Key measures also needed (which U.S., Australia and/or England have enacted), to stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse and ensure banks pay their fair share in taxes – Liberals have done little since 2015

Big Six Banks gouged out $70 billion in profits in 2025 (almost $50 billion more than 2010), paid their CEOs more than $12 million each, and gave out more than $27 billion in bonuses to employees

Five of the Big 6 are in top 50 most profitable banks in the world despite being much smaller than many banks in other countries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 18, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the House Finance Committee to amend budget Bill C-15 to make proposed bank account fraud measures actually effective at ensuring consumers are compensated for frauds they are not responsible for, like the measures Australia has enacted.  Democracy Watch also called on the Carney Liberals to stop protecting his Big Bank executive friends and work with all federal parties to make key changes that the U.S., Australia and/or England have already made to protect bank customers from gouging, discrimination and other abuses.

More than 120,000 voters have signed on to Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign or Change.org petition calling for these key changes, some of which the U.S. enacted decades ago, and some of which Australia and England have enacted in the past several years (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

The Carney Liberals re-hashed old 2021 election promises made by the Trudeau government by proposing only weak, ineffective, largely voluntary measures in the 2025 budget Bill C-15 (Part V, Division 16, sections 333-336) that only require the bank to have policies and procedures aimed at preventing account fraud.  The measures will do nothing to address the role of telecom and Internet companies in allowing fraud scam calls and websites, and will let those companies and the Big Banks off when they allow or facilitate bank account fraud.  The Conservatives promised similarly weak and incomplete anti-fraud measures in their 2025 federal election platform.

The banks often blame their customers for the fraud and refuse to compensate them for lost money even if the fraudsters do account transactions that the customer has never done in decades or if bank staff allow or facilitate the fraud.

In its submission to the federal Finance Department in response to its recent consultation paper on bank account fraud, and in its submission to the Finance Committee, Democracy Watch called for key changes to Bill C-15 to immediately require banks to compensate customers partially for fraud losses right away (given the banks are almost always partially responsible for the losses), and to require banks to compensate the customer for their entire loss unless the bank can prove to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) that they have adequate safeguards to prevent fraudulent account transactions, have fully trained their staff in those safeguards, and did their due diligence to prevent the fraud from happening.

In addition, the OBSI must be given the power to make binding orders on the banks, and the banks must be required to disclose quarterly exactly how many fraud cases their customers have suffered, and what they did in each case, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) must also be required to report on how they held the bank accountable for the fraud, and to audit the banks and penalize them with high fines for every violation.  (See details re: weak financial consumer and investor protection enforcement in Canada).

All federal parties should also work together to enact the same requirements for telecom and Internet companies.

“The Carney Liberal government’s proposed anti-bank account fraud measures amount to more hot air promises of future ineffective, mostly voluntary measures that, even if they are undertaken, are much weaker than the actual bank customer protection Australia has already imposed on banks, telecom and Internet companies that require them to pay customers back when they lose their money to fraudsters,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  (Click here to see a summary of the Australian anti-fraud measures).

“If budget Bill C-15 is not strengthened to make its bank account fraud protection measures effective, customers of Canada’s big banks will waste years and money trying to get their lost money back in the same way that customers of Canada’s big airlines waste years and money trying to get compensation for delayed or cancelled flights,” said Conacher.

The Liberals’ Budget 2025 document (pp. 116-122 and 163-164) also repeats the Liberals’ 2021 election promise to have the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) review banking fees, and says nothing about decreasing fees or credit card interest rates from their current gouging levels, or doing anything to stop gender or racial discrimination in lending.

Democracy Watch’s submissions also call for several other key bank accountability measures, neasures that the U.S., Australia and/or England enacted years ago, to stop gouging fees and interest rates, discrimination in lending and services, and other banking abuses. The U.S. measures apply to the banks that 4 of Canada’s Big 6 Banks own in the U.S. (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

“The Liberals continue to protect the big bank’s excessive gouging profits and their executives’ excessive multi-million salaries instead of making the changes needed to stop banks from gouging billions from their 28 million customers and to protect bank customers from discrimination and other abuses,” said Conacher.

“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.

Canada’s big banks recorded huge, gouging profits in 2025 of $70 billion, almost $50 billion more than in 2010.

All of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 300 of Fortune’s Global 2000 for 2025 (based on 2024 size, assets, profits and market value).  RBC (13th), TD (32nd), BMO (38th), CIBC (44th) and Scotiabank (48th) were also in the top 50 most profitable banks in the world in 2024 (more profitable than most other larger banks) and RBC, TD, BMO, CIBC and Scotiabank were the top five most profitable Canadian companies in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also handed out $27.3 billion in 2025 in bonuses to their employees, 15% more than the $23.75 billion in bonuses to their employees in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also paid their CEOs an average of $12.3 million in 2024 – 55% higher than in 2008.

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

NDP’s rules prohibit collusion between contestants and lobby groups, but lack of disclosure law for lobby groups makes rules unenforceable, and other loopholes make it legal to bribe most contestants

Unlike in U.S., lobby groups allowed to secretly spend unlimited amounts and secretly fundraise and campaign for party leadership contestants, which makes foreign interference easy to do without getting caught

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 17, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the federal NDP to establish a system to ensure that only citizens and permanent residents who are 18 or older can vote in its leadership contest to prevent foreign interference in the contest.  The NDP does not currently have any process in place to ensure that foreigners don’t vote in their contest, and anyone age 12-14 or older is allowed to vote.

In addition, while the NDP’s leadership contest rules (p. 12, Part 2, sub-part F), prohibit contestants from colluding with interest groups and individuals who are trying to influence the contest (known as “third parties”), loopholes in federal laws covering third parties mean that (unlike in the U.S.) they are not required to disclose their activities, donors or spending during leadership contests (or nomination contests), which makes it almost impossible to track or prevent collusion or other unethical, undemocratic influence activities by third parties.

As well, only one of the NDP leadership contestants is an MP, and non-MPs are not covered by the Criminal Code anti-bribery provisions, nor are they covered by any ethics rules requiring disclosure of changes in their financial assets and liabilities, gifts they have received, etc. (though the federal MP ethics Code is also loophole-filled and weakly enforced).  In other words, it is essentially legal to secretly bribe or buy-off party leadership contestants who are not MPs.

These loopholes also make it easy for foreign governments, entities and foreigners to buy off contestants and/or to use third parties as front groups to influence leadership and nomination contests (and there are also loopholes that make it easy for third parties to secretly, undemocratically and unethically influence elections and by-elections).

Democracy Watch called on all parties a year ago to work together to close these and other foreign interference loopholes before the federal election was called.  The federal Liberals are the most to blame for the delay as they denied and tried to bury evidence of foreign interference for years, and then delayed for years, and tried to rig the inquiry, and then refused to disclose key information to the Hogue Inquiry that was finally held into foreign interference, which ignored key evidence and refused to call key witnesses and produced a negligently weak report that essentially amounted to a cover-up.

“If it cared about fair and democratic elections, the NDP should have established a comprehensive voter verification process by now to ensure that foreigners don’t vote in their leadership contest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “And if they cared about fair and democratic elections, all federal parties should have long ago worked together to close all the loopholes that allow for secret, unethical and undemocratic interference, including by foreign government and foreign business-sponsored front groups and individuals, in party leadership contests and other Canadian federal political processes.”

Another comprehensive bill is needed to close the many huge loopholes ignored by Commissioner Hogue, and left open by Bill C-70, which was passed by the House and Senate in five weeks in May-June 2024, but is full of loopholes.  Despite the Bill being rushed through Parliament, 20 months later the federal Liberal government has still not implemented the bill to require foreign agents to disclose their activities in the yet-to-be-established Foreign Influence Registry (FIR), overseen by the yet-to-be-appointed Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner.

Article III, section 1 of the federal NDP’s Constitution allows any resident of Canada to become a member of the party as long as they are not a member of another party.  The NDP website’s “Become a Member” link leads to a membership form that does not require verification of any of the information entered except the credit card information provided, and only at the third step of the form does it require that a box be clicked for the statement:

“I’m a Canadian Citizen or Permanent Resident of Canada and I’m making this contribution with my personal account and not a corporate account. I understand that the NDP may follow-up with me to confirm the validity of the information I have provided.”

The NDP’s Leadership 2026 website has the same “Become a Member” link that leads to the same membership form.  The link is still there even though the NDP’s leadership contest rules (p. 16, Part 4, section 1) state that anyone wanting to vote in the contest must have joined by Wednesday, January 28th.

Beyond being a citizen or permanent resident and making a donation, the only self-claimed qualification for becoming a member of the NDP, which is a federation of the federal party and provincial parties, is to be older than 12 or 14 depending on the province your residence is located.

None of the news releases about the party’s leadership contest issued by the NDP on September 2, 2025, September 12, 2025, October 21, 2025, November 17, 2025, January 16, 2026 or January 29, 2026 mention anything about the party screening or verifying that people who have joined are citizens or permanent residents.

A second leadership contestant debate will be held on February 19th, and the contest vote (by ranked ballot) will take place by mail, telephone or online (or a combination of those methods) over a period of no longer than 21 days, culminating on March 28 at the NDP’s convention in Winnipeg (according to the leadership contest rules, p. 17, Part 5, sub-part A, sections 6-7).

According to the rules (p. 17, Part 5, sub-part A, section 8), the party’s Chief Electoral Officer was required to communicate by December 30, 2025 to leadership contestants the schedule and methods of voting, but the party has not made the schedule or method public.

Under “How do I vote?” on the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) webpage on the Leadership 2026 site, it only says “Further information on how to vote, including voting methods and the voting period will be made available in the coming weeks.”

In its leadership contest last year, the federal Liberal Party established a voter verification process to ensure foreigners did not vote in the contest.

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

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

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

Current investigation by regulatory commission is undermined by conflicts of interest, and the commission failed to complete an investigation in 2018

RCMP also has questionable record of investigating such activities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 3, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch joined with the Save PEI Association in calling on all parties in the PEI legislature to work together with the provincial government to stop the current Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (IRAC) investigation of land purchases and other activities in PEI by the Great Enlightenment Buddhist Institute (GEBIS) and Great Wisdom Buddhist Institute (GWBI) in the past 15 years.

Instead, the government should establish a fully independent, fully-empowered, expert and well-resourced public inquiry, to investigate the activities of GEBIS and GWBI, which operate under the umbrella of the multi-billion-dollar, multi-national, integrated monastic and business conglomerate headed by Bliss & Wisdom Monastery Corporation, which multiple reports have alleged has been infiltrated and taken over by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The two citizen groups also called on the PEI government to establish a second provincial public inquiry, in coordination with the federal authorities, also staffed by a truly independent commissioner and investigators having the expertise and resources required to investigate the national security and potential criminal issues and the broader issues of land purchases by foreigners across Canada, and to recommend solutions, as was done by the Cullen Commission in British Columbia.

The current IRAC investigation is compromised by conflicts of interest because IRAC’s entire senior management all worked at various times during their career with the same law firm that has for the past 14 years represented GWBI, the very institution now being investigated. As well, current IRAC Chair Pamela Williams was the Chief of Staff of the PEI Premier from 2019 to 2025 when the provincial Cabinet and government were approving development permits for the Bliss & Wisdom organizations, and making decisions about IRAC’s recommendations for approvals of transfers of land by non-residents and corporations under the Lands Protection Act, including transactions potentially under investigation.

As well, Scott MacKenzie, the former Chair of IRAC who oversaw the first IRAC investigation into these land transfers in 2018, retired and joined the law firm advising GEBIS and Bliss & Wisdom.  It appears also that IRAC has assigned only one labour lawyer as special counsel for its current investigation.

In addition, a PEI legislative committee determined in October that IRAC didn’t complete its 2018 investigation into the land purchases by GEBIS and GWBI.

While the PEI government in October called on the RCMP and FINTRAC to investigate the land purchases and other activities of GEBIS and GWBI, the RCMP’s past track record on investigating the activities of these organizations is weak.  The RCMP issued a press announcement in response to the PEI government’s request for an investigation claiming that it investigated similar accusations previously and found no wrongdoing. However, the RCMP didn’t provide any details, and no one with relevant information was ever contacted by the RCMP.  The RCMP has unfortunately also closed several active investigations in PEI involving immigration fraud and related issues, without any explanation.

Former CSIS and RCMP investigators have also called for a public inquiry.

For both public inquiries to be independent and effective:

1. The inquiry commissioner (or, even better, three commissioners) must not have even an appearance of a conflict of interest concerning the matters to be investigated, and should come from outside of the province, and should be appointed through a merit-based candidate review process;
2. The inquiry must also be staffed with investigators who also must not have even an appearance of a conflict of interest concerning the matters to be investigated, and should also come from outside of the province, and must have the necessary financial, legal and international qualifications and expertise, and be given the funding and technical resources needed to complete a timely, full and detailed investigation of the situation;
3. In addition, given the international structure and activities of the organizations, the inquiry commissioners must retain a forensic investigations firm with international expertise and reach that also must not have even an appearance of a conflict of interest concerning the matters to be investigated and should also come from outside of the province, and;
4. The public should be allowed to participate as intervenors.

“The recent discovery that the long awaited IRAC report from 2018 does not exist and the public discussions surrounding the leadership elections taking place in PEI brought the islanders’ long standing concern about land issues and the Buddhist landholding into sharp focus. It became clear that IRAC had lost the confidence of the public. The position of our organization and its members is that only a fully independent, fully transparent public inquiry staffed by experts with the skills  and resources to investigate a multibillion-dollar multinational religious and business conglomerate, will arrive at the truth and ensure the islanders truly understand the plans of this organization,” said Jan Matejcek of the Save PEI Association.

“The PEI government, its land transfer approval commission and the RCMP have all failed for the past 15 years to stop land purchases in the province and other questionable activities by organizations allegedly connected to China’s government, and a fully independent, fully empowered, expert and well-resourced public inquiry is the only effective way to investigate why this has happened, and what can be done to finally reverse this land grab and stop these activities,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “A second fully independent, fully empowered, expert and well-resourced public inquiry is also needed into land purchases by foreigners across Canada and other forms of foreign interference in Canada’s economy.”

The Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions issued a negligently weak, cover-up final report at the end of January recommending only a few of many key changes needed to stop foreign interference in Canadian political processes.

Another comprehensive bill is needed to close the many huge loopholes ignored by Commissioner Hogue, and left open by Bill C-70, which was passed by the House and Senate in five weeks in May-June 2024, but is full of loopholes.  More than 20 months later, the federal Liberal government has still failed to establish the Foreign Influence Registry (FIR) to require foreign agents to disclose their activities, and failed to establish the new Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner (who, under Bill C-70, will lack independence and key investigation powers and public accountability requirements).

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

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

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Jan Matejcek, Save PEI Association
Cell: 902-394-3733
Email: [email protected]

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

 

Stage 1 hearing of case is about whether errors in Ethics Commissioner rulings can be challenged in court when government tries to prohibit challenges

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that Trudeau had with WE Charity

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, January 12, 2026

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that its Stage 1 appeal in the court case it filed in June 2021 will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) Wednesday and Thursday.  The case challenges Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.

The appeal is SCC file #41576, and the hearing is at the SCC in Ottawa at 301 Wellington St.:

Wednesday, Jan. 14 at 9:30 am ET
   (Lawyers for Democracy Watch and the Attorney General of Canada will present their arguments)
Thursday, Jan. 15 at 9:30 am ET
   (15 interveners will present their arguments, and Democracy Watch’s lawyers will reply)
To watch the hearings online, click here.

Democracy Watch is represented by Sujit Choudry of Circle Barristers and Paul Daly of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.

The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, even though the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other members of the federal Cabinet.  Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA).  In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case, and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.

Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider at Stage 1 whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors of fact and law in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.

The FCA subsequently issued a ruling in October 2024 that did not decide the partial privative clause issue but, instead, concluded (in paras. 79-92) that the Ethics Commissioner operates under Parliament and, therefore, appeals of errors of facts and law in Ethics Commissioner rulings should be filed with the Prime Minister and Parliament.  The SCC approved DWatch’s appeal application last spring.

Democracy Watch’s legal arguments (and reply arguments) at the SCC contend that the Parliament of Canada Act states clearly that the Ethics Commissioner does not operate under Parliament when enforcing the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), and that Parliament has no legal role in reviewing the Commissioner’s rulings.  As the FCA acknowledged in its ruling, the Commissioner was established in 2004 to take ruling on alleged violations out of the hands of partisan politicians.  In addition, DWatch (and the eight citizen organizations intervening in the appeal) argue that it is essential under the Constitution and the rule of law principle that the courts can review decisions of tribunals like the Ethics Commissioner to ensure they are enforcing laws properly.

The ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case will set a precedent that will not only determine whether DWatch’s Stage 2 case challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s Trudeau-WE Charity ruling will go ahead, but also will determine whether court cases can challenge errors in the rulings of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the statute that governs it.

Click here to see the Backgrounder summarizing the four key errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling.

“We are arguing that it would be absurd to appeal to the Prime Minister and MPs to have them review errors in a ruling by the Ethics Commissioner, especially when the ruling, as in this case, involves the Prime Minister who would be judging his own actions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “We say that insisting that an Ethics Commissioner ruling about any federal Cabinet minister, ministerial staff person or Cabinet appointee can only be reviewed by federal politicians is an inadequate safeguard for the rule of law and the profoundly important federal government ethics law.”

“Hopefully the Supreme Court will overturn the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling and allow the case to go ahead challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau participating in the WE Charity grant approval, and also set a precedent that allows all future cases challenging of errors in rulings by the Ethics Commissioner and all agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals across Canada to ensure that they always enforce the law properly,” 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 and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign

Key measures needed (which U.S., Australia and/or England have enacted), to stop bank gouging, fraud, discrimination and abuse and ensure banks pay their fair share in taxes – Liberals have done little since 2015

Big Six Banks gouged out $70 billion in profits in 2025 (almost $50 billion more than 2010), paid their CEOs more than $12 million each, and gave out more than $27 billion in bonuses to employees

Five of the Big 6 are in top 50 most profitable banks in the world despite being much smaller than many banks in other countries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, December 15, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, as Canada’s big banks again recorded huge, gouging profits in 2025, Democracy Watch called on the Carney Liberals and all federal parties to work together to make key changes that the U.S., Australia and/or England have already made to protect bank customers from gouging, bank account fraud, discrimination and other abuses.

More than 120,000 voters have signed on to Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign or Change.org petition calling for these key changes, some of which the U.S. enacted decades ago, and some of which Australia and England have enacted in the past several years (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

The Carney Liberals recently re-hashed old 2021 election promises made by the Trudeau government by proposing only weak, ineffective, largely voluntary measures in the 2025 budget Bill C-15 (sections 333-336) that will do nothing to address the role of telecom and Internet companies in allowing fraud scam calls and websites, and will let those companies and the Big Banks off when they allow or facilitate bank account fraud. The Conservatives promised similarly weak and incomplete anti-fraud measures in their 2025 federal election platform.

The banks often blame their customers for the fraud and refuse to compensate them for lost money even if the fraudsters do account transactions that the customer has never done in decades or if bank staff allow or facilitate the fraud.

The Liberals’ Budget 2025 document (pp. 116-122 and 163-164) also repeats the Liberals’ 2021 election promise to have the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) review banking fees, and says nothing about decreasing fees or credit card interest rates from their current gouging levels.  More than 30 U.S. states have had caps on credit card interest rates for decades.

Opposition parties should change Bill C-15 when they review it at the House Finance Committee to require banks to compensate customers for losses if the banks cannot prove to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) that they have adequate safeguards to prevent fraudulent account transactions, have fully trained their staff in those safeguards, and did their due diligence to prevent the fraud from happening.  All federal parties should also work together to enact the same requirements for telecom and Internet companies.

“The Liberals continue 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 28 million customers and to protect bank customers from discrimination and other abuses,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The Carney Liberal government’s proposed anti-bank account fraud measures amount to more hot air promises of future ineffective, mostly voluntary measures that, even if they are undertaken, are much weaker than the actual bank customer protection Australia and England have already imposed on banks, telecom and Internet companies that require them to pay customers back when they lose their money to frausters.” Click here to see a summary of the Australian anti-fraud measures.

“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 eight 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 their gouging credit card interest rates in half now, and allow people renewing their mortgages to re-renew without a penalty at a lower interest rate as interest rates decrease, and require banks to lower all their interest rates the same time as the Bank of Canada lowers its interest rate;

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 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);

6. Make all rulings of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) binding;

7. Close all the loopholes that allow Canada’s banks (and other big businesses) to evade paying taxes in Canada by pretending they make their money through companies they own in low-tax countries, and impose a special tax (as England and Australia have) on any Canadian business or bank that has excessively high profits like Canada’s Big Banks have, and;

8. 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).

All of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 300 of Fortune’s Global 2000 for 2025 (based on 2024 size, assets, profits and market value).  RBC (13th), TD (32nd), BMO (38th), CIBC (44th) and Scotiabank (48th) were also in the top 50 most profitable banks in the world in 2024 (more profitable than most other larger banks) and RBC, TD, BMO, CIBC and Scotiabank were the top five most profitable Canadian companies in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also handed out $27.3 billion in 2025 in bonuses to their employees, 15% more than the $23.75 billion in bonuses to their employees in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also paid their CEOs an average of $12.3 million in 2024 – 55% higher than in 2008.

See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder.

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

Ethics Commissioner stated in 2024-2025 Annual Report that MP ethics code rule was enforceable – now says it isn’t enforceable

MP ethics code only expects, but doesn’t require, honesty and upholding highest standards to enhance public confidence and trust in integrity

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, December 8, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, as federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein testifies at 11 am ET before the House Ethics Committee, Democracy Watch released the letter it has received from the Ethics Commissioner ruling on the floor-crossing by MP Chris d’Entremont.  As Democracy Watch’s complaint letter about the floor-crossing set out, Commissioner von Finckenstein stated last spring on p. 8 in his 2024-2025 Annual Report to Parliament that the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (MP Code) “requires” MPs “to avoid both real and apparent conflicts of interest.”  This rule is set out in section 2 of the MP Code.

In his letter ruling on the floor-crossing, Commissioner von Finckenstein now says:

“The purposes and principles of the Code (sections 1 and 2) are not intended to stand alone as rules of conduct or obligations; rather, they serve only as aids to the interpretation of the Code.”

As a result, Commissioner von Finckenstein ruled that MPs are also not required to comply with the provisions in subsection 2(b) of the MP Code, which says they are to “fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to maintain and enhance the public’s trust and confidence in their integrity.”

Therefore, it was not a violation of the MP Code for MP Chris d’Entremont to undertake the following series of dishonest actions that undermined instead of enhanced public trust:

1. Running as a Conservative candidate in the 2025 federal election (and the previous two elections);

2. Taking his oath of office in May as a Conservative MP;

3. Stating in the House of Commons in June that it was “an incredible honour” to be elected again as a Conservative MP and thanked voters in his electoral district in Nova Scotia for “placing their trust” in him to represent them again;

4. Voting with the Conservative Party caucus on all votes since then;

5. Stating on September 25, 2025 in the House that the Liberal government’s record was mismanagement, out-of-control spending, massive deficits, irresponsible, “a monstrous, irresponsible burden on future generations… that causes inflation and extra costs to future generations”, unacceptable and inhumane, and “absolutely the opposite” of what is needed to “to ease the burden that Nova Scotians and Canadians are seeing at the grocery store.”

6. According to media reports, switching from the Conservative Party caucus to the Liberal Party caucus before the Liberal government’s budget was made public, but then initially claiming that he switched because of the budget;

7. Then, the next day, offering another reason for why he switched, and;

8. Then, five days later, offering yet another reason for why he switched, which he then corrected because he had misled a media outlet when explaining that reason.

Several studies over the past 20 years have shown that only five to 15 percent of voters cast their ballot based on the identity of the local candidate, while the rest vote based on the party or party leader.  An MP deciding on their own two switch parties, without any meaningful, comprehensive, demographically representative consultation with voters in their district (talking to a few constituents as MP d’Entremont did is far from adequate), is similar to a dictator making a decision that they claim is in the public’s interest.

Democracy Watch’s letter listed the media coverage from various outlets showing that many voters in MP d’Entremont’s district are angry about his floor-crossing.

The dishonesty at the core of the floor-crossing by MP d’Entremont and other MPs in the past is part of the reason that several surveys show that a large majority of Canadian voters do not trust politicians, including a national survey of 1,515 adult Canadians conducted from January 9 to 18, 2025 that found only 17% of Canadians trust politicians in general, and a national survey of 1,502 adult Canadians conducted between January 5-12, 2023 that found only 22% of Canadians trust politicians in general.

DWatch has filed ethics complaints about past floor-crossers, including Belinda Stronach, David Emerson among others (Click here to see details (the link is to DWatch’s archive website)).

“Floor-crossing is a fundamental violation of the right of voters to make an informed choice when voting, and the dishonesty and lack of integrity that is at the core of floor-crossing is a clear violation of the code of conduct for MPs,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “Unfortunately, the Ethics Commissioner has again rolled over like a lapdog and again failed to enforce federal ethics rules, as he has in so many other situations since the Trudeau Cabinet chose him.”

Click here to see the 8 ethics complaints, mainly re: Trudeau Liberal Cabinet ministers, that Ethics Commissioner von Finckenstein buried during his first six months in office.

Democracy Watch called on all parties to make the rules in section 2 of the MP Code clearly enforceable, and make other key changes to close huge loopholes in the Code, and to make enforcement independent, transparent, timely, effective and accountable (Click here to see the key changes needed to the MP Code).  And click here to see the list of similar changes that are needed to the federal Conflict of Interest Act which contains ethics rules for Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and top government officials, and click here to see the key changes needed to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators.

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 Honesty in Politics Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Clerk of Privy Council Office testifying today before Ethics Committee – PCO unjustifiably claims it can’t respond to access-to-information request filed in October until mid-March

One of dirty dozen loopholes in federal ethics law means screens allow PM to secretly participate in almost all decisions that affect his investments in Brookfield and 655+ other companies, and his blind trust isn’t actually blind

Carney has as many financial conflicts of interest as Trump – law should be changed to require Carney to sell investments to remove the conflicts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, November 19, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, as Privy Council Clerk Michael Sabia will be testifying before the House Ethics Committee this afternoon at 4:30 pm, Democracy Watch revealed the letter it received on November 13th from the federal Cabinet Privy Council Office (PCO) extending PCO’s legally required mid-November disclosure deadline to March 14, 2026 for responding to an Access to Information Act (ATIA) request DWatch filed in October.

DWatch’s request asks for disclosure of a small set of records that provide basic details that PCO officials must have on hand every day if they actually enforce Prime Minister Mark Carney’s “ethics screen” – details that will reveal that the screen is actually a loophole-filled smokescreen.

DWatch’s ATIA request applies to the time period from when the loophole-filled “ethics screen” came into force that federal Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein approved for Prime Minister Carney until the date PCO considers that it received the ATIA request.  The exact date the Ethics Commissioner-approved screen came into force has not been publicly disclosed, but it was made public on July 11th.

DWatch’s request asks for records that contain the following information:

1. The date the Ethics Commissioner-approved ethics screen came into force;

2. The identities of anyone who has assisted Carney’s Chief of Staff and the Clerk of the PCO to enforce the screen;

3. How many discussions, decision-making processes and votes during the time period of July-October 2025 were flagged for review under the screen, and;

4. How many discussions, decision-making processes and votes during the time period of July-October 2025 that did Carney not participate in under the screen.

The PCO claims it needs four more months to do a “consultation” but this is completely unjustifiable because DWatch’s request is only for statistics and the identities of public officials (both of which the PCO must have in hand, and both are required to be disclosed), and DWatch’s request specified that it is not requesting anyone’s personal information (s. 19 of the ATIA) or any company’s or others’ “third-party” proprietary information (s. 20 of the ATIA), and those are the only two justifiable reasons for a consultation.

The PCO is also unjustifiably violating the ATIA by delaying until January the release of details that will show that Mark Carney’s initial, self-approved two ethics screens were also loophole-filled, unethical smokescreens, as DWatch revealed in the October 16, 2025 news release.

PM Carney’s so-called “ethics screen” (which only applies to 103 additional companies that are within or connected to the Brookfield conglomerate of companies) is a loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen that allows him to participate in, and hide that he is participating in, almost every decision that affects the companies in which he is invested.

As Democracy Watch detailed to the House Ethics Committee on October 1st during its ongoing review of the federal government ethics law, the loophole is one of a “dirty dozen” loopholes in the law (the Conflict of Interest Act).  The loophole is that as long as the decision applies generally or affects a broad group of people or entities, then PM Carney is allowed to participate in the decision even though it will affect a business he is invested in, and even though he can profit from the decision.  Almost all (99%) of decisions that the PM and Cabinet make apply generally or to a broad group of people or entities.  Click here to see the loopholes in the definition of “private interest” in section 2 of the Act.

The screens also all hide the fact that the public office holder is not recusing themselves from decisions even when they have a conflict of interest.  Subsection 25(1) of the Act requires a public declaration of recusal every time an office holder recuses themselves, but former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson created ethics screens to allow office holders to get around that requirement.  They set up a screen, claim that they are recusing themselves from all decisions, and then can hide the fact that they are not actually recusing themselves from decisions that affect their financial or other interests.

“The federal Cabinet office can try to hide from reality for the next few months, but eventually it will reveal details that will show that, because of a huge loophole in Canada’s federal government ethics law, Prime Minister Carney’s ethics screen is an unethical, loophole-filled smokescreen as it allows him to participate in almost all decisions that affect the companies he is invested in, and it hides the fact that he is participating in those decisions even though he has a financial conflict of interest and can profit from the decisions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Click here to see these and a “dirty dozen” other loopholes in the federal Conflict of Interest Act that allow Cabinet ministers and other top government officials to secretly profit from their decisions.

Democracy Watch also again repeated its call for Prime Minister Mark Carney to sell his investments, including arranging to have Brookfield and other companies buy out his stock options, as the only effective way to end the serious, unethical and damaging financial conflicts of interest caused by his investments in more than 550 companies, and connections to 103 other companies through the Brookfield conglomerate of companies.

PM Carney’s so-called “blind” trust isn’t blind at all because he knows what he put in the trust, chose his own trustee, was allowed to give the trustee instructions such as “don’t sell anything” and the trustee is also allowed to give him regular updates.  In addition, Mr. Carney owns stock options in Brookfield Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management that he can’t sell for years, so he knows for sure that he has those investments.  Click here to see the list of shares in 550+ companies that Mr. Carney owns.

In 1987, Justice Parker of the Parker Commission on conflicts of interest recommended that top politicians and government officials be required to sell all investments, and that blind trusts be banned because they are an ineffective sham.  Click here to see Justice Parker’s report (pages 343-361 (esp. 360-361)).

“Prime Minister Carney has as many financial conflicts of interest as Trump, and his blind trust isn’t blind at all because he knows what stocks he put in it, including stock options he will definitely own for years, and he chose his own trustee and was allowed to give the trustee instructions such as don’t sell anything, and his trustee is allowed to give him regular updates on his investments,” said Conacher.  “The only way to resolve the conflicts is for the Prime Minister to sell his investments.”

What could PM Carney (and other Cabinet ministers and top government officials) do after selling all their investments?  They are paid well compared to most Canadians, in the top 1-5% of annual salaries, and they have among the most generous benefits and pension plans of any employees in Canada.  So, instead of enriching themselves further through investing in private businesses that cause financial conflicts of interest that taint their decision-making and policy-making, they can buy government bonds or guaranteed investment certificates or other similar financial products that are not connected to any specific business, and that offer a fixed rate of interest for the time period that they remain in office, and then when they leaves office they can again invest in shares and mutual funds and other financial products for investing in businesses.

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws to ensure democratic good government, including:

•  Closing all the loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons that allow for secret, unethical activities by MPs, and extend key rules in that code to apply to the staff of MPs (Click here to see details);

•  Closing all the loopholes in the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators that allow for secret, unethical activities by Senators, and extend key rules in that code to apply to the staff of Senators (Click here to see details);

•  Closing all the loopholes that allow for secret, unethical lobbying (Click here to see details);

•  Decreasing the donation limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current annual individual donation limit of $3,500 (which increases by $50 each year) is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make a top donation) (Click here to see details);

•  Closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act and strengthening enforcement (Click here to see details);

•  Preventing, prohibiting and penalizing foreign interference (Click here to see a policy paper on key needed measures);

•  Strengthening the whistleblower protection law (Click here to see details).

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 and Open Government Campaign

MP ethics code requires honesty, upholding highest standards to enhance public confidence and trust in integrity

Running and supporting one party and then switching six months after an election to another party is dishonest and undermines public trust

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, November 14, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein calling on him to rule on the floor-crossing by MP Chris d’Entremont.  Democracy Watch raises serious questions in its letter concerning the floor-crossing being a violation of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (MP Code), which requires MPs to fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to maintain and enhance the public’s trust and confidence in their integrity (ss. 2(b)).

Incredibly, MPs from all parties have chosen to prohibit members of the public, who employ and pay all MPs and the Ethics Commissioner, and in whose interests they all are supposed to be serving, from filing requests under section 27 of the MP Code for an inquiry concerning whether an MP has violated any provision of the MP Code that would result in a public ruling by the Ethics Commissioner under section 28 of the MP Code.

As a result, the letter requests that the Ethics Commissioner make a public statement concerning the scope and requirements of section 2 of the MP Code generally, and subsection 2(b) specifically, and how the provisions in section 2 apply to floor-crossings in general, and MP d’Entremont’s floor-crossing specifically.  If an MP files a similar complaint, then the Ethics Commissioner will be required to issue a ruling.

As the letter sets out, MP d’Entremont:

1. Ran as a Conservative candidate in the 2025 federal election (and the previous two elections);

2. Took his oath of office in May as a Conservative MP;

3. Stated in the House of Commons in June that it was “an incredible honour” to be elected again as a Conservative MP and thanked voters in his electoral district in Nova Scotia for “placing their trust” in him to represent them again;

4. Voted with the Conservative Party caucus on all votes since then, and;

5. Stated on September 25, 2025 in the House that the Liberal government’s record was mismanagement, out-of-control spending, massive deficits, irresponsible, “a monstrous, irresponsible burden on future generations… that causes inflation and extra costs to future generations”, unacceptable and inhumane, and “absolutely the opposite” of what is needed to “to ease the burden that Nova Scotians and Canadians are seeing at the grocery store.”

As the letter also sets out, concerning his floor-crossing, MP d’Entremont:

1. According to media reports, switched from the Conservative Party caucus to the Liberal Party caucus before the Liberal government’s budget was made public, but then initially claimed that he switched because of the budget;

2. Then the next day offered another reason for why he switched;

3. Then five days later offered another reason for why he switched, which he then corrected because he had misled a media outlet when explaining that reason.

These amount to a series of dishonest actions that undermine instead of enhance public trust, and the letter also sets out media coverage showing that many voters in MP d’Entremont’s district are angry about his floor-crossing.

The dishonesty at the core of the floor-crossing by MP d’Entremont and other MPs in the past is part of the reason that several surveys show that a large majority of Canadian voters do not trust politicians, including a national survey of 1,515 adult Canadians conducted from January 9 to 18, 2025 that found only 17% of Canadians trust politicians in general, and a national survey of 1,502 adult Canadians conducted between January 5-12, 2023 that found only 22% of Canadians trust politicians in general.

Several studies over the past 20 years have shown that only five to 15 percent of voters cast their ballot based on the identity of the local candidate, while the rest vote based on the party or party leader.  An MP deciding on their own two switch parties, without any meaningful, comprehensive, demographically representative consultation with voters in their district (talking to a few constituents as MP d’Entremont did is far from adequate), is similar to a dictator making a decision that they claim is in the public’s interest.

DWatch has filed ethics complaints about past floor-crossers, including Belinda Stronach, David Emerson among others (Click here to see details (the link is to DWatch’s archive website)).

“Floor-crossing is a fundamental violation of the right of voters to make an informed choice when voting, and the dishonesty and lack of integrity that is at the core of floor-crossing is a clear violation of the code of conduct for MPs,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The question is, will the Ethics Commissioner do anything about it, or will he roll over like a lapdog as he has in so many other situations since the Trudeau Cabinet chose him.”

Click here to see the 8 ethics complaints, mainly re: Trudeau Liberal Cabinet ministers, that Ethics Commissioner von Finckenstein buried during his first six months in office.

Democracy Watch also called on all parties to change section 27 of the MP Code to give members of the public the right to file complaints with the Ethics Commissioner concerning whether an MP has violated any provision of the MP Code that will result in a public ruling by the Ethics Commissioner issued under section 28 of the MP Code, and to change sections 44 and 45 of the Conflict of Interest Act also to give the public the same right concerning whether a Cabinet minister, ministerial staff and top government officials covered by the Act has violated the Act that will result in a public ruling by the Ethics Commissioner.

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 Honesty in Politics Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Did the Commissioner let off lobbyists, and fail to enforce the law, and gut key rules in Lobbyists’ Code, to get reappointed by Trudeau Cabinet last December for another 7-year term?

Did RCMP Commissioner let off lobbyists to get appointed by Trudeau Cabinet?

Do the violations include unregistered, unethical lobbying by Facebook, WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin, Imperial Oil and other big business lobbyists?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 30, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, more than a year after requesting disclosure, Democracy Watch called on Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger to stop hiding her rulings on 9 violations of the Lobbying Act that she referred to the RCMP, and that the RCMP referred back to her after letting all the lobbyists off the hook, as well as the ruling she has made on a 10th violation referred back to her by the RCMP sometime in the past year or so.

Democracy Watch filed an Access to Information Act (ATIA) request with the RCMP in October 2023 for the records of the investigations in the 9 cases it had referred back to the Commissioner (after the RCMP let all the lobbyists off without prosecuting any of them for violating the Act).  DWatch filed a separate ATIA request with the Commissioner in May 2024 for her final rulings on each case, with each ruling to be disclosed separately as the Commissioner’s office processed the ruling records.

The RCMP has now delayed disclosing the records for two years, and the Commissioner’s office has delayed disclosing the records for one year (after it gave itself a disclosure extension until October 18, 2024).  Both the RCMP and the Commissioner are blatantly violating the ATIA which requires records to be disclosed within 30 days or by the end of a reasonable extension.

“By continuing to hide her rulings on nine lobbying violations, Commissioner Bélanger is covering up scandalous situations, protecting the lobbyists and politicians and public officials they were lobbying, and making it even more clear she should not have been re-appointed for a second seven-year term,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “It’s shameful that the RCMP, whose top officers are chosen by and serve at the pleasure of the ruling party Cabinet, continues to take so long to investigate lobbyists who violate the law and that they fail to prosecute almost all violations.  Their negligently bad enforcement record is more clear evidence that a new, fully independent anti-corruption federal police and prosecution force is needed.”

The 9 violations the RCMP referred back to the Commissioner may include:

1. The unregistered lobbying and favours for Cabinet ministers that Kevin Chan and others at Facebook did (click here to see DWatch’s April 2018 complaint to the Commissioner);

2. The unregistered lobbying that WE Charity lobbyists did from January 2019 to August 2020, and the trip gifts they gave to former Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his family;

3. The lobbying by former PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch for SNC-Lavalin that was not registered by CEO Neil Bruce (click here to see DWatch’s March 2019 complaint), and by SNC-Lavalin lawyer Robert Pritchard and others;

4. The lobbying by Imperial Oil of then-Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer, and by CPA Canada of Minister Karina Gould, at a May 2019 event they sponsored?

Did Commissioner Bélanger hide her 9 rulings, and fail to enforce the Act properly, and gut key rules in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct (ignoring the opposition to the changes from a coalition of 26 citizen groups with 1.5 million total supporters, and 41 lawyers and professors, and 20,000+ voters – Click here for details), in order to get reappointed by the Trudeau Cabinet to a second seven-year term last December?

Did former RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki let off the lobbyists because she was appointed by and served at the pleasure of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?  Did former Deputy RCMP Commissioner and current RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme let off the lobbyists so Trudeau would appoint him first as Interim Commissioner in March 2023 and then as Commissioner in April 2024?

The Commissioner testified on April 16, 2024 before the House Ethics Committee that she had referred 15 cases to the RCMP since she became Commissioner in January 2018, and they had let off the lobbyists in 9 cases returned to her, and that the RCMP still had 4 cases under investigation (See p. 12 of testimony).

Commissioner Bélanger gave an update on October 6, 2025 before the House Ethics Committee, saying that she had referred 18 cases to the RCMP since she became Commissioner at the end of December 2017, and the RCMP had let off the lobbyists in 10 cases returned to her, and that 2 lobbyists had been prosecuted by the RCMP, 2 cases were “in discussion” (whatever that means), and that the RCMP still had 2 cases under investigation (See p. 19 of testimony).

A national survey commissioned by Democracy Watch in January 2025 showed that more than 80% of Canadians are concerned about the corrupting effects of secret, unethical lobbying on politicians’ policy-making decisions, and want to know about all lobbying activities.

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Open Government Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Privy Council Office unjustifiably claims it can’t respond to access-to-information request filed in August until end of January

One of dirty dozen loopholes in federal ethics law means screens allow PM to secretly participate in almost all decisions that affect his investments in Brookfield and 655+ other companies, and his blind trust isn’t actually blind

Carney has as many financial conflicts of interest as Trump – law should be changed to require Carney to sell investments to remove the conflicts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 16, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch revealed the letter it received recently from the federal Cabinet Privy Council Office (PCO) extending PCO’s legally required September 25th disclosure deadline to January 25, 2026 for responding to an Access to Information Act (ATIA) request DWatch filed on August 28th.  DWatch’s request asks for disclosure of basic records that provide basic details that PCO officials must have on hand every day if they actually enforced Prime Minister Mark Carney’s initial two ethics “screens” – details that will reveal that the screens are actually a loophole-filled smokescreens.

DWatch’s ATIA request applies to the time period of Prime Minister Carney’s initial two ethics screens that he claims established for himself when he became PM in March 2025 until that screen was replaced by an equally loophole-filled “screen” approved by federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein. The exact date the Ethics Commissioner-approved screen came into force has not been publicly disclosed, but it was made public on July 11th.

DWatch’s request asks for records that contain the following information:

1. The date Carney’s self-created two ethics screens came into force;

2. The identities of anyone who assisted Carney’s Chief of Staff and the Clerk of the PCO to enforce the two screens;

3. How many discussions, decision-making processes and votes were flagged for review under the two screens, and;

4. How many discussions, decision-making processes and votes did Carney not participate in under the two screens.

The PCO claims it needs four more months to do a “consultation” but this is completely unjustifiable because DWatch’s request is only for statistics and the identities of public officials (both of which the PCO must have in hand, and both are required to be disclosed), and DWatch’s request specified that it is not requesting anyone’s personal information (s. 19 of the ATIA) or any company’s or others’ “third-party” proprietary information (s. 20 of the ATIA), and those are the only two justifiable reasons for a consultation.

PM Carney’s so-called “ethics” screen (which only applies to 103 additional companies that are within or connected to the Brookfield conglomerate of companies) is a loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen that allows him to participate in, and hide that he is participating in, almost every decision that affects the companies in which he is invested.

As Democracy Watch detailed to the House Ethics Committee on October 1st during its ongoing review of the federal government ethics law, the loophole is one of a “dirty dozen” loopholes in the law.  The loophole is that as long as the decision applies generally or affects a broad group of people or entities, then PM Carney is allowed to participate in the decision even though it will affect a business he is invested in, and even though he can profit from the decision.  Almost all (99%) of decisions that the PM and Cabinet make apply generally or to a broad group of people or entities.  Click here to see the loophole in the definition of “private interest” in section 2 of the Act.

The screens also all hide the fact that the public office holder is not recusing themselves from decisions even when they have a conflict of interest.  Subsection 25(1) of the Act requires a public declaration of recusal every time an office holder recuses themselves, but former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson created ethics screens to allow office holders to get around that requirement.  They set up a screen, claim that they are recusing themselves from all decisions, and then can hide the fact that they are not actually recusing themselves from decisions that affect their financial or other interests.

“The federal Cabinet office can try to hide from reality for the next few months, but eventually it will reveal details that will show that, because of a huge loophole in Canada’s federal government ethics law, Prime Minister Carney’s ethics screen is an unethical, loophole-filled smokescreen as it allows him to participate in almost all decisions that affect the companies he is invested in, and it hides the fact that he is participating in those decisions even though he has a financial conflict of interest and can profit from the decisions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Click here to see these and a “dirty dozen” other loopholes in the federal Conflict of Interest Act that allow Cabinet ministers and other top government officials to secretly profit from their decisions.

Democracy Watch also again repeated its call for Prime Minister Mark Carney to sell his investments, including arranging to have Brookfield and other companies buy out his stock options, as the only effective way to end the serious, unethical and damaging financial conflicts of interest caused by his investments in more than 550 companies, and connections to 103 other companies through the Brookfield conglomerate of companies.

PM Carney’s so-called “blind” trust isn’t blind at all because he knows what he put in the trust, chose his own trustee, was allowed to give the trustee instructions such as “don’t sell anything” and the trustee is also allowed to give him regular updates.  In addition, Mr. Carney owns stock options in Brookfield Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management that he can’t sell for years, so he knows for sure that he has those investments.  Click here to see the list of shares in 550+ companies that Mr. Carney owns.

In 1987, Justice Parker of the Parker Commission on conflicts of interest recommended that top politicians and government officials be required to sell all investments, and that blind trusts be banned because they are an ineffective sham.  Click here to see Justice Parker’s report (pages 343-361 (esp. 360-361)).

“Prime Minister Carney has as many financial conflicts of interest as Trump, and his blind trust isn’t blind at all because he knows what stocks he put in it, including stock options he will definitely own for years, and he chose his own trustee and was allowed to give the trustee instructions such as don’t sell anything, and his trustee is allowed to give him regular updates on his investments,” said Conacher.  “The only way to resolve the conflicts is for the Prime Minister to sell his investments.”

What could PM Carney (and other Cabinet ministers and top government officials) do after selling all their investments?  They are paid well compared to most Canadians, in the top 1-5% of annual salaries, and they have among the most generous benefits and pension plans of any employees in Canada.  So, instead of enriching themselves further through investing in private businesses that cause financial conflicts of interest that taint their decision-making and policy-making, they can buy government bonds or guaranteed investment certificates or other similar financial products that are not connected to any specific business, and that offer a fixed rate of interest for the time period that they remain in office, and then when they leaves office they can again invest in shares and mutual funds and other financial products for investing in businesses.

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws to ensure democratic good government, including closing similarly huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (which applies to MPs) and the Senate Ethics Code, closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes, decreasing the donation limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current donation limit of $3,300 is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make the maximum donation), closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act, strengthening the whistleblower protection law, and changing the way that the Ethics Commissioner and other democratic good government watchdogs are appointed (given MPs currently have a clear conflict of interest as they choose their own watchdogs) and banning re-appointments (as that gives a watchdog an incentive to please MPs in order to secure a re-appointment).

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 and Open Government Campaign