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

Ontario Crown counsel stopped prosecution of Trudeau for SNC-Lavalin scandal using incorrect legal standard – DWatch asks for reversal of decision

Prosecution of PM for alleged obstruction of justice and breach of trust is unprecedented, but Crown claims it knows it will fail, but explanation is false

Behind-closed-door decision to stop prosecution continues cover-up the Trudeau Cabinet started, and the RCMP continued with its weak investigation, decision not to prosecute, and burying of investigation records and key evidence

Independent federal anti-corruption police and prosecution force needed now, like Quebec has had for almost 15 years

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 15, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the second letter it has sent to Ontario’s Attorney General Doug Downey Randy Schwartz, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Law Division, calling on them to have an independently appointed special prosecutor review the evidence and DWatch’s application in the Ontario Court of Justice in Ottawa for approval from the court to proceed with a private prosecution of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for pressuring, and directing others to pressure, then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 (now operating under the name “AtkinsRéalis”).

Democracy Watch first requested the appointment of an independent special prosecutor in a letter sent to Mr. Downey last March.  In his May 22nd response letter, Mr. Schwartz refused to do that.  Democracy Watch’s letter today again calls on Mr. Downey, working with opposition party leaders, to establish a committee made up of people who have no ties to any political party.  The committee will choose a lawyer who has no ties to any party to be an Independent Special Prosecutor who will review the evidence and issue a public decision concerning prosecuting Trudeau.  That process is needed to ensure an impartial, legally correct and transparent review and decision.

In British Columbia, a Special Prosecutor is usually appointed for such cases (not as independent as they need to be, but more independent than a Crown counsel), and they usually provide detailed reasons if they decide not to prosecute.  Since 2011, Quebec has had an independent anti-corruption police force and prosecutors.

Democracy Watch’s letter criticizes the letter it received in September from John Corelli, Director of the Complex Prosecutions Bureau at Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, exercising the Crown counsel’s power to stop DWatch’s application.

DWatch responded with a letter to Mr. Corelli requesting that he reverse his decision and proceed with the next steps in the prosecution process because his decision is based on legal reasons that are clearly incorrect, and he failed to explain his decision.

DWatch’s applications included a detailed legal opinion by a retired superior court justice (who did the opinion on the condition of remaining anonymous) setting out the clear evidence and legal arguments for prosecuting the PM for the allegation of obstruction of justice, and possibly also for breach of trust.

Mr. Corelli requested in June that the Regional Sr. Justice have a judge oversee the next step in the private prosecution application process, called a “pre-enquête” hearing, at which DWatch would present the evidence it pried out of the RCMP, and key witnesses would be questioned such as Wilson-Raybould, her former Chief of Staff Jessica Prince, and her friend and confidante former Liberal Cabinet minister Jane Philpott, and a judge would decide if there was enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution.  Democracy Watch supported that request.  The Regional Sr. Justice had not yet made that decision whether a judge or a Justice of the Peace would preside at the pre-enquête hearing when Mr. Corelli stopped the proceeding.

Mr. Corelli’s letter staying (i.e. stopping) the prosecution does not set out any valid reasons explaining why the available evidence of Mr. Trudeau’s actions does not cross the lines established by the obstruction of justice (ss. 139(2)) and breach of trust (s. 122) provisions in Canada’s Criminal Code.

In the letter, Mr. Corelli only claims that “there is no reasonable prospect the Crown could prove that Mr. Trudeau acted with the requisite criminal intent for either alleged offence.”  As Democracy Watch set out in its “will say” document that was included in its court application, this is the same incorrect legal standard that the RCMP used to decide not to prosecute Trudeau for obstruction (the RCMP did not even consider whether Trudeau had committed a breach of trust).

In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear in its ruling in R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5 (CanLII) that, in order to prove obstruction of justice, the Crown is only required to prove that an alleged offender acted “willfully” to frustrate the course of justice.  Proof of “criminal” (i.e. deceitful or corrupt) intent is not required.

In addition, the case against Trudeau is unprecedented – so there is no way that the Crown could know there is no chance of proving that Trudeau committed a crime.  DWatch’s application includes extensive evidence of obstruction of justice that the RCMP tried to bury but finally disclosed after a two-year delay, along with a summary of how the RCMP failed to investigate and uphold the law properly.  The answers by Wilson-Raybould, Prince and Philpott to key questions were withheld by the RCMP in the documents it finally disclosed.  The pre-enquête hearing would have revealed them.

Jen Danch of Swadron Associates law firm, represented Democracy Watch for the application, and Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C., supports the application.

“Crown prosecutors stopping this prosecution for a legally incorrect reason, just like the RCMP did in addition to suppressing key evidence, amount to a smelly cover-up that shows clearly that Canada does not have independent, effective anti-corruption law enforcement and, as a result, corruption in the highest public offices across the country is effectively legal,” said Duff Conacher, PhD (Law) and Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “This means Canada does not have a rule of law, a rule that violations of the law will be prosecuted no matter who the violator is, which is considered worldwide to be a fundamental requirement for a country to actually be a democracy.”

“Canadians can only hope Ontario’s Attorney General Doug Downey will do the right thing final and work with opposition party leaders to establish a fully independent committee that will choose a fully independent special prosecutor to review the evidence,” said Conacher.

 “The RCMP lacks independence from the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers who handpick the RCMP Commissioner and deputy commissioners and division heads through a secretive process, and they all serve at the pleasure of the Cabinet so they are vulnerable to political interference, which is likely part of the reason the RCMP rolled over and let Trudeau off, and the pressuring of the former Attorney General to stop a prosecution shows that prosecutors are also vulnerable to political interference,” said Conacher.  “To ensure integrity and impartiality in anti-corruption and foreign interference cases, key changes that many experts have called for are needed to make the RCMP more independent, effective and publicly accountable, or even better Parliament should establish a new fully independent anti-corruption police force including fully independent prosecutors like Quebec has had since 2011.”

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 Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

The loopholes allow the PM, Cabinet ministers, their staff and top government officials to all secretly profit from their decisions

Loopholes also allow for not-blind trusts and ethics smokescreens that hide, but don’t stop, conflicts of interest

Opposition parties should pass private member bill to make changes if Carney Liberal Cabinet refuses to close loopholes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 1, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, testifying before the House Ethics Committee for its first review since 2012 of the federal government ethics law, Democracy Watch called on the Committee to recommend closing huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) that mean it really should be called the “Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Act”. Click here to watch the Committee hearing from 4:30 pm to 5:30 pm ET.

It’s unclear how rigorous the review will be in the end, but at least the Ethics Committee is holding open meetings to review the COIA, unlike when another House committee reviewed the MP Code in secret in 2022.

“Canada’s political ethics laws and codes for Cabinet ministers, their staff and top government officials are full of loopholes that allow them to secretly profit financially from their decisions, and are weaker than the rules for senators and federal government employees, and as weak as the rules for backbench MPs, which makes no sense at all,” said Duff Conacher, PhD (Law) and Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “All federal parties need to work together to finally close all the loopholes in all federal political ethics laws and codes, and strengthen enforcement and penalties, so politicians and their staff and top government officials are no longer allowed to make unethical, self-interested decisions or secretly profit from their decisions.”

“The current ethics enforcement measure of a blind trust is completely ineffective because a trust isn’t blind at all the office holder knows what investments they put in it, choose their own trustee, are allowed to give the trustee instructions such as don’t sell anything, and the trustee is allowed to give them regular updates on his investments,” said Conacher.  “And the other enforcement measure of an ethics screen is an unethical smokescreen that allows an office holder to secretly participate in almost all decisions that affect their financial interests and to secretly profit from their decisions, and so the only effective way to deal with these financial conflicts is to require office holders to sell their investments.”

Requiring office holders to sell their investments, and prohibiting the use of a blind trust, were recommended by Justice Parker in 1987 in his landmark report (pages 343-361 (esp. 360-361)) and also in the 1984 Starr-Sharp Task Force on Conflict of Interest report).

Click here to see the “dirty dozen” loopholes in the COIA are as follows, along with key changes needed to make enforcement independent, non-partisan, transparent, timely, effective and accountable.

Click here to see DWatch’s submission to the Ethics Committee (en français)

As the “dirty dozen” list details, some of the loopholes have been created through negligently bad enforcement by the federal Ethics Commissioner since 2006, including by current Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein, who buried eight investigations and created three new loopholes in his first six months as Commissioner.

Similar loopholes exist in the MP Code and the Senate Code, but almost all the loopholes do not exist in the ethics code and ethics directive for federal government employees.

Democracy Watch called on opposition parties to enact a private member bill closing the unethical loopholes and strengthening ethics enforcement and penalties if the Carney Liberal Cabinet refuses to introduce a government bill to make the changes.

Prime Minister Mark Carney also needs to re-enact publicly the PM Code for ministers and their staff covering accountability, ethics, fundraising, relationships with lobbyists etc.  The PM Code sets out very important ethics rules that the Ethics Commissioner has stated repeatedly are enforceable requirements that define in detail key measures in the COIA.  Click here to see details about the PM Code.

“If Prime Minister Carney doesn’t re-enact the code for ministers in his own name, or weakens or cancels it, it will gut Canada’s already weak, loophole-filled government ethics law, and add to his negligently weak record and attitude so far concerning ethics,” said Conacher.

Click here to see how PM Carney is exploiting loopholes in the COIA to keep millions of dollars invested in more than 655 businesses, especially the Brookfield conglomerate, while hiding that he is participating in almost all decisions that affect Brookfield and other businesses.

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws to ensure democratic good government, including closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes, 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), closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act, and strengthening the whistleblower protection law.

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

Prosecution of PM for alleged obstruction of justice and breach of trust is unprecedented, but Crown claims it knows it will fail, but explanation is false

Behind-closed-door decision to stop prosecution continues cover-up the Trudeau Cabinet started, and the RCMP continued with its weak investigation, decision not to prosecute, and burying of investigation records and key evidence

RCMP never should have investigated, and independent special prosecutor should have been appointed to review the evidence – independent federal anti-corruption police and prosecution force needed now, like Quebec has had for almost 15 years

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, September 29, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released and criticized the letter it received recently from John Corelli, Director of the Complex Prosecutions Bureau at Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, exercising the Crown counsel’s power to stop DWatch’s application filed last February in the Ontario Court of Justice in Ottawa for approval from the court to proceed with a private prosecution of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for alleged obstruction of justice and breach of trust by pressuring, and directing others to pressure, then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 (now operating under the name “AtkinsRéalis”).

DWatch also released the letter it sent to Mr. Corelli today requesting that he reverse his decision and proceed with the next steps in the prosecution process because his decision is based on legal reasons that are clearly incorrect.

DWatch’s applications included a detailed legal opinion by a retired superior court justice (who did the opinion on the condition of remaining anonymous) setting out the clear evidence and legal arguments for prosecuting the PM for the allegation of obstruction of justice, and possibly also for breach of trust.

Mr. Corelli requested in June that the Regional Sr. Justice have a judge oversee the next step in the private prosecution application process, called a “pre-enquête” hearing, at which DWatch would present the evidence it pried out of the RCMP, and key witnesses would be questioned such as Wilson-Raybould, her former Chief of Staff Jessica Prince, and her friend and confidante former Liberal Cabinet minister Jane Philpott, and a judge would decide if there was enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution.  Democracy Watch supported that request.  The Regional Sr. Justice had not yet made that decision whether a judge or a Justice of the Peace would preside at the pre-enquête hearing.

Mr. Corelli’s letter staying (i.e. stopping) the prosecution does not set out any valid reasons explaining why the available evidence of Mr. Trudeau’s actions does not cross the lines established by the obstruction of justice (ss. 139(2)) and breach of trust (s. 122) provisions in Canada’s Criminal Code.

In the letter, Mr. Corelli only claims that “there is no reasonable prospect the Crown could prove that Mr. Trudeau acted with the requisite criminal intent for either alleged offence.”  As Democracy Watch set out in its “will say” document that was included in its court application, this is the same incorrect legal standard that the RCMP used to decide not to prosecute Trudeau for obstruction (the RCMP did not even consider whether Trudeau had committed a breach of trust).

In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear in its ruling in R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5 (CanLII) that, in order to prove obstruction of justice, the Crown is only required to prove that an alleged offender acted “willfully” to frustrate the course of justice.  Proof of “criminal” (i.e. deceitful or corrupt) intent is not required.

In addition, the case against Trudeau is unprecedented – so there is no way that the Crown could know there is no chance of proving that Trudeau committed a crime.

Mr. Corelli’s letter also says that he has concluded that it is not “in the public interest to hear any evidence that may be adduced by the informant” at the hearing, and that “new evidence” is unlikely to become available because the RCMP did its own review.  This continues the cover-up begun by the Trudeau Cabinet (which refused to disclose internal Cabinet communication records), and continued by the RCMP with its weak, incomplete and delayed investigation that was buried for years, that accepted the Cabinet keeping key records secret, that only interviewed four of 15 key witnesses, that hid key testimony from Wilson-Raybould, Prince, and Philpott, and that trusted without question the biased, self-interested public statements of Trudeau and everyone else who pressured the AG.

Democracy Watch’s application also included: a “will say” document that summarizes the reasons for the application; a summary of how the RCMP failed to investigate and uphold the law properly, and the extensive evidence of obstruction of justice that the RCMP tried to bury but finally disclosed after a two-year delay.  The answers by Wilson-Raybould, Prince and Philpott to key questions were withheld by the RCMP in the documents it finally disclosed.  The pre-enquête hearing would have revealed them.

It is clear that the RCMP never should have been investigating Trudeau given that the RCMP Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Division Heads are all appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the PM, which puts the RCMP in a massive conflict of interest and makes them a lapdog of the PM.  A provincial or municipal police force should have handled the investigation.  For example, in response to the Greenbel scandal involving Ontario Doug Ford’s PC Party government, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) transferred the case to the RCMP because of a perceived conflict of interest given Premier Ford chose the OPP Commissioner.

Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C., is a key supporter of the application.  Jen Danch of Swadron Associates law firm has been representing Democracy Watch.

“Crown prosecutors stopping this prosecution for a legally incorrect reason, just like the RCMP did in addition to suppressing key evidence, amount to a smelly cover-up that shows clearly that Canada does not have independent, effective anti-corruption law enforcement and, as a result, corruption in the highest public offices across the country is effectively legal,” said Duff Conacher, PhD (Law) and Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “This means Canada does not have a rule of law, a rule that violations of the law will be prosecuted no matter who the violator is, which is considered worldwide to be a fundamental requirement for a country to actually be a democracy.”

“Canadians can only hope that whistleblowers at the RCMP and prosecutors’ office will one day come out and reveal what actually happened to cause this cover-up, other than the ongoing negligently weak attitude that Canadian law enforcement officers have concerning corruption in government and politics,” said Conacher.  “Hopefully Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jessica Prince and Jane Philpott will also, sooner than later, disclose everything they know about Trudeau’s efforts to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin for its clear violations of anti-bribery laws, and speak out about the many flaws in the investigation and prosecution decisions.”

To prevent this exact sort of secretive, behind-closed-door cover-up, DWatch sent a letter to Ontario’s Attorney General Doug Downey in March calling on him to establish a committee made up of people who have no ties to any political party to choose a lawyer who has no ties to any party to be an Independent Special Prosecutor who would review the evidence and make decisions concerning the prosecution.  In his May 22nd response letter, Randy Schwartz, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Law Division, refused to do that.

In British Columbia, a Special Prosecutor is usually appointed for such cases (not as independent as they need to be, but more independent than a Crown counsel), and they usually provide detailed reasons if they decide not to prosecute.  Since 2011, Quebec has had an independent anti-corruption police force and prosecutors.

 “The RCMP lacks independence from the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers who handpick the RCMP Commissioner and deputy commissioners and division heads through a secretive process, and they all serve at the pleasure of the Cabinet so they are vulnerable to political interference, which is likely part of the reason the RCMP rolled over and let Trudeau off, and the pressuring of the former Attorney General to stop a prosecution shows that prosecutors are also vulnerable to political interference,” said Conacher.  “To ensure integrity and impartiality in anti-corruption and foreign interference cases, key changes that many experts have called for are needed to make the RCMP more independent, effective and publicly accountable, or even better Parliament should establish a new fully independent anti-corruption police force including fully independent prosecutors like Quebec has had since 2011.”

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 Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Loopholes in law mean PM’s blind trust isn’t actually blind, and his ethics screen is a loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen that allows him to secretly participate in almost all decisions that affect his financial interests in 655+ companies

Carney has as many financial conflicts of interest as Trump – only effective way to resolve the conflicts is for Carney to sell his investments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, September 24, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, as the House Ethics Committee begins its review of the federal government ethics law for the first time since 2012, Democracy Watch called on Prime Minister Mark Carney to re-enact publicly the PM Code for ministers and their staff covering accountability, ethics, fundraising, relationships with lobbyists etc., and to work with all federal parties to close the huge loopholes in the law and strengthen enforcement and penalties.

The version of the Code on the PM’s website (en français) is from November 2015, with a Message to Ministers signed by former PM Justin Trudeau (see the link to it on the PM’s main site at the bottom of “The Ministry” dropdown menu as “Open Government” – en français on the PM’s main site at the bottom of the “Le ministère” dropdown menu as “Gouvernement ouvert”).

Does PM Carney’s failure since the election to re-enact the PM Code in his own name (and with the same strong wording it has now) mean that he plans to weaken or cancel the Code?

If PM Carney weakens or cancels the PM Code, it would eliminate very important ethics rules in the Code that the Ethics Commissioner has stated repeatedly are enforceable requirements that define in detail key measures in the federal government ethics law – the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA).

Most importantly, the PM Code has detailed rules that define the prohibition in the COIA on public office holders “improperly” furthering their own or others’ private interests in general and specific ways (ss. 4, 8 and 9 of the Act).  Under the PM Code, it is improper to do the following things, among other high ethical standards in the Code:

•  To be dishonest (Annex A (Part I));

•  To be in an apparent conflict of interest (Annex B);

•  To make decisions that are not in the public interest or not based on the merits (Annex A (Part I));

•  To participate in political activities in a way that may reasonably be seen to be incompatible with, or impair the ability to discharge, the office holder’s public duties (Annex A (Part II));

•  To fail to arrange their personal affairs in a way that exceeds the COIA’s conflict of interest prohibitions (Annex A (Part I)), and;

•  To act in a way that does not ensure that public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced (Annex A (Part I) and Part II).

The PM Code also has rules that go beyond the COIA that apply to ministerial staff (Annex I) and prohibit them from acting in all the improper ways listed above and more.

Cancelling the PM Code, or weakening it in any way, would only add to Carney’s negligently weak record and attitude so far concerning government ethics, as he hid his financial investments from March until July despite a majority of voters wanting disclosure, and current loopholes in the COIA allow PM Carney to have investments in more than 550 companies, and to have a so-called “blind trust” that isn’t actually blind, and a so-called “ethics screen” that is a loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen that allows him to secretly participate in almost all decisions that affect his investments in the Brookfield conglomerate and more than 100 other connected companies.

“If Prime Minister Carney doesn’t re-enact the code for ministers in his own name, or weakens or cancels it, it will gut Canada’s already weak, loophole-filled government ethics law, and add to his negligently weak record and attitude so far concerning ethics,” said Duff Conacher, PhD (Law) and Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The PM Code was first established by Liberal PM Jean Chrétien in 2002 as a supplement to another code covering ministers, and was re-enacted by Liberal PM Paul Martin in 2004 under the title “Responsible Government”.  Then, in 2007, after the COIA had been enacted, Conservative PM Stephen Harper re-enacted the Code in a different form and changed the title to “Accountable Government”.  PM Harper strengthened the Code in 2011 with the addition of a new, more detailed Annex A (covering political activities) and Annex B (covering fundraising and relations with lobbyists), which replaced former Annex G and Annex H.  In 2015, Liberal PM Trudeau changed the PM Code title to “Open and Accountable Government” and further strengthened it by adding new Annex I (setting out specific rules for ministerial staff) and Annex J (covering the use of social media).

In addition to re-enacting the PM Code in the same form it is in now, the Carney Liberals and all federal parties need to work together to close the huge loopholes in the COIA, and in the ethics code for MPs (some of which have been closed by Senators in the Senate Ethics Code, and almost all of which do not exist in the ethics code and ethics directive for federal government employees).

“Canada’s political ethics laws and codes for Cabinet ministers, their staff and top government officials are full of loopholes that allow them to profit financially from their decisions, and are weaker than the rules for senators and federal government employees, and as weak as the rules for backbench MPs, which makes no sense at all,” said Conacher. “All federal parties need to work together to finally close all the loopholes in the federal political ethics laws and codes that allow them and their staff to make unethical, self-interested decisions and actions, and to strengthen enforcement and penalties.”

And the only effective way to end the serious, unethical and damaging financial conflicts of interest caused by his investments is for PM Carney to sell his investments, including arranging to have Brookfield and other companies buy out his stock options (as recommended by Justice Parker in 1987 in his landmark report (pages 343-361 (esp. 360-361)) and also in the 1984 Starr-Sharp report).  Click here to see details.

“Prime Minister Carney has as many financial conflicts of interest as Trump, and his so-called blind trust isn’t blind at all, and his so-called ethics screen is an unethical smokescreen that allows him to secretly profit from his decisions, and so the only effective way to deal with these conflicts is for him to sell his investments in more than 655 businesses,” said Conacher.

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws to ensure democratic good government, including closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes, 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), 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

Bill 9 does little to improve broken, unethical, conflict-ridden and ineffective municipal political ethics systems across Ontario

Will the Committee, especially Ford PC Party MPPs, make the key changes needed?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, July 17, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, testifying online at the Ontario legislature’s Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy hearing in Ottawa on Bill 9, the Municipal Accountability Act, Democracy Watch called on the MPPs on the Committee to amend the Bill in key ways to make the municipal politics ethics standards and enforcement system independent and effective. (Click here to see DWatch’s Submission to the Special Committee)

Currently, the system is full of conflicts of interest and is ineffective as municipal councillors are allowed to write their own ethics codes, chose their own ethics watchdogs (so they choose lapdogs or often fire anyone who tries to be a watchdog) and to decide whether or not to penalize any councillor found to have violated the code (which is a kangaroo court system).

Bill 9 proposes to empower the Cabinet to establish one ethics code for all municipalities, but does not require that to happen, and continues the system of city councils choosing, hiring, paying and firing their own integrity commissioner and deciding the penalty in almost all cases, with the provincial commissioner only empowered to intervene partially in cases involving the most serious violations.

“While Bill 9 takes a few steps in the right direction to improve broken, unethical, conflict-ridden and ineffective municipal political ethics systems across Ontario, the bill is far from what is needed to have an effective system across the province,” said Duff Conacher, PhD and Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “There should be one strict, strong ethics law for all municipal councillors and staff across Ontario, and the provincial integrity commissioner should be empowered and required to investigate and rule publicly on all complaints, and to penalize all violators, with appeals to the courts allowed, similar to the system in place for enforcing the freedom of information and privacy law that applies to all municipalities.”

As well, provincial parties should work together to establish a lobbying disclosure and ethical lobbying law, and a best-practice whistleblower protection law, for all municipalities across the province, with all complaints also going to Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner.

Democracy Watch’s written submission to the Committee details the problems with the current system, and calls for amendments to Bill 9 to enact an effective system for preventing conflicts of interest and other wrongdoing by municipal councillors. An effective system is:

1. The provincial Cabinet establishes one ethics law for all municipalities across the province with strong, strict rules to require councillors and all members of local boards/entities to be honest, to disclose all their assets and liabilities in an online, searchable registry, prohibiting them from participating in any discussion, decision-making process or vote if they have even an appearance of a conflict of interest, and automatically suspending them from council if they are charged with a crime;

2. All complaints are investigated by the Ontario Integrity Commissioner (OIC);

3. Any member of the public has a right to file a complaint;

4. The OIC is required to investigate all alleged violations that it becomes aware of, and is required to issue a public ruling on every alleged violation;

5. The OIC is required to impose a penalty for every violation, on a sliding scale of penalties depending on the seriousness of the violation, including suspension from office (for example, when charged with a crime) and removal from office (for example, when convicted of a crime), and;

6. Anyone or any entity that meets the public interest standing test has a right to challenge any ruling by the OIC in court.

This would match Ontario’s system of one freedom of information and privacy protection law that applies to all municipalities in which all complaints go to the provincial Information and Privacy Commissioner, and the Commissioner is required to issue a public ruling on each complaint and the rulings are binding (although, unfortunately, there are no penalties for violating that law).

– 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 and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign