RCMP Commissioner favours secrecy, serves at pleasure of Cabinet, and RCMP has weak enforcement as SNC-Lavalin and Aga Khan scandals show — new, independent anti-foreign interference, anti-corruption police force needed

MPs, Senators and any others alleged to be involved in foreign interference should only be identified if good evidence of violation exists

Loopholes in election, political finance, lobbying and ethics rules need to be closed to actually prohibit and prevent interference and misinformation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, June 27, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called for key steps to be taken to ensure full, independent, effective investigations into the allegations in the recent report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) on CSIS intelligence reports that MPs and Senators have helped foreign governments interfere in Canadian politics, and to ensure public rulings on every allegation.

While several commentators have called for political parties to deal with the allegations internally, or for all MPs and Senators to be identified now if they are alleged in intelligence reports to have participated in interference, neither of those steps would ensure independent investigations and public rulings, or fairness that complies with the Charter protections of due process and justice given intelligence reports often contain rumours or very questionable evidence.

And while all parties voted in the House of Commons in support of a resolution calling on the Hogue Inquiry into foreign interference to examine the allegations and report on them, the Inquiry issued a statement saying it already has the intelligence reports referred to by NSICOP, and is already examining them.  But public inquiries generally do not identify people who are only rumoured to have committed wrongdoing, nor can the Inquiry conduct investigations, charge or prosecute or find anyone in violation of any Canadian law.

The RCMP can’t be trusted to investigate the allegations because RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme was chosen by, and serves at the pleasure, of the Trudeau Cabinet as do the Deputy Commissioners and heads of every RCMP division (Click here to see ss. 5, 6 and 6.1 of the RCMP Act).

As well, Commissioner Duheme has made it clear he favours secrecy in foreign interference investigations in a CBC interview (Click here to see video) and Global TV interview (Click here to see video) which violates the public’s right to know.

In addition, the RCMP has shown clearly that it is simply incapable of effectively investigating allegations of wrongdoing members of the ruling party, as it conducted incomplete, weak and very questionable investigations into Prime Minister Trudeau’s actions in the SNC-Lavalin scandal (which the RCMP tried to bury for years), and in the Aga Khan scandal.

As many including Democracy Watch have called for, a new, much more independent, expert, effective and transparent national police force is needed to investigate foreign interference, corruption and national security. However, given the Trudeau Cabinet has failed to create this more independent police force, the key steps for now to ensure to full, independent, effective investigations into the allegations, and public rulings on every allegation, are as follows:

1. Now that Bill C-70 has passed, CSIS is allowed to share intelligence information with police forces and other law enforcement entities;

2. CSIS should share the intelligence information containing the information with provincial or local police forces (again, not the RCMP), and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying, depending on the laws that could have been violated (preferably the information would be given to provincial ethics and lobbying commissioners because the federal Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein and Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger were both handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet and have very bad enforcement records);

3. The police forces, Commissioner of Canada Elections, ethics and lobbying commissioners should investigate each allegation that is referred to them by CSIS, and must issue a public ruling in each case, and;

4. The public rulings should either be:

a) an announcement that charges are being laid and a named person or entity prosecuted or found guilty for violating the law;

b) an announcement that there is clear evidence that a named person or entity engaged in foreign interference activities but that for an explained reason they will not be charged, prosecuted or found guilty; or

c) an announcement that does not name the person or entity because there is no good evidence that they engaged in foreign interference.

“To ensure independent, effective and transparent investigations of the allegations of foreign interference, CSIS should give the intelligence information to federal elections, ethics and lobbying commissioners, and to police forces other than the RCMP because the RCMP is too controlled by the ruling party Cabinet and has a weak enforcement record, and they should all investigate and issue public rulings in each case that only name violators if there is good evidence that they violated a law,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The House and Senate passed anti-foreign interference Bill C-70 but left huge loopholes in Bill C-70 that allow for ongoing secret foreign interference and influence activities, and make enforcement partisan, political, weak, secretive and unaccountable.

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, including establishing a new, much more independent, expert, effective and transparent national police force to investigate foreign interference, corruption and national security.

“All the loopholes in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws must be closed, and enforcement strengthened, to actually stop foreign governments, businesses and organizations from interfering in and influencing Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites,” 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 Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

RCMP still hiding internal communication records about almost 2-year delay in investigation, and who made decision not to prosecute anyone

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, June 18, 2024

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House Public Accounts Committee to ask RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme key questions about the RCMP’s investigation into the Trudeau Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin scandal when he testifies today from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm.

The RCMP has not yet disclosed to the House Ethics Committee the internal communications records that Commissioner Duheme committed to provide quickly to the Committee (See p. 18 of the Evidence) at the Committee’s meeting on February 27, 2024.

The five key, still-unanswered questions for Commissioner Duheme are as follows (and, if he can’t or won’t answer them, then a House Committee must call former Commissioner Brenda Lucki to testify and answer them):

1. Why did the RCMP national command wait almost two years (from March 2021 to January 2023) to make its decision to end its superficial investigation of the situation without even doing a full investigation — in other words, why did the RCMP national command attempt to bury and cover-up its investigation?

2. Who exactly in the RCMP was involved in making the decisions through the March 2021 to January 2023 time period to delay, bury and cover-up the RCMP’s investigation?

3. Who exactly in the RCMP was involved in making the decision not to prosecute anyone?  When exactly was that decision made?

4. Who did these RCMP officers communicate with while making these delay and failure to prosecute decisions? Did they communicate with anyone in the PCO or Trudeau Cabinet or Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)?

5. Why did the RCMP’s investigating officer initially establish that, to prove obstruction of justice in court, pressure must have been placed on someone to obstruct a proceeding in the justice system (which the RCMP had clear evidence of), but then switched the standard to require proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere”?

The House Ethics Committee’s February 27, 2024 meeting occurred because the RCMP sent Democracy Watch a letter on September 22nd disclosing 1,815 pages of very questionable investigation records in response to DWatch’s July 2022 Access to Information Act (ATIA) request for all records of the RCMP’s investigation of the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet officials obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 (now operating under the name “AtkinsRéalis”).  At the time of that Ethics Committee meeting, the RCMP was still withholding more than 2,200 pages of investigation records.

“The RCMP Commissioner still needs to answer several key questions because the evidence that has been disclosed so far shows that the RCMP is a negligently weak lapdog that rolled over for Prime Minister Trudeau by doing a very superficial investigation into his Cabinet’s obstruction of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, didn’t try to obtain key secret Cabinet communication records, and buried the investigation with an almost two-year delay,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The RCMP also misled the public by claiming it wasn’t investigating, continues to violate the open government law by keeping thousands of pages of investigation records secret much longer than is allowed, and is refusing to disclose the legal details why no one was prosecuted.”

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

“If the RCMP does not answer the many key questions about its weak, lapdog investigation, and does not disclose all of its investigation records, then a public inquiry will be needed to determine why the RCMP’s national command tried to cover up its investigation, and exactly how and why they and Crown prosecutors decided not to prosecute anyone,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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

Loopholes allow for secret interference in party leadership contests, and secret communications with nomination and leadership contestants and political party officials, and by using lobbyists, family members, friends and officials as “proxies” for influence communications etc.

Proposed new enforcement Commissioner will be too much under the control of ruling party Cabinet, ineffective, secretive and unaccountable

Other loopholes in election, political finance, lobbying and ethics rules also need to be closed to prevent interference and misinformation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, June 12, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch criticized MPs from all parties on the House of Commons Public Safety and National Security Committee for rolling over and leaving huge loopholes in anti-foreign interference Bill C-70 that allow for ongoing secret foreign interference and influence activities, and failing to make enforcement independent, effective, transparent and accountable.  Click here to see the Committee’s report to the House of Commons listing the very few amendments they made to Bill C-70.

Last week, Democracy Watch filed a summary submission with the Public Safety Committee listing the key changes needed to close loopholes in the prohibitions and requirements to disclose foreign interference and influence activities in the proposed new Foreign Influence Registry (FIR), and to make the proposed new Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner independent of the ruling party, empowered to enforce the rules effectively, required to issue public rulings and impose penalties for violations in every case, and accountable to the courts to ensure the Commissioner enforces the rules properly.  DWatch also filed a full submission with the committees detailing the key changes and why they are needed.

Click here to see Democracy Watch’s summary submission on Bill C-70 in English.  Cliquez ici pour voir le résumé de la soumission en français.  Click here to see the full submission (in English only).

If the loopholes in Bill C-70 are not closed by the full House at third reading or by the Senate, the following foreign interference and influence activities will continue to be legal, and foreign agents will not be required to register and disclose the following activities in the Foreign Influence Registry (FIR):

1. Activities undertaken by businesses and organizations;

2. Activities to interfere in political party leadership contests;

3. Communications with nomination contestants and party leadership contestants who are not MPs or Cabinet ministers;

4. Communications with election candidates who are not Cabinet ministers;

5. Communications with people who have been elected as MPs or appointed as Senators but have not yet taken office;

6. Communications with territorial politicians and public officials, and provincial and municipal government appointees;

7. Communications with judges and lieutenant governors;

8. A foreign agent using a lobbyist as a “proxy” for their influence activities (many changes are needed to the federal Lobbying Act and provincial, territorial and municipal lobbying laws to prevent this by prohibiting secret lobbying), and;

9. A foreign agent using staff, volunteers, friends, family members and close associates of contestants, candidates, parties and riding associations as a “proxy” for their secret influence activities.

In addition, Bill C-70 gives the federal Cabinet dangerously broad discretion to:

1. Choose candidates for FIT Commissioner through a secretive, partisan and political process;

2. Exclude foreign interference arrangements from the list of prohibited activities that are also required to be disclosed;

3. Exclude public officials from the list of people foreign agents are required to disclose if they communicate with them;

4. Limit the amount of information required to be disclosed in the FIR and to not require regular updates, and;

5. Decide when the provisions that establish the FIT Commissioner and the FIR will come into force, and be extended to provincial, municipal and Indigenous politicians and public officials and, if amended, also territorial politicians and public officials (there are no deadlines in the Bill).

In terms of enforcement, if key changes are not made to Bill C-70, the proposed new Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner will lack independence, not be effective, and will be allowed to bury cases with secret decisions, and will not be accountable if they fail to enforce the rules (like the federal Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying for the past 20 years) because they will be:

1. Partisan and political because they will be handpicked behind closed doors by the ruling party Cabinet, with little input from opposition parties, and serving Cabinet in a government department instead of being an Officer of Parliament;

2. Not necessarily serving a full 7-year term because Cabinet can shorten it;

3. Encouraged to please the ruling party towards the end of their term because the ruling party Cabinet has the sole power to re-appoint them;

4. Ineffective because they will not be required to do regular, unannounced audits to catch violators;

5. Secretive because they will not be required to issue public rulings with reasons on every situation they review, and;

6. Unaccountable because it is unclear in Bill C-70 whether their decisions and actions can be challenged in court if they fail to do their job properly.

Also re: enforcement, given the RCMP and FINTRAC lack independence from the ruling party Cabinet, and the RCMP has been ineffective and secretive in the SNC-Lavalin and Aga Khan scandals, and in enforcing the federal lobbying law and anti-money laundering law, and FINTRAC has been ineffective as well:

7. Democracy Watch’s submission calls for a new, fully independent, effective, transparent and accountable anti-foreign interference, anti-corruption and anti-money laundering police force to be established.

“If loopholes in the bill are not closed, secret, unethical and undemocratic foreign interference in elections, party leadership races, parties and government policy-making processes will continue to be legal across Canada, and enforcement will be weak, ineffective, secretive and too much under the control of the ruling party Cabinet,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Many other changes are needed beyond a foreign agent registry to actually stop foreign interference.  Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

“All our key democracy and anti-corruption laws, including laws aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.  “If Bill C-70 is not changed in key ways, the new foreign interference commissioner will be another  partisan, ineffective, secretive and unaccountable lapdog.”

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 page and Stop Secret Unethical Lobbying Campaign page

Bill C-70 allows secret interference in party leadership contests, and secret communications with nomination and leadership contestants and party officials, and by using lobbyists, family members, friends and officials as “proxies” for influence communications

Proposed new enforcement Commissioner must be made independent of ruling party Cabinet, effective, transparent and accountable

Investigations with public rulings before the next election needed on all allegations that MPs and Senators helped foreign governments interfere in Canadian politics — other loopholes also need to be closed to prevent interference and misinformation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 10, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, as the House of Commons Public Safety and National Security Committee meets this afternoon from 3:30 to 8:30 pm ET to consider amendments to Bill C-70, and as Democracy Watch testifies before the Senate National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee this afternoon at 3:10 pm ET during its pre-study of the Bill, Democracy Watch released the submission it filed last week with the two committees calling on all parties to work together to make key changes to close loopholes in Bill C-70 so that all secret foreign interference and influence activities will be prohibited and required to be disclosed, and so enforcement will be independent, effective, transparent and accountable.

Democracy Watch also called on CSIS, as soon as Bill C-70 is enacted to allow it, to share the redacted information mentioned in the recent NSICOP report that it has on MPs and/or Senators helping foreign governments interfere in Canadian politics with the RCMP, Commissioner of Canada Elections and Ethics Commissioner depending on the possible laws that were violated, who should investigate and issue public rulings on every case before the next election, naming the politician if there is clear evidence that they violated any law. While the Hogue Inquiry into foreign interference can and should examine the information, as opposition parties have called for, it can’t make findings concerning violations of laws.

Democracy Watch filed a summary submission with the committees listing the key changes needed to close loopholes in the prohibitions and requirements to disclose foreign interference and influence activities in the proposed new Foreign Influence Registry (FIR), and to make the proposed new Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner independent of the ruling party, empowered to enforce the rules effectively, required to issue public rulings and impose penalties for violations in every case, and accountable to the courts to ensure the Commissioner enforces the rules properly.  DWatch also filed a full submission with the committees detailing the key changes and why they are needed.

Click here to see Democracy Watch’s summary submission on Bill C-70 in English.  Cliquez ici pour voir le résumé de la soumission en français.  Click here to see the full submission (in English only). If the loopholes in Bill C-70 are not closed, the following foreign interference and influence activities will continue to be legal, and foreign agents will not be required to register and disclose the following activities in the Foreign Influence Registry (FIR):

1. Activities undertaken by businesses and organizations;

2. Activities to interfere in political party leadership contests;

3. Communications with nomination contestants and party leadership contestants who are not MPs or Cabinet ministers;

4. Communications with election candidates who are not Cabinet ministers;

5. Communications with people who have been elected as MPs or appointed as Senators but have not yet taken office;

6. Communications with territorial politicians and public officials, and provincial and municipal government appointees;

7. Communications with judges and lieutenant governors;

8. A foreign agent using a lobbyist as a “proxy” for their influence activities (many changes are needed to the federal Lobbying Act and provincial, territorial and municipal lobbying laws to prevent this by prohibiting secret lobbying), and;

9. A foreign agent using staff, volunteers, friends, family members and close associates of contestants, candidates, parties and riding associations as a “proxy” for their secret influence activities.

In addition, Bill C-70 gives the federal Cabinet dangerously broad discretion to:

1. Exclude foreign interference arrangements from the list of prohibited activities that are also required to be disclosed;

2. Exclude public officials from the list of people foreign agents are required to disclose if they communicate with them;

3. Limit the amount of information required to be disclosed in the FIR and to not require regular updates, and;

4. Decide when the provisions that establish the FIT Commissioner and the FIR will come into force, and be extended to provincial, municipal and Indigenous politicians and public officials and, if amended, also territorial politicians and public officials (there are no deadlines in the Bill).

In terms of enforcement, if key changes are not made to Bill C-70, the proposed new Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner will lack independence, not be effective, and will be allowed to bury cases with secret decisions, and will not be accountable if they fail to enforce the rules (like the federal Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying for the past 20 years) because they will be:

1.Partisan and political because they will be handpicked behind closed doors by the ruling party Cabinet, with little input from opposition parties;

2.Not necessarily serving a full 7-year term because Cabinet can shorten it;

3.Encouraged to please the ruling party towards the end of their term because the ruling party Cabinet has the sole power to re-appoint them;

4.Ineffective because they will not be required to do regular, unannounced audits to catch violators;

5.Secretive because they will not be required to issue public rulings with reasons on every situation they review, and;

6.Unaccountable because it is unclear in Bill C-70 whether their decisions and actions can be challenged in court if they fail to do their job properly.

Also re: enforcement, given the RCMP and FINTRAC lack independence from the ruling party Cabinet, and the RCMP has been ineffective and secretive in the SNC-Lavalin and Aga Khan scandals, and in enforcing the federal lobbying law and anti-money laundering law, and FINTRAC has been ineffective as well:

7.Democracy Watch’s submission calls for a new, fully independent, effective, transparent and accountable anti-foreign interference, anti-corruption and anti-money laundering police force to be established.

“If loopholes in the bill are not closed, secret, unethical and undemocratic foreign interference in elections, party leadership races, parties and government policy-making processes will continue to be legal across Canada, and enforcement will be weak, ineffective, secretive and too much under the control of the ruling party Cabinet,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Many other changes are needed beyond a foreign agent registry to actually stop foreign interference.  Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

“All our key democracy and anti-corruption laws, including laws aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.  “If Bill C-70 is not changed in key ways, the new foreign interference commissioner will be another  partisan, ineffective, secretive and unaccountable lapdog.”

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 page and Stop Secret Unethical Lobbying Campaign page

Bill C-70 allows secret interference in party leadership contests, and secret communications with nomination and leadership contestants and party officials, and by using lobbyists, family members, friends and officials as “proxies” for influence communications

Proposed new enforcement Commissioner must be made independent of ruling party Cabinet, effective, transparent and accountable

Other loopholes in election, political finance, lobbying and ethics rules also need to be closed to prevent interference and misinformation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, June 6, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the submission it filed yesterday with the House of Commons Public Safety and National Security Committee calling on MPs from all parties to work together to make key changes to close loopholes in Bill C-70 so that secret foreign interference and influence activities will be prohibited and required to be disclosed, and so enforcement will be independent, effective, transparent and accountable.

Democracy Watch filed a summary submission with the Committee listing the key changes needed to close loopholes in the prohibitions and requirements to disclose foreign interference and influence activities in the proposed new Foreign Influence Registry (FIR), and to make the proposed new Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner independent of the ruling party, empowered to enforce the rules effectively, required to issue public rulings and impose penalties for violations in every case, and accountable to the courts to ensure the Commissioner enforces the rules properly.  DWatch also filed a full submission with the Committee detailing the key changes and why they are needed.

Click here to see Democracy Watch’s summary submission on Bill C-70 in English. Cliquez ici pour voir le résumé de la soumission en français. Click here to see the full submission (in English only).

If the loopholes in Bill C-70 are not closed, the following foreign interference and influence activities will continue to be legal, and foreign agents will not be required to register and disclose the following activities in the Foreign Influence Registry (FIR):

1.    Activities undertaken by businesses and organizations;

2.    Activities to interfere in political party leadership contests;

3.    Communications with nomination contestants and party leadership contestants who are not MPs or Cabinet ministers;

4.    Communications with election candidates who are not Cabinet ministers;

5.    Communications with people who have been elected as MPs or appointed as Senators but have not yet taken office;

6.    Communications with territorial politicians and public officials, and provincial and municipal government appointees;

7.    Communications with judges and lieutenant governors;

8.    A foreign agent using a lobbyist as a “proxy” for their influence activities (many changes are needed to the federal Lobbying Act and provincial, territorial and municipal lobbying laws to prevent this by prohibiting secret lobbying);

9.    A foreign agent using staff, volunteers, friends, family members and close associates of contestants, candidates and parties as a “proxy” for their secret influence activities;

In addition, Bill C-70 gives the federal Cabinet dangerously broad discretion to:

1. Exclude foreign interference arrangements from the list of prohibited activities that are also required to be disclosed;

2. Exclude public officials from the list of people foreign agents are required to disclose if they communicate with them;

3. Limit the amount of information required to be disclosed in the FIR and to not require regular updates;

4. Decide when the provisions that establish the FIT Commissioner and the FIR will come into force, and be extended to provincial, municipal and Indigenous politicians and public officials and, if amended, also territorial politicians and public officials (there are no deadlines in the Bill).

In terms of enforcement, if key changes are not made to Bill C-70, the proposed new Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner will lack independence, not be effective, and will be allowed to bury cases with secret decisions, and will not be accountable if they fail to enforce the rules (like the federal Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying for the past 20 years) because they will be:

1. Partisan and political because they will be handpicked behind closed doors by the ruling party Cabinet, with little input from opposition parties, and will be an employee of a Cabinet minister instead of an Officer of Parliament;

2. Not necessarily serving a full 7-year term because Cabinet can shorten it;

3. Encouraged to please the ruling party towards the end of their term because the ruling party Cabinet has the sole power to re-appoint them;

4. Ineffective because they will not be required to do regular, unannounced audits to catch violators;

5. Secretive because they will not be required to issue public rulings with reasons on every situation they review, and;

6. Unaccountable because it is unclear in Bill C-70 whether their decisions and actions can be challenged in court if they fail to do their job properly.

Also re: enforcement, given the RCMP and FINTRAC lack independence from the ruling party Cabinet, and the RCMP has been ineffective and secretive in the SNC-Lavalin and Aga Khan scandals, and in enforcing the federal lobbying law and anti-money laundering law, and FINTRAC has been ineffective as well:

7. Democracy Watch’s submission calls for a new, fully independent, effective, transparent and accountable anti-foreign interference, anti-corruption and anti-money laundering police force to be established.

“If loopholes in the bill are not closed, secret, unethical and undemocratic foreign interference in elections, party leadership races, parties and government policy-making processes will continue to be legal across Canada, and enforcement will be weak, ineffective, secretive and too much under the control of the ruling party Cabinet,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Many other changes are needed beyond a foreign agent registry to actually stop foreign interference. Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

 “All our key democracy and anti-corruption laws, including laws aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.  “If Bill C-70 is not changed in key ways, the new foreign interference commissioner will be another  partisan, ineffective, secretive and unaccountable lapdog.”

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 and Stop Secret Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Hogue Inquiry has downplayed and almost buried this excessive Cabinet secrecy – should be pushing publicly for full disclosure of all docs

Loopholes in election, political finance, lobbying and ethics rules and weak enforcement make secret, unethical interference and misinformation legal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 28, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) Committee to vote at its meeting this afternoon from 3:30 to 5:30 pm to call Trudeau Cabinet ministers and officials to testify and be questioned on why the Cabinet is redacting about 3,000 documents and withholding an unknown number of other documents from the Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Canadian politics.

Last Thursday, the Globe and Mail published an article based Democracy Watch’s submission filed on February 8th with the Hogue Inquiry (released by DWatch on April 11th) requesting that the Inquiry demand written, public answers from the Trudeau Cabinet about why it is redacting and withholding Cabinet documents from the Inquiry, and also withheld them from Special Rapporteur David Johnston, and to ensure the Cabinet discloses the documents to the Inquiry.  Democracy Watch is an intervener in the Inquiry and is represented at the Inquiry by Wade Poziomka and Nick Papageorge of Ross & McBride LLP.

In the Globe article, a spokesperson from the Cabinet office (Privy Council Office (PCO)) disclosed that “As of May 17, 2024, approximately 9% of the 33,000 documents provided by the government contain one or more redactions. Other documents covered entirely by these exemptions have not been provided to the commission.”  In other words, about 3,000 documents the Trudeau Cabinet submitted to the Inquiry contained redactions, and the Cabinet is hiding exactly how many other documents have been fully withheld from the Inquiry.

In response to the Globe article, the four Conservative MPs and the Bloc Quebecois MP on the PROC Committee forced the meeting this afternoon by writing a letter last Friday to the Committee Chair, as the Globe reported in an article on Saturday.  The NDP MP or a Liberal MP on the Committee will have to vote with the Conservative and Bloc MPs this afternoon in favour of calling Cabinet ministers and officials to testify in order for hearings to happen.

Democracy Watch’s February 8th submission is also posted on the Inquiry’s website.  Inquiry Commissioner Hogue and staff did not respond to the requests set out in the submission, and have downplayed and almost buried the fact that the Cabinet is withholding documents.

For example, in the Commissioner’s Initial Report released on May 3rd, it says at the top of p. 5 “I have had access to the relevant documents without any redactions for reasons of national security” and in the third last paragraph on p. 17 it says “the Commission was given access to the unredacted versions of all relevant documents” (claims that were repeated in the third paragraph of the news release about the Report) and in the first paragraph on p. 77 it says “The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure take into account that the Commission will receive unredacted documents from the government…”

However, buried in footnote 1 on p. 5 it says “Some documents contained redactions for Cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege or protection of personal information. Discussions as to the application of these privileges is ongoing” and buried in footnote 2 on p. 17 it says: “Save for a small number of documents that have been redacted to protect Cabinet confidences, solicitor-client privilege and personal information.”

“Canada’s spy agencies have disclosed to the inquiry all their foreign-interference related documents without redactions, and the Trudeau Cabinet disclosed Cabinet confidence documents to last year’s inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act, so the Cabinet clearly can disclose all its records to the inquiry,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“It has been disappointing to see the inquiry downplaying and almost burying this excessive secrecy by the Trudeau Cabinet.  The inquiry should be publicly demanding disclosure of all the Cabinet documents because the secrecy makes it impossible for the inquiry commissioner to determine who knew what, when they knew it, and what they did,” said Conacher.

“If the Trudeau Cabinet continues to hide records from the inquiry into foreign interference, Canadians are justified in assuming that disclosure of the records would make the Cabinet look bad, and that is why the records are being kept secret,” said Conacher.

On March 23, 2024, Democracy Watch also submitted to the Hogue Inquiry a list of 10 key witnesses and about 140 key questions to ask them.  The questions are aimed mainly at revealing the many loopholes in Canadian federal election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, and the lack of independent, effective enforcement of those laws.

DWatch also highlighted the Trudeau Cabinet’s secrecy and some of the key loopholes in its April 15th submission to the Hogue Inquiry at the end of the first set of fact-finding hearings that took place in March-April. Click here to see the submission on the Inquiry’s website.

The loopholes in the laws make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation activities legal, so no watchdog is even monitoring the activities, which makes it impossible to determine the extent of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, or after those elections up to now, or to stop the interference.

Almost all the watchdogs who are supposed to enforce the few rules that exist are chosen in secret by the ruling party Cabinet, many of them serve at the pleasure of the Cabinet, most don’t do inspections or audits, most are not required to issue public rulings on every allegation they investigate, and in many cases there are no penalties for violating the laws.  As a result, their enforcement is weak and ineffective and does little to discourage violations.

“A foreign-agent registry as proposed in Bill C-70 will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Conacher. “Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

“All our key democracy laws, including laws that claim to be aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, and they operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.

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 and Open Government Campaign

DWatch intervening in SCC hearing to argue that limits are needed for democratic, fair elections, but limits also need to be democratic and fair

First time Supreme Court has considered third-party spending limits since landmark ruling 20 years ago in Harper case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 21, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it is intervening in the online Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) hearing today and tomorrow on whether the Ontario Doug Ford PC Party government’s limits on advertising spending by individuals, businesses and interest groups (“third parties”) for 12 months before each election are unconstitutional.

This is the first time the SCC has fully considered the issue of third-party spending limits since its precedent-setting 2004 ruling in the Harper case, which Democracy Watch also intervened in (archive website), with its arguments providing part of the SCC’s emphasis in its ruling on the importance of ensuring opportunity for equal participation and influence of all voters in political processes (the SCC’s “egalitarian model”).

The SCC is hearing the Ford government’s appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) March 2023 ruling that the limits are unconstitutional because they are the same limits that used to apply to only a six-month pre-election period.  In other words, the ONCA ruled that when the Ford government extended the time period during which the limits apply to 12 months, it should have increased the spending limit proportionally (paras. 95-122).  The ONCA’s ruling rejected the Ontario Superior Court March 2022 ruling that found that it was reasonable to have the same spending limit for the longer time period of 12 months.

The hearing starts this morning.  Democracy Watch is scheduled to present its arguments, along with 12 other interveners, tomorrow morning, Wednesday, May 22nd.  The media and the public can click here to watch the May 21st hearing, and can click here to watch the May 22nd hearing.  Democracy Watch’s intervention is being presented by Crawford Smith of the law firm LOLG, assisted by William Maidment.

Unlike the “Working Families” coalition of unions who filed the court case, and other interveners, Democracy Watch is arguing that limits on third-party interest group ad spending between elections can be constitutional if the limits are democratic, established democratically, and based on the actual cost of reaching voters through advertising on any issue.

In contrast, the limits set by the Ford government Bill 307 allow a wealthy individual voter, or a private corporation with only a few shareholders, or a few executives of a big business to spend $600,000 on issue ads – the same amount as a citizen group with thousands or tens of thousands of supporters.  DWatch argues that’s not democratic – to be constitutional by ensuring equal voice for all voters, there should be a much lower spending limit for individual voters, private corporations and big business executives than for broad-based citizen groups that have thousands of supporters (as the SCC ruled in 1997 in the Libman case).

This is a different reason than the ONCA used for finding the Ford government’s spending limits unconstitutional – again the ONCA ruled (paras. 95-122) that to be constitutional the limits should have been increased given the time period was increased from six months to 12 months.

In addition, the Ford government did not study the actual cost of reaching voters on any issue – the government just imposed an arbitrary limit based on the arbitrary limit set in 2017 by the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government.  DWatch is urging the SCC to affirm the part of the ONCA ruling (paras. 123-136) that said governments are required to undertake comprehensive studies to determine the actual cost of informing voters before setting third-party advertising limits, and to set realistic limits based on the results of the studies.

A significant issue the SCC will consider for the first time is whether it is constitutional for spending limits to apply during the period between elections.  The Ontario courts, and DWatch, argue that it is constitutional because it is important to restrict the undemocratic influence of the wealthy interests not only during elections, but also during between-election policy-making processes.  The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in 2012 that spending limits that apply during the between-election period are unconstitutional.

Whether the Ford government’s use of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to try to protect his third-party spending limits was illegal is not part of the appeal to the SCC.

“The Ford government’s spending restrictions on advertising by interest groups for the year before the election should be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because they are undemocratic, arbitrary, and were rammed through the legislature without proper study or consultation,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition.  “Restricting massive ad campaigns by wealthy interest groups and individuals in the months leading up to an election is a good, democratic idea, as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, as is prohibiting huge ad campaigns by wealthy individuals and lobby groups all the time, but an independent commission should be set up to study the actual costs of reaching voters to ensure the spending limit is realistic, and the limit must be much higher for citizen groups that have thousands of supporters than it is for an individual voter or a few business executives.”

Ford first imposed the limits in April 2021 in Bill 254 which was introduced without any consultation with opposition parties or stakeholders.  However, in a case filed by several unions, the limits were struck down by Ontario’s Superior Court in June for unreasonably restricting Charter free expression rights (Charter s. 2(b)).

Then, in just a few days, despite many calling for a re-consideration of the limits, including Democracy Watch backed by 35,000 Ontario voters, Ford’s PC Party introduced and passed Bill 307 to impose the limits again, and included the notwithstanding clause in the bill in an attempt to prevent anyone from challenging the limits in court.  However, several unions again challenged the limits as a violation of the right of voters under Charter s. 3 to play a meaningful role in elections.  The notwithstanding clause cannot be used to shield violations of s. 3 from court challenges.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign