Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Branch sent Democracy Watch an email and letter on July 20th to say that it had more than 4,000 pages of investigation records to review. This directly contradicted the Branch’s May 25, 2023 letter to DWatch responding to its ATIA request which attached only 96 pages of records and a letter that claimed, falsely, that 86 of the 96 pages were fully redacted because the RCMP’s investigation of the matter was still ongoing (in fact, the RCMP had concluded its investigation in January 2023).

The ATIP Branch sent Democracy Watch a letter on September 22nd disclosing the 1,815 pages of records, and stating that it is still reviewing and processing the rest of the investigation records (more than 2,185 pages) to determine if the ATIA secrecy exemption for Cabinet confidences applies to the records (Record #2, paras. 179-181 (p. 55); Record #4, pp. 43-75). The September 22nd letter does not say when the more than 2,185 pages will be disclosed, and the ATIP Branch did not respond to a follow-up email from Democracy Watch requesting an estimate of when the records will be disclosed.

The records show that, over an almost four-year period, the RCMP’s investigating officers only spoke to three witnesses concerning the obstruction allegation, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, Ms. Prince, and former Deputy Minister of Justice Nathalie Drouin (who became Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council Office on August 23, 2021). The RCMP never considered prosecuting anyone for breach of trust. Click here to see a summary of the content of the records.

The records also show that the RCMP continued to call the investigation an “assessment” so that it could say to the media that it wasn’t investigating, even though it is clear the officers were investigating (only in a very superficial way).

The records also show that the RCMP accepted the Trudeau Cabinet’s restricted disclosure order and didn’t apply to court for a search warrant or try to obtain secret Cabinet documents or the internal communications on all computers, phones and other devices used by the Prime Minister and other Cabinet officials, despite all of the suspicious and questionable actions by these people and SNC-Lavalin lobbyists (Record #2, paras. 82-83 (p. 30), 300-301 (p. 126) and 331-334 (p. 134); Record #3, paras. 5 (p. 2) and 21-23 (p. 7)).

Instead, the RCMP relied entirely on the public claims made by all these people which, of course, were all aimed at trying to make it seem like they had done nothing wrong. The RCMP also characterized all of the statements by all these people in a favourable way whenever possible, and always argued in favour of doubts concerning the success of a prosecution (Record #2, paras. 259 (p. 117); 278 (p. 121); 295-299 (pp. 125-126); 313-334 (pp. 130-134 – especially paras. 318, 320-32, 323-326, 328-330; Record #3, subparas. 9(e), (g) and (h) (pp. 3-4); paras. 15-18 (pp. 5-6), and; 19-20 (pp. 6-7)).

In addition, the records show that the investigating officer initially established that, to prove obstruction of justice in court, pressure must have been placed on someone to obstruct a proceeding in the justice system, and that such pressure had been put on Ms. Wilson-Raybould by Prime Minister Trudeau and various other Cabinet officials (Record #2, paras. 234 (p. 87); 239 (p. 88), and 249 (p. 111)) to obstruct the proceeding of a prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

However, the investigating officer then switches the standard to require proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere” before a prosecution for obstruction would be pursued (Record #2, paras. 250-301 (pp. 111-126 – especially paras. 287-290)).

Finally, the records show that the RCMP’s national command took from March 2021, when it received the investigation report, until January 2023 to make its decision to conclude the investigation without prosecuting anyone. The RCMP has redacted key parts of the records that contain the actual legal reasons for the decision not to prosecute anyone (Record #2, para. 267 and part of para. 268 redacted (pp. 116-117); and Records #5-7 are fully redacted).

Overall, the records raise the following serious questions:

1. Why did the RCMP not even try to apply to court to obtain a search warrant for any of the Trudeau Cabinet documents and records of communications (or parts of the documents or records) that were claimed to be “Cabinet confidences” even though they could have likely obtained some or some parts of the documents and records?
2. Why did the RCMP national command wait almost two years to make its decision to end the examination of the situation without even doing a full investigation, let alone prosecuting anyone?
3. Why did the RCMP national command try, through its almost two-year delay, to bury and cover-up its investigation?
4. Who exactly in the RCMP was involved in making the delay decision and the decision not to prosecute anyone?
5. Who did they communicate with while making these decisions, and did they communicate with anyone in the Trudeau Cabinet? and;
6. What were the actual legal reasons no one was prosecuted?

“The records show the RCMP is a negligently weak lapdog that rolled over for Prime Minister Trudeau by doing a very superficial investigation into his Cabinet’s obstruction of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, not trying to obtain key secret Cabinet communication records, and burying the investigation with an almost two-year delay,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The RCMP also misled the public by claiming it wasn’t investigating, violated the open government law by keeping investigation records secret much longer than is allowed, and is refusing to disclose the legal details why no one was prosecuted.”

“Given pressure by the Prime Minister and Cabinet officials to obstruct a prosecution is a situation that has not been revealed publicly before, and given no past court ruling makes it clear that the RCMP and Crown prosecutors could not win a prosecution, they should have tried to get a search warrant for secret Cabinet communications, and prosecuted so a judge could decide in an open court whether obstruction had occurred instead of making a behind-closed-doors and very questionable decision to cover up their investigation,” said Conacher.

“A public inquiry, with a fully independent, non-partisan inquiry commissioner chosen by all party leaders, is needed to determine why the RCMP’s national command tried to cover up its investigation, and exactly how and why they and Crown prosecutors decided not to prosecute anyone,” said Conacher.

“All of the RCMP’s conflicting actions and statements and the problems and delays with the investigation in Trudeau-SNC-Lavalin scandal are due to their systemic culture of excessive secrecy and lack of independence from the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers who handpick the RCMP Commissioner through a secretive process,” said Conacher. “The RCMP consistently fails to enforce Canada’s anti-corruption laws in a timely, effective way, which shows the need for key changes that many experts have called for to make the RCMP more independent, effective and publicly accountable, especially when it is investigating politicians or government officials, or even better to establish a new fully independent anti-corruption police force including prosecutors..”

If the RCMP was committed to transparency and independent, effective law enforcement, it would have made it clear back in 2019 when the allegations were first made that an independent special prosecutor, appointed by all party leaders, would oversee the investigation and issue a public report when it ended that provided a summary of the investigation and details about prosecution decisions.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign, Open Government Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign