Relatively low voter turnout and evenly split results mean Premier has no mandate on other 9 issues – especially given assumption should be that voters who did not vote would have voted “No” on each question

Too many questions, government-drafted questions, misleading questions, no court review of questions, government spending, flaws in donation and spending rules, lack of foreign interference and disinformation protections and lack of quorum all made the referendum processes undemocratic and unfair

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 26, 2026

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch’s conclusion is that the delayed, finally completed (but still unofficial) results of Alberta’s very flawed referendums (See details about the flaws further below) show clearly that Premier Danielle Smith and her UCP government have no mandate to do anything except abandon any moves toward the separation of Alberta from Canada (give just under 75% of voters voted Option 1 to not hold a referendum on separation).  See table further below for a detailed breakdown of the votes question by question.

It is clear that Premier Smith has no mandate to make any moves in any of the issue areas addressed by the other 9 referendum questions given that:

1. The No side won on questions 6-9;
2. On questions 1-5, there was relatively low voter turnout averaging 65.3% and roughly even split results so, at most, only 38% of the just under 3.15 million total eligible voters supported any of the proposed changes in those 5 questions, and;
3. The assumption should be that most of the voters who did not vote would have voted “No” on each question, as not voting indicates fairly clearly that they were not interested in having the change made that was proposed in each question.

Why should the assumption be that most of the voters who did not vote would have voted No on all 9 questions (and for Option 1 in question #10)?
In an election under a first-past-the-post system like Canada uses, low voter turnout does not indicate such a clear lack of interest in who wins because voters in any riding that is consistently “safe” for one party (and there are many such ridings) have a rational reason for not voting (whether they are voting for or against the candidate of the party that always wins).

In contrast, in a referendum if a voter wants the “Yes” side to win they have no rational reason for not voting.  Voters who have no interest in having the change made that is proposed in a referendum question express their lack of support for the change (i.e. vote No) fairly clearly by not voting on the question.

“The results show clearly that Premier Smith and her UCP government have no mandate from the ten referendums to do anything except abandon support for Alberta separation,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The results in the following table show clearly that Premier Smith has no mandate to do anything in any issue area except abandon separation (winning side is in bold):

Democracy Watch’s position is that referendums can be a good complement to Canada’s parliamentary system, and that the barriers to voters initiating a referendum should not be excessively high.  However, as with elections, the referendum process must be structured in very specific ways to be democratic and fair, and the Alberta government has failed in many ways to ensure a democratic and fair process.

Undemocratic and unfair decision-making processes in the legislature or in referendums lead to undemocratic results.  Click here to see details about the 12 key ways that the Government of Alberta’s process for the 10 referendums was undemocratic and unfair, and also facilitated foreign interference.  In 1991, Conacher had published one of the first academic articles analyzing and proposing almost 90 key measures for democratic, fair referendum processes.

“Allowing voters to have their say through referendums doesn’t automatically make the process democratic and fair, and Alberta’s process was undemocratic and unfair in many key ways,” said Conacher.  “Too many questions, government-drafted questions, misleading and vague questions, no court review of the questions, government spending, undemocratic flaws in donation and spending rules, lack of foreign interference and disinformation protections and the lack of a quorum all combined to make Alberta’s referendum process undemocratic and unfair.”

“Undemocratic and unfair referendums should not be used to manipulate voters and further a government’s agenda, in the same way that using undemocratic and unfair processes in the legislature like omnibus bills and debate closure, and prorogations and snap election calls, should not be used to manipulate members of the legislature and voters in order to further a ruling party’s agenda,” said Conacher.  “The laws that set out the rules for referendum processes at the federal level, and in several provinces, have the same loopholes and flaws as Alberta’s laws, and referendums should not be held anywhere in Canada until these loopholes are closed and flaws corrected.”

– 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 Voting Systems Campaign

Commissioner of Lobbying has covered up almost 32,000 lobbying law violations (99.99% of all violations) since 2018

Commissioner also gutted key rules in the lobbying code in ways that allow for unethical lobbying

House Ethics Committee must recommend many key changes to close loopholes in the law and code, and to require effective enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 26, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, with federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger scheduled to testify before the House Ethics Committee from 11 am to 1 pm EDT, Democracy Watch called on MPs on the Committee to ask the Commissioner key questions about her negligently bad enforcement record of letting off almost 32,000 violations in secret rulings since 2018, including more than 5,000 serious violations, and about other enforcement problems, and loopholes in the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code that allow for rampant secret, unethical lobbying.

The House Ethics Committee is currently conducting an illegally long-overdue review of the Lobbying Act for the first time since 2012 (the Act is required to be reviewed by a committee every five years), and its report (which will likely be released in November) clearly needs to call on the government to close huge loopholes in the Act and Code that allow for secret lobbying, and unethical lobbying, and to require independent, timely, transparent, effective and accountable enforcement, including public rulings and mandatory penalties for all violations.

The 10 key questions for MPs on the Ethics Committee to ask Commissioner Bélanger today are:

1.  Is she aware of the national survey from January 2025 showing that more than 80% of Canadian voters want all lobbying disclosed, and don’t want lobbyists giving gifts to, or doing favours for, politicians and public officials?

2.  Given former Commissioner Karen Shepherd issued a public ruling identifying a lobbyist who violated the Lobbying Act by failing to register his lobbying, and found him guilty of violating the Lobbyists’ Code, and the Federal Courts ruled that the Commissioner has the clear legal power to do that, why did Commissioner Bélanger, in secret without identifying any of the lobbyists or finding them guilty of violating the Code, let off all the lobbyists who violated the Act a total of 31,803 times since 2018 by failing to register their lobbying on time and/or accurately as required by the Act?

3.  Many of the 31,803 violations were minor infractions, but almost 3,800 of the violations involved a lobbyist failing to register their lobbying for more than one month to more than 6 months after the Act’s registration deadline, and another more than 1,250 violations involved a lobbyist repeatedly failing to register their lobbying accurately. As the Commissioner herself has told the Committee on May 7th, “transparency delayed is no transparency at all” ( 7 of transcript above 1610 mark). So why did Commissioner Bélanger, in secret, let all of the lobbyists off who violated the Act in these serious ways more than 5,000 times?  Why didn’t she issue even one public ruling identifying even one of these lobbyists and finding them guilty of violating the Code, as the Federal Courts have ruled she is clearly empowered to do, and as she told the Committee she could do on March 9th (p. 14 of transcript above 1650 mark) and on May 7th (pp. 3 and 5 of transcript)?

4.  If Commissioner Bélanger makes the clearly false claim that she is only allowed to refer violations of the Act to the RCMP, then the question is why, since 2018, has she only referred 19 of the more than 5,000 serious violations of the Act to the RCMP?

5.  As of last May, the RCMP had only prosecuted 2 of the 19 violating lobbyists, and had referred 14 violations back to the Commissioner (with 3 still under RCMP investigation). Why did Commissioner Bélanger not issue even one public ruling identifying even one of the lobbyists involved in the 14 other cases and finding them guilty of violating the Code, as the Federal Courts have ruled she is clearly empowered to do, and as she told the Committee she could do on March 9th ( 14 of transcript above 1650 mark) and on May 7th (pp. 3 and 5 of transcript)? NOTE: The RCMP and Commissioner are currently violating the Access to Information Act by hiding their investigation records in these cases, and the Information Commissioner is investigating their violations.

6.  A federal Crown prosecutor told the RCMP sometime after January 2018 that the key “significant time of duties” lobbying registration provision of the Lobbying Act was unenforceable and so no lobbyist would ever be prosecuted for violating that provision (Click here for details). Did the RCMP tell Commissioner Bélanger that information and, if so, when did the RCMP tell her?

7.  Commissioner Bélanger has told the Ethics Committee several times that the biggest loophole in the Act is that it doesn’t cover unpaid lobbying, and “that should be changed” (October 6, 2025, 13 above and below 1220 mark) and is “something that we should be looking into” (March 9th, p. 5 of transcript above 1600 mark and pp. 6-7, 13-14).  So why didn’t Commissioner Bélanger recommend closing this biggest loophole in her submission to the Committee?

8.  In addition to the huge unpaid lobbying loophole, is it true that the Act does not require you to to register as a lobbyist if:

a.  You lobby about “the enforcement, interpretation or application of any Act of Parliament or regulation” (clause 4(2)(b) of the Act) which is what much business lobbying is about?

b.  You lobby for a tax credit (according to an interpretation bulletin issued by former Commissioner Shepherd that Commissioner Bélanger has not clearly repealed) which, again, is something businesses often lobby about?

c.  You lobby political party officials who then pass on your demands to the party leader and Cabinet ministers (or opposition critics)?

So why didn’t Commissioner Bélanger recommend closing these secret lobbying loopholes in her submission to the Committee?

9.  Is it also true that, if you register as a lobbyist, the Act does not require you to disclose whether you have fundraised or campaigned for or assisted politicians or political parties or party leaders in other significant ways, nor do you have to disclose how much your business, organization or client is spending on its lobbying effort? So why didn’t Commissioner Bélanger recommend closing these secret, unethical lobbying loopholes in her submission to the Committee?

10.  ls it true that people who come to the federal government under the Build Canada Exchange program (formerly the Interchange Canada program) are exempt from the five-year ban on being a registered lobbyist when they return to their business after working in government? And doesn’t that exemption, combined with the many loopholes that allow for unregistered lobbying, mean that there really is no five-year ban on lobbying by former public office holders?

Commissioner Bélanger’s and the RCMP’s negligently bad enforcement records make it clear that many changes are needed to the Act to require the Commissioner and the RCMP to enforce the Act and Lobbyists’ Code strictly, strongly, effectively and transparently (in addition to closing a “dirty dozen” secret lobbying loopholes in the Act, and closing unethical lobbying loopholes in the Code).

“Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger has a horribly negligent and weak enforcement record and has let thousands of lobbyists violate the federal lobbying law and code in serious ways without identifying the lobbyists publicly or penalizing them, and she also gutted the ethical lobbying code in ways that allow for unethical lobbying,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To stop rampant secret, unethical lobbying, the House Ethics Committee’s current review of the lobbying law must result in recommendations that call for closing all the loopholes in the law and code, and requiring the Commissioner to enforce the law and code strictly, strongly, effectively and transparently, including imposing a penalty on every lobbyist who violates the law or code.”

– 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 Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign, Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Open Government Campaign

Despite high voter concern about democracy and trust, all parties fail to promise many needed changes to have effective democracy, government ethics and accountability in British Columbia

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, October 23, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch issued its Report Card on the B.C. Parties’ 2026 Democracy and Accountability Platforms (To see the criteria and grading system used to assess the parties, click here).

The Green Party received a C the best grade of bad overall grades in the Report Card — Conservatives receive a D, and the NDP an F.

However, voters should adjust all the grades down because past elections have shown that a Dishonesty Downgrade of one full grade is justified given usually only half of all promises are kept because of the lack of an honesty-in-politics law which is needed to effectively penalize promise-breakers and misleaders.

Many surveys over the past decade have shown that a large majority of voters do not trust politicians, and want honesty, ethics, lobbying, open government and other key reforms to stop politicians from abusing their power.  Unfortunately, all the B.C. parties are largely ignoring the many changes that the large majority of voters want.

“All the B.C. parties have failed to respond to high voter concern about democracy and trust issues so the party leaders should not be surprised by the lack of support they will receive from voters on election day and no one should be surprised by likely low voter turnout,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “One can only hope that the parties will actually address these concerns when the legislature opens again so that everyone in B.C. politics will finally be effectively required to act honestly, ethically, openly, representatively and to prevent waste.”

The Greens had their best grade of B in the area of Representative Government as they promised to change B.C.’s voting system to a proportional system, and to consult with the public in many policy areas, and to implement the report of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform (although its report was weak and failed to address many problems that make B.C. elections undemocratic and unfair).  The Greens also had a B in the area of General Accountability as they promised to increase accountability in several areas.

The Conservatives also had their best grade of B in the area of General Accountability as they also promised to increase promised to increase accountability in several areas. ndp also had their best grade of C- in the area of General Accountability as they also promised to increase promised to increase accountability in a few areas.

– 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 Campaign page

Democracy Watch’s Report Card on the Main B.C. Parties’ 2026 Democracy and Accountability Platforms

Sources

To see the criteria and grading system used to assess the parties’ platforms, click here

Lorne Doerkson’s Conservative Party of BC platform webpage
(NOTE: See in the platform PDF re: Representative Government page 27 (Re-establish the Small Business Roundtable), 30 (restore Premier’s Technology Council), 44 (Pass a Respect Local Democracy Act).  See re: Efficient Government and General Accountability pages 6 (home-building processes, childcare spaces), 9 (budget transparency), 10-11 (capital plan audit, competitive bidding), 13-14 (cut red tape, streamlining government), 17 (speed up permits, common-sense forest management), 19 (cut agricultural red tape, protect farm water), 20-21 (mine permit and approval timelines, defend BC mines, Expand First Nations participation, maintain high environmental, safety and reclamation standards), 24 (listen to fishing communities), 25 (tracking emissions accurately, manage wildlife responsibly, sustainable environmental protections), 27 (make trucking safety a priority), 29 (Review current fleet renewal contracts, Establish a BC Ferries Passenger Charter of Rights), 30 (Responsible AI strategy), 32 (Protect universal public health care and introduce a Universal Health-Care Guarantee, Launch the 100-day Patients First review), 36 (independent review of the Mental Health Act), 39-40 (Implement an Anti-Extortion Action Plan, Speed up justice)

Emily Lowan’s BC Green Party platform webpage
(NOTE: See in the platform PDF re: Honest, Ethical Government, Open Government, and Representative Government the brief list on pages 71-72 (and the relatively weak report of the Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform which the Greens promise to implement).  See re: Efficient Government and General Accountability pages 12 (grocery transparency), 22 (Health Governance), 24-25 (review of Mental Health Act and accountability mechanisms), 31 (Post-secondary school funding and system changes), 33 (police and justice system accountability measures), 35 (social work regulation), 38-39 (review of monopolies, environmental standards, tax reforms), 40 (employment standards review, pay transparency), 49 (ban on surveillance pricing, AI regulation, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act reform), 51 (tax enforcement), 54-55 (Indigenous peoples’ rights enforcement), 57-60 (climate change and electricity system regulation enforcement), 62 (forestry regulation), 66 (farmland protection regulation), 67-68 (clean air protection regulation), 70 (water protection regulation))

David Eby’s B.C. NDP platform webpage
(NOTE: The only measures in the NDP’s platform that address democracy or accountability issues are in the area of General Accountability – the proposals in the section entitled “Your Costs” re: stopping oil and gas price gouging (which don’t say how this will be done) and capping grocery store profits, and banning surveillance pricing, and the environmental protection proposals in the “Your Environment” section)

Too many questions, government-drafted questions, misleading questions, no court review of questions, government spending, flaws in donation and spending rules, lack of foreign interference and disinformation protections and lack of quorum all make the process undemocratic and unfair

Assumption should be that voters who do not vote would have voted “No” on each question, as not voting indicates they are not interested in having the change made that is proposed in the question

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 15, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, with voting day for Alberta’s 10 referendums coming up on Monday, October 19th, and advance voting already started, Democracy Watch’s analysis concludes that the process for the referendums is undemocratic and unfair in a dozen key ways.

Democracy Watch’s position is that referendums can be a good complement to Canada’s parliamentary system, and that the barriers to voters initiating a referendum should not be excessively high.  However, as with elections, the referendum process must be structured in very specific ways to be democratic and fair, and the Alberta government has failed in many ways to ensure a democratic and fair process.

In 1991, Democracy Watch’s Co-founder Duff Conacher, PhD (Law), wrote one of the first academic articles analyzing and proposing almost 90 key measures for a democratic, fair referendum process.

“Allowing voters to have their say through referendums doesn’t automatically make the process democratic and fair, and Alberta’s process is undemocratic and unfair in many key ways,” said Conacher.  “Too many questions, government-drafted questions, misleading questions, no court review of the questions, government spending, undemocratic flaws in donation and spending rules, lack of foreign interference and disinformation protections and the lack of a quorum all make Alberta’s referendum process undemocratic and unfair.”

The lack of a quorum means that a low voter turnout on any of the 10 referendum questions will result in essentially no legitimate mandate for government action on the issue addressed by any of the questions.  The assumption should be that voters who do not vote would have voted “No” on each question, as not voting indicates they are not interested in having the change made that is proposed in each question.

In an election under a first-past-the-post system like Canada uses, low voter turnout does not indicate such a clear lack of interest in who wins because voters in any riding that is consistently “safe” for one party (and there are many such ridings) have a rational reason for not voting (whether they are voting for or against the candidate of the party that always wins).

In contrast, in a referendum if a voter wants the “Yes” side to win they have no rational reason for not voting.  And voters who have no interest in the change made that is proposed in a referendum question express their lack of support for the change fairly clearly by not voting on the question.

“Undemocratic and unfair referendums should not be used to manipulate voters and further a government’s agenda, in the same way that using undemocratic and unfair processes in the legislature like omnibus bills and debate closure, and prorogations and snap election calls, should not be used to manipulate members of the legislature and voters in order to further a ruling party’s agenda,” said Conacher.  “The laws that set out the rules for referendum processes at the federal level, and in several provinces, have the same loopholes and flaws as Alberta’s laws, and referendums should not held anywhere in Canada until these loopholes are closed and flaws corrected.”

Click here to see details about the 12 key ways that Alberta’s process for the 10 referendums is undemocratic and unfair, and facilitates 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 Democratic Voting Systems Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Foreign Interference Campaign and Stop Disinformation and Misinformation Campaign

SCC will decide whether a government can shield its decisions from existing laws and court review and whether Ontario Place is a protected “public trust”?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 14, 2026

TORONTO – A coalition of four citizen organizations – Ontario Place for All (OP4All), Toronto Field Naturalists, Democracy Watch, and the National Trust for Canada – will be intervening tomorrow in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) by Ontario Place Protectors (OPP) challenging the decision by the Ontario provincial government to destroy Ontario Place and replace it with a spa.

The appeal (File #41805), will be heard by the SCC tomorrow, Thursday, October 15, 2026 beginning at 9 am EDT.  Click here and then click on Webcasts to watch the hearing online.  The coalition is represented by Jackie Esmonde, Sydney Lang and Clémence Thabet of the law firm Cavalluzzo LLP.

The appeal focuses on whether a government can shield its decisions and development of land from the requirements of existing laws and court review, and whether Ontario Place is a protected “public trust”.

In 2023, OP4All launched a judicial review of the Ontario government’s Ontario Place redevelopment decisions.  Before the case could be heard, the government passed the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act (ROPA), a law that effectively extinguished OP4All’s ability to proceed. OP4All’s case was dismissed right after the legislation passed.

Ontario Place Protectors (OPP) then challenged ROPA in court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it essentially removes the public’s right to challenge any decisions of the government concerning Ontario Place under existing environmental and heritage protection laws and generally through court cases.  As a result, it shields the government’s decisions from review by the courts.

OPP also argued that there is, or should be, a legal “public trust doctrine” in Canada that protects land like Ontario Place that has environmental, ecological, historical and cultural significance.

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s March 11, 2025 ruling rejected both of those arguments.  The SCC approved OPP’s application to appeal on January 8, 2026.

The coalition’s factum agrees with OPP’s position that ROPA is unconstitutional, and that a “public trust doctrine” should be established and applied to protect Ontario Place and similar significant heritage properties.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine how far any government in Canada can go in carving out exemptions from environmental, heritage, and public participation law for projects it favours politically,” said Ann Elisabeth Samson, Co-Chair of Ontario Place for All.

“The Supreme Court has an opportunity to restore Canadians’ right to protest and prevent governments from arbitrarily restricting those rights to push controversial projects through without adequate environmental and heritage oversight,” said Lynn Miller, President of Toronto Field Naturalists.

“The Supreme Court will hopefully strike down the law that Doug Ford’s government enacted to destroy Ontario Place because it is dangerously undemocratic and gives him and his cabinet unconstitutional, king-like powers to bulldoze an important historical site without review under environmental or heritage laws, and unconstitutionally blocks the public from challenging the government’s actions in court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Legal approaches similar to those used in the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, overriding established protections for heritage and the environment, are now being used to advance projects elsewhere. The precedent established in this case, if unchallenged, would have devastating consequences for heritage places across the country,” said Dr. Patricia Kell, CEO of The National Trust for Canada.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher
Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 416-546-3443

Ann Elisabeth Samson
Co-Chair, Ontario Place for All
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 647-880-8237

Lynn Miller
President, Toronto Field Naturalists
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 647-828-5966

Dr. Patricia Kell
CEO, The National Trust for Canada
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 613-237-1066

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

At least 5,000 were serious violations (likely more) – all have been let off in secret rulings without the lobbyist being identified, and without any penalty

Commissioner and the RCMP illegally hiding their investigation records in 13 cases of the most serious violations

Commissioner also gutted key rules in the lobbying code in ways that allow for unethical lobbying

House Ethics Committee must recommend many key changes to close loopholes in the law and code, and to require effective enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 1, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its report on Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger’s negligently weak enforcement record of the federal Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct since she started in the position in January 2018 through to the end of March 2026.  Given her incredibly bad record, it was negligent for federal parties to have re-appointed her to a second term as Commissioner in November 2024.

The House Ethics Committee is currently conducting an illegally long-overdue review of the Lobbying Act for the first time since 2012 (the Act is required to be reviewed by a committee every five years), and its report (which will likely be released in November) clearly needs to call on the government to close huge loopholes in the Act and Code that allow for secret lobbying, and unethical lobbying, and to require independent, timely, transparent, effective and accountable enforcement, including public rulings and mandatory penalties for all violations.

A national survey in January 2025 showed that more than 80% of Canadian voters want all secret, unethical lobbying stopped.

Commissioner Bélanger, in testimony on October 6, 2025 before the House of Commons Ethics Committee, admitted that she allows up to 10 violations of the Lobbying Act every week by lobbyists who fail to disclose their lobbying activities by the required deadlines (See p. 17 of testimony just above the 1245 mark, and p. 19 at the top of the second column).  And in her testimony before the Ethics Committee on May 7, 2026 she admitted that she lets off many violations (8% of all registrations in 2025-2026 were late in violation of the Act and she let them all off – see p. 3 of testimony above the 1545 mark).

Democracy Watch’s 32-page report details that:

1. Commissioner Bélanger has let off 99.99% (31,803 out of 31,806) of the lobbyists she has caught violating the Act or Code with a secret ruling that hid the identity of the violating lobbyist and did not penalize the violator in any way, according to her annual reports (and she has likely issued even more secret rulings letting off lobbyists that she has not disclosed).

2.  For all 31,806 violations, Commissioner Bélanger could have issued a public ruling identifying and finding the lobbyist guilty of violating the Lobbyists’ Code as a former Commissioner did in a past case, and as the Commissioner acknowledged in her Feb. 2024 ruling finding a lobbyist in violation of the Code, because violating the Act is a violation of the Code. While it is reasonable that the Commissioner allowed lobbyists who violated the Act one time in a less serious way to just take corrective action, she also let off lobbyists involved in at least 5,054 significant violations, such as failing to register and disclose lobbying for more than 30 days (many up to 6 months late), filing significantly inaccurate registrations and/or failing to correct inaccurate registrations for up to 6 months.

3.  There are very likely many more significant violations of the Lobbying Act out of the 31,806 total violations. Many of Commissioner Bélanger’s annual reports hide details about exactly how many significant violations there have been each year since 2018. As well, there is no evidence in the reports that the Commissioner is proactively enforcing the ethical lobbying rules in the Lobbyists’ Code and, as a result, there are likely many more violations of the Code happening that are not being caught.

4. In addition, Commissioner Bélanger and the RCMP are both currently violating the Access to Information Act (ATIA) by hiding their investigation records in 13 cases of the most serious violations of the Lobbying Act that they both let go without any charges or penalties, including violations by lobbyists for SNC-Lavalin, and likely also including violations by lobbyists for Facebook, WE Charity and others that would have embarrassed the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet. Click here to see details.  The federal Information Commissioner’s office confirmed in February 2026 that investigating the Commissioner and the RCMP for violating the ATIA, but seven months have passed and still no one in the office has been assigned to investigate.

5. As well, Commissioner Bélanger let off two lobbyists who clearly violated the Code by helping Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland win an election, and serving on her riding association executive, and then lobbying her office and department soon afterwards. Click here to see details.

6. Of the 19 total cases of some of the most serious violations of the Lobbying Act that Commissioner Bélanger referred to the RCMP for prosecution, the RCMP has let off 94% (15 out of 16) of the lobbyists. As of March 2026, the RCMP had 3 other cases still under investigation.

7. A federal Crown prosecutor told the RCMP sometime after January 2018 that one key provision of the Lobbying Act was unenforceable and so no lobbyist would ever be prosecuted for violating that provision. Did the RCMP tell the Commissioner, or the government, or anyone, that obviously key information about a huge loophole in the Act?

8. Commissioner Bélanger also gutted key rules in the Code in 2023 in ways that allow for rampant unethical lobbying, ignoring the opposition to the changes from a coalition of 26 citizen groups with 1.5 million total supporters, and 41 lawyers and professors from across Canada, and 20,000+ voters. Click here for details.

9. Commissioner Bélanger has also used her power from January 2018 to April 2026 to grant 30 exemptions to the (loophole-filled) 5-year prohibition on lobbying after leaving public office.

As a result of Commissioner Bélanger doing essentially nothing effective to stop thousands of lobbyists from failing to register their lobbying on time, and accurately, and letting them get away with registering for up to 6 months after they started lobbying, almost all media reports over the past 8 years about “who is lobbying whom” in federal politics are very likely inaccurate.

Commissioner Bélanger’s and the RCMP’s negligently bad enforcement records makes it clear that many changes are needed to the Act to require the Commissioner and the RCMP to enforce the Act and Lobbyists’ Code strictly, strongly, effectively and transparently (in addition to closing a “dirty dozen” secret lobbying loopholes in the Act, and closing unethical lobbying loopholes in the Code).

“Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger has a horribly negligent and weak enforcement record and has let thousands of lobbyists violate the federal lobbying law and code in serious ways without identifying the lobbyists publicly or penalizing them, and she also gutted the code in ways that allow for unethical lobbying,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To stop rampant secret, unethical lobbying, the House Ethics Committee’s current review of the lobbying law must result in recommendations that call for closing all the loopholes in the law and code, and requiring the Commissioner to enforce the law and code strictly, strongly, effectively and transparently, including imposing a penalty on every lobbyist who violates the law or code.”

The 13 violations Commissioner Bélanger and the RCMP are currently hiding include, in at least one of the 13 cases, lobbying by SNC-Lavalin lobbyists during the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin scandal, likely by former PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch that was not registered by SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce (click here to see DWatch’s March 2019 complaint), and by SNC-Lavalin lawyer Robert Pritchard and others.  The violations also likely include the following situations that have never been ruled on publicly by the Commissioner:

1. The unregistered lobbying and favours for Trudeau Liberal 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 of Trudeau Liberal Cabinet ministers from January 2019 to August 2020, and the trip gifts they gave to former Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his family;

3. 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, and/or;

4. The lobbying done by associates of Jenni Byrne, then at top adviser to Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre.

– 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 Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign, Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Open Government Campaign

Media and voters should ask all candidates key questions re: disclosure of donors, fundraisers, campaigners and whether they support key democratic, fair election reforms

Changes needed to effectively require everyone in municipal politics to be honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing

Click here to see a list of key questions you can easily send to your municipal election candidates

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, September 24, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, with Ontario municipal voting day coming up on October 26th, and advance voting starting in a couple of weeks (on different dates depending on the municipality), Democracy Watch called on the media and voters to ask key questions of all candidates across the province, and to demand that candidates disclose key information that voters have a right to know before they vote, and to pledge to resign if they break any of their election promises, and to pledge to push for key changes to make Ontario’s municipal elections actually democratic and fair.

“Municipal elections across Ontario are undemocratic and unfair because candidates are allowed to mislead voters with false election promises and statements, the system favours wealthy candidates who have wealthy supporters as donating huge amounts of money to your own campaign or a third-party interest group advertising blitz is allowed, and voters are denied the right to know, before they vote, who is bankrolling and fundraising and campaigning for candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “Voters are also forced to choose only one out of a dizzying number of candidates instead of being allowed to rank them and have the candidate who is supported the most by the most voters win.”

“The media and voters should be asking key questions of all the candidates before advanced voting begins so that voters have key information they need to make an informed vote,” said Conacher.

Ontario’s municipal elections are undemocratic and unfair, and facilitate foreign interference, in the following key ways:

I. Misleading voters is legal

1. Candidates and third parties (interest groups and individuals who are trying to affect the election results) are allowed to lie to voters in their election promises and statements about candidates or anything else;

II. Tilted in favour of wealthy candidates who have wealthy donors

1. A candidate and their spouse are allowed, together, to donate to the candidate’s campaign a total of $7,500 + 20 cents per voter in the municipality (for a mayoral candidate), or $5,000 + 20 cents per voter in the ward (for a council candidate) up to a maximum of $25,000, which is much more than most candidates can afford (Democracy Watch’s research at the federal level and in Ontario shows a large majority of voters donate only $75 on average);
2. Donors are allowed to donate up to $1,200 to a municipal council or local board candidate (and up to $5,000 to the candidates for any one council or local board), and up to $2,500 to a Toronto mayoral candidate, which is much more than an average voter can afford;

III.  Tilted in favour of wealthy “third-party” interest groups who have wealthy donors, and wealthy “third-party” individuals, and the candidates they support

1. Third parties are not even required to register (and be subject to donation limits, spending limits and donor and spending disclosure requirements) if they are only doing ads about issues (only third parties who do ads promoting or opposing candidates are required to register – click here to see section 1 definition of “third party advertisement”);
2. There is a $1,200 limit on donations to third parties (to a maximum combined total of $5,000), which is much more than an average voter can afford;
3. The same spending limit applies to an individual who is a third party and a third-party group with thousands of members, which allows a wealthy individual to spend as much as thousands of voters;

IV.  No disclosure of who is fundraising, campaigning or donating

1. Candidates are not required to disclose who is raising money for them, and people raising money are not required to disclose they are doing it nor how much they raised, even if they are lobbyists;
2. Candidates are not required to disclose who is campaigning for them, not even top level people, even if they are lobbyists;
3. Candidates are not required to disclose donations before voters vote (donor disclosure is only required months after voting day);
4. Third parties are not required to disclose how much they spent, nor who funded them, before voters vote (disclosure is only required months after voting day;

V. Voting system allows candidate to win with small % of vote

1. Because of the lack of a ranked ballot or run-off voting system, theoretically one the multiple candidates for many mayoral and municipal council elections could win the election with the support of only a small percentage of voters;

“Like federal, provincial and territorial elections, and politics, Ontario’s municipal elections and politics need to be cleaned up in many key ways to make elections democratic and fair, and to ensure everyone is required to be honest, ethical, transparent and waste-preventing, and to make representative decisions,” said Conacher.

Click here to see the top 10 key changes to make Ontario’s municipal governments best-practice democratic governments (similar changes are needed to the key democracy laws that apply to municipalities across Canada), plus the additional change of cancelling Ontario’s strong mayor powers system that the Ford PC Party government enacted because it is fundamentally undemocratic.

A final key question to ask all candidates is: do you support key changes to Ontario‘s laws to require everyone to municipal politics to be honest, ethical, transparent, and to make representative decisions and prevent waste?

– 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 Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a very important expansion of the public’s right to access to justice and government accountability overall

Stage 2 of DWatch’s case will now proceed challenging Ethics Commissioner’s ruling on former PM Trudeau violating the ethics law in WE Charity grant approval

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, July 30, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch applauded the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous ruling on the Stage 1 appeal (SCC file #41576) in the court case it filed in June 2021.  The case challenges former federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling letting off former Prime Minister Trudeau even though participated in the WE Charity grant approval process where his spouse volunteered.

Democracy Watch was represented at the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the Stage 1 appeal by Sujit Choudhry of Circle Barristers and Paul Daly, Professor and Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.

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

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

The FCA subsequently issued a ruling in October 2024 that did not decide the partial privative clause issue but, instead, concluded (in paras. 79-92) that the Ethics Commissioner operates under Parliament and, therefore, appeals of errors of facts and law in Ethics Commissioner rulings should be filed with the Prime Minister and Parliament.  The SCC approved DWatch’s appeal application in spring 2025, and the appeal was heard on January 14-15, 2026 in Ottawa.

Democracy Watch’s legal arguments (and reply arguments) at the SCC contended that the Parliament of Canada Act states clearly that the Ethics Commissioner does not operate under Parliament when enforcing the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), and that Parliament has no legal role in reviewing the Commissioner’s rulings.  As the FCA acknowledged in its ruling, the Commissioner was established in 2004 to take decision-making power on alleged violations away from partisan politicians.

In addition, DWatch (and the eight citizen organizations that intervened in the SCC appeal – click here and see list under “Parties” tab) argued that it is essential under the Constitution and the rule of law principle that the courts can review decisions of tribunals like the Ethics Commissioner to ensure they are enforcing laws properly and that, as a result, partial privative clauses are unconstitutional.

The SCC ruled unanimously that privative clauses are unconstitutional (paras. 6-8, 37-38, 39-76 and 86), setting a precedent that will allow for court cases across Canada that challenge errors in the rulings of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the statute that governs it.

“In a powerful set of historically informed, carefully crafted reasons by Chief Justice Wagner that will be read across Canada and the common law world the Supreme Court has unanimously confirmed that all Canadians have a constitutionally protected right to go to court to challenge unlawful government action,” said Paul Daly, co-counsel for Democracy Watch, Professor and Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. “This decision skillfully weaves together common law tradition and Canadian constitutional principle to make clear that judicial review is the ultimate safeguard against arbitrary exercises of state power, with Canada’s superior courts and federal courts as its guardians.”

“In an era where executives around the world have sought to assert broad and unlimited powers that are not reviewable by the courts, the Supreme Court of Canada has resoundingly proclaimed that will not occur in Canada. In clear and unequivocal terms, the Supreme Court has affirmed legal powers, by definition, are limited powers, and that it is the constitutional duty of the provincial superior courts and the federal courts to rule on the legality of executive power,” said Sujit Choudhry of Circle Barristers, co-counsel for Democracy Watch. “The Supreme Court’s decision is of global significance, and will be closely studied by courts around the world. Privative clauses are now unconstitutional because they interfere with the power of courts to perform this solemn constitutional duty.”

The SCC’s unanimous ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case also sets a precedent (paras. 16, 22-38 and 77-88) that allows DWatch’s Stage 2 case to proceed challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s Trudeau-WE Charity ruling, and also allows future cases challenging future Ethics Commissioner rulings.  Click here to see the Backgrounder summarizing the four key errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling on the Trudeau-WE Charity scandal.

“In the particular context of the Conflict of Interest Act, the Chief Justice’s reasons strongly emphasize the importance of court oversight of the legality of decisions made by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner without underplaying the important role of parliamentarians in also contributing to the maintenance of the highest ethical standards in federal public administration. It is a great day for the rule of law in this country,” said Daly.

“The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner’s decisions are no different than those of any other administrative decision-maker. While Parliament may ultimately determine the consequences of a breach of the Conflict of Interest Act, the Federal Court of Appeal has the power to ensure the Commissioner acts lawfully,” said Choudhry.

“Democracy Watch applauds the Supreme Court of Canada for ending a long-standing dispute over a key legal issue and setting a clear precedent that allows all future cases challenging errors in rulings by the Ethics Commissioner and, by extension, all agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals across Canada, which is a great victory for access to justice across the country that will help ensure that all administrative law entities uphold and enforce the law properly,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“The Prime Minister, premiers and Cabinets across Canada often appoint unqualified people, sometimes mainly because they are ruling-party supporters, as lapdogs to head up agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals, and have also shielded them from lawsuits even when they fail to properly enforce key laws that are aimed at stopping abuses of power by those same politicians and government officials, as well as laws that protect Canadian’s human rights, and the rights of consumers, workers, tenants, social welfare recipients, immigrants and many others, and protect communities and the environment,” said Conacher.  “It is very important for the public’s right of access to justice, and for government accountability overall, that the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that public has a clear right to challenge these agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals in court whenever their rulings contain serious errors.”

“Democracy Watch also applauds the Supreme Court for overturning the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling and allowing its case to proceed challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that let off Prime Minister Trudeau for violating the federal government ethics law by participating in the WE Charity grant approval,” said Conacher.  “It is an important step in government ethics accountability that the Supreme Court made it clear that, in direct contrast to the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling, that having appeals of errors in a ruling by the Ethics Commissioner go to the Prime Minister and MPs is not allowed under the federal government’s ethics law and also does not make sense, especially when the ruling, as in this case, involves the Prime Minister who would have been judging his own actions.”

– 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 Fraud Politician Spending Campaign

Appeal issues are can a government can shield its decisions from existing laws and court review, and is Ontario Place a protected “public trust”?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, July 16, 2026

TORONTO – A coalition of four citizen organizations – Ontario Place for All (OP4All), Toronto Field Naturalists, Democracy Watch, and the National Trust for Canada – has been approved to intervene in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) by Ontario Place Protectors (OPP) challenging the decision by Premier Doug Ford’s government to destroy Ontario Place and replace it with a spa.

The appeal (File #41805), which will be heard by the SCC on October 15, 2026, focuses on whether a government can shield its decisions and development of land from the requirements of existing laws and court review, and whether Ontario Place is a protected “public trust”. The coalition is represented by Jackie Esmonde, Sydney Lang and Clémence Thabet of the law firm Cavalluzzo LLP.

In 2023, OP4All launched a judicial review of the Ontario government’s Ontario Place redevelopment decisions.  Before the case could be heard, the Ford government passed the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act (ROPA), a law that effectively extinguished OP4All’s ability to proceed. OP4All’s case was dismissed right after the legislation passed.

OPP then challenged ROPA in court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it essentially removes the public’s right to challenge any decisions of the government concerning Ontario Place under existing environmental and heritage protection laws and generally through court cases and, as a result, shields the government’s decisions from review by the courts.

OPP also argued that there is, or should be, a legal “public trust doctrine” in Canada that protects land like Ontario Place that has environmental, ecological, historical and cultural significance.

The ONCA’s March 11, 2025 ruling rejected both of those arguments.  The SCC approved OPP’s application to appeal on January 8, 2026.

The coalition’s factum supports OPP’s position that ROPA is unconstitutional, and that a “public trust doctrine” should be established and applied to protect Ontario Place and similar significant heritage properties.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine how far any government in Canada can go in carving out exemptions from environmental, heritage, and public participation law for projects it favours politically,” said Ann Elisabeth Samson, Co-Chair of Ontario Place for All.

“The Supreme Court has an opportunity to restore Canadians’ right to protest and prevent governments from arbitrarily restricting those rights to push controversial projects through without adequate environmental and heritage oversight,” said Lynn Miller, President of Toronto Field Naturalists.

“The Supreme Court will hopefully strike down the law that Doug Ford’s government enacted to destroy Ontario Place because it is dangerously undemocratic and gives him and his cabinet unconstitutional, king-like powers to bulldoze an important historical site without review under environmental or heritage laws, and unconstitutionally blocks the public from challenging the government’s actions in court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Legal approaches similar to those used in the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, overriding established protections for heritage and the environment, are now being used to advance projects elsewhere. The precedent established in this case, if unchallenged, would have devastating consequences for heritage places across the country,” said Dr. Patricia Kell, CEO of The National Trust for Canada.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Duff Conacher
Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 416-546-3443

Ann Elisabeth Samson
Co-Chair, Ontario Place for All
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 647-880-8237

Lynn Miller
President, Toronto Field Naturalists
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 647-828-5966

Dr. Patricia Kell
CEO, The National Trust for Canada
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 613-237-1066

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

Committee even ignores Attorney General’s commitment to close “astro-turf” lobbying loophole in the law

Even worse, Committee calls for new loopholes to be added to the law – the loopholes also make secret foreign interference in B.C. politics easy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, June 23, 2026

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch called on the B.C. NDP government to ignore the report of the Special Committee on the Lobbyists Transparency Act because it failed to recommend closing the many loopholes that allow for secret, unethical lobbying at the provincial and municipal level across B.C., and it actually called for new loopholes to be added to the lobbying law.

Last September, Democracy Watch filed a 26-page submission with the Special Committee during its public consultation phase that detailed all the loopholes in B.C.’s lobbying law, and set out 30 key measures needed to stop secret, unethical lobbying.

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

The Special Committee released its report on April 22nd, and failed to recommend closing even one of many secret, unethical lobbying loopholes in the law.

The Special Committee even ignored the commitment by B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma made in October 2024 to close the loophole in the law that does not require registration and disclosure of campaigns that appeal to voters to contact provincial politicians to call for the changes the lobbyist wants, campaigns that often pretend to be grassroots and citizen-driven but are actually “astro-turf” campaigns backed by businesses. The commitment was made after CBC and the Investigative Journalism Foundation jointly revealed such an astro-turf campaign in B.C.The federal government and Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, P.E.I., Quebec, Saskatchewan and, for in-house organization lobbying only, the Yukon Territory all have rules that require disclosure of such “grassroots” campaigns.

Even worse, the Committee recommended the following changes to the law that will increase the size of several secret, unethical lobbying loopholes in the law:

• allow staff at any organization to lobby up to 50 hours without disclosing their lobbying (Recs. 1-2 — currently only small organizations that do not primarily lobby for their members/supporters interests are allowed to lobby in secret for up to 50 hours);
• allow secret lobbying re: contracts with government institutions (Recs. 5-6);
• remove the requirement to report details of each lobbying communication and instead only require summaries of the number and topics of communications (Rec. 11);
• extend the deadline for registering lobbying from 10 days after the lobbying activity to 60 days (Rec. 9), and change monthly reporting to quarterly (Rec. 10) and change monthly reporting of gifts given to office holders to quarterly reporting (Rec. 15);
• remove the requirement to register if you arrange meetings with office holders (Rec. 13);
• remove the requirement to report gifts promised to office holders (Rec. 14 — only gifts given would be required to be reported);
• remove the limit on wining and dining politicians (Rec. 18 — meaning remove the limit on the gift of hospitality).

“B.C.’s lobbying law allows for secret, unethical lobbying and legalized bribery that corrupts policy-making by the provincial government and municipal councils and leads to decisions that protect private interests, ignore voters’ concerns, waste the public’s money, and harm the environment and cities and towns across the province, and facilitates secret foreign interference in B.C. politics” said Duff Conacher, PhD and Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“The committee’s recommendations ignore huge loopholes in the law that allow for secret, unethical lobbying that corrupts government decision-making processes and, even worse, the committee calls for changes that will increase the size of the loopholes which will increase the amount of unethical, secretive favour-trading and deals between lobbyists and the provincial government, and also facilitate more secret foreign interference in B.C. politics,” said Conacher.

“The committee also ignored the ongoing problem of secret, unethical lobbying of municipal governments across B.C., and made no recommendations about extending the law to cover local government lobbying,” said Conacher.

B.C.’s lobbying law has the following huge loopholes that allow for secret, unethical lobbying at the provincial and municipal levels (and these loopholes also allow for secret foreign interference in B.C. politics):

1. The law only applies to lobbying of provincial politicians and government officials. Surrey and Kelowna have set up lobbying registries, but other municipalities in the province haven’t.  The province should establish a province-wide municipal registry to ensure best-practice lobbying disclosure and ethics requirements across the province.
2. Lobbyists are allowed to fundraise and campaign for, and assist in other ways, politicians they are lobbying (which is essentially legalized bribery), because B.C.’s lobbying law does not prohibit this (lobbyists are only required to comply with some non-governmental organization’s code of conduct);
3. While lobbyists can only give gifts worth $100 annually to provincial politicians and officials, they can give unlimited gifts to nomination contestants, and to political party officials and party leadership contestants who are not an MLA (which is also essentially legalized bribery);
4. Unpaid lobbying is not required to be disclosed;
5. Lobbying in response to a written request from a politician, political staff person or government official is not required to be disclosed;
6. Lobbying by a business or organization with fewer than six employees who collectively lobby less than 50 hours a year is not required to be disclosed (unless the organization’s primary purpose is advocacy, and then it is required to register all of its lobbying);
7. Lobbying of provincial political party officials (who can easily pass on the lobbyist’s message to party leaders) is not required to be disclosed;
8. Lobbying of an enforcement agency that oversees a business or organization is not required to be disclosed;
9. “Grassroots” appeals to voters to contact politicians to call for changes the lobbyist wants do not have to be registered to disclose who is backing the appeal;
10. The amount spent on a lobbying effort (including the amount paid to “hired gun” consultant lobbyists) is not required to be disclosed;
11. Only donations of $1,000 or more to a lobby group are required to be disclosed;
12. The loopholes that allow for secret lobbying mean that the limits on gifts do not apply to lobbyists who are not required to register, and there is not actually a prohibition on Cabinet ministers and top government officials lobbying for 2 years after they leave office (it is only a prohibition on doing registrable lobbying – also, the prohibition should be for at least 5 years).

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret Unethical Lobbying Campaign and World’s Best Democracy Fund