Please support democracy

Without your support, Democracy Watch can't win key changes to stop governments and big businesses from abusing their power and hurting you and your family. Please click here to support democracy now

Democracy Watch’s lawsuit challenges Lobbying Commissioner’s ruling letting Clearwater Seafoods board member off the hook for fundraising event Trudeau attended

Commissioner ignored fact that, as a board member, Mickey MacDonald’s event causes the company and its CEO to violate Lobbyists’ Code

New Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger also biased as she was handpicked by Trudeau through secretive, PMO-controlled process

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 30, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the application it recently filed in Federal Court challenging the recent ruling Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger that Clearwater Seafoods board member Mickey MacDonald is not covered by the federal lobbying law or code, and so his August 2014 fundraising event that Justin Trudeau attended was legal. The application is Federal Court file number T-702-19.

According to an article in the Globe and Mail, a ticket for the event cost $1,000 and 75 to 80 people attended. In a piece on CTV Halifax news on the day of the event Mr. MacDonald is quoted as saying about the event that:

“It’s a small price to pay right now for the long term benefits that we’ll receive.”

Democracy Watch filed its complaint letter about the event with the previous Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd more than two years ago, on March 1, 2017.

In her March 29, 2019 letter ruling on another Democracy Watch complaint, Commissioner Bélanger included a couple of sentences near the end about her investigation into Democracy Watch’s complaint about Mr. MacDonald’s event, one of which said:

“That matter is now closed as the individual involved was not engaged in registrable lobbying activities and was therefore not subject to the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.”

Commissioner Bélanger’s full ruling on Mr. MacDonald’s event has still not been made public – Democracy Watch has requested in its lawsuit that the Commissioner make the ruling public.

“Democracy Watch is challenging the Lobbying Commissioner’s ruling in court because it lets a seafood company board member off the hook for an unethical fundraising event,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The ruling is legally incorrect, violates the spirit and purpose of federal lobbying ethics rules, and opens up a huge loophole that a Federal Court judge recently ruled must be closed because it allows big businesses and other organizations to have their unregistered board members or staff do favours for, and give gifts to, politicians and government officials they are lobbying as a way of unethically influencing their policy making decisions.”

“Democracy Watch is also challenging Commissioner Bélanger’s ruling because she was handpicked by Prime Minister Trudeau through a secretive, dishonest process, and so is biased in favour of the PM,” said Conacher.

Among other rules, rules 6, 8 and 10 of the Lobbyists’ Code prohibit lobbyists from doing anything significant for, or giving anything significant to, anyone they are lobbying. Rule 4 requires the CEO of any company or organization to ensure that all officers and employees comply with the Code, and Principles at the beginning of the Code also require people who are registered as lobbyists to act with integrity and follow the spirit of the Code and the Lobbying Act.

The error of the Commissioner’s ruling is that, as a board member of Clearwater Seafoods who is legally required to advance the company’s interests, Mickey MacDonald’s event caused the company and the CEO to violate the Code. As a registered lobbyist, the CEO Ian D. Smith should have prevented Mr. MacDonald from ever holding the event. It is possible also that Mr. MacDonald has lobbied Mr. Trudeau.

In a recent ruling on a case Democracy Watch filed concerning a similar situation involving the Aga Khan and his foundation, a federal court judge concluded that board members of companies and organizations are covered by the Act, and that the Commissioner must examine the actions of everyone involved in such situations to ensure that no one violated the Code by allowing or giving a gift or assistance to a politician such as fundraising or campaigning.

The federal Liberals and the Commissioner are wasting taxpayers’ money and court time appealing that ruling.

Democracy Watch is also challenging Commissioner Bélanger’s ruling on Mr. MacDonald’s event because she was handpicked by Prime Minister Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process and is therefore biased. In a separate court case, Democracy Watch is challenging Trudeau’s appointment of Commissioner Bélanger, and Democracy Watch also has an ongoing campaign to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent, open and merit-based.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign page and Money in Politics Campaign page and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign page

Democracy Watch calls on Ontarians to file complaint with Ad Council about Ford government’s false carbon tax ad

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, April 26, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Ontarians to file a complaint with the Ad Council about the Ford government’s false carbon tax ad.

As the media has reported, the Ford government’s advertisement about the federal carbon tax is false because it fails to mention that Ontarians will receive rebates that equal or exceed the amount of carbon tax they will pay each year.

The Ad Council prohibits anyone from filing a public complaint, so Democracy Watch is encouraging Ontarians to file their own confidential complaint – they can do this on the Ad Council’s website at:
https://adstandards.ca/complaints/how-to-submit-a-complaint/.

“The Ford government’s half-truth ads about the federal carbon tax are wholly misleading, and hopefully Ontarians will file complaints with Canada’s truth-in-advertising watchdog to stop the ads as soon as possible,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Honesty in Politics Campaign

Elections Ontario’s report shows public inquiry needed into parts of running of provincial election

Elections Ontario violated the law – refused to inform voters of right to decline their ballot in its election ads

Declined ballots decreased by more than 7,000 compared to 2014 but unmarked ballots increased by almost 11,000 – did poorly trained poll station workers prevent thousands from declining their ballot? Did the ban on scrutineers seeing many ballots affect the outcome?

Despite Elections Ontario’s negligence, Ontario voter turnout increased 7.7% from 2014 to 58% total, but still 7th lowest since Confederation – is Elections Ontario’s voter education effective? What other changes would help increase voter turnout?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, April 24, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, following the release of Elections Ontario’s report on the 2018 Ontario election, Democracy Watch called for a public inquiry into parts of Elections Ontario’s running of the election given:

  1. Elections Ontario violated the law by failing to do ads informing voters of their right to decline their ballot (i.e. vote “none of the above”);
  2. A huge increase in unmarked ballots raises questions about whether thousands were prohibited from declining their ballot (NOTE: Buried in Appendix A on page 64 of Elections Ontario’s report is the finding that of voters surveyed post-election who faced a barrier to voting, 29% identified “inefficient or poorly trained staff” as the top barrier (a 22% increase from 2014));
  3. There are questions about whether banning scrutineers from even seeing ballots at polling stations that used electronic counting machines affected outcomes, and;
  4. Overall questions about Elections Ontario’s voter education efforts as voter turnout was the seventh lowest percentage since 1867.

See Backgrounder below for details about these key problems with Elections Ontario’s running of the election.

“An inquiry is needed into Elections Ontario’s running of the provincial election because it refused to inform voters of all their voting rights in its election ads, and there is evidence that the legal rights of thousands of voters were violated while scrutineers were prohibited from viewing ballots,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Voter turnout will go up significantly only if the voting system is changed, if Elections Ontario does effective voter education and polling station worker training properly, and if the parties make changes to end undemocratic elections and dishonest, unethical government.”

“Some voters may not support any party that has a candidate in their riding or may not support any of the parties’ platforms, and they have the right to be informed by Elections Ontario that they have the right to vote for ‘none of the above’ by declining their ballot,” said Conacher. “Ontario’s politicians gave voters the right to decline their ballot in 1975, and for more than 40 years Elections Ontario has negligently and illegally refused to inform voters that they have this right and to train polling station workers properly so they don’t stop voters from exercising their right to decline their ballot.”

Ontario parties must make the following changes if they want to increase voter turnout up to the past modern high of 65% (in 1990) let alone 73% (in 1971):

  1. pass an honesty-in-politics law that gives voters an easy, low-cost way to file complaints to the Integrity Commissioner, and gives the Commissioner the power to penalize misleaders (and requires MPPs who switch parties in-between elections to resign and run in a by-election);
  2. change the voting system to provide a more accurate representation of the popular vote results in each election in the seats held by each party in the legislature (as in many other countries) while ensuring that all elected officials are supported by, and are accountable to, voters in each riding/constituency (with a safeguard to ensure that a party with a low-level, narrow-base of support does not have a disproportionately high level of power in the legislature), and;
  3. strengthen provincial political ethics, political finance, lobbying, open government, and whistleblower protection laws.

These changes would give voters many more reasons to vote because they would know that voting for a specific party would mean their vote would count and the party’s promises would be kept, and they would be more assured of democratic good government overall no matter which party won.

As well, moving the fixed election date to the last Monday in October, with many advanced voting days including on weekends, would make it easier for people with kids, and students, to follow and participate in the election campaign, and have the identification needed to vote, and to vote.

“More and more voters know from their experience of the past few decades of elections that they are not going to get what they vote for, and are likely to get dishonest, secretive, unethical, unrepresentative and wasteful government no matter who they vote for, and as a result no one should be surprised to see voter turnout at such a low level,” said Conacher.

These problems exist in all the provinces and territories across Canada. All of these changes should be made by the federal and provincial and territorial governments, and for their municipalities, before mandatory voting is even considered because forcing voters to vote creates false legitimacy for political parties and politicians (and mandatory voting must never be implemented unless “none of the above” is one of the options on the ballot).

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign



Backgrounder on 4 Main Problems with Elections Ontario’s running of the 2018 Ontario Election

1. Failure to inform voters of right to decline ballot

The first question a public inquiry needs to examine is why Elections Ontario refused to do even one TV, radio or print ad informing voters of their right to decline their ballot, even though Democracy Watch has been requesting that it do such ads since 2011, and even though the provincial law requires Elections Ontario to do ads about all voter rights?

2. Problems at polling stations deny voters right to decline ballot

The second question is whether polling station workers violated the rights of thousands of voters by failing to allow them to decline their ballot? According to Elections Ontario’s official results for all ridings (two ridings were missing for the past 17 days and Elections Ontario refused to explain why), the number of declined ballots decreased by 7,253 (-24.2%) compared to 2014 (from 29,937 in 2014 to 22,684 in 2018).

In contrast, the number of unmarked ballots increased by 10,787 (up 89%) compared to 2014 (from 12,124 in 2014 up to 22,910 in 2018). According to Elections Ontario’s summary of election results since 1977, unmarked ballots have never totaled more than 12,124, the total in the 2014 election.

And according to Elections Ontario’s summary of election results since 1867, the total number of declined and unmarked ballots in the 2018 election was higher than the total of declined, unmarked and spoiled (rejected) ballots in every election except the 2014 and 1990 elections.

Did poorly trained poll station works fail to process declined ballots properly? Did their lack of knowledge about how voters decline their ballot violate the right of thousands of voters to decline their ballot – and did these voters leave their ballots unmarked instead or spoil their ballots?

Buried in Appendix A on page 64 of Elections Ontario’s report is the finding that of voters surveyed post-election who faced a barrier to voting, 29% identified “inefficient or poorly trained staff” as the top barrier (a 22% increase from 2014). Democracy Watch also heard post-election from some voters who, when they told the poll worker that they wanted to decline their ballot, were told to take their ballot directly to the person who was running ballots through the electronic counting machine.

Ontario voters have the legal right under section 53 of Ontario’s Election Act to decline their ballot (i.e. vote “none of the above”) and have it counted separately from a vote for a candidate or a spoiled ballot. This right has existed in the law since 1975. However, Elections Ontario has consistently failed to inform voters that they have this right in its communications to educate voters undertaken under subsection 114.1(2) and section 114.2 of the Election Act.

3. Use of electronic vote counting machines open to hacking, especially given scrutineers were prohibited from seeing ballots

The third area a public inquiry should examine is the use of electronic vote counting machines in the recent election for the first time. As others have pointed out, these machines raise concerns about hacking and manipulation of results, especially given that scrutineers were prohibited by subsection 4.1.3 of Elections Ontario’s directive from even seeing the ballots at polling stations that used the machines.

As well, the use of these machines should not be a step toward using machine or Internet voting as they should not even be considered currently given they dangerously undermine the integrity of the voting system. A good sign of voter awareness of the dangers of online voting is that, in Election Ontario’s post-election survey in Appendix A on p. 67 of its report, only 33% of voters support online voting, significantly lower than in 2014 (49%) and 2011 (52%).

4. Elections Ontario’s ineffective voter education efforts

The fourth and final question a public inquiry should examine is whether Elections Ontario’s voter education efforts have been a waste of money and should be overhauled. Despite Elections Ontario’s $4.5 million in advertising spending in 2011, voter turnout in the 2011 Ontario election was a record low 48.2% of eligible voters, the first time in history that turnout dropped below 50%. And despite Elections Ontario’s more than $4.8 million in ad spending in 2014, turnout in the 2014 election was the second-lowest ever at 51.3% (the 2007 turnout was only slightly better at 52.1%).

The 2018 turnout was still low, the seventh lowest turnout since Confederation, despite Elections Ontario spending $4.14 million on advertising.

Democracy Watch has long called on the federal government, and every provincial and territorial government, to change their election laws (including the law for municipal elections in each jurisdiction) and add the right to vote “none of the above” and to give a reason to election and by-election ballots.

Democracy Watch has also long called on Elections Ontario, and all election agencies across Canada, to include two key messages in their voter education advertising and communications – the real reasons to vote:

  1. “You never know when your vote may count” — with examples from past elections, and from specific ridings in various elections, which show clearly that election results cannot be predicted in advance, and;
  2. “If you don’t vote, you don’t count” — making it clear that politicians don’t really care about you if you don’t vote because non-voters do not help them get elected or defeated.

Democracy Watch calls on Ethics Commissioner to rule on Clerk of Privy Council Wernick’s preferential phone call with Kevin Lynch

Wernick, in his last week in government, also needs to answer 2 big questions:
Did he talk about SNC-Lavalin or his call with AG with PM from Dec. 19-Jan. 7?
Did he communicate with PM, or anyone who would have communicated to the PM, about SNC-Lavalin or his call from Dec. 19-Jan. 7?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, April 17, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to federal Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, calling on him to ensure an independent ruling on Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick giving preferential treatment to Kevin Lynch, Chair of SNC-Lavalin, and Mr. Wernick’s former boss.

Democracy Watch’s position is that, by taking the phone call from Mr. Lynch on October 15, 2019, Mr. Wernick violated section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act by giving preferential treatment to Mr. Lynch. Democracy Watch has also filed a complaint with the federal Commissioner of Lobbying about Mr. Lynch failing to register the call as lobbying in the Registry of Lobbying.

It is a violation of the federal ethics law, the Conflict of Interest Act (section 7), to give preferential treatment to anyone or any business or organization based on the identity of the person who represents them (such as someone being your former boss).

Unless Mr. Wernick can show that he takes calls from average Canadians and other business executives when they have a concern about a government decision as readily as he took Mr. Lynch’s call, taking Mr. Lynch’s call amounts to a violation of section 7 of the Act because it was “treatment more favourable than might be accorded to anyone else in similar circumstances” – which is the Ethics Commissioner’s definition of “preferential treatment” in a past ruling.

“It is unethical and undemocratic for government officials to give preferential treatment to people they have relationships with, and an independent ruling is needed into Michael Wernick taking the phone call from his former boss and SNC-Lavalin chair Kevin Lynch,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Ethics Commissioner should not make the ruling in this case because he was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a very secretive, Cabinet-controlled, dishonest process.”

Democracy Watch’s position is that Ethics Commissioner Dion should delegate the investigation and ruling on the situation to a provincial ethics commissioner who has no ties to any party, given that he was chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet after a secretive, Cabinet-controlled, dishonest process that failed to consult with opposition parties as required by the Parliament of Canada Act. Mr. Dion also has a record 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner. As well, his senior lawyer’s sister is the spouse of Liberal Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc.

Democracy Watch also called on the media and House and Senate committees to ask Mr. Wernick, who is in his last week with the federal government, two simple questions that remain unanswered:

Did Mr. Wernick talk about SNC-Lavalin, or his phone call with then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, with Prime Minister Trudeau or other members of the PM’s staff from December 19, 2018 through to the beginning of January 2019 when everyone returned from vacation?

Did Mr. Wernick communicate in any way about SNC-Lavalin, or his phone call with then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, with Prime Minister Trudeau or other members of the PM’s staff from December 19, 2018 through to the beginning of January 2019 when everyone returned from vacation?

The statement issued a few weeks ago by Mr. Wernick’s lawyer Frank Addario does not answer these questions. It says, very carefully, only that Mr. Wernick did not discuss SNC-Lavalin with the PM after the beginning of January.

The statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office says, very carefully, only that Mr. Wernick did not brief the Prime Minister on the call with the former Attorney General. This does not answer whether Mr. Wernick briefed someone on the PM’s staff about the call, who then briefed the PM about the call.

The statement from Mr. Wernick’s lawyer says:

“Michael Wernick must answer two key questions about whether he communicated in any way with the PM or the PM’s staff after his call with the Attorney General about SNC-Lavalin,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The answers to these questions are key to both the investigation concerning who may have violated the federal government ethics law, and whether any obstruction of justice occurred.”

Answering these two questions is key for the Ethics Commissioner, and the RCMP, in their investigations. Democracy Watch’s February 8th and March 5th letters to Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion are the basis of the Commissioner’s current investigation of everyone who may have tried to influence the former Attorney General in violation of section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act. Ethics Commissioner Dion sent Democracy Watch a letter on February 26th confirming his investigation of its complaint.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Federal Court rules Lobbying Commissioner was wrong to let Aga Khan off the hook for Bahamas trip gift to PM Trudeau

Court orders Commissioner re-examine Aga Khan Foundation’s CEO for failing to stop the gift, and Aga Khan for not registering as a lobbyist

Court also broadens scope of Lobbying Act to cover all board members of businesses and other organizations who receive any benefits, not just pay

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 16, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the ruling it has received from the Federal Court in its case filed in January 2018. The case challenged the ruling in September 2017 by former Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd that the Aga Khan’s Bahamas trip gift to Prime Minister Trudeau was legal. The ruling was issued on March 29, 2019. Democracy Watch was represented by Ottawa-based lawyer Sebastian Spano.

Commissioner Shepherd’s ruling was that even though the Aga Khan was lobbying the PM, and is chair of the Aga Khan Foundation, which is registered to lobby the PM, because someone at the Foundation claimed the Aga Khan wasn’t paid to lobby for it, the Aga Khan was not covered by the Lobbying Act nor the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and so his gift was legal.

Democracy Watch argued before the court that Commissioner Shepherd failed to investigate whether the Aga Khan was compensated in any way, and also failed to determine whether the Foundation’s senior officer Khalil Shariff had violated the Code’s principles requiring him to ensure everyone at the Foundation upholds the highest ethical standards and the spirit of the Act and Code.

The court agreed with Democracy Watch, calling Commissioner’s Shepherd’s ruling “unreasonable” because it was a narrow, technical, and targeted analysis that is lacking in transparency, justification, and intelligibility when considered in the context the Commissioner’s duties and functions (para. 146). As a result, the court ordered the Commissioner of Lobbying (now Nancy Bélanger) to re-examine the actions of everyone at the Aga Khan Foundation with “a broad view of the circumstances.”

A key part of the ruling is it requires the Lobbying Commissioner to investigate and issue a public ruling whenever there are “potential compliance questions” (para. 133) concerning the actions of anyone, or any business or organization that relate to the requirements of the Lobbying Act or Lobbyists’ Code (paras. 127-134). In the past, the Lobbying Commissioner has regularly ignored situations that raised such questions.

Another key part of the ruling greatly broadens the scope of the Lobbying Act to cover board members of businesses and other organizations who are compensated in any way or receive “anything of value” – including even the value of being given a position as a member of board (paras. 134-143). Up to now, the Commissioner of Lobbying interpreted the Act as requiring board members to disclose their lobbying in the Registry of Lobbyists only if they were paid more than their expenses. The court rejected that narrow interpretation.

There are 394 businesses and 581 organizations currently registered in the Registry, and so board members who lobby for any of these businesses or organizations are now required to disclose their lobbying in the Registry.

Democracy Watch filed its own complaint in December 2018 with the Commissioner of Lobbying about the Aga Khan’s Bahamas trip gifts to Prime Minister Trudeau in 2014 and 2016, and Liberal Cabinet minister Seamus O’Regan in 2016, and now calls on the Commissioner of Lobbying to ensure that complaint is fully, and independently investigated and ruled on publicly.

Democracy Watch has requested that new Commissioner Nancy Bélanger delegate all investigations to someone who is independent of her and all political parties, given that she was handpicked by Prime Minister Trudeau through a secretive, dishonest process. Democracy Watch is currently challenging her appointment in Federal Court.

“The Federal Court ruling confirms that former federal Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd was a lapdog whose enforcement of the lobbying law and code was negligently weak,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Thankfully, the ruling not only closes secret, unethical lobbying loopholes that Commissioner Shepherd negligently created, it also essentially orders the new Commissioner to enforce the lobbying law and code much more broadly and strongly.”

“Given the Federal Court ruling, Democracy Watch calls on the Lobbying Commissioner to ensure a full, independent investigation into the Aga Khan’s Bahamas trip gifts to Prime Minister Trudeau and Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan,” said Conacher. “Democracy Watch’s opinion is, based on the facts and the law and the ruling, it is very likely that the senior officer of the Aga Khan Foundation violated the lobbying code by allowing the Aga Khan to give the trip gifts.”

Given Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd’s overall weak record of enforcement, Democracy Watch has also requested that the Auditor General conduct a performance audit of her time in office.

“Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd issued only one public ruling in the two years after the Liberals were elected, and she also let almost everyone off since 2008, so the Auditor General should audit her negligently weak record,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Democracy Watch calls on B.C. RCMP and Special Prosecutor to explain failure to charge anyone in two years since lobbyist donations scandal

Will investigation end like quick-wins probe – five years later with no charges?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 15, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the B.C. RCMP and Special Prosecutor David Butcher to explain why no one has been charged since March 2017 when the Globe and Mail reported the lobbyist donation scheme involving several lobbyists donating money their clients gave them.

David Butcher was appointed Special Prosecutor to assist the RCMP investigation at the end of March 2017. Elections B.C. reported in April 2017 that the B.C. Liberals had returned $174,313 in donations dating back to 2010 ($92,874 of which the Liberals had admitted were “prohibited” donations), and that the NDP had returned $10,500. The Tyee.ca reported in May 2017 that Elections B.C. reports showed that the total reimbursed by the Liberals had increased to almost $250,000.

“The B.C. Liberals admitted they returned almost $93,000 in illegal donations in April 2017, so why didn’t the RCMP and special prosecutor Butcher ask the Liberals for the list of those donors and charge and prosecute them right away before the 2017 election?” asked Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The RCMP and David Butcher owe B.C. voters an explanation of why they haven’t charged anyone in the past two years.”

Democracy Watch questioned whether this investigation will end like another long-delayed investigation overseen by Butcher – the so-called “quick-wins probe” that last five years and resulted in only one person pleading guilty even though the RCMP recommended charges against other people.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Democracy Watch calls on Integrity Commissioner to ensure independent investigation into Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer who is Liberal Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law

Integrity Commissioner must delegate investigation to a provincial ethics commissioner as Ethics Commissioner is his former boss

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 15, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to federal Integrity Commissioner Joe Friday calling on him to ensure an independent investigation into whether federal Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s senior lawyer Martine Richard has fully removed herself from all investigations affecting the Trudeau Liberals and opposition parties since she began her position in fall 2013, including the investigation of Democracy Watch’s complaint about the SNC-Lavalin affair. Ethics Commissioner Dion sent Democracy Watch a letter on February 26th confirming his investigation of its complaint.

Democracy Watch is calling for the investigation of Ms. Richard because she heads the Investigations and Legal Services division of Ethics Commissioner Dion’s office, and her sister Jolène is married to Trudeau Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc (see also here).

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls for a ruling that Ms. Richard cannot remain in her position, given she has the appearance of bias whether she is investigating Liberals or MPs from other parties, or Conservative ministers, their staff or appointees (from 2013-2015). Her senior position also gives her power over the other people in the division who would investigate situations when she recuses herself, and as a result their actions are also tainted by her appearance of bias.

In addition to Supreme Court of Canada rulings that set high ethical standards requiring government officials to avoid even apparent conflicts of interest, the landmark 1924 British court ruling R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy established the principle that “Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.” The court ruled that a court clerk who worked for justices who were deciding a case, and had ties to the defendant in the case, created an appearance of bias for the justices just by being their clerk. Even though the justices swore they didn’t talk to the clerk about the case, the clerk’s presence in the justices’ office was enough for the appeal court to rule that the judges had an appearance of bias, and so their ruling was tainted.

The Ethics Commissioner office’s internal ethics code, like the government-wide code, requires all employees to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and to resolve any conflict of interest in the public interest. The code also prohibits employees from “granting preferential treatment or advantages to family, friends or any other person or entity” (p. 10). All federal ethics rules define “family” as including family by marriage.

Ethics Commissioner Dion is Integrity Commissioner Friday’s former boss, and for this reason Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Commissioner Friday to delegate the investigation to a provincial ethics commissioner who has no ties to any political party. Mr. Dion has a record 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner, and Mr. Friday never blew the whistle on any of Mr. Dion’s actions.

“The federal Ethics Commissioner’s office has claimed that Ms. Richard has recused herself from investigations affecting the Trudeau Liberals since 2013 but this needs to be confirmed by a fully independent investigation,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given Ethics Commissioner Dion is Integrity Commissioner Friday’s former boss, this investigation must be undertaken by a provincial ethics commissioner who is fully independent from the commissioners and from any political party.”

“Democracy Watch’s position is that Ms. Richard cannot remain in her position given she has an ongoing appearance of bias in favour of Liberals and against opposition parties, and investigations and rulings on ethics violations are too important to let them be tainted by this bias,” said Conacher.

Incredibly, it could be that employees in the Ethics Commissioner’s office are exempt from the federal, government-wide Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector and Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment, and the office could also be exempt from the requirement to have an internal ethics code set out in section 6 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign