UK Supreme Court set strong precedent by ruling in 2019 that PM Boris Johnson shutting down Parliament was illegal because it violated the sovereignty of Parliament

Case is not to overturn election results – just for ruling that future snap election calls will be illegal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 24, 2022

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that its appeal of its lawsuit challenging Premier Blaine Higgs’ advice in August 2020 to the Lieutenant Governor to call the provincial snap election is being heard by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal today in Fredericton (File no. 126-21-CA – hearing at 10 am at: Courtroom #6, 427 Queen St). Jamie Simpson is providing legal counsel to Democracy Watch for the court case.

The case is not aimed at overturning the 2020 election results. Instead, Democracy Watch is arguing the court should declare that Premier Higgs’ action:

1. violated the fixed election date measure in the Legislative Assembly Act (ss. 3(4));
2. violated the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and responsible government (for this reason, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of the British Parliament was illegal), and;
3. violated the constitutional convention that has been created by premiers calling elections only on the fixed date in 2010, 2014 and 2018.

New Brunswick’s legislature enacted its fixed election date measures with Bill 75 in 2007. Then-House Leader Stuart Jamieson said at the time that: “It was thought by both parties in the legislature and by other provinces that it would be better to remove the political nuances and give everybody a fair and even playing field.” Bill 62 in 2017 changed the fixed election date from September to October. The fixed date for the next provincial election was set for the third Monday in October 2022.

“By calling a snap election during a pandemic instead of waiting for the fixed election date in 2022, Premier Higgs acted like an old-school power-hungry politician, not a leader committed to fair and democratic elections and inter-party cooperation,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Premier Higgs’ snap election call was self-interested and unfair, and it violated New Brunswick’s provincial law that fixed election dates, and the good democratic tradition of fixed elections every four years that had developed through the previous three provincial elections.”

“Hopefully the court will rule that the Premier violated the law when he called his self-interested and unfair snap election, which will prevent future snap elections,” said Conacher.

Calling a snap election in violation of a provincial law and a constitutional convention is bad – calling a snap election during a pandemic was even worse. Premier Higgs also used the completely invalid excuse that the three opposition parties refused to agree support the government in every vote until October 2022, or at least until after the pandemic. In a parliamentary system of government, or in any form of democratic government, opposition parties are not required to agree to support the government. In the 2020 election, Premier Higgs’ Progressive Conservative Party won 55% of the seats in the legislature with the support of only 39% of voters.

Snap elections are unfair not only to opposition parties (as they are usually called when having an election favours the ruling party), but also to people who want to run as a candidate but can’t afford to suddenly drop everything and run. That’s why the federal Parliament, and every province and territory, have enacted fixed election date measures. The UK Parliament also enacted such measures.

Justice Christie of New Brunswick’s Court of Queen’s Bench ruled against Democracy Watch’s case last October but, as set out in DWatch’s appeal arguments, the ruling made a false claim about what DWatch’s lawyer argued in the case; made a false claim about what the Federal Court ruled in DWatch’s case vs. Prime Minister Harper’s 2008 snap election call; ignored the UK Supreme Court’s ruling, and; ignored other key legal arguments.

An additional issue that the Court of Appeal will consider is that the Acadian Society of New Brunswick recently won a ruling, that is now being appealed, that the appointment of New Brunswick’s current Lieutenant Governor was unconstitutional because the Lt. Governor is unilingual. If the final ruling in that case nullifies all actions of the Lt. Gov., it would also nullify the 2020 provincial election call (a result that DWatch does not support as it is simply trying to prevent future snap elections). See Democracy Watch’s submission about this issue, as requested by the Court of Appeal.

Because they are illegal, dishonest and unfair, Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes also went to court to challenge the snap election calls by B.C. NDP Premier John Horgan in September 2020 and by Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau in August 2021, both of which violated fixed election date laws.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign and the Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

UK Supreme Court set strong precedent by ruling in 2019 that PM Boris Johnson shutting down Parliament was illegal because it violated the sovereignty of Parliament

Case is not to overturn election – just to have the court rule election call was illegal for same reason as in UK, and because snap election was called one year before the legal fixed election date

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, May 12, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that, after a long delay caused mainly by a backlog in the B.C. courts, the B.C. Supreme Court will hear today and tomorrow its court case filed together with Wayne Crookes, founder of IntegrityBC, challenging Premier John Horgan’s advice to the Lieutenant Governor to call the provincial snap election in September 2020 (B.C. Supreme Court file no. S2010710; the hearing is at the Vancouver courthouse at 800 Smithe St., and starts at 10 am both days).

Emily MacKinnon, Sergio Ortega and Brodie Noga at Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt LLP in Vancouver are providing legal counsel to Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes for the court case.

The case is not aimed at overturning or voiding the election results. Instead, it is aimed at preventing future illegal, unfair snap elections and asks the court to declare that the Premier’s action:

1. violated the fixed election date measure in B.C.’s Constitution Act;
2. violated the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and responsible government (for this reason, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of the British Parliament was illegal), and;
3. violated the constitutional convention that has been created by premiers calling elections only on the fixed date in 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2017.

B.C. was the first jurisdiction in Canada to enact fixed election date measures with Bill 7 in 2001. The B.C. NDP showed it was in favour of fixed election dates when it introduced Bill 5 in 2017 to change the fixed election date from May to October. The fixed date for the next provincial election was set for the third Saturday in October 2021.

“By calling a snap election during a pandemic instead of waiting for the fixed election date, Premier Horgan acted like an old-school power-crazed politician, not a new democrat committed to fair and democratic elections,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The B.C. legislature wanted to keep operating when the Premier called the snap election, and no single MLA, not even the Premier, has the right to shut down the legislature for no good reason, as the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019.”

“Hopefully the B.C. courts will rule that the Premier violated the law when he called his self-interested, hypocritical and unfair snap election, which will prevent snap elections in the future,” said Conacher.

Calling a snap election in violation of B.C.’s constitution is bad – Premier Horgan calling a snap election during the COVID pandemic was even worse. Elections B.C. was forced by Premier Horgan’s cynical power grab-scheme to issue 16 emergency orders to change how polling stations will run and people will vote, and it will likely hurt voter turnout. Wayne Crookes filed an affidavit in support of the case setting out all the evidence about how bad the snap election call was.

Snap elections are unfair not only to opposition parties (as they are usually called when having an election favours the ruling party, as was the case in B.C.), but also to people who want to run as a candidate but can’t afford to suddenly drop everything and run. That’s why the federal Parliament, and every province and territory, followed B.C.’s lead and enacted fixed election date measures. The UK Parliament has also enacted fixed election date measures.

Because they are illegal, dishonest and unfair, Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes also went to court to challenge the snap election calls by the New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Premier in August 2020, and by Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau in August 2021, both of which violated fixed election date laws.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign and Stop PM/Premier Abuses Campaign

MPs voting today in secret on changes to their own unethical ethics rules

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 26, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch pointed to Pierre Poilievre’s investments in cryptocurrency mutual funds while he advocates for crypto in his Conservative Party leadership campaign, as reported in the media here and here, as highlighting #4 in the list of 10 huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (“MP Code”). Under the MP Code, MPs are allowed to have secret investments in mutual funds (we only know about Poilievre’s investments because he disclosed them) and are allowed to lobby in secret for changes to laws, taxes, subsidies etc. that would increase the value of the companies the funds invest in so that the MP makes money.

“It’s clearly unethical for MPs, or party leadership candidates, to advocate for changes that will help businesses they are invested in, and the ethics rules for MPs, and disclosure rules for candidates, need to be changed to prohibit having secret investments,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch called on Poilievre and all Conservative Party leadership candidates, all MPs (including Liberal Cabinet ministers – for example Prime Minister Trudeau has a trust with secret investments), and all top government officials, to disclose all their investments, and for MPs to change the MP Code to prohibit MPs from having investments and prohibit secret trusts that hide those investments from the public – the Parker Commission recommended both prohibitions way back in 1987. Investments and secret trusts also need to be prohibited under the Conflict of Interest Act (which covers Cabinet ministers and top government officials) and the Directive on Conflict of Interest for federal government employees.

Democracy Watch also called on MPs on the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) to come out from behind closed doors at their meeting today and discuss the 10 loopholes in public, invite further experts, and hold more open meetings, before they vote on changes to the MP Code. The public has a clear right to know how each party’s MPs are voting on Code changes, given the Code sets out key rules on all MPs’ decisions and interactions with voters.

The Committee is undertaking a secretive, rushed, superficial review of the Code for the first time in seven years (two years overdue). It held only three brief public meetings before it first went behind closed doors on Thursday, March 3rd to begin voting on proposed Code changes.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “MPs are rushing their first review of their ethics code in seven years behind closed doors and, unless they slow down and do their job properly and publicly, they will likely once again fail to close loopholes or strengthen enforcement or penalties, leaving it open for MPs to continue to corrupt federal politics by being inside lobbyists for their own interests, their investments in big businesses, and the interests of their families and friends.”

Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, filed its submission to PROC on February 27th calling for changes to close huge loopholes in the MP Code that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a financial conflict of interest, and that allow MPs and their staff to accept unethical gifts and favours, and also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and for mandatory penalties to discourage violations.

The Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, but was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009, and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him).

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to issue a clear guideline for every rule, investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

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

– 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 Bad Government Appointments Campaign

All five promises must be fully kept, and five other key measures enacted (some of which U.S. enacted decades ago), to ensure banks pay their fair share in taxes, and to stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse

Big Six Banks gouged out record profits of $57.7 billion in 2021 – close to triple their 2010 profits, and higher than all similar banks worldwide

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 12, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, following the release last week of the federal government’s 2022 Budget, Democracy Watch called on the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to include in the budget bill not only the three promised measures mentioned in the budget, but also the two other measures also promised in the last election, and called for by 120,000 voters who have signed on to Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign or Change.org petition.

The campaign also calls on Finance Minister Freeland to enact five other key measures to close bank tax loopholes, reign in excessive executive pay, and actually stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse of customers (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes). A recent national poll also showed 70% of Canadians want governments to take these kind of actions.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks reported, yet again, record-high 2021 annual profits totalling $57.7 billion, almost triple their 2010 profits, and double-digit hikes in their 2022 first-quarter profits, all reaped through gouging of their customers. Four of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 50 of Fortune’s Global 500 for 2021, and are the 17th (TD), 18th (RBC), 34th (Scotiabank) and 47th (BMO) most profitable financial institutions in the world, and are four of the five most profitable Canadian companies in the Global 500. Canada’s Big 6 Banks also paid their CEOs a total of $74.4 million in 2021 (an average of $12.4 million each) in salary and bonuses (55% higher than in 2008) – See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder.

The Budget proposed to enact the following measures which partially keep three of five promises made by the Liberals in the 2021 election:

1. Impose a temporary excess profits tax on banks and insurance companies that earn more than $1 billion a year (of 15%, for one year only in 2022), and an increase in the annual tax rate for these companies of 1.5%) – the Liberals promised they would impose a higher 3% increase in the annual tax rate (England imposed a more than 8% tax hike on banks in 2011, and Australia increased the tax rate on banks in 2017);
2. Review closing tax loopholes to prevent banks and other financial institutions from pretending to make their money in low-tax countries in order to lower the taxes they pay in Canada (the Liberals promised to close the tax loopholes, not just to review them); and;
3. To establish and require all banks to use “single non-profit, external complaints body” (the Liberals promised a single ombudsperson “who has the power to impose binding arbitration”).

The Budget did not contain the following two other promised key bank accountability measures called for by 120,000 voters (all five promises were also listed in Minister Freeland’s mandate letter):

1. Require financial institutions to offer options to delay consumer debt payments when needed, and;
2. Empower the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to “review the prices charged by banks and impose changes if they are excessive” (which must also include reviewing interest rates, as Australia did in 2017).

(See Backgrounder on Weak Enforcement of Financial Consumer and Investment Protection)

“As usual, the Trudeau Liberals spouted half-truths with their election promises, and are now proposing half-measures that only partially keep their promises, as Finance Minister Freeland continues to protect the big bank’s gouging profits and their executives’ multi-million salaries instead of making the changes needed to actually require the banks to pay their fair share of taxes, to stop the banks from paying their extra taxes by gouging 30 million bank customers even more, and also to effectively protect bank customers from discrimination and other abuses,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Every dollar of excessive profit for the banks, and every person and business the banks unjustifiably refuse to loan to, costs the Canadian economy because it means that the banks are overcharging for their essential services and loans, and choking off job creation and spending,” said Conacher.

The following additional five key measures are needed to actually stop gouging and abuse, to stop discrimination in bank lending and service, and ensure the banks serve everyone across Canada fairly and well at fair prices and interest rates (See the Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes):

1. Require banks and insurance companies to promote a national financial consumer organization, and a national individual investor organization (as recommended in 1998 by the Liberal-controlled MacKay Task Force, House Finance and Senate Banking committees);
2. Require the banks to disclose detailed information annually about their lending and service records (as the U.S. has required banks to do for 30 years, including the U.S. banks that 4 of Canada’s Big 6 Banks own), categorized by race, gender, income level and neighbourhood, and require corrective action whenever banks discriminate against customers;
3. Require every bank to have basic branches in every neighbourhood (including through partnering with Canada Post outlets for postal banking, as TD has started to do);
4. Require the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to do unannounced, mystery-shopper audits to find violations of consumer protection laws, and to identify all violators and fine them a minimum of $1 million up to a maximum of $50 million, and;
5. Require the Big Banks and other financial institutions to cut the pay of their CEO and other top executives to no more than 40 times their lowest paid employee (as in some European countries).

– 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 Big Banks Coronavirus Accountability Campaign

Big Six Banks gouged out record profits of $57.7 billion in 2021 – close to triple their 2010 profits, and higher than all similar banks worldwide

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 4, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, following Canada’s Big 6 Banks reporting, yet again, record-high 2021 annual profits that are almost triple their 2010 profits, and double-digit hikes in their 2022 first-quarter profits, all reaped through gouging of their customers, Democracy Watch called on Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to use this week’s federal budget bill to make the key changes the Trudeau Liberals promised in their 2021 election platform to tax excess bank profits (but permanently not just for a few years), close tax reduction loopholes the Big Banks exploit, and to stop Big Bank gouging and abuse of customers.

Four of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 50 of Fortune’s Global 500 for 2021, and are the 17th (TD), 18th (RBC), 34th (Scotiabank) and 47th (BMO) most profitable financial institutions in the world (more profitable than most other larger banks) and are four of the five most profitable Canadian companies in the Global 500 (See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder).

The excess profits tax and tax loophole closure changes, and changes to stop gouging and abuse of bank customers, that the Liberals promised in their 2021 election platform are among the 11 Key Bank Accountability Changes called for by Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign and Change.org petition that a combined total of more than 120,000 voters have endorsed. A recent national poll also showed 70% of Canadians want governments to take these kind of actions.

The Liberals’ election platform promised the following five key measures called for by these 120,000 voters (all the promises were also listed in Minister Freeland’s mandate letter):

1. A temporary excess profits tax on banks and insurance companies that earn more than $1 billion a year (which should be permanent, as England has had since 2011, and Australia since 2017);
2. Close tax loopholes to prevent banks and other financial institutions from pretending to make their money in low-tax countries in order to lower the taxes they pay in Canada;
3. Require financial institutions to offer options to delay consumer debt payments when needed;
4. Require all banks to use one ombudsperson who has the power to impose binding arbitration, and;
5. Empower the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to “review the prices charged by banks and impose changes if they are excessive” (which must also include reviewing interest rates, as Australia did in 2017).

(See Backgrounder on Weak Enforcement of Financial Consumer and Investment Protection)

“Will the federal Liberals continue to protect big bank’s gouging profits and their executives’ multi-million salaries, or will they make the changes they promised to increase protections from gouging and abuse for 30 million bank customers, and to require the banks to pay their fair share of taxes?” asked Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The following other key measures are needed to actually stop gouging and abuse, and to stop discrimination in bank lending and service, and to wipe out predatory lending companies and ensure the banks serve everyone across Canada fairly and well at fair prices and interest rates (See the Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes):

1. Require banks and insurance companies to promote a national financial consumer organization, and a national individual investor organization, in their emails and mailings to their customers and investors, to give financial consumers and investors across Canada a very easy way to band together, without any cost to the government or financial instutions, to help and protect themselves through joining the organizations (as recommended in 1998 by the Liberal-controlled MacKay Task Force, House Finance and Senate Banking committees);
2. Require the banks to disclose detailed information annually about their lending and service records (as the U.S. has required banks to do for 30 years, including the U.S. banks that 4 of Canada’s Big 6 Banks own), categorized by race, gender, income level and neighbourhood, and require corrective action whenever banks discriminate against customers;
3. Require every bank to have basic branches in every neighbourhood (including through partnering with Canada Post outlets for postal banking, as TD has started to do);
4. Require the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) to do unannounced, mystery-shopper audits to find violations of consumer protection laws, and to identify all violators and and fine them a minimum of $1 million up to a maximum of $50 million, and;
5. Require the Big Banks and other financial institutions to cut the pay of their CEO and other top executives to no more than 40 times their lowest paid employee (as in some European countries).

“Every dollar of excessive profit for the banks, and every person and business the banks unjustifiably refuse to loan to, costs the Canadian economy because it means that the banks are overcharging for their essential services and loans, and choking off job creation and spending,” said Conacher.

– 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 Big Banks Coronavirus Accountability Campaign

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, March 22, 2022

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) to come out from behind closed doors at their meeting today discussing changes to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (“MP Code”), and to invite further experts and hold more open meetings before making changes to the Code.

Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, filed its submission to PROC on February 27th calling for changes to close huge loopholes in the MP Code that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a financial conflict of interest, and that allow MPs and their staff to accept unethical gifts and favours, and also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and for mandatory penalties to discourage violations.

The Committee is undertaking a secretive, rushed, superficial review of the Code for the first time in seven years (two years overdue). It held only three brief public meetings before it first went behind closed doors on Thursday, March 3rd to begin voting on proposed Code changes.

The public has a clear right to know how each party’s MPs are voting on Code changes, given the Code sets out key rules on all MPs’ decisions and interactions with voters.

The Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, but was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009, and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

Click here to see the Backgrounder listing the 10 key changes needed to make the MP Code effective at preventing, prohibiting and penalizing conflicts of interest and unethical gift- and favour-trading.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “MPs are rushing their first review of their ethics code in seven years and, unless they slow down and do their job properly and publicly, they will likely once again fail to close loopholes or strengthen enforcement or penalties, leaving it open for MPs to continue to corrupt federal politics by being inside lobbyists for their own interests, and the interests of their families, friends and their investments in big businesses.”

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him).

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to issue a clear guideline for every rule, investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

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

– 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 Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, March 1, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, released its submission to the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee calling for changes to close huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a financial conflict of interest, and allow MPs and their staff to accept unethical gifts and favours, and also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and for mandatory penalties to discourage violations.

The Committee is rushing a superficial, long-overdue review of the Code – having held only three brief meetings it will go behind closed doors this Thursday to review possible proposals for Code changes.

The Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, but was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009, and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

Click here to see the Backgrounder listing the 10 key changes needed to make the MP Code effective at preventing, prohibiting and penalizing conflicts of interest and unethical gift- and favour-trading.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “MPs are rushing their first review of their ethics code in seven years and, unless they slow down and do their job properly, they will likely once again fail to close loopholes or strengthen enforcement or penalties, leaving it open for MPs to continue to corrupt federal politics by being inside lobbyists for their own interests, and the interests of their families, friends and their investments in big businesses.”

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him.

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to issue a clear guideline for every rule, investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

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

– 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

Current code is so full of loopholes it should be called the
“Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 15, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition it coordinates, made up of 30 citizen groups from across Canada, is calling for key changes during testimony from 12 noon-1 pm before the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee to close huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons that allow MPs to take part in most decisions even when they have a conflict of interest, and allow them to accept unethical gifts and favours, and is also calling for key measures to strengthen enforcement and penalties to discourage violations.

The Committee is conducting a long overdue review of the Code, which was enacted in 2004, is supposed to be reviewed every five years, was last reviewed in 2015, and before that in 2008 to 2009 , and before that in 2006-2007. The original version of the Code had loopholes in it, a weak enforcement system, and penalties that MPs themselves decide in a “kangaroo court” process, and past reviews by the Committee have added more loopholes, allowing for even more conflicts of interest and unethical favours, or have done nothing to close loopholes or strengthen penalties, and little to strengthen enforcement.

“The MP’s ethics code is so full of loopholes it should be called the Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics Commissioner doesn’t do basic enforcement actions like auditing MPs, and MPs decide whether to penalize other MPs which is a kangaroo court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The big question is whether MPs will finally close these loopholes, and strengthen enforcement and penalties, or will they again add more loopholes to their ethics code as they have after past reviews.”

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has made six recommendations for changes to the MP Code (and also for nine other technical changes), and while they will all somewhat improve the Code, they completely ignore huge loopholes that allow for unethical decision-making by MPs, and do nothing to strengthen enforcement. As well, Ethics Commissioner Dion has made the self-contradictory claim that the Code is working well and doesn’t need to be reviewed, and issued several highly questionable rulings since he began in January 2018 that allowed clear violations of federal ethics rules. Democracy Watch has an ongoing case in the Federal Court of Appeal challenging Commissioner Dion’s weak ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau didn’t violate the Conflict of Interest Act when he approved the grant in June 2020 to WE Charity, for which his wife served as an ambassador at the time.

All of this is not surprising given Mr. Dion had a record of eight unethical and questionable actions when he was the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that the Federal Court of Appeal ruled was biased, and given the sister-in-law of Trudeau’s old friend and Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc is the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer (which may explain why the Ethics Commissioner has failed to issue a ruling on whether LeBlanc violated the ethics law by participating in the appointment process for judges in New Brunswick with financial and other connections to him.

“Ethics Commissioner Dion has failed to enforce federal ethics laws effectively, even when the law has been clearly violated, and also made self-contradictory, confusing and unclear statements about the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It’s clear that the only way to ensure federal ethics rules are enforced effectively is for MPs to require the Ethics Commissioner to investigate and issue a public ruling on every situation and complaint, and to impose a penalty for every violation.”

The 10 key changes needed to make the MP Code effective at preventing conflicts of interest and unethical gift and favour trading are as follows:

1. Add a rule to require MPs and their staff to tell the truth to stop the misleading spin that regularly and fatally undermines reasonable policy debates and discussions, and another rule to prohibit MPs from switching parties in between elections except when their party leader violates the law or breaks significant election promises (and, generally, expand the Code to cover MPs as soon as their election is confirmed by Elections Canada, and to cover MP staff who, because they are not covered by the Code, can currently do the things that MPs are prohibited from doing on their MP’s behalf, and can also accept all gifts and favours);
2. Close the huge loophole in the definition of “private interest” (in ss. 3(2) and (3)) to cover all conflicts of interest, not only specific financial conflicts, because the loophole means the Code doesn’t apply to 95% of decisions MPs participate in, and that allows them to take part in decisions when they, their family or friends can profit from the decision (and extend the Code to cover the private interests of extended family and friends of MPs and their staff);
3. Prohibit MPs and their staff from having investments in businesses (which is allowed under ss. 17 and 24(3)(j)), and from having blind trusts, (both of which the Parker Commission recommended way back in 1987) and change s. 7 to prohibit them from other outside activities, because they create clear conflicts of interest (other than professional requirements like doctors who have to practise a specific amount each year in order to retain their licence);
4. Require MPs to work full-time, and to disclose a summary of their work activities, including communications with anyone or any entity who is trying to influence their decisions, in an online, searchable database;
5. Change the gifts and benefits rule to ban MPs and their staff from accepting anything from anyone (including volunteer assistance under ss. 3(1)), who is trying to influence their decisions because even small gifts influence decisions, and delete s. 15 of the Code to ban “sponsored travel” because it is an unethical gift and essentially a form of legalized bribery;
6. Add a new rule (as a restriction on s. 5 of the Code) to prohibit MPs from giving preferential treatment to anyone who has given them a gift or assisted them in any way;
7. Require MPs to disclose in the Public Registry their assets and liabilities worth more than $1,000 (the current disclosure requirement is for everything worth more than $10,000, which is much too high), and to disclose details about their past five year’s work before they became an MP to make it easy to track which organizations and issues they have ties to, and to disclose in the Public Registry which members of their extended family they have close relationships with including being aware of their business, investments and other private interests;
8. Prohibit MPs and their staff from communicating with their former colleagues and government officials for a sliding-scale time period after they leave depending on what positions and committees they served in and how close their relationships are with Cabinet ministers, officials etc., and require them to disclose their post-activities online during this time period in a searchable database;
9. Require MPs and their staff to take a formal training course when they first start their position, and annually, and require the Ethics Commissioner to publish online a summary of his/her advice each time advice is given that covers a new situation to any person covered by the Code, and to publish online all advisory opinions and guidelines issued by the Commissioner, and require the Ethics Commissioner to regularly conduct an audit of a randomly selected sample of MPs’ financial statements and activities;
10. Give members of the public, who employ and pay all MPs and their staff, the right to file a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner, and require the Commissioner to investigate and issue a public ruling on every complaint and situation s/he becomes aware of, and to impose a sliding scale of penalties depending the seriousness of the violation, and add a rule that anyone is allowed to challenge any decision by the Commissioner in court.

Many other changes are needed to the Conflict of Interest Act (which applies to Cabinet ministers, staff and appointees), and to other federal laws, including the whistleblower protection law, to stop unethical actions, wealthy interests, secret, unethical lobbying, and excessive government secrecy overall, from undermining good public policy-making.

– 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

UK Supreme Court set strong precedent by ruling in 2019 that PM Boris Johnson shutting down Parliament was illegal because it unjustifiably prevented Parliament from fulfilling its constitutionally protected role

Snap election call illegal for same reason, and also because measure in election law fixes election date for every four years, a vote of non-confidence had not occurred, and because a large majority in Parliament voted against having an election

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, January 31, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that the Trudeau government has filed a motion asking the Federal Court to throw out Democracy Watch’s and Integrity B.C. founder Wayne Crookes case (PDF of application) challenging Prime Minister Trudeau’s request last August that the Governor General call a snap election.

The case was not aimed at stopping the federal election. Instead, it is aimed at winning a ruling that the Prime Minister violated the fixed election date measure in Canada’s election law, and that the PM is only allowed to ask the Governor General to call an election every four years on the fixed election date, with the only exception being if a vote of non-confidence in the government occurs before that date. Nicolas Rouleau and Daniel Santoro are the lawyers for the case.

Democracy Watch filed a similar case against then-Prime Minister Harper’s snap election call in September 2008. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal both ruled that a constitutional convention had not been created when Parliament added section 56.1 to the Canada Elections Act in 2007, and that the measure was not specific enough to prohibit the Prime Minister from calling an early election.

Democracy Watch’s position, and the position of Andrew Heard, one of Canada’s foremost experts on constitutional conventions, is that the courts made an incorrect decision in that case because section 56.1 says “each” election “must be held” every four years, and adding the measure to the law created a rule and a convention that the PM is required to comply with, unless a non-confidence vote occurs.

Democracy Watch is arguing in response to the Trudeau government’s motion that the current case is stronger because the situation when Trudeau called a snap election call is different from Harper’s snap election call in September 2008 in several key ways, especially because:

1. On May 25, 2021, MPs (including Trudeau) voted 327-1 against holding an election, and all opposition party leaders clearly and publicly expressed their opposition in July-August to holding an election;
2. As opposition parties made clear with public letters and statements before Trudeau’s election call, a majority of MPs voted in favour of everything the Trudeau Liberals have proposed since the last election, including the 2021 Liberal budget, or were in the process of reviewing proposed measures on the usual legislative timeline. Opposition parties clearly supported the Liberals continuing to govern, and the Trudeau government had the confidence of Parliament, when Trudeau called the election.
   (Click here to see Backgrounder for details).

The British Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that PM Boris Johnson’s decision to advise the Queen to shut down Parliament was unlawful as it “ha[d] the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive” (para. 50 of the ruling). The same principle applies to Trudeau’s snap election call, which shut down Parliament for no good reason.

As well, the fixed election date rule in Canada’s election law, and the Prime Minister following the law for the past three elections, have created a constitutional convention rule that the PM is required to follow. In 2011, the Conservative government led by PM Harper called an election only after losing a vote of confidence in Parliament. In 2015, PM Harper called an election on the fixed date, as did PM Trudeau in 2019.

“Prime Minister Trudeau’s snap election call was illegal because Canada’s election law fixes election dates for every four years unless there is a vote of non-confidence in the government, which did not happen before his election call in August, said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “MPs from all parties, including Prime Minister Trudeau, voted against holding an election, all opposition party leaders were against it, and the Liberal government had the clear confidence of Parliament in every way except for calling an election.”

“In the same way the British Supreme Court rejected the British PM’s shutting down of Parliament as an illegal abuse of power that went against the will of Parliament, the courts should rule that Trudeau’s snap election was illegal because it violated the fixed election date law and convention, and the democratic will and constitutionally protected role of Parliament,” said Conacher.

“Two of the most important things Canadians want from their politicians is to obey the law and to tell the truth – Mr. Trudeau did neither,” said Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C. “To call an election during the Covid-19 health emergency at an unneeded expense of about $600 million reflects very poorly on Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party. He put self-interest before his duty to Canadians.”

As well, a survey at the end of July showed only 26% of Canadians want an election, and in mid-July the PM also denied that he was going to call an election, and a survey at the end of August showed that 75% of Canadians didn’t see the election as necessary.

More than 20,000 voters signed Democracy Watch’s petition on Change.org calling on Governor General Mary Simon to say no to any snap election call by Prime Minister Trudeau before the next fixed election date. Snap elections are unfair to voters, people who want to run as candidates, and most parties. That’s why Parliament decided to fix the federal election date in Canada’s election law.

Because they are illegal, dishonest and unfair, Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes also went to court to challenge the snap election calls last fall by the B.C. NDP Premier and the New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Premier, both of which violated their provincial fixed election date laws. The New Brunswick case was heard last March and is currently proceeding through the appeal court, and the B.C. case is scheduled to be heard soon.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign and Stop PM/Premier Abuses Campaign

Liberals need to make changes, and also other key open government changes to end secret lobbying, end secret investments by politicians, their staff and Cabinet appointees, and strengthen whistleblower protection

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, January 21, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch responded to the Trudeau government’s recent report containing the results of its public consultation on the Access to Information Act (ATIA). The report is a loud and clear call from all stakeholder groups, experts and the public for 10 key changes to close loopholes in the ATIA and strengthen the Information Commissioner’s enforcement powers.

“The public, citizen groups and experts have loudly and clearly called once again, as they have for decades, for key changes to close loopholes in the federal access to information law, and strengthen enforcement,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Trudeau Liberals must now stop their spin, lame excuses and unjustifiable delays and introduce a bill as soon as Parliament opens again in February to make the key changes that voters want to strengthen the access to information law and enforcement.”

“The federal access to information law is so full of loopholes that it really is just a guide to keeping information secret that the public has a right to know, and the key changes that the public is calling for will, if the Trudeau government implements them, make the law more effective,” said Conacher.

The 10 key changes loudly and clearly called for in the report on the Trudeau government’s public consultation on the ATIA are as follows, in order of importance in terms of making the ATIA effective:

1. Expand the ATIA to cover any organization that performs a public function or receives significant public funding;
2. Expand the ATIA to cover the Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet Ministers’ offices;
3. Require all government institutions and organizations covered by the ATIA to create detailed records of all actions and decisions;
4. Expand the requirement to proactively publish records in Part 2 of the ATIA, and give the Information Commissioner the power to do disclosure audits;
5. Narrow down the huge loopholes in the ATIA that allow advice to Cabinet and Cabinet confidences to be kept secret, and narrow down all other exemptions and exclusions, and give the Information Commissioner the power to review all requested records to prevent abuse;
6. Set strict time limits in the ATIA for any extension allowed past the 30 day-period allowed for responding to an access-to-information request;
7. Add a public interest override (as in Alberta and B.C.) to the ATIA to ensure public interest information is always disclosed;
8. Increase resources, training and technology support for ATI officers, and eliminate the $5 request fee;
9. Significantly reduce the 20-year period during which Cabinet records and other information can be kept secret, including creating a system for declassifying records that have been designated as “classified” and;
10. Allow people from outside Canada to file requests for information.

Despite committing to make government information “open by default” in their 2015 federal election platform, the Trudeau Liberals have broken almost all of their open government promises, and have shown little interest in strengthening the ATIA. The Liberals made no ATIA promises in their 2021 election platform, and made no commitments in their new National Action Plan for the international Open Government Partnership process. Also, Treasury Board Minister Mona Fortier’s statement on the release of yesterday’s report commits only to a “review of access to information” – not to making changes.

The Trudeau Cabinet’s Bill C-58 in 2017 changing the federal Access to Information Act ignored many of the recommendations made in the unanimous June 2016 report of the House of Commons Access, Privacy and Ethics Committee, and was actually a step backwards in some ways.

Democracy Watch and its Open Government Coalition have been pushing to strengthen the Access to Information Act for years, including through a global coalition open letter in 2017, as have opposition MPs and the Information Commissioner. Democracy Watch’s coalitions have also been pushing for years for key transparency and integrity changes to the federal Lobbying Act, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and Conflict of Interest Act and related MP and Senate and government-wide ethics rules.

“The Trudeau Liberals broke most of their promises to close loopholes in Canada’s open government law, and strengthen transparency rules for government spending, and they have done nothing to strengthen protections for whistleblowers who report government wrongdoing nor to close loopholes that allow secret lobbying and secret investments by politicians, staff and Cabinet appointees,” 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 Open Government Campaign, Protect Whistleblowers Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign