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

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

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

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

Elections Ontario claims requirement to disclose “location” of an event only means the town or city – email exchange shows agencies’ twisted logic and its own violation of Ontario’s election finances law

Liberals and NDP disclose address of event, PC Party often keeps it secret

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 10, 2023

TORONTO – Today Democracy Watch revealed the email exchange it had recently with Kevin Thomas, Elections Ontario’s Manager of Compliance Enforcement, in which he confirmed the agency is letting parties, especially Premier Ford’s PC Party, hide whether lobbyists are holding fundraising events for them. This violates the Ontario’s Elections Finances Act (EFA – ss. 23(5) and (6)) which requires that parties, riding associations, candidates, nomination and party leadership contestants disclose the exact location of fundraising events.

The public, and Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, need to know the exact location of events because if a lobbyist or anyone connected to any business or organization that lobbies any MPP or Cabinet minister or Ontario government department holds a fundraising event, it could create a conflict of interest that would mean restrictions on lobbying. Lobbyists are prohibited under Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (s. 3.4) from putting a politician or government official in a real or potential conflict of interest.

Democracy Watch’s analysis, set out in the exchange of emails, shows that the Progressive Conservative Party in 2019 usually disclosed the exact location/address of fundraising events, but in the past few years often only discloses the town/city. The Liberal Party and NDP still disclose the exact address almost all of the time. The Green Party did not have any fundraising events on its website.

The word “location” is defined in the dictionary, including Black’s Law Dictionary, as a specific property. Mr. Thomas claims in his emails that Elections Ontario has since 2016 defined “location” in a directive to parties etc. as only meaning the town or city of the event. Mr. Thomas says in his emails that Elections Ontario refuses to disclose the directive, or the legal opinion that is the basis of the directive.

The EFA (clause 2(1)(k)) requires Elections Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa to publish all guidelines he issues to parties etc. (under clause 2(1)(j)) in the Ontario Gazette and on Elections Ontario’s website. Given Mr. Thomas claims that a directive was issued to parties etc. years ago concerning the definition of the word “location”, the directive should have been on Elections Ontario’s website for the past several years, and also should have been published in the Gazette.

The directive has not been published in the Gazette, and the word “location” is not defined in any of the guides Elections Ontario has published for Chief Financial Officers (known as a “CFO Handbook” – to see the handbooks, click here and follow the links).

Mr. Thomas claims in his emails that Elections Ontario will, finally, include the definition in its next version of the guides to be published in the new year.

“For no good reason, and in violation of the legal requirement to notify the public, Elections Ontario and the Chief Electoral Officer has been secretly allowing parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants to hide whether lobbyists are holding fundraising events for them, which hides conflicts of interest that undermine the integrity of provincial policy-making processes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Elections Ontario must immediately change its position and require parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants to disclose whether lobbyists are holding fundraising events for them so that the public, and Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, is notified every time a lobbyist is trying to buy influence over politicians by raising money for them,” 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 Money in Politics Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Elections Ontario claims requirement to disclose “location” of an event only means the town or city – email exchange shows agencies’ twisted logic and its own violation of Ontario’s election finances law

Liberals and NDP disclose address of event, PC Party often keeps it secret

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 10, 2023

TORONTO – Today Democracy Watch revealed the email exchange it had recently with Kevin Thomas, Elections Ontario’s Manager of Compliance Enforcement, in which he confirmed the agency is letting parties, especially Premier Ford’s PC Party, hide whether lobbyists are holding fundraising events for them. This violates the Ontario’s Elections Finances Act (EFA – ss. 23(5) and (6)) which requires that parties, riding associations, candidates, nomination and party leadership contestants disclose the exact location of fundraising events.

The public, and Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, need to know the exact location of events because if a lobbyist or anyone connected to any business or organization that lobbies any MPP or Cabinet minister or Ontario government department holds a fundraising event, it could create a conflict of interest that would mean restrictions on lobbying. Lobbyists are prohibited under Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (s. 3.4) from putting a politician or government official in a real or potential conflict of interest.

Democracy Watch’s analysis, set out in the exchange of emails, shows that the Progressive Conservative Party in 2019 usually disclosed the exact location/address of fundraising events, but in the past few years often only discloses the town/city. The Liberal Party and NDP still disclose the exact address almost all of the time. The Green Party did not have any fundraising events on its website.

The word “location” is defined in the dictionary, including Black’s Law Dictionary, as a specific property. Mr. Thomas claims in his emails that Elections Ontario has since 2016 defined “location” in a directive to parties etc. as only meaning the town or city of the event. Mr. Thomas says in his emails that Elections Ontario refuses to disclose the directive, or the legal opinion that is the basis of the directive.

The EFA (clause 2(1)(k)) requires Elections Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa to publish all guidelines he issues to parties etc. (under clause 2(1)(j)) in the Ontario Gazette and on Elections Ontario’s website. Given Mr. Thomas claims that a directive was issued to parties etc. years ago concerning the definition of the word “location”, the directive should have been on Elections Ontario’s website for the past several years, and also should have been published in the Gazette.

The directive has not been published in the Gazette, and the word “location” is not defined in any of the guides Elections Ontario has published for Chief Financial Officers (known as a “CFO Handbook” – to see the handbooks, click here and follow the links).

Mr. Thomas claims in his emails that Elections Ontario will, finally, include the definition in its next version of the guides to be published in the new year.

“For no good reason, and in violation of the legal requirement to notify the public, Elections Ontario and the Chief Electoral Officer has been secretly allowing parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants to hide whether lobbyists are holding fundraising events for them, which hides conflicts of interest that undermine the integrity of provincial policy-making processes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Elections Ontario must immediately change its position and require parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants to disclose whether lobbyists are holding fundraising events for them so that the public, and Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, is notified every time a lobbyist is trying to buy influence over politicians by raising money for them,” 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 Money in Politics Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Letter to Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa also calls for investigation of all ticket gifting for the event, and a ruling that gifting tickets is illegal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 22, 2023

TORONTO – Today Democracy Watch sent a letter to Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa calling on him to investigate and rule whether gifts of a ticket to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party’s March 2023 “Leader’s Dinner” fundraising event given by Mr. X to a mayor and a councillor violate Ontario’s political donations law.

As CTV Toronto reported recently, John Mutton, the head of the firm Municipal Solutions, who has been identified by the media as the “Mr. X” referred to in the report on the Greenbelt decision by Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, provided as a gift a $1,500 ticket to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party March 2023 “Premier’s Dinner” fundraising event to both Pickering Mayor Kevin Ashe and Councillor Lisa Robinson, and also offered a ticket to Councillor Maurice Brenner (who refused the gift).

None of these people’s names appear in Ontario’s online registry of donations related to the contribution made to the PC Party through buying a ticket to the event. This raises questions concerning who bought the tickets, how Mr. Mutton obtained the tickets, whether Mr. Mutton offered or gave tickets to anyone else, and whether the people who actually paid for the tickets were recorded and disclosed in the online registry of donations?

This situation also raises questions about how many other people or entities that purchased tickets to the event secretly funnelled tickets to other people, including to municipal or provincial politicians, political staff or government employees?

Democracy Watch’s position is that several overlapping provisions in Ontario’s Election Finances Act (EFA) clearly prohibit buying a ticket for a fundraising event for another person who attends the event:

• whether the ticket is given by the person or entity who bought the ticket to the person who attends the event;
• or whether the ticket is given by the person or entity who bought the ticket to another person who then provides it to the person who attends the event;
• or whether the person who attends the event reimburses the person/entity who bought the ticket (unless they ensure that they are recorded as the donor by the party, and in the online registry of donors).

As section D of the letter details, the EFA contains several requirements and prohibitions intended to ensure that only individuals, using their own money, donate no more than the allowed amount to parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants, and that their identity and amount of their donations are disclosed in the online registry of provincial Political Contributions.

In other words, many provisions in the EFA prohibit so-called “straw-person” donations where a person, corporation, union or other organization funnels their money through another person to hide the fact that they are the actual donor so they can get away with violating restrictions on donations.

“Mr. X’s gift tickets to municipal politicians so they could attend the PC Party Doug Ford fundraising event raise serious questions about violations of the political donations law, and Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer should investigate not only those gifts but also how many other people secretly funnelled tickets to the event to others,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“If Elections Ontario doesn’t rule that it is illegal to give fundraising event tickets as a gift because it hides the identity of the actual donor and violates the law in other ways, it will open a huge loophole in the law that will effectively allow corporations, unions and other organizations to make secret donations, and for individuals to secretly funnel donations through others, and for individuals to donate more than the allowed amount,” 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 Money in Politics Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Letter to Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa also calls for investigation of all ticket gifting for the event, and a ruling that gifting tickets is illegal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 22, 2023

TORONTO – Today Democracy Watch sent a letter to Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa calling on him to investigate and rule whether gifts of a ticket to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party’s March 2023 “Leader’s Dinner” fundraising event given by Mr. X to a mayor and a councillor violate Ontario’s political donations law.

As CTV Toronto reported recently, John Mutton, the head of the firm Municipal Solutions, who has been identified by the media as the “Mr. X” referred to in the report on the Greenbelt decision by Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, provided as a gift a $1,500 ticket to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party March 2023 “Premier’s Dinner” fundraising event to both Pickering Mayor Kevin Ashe and Councillor Lisa Robinson, and also offered a ticket to Councillor Maurice Brenner (who refused the gift).

None of these people’s names appear in Ontario’s online registry of donations related to the contribution made to the PC Party through buying a ticket to the event. This raises questions concerning who bought the tickets, how Mr. Mutton obtained the tickets, whether Mr. Mutton offered or gave tickets to anyone else, and whether the people who actually paid for the tickets were recorded and disclosed in the online registry of donations?

This situation also raises questions about how many other people or entities that purchased tickets to the event secretly funnelled tickets to other people, including to municipal or provincial politicians, political staff or government employees?

Democracy Watch’s position is that several overlapping provisions in Ontario’s Election Finances Act (EFA) clearly prohibit buying a ticket for a fundraising event for another person who attends the event:

• whether the ticket is given by the person or entity who bought the ticket to the person who attends the event;
• or whether the ticket is given by the person or entity who bought the ticket to another person who then provides it to the person who attends the event;
• or whether the person who attends the event reimburses the person/entity who bought the ticket (unless they ensure that they are recorded as the donor by the party, and in the online registry of donors).

As section D of the letter details, the EFA contains several requirements and prohibitions intended to ensure that only individuals, using their own money, donate no more than the allowed amount to parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants, and that their identity and amount of their donations are disclosed in the online registry of provincial Political Contributions.

In other words, many provisions in the EFA prohibit so-called “straw-person” donations where a person, corporation, union or other organization funnels their money through another person to hide the fact that they are the actual donor so they can get away with violating restrictions on donations.

“Mr. X’s gift tickets to municipal politicians so they could attend the PC Party Doug Ford fundraising event raise serious questions about violations of the political donations law, and Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer should investigate not only those gifts but also how many other people secretly funnelled tickets to the event to others,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“If Elections Ontario doesn’t rule that it is illegal to give fundraising event tickets as a gift because it hides the identity of the actual donor and violates the law in other ways, it will open a huge loophole in the law that will effectively allow corporations, unions and other organizations to make secret donations, and for individuals to secretly funnel donations through others, and for individuals to donate more than the allowed amount,” 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 Money in Politics Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has financial and other interests connected to Teck, and John Horgan became a director of a Teck company the day he resigned

Investigation needed into whether they tried to influence government decisions about investigation of contamination of water systems caused by Teck mines, or tried to further Teck’s interests in any other way

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 21, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it sent last Thursday to the federal Ethics Commissioner’s office calling for an investigation and ruling on whether Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has violated the federal Conflict of Interest Act (the “COIA”) by participating in or trying to influence the Government of Canada’s decision about requesting an investigation by the International Joint Commission (IJC) of contamination of water systems by mines owned and operated by Teck Resources Ltd., or by furthering Teck’s interests in any other way.

Democracy Watch also released the letter it sent last Thursday to the B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner calling for an investigation and ruling on whether former B.C. Premier John Horgan violated the B.C. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act (the “MCOIA”) by trying to influence the B.C. government’s position on the IJC investigation after he started negotiating his director position with Teck months before he resigned as an MLA on March 31, 2023. The B.C. government, and Teck, both oppose the investigation.

As the letters detail, the Trudeau Cabinet has been actively considering for the past couple of years whether to request an investigation by the IJC of contamination of water systems in B.C., Montana and Idaho by runoff from mines operated by Teck Resources Ltd. and its subsidiaries, including by selenium. In October 2021, the US Department of State formally requested that Canada agree to a joint referral of the matter to the IJC. That request has been endorsed U.S. President Joe Biden, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the state governments of Montana and Idaho.

As the letters also detail, both the COIA and MCOIA prohibit politicians from participating in or attempting to influence a decision that applies to a company when a politician has an apparent conflict of interest, and from using insider information to further their interests. The COIA also prohibits giving preferential treatment.

As the letter to the federal Ethics Commissioner details, Minister Wilkinson’s past roles as minister and parliamentary secretary since December 2015 have always been in the areas of resources and the environment, and he is a senior Trudeau Cabinet minister from B.C., the home of Teck’s mines. His conflict of interest is based on the fact that:

1. Teck has lobbied him directly on mining issues six times in the past year;

2. His spouse has investments in financial institutions (BlackRock Inc., RBC and TD) that are among the top 25 institutional investors in Teck, and;

3. He was CEO of BioteQ when it had a Teck contract to clean up selenium contamination before he became an MP.

Former B.C. Premier John Horgan led the B.C. government to oppose the investigation into contamination by Teck’s mines, and his conflict of interest is based on the fact that:

1. He was lobbied directly by Teck on mining issues in October 2022;

2. Teck was registered to lobby B.C. MLAs until Mr. Horgan resigned at the end of March 2023 and joined the board of Elk Valley Resources;

3. Horgan claims, but has not proven, that the process that led to joining the board of Teck’s Elk Valley Resources company began only in Dec. 2022, and;

4. B.C. Environment Minister Heyman has said that his best recollection is that he has not communicated with Mr. Horgan about the IJC investigation issue, but has not proven that there were no communications.

“Given the conflicts of interest both Minister Wilkinson and former Premier Horgan have concerning Teck, a full investigation is warranted by the commissioners to ensure they haven’t done anything to try to stop the investigation of water contamination caused by Teck’s mines,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The Trudeau Cabinet is currently choosing the next Ethics Commissioner through a secretive process. As a result, whoever is handpicked as the Commissioner should not rule on DWatch’s complaint as they would be biased in favour of the Cabinet.

– 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 and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has financial and other interests connected to Teck, and John Horgan became a director of a Teck company the day he resigned

Investigation needed into whether they tried to influence government decisions about investigation of contamination of water systems caused by Teck mines, or tried to further Teck’s interests in any other way

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 21, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it sent last Thursday to the federal Ethics Commissioner’s office calling for an investigation and ruling on whether Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has violated the federal Conflict of Interest Act (the “COIA”) by participating in or trying to influence the Government of Canada’s decision about requesting an investigation by the International Joint Commission (IJC) of contamination of water systems by mines owned and operated by Teck Resources Ltd., or by furthering Teck’s interests in any other way.

Democracy Watch also released the letter it sent last Thursday to the B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner calling for an investigation and ruling on whether former B.C. Premier John Horgan violated the B.C. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act (the “MCOIA”) by trying to influence the B.C. government’s position on the IJC investigation after he started negotiating his director position with Teck months before he resigned as an MLA on March 31, 2023. The B.C. government, and Teck, both oppose the investigation.

As the letters detail, the Trudeau Cabinet has been actively considering for the past couple of years whether to request an investigation by the IJC of contamination of water systems in B.C., Montana and Idaho by runoff from mines operated by Teck Resources Ltd. and its subsidiaries, including by selenium. In October 2021, the US Department of State formally requested that Canada agree to a joint referral of the matter to the IJC. That request has been endorsed U.S. President Joe Biden, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the state governments of Montana and Idaho.

As the letters also detail, both the COIA and MCOIA prohibit politicians from participating in or attempting to influence a decision that applies to a company when a politician has an apparent conflict of interest, and from using insider information to further their interests. The COIA also prohibits giving preferential treatment.

As the letter to the federal Ethics Commissioner details, Minister Wilkinson’s past roles as minister and parliamentary secretary since December 2015 have always been in the areas of resources and the environment, and he is a senior Trudeau Cabinet minister from B.C., the home of Teck’s mines. His conflict of interest is based on the fact that:

1. Teck has lobbied him directly on mining issues six times in the past year;

2. His spouse has investments in financial institutions (BlackRock Inc., RBC and TD) that are among the top 25 institutional investors in Teck, and;

3. He was CEO of BioteQ when it had a Teck contract to clean up selenium contamination before he became an MP.

Former B.C. Premier John Horgan led the B.C. government to oppose the investigation into contamination by Teck’s mines, and his conflict of interest is based on the fact that:

1. He was lobbied directly by Teck on mining issues in October 2022;

2. Teck was registered to lobby B.C. MLAs until Mr. Horgan resigned at the end of March 2023 and joined the board of Elk Valley Resources;

3. Horgan claims, but has not proven, that the process that led to joining the board of Teck’s Elk Valley Resources company began only in Dec. 2022, and;

4. B.C. Environment Minister Heyman has said that his best recollection is that he has not communicated with Mr. Horgan about the IJC investigation issue, but has not proven that there were no communications.

“Given the conflicts of interest both Minister Wilkinson and former Premier Horgan have concerning Teck, a full investigation is warranted by the commissioners to ensure they haven’t done anything to try to stop the investigation of water contamination caused by Teck’s mines,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The Trudeau Cabinet is currently choosing the next Ethics Commissioner through a secretive process. As a result, whoever is handpicked as the Commissioner should not rule on DWatch’s complaint as they would be biased in favour of the Cabinet.

– 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 and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unethical Lobbying Campaign