“It’s a small price to pay right now for the long term benefits that we’ll receive” said event organizer on day of event

People who assist parties, candidates or politicians with fundraising or campaigning are prohibited from lobbying them or their staff for 5 years, and so should their companies – Clearwater is now registered to lobby Prime Minister Trudeau’s office

Lobbying Commissioner should recuse herself from ruling on complaint because she received 6-month contract from Liberal Cabinet in December

Federal political parties should change political finance system to stop big money’s unethical influence by matching Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, March 1, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to federal Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd concerning an August 25, 2014 fundraising event for the Liberal Party of Canada hosted by Clearwater Seafoods co-founder and board member (and, according to media reports, possible major shareholder) Mickey MacDonald at his home and attended by Justin Trudeau.

According to an article in the Globe and Mail, a ticket for the event cost $1,000 and 75 to 80 people attended (the Chronicle Herald reported the ticket price as $1,200). 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 also called on Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd to recuse herself from ruling on issues concerning the Liberal Cabinet because the Cabinet gave her the gift of six-month contract in mid-December worth about $90,000.

According to an article in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, Mickey MacDonald was a major shareholder of Clearwater as of April 2013. According to that article and a February 2011 Globe and Mail article containing several statements from Mr. MacDonald, he was a co-founder of Clearwater along with his brother Colin (who is currently chairman of Clearwater) and John Risley who is also a board member. According to Clearwater’s website, Mr. MacDonald is a member of the company’s board of directors.

At the time of the event, Clearwater was not registered to lobby the federal government. In May 2015, according to the Registry of Lobbyists (which, due to loopholes in the Lobbying Act, does not include all lobbying activities), Clearwater hired consultant lobbyists Phil von Finckenstein and Gordon Quaiatinni of Maple Leaf Strategies to lobby several federal government institutions including the Prime Minister’s Office, and their registrations continue until today. In May 2016, another Maple Leaf Strategies consultant lobbyists registered to lobby the Prime Minister’s Office on behalf of Clearwater, Kellie Major.

“Federal lobbying ethics rules and the Lobbying Commissioner say it is illegal for anyone to help a party, candidate or politician with fundraising or campaigning and then be involved in lobbying them any time within the next five years because of the apparent conflict of interest their help creates for the politician,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The question for the Lobbying Commissioner to consider is whether Mr. MacDonald’s fundraising event attended by Justin Trudeau in August 2014 that raised tens of thousands of dollars for the federal Liberal Party created an apparent conflict of interest that means Clearwater Seafoods is prohibited from lobbying the Prime Minister’s Office until 2019.”

“Democracy Watch’s position is a person directly associated with a company or other organization who helps raise money for a politician who then becomes Prime Minister creates an apparent conflict of interest that prohibits the company from lobbying the federal government at all, given that the Prime Minister appoints all Cabinet ministers and takes part in all Cabinet decisions,” said Conacher.

“If the Lobbying Commissioner decides that a co-founder, board member and shareholder of a company who is not registered as a lobbyist can raise money for a political party or politician without creating an apparent conflict of interest that prohibits the company from lobbying the politician for a few years, it will create a huge loophole in the federal lobbying ethics rules that many companies will likely exploit by having non-registered board members or executives help with fundraising and campaign events for politicians and parties while other company representatives register to do the lobbying for the company,” said Conacher.

The Lobbying Commissioner office confirmed in a letter dated October 25, 2016 that it is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about the situation revealed in an October 25th Globe and Mail article involving Barry Sherman, the chairman of generic drug manufacturer Apotex Inc., assisting with selling tickets for a $500-per-ticket fundraising event to be held in Toronto on November 7, 2016 featuring Finance Minister Bill Morneau while Apotex is registered to lobby, and is lobbying, Finance Canada.

The Lobbying Commissioner office also confirmed in a letter dated November 18, 2016 that it is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about about an August 26, 2015 fundraising event for the Liberal Party of Canada hosted by Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman at his home and attended by Justin Trudeau and then-candidate, now-Liberal MP Michael Levitt.

Rule 6 of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct states:

A lobbyist shall not propose or undertake any action that would place a public office holder in a real or apparent conflict of interest.

Rule 9 of the Lobbyists’ Code prohibits anyone from assisting a party, candidate or politician (or other public office holder) with fundraising or campaigning or any way that creates a sense of obligation, and then lobbying them afterwards for a period of five years because of the ongoing apparent conflict of interest that person’s assistance has caused for the politician or other type public office holder.

While Rule 9 didn’t come into effect until December 2015, in a public guidance document on Rule 8 published in 2009, and a clarification document published later, and in an updated guidance document on Rule 8 published on June 25, 2015, and in a reminder to lobbyists about Rule 8 and political activities published on June 25, 2015, the Lobbying Commissioner made it clear that lobbyists assisting a party, candidate or politician with campaigning or fundraising violate Rule 8 by creating an apparent conflict of interest for the politician that continues into the future for five years. Therefore, anyone who assists with campaigning or fundraising cannot be involved, and their organization cannot be involved, in lobbying the politicians involved in campaign or fundraising for the following five years.

Democracy Watch advocated through 10 years of campaigns and court cases until 2009 to win the enforcement of Rule 8 of the Lobbyists’ Code (now Rule 6 in a new version of the Code in force since December 1, 2015). In March 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in the case Democracy Watch v. Barry Campbell, the Attorney General of Canada and the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, rejecting former Registrar Michael Nelson’s “deeply flawed” interpretation of Rule 8 (Commissioner Shepherd was Deputy Registrar at the time) and making it clear that Rule 8 (now Rule 6) prohibits lobbyists from doing anything that puts a public office holder in even an appearance of a conflict of interest. Registrar Nelson has used the same “deeply flawed” interpretation of Rule 8 as former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson, both of whom had negligently weak enforcement records that let hundreds of lobbyists get away with violating the Lobbyists’ Code or the Lobbying Act. Commissioner Shepherd has had a similar similar negligently weak enforcement record over the past nine years.

Because of loopholes in the federal Lobbying Act, and weak enforcement, there are likely many people lobbying who are not registered and who are therefore not covered by the Lobbyists’ Code rules. Even people caught violating the Code face no penalty. A May 2012 House Committee report recommended closing some of the loopholes and giving the Lobbying Commissioner the power to impose penalties on violators.

“Federal parties need to work together to close the loopholes in the lobbying law that allow for secret, unethical lobbying, and to strengthen enforcement and ensure that every lobbyist who violates the rules is penalized with a high fine,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch also called on federal political parties to stop the unethical influence of big money in federal politics by making the same world-leading changes to the federal political donation system as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Democracy Watch detailed in a January 27th news release how much the federal Liberal’s proposal to make some cash-for-access events more transparent is a charade that won’t stop cash for access or the unethical influence of big money donations, and what changes are actually needed to stop these undemocratic activities.

“The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in federal politics is to stop big money donations,” said Conacher. “Any political party that refuses to support key changes to the federal political finance system changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics.”

While the federal government, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have banned corporate and union donations, they all still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford.

Donations to parties in Quebec pre-2013, the federal parties in the past few years, and to Toronto city councillors, show clearly that with such high donation limits wealthy interests continue to receive preferential access and to have undue influence, cash-for-access schemes continue, as well as the illegal funneling of donations from corporations and unions through their executives and employees.

– 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

Group launches letter-writing campaign to push government, and House Government Operations Committee reviewing federal whistleblower protection law right now – strong recommendations needed to push government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 23, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, as the House of Commons Government Operations Committee reviews the federal public sector whistleblower protection law, Democracy Watch formally launched its ProtectWhistleblowers.ca letter-writing campaign and national petition drive on Change.org, calling for 17 key changes by the federal government, and governments across Canada, to protect people who blow the whistle on government and big business abuse, waste and law-breaking.

The 17 key changes include: ensuring everyone is covered by the protection law and system, including political staff; allowing everyone to file their complaint directly and anonymously with the protection commissioner or agency; ensuring the protection commissioner is fully independently appointed and empowered to impose penalties (as Ontario appoints and empowers judges); requiring the protection commissioner/agency to conduct audits and rule on all complaints publicly in a timely manner (with the identity of all wrongdoers made public); compensating whistleblowers for legal advice, and rewarding them adequately if their claims are proven; allowing them to appeal to court if they disagree with the protection commissioner’s ruling, and, ensuring an independent audit of the protection system at least every three years.

“The federal Liberals claimed in their 2015 election platform that greater openness and transparency are fundamental to restoring trust in Canada’s democracy but if they don’t strengthen whistleblower protection they will break their open government promise,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

People have tried to protect Canadians by blowing the whistle on governments wasting billions of dollars, approving dangerous drugs, and covering up scandals, and on big businesses gouging you, selling you hazardous products, and covering up pollution and oil spills.

These whistleblowers have been harassed, fired from their jobs, sued, silenced and hurt by governments and big businesses – all because Canadian whistleblower protection laws are weak and enforcement is negligently bad.

The federal Liberals failed to include any promises to strengthen whistleblower protection in their 2015 election platform. The federal Conservatives did little to strengthen whistleblower protection from 2006 to 2015, and actually covered up scandals involving the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (who enforces the federal law). Other federal parties have done little to push for key changes.

Provincial governments across Canada have also failed to protect government and business whistleblowers fully and effectively, although the Ontario Securities Commission took a big step forward in protecting securities law whistleblowers with a new program launched in July 2016 which offers up to $5 million as a reward for whistleblowers whose claims are proven (which has led to calls to reward securities law whistleblowers in other provinces and to reward Competition Act whistleblowers).

– 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 Protect Whistleblowers Who Protect You Campaign

Lobbyists who assist parties, candidates or politicians with fundraising or campaigning are prohibited from lobbying them or their staff for 5 years – Apotex is now registered to lobby Prime Minister Trudeau’s office

Lobbying Commissioner should recuse herself from ruling on complaint because she received 6-month contract from Liberal Cabinet in December

Federal political parties should close loopholes in Lobbying Act, and change political finance system to stop big money’s unethical influence by matching Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 22, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch revealed that federal Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd is investigating the complaint it filed last November about an August 26, 2015 fundraising event for the Liberal Party of Canada hosted by Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman at his home and attended by Justin Trudeau and then-candidate, now-Liberal MP Michael Levitt.

Democracy Watch also called on Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd to recuse herself from ruling on issues concerning the Liberal Cabinet because the Cabinet gave her the gift of six-month contract in mid-December worth about $90,000.

According to an article in the National Post, tickets for the August 2015 Sherman-hosted event cost $1,500. At the time of the event, Apotex was registered to lobby the House of Commons (which means it claimed it was lobbying at least some MPs, possibly including Trudeau) and Mr. Sherman was included as a registered lobbyist in that registration. At the time Democracy Watch’s complaint was filed, Apotex itself (including Mr. Sherman), along with several consultant lobbyists it has hired since March 1, 2016, were all registered to lobby the Prime Minister’s Office. The consultant lobbyists registered to lobby the Prime Minister’s Office on behalf of Apotex are Aaron Dobbin, John Duffy, Andrew Steele, Brian Teefy and Danya Vered (all five work at StrategyCorp Inc.), as well as Lester Scheininger.

“Federal lobbying ethics rules say it is illegal for a lobbyist to do anything that puts any federal politician or candidate in even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and a person crosses that line if they help in any way with a fundraising event involving a politician while they or their business or organization is lobbying the politician,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Federal lobbyist ethics rules also say it is illegal for anyone to help a party, candidate or politician with fundraising or campaigning and then be involved in lobbying them any time within the following five years.”

Rule 6 of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct states:

A lobbyist shall not propose or undertake any action that would place a public office holder in a real or apparent conflict of interest.

Rule 9 of the Lobbyists’ Code prohibits anyone from assisting a party, candidate or politician (or other public office holder) with fundraising or campaigning or any way that creates a sense of obligation, and then lobbying them afterwards for a period of five years because of the ongoing apparent conflict of interest that person’s assistance has caused for the politician or other type public office holder.

While Rule 9 didn’t come into effect until December 2015, in a public guidance document on Rule 8 published in 2009, and a clarification document published later, and in an updated guidance document on Rule 8 published on June 25, 2015, and in a reminder to lobbyists about Rule 8 and political activities published on June 25, 2015, the Lobbying Commissioner made it clear that lobbyists assisting a party, candidate or politician with campaigning or fundraising violate Rule 8 by creating an apparent conflict of interest for the politician that continues into the future for five years. Therefore, anyone who assists with campaigning or fundraising cannot be involved, and their organization cannot be involved, in lobbying the politicians involved in campaign or fundraising for the following five years.

The Lobbying Commissioner office is already investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about the situation revealed in an October 25th Globe and Mail article involving Barry Sherman, the chairman of generic drug manufacturer Apotex Inc., assisting with selling tickets for a $500-per-ticket fundraising event to be held in Toronto on November 7, 2016 featuring Finance Minister Bill Morneau while Apotex is registered to lobby, and is lobbying, Finance Canada. The Commissioner’s office confirmed the investigation in a letter dated October 25, 2016.

Democracy Watch advocated through 10 years of campaigns and court cases until 2009 to win the enforcement of Rule 8 of the Lobbyists’ Code (now Rule 6 in a new version of the Code in force since December 1, 2015). In March 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in the case Democracy Watch v. Barry Campbell, the Attorney General of Canada and the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyist, rejecting former Registrar Michael Nelson’s “deeply flawed” interpretation of Rule 8 (Commissioner Shepherd was Deputy Registrar at the time) and making it clear that Rule 8 (now Rule 6) prohibits lobbyists from doing anything that puts a public office holder in even an appearance of a conflict of interest. Registrar Nelson had used the same “deeply flawed” interpretation of Rule 8 as former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson, both of whom had negligently weak enforcement records that let hundreds of lobbyists get away with violating the Lobbyists’ Code or the Lobbying Act. Commissioner Shepherd has had a similar negligently weak enforcement record over the past nine years.

Because of loopholes in the federal Lobbying Act, and weak enforcement, there are likely many people lobbying who are not registered and who are therefore not covered by the Lobbyists’ Code rules. Even people caught violating the Code face no penalty. A May 2012 House Committee report recommended closing some of the loopholes and giving the Lobbying Commissioner the power to impose penalties on violators.

“Federal parties need to work together to close the loopholes in the lobbying law that allow for secret, unethical lobbying, and to strengthen enforcement and ensure that every lobbyist who violates the rules is penalized with a high fine,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch also called on federal political parties to stop the unethical influence of big money in federal politics by making the same world-leading changes to the federal political donation system as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

While the federal government, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have banned corporate and union donations, they all still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford.

Donations to parties in Quebec pre-2013, the federal parties in the past few years, and to Toronto city councillors, show clearly that with such high donation limits wealthy interests continue to receive preferential access and to have undue influence, cash-for-access schemes continue, as well as the illegal funneling of donations from corporations and unions through their executives and employees.

Democracy Watch detailed in a January 27th news release how much the federal Liberal’s proposal to make some cash-for-access events more transparent is a charade that won’t stop cash for access or the unethical influence of big money donations.

“The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in federal politics is to stop big money donations,” said Conacher. “Any political party that refuses to support key changes to the federal political finance system changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics.”

The key real changes that must be made to democratize the federal political finance system are as follows:

1. limit annual combined total donations of money, property and services by individuals to $100-200 to each party (Quebec’s limit is $100), and establish the same limit on candidates donating to their own campaign, with all donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
2. prohibit loans to political parties, riding associations and candidates, except from a public fund (with loans limited to the average annual amount of donations received during the previous two years);
3. limit spending leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and also candidates in party leadership races;
4. require disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of anyone who assists with any fundraising or fundraising event);
5. give annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
6. give annual public funding matching up to $1 million that each political party raises (Quebec matches up to $200,000);
7. give public funding matching up to $25,000 that each nomination race and election candidate (including independent candidate) raises (similar to Quebec’s matching funding system), and public funding matching up to $200,000 that each party leadership campaign candidate raises, and;
8. require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
9. Elections Canada, or the Auditor General, must be empowered to review all government advertising and to stop or change any ad that is partisan or misleading (the federal Liberals have proposed doing this but haven’t done it yet);
10. all penalties for violating donation and spending rules must be increased to minimum $100,000 fine and a multi-year jail term, and loss of any severance payment, and a partial clawback of any pension payments;
11. Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections must be required to disclose the rulings they make on all complaints they receive as soon as they make the ruling, and to disclose the rulings they make on all investigations they initiate themselves.

– 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’s 2011 gifts guideline says gifts from friends to Cabinet ministers prohibited if friend has dealings with the federal government, as Aga Khan does, and MPs Code says no gifts that might influence, even from friends

Conservative Party Interim Leader Rona Ambrose broke same rule as O’Regan by accepting gift of yacht trip from registered lobbyist Murray Edwards

Cabinet gave gift of $100,000 contract to Ethics Commissioner Dawson in December, so she is in a financial conflict of interest and must delegate ruling on all complaints about Trudeau Cabinet to a provincial ethics commissioner, even though she has, finally, disclosed that she is not applying for another seven-year term

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

OTTAWA –Democracy Watch sent a letter last week to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson calling for a ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), and he and Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan violated the Conflict of Interest Code for MPs (MP Code), when they accepted the gifts of a holiday trip and helicopter ride from the Aga Khan because he is lobbying the government through his foundation.

Democracy Watch also called for a ruling that Conservative Party Interim Leader Rona Ambrose violated the same rule in the MP Code as O’Regan by accepting the gift of a trip from Murray Edwards who is registered to lobby the federal government.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to recuse herself from ruling on issues concerning the Liberal Cabinet because the Cabinet gave her the gift of a $100,000, six-month contract in mid-December.

The letter also calls for a ruling (that the Ethics Commissioner obviously can’t make) that Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet violated sections 4 and 6 of the Conflict of Interest Act when they gave the contract to the Ethics Commissioner, and a similar contract to the Commissioner of Lobbying, in December at the same time both commissioner offices were investigating complaints that the Prime Minister and/or ministers have violated the Conflict of Interest Act or had a relationship with a lobbyist that violates the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s office has claimed that the contract does not create a conflict of interest for her because under subsection 81(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, opposition party leaders are consulted on the appointment of the Ethics Commissioner. However, under subsection 82(2) of that Act, the Cabinet is not required to consult opposition party leaders before appointing anyone to a six-month term like the one the Ethics Commissioner is currently serving, and in any case Cabinet makes the final appointment decision.

“It would be outrageous if someone filed a lawsuit against Prime Minister Trudeau and he chose the judge to rule on the lawsuit and handed the judge a six-month contract worth $100,000, and it is equally outrageous that people have filed ethics complaints against the Prime Minister and he chose and handed a six-month, $100,000 contract to the Ethics Commissioner who will judge and rule on those complaints,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“It’s a conflict of interest and violation of the federal ethics law for Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet to choose their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs, especially when they are being investigated by those watchdogs, and receiving a valuable contract from the Cabinet puts those watchdogs in a conflict of interest that undermines their investigations,” said Conacher.

Another reason not to have Ethics Commissioner Dawson rule on the complaints is her negligently weak enforcement record since 2007 since 2007 and lack of accountability (See Backgrounder below for details). Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition continue to call for key changes to strengthen federal political ethics rules and the enforcement system (See Backgrounder below for details).

Concerning the trip gifts, the Ethics Commissioner stated in her July 2011 Guideline on Gifts that under section 11 of the COIA that Cabinet ministers and senior government officials are prohibited from accepting even a small gift if it can possibly be reasonably viewed as given to influence the minister or official (see section 2 of the Guideline), and that gifts from friends are prohibited if the friend has dealings with the government (see section 3 of the Guideline).

In several guidelines on gifts to MPs, the Ethics Commissioner has also made it clear that MPs are prohibited under section 14 of the MP Code from accepting even a small gift if it can possibly be reasonably viewed as given to influence the MP. There is no exemption in section 14 for gifts from friends.

The Aga Khan’s foundation Aga Khan Foundation Canada (AKFC) is registered to lobby the federal government, and as of October 14, 2016 Murray Edwards was a registered lobbyist for Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL). Both the AKFC and CNRL are registered to lobby the Prime Minister’s Office and the House of Commons.

Even if the Aga Khan and AKFC and Murray Edwards and CNRL have not actually lobbied the Prime Minister, MP O’Regan or MP Ambrose, the ruling should still be that the gifts can possibly be reasonably viewed as given to influence the politicians because AKFC and CNRL are lobbying the government and the House of Commons and are, therefore, seeking to influence politicians’ decisions.

“Based on the standards set out in guidelines the Ethics Commissioner’s has issued, Prime Minister Trudeau violated the federal ethics law by accepting the trip gift from the Aga Khan, even if they are friends, because the Aga Khan is lobbying the federal government through his foundation,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “MPs are not also allowed to accept a gift, even a gift from friends, if it could possibly be reasonably viewed as given to influence them, and based on this standard Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan violated the MP Code by accepting the gift of the trip from the Aga Khan, as did Prime Minister Trudeau when he was an MP in December 2014, and Conservative MP Rona Ambrose also violated the MP Code by accepting the gift of the trip from Murray Edwards who is registered to lobby the federal government for Canadian Natural Resources Limited.”

Democracy Watch proposes that the solution is to have a fully independent commission whose members are approved by all federal party leaders do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for the next Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying, and to require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of candidates that the commission nominates, with approval still by the House of Commons.

To stop patronage and cronyism, and the appointment of weak government watchdogs and law enforcement officers, Democracy Watch has called for this change to the process for all Cabinet appointments in its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign. 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

---

BACKGROUNDER

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

In addition to refusing to investigate and rule on many situations involving clear violations of federal ethics rules and/or letting people off with a warning (as detailed in the above paragraph), Ethics Commissioner Dawson has also greatly undermined various sections of the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA) in past rulings by creating loopholes in the COIA that do not exist – such as:

1. her April 29, 2010 “Cheques Report” ruling claiming that political parties are not “persons” under the COIA and therefore it was fine for Conservative MPs and Cabinet ministers to hand out government cheques with the Conservative Party logo on them;
2. her May 13, 2010 “Raitt Report” ruling that it was fine for two lobbyists who were lobbying Minister Lisa Raitt to help raise thousands of dollars for her riding association because, she claimed, that only helped the association not her, and;
3. her baseless decision that the COIA only applies to financial interests despite the fact that the COIA’s section 2 definition of “private interest” does not in any way even suggest that the definition of “private interest” is restricted to only financial interests.
4. her December 2016 ruling that it was fine for Health Minister Jane Philpott to use the driving service company of one of her former campaign volunteers because it was the only such company Minister Philpott claimed she knew about (a ruling that creates a loophole allowing any Minister or other senior government officlal to use the same invalid excuse Minister Philpott used to give contracts to their friends or other party loyalists).

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Federal ethics law and codes missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest. Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises to close the huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

Kinder Morgan and oil companies who plan to ship bitumen through the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline donated more than $550,000 to the B.C. Liberals in the past five years, putting Premier Clark and her Cabinet in a conflict of interest that prohibited them from making the pipeline approval decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, January 31, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the PIPE UP Network applied to the B.C. Supreme Court for an order quashing the approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline approval on the basis that more than $550,000 in donations to the B.C. Liberal Party by Kinder Morgan and pipeline-connected companies created an apparent conflict of interest that prohibited Premier Christy Clark, Environment Minister Mary Polak and Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman from deciding the pipeline approval.

Democracy Watch and PIPE UP also contend that the apparent conflict of interest was compounded by the fact that Premier Clark benefited personally from the donations as she received a $50,000 salary each year from the party, a total salary of $300,000, during the same years the donations were made. The conflict of interest was also created because Premier Clark and Cabinet ministers participated in obtaining some of the donations at high-priced, secretive “cash-for-access” fundraising events.

“The Premier may have recently stopped receiving her $50,000 salary each year from the B.C. Liberal Party but that does nothing to erase the conflicts of interest and appearance of bias created by her receiving more than $300,000 in salary from the party during the same years Kinder Morgan and pipeline-connected companies donated more than $550,000 to the party,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Lynn Perrin, a Director of the PIPE UP Network, stated “The fate of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which puts our oceans and rivers at extreme risk, should be decided by people who do not have their hands in the pockets of Kinder Morgan and pipeline-connected companies.”

“B.C.’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner in 1993 and 2003, and the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously in 2009, have ruled that political donations by companies and other lobbyists create conflicts of interest that mean politicians can’t make decisions that affect the companies, and we hope the B.C. courts will enforce this key ethical government standard,” said Conacher.

“To stop big money political donations from tainting B.C. politics, all the parties must work together to make changes that match Quebec’s world-leading system by banning donations from corporations, unions and other organizations and limiting individual donations to $100 a year,” said Conacher.

A copy of the lawsuit application and supporting affidavits can be seen here.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Democracy Watch, Cell: 416-546-3443
Lynn Perrin, PIPE UP Network, Tel: 604-309-9369
Jason Gratl, legal counsel, Tel: 604-317-1919
[email protected]

See below for Backgrounder on flaws in B.C.’s and other Canadian political finance systems, and how to democratize them.

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

---

Backgrounder on
How Flaws in British Columbia’s and Other Canadian Political Finance Systems Allow for Unethical Big Money Donations, and How to Democratize the Systems

(Democracy Watch: January 2017)

---

Political finance systems across Canada, other than Quebec’s provincial system, are all undemocratic and unethical in various ways, and B.C.’s system is one of the worst.

B.C., Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon have the most undemocratic and unethical political finance systems in Canada as they allow unlimited donations from corporations, unions and other organizations, and individuals, even if they are not located in or don’t live in the jurisdiction. Saskatchewan is almost as bad, with the only difference being that individual donors have to be a Canadian citizen.

New Brunswick, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are also almost as bad because they allow undemocratically high donations from corporations, unions and organizations (and New Brunswick allows those donations to come from outside the province).

And while the federal government, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario have banned corporate and union donations, they still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford.

Only Quebec has stopped the unethical influence of big money donations by stopping big money donations. In 2013, the Quebec government lowered provincial individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, ($200 during an election year), with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and also required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates (NOTE: It is, of course, still possible that bribery is occurring at a high rate in Quebec, as no law, police force or tax agency can effectively stop someone from giving a politician or public official a bag of cash that they spend slowly over the rest of their life).

Donations to parties in Quebec before 2013, to the federal parties since 2007, and to Toronto city councillors, show clearly that unethical big money cash-for-access will continue even in the jurisdictions that have banned corporate and union donations as long as their donation limit is still higher than an average voter can afford.

Few have been charged in Quebec’s corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.8 million in likely illegally funneled donations from 2006-2011. To stop the corruption, in 2013 Quebec lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate), and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates. Ontario should make the same democratic changes.

At the federal level, SNC-Lavalin illegally funneled almost $118,000 to the Liberal and Conservative parties, riding associations and candidates through its executives and employees from 2004 to 2011. And former-Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro’s cousin was charged in 2014 with illegally funneling donations through his business’ employees.

There are likely many more examples of illegally funneling of donations at the federal level, as it seems Elections Canada has not yet done the full audit it promised to do in 2013. As in Quebec, when Elections Alberta did an audit in 2012 it found dozens of illegal donations.

As well, the Liberals have been recently caught in a cash-for-access scandal as Prime Minister Trudeau and several Cabinet ministers have attended about 90 high-priced, exclusive events since January 1, 2016. And, as the Globe and Mail reported on October 25th, one of the events was a fundraising event to be attended by the Finance Minister that a drug company executive helped organize while his company lobbyied Finance Canada.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint about the event with the federal Lobbying Commissioner who is investigating, and also a complaint about another event the same drug company executive organized for Justin Trudeau in August 2015, and a complaint about another event top Liberal donors were invited to in September 2016, as well as a complaint about the Trudeau Cabinet selecting their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs.

The results of Democracy Watch’s research also show that top federal Liberal Party donors (to the Party only, not its riding associations) who gave $1,100 or more in 2015 were only 4.37% of total donors (4,084 donors out of 93,426 donors total) but they gave the Party 22.87% of total donations ($4,866,373.76 out of $21,276,897.57 total raised).

As well, the federal Liberals hold special events for donors who donate $1,500 or more annually (they become members of the exclusive Laurier Club). As the Globe and Mail reported recently, based on Elections Canada figures only 790 people (0.85% of all donors to the Liberals) donated $1,500 or more in 2015, and in 2014 only 522 people (0.68% out of 77,064 total donors) donated $1,200 or more (the amount needed in 2014 to qualify to attend a Laurier Club event). The Ontario Liberals also hold exclusive Red Trillium Club events for anyone who donates $1,000 or more.

Toronto’s experience is another example of how high donation limits allow donors to get around bans of corporate and union donations. Such donations were banned in Toronto elections in 2009, and individual donations limited to $750 annually, but a 2016 analysis by the Toronto Star found that big business and other special interest group executives and their families continue to give large amounts to city councillors.

The key changes that must be made in B.C., and across Canada, to democratize all political finance systems are as follows (and in each province and territory, similar changes should be to the municipal political finance law, taking into account in some jurisdictions that there are no political parties at the municipal level):

1. ban donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (as Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and the federal government have);
2. limit annual combined total donations of money, property and services by individuals to $100-200 to each party (Quebec’s limit is $100), and establish the same limit on candidates donating to their own campaign, with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
3. prohibit loans to political parties, riding associations and candidates, except from a public fund (with loans limited to the average annual amount of donations received during the previous two years);
4. limit spending leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and also candidates in party leadership races;
5. require disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of anyone who assists with any fundraising or fundraising event);
6. require disclosure of how much any individual or interest group spends on each issue campaign, and their funding sources. If that reveals a huge disparity in funding, and funding sources, then donations to issue campaigns, or at least paid campaign ads, should also be limited;
7. give annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared (as Ontario has done) with riding associations);
8. give annual public funding for each party matching up to the first $200,000 to $500,000 it raises (similar to Quebec, with the amount depending on the size of the province – the first $1 million raised could be matched at the federal level);
9. give public funding matching up to $10,000 to $25,000 that each nomination race and election candidate (including an independent candidate) raises (similar to Quebec’s matching funding system, and again depending on the size of the riding), and public funding matching up to $50,000 to $100,000 that each party leadership campaign candidate raises (again depending on the size of the party and jurisdiction of the leadership race);
10. require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
11. Elections B.C., or the Auditor General, must be empowered to review all government advertising and to stop or change any ad that is partisan or misleading;
12. all penalties for violating donation and spending rules must be increased to minimum $100,000 fine and a multi-year jail term, and loss of any severance payment, and a partial clawback of any pension payments, and;
13. Elections B.C. must be required to disclose the rulings they make on all complaints they receive as soon as they make the ruling, and to disclose the rulings they make on all investigations they initiate themselves.

To explain some of the above proposals, some commentators argue against the per-vote subsidy – even though it most closely upholds the key democratic principle of one-person, one-vote – by making the absurd claim that it forces voters to give money to parties they don’t support. Actually, the $1-2 amount comes from the taxes everyone pays and goes only to the party each person supports (and only if they vote).

Matching funds raised is also more democratic than other options as a party or candidate needs the support of many voters in order to access significant funds, and the matching helps equalize the funding available to all.

True, the per-vote subsidy should not be too high – no party should receive more than one-half of its annual funding from it to ensure the parties can’t unjustifiably prosper by baiting voters with false promises to boost their support during an election.

Many commentators also ignore the fact that the current voting system and other subsidies shift a lot of taxpayer money in undemocratic directions. For example, in the 2011 federal election the Conservatives received 24 MPs more than they deserved (they received 39.6 percent of the vote, but 54 percent of the MPs). Each of those MPs received about $440,000 annually in salary and for their offices, so the Conservatives received an undemocratic subsidy of $10.5 million every year until the 2015 election. Now the Liberals are receiving roughly the same amount as an unfair subsidy.

As well, the average individual donation to each federal party is only $100-250 yet people who donate up to $400 receive a 75% tax deduction. Even worse, wealthy people who can afford to donate between $1,275 and the $1,550 maximum allowed receive the huge subsidy of almost half that total ($650) as a tax deduction. These taxpayer-funded subsidies add up to more than $20 million annually for all federal parties.

Compared to these subsidies, it is much more democratic to have a combination of a base amount from a per-vote subsidy for parties, only individuals allowed to donate only a small amount (verified by the election watchdog agency), and matching public funding. Such a system also ensures only parties that continue to appeal to voters in between elections will prosper financially.

Some parties and candidates will continue to claim they need more money to reach and engage with voters even though there is little evidence to back their claims, especially given the relatively low-cost, broad reach of email and social media.

If anything, the reimbursement of half their election expenses that federal parties and candidates receive for obtaining a very low percentage of the vote should be reduced. Federal parties are given 50% of their election expenses if the party receives 2% or more of the national vote (or 5% or more of the vote in any riding), and election candidates get back 60% of their expenses if they receive 10% or more of their riding vote. These subsidies total about 60% of the total amount spent by all parties and candidates each election (about $30 million alone for an average federal election).

Six out of 10 provinces have similar party and candidate election expense subsidies, while two provinces only subsidize candidates – only B.C. and Alberta and the three territories don’t provide them.

Other key changes needed to stop big money include limiting loans as strictly as donations. Currently, financial institutions (and in some jurisdictions also businesses, unions and individuals) can loan unlimited amounts to parties and candidates.

Spending on advertising by third party interest groups must be limited leading up to election day – only the federal government, B.C., Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec currently have such limits – and each third party should have to prove that its members (or, in the case of a business, shareholders) approved the spending.

Election and ethics watchdogs must be required to do regular audits, including of politicians’ bank accounts, to ensure everyone follows all the rules. Disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of organizers of any fundraising event).

Finally, to ensure fair issue debates in between elections, we should start with requiring disclosure of how much any individual or interest group spends on each issue campaign, and their funding sources. If that reveals a huge disparity in funding, and funding sources, then donations to issue campaigns, or at least paid campaign ads, should also be limited.

These changes won’t stop bribery but they will discourage it by making it more clearly illegal, and by increasing the chances of getting caught. Until all Canadian jurisdictions (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) make these changes, big money will continue to dominate, and corrupt, our politics.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition.

Tel: 613-241-5179     Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Democracy Watch’s Stop Big Money in Politics Across Canada petition movement on Change.org.

MPs still allowed to do secret cash-for-access events – and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more, and gave them special access to Cabinet ministers

Nation-wide coalition representing 3.5 million voters calls for real changes to democratize federal political finance system by matching Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, January 27, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, responding to the federal Liberal’s proposed plan to make Cabinet ministers’s and party leaders’ cash-for-access fundraising events more transparent, which is a charade that won’t stop cash for access or the unethical influence of big money donations, Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total membership of 3.5 million Canadians), and joined by the thousands of voters who have signed an online Change.org petition, called on the federal political parties to make real changes that will actually democratize the federal political finance system by matching Quebec’s world-leading measures:

1. lowering the annual individual donation limit from $3,100 to $100 (as in Quebec, with donations routed through the election agency to prevent funnelling);
2. also lowering the limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign to $100;
3. prohibiting loans to parties except from a public fund;
4. if the parties can prove they need it, implement maximum $1 per-vote annual public funding (with part of funding shared with riding associations, as Ontario has done), and;
5. if the parties can prove they need it, also implement donation-matching public funding for parties and candidates (including independent candidates).

The current federal annual donation limit to each party is undemocratically high, and donations to parties in Quebec, the federal parties in the past few years, and
to Toronto city councillors, show clearly that cash-for-access will continue at the federal level as long as the donation limit is high. In 2013, the Quebec government lowered provincial individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, ($200 during an election year), with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and also required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Even if the Liberals’ proposed changes are made, cash-for-access will still be allowed at the now public events, and also:

1. the federal Liberals’ special events will still be allowed at which donors who donate $1,500 or more annually (they become members of the exclusive Laurier Club) get special access to the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers. As the Globe and Mail reported in the fall, based on Elections Canada figures only 790 people (0.85% of all donors to the Liberals) donated $1,500 or more in 2015, and in 2014 only 522 people (0.68% out of 77,064 total donors) donated $1,200 or more (the amount needed in 2014 to qualify to attend a Laurier Club event).
2. Prime Minister Trudeau, Cabinet ministers, opposition leaders and MPs, and their staff, will also still be allowed to solicit donations by phone and email from people who want to meet with them, and they will likely meet and communicate with top donors more than with people who don’t donate.

The results of Democracy Watch’s research show that top federal Liberal Party donors (to the Party only, not its riding associations) who gave $1,100 or more in 2015 were only 4.37% of total donors (4,084 donors out of 93,426 donors total) but they gave the Party 22.87% of total donations raised ($4,866,373.76 out of the $21,276,897.57 total raised). These figures are based on donations disclosed and listed in Elections Canada’s Registered Party Financial Transactions Return database which has some problems and inaccuracies in it.

“The federal Liberals’ proposal to make Cabinet minister and party leaders cash-for-access fundraising events more transparent is a charade that won’t stop cash-for-access fundraising, it will just hide it as they will still be allowed to hold thank-you events for top donors and meet with them more than other voters, as well as ask people lobbying them for thousands of dollars in donations by phone and email,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “Unless other key changes are made, the new federal political finance system will continue to facilitate illegal funneling of donations from corporations and other organizations through their executives and families, as happened in Quebec.”

“As Quebec and federal donation scandals show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money in politics is to stop big money donations by lowering the donation limit to $100-$200 as Quebec did in 2013,” said Conacher.

Few have been charged in Quebec’s corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.8 million in likely illegally funneled donations from 2006-2011. To stop the corruption, in 2013 Quebec lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate), and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates. Ontario should make the same democratic changes.

At the federal level, SNC-Lavalin illegally funneled almost $118,000 to the Liberal and Conservative parties, riding associations and candidates through its executives and employees from 2004 to 2011. And former-Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro’s cousin was charged in 2014 with illegally funneling donations through his business’ employees.

There are likely many more examples of illegally funneling of donations at the federal level, as it seems Elections Canada has not yet done the full audit it promised to do in 2013. As in Quebec, when Elections Alberta did an audit in 2012 it found dozens of illegal donations.

As well, the Liberals have been recently caught in a cash-for-access scandal as Prime Minister Trudeau and several Cabinet ministers have attended about 90 high-priced, exclusive events since January 1, 2016. And, as the Globe and Mail reported on October 25th, one of the events was a fundraising event to be attended by the Finance Minister that a drug company executive helped to organize while his company is lobbying the Finance department.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint about the event with the federal Lobbying Commissioner who is investigating, and also a complaint about another event the same drug company executive organized for Justin Trudeau in August 2015, and a complaint about another event top Liberal donors were invited to in September 2016, as well as a complaint about the Trudeau Cabinet selecting their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs.

Toronto’s experience is another example of how high donation limits allow donors to get around bans of corporate and union donations. Such donations were banned in Toronto elections in 2009, and individual donations limited to $750 annually, but a 2016 analysis by the Toronto Star found that big business and other special interest group executives and their families continue to give large amounts to city councillors.

“Any political party that refuses to support these changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in federal politics is to stop big money donations.”

The key real changes that must be made to democratize the federal political finance system are as follows:

1. limit annual combined total donations of money, property and services by individuals to $100-200 to each party (Quebec’s limit is $100), and establish the same limit on candidates donating to their own campaign, with all donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
2. prohibit loans to political parties, riding associations and candidates, except from a public fund (with loans limited to the average annual amount of donations received during the previous two years);
3. limit spending leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and also candidates in party leadership races;
4. require disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of anyone who assists with any fundraising or fundraising event);
5. give annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
6. give annual public funding matching up to $1 million that each political party raises (Quebec matches up to $200,000);
7. give public funding matching up to $25,000 that each nomination race and election candidate (including independent candidate) raises (similar to Quebec’s matching funding system), and public funding matching up to $200,000 that each party leadership campaign candidate raises, and;
8. require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
9. Elections Canada, or the Auditor General, must be empowered to review all government advertising and to stop or change any ad that is partisan or misleading (the federal Liberals have proposed doing this but haven’t done it yet);
10. all penalties for violating donation and spending rules must be increased to minimum $100,000 fine and a multi-year jail term, and loss of any severance payment, and a partial clawback of any pension payments;
11. Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections must be required to disclose the rulings they make on all complaints they receive as soon as they make the ruling, and to disclose the rulings they make on all investigations they initiate themselves.

– 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

Ruling means complaints to Conflicts Commissioner by members of the public about the Premier or government Ministers are ‘an effectively meaningless dead end’. Democracy Watch may well appeal and intends to explore other legal avenues for challenging Premier Clark’s conflicts of interest

B.C. political parties should make Commissioner’s ruling binding and allow appeals to court, and should also democratize province’s political finance system to match Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, January 25, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch responded to B.C. Supreme Court Justice Affleck’s ruling (PDF) that no court challenges are allowed of B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser’s decisions because they are unreviewable opinions with no direct legal effect limiting the Premier’s conflicts of interest.

The ruling means that members of the public who make a complaint to the Commissioner about the Premier’s conflicts of interest are not entitled to a remedy, and are not even entitled to any assurance that the Commissioner himself has not been compromised by his own conflict of interest.

Commissioner Fraser filed a motion to stop Democracy Watch’s court case filed last October challenging the Commissioner’s decisions last May and August that Premier Christy Clark’s high-priced, exclusive fundraising events don’t create conflicts of interest for her, and that the donations made at the events do not benefit her personally.

“The court has unfortunately decided that no one can challenge Commissioner Fraser’s unethical decision that it is legal and ethical for Premier Clark and Liberal Cabinet ministers to sell access to themselves at high-priced, invite-only secretive fundraising events, and that the events don’t create any conflicts of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time. Democracy Watch is not prepared to let this issue go because the corrupting influence of big money donations in B.C. politics must be stopped.”

Jason Gratl of the law firm Gratl and Company, who is Democracy Watch’s counsel for the case, said: “The judge accepted the Commissioner’s submission that the Commissioner lacks any statutory authority to declare conflicts of interest or limit the power of the government executive. If that is true, then the Commissioner’s office holds little or no promise as a mechanism for public complaints about corruption. We will have to explore other legal avenues to challenge Premier Clark’s conflicts of interest and will seriously consider appealing the ruling.”

Democracy Watch’s case also asked the court to rule that Commissioner Fraser should not have ruled on the complaints filed about the events because he was in a conflict of interest given that his son works as a deputy minister for the B.C. Liberal Cabinet. In 2012, Commissioner Fraser stepped aside and didn’t rule on a complaint filed about Premier Clark because of his son’s connection to the B.C. Liberals. Democracy Watch wanted the court to order a reexamination of the complaints by another person who is fully independent of all B.C. political parties. Justice Affleck did not consider this issue in his ruling.

According to media reports, Premier Clark has hosted or attended several small, invitation-only undraising events for the B.C. Liberals with ticket prices ranging from $2,000 to $20,000, and also attended an event in her riding association sponsored for $2,500 each by four sponsors. Premier Clark received an annual salary from the B.C. Liberals for, in part, fundraising activities over the past few years, and that is part of the reason she is in a conflict of interest.

The B.C. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits the Premier and all MLAs from exercising their official powers or performing any official duties or functions if they have an opportunity to further their private interest or if there is a reasonable perception that their private interest affects their actions or decisions (sections 2 and 3). It also prohibits them from receiving any gift or personal benefit directly or indirectly connected to their position (sections 7).

Democracy Watch, which filed a complaint with Commissioner Fraser about the Premier’s fundraising events last March, takes the position that Premier Clark benefited personally and was in a conflict of interest when attending the events because she receives some of the money raised as her salary from the B.C. Liberal Party. Democracy Watch’s position is also that the events created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark that prohibit her from making decisions that affect any company or organization that had a representative at any of the events.

Commissioner Fraser ruled on May 4 and August 9, 2016 that the donations made at the events did not benefit Premier Clark personally, and did not amount to a private interest that put her in a conflict of interest. He essentially refused to rule on whether the donations created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark when she is making policy decisions that affect the donors – he didn’t even investigate to find out who attended the events.

“Democracy Watch’s position is that big donations made at private fundraising events where the politician is essentially selling access to themselves are a clear violation of the conflict-of-interest law, and we hope the B.C. Supreme Court will agree and overrule Commissioner Fraser’s decision that the donations didn’t benefit Premier Clark or put her in a conflict of interest,” said Conacher. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time. Commissioner Fraser’s apparent conflict of interest and the legal errors in his ruling give the higher courts many reasons to reject his ruling on Premier Clark’s fundraising events.”

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition also called on B.C.’s political parties to change the Conflict of Interest Act to make the Commissioner’s rulings clearly binding on politicians, and also to allow anyone to appeal to the courts for a review of any decision by the Commissioner.

“It is dangerously undemocratic for B.C. to have an ethics law that politicians can ignore, and an ethics commissioner who is an unaccountable czar, and so B.C.’s political ethics law must be changed to make the commissioner’s rulings binding, and to allow court challenges of the commissioner’s rulings,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition also called on the B.C. government to make the same world-leading changes to the province’s political donation system (including at the municipal level) as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Political finance systems across Canada, other than Quebec’s provincial system, are all undemocratic in various ways. B.C. (along with Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon) have the most undemocratic political finance systems in Canada as they allow unlimited donations from corporations, unions and other organizations, and individuals, even if they are not located in or don’t live in the jurisdiction. Saskatchewan is almost as bad, with the only difference being that individual donors have to be a Canadian citizen.

New Brunswick, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are also almost as bad because they allow undemocratically high donations from corporations, unions and organizations (and New Brunswick allows those donations to come from outside the province).

And while the federal government, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have banned corporate and union donations, they still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford.

“As Quebec and federal donation scandals show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of money in politics is to stop big money donations by lowering the donation limit to $100-$200,” said Conacher.

Few have been charged in Quebec’s corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.8 million in likely illegally funneled donations from 2006-2011. To stop the corruption, in 2013 Quebec lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate), and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates. Ontario should make the same democratic changes.

At the federal level, SNC-Lavalin illegally funneled almost $118,000 to the Liberal and Conservative parties, riding associations and candidates through its executives and employees from 2004 to 2011. And former-Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro’s cousin was charged in 2014 with illegally funneling donations through his business’ employees.

There are likely many more examples of illegally funneling of donations at the federal level, as it seems Elections Canada has not yet done the full audit it promised to do in 2013. As in Quebec, when Elections Alberta did an audit in 2012 it found dozens of illegal donations.

As well, the federal Liberals have been recently caught in a cash-for-access scandal as Prime Minister Trudeau and several Cabinet ministers have attended about 90 high-priced, exclusive events since January 1, 2016. And, as the Globe and Mail reported on October 25th, one of the events was a fundraising event to be attended by the Finance Minister that a drug company executive helped to organize while his company is lobbying the Finance department. Democracy Watch filed a complaint about the event with the federal Lobbying Commissioner who is investigating, and also a complaint about another event the same drug company executive organized for Justin Trudeau in August 2015.

The results of Democracy Watch’s research also show that top federal Liberal Party donors (to the Party only, not its riding associations) who gave $1,100 or more in 2015 were only 4.37% of total donors (4,084 donors out of 93,426 donors total) but they gave the Party 22.87% of total donations raised ($4,866,373.76 out of the $21,276,897.57 total raised.

As well, the federal Liberals hold special events for donors who donate $1,500 or more annually (they become members of the exclusive Laurier Club). As the Globe and Mail reported recently, based on Elections Canada figures only 790 people (0.85% of all donors to the Liberals) donated $1,500 or more in 2015, and in 2014 only 522 people (0.68% out of 77,064 total donors) donated $1,200 or more (the amount needed in 2014 to qualify to attend a Laurier Club event).

Toronto’s experience is another example of how high donation limits allow donors to get around bans of corporate and union donations. Such donations were banned in Toronto elections in 2009, and individual donations limited to $750 annually, but a 2016 analysis by the Toronto Star found that big business and other special interest group executives and their families continue to give large amounts to city councillors.

“Any political party that refuses to make changes to stop big money in politics is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations.”

The key changes that must be made in B.C. to democratize its political finance system are as follows follows (and similar changes should be made province-wide to the municipal political finance system, taking into account that many municipalities do not have political parties):

1. ban donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
2. limit annual combined total donations of money, property and services by individuals to $100-200 to each party (Quebec’s limit is $100), and establish the same limit on candidates donating to their own campaign, with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
3. prohibit loans to political parties, riding associations and candidates, except from a public fund (with loans limited to the average annual amount of donations received during the previous two years);
4. limit spending leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and also candidates in party leadership races;
5. require disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of anyone who assists with any fundraising or fundraising event);
6. give annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
7. give annual public funding for parties matching up to the first $500,000 raised (as in Quebec where the first $200,000 raised is matched);
8. give public funding matching up to $25,000 that each nomination race and election candidate (including an independent candidate) raises (similar to Quebec’s matching funding system), and public funding matching up to $100,000 that each party leadership campaign candidate raises, and;
9. require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
10. Elections B.C., or the Auditor General, must be empowered to review all government advertising and to stop or change any ad that is partisan or misleading;
11. all penalties for violating donation and spending rules must be increased to minimum $100,000 fine and a multi-year jail term, and loss of any severance payment, and a partial clawback of any pension payments, and;
12. Elections B.C. must be required to disclose the rulings they make on all complaints they receive as soon as they make the ruling, and to disclose the rulings they make on all investigations they initiate themselves.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

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

Jason Gratl, Gratl and Company
Tel: 604-694-1919

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Some donors represent companies seeking decisions from the federal government – violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to event

Approximately 33% of non-government attendees at event were Liberal Party donors – also a violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to event

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, December 16, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson calling on her to launch an inquiry into Prime Minister Trudeau giving preferential treatment to the companies and/or organizations or other individuals represented by several Liberal Party donors when he invited those donors to a gala dinner in honour of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on September, as reported in the Globe and Mail today.

According to the article, some donors who attended the event represent companies that seek decisions from the federal government, including BMO Capital Markets, Huawei Technologies Canada Co., Power Corp., and Wealth One. As well, approximately 33% of non-government attendees at the event were Liberal Party donors – another indication that Prime Minister’s Trudeau’s invitations were based on preferential treatment for donors.

It is a violation of the federal ethics law (section 7) to give preferential treatment to anyone or any business or organization based on the identity of the person who represents them. A full inquiry is needed to determine to determine whether there were other invitees who are Liberal Party fundraisers or assist the Liberal Party in some other way(s), and also represent an individual, company and/or organization that seeks decisions from the federal government and/or has lobbyists registered to lobby the federal government.

“Inviting dozens of Liberal Party donors to a gala government event where they had access to the Chinese Premier, Prime Minister Trudeau and several Liberal Cabinet ministers, clearly violates rules in the federal ethics law that prohibit giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their donation, especially when some of the donors who attended represent companies that seek decisions from the Liberal government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given that about a third of the people at the event were Liberal Party donors also amounts to preferential treatment because one-third of Canadians are not Liberal Party donors.”

The letter also requests that Ethics Commissioner Dawson disclose whether she has applied to be reappointed by Prime Minister Trudeau when her current term ends in early January. The deadline for applying to be Ethics Commissioner passed at the end of November, and then was extended by the Liberal Cabinet. The extension came after the deadline passed, so Commissioner Dawson must know whether she is applying to be reappointed.

“The public has a right to know if Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has applied to be reappointed for another term, and if she has she is in a conflict of interest and can’t rule on any situation because Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet will decide whether she gets to keep her job,” said Conacher.

In another letter sent to the Ethics Commissioner on December 6th, Democracy Watch also called for a reconsideration of Ethics Commissioner 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, and an investigation into the approximately 90 high-priced, exclusive events the Liberals have held since January 1, 2016.

If Commissioner Dawson is not applying to be reappointed, she should issue the new ruling as soon as possible; if she has applied to be reappointed, she should recuse herself and designate someone else to issue the new ruling (such as a provincial ethics commissioner).

“Any high-priced, exclusive, invite-only fundraising event attended or hosted by the Prime Minister, Cabinet minister or their staff clearly violates 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 Conacher.

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;
• section 16 which prohibits soliciting donations if it would cause a conflict of interest (which includes real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest);
• subsection 11(1) which prohibits accepting any gift or other advantage that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the minister.

Democracy Watch also pointed out in another letter it sent on December 14th to the Ethics Commissioner that Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet are also in a conflict of interest that means they can’t decide who will be the Ethics Commissioner after Commissioner Dawson’s term ends in early January.

“Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet are in a clear conflict of interest when choosing who will be the ethics watchdog who watches over them, especially when there are active complaints about them filed with the watchdog,” said Conacher. “The only solution is to change the Cabinet appointment process to have a fully independent commission, whose members are approved by all federal party leaders, do a public, non-partisan, merit-based search for the next ethics commissioner, and require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of candidates that the commission proposes.”

To stop patronage and cronyism, and the appointment of weak government watchdogs and law enforcement officers, Democracy Watch has called for this change to the process for all Cabinet appointments in its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign. Ontario uses this appointment system to appoint provincial judges, and it is considered to be a world-leading process.

Democracy Watch also urged federal politicians not to reappoint Ethics Commissioner Dawson given how negligently weak her enforcement record has been since 2007. “It would be tragic if Ethics Commissioner Dawson was reappointed because it would mean Canadians would have to wait even longer for effective enforcement of the federal government ethics rules,” said Conacher. (See Backgrounder below for details)

– 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

---

BACKGROUNDER

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Conflict of Interest Act missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, as Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially the rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises to close the huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

If Ethics Commissioner has applied to be reappointed, she is in a financial conflict of interest and must delegate ruling on complaint to provincial ethics commissioner

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, December 14, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson calling for a ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet cannot appoint the new Ethics Commissioner or Commissioner of Lobbying in January because they are in a conflict of interest given both commissioner offices are currently investigating them for violations of the federal ethics and lobbying laws.

Both commissioners terms end in early January, and if Trudeau and his Cabinet reappoint either commissioner for a six-month interim term or a new seven-year term they will be choosing their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs. They have a conflict of interest when they make that choice, a conflict compounded by the fact that the Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying are both investigating situations right now in which Trudeau and his Cabinet ministers are alleged to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act or had a relationship with a lobbyist that violates the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

“It’s a conflict of interest for Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet to choose their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs, especially when they are being investigated by those watchdogs,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch requested that the Ethics Commissioner disclose whether she has applied to be reappointed by Trudeau, and if she has to refer the complaint to an independent decision-maker (such as a provincial ethics commissioner) because she is in a conflict of interest. The deadline for applying to be Ethics Commissioner passed at the end of November, and then was extended by the Liberal Cabinet. The extension came after the deadline passed, so Commissioner Dawson must know whether she is applying to be reappointed.

“The public has a right to know if Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has applied to be reappointed for another term, and if she has she is in a conflict of interest and can’t rule on any situation involving Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet because they will decide whether she gets to keep her job,” said Conacher. “If she has applied to Trudeau’s Cabinet to keep her job she must refer all complaints about the Trudeau Cabinet to an independent decision-maker like a provincial ethics commissioner.”

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 (section 3), Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet will violate the following sections of the Conflict of Interest Act if they choose the next Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying:

1. section 4 which states that a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when s/he exercises “an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests,” and;
2. section 6 which prohibits making or participating in a decision when in conflict of interest.

Democracy Watch proposes that the solution is to have a fully independent commission whose members are approved by all federal party leaders do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for the next Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying, and to require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of candidates that the commission nominates, with approval still by the House of Commons.

To stop patronage and cronyism, and the appointment of weak government watchdogs and law enforcement officers, Democracy Watch has called for this change to the process for all Cabinet appointments in its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign. Ontario uses this appointment system to appoint provincial judges, and it is considered to be a world-leading process.

Democracy Watch also urged federal politicians not to reappoint Ethics Commissioner Dawson given how negligently weak her enforcement record has been since 2007. “It would be tragic if Ethics Commissioner Dawson was reappointed because it would mean Canadians would have to wait even longer for effective enforcement of the federal government ethics rules,” said Conacher. (See Backgrounder below for details)

– 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

---

BACKGROUNDER

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Conflict of Interest Act missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, as Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially the rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises to close the huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.