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

DWatch calls on Auditor General to rule that Ford Conservatives’ fake news videos violate government advertising law if public money spent promoting them

If ruling finds technical loophole that permits spending public money to promote the fake news videos, the Auditor General should call for closing the loophole

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, September 26, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it sent yesterday to Ontario Auditor General (AG) Bonnie Lysyk calling on her to investigate and issue a ruling that, if public money is spent on ads to promote them, the Ford Conservatives’ fake news videos posted on social media violate the Government Advertising Act (GAA).

The GAA prohibits departments and Cabinet offices from running ads that are partisan, and requires all ads to be submitted to the AG for review before they are run so that the AG can require changes if the ads are partisan (meaning ads that feature the Premier, ministers or MPPs, the party’s logo or colours and/or ads that name and criticize a member of the legislature). All ads must also include a statement that the item is paid for by the Government of Ontario.

The Conservatives’ fake news social media accounts claim that the videos are produced by their caucus services office but Premier Ford and other Cabinet ministers are clearly involved in the production of the videos as one or more of them appear in all the videos in exclusive interviews. The fake news social media accounts confirm that they provide “exclusive content” on the government and caucus. None of the videos include a statement saying that they are paid for by the Government of Ontario.

As well, given that the caucus service office is funded by public money, and is directly connected functionally to the Premier’s office and Cabinet, the AG should conclude that those offices are directly involved in the production of the posts.

Given the Premier’s and Cabinet’s involvement in producing the videos, if the Conservatives’ caucus services office has paid to promote any of the videos as ads through its social media accounts, the AG should rule that the videos should have been submitted to the AG for review for partisanship before they were promoted as ads. The AG should also rule that all of the videos that have been promoted so far violate the GAA.

“The law is aimed at preventing the Ontario government from spending the public’s money promoting the ruling party. As a result, given Premier Ford and his Cabinet ministers have been directly involved in producing the fake news videos, the Auditor General should rule that the videos violate the law if public money has been spent promoting them,” 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 Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign page

If ruling finds technical loophole that permits spending public money to promote the fake news videos, the Auditor General should call for closing the loophole

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, September 26, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it sent yesterday to Ontario Auditor General (AG) Bonnie Lysyk calling on her to investigate and issue a ruling that, if public money is spent on ads to promote them, the Ford Conservatives’ fake news videos posted on social media violate the Government Advertising Act (GAA).

The GAA prohibits departments and Cabinet offices from running ads that are partisan, and requires all ads to be submitted to the AG for review before they are run so that the AG can require changes if the ads are partisan (meaning ads that feature the Premier, ministers or MPPs, the party’s logo or colours and/or ads that name and criticize a member of the legislature). All ads must also include a statement that the item is paid for by the Government of Ontario.

The Conservatives’ fake news social media accounts claim that the videos are produced by their caucus services office but Premier Ford and other Cabinet ministers are clearly involved in the production of the videos as one or more of them appear in all the videos in exclusive interviews. The fake news social media accounts confirm that they provide “exclusive content” on the government and caucus. None of the videos include a statement saying that they are paid for by the Government of Ontario.

As well, given that the caucus service office is funded by public money, and is directly connected functionally to the Premier’s office and Cabinet, the AG should conclude that those offices are directly involved in the production of the posts.

Given the Premier’s and Cabinet’s involvement in producing the videos, if the Conservatives’ caucus services office has paid to promote any of the videos as ads through its social media accounts, the AG should rule that the videos should have been submitted to the AG for review for partisanship before they were promoted as ads. The AG should also rule that all of the videos that have been promoted so far violate the GAA.

“The law is aimed at preventing the Ontario government from spending the public’s money promoting the ruling party. As a result, given Premier Ford and his Cabinet ministers have been directly involved in producing the fake news videos, the Auditor General should rule that the videos violate the law if public money has been spent promoting them,” 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 Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign page

More than 23,000 sign petition calling on Premier Ford to stop violating Ontarian’s Charter rights

Petition calls on Premier Ford and AG Caroline Mulroney to stop Bill 31’s use of the notwithstanding clause, and never use the clause again

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, September 19, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that in the past few days more than 23,000 Ontarians have signed its petition on Change.org calling on Premier Doug Ford and Attorney General Caroline Mulroney to stop passage of Bill 31 because it contains the notwithstanding clause aimed at overriding the recent court ruling, and to never use the clause again. The petition can be seen at: www.change.org/p/doug-ford-don-t-violate-the-charter-of-rights

Premier Ford said recently that he “won’t be shy” in overriding court rulings that find he or his government have violated the fundamental rights of people in Ontario, rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada’s Constitution.

The Charter exists to protect Canadians from abuses of power by politicians and government officials, and is supported by more than 90% of Canadians.

“Premier Ford has made several false claims to try to justify his use of the notwithstanding clause to violate the rights of candidates and voters in Toronto’s election, and he has issued the dangerously undemocratic threat to use the clause again in the future whenever the courts rule that his government’s measures violate the rights of Ontarians,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa. “Democracy Watch and thousands of people who have signed its petition stand with the many people from across the political spectrum who have called on Premier Ford and Attorney General Caroline Mulroney to stop violating Ontarians’ Charter rights and, instead, follow the democratic, proper constitutional path of appealing the recent court ruling concerning Toronto’s election.”

The rights Premier Ford has said he “won’t be shy” to violate include:

  • the rights to freedom of expression, religion, and to protest government actions and join a union;
  • the rights to privacy, and to not be arrested or jailed arbitrarily, and to be presumed innocent and not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, and;
  • the right not to be discriminated against based on your race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age or physical disability.

– 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 Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

Petition calls on Premier Ford and AG Caroline Mulroney to stop Bill 31’s use of the notwithstanding clause, and never use the clause again

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, September 19, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that in the past few days more than 23,000 Ontarians have signed its petition on Change.org calling on Premier Doug Ford and Attorney General Caroline Mulroney to stop passage of Bill 31 because it contains the notwithstanding clause aimed at overriding the recent court ruling, and to never use the clause again. The petition can be seen at: www.change.org/p/doug-ford-don-t-violate-the-charter-of-rights

Premier Ford said recently that he “won’t be shy” in overriding court rulings that find he or his government have violated the fundamental rights of people in Ontario, rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada’s Constitution.

The Charter exists to protect Canadians from abuses of power by politicians and government officials, and is supported by more than 90% of Canadians.

“Premier Ford has made several false claims to try to justify his use of the notwithstanding clause to violate the rights of candidates and voters in Toronto’s election, and he has issued the dangerously undemocratic threat to use the clause again in the future whenever the courts rule that his government’s measures violate the rights of Ontarians,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa. “Democracy Watch and thousands of people who have signed its petition stand with the many people from across the political spectrum who have called on Premier Ford and Attorney General Caroline Mulroney to stop violating Ontarians’ Charter rights and, instead, follow the democratic, proper constitutional path of appealing the recent court ruling concerning Toronto’s election.”

The rights Premier Ford has said he “won’t be shy” to violate include:

  • the rights to freedom of expression, religion, and to protest government actions and join a union;
  • the rights to privacy, and to not be arrested or jailed arbitrarily, and to be presumed innocent and not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, and;
  • the right not to be discriminated against based on your race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age or physical disability.

– 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 Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

Democracy Watch asks for investigation into all PM and Cabinet minister fundraising events involving lobbyists

Letters sent to federal Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner – however both should recuse themselves as both were chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet

Similar events held by other federal parties should also be investigated as past Conservative fundraising events also involved lobbyists

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, September 18, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, after the Globe and Mail revealed that the Trudeau Liberals are violating their own rules on lobbyists attending fundraising events involving the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers, Democracy Watch called for an investigation into all PM and Cabinet minister fundraising events in recent years involving lobbyists.

Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion calling for a reconsideration of Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s ruling that none of the sections of the Conflict of Interest Act apply to the fundraising events attended or hosted by Prime Minister Trudeau and/or Cabinet ministers. The letter also calls for an investigation into whether the PM, ministers, parliamentary secretaries or PMO/Cabinet staff violated the Act by giving preferential treatment to, and soliciting donations from, lobbyists who attended the approximately 90 high-priced, exclusive events the Liberals held from January to October 2016, and another 72 events held since April 2017, as well as all the other events held between October 2016 and April 2017 that the Liberals have not disclosed publicly.

Democracy Watch sent a similar letter to federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger calling for an investigation into whether lobbyists or people connected to lobbying organizations assisted with any of the 162-plus events, which would violate the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

As well, both letters call for investigations of similar fundraising events held by the Liberals and other parties going back years. During the decade-long Harper Conservative government several events were investigated but former Ethics Commissioner Dawson and former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd negligently failed to conduct a broad investigation to hold all politicians and lobbyists accountable for their unethical violations.

Democracy Watch and more than 1,700 Canadians have called on the Auditor General to audit the negligently weak enforcement records of both Commissioner Dawson and Commissioner Shepherd.

Both letters also call on Ethics Commissioner Dion and Lobbying Commissioner Bélanger to recuse themselves from investigating and ruling on the fundraising events, and to assign the investigations to people who are independent from them, because both are biased as they were chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet through a process controlled by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Democracy Watch has challenged the appointment of both commissioners in Federal Court, and the cases will be heard in Ottawa on November 14-15, 2018.

“High-priced, exclusive, invite-only fundraising events attended or hosted by the Prime Minister, Cabinet minister or their staff, and by lobbyists, clearly violate rules in the federal ethics law that prohibit giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their donation, and prohibit soliciting or accepting their donation because of the conflict of interest it causes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa. “As the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2009, if a lobbyist assists a politician with fundraising they violate the federal lobbying ethics code.”

“The Trudeau Liberals have shown a clear pattern of breaking the rules that prohibit the PM and Cabinet ministers from being involved in fundraising events involving lobbyists, and prohibit lobbyists from assisting with fundraising, and so a comprehensive investigation is needed of all the events in recent years to find all the Cabinet ministers and lobbyists who have violated the rules,” said Conacher.

“The Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are biased as they were both chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet through a process controlled by the Prime Minister’s Office, and so the investigation of the Liberal fundraising events must be delegated to people who are fully independent from the Cabinet to ensure the integrity of the investigation,” said Conacher. “Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet essentially chose their own ethics and lobbying judges by choosing the commissioners, and so the commissioners shouldn’t be trusted to investigate and rule impartially on the Trudeau Liberals’ fundraising events.”

Democracy Watch has already challenged a ruling by Lobbying Commissioner Bélanger in Federal Court. The case will be heard in Ottawa on November 7, 2018.

As detailed in the letter it has sent to the Ethics Commissioner, Democracy Watch’s position is that, based on the main purpose of the Conflict of Interest Act of preventing conflicts of interests and resolving them in the public interest (as set out in section 3), the events are a violation of one or more (depending on the situation) of the following sections of the Conflict of Interest Act:

  • section 7 which prohibits giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their identity (including being a top-level donor);
  • section 5 that requires ministers to arrange their private affairs to prevent conflicts of interest (which includes real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest), and;
  • section 16 which prohibits soliciting donations if it would cause a conflict of interest.

As detailed in the letter it has sent to the Lobbying Commissioner, lobbyists or people who are directly associated with a lobbying organization who assist politicians, parties or riding associations with fundraising violate the Integrity and Professionalism Principles, and Rule 6, of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct. If they lobby the politician they assisted during or after the fundraising, then they also violate one or more of Rules 7-9 of the Code.

To stop the appointment of weak government watchdogs and law enforcement officers, Democracy Watch has called in its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign for establishment of an independent appointments commission to search for and propose a short-list of candidates for all Cabinet appointments. Ontario uses this appointment system to appoint provincial judges, and it is considered to be a world-leading process.

– 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 Money in Politics Campaign

Letters sent to federal Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner – however both should recuse themselves as both were chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet

Similar events held by other federal parties should also be investigated as past Conservative fundraising events also involved lobbyists

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, September 18, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, after the Globe and Mail revealed that the Trudeau Liberals are violating their own rules on lobbyists attending fundraising events involving the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers, Democracy Watch called for an investigation into all PM and Cabinet minister fundraising events in recent years involving lobbyists.

Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion calling for a reconsideration of Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s ruling that none of the sections of the Conflict of Interest Act apply to the fundraising events attended or hosted by Prime Minister Trudeau and/or Cabinet ministers. The letter also calls for an investigation into whether the PM, ministers, parliamentary secretaries or PMO/Cabinet staff violated the Act by giving preferential treatment to, and soliciting donations from, lobbyists who attended the approximately 90 high-priced, exclusive events the Liberals held from January to October 2016, and another 72 events held since April 2017, as well as all the other events held between October 2016 and April 2017 that the Liberals have not disclosed publicly.

Democracy Watch sent a similar letter to federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger calling for an investigation into whether lobbyists or people connected to lobbying organizations assisted with any of the 162-plus events, which would violate the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

As well, both letters call for investigations of similar fundraising events held by the Liberals and other parties going back years. During the decade-long Harper Conservative government several events were investigated but former Ethics Commissioner Dawson and former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd negligently failed to conduct a broad investigation to hold all politicians and lobbyists accountable for their unethical violations.

Democracy Watch and more than 1,700 Canadians have called on the Auditor General to audit the negligently weak enforcement records of both Commissioner Dawson and Commissioner Shepherd.

Both letters also call on Ethics Commissioner Dion and Lobbying Commissioner Bélanger to recuse themselves from investigating and ruling on the fundraising events, and to assign the investigations to people who are independent from them, because both are biased as they were chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet through a process controlled by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Democracy Watch has challenged the appointment of both commissioners in Federal Court, and the cases will be heard in Ottawa on November 14-15, 2018.

“High-priced, exclusive, invite-only fundraising events attended or hosted by the Prime Minister, Cabinet minister or their staff, and by lobbyists, clearly violate rules in the federal ethics law that prohibit giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their donation, and prohibit soliciting or accepting their donation because of the conflict of interest it causes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa. “As the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2009, if a lobbyist assists a politician with fundraising they violate the federal lobbying ethics code.”

“The Trudeau Liberals have shown a clear pattern of breaking the rules that prohibit the PM and Cabinet ministers from being involved in fundraising events involving lobbyists, and prohibit lobbyists from assisting with fundraising, and so a comprehensive investigation is needed of all the events in recent years to find all the Cabinet ministers and lobbyists who have violated the rules,” said Conacher.

“The Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are biased as they were both chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet through a process controlled by the Prime Minister’s Office, and so the investigation of the Liberal fundraising events must be delegated to people who are fully independent from the Cabinet to ensure the integrity of the investigation,” said Conacher. “Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet essentially chose their own ethics and lobbying judges by choosing the commissioners, and so the commissioners shouldn’t be trusted to investigate and rule impartially on the Trudeau Liberals’ fundraising events.”

Democracy Watch has already challenged a ruling by Lobbying Commissioner Bélanger in Federal Court. The case will be heard in Ottawa on November 7, 2018.

As detailed in the letter it has sent to the Ethics Commissioner, Democracy Watch’s position is that, based on the main purpose of the Conflict of Interest Act of preventing conflicts of interests and resolving them in the public interest (as set out in section 3), the events are a violation of one or more (depending on the situation) of the following sections of the Conflict of Interest Act:

  • section 7 which prohibits giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their identity (including being a top-level donor);
  • section 5 that requires ministers to arrange their private affairs to prevent conflicts of interest (which includes real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest), and;
  • section 16 which prohibits soliciting donations if it would cause a conflict of interest.

As detailed in the letter it has sent to the Lobbying Commissioner, lobbyists or people who are directly associated with a lobbying organization who assist politicians, parties or riding associations with fundraising violate the Integrity and Professionalism Principles, and Rule 6, of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct. If they lobby the politician they assisted during or after the fundraising, then they also violate one or more of Rules 7-9 of the Code.

To stop the appointment of weak government watchdogs and law enforcement officers, Democracy Watch has called in its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign for establishment of an independent appointments commission to search for and propose a short-list of candidates for all Cabinet appointments. Ontario uses this appointment system to appoint provincial judges, and it is considered to be a world-leading process.

– 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 Money in Politics Campaign

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s rulings on PM’s & other ministers’ conflict screens, and on Finance Minister Morneau owning shares in his family’s company, challenged in Federal Court of Appeal

Democracy Watch argues that screens are illegal “smokescreens” and Morneau should have been required to divest his shares as soon as he became minister

First two cases of Democracy Watch’s six ethics and lobbying court challenges – next two will be heard by the Federal Court in mid-November

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, September 6, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, two of Democracy Watch’s six ongoing federal ethics and lobbying court cases are being heard by the Federal Court of Appeal, one after the other.

The first case challenges the legality of the Ethics Commissioner’s use of conflict screens because they are smokescreens that violate the disclosure requirements in the Conflict of Interest Act by hiding whether Cabinet ministers (Prime Minister Trudeau, and Ministers Morneau, LeBlanc, Wilson-Raybould, Champagne and Sohi) and about 20 top officials (including Deepak Chopra) participate in decisions that affect their own or their family’s or friends’ financial or other interests.

The first federal Ethics Commissioner, Bernard Shapiro, recommended in 2005 and 2006 that detailed public disclosure be required every time ministers or other officials recuse themselves. With the 2006 Federal Accountability Act, the Conservatives changed the federal ethics law to require public disclosure. There is nothing in the federal ethics law, the Conflict of Interest Act, that allows the Ethics Commissioner to use the screens. Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson ignored the law through her entire 2007-2017 term.

“The federal Ethics Commissioner’s smokescreens violate the federal ethics law as they allow Cabinet ministers and others to hide whether they are taking part in decisions when they have a conflict of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Ethics Commissioner screen schemes ignore that the law was changed in 2006 to require public disclosure every time a minister or government official doesn’t participate in a discussion or decision because of a conflict of interest, as recommended by the first ethics commissioner in 2005 and 2006.”

The court file number is A-287-16/424-16 – to see Democracy Watch’s legal arguments, click here. Yavar Hameed of Hameed Law is representing Democracy Watch in the case.

The second case challenges whether it was legal for former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s to allow Finance Minister Morneau to own more than $30 million in shares in his family’s company during his first two years as a minister.

Subsection 27(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act requires ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees (including Deputy Ministers) and other senior government officials to either sell investments they control (such as shares in a family company) or place them in a blind trust within 4 months of being appointed, and the section 20 definition of “controlled assets” is clearly broad enough to cover the investment scheme that Morneau set up to hide his Morneau Shepell shares.

“As she has did many times, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson allowed a Cabinet minister to violate the federal ethics law, and so as it has many times, Democracy Watch is once again challenging the Ethics Commissioner in court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “All of these court cases would be unnecessary if the Ethics Commissioner had just done her job and enforced federal ethics rules properly and effectively.”

Although Minister Morneau finally sold the shares last December, the case is important to determine whether it’s legal for any minister to have investments like he did. For example, Prime Minister Trudeau continues to own shares in many companies, as do Ministers Bennett, Brison, Champagne, MacAulay, and Senator Harder and dozens of top government officials. The court file number is A-348-17 – to see Democracy Watch’s legal arguments, click here. Sebastian Spano is representing Democracy Watch in the case.

Democracy Watch’s next two cases, challenging the appointment of the new Ethics Commissioner and new Lobbying Commissioner, will be heard by the Federal Court on November 14-15, 2018. To see details, click here.

– 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

Democracy Watch argues that screens are illegal “smokescreens” and Morneau should have been required to divest his shares as soon as he became minister

First two cases of Democracy Watch’s six ethics and lobbying court challenges – next two will be heard by the Federal Court in mid-November

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, September 6, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, two of Democracy Watch’s six ongoing federal ethics and lobbying court cases are being heard by the Federal Court of Appeal, one after the other.

The first case challenges the legality of the Ethics Commissioner’s use of conflict screens because they are smokescreens that violate the disclosure requirements in the Conflict of Interest Act by hiding whether Cabinet ministers (Prime Minister Trudeau, and Ministers Morneau, LeBlanc, Wilson-Raybould, Champagne and Sohi) and about 20 top officials (including Deepak Chopra) participate in decisions that affect their own or their family’s or friends’ financial or other interests.

The first federal Ethics Commissioner, Bernard Shapiro, recommended in 2005 and 2006 that detailed public disclosure be required every time ministers or other officials recuse themselves. With the 2006 Federal Accountability Act, the Conservatives changed the federal ethics law to require public disclosure. There is nothing in the federal ethics law, the Conflict of Interest Act, that allows the Ethics Commissioner to use the screens. Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson ignored the law through her entire 2007-2017 term.

“The federal Ethics Commissioner’s smokescreens violate the federal ethics law as they allow Cabinet ministers and others to hide whether they are taking part in decisions when they have a conflict of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Ethics Commissioner screen schemes ignore that the law was changed in 2006 to require public disclosure every time a minister or government official doesn’t participate in a discussion or decision because of a conflict of interest, as recommended by the first ethics commissioner in 2005 and 2006.”

The court file number is A-287-16/424-16 – to see Democracy Watch’s legal arguments, click here. Yavar Hameed of Hameed Law is representing Democracy Watch in the case.

The second case challenges whether it was legal for former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s to allow Finance Minister Morneau to own more than $30 million in shares in his family’s company during his first two years as a minister.

Subsection 27(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act requires ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees (including Deputy Ministers) and other senior government officials to either sell investments they control (such as shares in a family company) or place them in a blind trust within 4 months of being appointed, and the section 20 definition of “controlled assets” is clearly broad enough to cover the investment scheme that Morneau set up to hide his Morneau Shepell shares.

“As she has did many times, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson allowed a Cabinet minister to violate the federal ethics law, and so as it has many times, Democracy Watch is once again challenging the Ethics Commissioner in court,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “All of these court cases would be unnecessary if the Ethics Commissioner had just done her job and enforced federal ethics rules properly and effectively.”

Although Minister Morneau finally sold the shares last December, the case is important to determine whether it’s legal for any minister to have investments like he did. For example, Prime Minister Trudeau continues to own shares in many companies, as do Ministers Bennett, Brison, Champagne, MacAulay, and Senator Harder and dozens of top government officials. The court file number is A-348-17 – to see Democracy Watch’s legal arguments, click here. Sebastian Spano is representing Democracy Watch in the case.

Democracy Watch’s next two cases, challenging the appointment of the new Ethics Commissioner and new Lobbying Commissioner, will be heard by the Federal Court on November 14-15, 2018. To see details, click here.

– 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

Groups file complaint with Elections Ontario over oil and gas industry group’s ads during Ontario election campaign

Front group for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) targeted 13 Liberal swing ridings in GTA, but didn’t register as third- party advertiser for Ontario election or identify CAPP as a funder

August 1, 2018 (Ottawa) — Greenpeace Canada and Democracy Watch have filed a formal request for an investigation by Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer into whether an ad campaign by a front group for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) violated Ontario’s election law. The request sets out details about an ad campaign run from April 8 to May 29 by Canada’s Energy Citizens, which is funded by CAPP. This “ground campaign” targeted 13 Liberal swing ridings in the Greater Toronto Area and involved billboards, mailings to 400,000 homes and social media postings.

Greenpeace learned details of the campaign from an anonymous whistleblower. Neither CAPP nor Energy Citizens registered as a third-party advertiser for the Ontario election campaign even though the advertising campaign addressed the issues of carbon pricing and whether environmental regulations are making Canada “closed for business”, issues that were raised by parties in the Ontario election campaign (especially the Conservative Party). The ads also did not identify CAPP as a funder.

“This ad campaign by a front group for the country’s largest oil and gas lobby group supported the Conservative party’s platform, raising serious questions about whether it violated Ontario’s election law,” said Keith Stewart, Senior Energy Strategist for Greenpeace Canada. “Now more than ever, we must vigorously defend democratic process against those who would subvert it for their own advantage.”

“The disclosure requirements and spending limits are there to prevent big businesses and other wealthy interests from undermining fair and democratic elections. Elections Ontario must strongly enforce the law and not create any technical loopholes that can be exploited by these wealthy interests,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa.

Ontario’s Election Finances Act requires registration as a third-party advertiser if an individual or entity that is not a candidate or political party spends $500 or more on ads that address issues raised by parties or candidates during the six months before the election campaign period (which was November 9, 2017 to May 9, 2018) or during the election campaign period (which was May 9 to June 7). Each ad is required to identify both who is running the ad, and who paid for it. Ad spending cannot exceed $600,000 overall (or $24,000 in any riding) during the pre-campaign period or $100,000 overall (or $4,000 per riding) during the campaign period.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa
Cell: 416-546-3443

Keith Stewart, Senior Energy Strategist at Greenpeace Canada
Cell: 416-659-0294

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Front group for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) targeted 13 Liberal swing ridings in GTA, but didn’t register as third- party advertiser for Ontario election or identify CAPP as a funder

August 1, 2018 (Ottawa) — Greenpeace Canada and Democracy Watch have filed a formal request for an investigation by Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer into whether an ad campaign by a front group for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) violated Ontario’s election law. The request sets out details about an ad campaign run from April 8 to May 29 by Canada’s Energy Citizens, which is funded by CAPP. This “ground campaign” targeted 13 Liberal swing ridings in the Greater Toronto Area and involved billboards, mailings to 400,000 homes and social media postings.

Greenpeace learned details of the campaign from an anonymous whistleblower. Neither CAPP nor Energy Citizens registered as a third-party advertiser for the Ontario election campaign even though the advertising campaign addressed the issues of carbon pricing and whether environmental regulations are making Canada “closed for business”, issues that were raised by parties in the Ontario election campaign (especially the Conservative Party). The ads also did not identify CAPP as a funder.

“This ad campaign by a front group for the country’s largest oil and gas lobby group supported the Conservative party’s platform, raising serious questions about whether it violated Ontario’s election law,” said Keith Stewart, Senior Energy Strategist for Greenpeace Canada. “Now more than ever, we must vigorously defend democratic process against those who would subvert it for their own advantage.”

“The disclosure requirements and spending limits are there to prevent big businesses and other wealthy interests from undermining fair and democratic elections. Elections Ontario must strongly enforce the law and not create any technical loopholes that can be exploited by these wealthy interests,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa.

Ontario’s Election Finances Act requires registration as a third-party advertiser if an individual or entity that is not a candidate or political party spends $500 or more on ads that address issues raised by parties or candidates during the six months before the election campaign period (which was November 9, 2017 to May 9, 2018) or during the election campaign period (which was May 9 to June 7). Each ad is required to identify both who is running the ad, and who paid for it. Ad spending cannot exceed $600,000 overall (or $24,000 in any riding) during the pre-campaign period or $100,000 overall (or $4,000 per riding) during the campaign period.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa
Cell: 416-546-3443

Keith Stewart, Senior Energy Strategist at Greenpeace Canada
Cell: 416-659-0294

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Public inquiry needed into parts of Elections Ontario’s 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 up 7.7% from 2014 to 58% but still 7th lowest since Confederation – is Elections Ontario’s voter education effective? What other changes would help increase voter turnout?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 26, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called for a public inquiry into parts of Elections Ontario’s running of the recent provincial election given: 1. Elections Ontario violated the law by failing to do ads informing voters of their right to decline their ballot; 2. a huge increase in unmarked ballots raises questions about whether thousands were prohibited from declining their ballot; 3. 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 given voter turnout was the seventh lowest percentage since 1867.

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?

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 unofficial results which were finally made available for all ridings yesterday (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 22,911 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? Democracy Watch has heard 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.

“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 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 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.

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.

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%, and the 2018 turnout was still low, the seventh lowest turnout since Confederation.

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.

In addition, the 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 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.

“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

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 26, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called for a public inquiry into parts of Elections Ontario’s running of the recent provincial election given: 1. Elections Ontario violated the law by failing to do ads informing voters of their right to decline their ballot; 2. a huge increase in unmarked ballots raises questions about whether thousands were prohibited from declining their ballot; 3. 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 given voter turnout was the seventh lowest percentage since 1867.

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?

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 unofficial results which were finally made available for all ridings yesterday (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 22,911 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? Democracy Watch has heard 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.

“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 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 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.

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.

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%, and the 2018 turnout was still low, the seventh lowest turnout since Confederation.

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.

In addition, the 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 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.

“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

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign

More than 15,000 Canadians have signed online petitions calling for changes recommended by House Committee to strengthen privacy protection and online election ad disclosure and accountability

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, June 20, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, following the release of the House Committee report yesterday, Democracy Watch announced that more than 11,000 Canadians have signed its online petition on Change.org that echoes the Committee’s privacy protection recommendations, and more than 4,500 Canadians have signed its online petition on Change.org calling for changes to stop secret, false online election ads.

Democracy Watch’s petitions were submitted to the House Committee, and it also recently testified at the hearings on Bill C-76 and pointed to several weaknesses in the bill that will do little to protect political parties from abusing Canadians’ personal information or to stop secret, false online election ads.

“Will the Trudeau Cabinet make the changes recommended by the House Committee and experts to ensure the privacy of Canadians’ privacy and the integrity of federal elections are protected or will the Cabinet continue to hide behind weak and flawed bills that are inadequate to protect anyone from anything?” asked Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Businesses and political parties and social media companies cannot be trusted to protect Canadians’ privacy or to stop fake or foreign ads on their own because they are in a conflict of interest since they make money from privacy invasions and ads.”

Democracy Watch’s privacy protection petition calls for changes to strengthen the rules, enforcement and penalties and apply them to all businesses and government institutions, including political parties.

Democracy Watch’s online election ad petition and campaign call for changes to ensure that all election advertising, in media and social media, complies with election laws that:

The problem is mainly with social media sites, like Facebook, through which ads can be targeted directly and only to a specific individual’s page. Unlike an ad in a newspaper or on radio or TV, election watchdog agencies, the media and the public can’t track these targeted online social media ads because only the targeted individual sees the ad. As a result, they can’t ensure the ads comply with the law.

“Canada’s democracy faces the new threat of fake and foreign online election ads, and we need to fight back with changes to elections laws to stop these ads,” said Conacher. “Social media companies cannot be trusted to stop fake or foreign ads on their own because they are in a conflict of interest since they make money from the ads and also may support one political party more than others.”

Democracy Watch’s Stop Fake Online Election Ads campaign calls for the following six key changes:

  1. prohibit media and social media companies from publishing election-related ads during the six months leading up to an election if the ad is paid for with foreign currency (such as Russian rubles);
  2. require media and social media companies to report every election-related ad to the election law enforcement agency during the six months leading up to an election so the ad can be reviewed to determine if it makes a clearly false claim about a party or candidate;
  3. require media and social media companies to report to the election law enforcement agency who placed and paid for each ad, and how much was spent on the ad, so agency can determine if the amount spent on the ad violates the legal limit (including the amount spent on having employees or contractors or bots share, like or retweet the ad);
  4. require the government to establish an independent commission (whose members are appointed by non-governmental bodies like the Canadian Judicial Council) to conduct a public, merit-based search for the next Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Elections Canada (and for the next head of the election law enforcement agency in each province), with the commission giving a shortlist of nominees to the party leaders from which they will all choose together one person as the head of the agency;
  5. give the head of the election law enforcement agency (who, at the federal level, is the Commissioner of Canada Elections) the power, during the six months leading up to an election, to order clearly false, illegal ads be deleted from media and social media sites, and require the head to issue these orders within a few days of receiving the information about each ad, and;
  6. give the head of the election law enforcement agency the power to impose significant fines on social media companies and advertisers who violate the rules (the fines must be large enough to discourage attempts to violate the rules).

– 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 Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, June 20, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, following the release of the House Committee report yesterday, Democracy Watch announced that more than 11,000 Canadians have signed its online petition on Change.org that echoes the Committee’s privacy protection recommendations, and more than 4,500 Canadians have signed its online petition on Change.org calling for changes to stop secret, false online election ads.

Democracy Watch’s petitions were submitted to the House Committee, and it also recently testified at the hearings on Bill C-76 and pointed to several weaknesses in the bill that will do little to protect political parties from abusing Canadians’ personal information or to stop secret, false online election ads.

“Will the Trudeau Cabinet make the changes recommended by the House Committee and experts to ensure the privacy of Canadians’ privacy and the integrity of federal elections are protected or will the Cabinet continue to hide behind weak and flawed bills that are inadequate to protect anyone from anything?” asked Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Businesses and political parties and social media companies cannot be trusted to protect Canadians’ privacy or to stop fake or foreign ads on their own because they are in a conflict of interest since they make money from privacy invasions and ads.”

Democracy Watch’s privacy protection petition calls for changes to strengthen the rules, enforcement and penalties and apply them to all businesses and government institutions, including political parties.

Democracy Watch’s online election ad petition and campaign call for changes to ensure that all election advertising, in media and social media, complies with election laws that:

The problem is mainly with social media sites, like Facebook, through which ads can be targeted directly and only to a specific individual’s page. Unlike an ad in a newspaper or on radio or TV, election watchdog agencies, the media and the public can’t track these targeted online social media ads because only the targeted individual sees the ad. As a result, they can’t ensure the ads comply with the law.

“Canada’s democracy faces the new threat of fake and foreign online election ads, and we need to fight back with changes to elections laws to stop these ads,” said Conacher. “Social media companies cannot be trusted to stop fake or foreign ads on their own because they are in a conflict of interest since they make money from the ads and also may support one political party more than others.”

Democracy Watch’s Stop Fake Online Election Ads campaign calls for the following six key changes:

  1. prohibit media and social media companies from publishing election-related ads during the six months leading up to an election if the ad is paid for with foreign currency (such as Russian rubles);
  2. require media and social media companies to report every election-related ad to the election law enforcement agency during the six months leading up to an election so the ad can be reviewed to determine if it makes a clearly false claim about a party or candidate;
  3. require media and social media companies to report to the election law enforcement agency who placed and paid for each ad, and how much was spent on the ad, so agency can determine if the amount spent on the ad violates the legal limit (including the amount spent on having employees or contractors or bots share, like or retweet the ad);
  4. require the government to establish an independent commission (whose members are appointed by non-governmental bodies like the Canadian Judicial Council) to conduct a public, merit-based search for the next Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Elections Canada (and for the next head of the election law enforcement agency in each province), with the commission giving a shortlist of nominees to the party leaders from which they will all choose together one person as the head of the agency;
  5. give the head of the election law enforcement agency (who, at the federal level, is the Commissioner of Canada Elections) the power, during the six months leading up to an election, to order clearly false, illegal ads be deleted from media and social media sites, and require the head to issue these orders within a few days of receiving the information about each ad, and;
  6. give the head of the election law enforcement agency the power to impose significant fines on social media companies and advertisers who violate the rules (the fines must be large enough to discourage attempts to violate the rules).

– 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 Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign

Ethics Commissioner ruling exploits huge loophole in federal ethics law to let Finance Minister Morneau off the hook for clearly unethical actions

Loophole allows Cabinet ministers and top government officials to make decisions even when they have a financial interest and can profit from their decision

House Ethics Committee must review ethics law this fall — must recommend closing loophole and government must close it or Trudeau Liberals will confirm they are as unethical as past governments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 18, 2018

OTTAWA — Today, Democracy Watch issued the following comments on federal Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s ruling letting Finance Minister Bill Morneau off the hook for taking part in the decision to change a law in a way that would benefit his family’s pension management company.

“As Democracy Watch has pointed out for the past 10 years, the federal government ethics law does not apply to 99 per cent of the decisions and actions of Cabinet ministers and top government officials because of a huge loophole in the law that the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling exploited to let Finance Minister Morneau off the hook,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa. “Because of the huge loophole in the federal ethics law, the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers and top government officials are allowed to make decisions that make money for themselves, their family members and friends.”

“It’s not ethical, but the loophole makes it legal, and makes Canada’s federal ethics law a sad joke,” said Conacher.

“Former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson did everything she could to hide that loophole by secretly burying a similar investigation in 2012 into former Harper Chief of Staff Nigel Wright’s participation in decisions that affected businesses he was invested in, and also issuing other secret rulings on other ministers’ investments, including Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford who owned shares in an energy hedge fund while participating in decisions about tar sands’ pipelines,” said Conacher.

“Now that this huge loophole is exposed, the question is whether the Trudeau Liberals will finally close it so that the now ‘Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Act’ will finally become an effective law for preventing ministers and top government officials from taking part in decisions when their decisions can make them money,” said Conacher. “The House ethics committee is required to review the Conflict of Interest Act this fall, and if doesn’t recommend closing this loophole, and the government doesn’t pass a bill closing it before the next election, it will show that the Trudeau Liberals are just as unethical as all past governments.”

See more details about this loophole, and other flaws in Canada’s federal ethics law and enforcement system, in this April 2013 Democracy Watch news release.

-30-

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition
Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa
Cell: 416-546-3443

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign
 

Loophole allows Cabinet ministers and top government officials to make decisions even when they have a financial interest and can profit from their decision

House Ethics Committee must review ethics law this fall — must recommend closing loophole and government must close it or Trudeau Liberals will confirm they are as unethical as past governments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 18, 2018

OTTAWA — Today, Democracy Watch issued the following comments on federal Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s ruling letting Finance Minister Bill Morneau off the hook for taking part in the decision to change a law in a way that would benefit his family’s pension management company.

“As Democracy Watch has pointed out for the past 10 years, the federal government ethics law does not apply to 99 per cent of the decisions and actions of Cabinet ministers and top government officials because of a huge loophole in the law that the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling exploited to let Finance Minister Morneau off the hook,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa. “Because of the huge loophole in the federal ethics law, the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers and top government officials are allowed to make decisions that make money for themselves, their family members and friends.”

“It’s not ethical, but the loophole makes it legal, and makes Canada’s federal ethics law a sad joke,” said Conacher.

“Former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson did everything she could to hide that loophole by secretly burying a similar investigation in 2012 into former Harper Chief of Staff Nigel Wright’s participation in decisions that affected businesses he was invested in, and also issuing other secret rulings on other ministers’ investments, including Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford who owned shares in an energy hedge fund while participating in decisions about tar sands’ pipelines,” said Conacher.

“Now that this huge loophole is exposed, the question is whether the Trudeau Liberals will finally close it so that the now ‘Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Act’ will finally become an effective law for preventing ministers and top government officials from taking part in decisions when their decisions can make them money,” said Conacher. “The House ethics committee is required to review the Conflict of Interest Act this fall, and if doesn’t recommend closing this loophole, and the government doesn’t pass a bill closing it before the next election, it will show that the Trudeau Liberals are just as unethical as all past governments.”

See more details about this loophole, and other flaws in Canada’s federal ethics law and enforcement system, in this April 2013 Democracy Watch news release.

-30-

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition
Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa
Cell: 416-546-3443

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign