With the same donation limit as proposed by the Ontario Liberals, businesses flowed $12.8 million through their executives to Quebec parties from 2006-2011, and 8.9% of donors gave 41.7% of total donations to the federal Liberals in 2014
(and top donors get perks from many parties)

As 50-group coalition, and almost 10,000 Ontarians, have called for, annual donation limit for all individuals (including candidates) should be lowered to Quebec limit of $100, and annual per-vote public funding amount should also be decreased and replaced with annual public funding that matches funds raised

Same changes should be made to municipal system across province

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, August 24, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than 3 million members), joined by almost 10,000 Ontarians who have signed a petition on Change.org, called on Ontario’s political parties to stop going for the gold during their summer games and make changes to Bill 201 that will actually democratize Ontario’s political finance system by: lowering the individual donation limit from $2,400 to $100 (and also lower the limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign to $100), prohibiting loans to parties except from a public fund; decreasing per-vote annual funding, and; increasing donation-matching funding.

The Ontario legislative committee reviewing Bill 201 will consider amendments next week – Democracy Watch presented these proposed changes to the committee on June 28th during its hearings in Ottawa (See the submission here (PDF)).

“While some of the political parties’ proposals to change Bill 201 are good steps forward, the proposed individual donation limit is clearly undemocratic and unethical because it will continue to allow wealthy people to give thousands of dollars more to parties and candidates than an average voter can afford,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “As Quebec’s corruption scandal, and Toronto’s experience, both show clearly, the proposed high donation limits will also allow corporations, unions and other organizations to continue to donate large amounts by having their executives and their family members all make the maximum donation each year. The proposed high donation limit will only obscure the corrupting influence of donations from wealthy interests, not stop it.”

According to the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, the Ontario Liberals are proposing to change Bill 201 by lowering the annual donation limit for individuals to each party and its riding associations and candidates to $2,400 (and to $3,600 during a year with an election or by-election). Opposition parties are proposing to: ban cash-for-access events that create a real or apparent conflict of interest (NDP) or ban MPPs and ministers from soliciting donations from stakeholders (PC) – while the Liberals want to address the issue of fundraising from stakeholders through a code of conduct to be drafted later. The Liberals have also proposed some changes to make fundraising more transparent and to tighten and clarify a few other rules.

Because the donation limit will continue to be much higher than an average Ontario voter can afford, none of these amendments will stop donors who donate the most from having greater access and influence over politicians and political parties, and none of the amendments will stop businesses, unions and other organizations from funneling large donations through their executives and members of their family.

Even though funneling donations is made illegal by Bill 201 (as it was in Quebec), the donors will just claim they were not forced by their company, union or organization to make the donation, and no one will be able to prove otherwise. 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.

Loans from financial institutions will also be unlimited under Bill 201, giving the financial sector another avenue of influence – loans should only come from a public fund and be limited to the average total amount donated during the previous two years.

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.

And to give one example from the federal level, in 2014 only 8.9% of donors gave 41.7% of total donations to federal Liberal Party (and 3.8% of donors gave the party 23.1% of the total donated to the Party – neither of these figures count how much more these people gave to riding associations that year).

The federal Liberals hold special events for those 3.8% of top donors (members of the exclusive Laurier Club) and the Ontario Liberals do the same (people who donate $1,000 or more become members of the exclusive Red Trillium Club) – events that give them special access.

(NOTE: The details are that in 2014, federal individual donations were limited to $1,200 to each party (and another $1,200 combined total to each party’s riding associations). Total donations in 2014 (the most recent year for which full data is available) to the federal Liberal Party only (not including donations to its riding associations) were $15,063,142 from a total of 77,064 donors. Of that amount, only 2,937 individuals (3.8% of total) donated more than $1,100 each (up to the then-limit annually of $1,200), for a total of $3,493,227 (23.1% of the total donated to the Party). Also of the total amount donated to the Liberals in 2014, only 3,913 individuals (5.07% of the total) donated from $500 to $1,100 each, for a total of $2,802,998 (18.6% of the total donated to the Party)).

Bill 201 also allows nomination race and election candidates to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, and party leadership candidates to donate $25,000 to their own campaign. Candidates should not be allowed to donate more than anyone else to their campaign as it gives an advantage to wealthy candidates.

“Allowing candidates to donate thousands of dollars to their own campaign undemocratically favours wealthy candidates,” said Conacher.

According to the Toronto Star, the Liberals are also proposing to increase the annual per-vote funding amount from $2.26 per vote to $2.71. Instead, all parties should agree to lower the per-vote annual public funding amount as it will give parties more than a base amount of funding and will allow them to prosper even if they lose significant voter support in between elections. Matching funds raised by parties and candidates with public funding should also be added to the new system.

The proposed annual per-vote public funding subsidy should be lowered to no more than $1 per vote, and instead the parties should implement the same annual public funding matching system as Quebec ($2.50 for the first $20,000 raised annually by each party, and $1 for the first $200,000 raised annually). Elections Quebec has analyzed the results of Quebec’s changes and found that the parties are still adequately funded.

“To match Quebec’s world-leading democratic system, Ontario must limit individual donations to about $100 annually and use per-vote and matching public funding to give parties and candidates funding based on their actual level of voter support,” said Conacher. “Similar changes should be made to Ontario’s municipal law, taking into account that there are no parties at the municipal level, so that every municipality in the province has the same democratic rules.”

The key changes Ontario must make to actually democratize its provincial political finance system are as follows (and similar changes should be made province-wide to the municipal political finance system, taking into account that there are no political parties at the municipal level):

1. a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
2. a limit on annual donations by individuals to each party of $100-200 annually (Quebec’s limit is $100) with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
3. a prohibition on 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. a limit on spending during leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and candidates in party leadership races;
5. 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);
6. a base amount of 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. annual public funding for parties matching the first $100,000-$200,000 raised (as in Quebec);
8. public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (as in Quebec), and;
9. a requirement that election, donation and ethics watchdogs conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Ontario’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee is best appointments process in Canada – same process (with one change) should be used for all appointments

Thousands have written letter to Trudeau and provincial premiers calling on them to end patronage and cronyism by matching Ontario’s system

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, August 2, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the federal Liberals to improve their proposed new Supreme Court appointments system by requiring the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice to appoint one of the people the new advisory board recommends (as Ontario’s Attorney General is required to do for provincial court appointments). The Liberals could make this change immediately as this part of the appointment process is at the discretion of the Prime Minister and is not covered by any law.

Once this change is made, the new process should be added to the Supreme Court Act and the Federal Courts Act, and to all other federal laws that address judicial or quasi-judicial appointments (including for all Officers of Parliament), so that, as in Ontario, the system is part of laws and the Prime Minister’s and Minister of Justice’s appointment powers are restricted by law and they can’t change the system whenever and however they wants without parliamentary review.

Thousands of Canadians have written to Prime Minister Trudeau and provincial premiers through Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign calling on them to make changes to ensure their Cabinet and judicial appointment processes match Ontario’s judicial appointment process (with one change to ensure a majority of the appointment advisory committee members are not appointed by the government).

“While it is good that a majority of the Supreme Court appointments advisory board members are chosen by independent organizations, and that the Minister of Justice will consult with the Chief Justice, provincial ministers and House and Senate committees, the fact remains that the process is partisan because the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice are not required to choose from the advisory board’s list of nominees and so, unlike Ontario’s Attorney General, they can still appoint whomever they want as a judge,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Ontario’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC) is the best appointments process in Canada as the committee: is largely independent from the government; does a public, merit-based search for nominees to fill each available provincial court judge position, and: then sends a short list of nominees to the Attorney General who is required to choose from the list.

However the JAAC has one flaw – the ruling party in Ontario appoints the majority – 7 of 13 — of the JAAC members. To be truly independent from the ruling party, the members of an appointment committee must be approved by opposition party leaders or by organizations that are independent of the government. Otherwise, the ruling party still controls who is selected and patronage and cronyism is still possible.

The Liberals similarly called their new Senate appointments advisory board process “non-partisan” but it isn’t because Prime Minister Trudeau appoints all the board members, and the process isn’t guaranteed to be merit-based because the PM can ignore the board’s list of nominees, and secretly appoint whomever he wants as a senator.

The Liberals have sketched out their plans for what they claim is a “new” general Cabinet appointments process – but it is essentially the same process the Conservatives used to appoint whomever they wanted. In the “Frequently Asked Questions” document, letter-writing campaign says explicitly that members of appointment advisory committees “will be chosen to represent the interests of those who are responsible for decision-making on appointments (the Minister, the Prime Minister).” That is a recipe for patronage and crony appointments.

“The federal Liberals’ proposed Cabinet appointment system is essentially the same as the Conservatives used and will do little to stop patronage and cronyism,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor and LL.M. candidate at the University of Ottawa. “To stop patronage and crony appointments by the ruling party, appointment committees must be created with members approved by opposition party leaders, and the committees must conduct public, merit-based searches for nominees and send a short list to Cabinet of qualified nominees, with Cabinet required to choose from the list.”

Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign calls for the following changes to all government appointment processes across Canada:

1. Pass a law that sets up an independent appointments committee for all government appointments (including the Senate and Deputy Ministers, but not including law enforcement positions) with the committee members approved by at least a majority of leaders whose political party won 10% or more of the vote in the last election;
2. Pass a law that sets up another independent appointments committee for all appointments to law enforcement positions (including all government watchdogs) with the committee members approved by at least a majority of leaders whose political party won 10% or more of the vote in the last election, and with the committee members required to have knowledge of law enforcement (and require municipalities in every province and territory to use this committee to choose their watchdogs);
3. Require both committees to advertise publicly and widely on a website and through the print media all appointment jobs, including a list of merit-based criteria for each job;
4. Require both committees to review applications, conduct interviews, and choose a ranked list of 3 very qualified people for each position and send the list to the government (or city council);
5. Require the government (or city council) to choose whom they appoint to the job from the list of 3 people.
6. Prohibit by law anyone serving in any government or democracy watchdog position (especially every Officer of Parliament) from serving more than one term – to ensure they don’t try to please the government/ruling party in order to keep their job.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

After nine years of negligence, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson finally somewhat defines the size of the huge loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act

Loopholes in the Act allow Trudeau, LeBlanc and other ministers to profit from their decisions – must be closed to have democratic, ethical government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, July 19, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch revealed the details of the court challenge it has launched of the new, so-called “conflict of interest screen” set up by Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson for federal Liberal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc, a screen that allows LeBlanc to hide whether and when he participates in or makes decisions that affect the interests of his friend J.D. Irving and/or J.D. Irving Ltd. and its subsidiaries etc.

Similar “screens” allow many other Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect their families, friends, and their own financial investments.

“Democracy Watch believes the federal Ethics Commissioner’s so-called conflict of interest screens are illegal because they allow cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to avoid the clear legal requirement in the federal ethics law that says they must disclose details each time they remove themselves from any decision-making process due to their conflict of interest, and because the screens also allow them to keep secret whether they have actually removed themselves from any decision-making process,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition.

Subsection 25(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act requires public office holders to issue a detailed public declaration each time they recuse themselves from a discussion, decision or vote because of a conflict of interest. There is no provision in the Act that says the Commissioner can set up a “conflict of interest screen” scheme that allows a public office holder to avoid the requirement in the law to issue the public declaration.

Democracy Watch’s judicial review application was filed last Friday, July 14, 2016 in the Federal Court of Appeal, Court File #T-1169-16, and the organization is represented by Yavar Hameed of Hameed Law.

In part because the screens hide whether and when Cabinet ministers and other senior government officials are removing themselves from decision-making because of a conflict of interest, some media outlets have mistakenly reported that conflict of interest screens set up by the Ethics Commissioner for LeBlanc and various other federal public office holders require them to abstain from participating in all decision-making processes in which they have a conflict of interest.

In fact, because of a huge loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act, they are all allowed to participate in or make any decision that applies generally. Almost all decisions made by ministers, their staff, and appointed senior government officials (all of whom are covered by the Act) apply generally – so in fact they likely don’t have to abstain from participating in very many decision-making processes even when they have a direct conflict of interest.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson has negligently refused since she was appointed in July 2007 to define the loophole — what is, and is not, a decision that applies generally? She finally did so somewhat in LeBlanc’s screen statement, writing that a general application decision is not “narrowly focused” but instead “affects the interests of a broad class of persons or entities” not just “a small group” and/or not with only one person or entity with a “dominant interest” in the matter being decided. Very unfortunately, she did not define “narrowly focused” or “small group” or “dominant interest” which means the loophole is still vague.

As well, loopholes in the Act allow ministers, their staff and appointed senior government officials to have investments in businesses they deal with and make decisions that make the businesses money, and make themselves money. They are not required to sell these investments or put them in a so-called “blind trust” or even disclose publicly that they own them (NOTE: the loophole is in the Act’s section 20 definition of “exempt assets” that don’t have to be sold, including “(h) investments in open-ended mutual funds” that can include shares in businesses (only “controlled assets” have to be sold)). Putting an investment in a blind trust is also a charade because the public office holder still knows that they own whatever they put in the trust.

In stark contrast, all federal public servants, even those without any decision-making power, are required by Appendix B of the Treasury Board’s Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment to take “all possible steps to recognize, prevent, report, and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest” and to sell assets that create even the appearance of a conflict of interest or make another arrangement to resolve the conflict created by the asset.

“The federal ethics law really should be called the ‘Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Act’ because it allows the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, their staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect the interests of their families, family businesses, friends and friends’ businesses, and also to profit from their own decisions,” said Conacher. “To have a democratic, ethical federal government, the law must be changed to require ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and to sell their investments that cause apparent conflicts, as federal public servants are required to do.”

In addition to Dominic LeBlanc, the Ethics Commissioner has established either a blind trust or a conflict of interest screen for the following Cabinet ministers – all of whom are allowed to make “general application” decisions that directly affect the assets or interests listed in their trust or screen:

• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – so-called “blind” trust for 7664699 Canada Inc.;
• Finance Minister Bill Morneau – so-called conflict of interest “screen” for Morneau Shepell Inc. or its subsidiaries, affiliates and associates;
• Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould – so-called conflict of interest “screen” for KaLoNa Group.

along with about 45 other federal Cabinet staff, advisors and appointed senior government officials, whose screen statements can been seen here, including Mary Jean McFall, Chief of Staff for Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay (see article about her “screen” here).

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

After nine years of negligence, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson finally somewhat defines the size of the huge loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act

Loopholes in the Act allow Trudeau, LeBlanc and other ministers to profit from their decisions – must be closed to have democratic, ethical government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, July 15, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch revealed that the loopholes in the new, so-called “conflict of interest screen” set up by Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson for federal Liberal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc allow LeBlanc to participate in and make decisions that affect the interests of his friend J.D. Irving, as well as J.D. Irving Ltd. and its subsidiaries. Similar screens allow many other Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect their families, friends, and their own financial investments.

“The federal Ethics Commissioner’s so-called conflict of interest screen is a charade that obscures the fact that a cabinet minister or other senior government official will make decisions even when they have a conflict of interest involving their own interests or the interests of their family or friends,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition.

Some media outlets have mistakenly reported that conflict of interest screens set up by the Ethics Commissioner for LeBlanc and various other federal public office holders require them to abstain from participating in all decision-making processes in which they have a conflict of interest. In fact, because of a huge loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act, they are all allowed to participate in or make any decision that applies generally. Almost all decisions made by ministers, their staff, and appointed senior government officials (all of whom are covered by the Act) apply generally – so in fact they likely only have to abstain from participating in a very few decision-making processes even when they have a direct conflict of interest.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson has negligently refused since she was appointed in July 2007 to define the loophole — what is, and is not, a decision that applies generally? She finally did so somewhat in LeBlanc’s screen statement, writing that a general application decision is not “narrowly focused” but instead “affects the interests of a broad class of persons or entities” not just “a small group” and/or not with only one person or entity with a “dominant interest” in the matter being decided. Very unfortunately, she did not define “narrowly focused” or “small group” or “dominant interest” which means the loophole is still vague.

As well, loopholes in the Act allow ministers, their staff and appointed senior government officials to have investments in businesses they deal with and make decisions that make the businesses money, and make themselves money. They are not required to sell these investments or put them in a so-called “blind trust” or even disclose publicly that they own them (NOTE: the loophole is in the Act’s section 20 definition of “exempt assets” that don’t have to be sold, including “(h) investments in open-ended mutual funds” that can include shares in businesses (only “controlled assets” have to be sold)). Putting an investment in a blind trust is also a charade because the public office holder still knows that they own whatever they put in the trust.

In stark contrast, all federal public servants, even those without any decision-making power, are required by Appendix B of the Treasury Board’s Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment to take “all possible steps to recognize, prevent, report, and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest” and to sell assets that create even the appearance of a conflict of interest or make another arrangement to resolve the conflict created by the asset.

“The federal ethics law really should be called the ‘Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Act because it allows the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, their staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect the interests of their families, family businesses, friends and friends’ businesses, and also to profit from their own decisions,” said Conacher. “To have a democratic, ethical federal government, the law must be changed to require ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and to sell their investments that cause apparent conflicts, as federal public servants are required to do.”

In addition to Dominic LeBlanc, the Ethics Commissioner has established either a blind trust or a conflict of interest screen for the following Cabinet ministers – all of whom are allowed to make “general application” decisions that directly affect the assets or interests listed in their trust or screen:

• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – so-called “blind” trust for 7664699 Canada Inc.;
• Finance Minister Bill Morneau – so-called conflict of interest “screen” for Morneau Shepell Inc. or its subsidiaries, affiliates and associates;
• Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould – so-called conflict of interest “screen” for KaLoNa Group.

along with about 45 other federal Cabinet staff, advisors and appointed senior government officials, whose screen statements can been seen here, including Mary Jean McFall, Chief of Staff for Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay (see article about her “screen” here).

“Democracy Watch’s position is that the Ethics Commissioners screens are illegal because they allow ministers and other public officials to avoid the clear legal requirement that they issue a detailed public declaration each time they remove themselves from a decision-making process because of a conflict of interest,” said Conacher. Subsection 25(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act requires public office holders to issue a detailed public declaration each time they recuse themselves from a decision-making process.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

 

Commitment to strengthen Access to Information Act may also be unjustifiably delayed if government ignores House Committee recommendations

Proposed changes to government spending and procurement processes do not include key change of increasing enforcement powers of Parliamentary Budget Officer and Auditor General

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, June 23, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, as the federal government develops its third Action Plan for submission to the international Open Government Partnership (OGP), the nation-wide Open Government Coalition, Government Ethics Coalition and Money in Politics Coalition, made up of more than 70 citizen groups in total with more than three million members (all coordinated by Democracy Watch), called on the OGP Steering Committee to pressure the federal Liberals to strengthen their Action Plan because it fails to fulfill the commitment to increase government integrity.

“While the Liberals are committing to strengthening Canada’s open government law, and transparency in government spending, it looks like those changes may be unjustifiably delayed and they are clearly too weak to stop secret lobbying and secret political donations and to protect whistleblowers who report government wrongdoing,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Liberals’ plan, like the Conservatives’ past plans, continues to focus more on making currently available information available online through open data systems than on real open government changes that will ensure they keep their commitment to openness by default.”

“Secret, unethical lobbying, secret donations, secret expenses, excessive secrecy overall, conflicts of interest and sole-source contracts are currently legal, enforcement of key democracy and good government laws is too weak, as is whistleblower protection and public consultation, and so many key changes are clearly needed to ensure everyone in federal politics is effectively required to act honestly, openly, ethically, representatively and to prevent waste,” said Conacher.

In all these ways, the Liberals’ draft Action Plan violates the Open Government Partnership (OGP) requirements set out in the Open Government Declaration that all countries are required to sign. To fulfill the Declaration requirements, the Liberals’ Plan has to commit to strengthening open government in every way. Their Action Plan should have included measures to strengthen not only transparency laws and financial administration laws, but also federal ethics, lobbying, anti-corruption, political finance, whistleblower protection and public consultation laws, and enforcement of all these laws, in government and in the private sector.

As a result, the OGP Steering Committee should pressure the Liberals to improve their Action Plan.

In January 2012, Democracy Watch and the coalitions it coordinates submitted a 19-page letter to the Conservatives which set out 45 recommendations containing dozens of needed changes to key laws. Many of the recommended changes were promised by the Conservatives in their 2006 federal election platform, and by the Liberals in their 2015 federal election platform, and many have also been recommended (in their respective issue areas) by the federal Information Commissioner, Ethics Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Oliphant Commission, and by many other citizen groups.

Democracy Watch and its coalitions have been pushing for years for key transparency and integrity changes to the federal Lobbying Act, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and Conflict of Interest Act and related MP and Senate ethics rules. As well, opposition MPs and the Information Commissioner and the Open Government Coalition have been pushing to strengthen the Access to Information Act for several years, and most recently a House Committee recommended key changes to the Act.

The Canada Elections Act must be strengthened to close loopholes that allow for secret, unlimited donations and loans and false phone calls. The Parliament of Canada Act must be changed to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the independence and powers needed to ensure truth-in-budgeting. The Financial Administration Act must be strengthened to tighten up rules on sole-source contracting, and the Auditor General Act strengthened to increase enforcement. Related Treasury Board codes, policies and rules in all of the above areas must also be strengthened (To see more details, click here). And a “Meaningful Public Consultation Act” must be passed to help ensure representative government decisions.

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Coalition, Government Ethics Coalition and Money in Politics Coalition will continue to push the federal Liberals to make complete open government commitments, and to fulfill all of the Open Government Partnership OGP requirements, and if they don’t will continue to appeal to the OGP Steering Committee to pressure the Liberals to fulfill all these requirements.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign

To stop unethical and undemocratic political financing, annual donation limit for all individuals (including candidates) should be lowered to Quebec limit of $100, and annual per-vote public funding amount should also be decreased and replaced with annual public funding that matches funds raised

Same changes should be made to municipal system across province

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, June 16, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than three million members), were joined by more than 9,000 Ontarians who have signed a petition on Change.org. Together, they applauded some of the Ontario Liberals’ proposed political finance reform bill but called on them to lower their proposed annual political donation limit and candidate personal donation limit because both are much too high and will allow wealthy interests, and wealthy candidates, to continue to have an undemocratic advantage over most voters.

The high donation limits will, as Quebec’s and Toronto’s experiences show clearly, also facilitate and hide corrupting large donations from business and union executives and their families.

The Liberals should also lower the per-vote annual public funding amount as it will give parties more than a base amount of funding and will allow them to prosper even if they lose significant voter support in between elections. Matching funds raised by parties and candidates with public funding should also be added to the new system.

According to the Ontario government’s news release, the Liberals’ bill proposes the following good changes: a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations; limits on political party and third party advertising spending leading up to an election, and during an election campaign period, and; registration requirements and limits on donations to nomination race candidates and political party leadership race candidates.

“While some of the bill’s proposals are good steps forward, the proposed individual political donation limits are clearly undemocratic and unethical because they will allow wealthy people to give thousands of dollars more to parties and candidates than an average voter can afford,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “As Quebec’s corruption scandal shows clearly, the Liberals’ proposed high donation limits will also allow corporations, unions and other organizations to continue to donate large amounts by having their executives and their family members all make the maximum donation each year.”

“The Ontario Liberals’ proposed high donation limit will only obscure the corrupting influence of donations from wealthy interests, not stop it,” said Conacher.

Instead of matching Quebec’s world-leading political finance system of a $100 annual individual donation limit to each party, and annual public per-vote and matching funding, the Liberals propose that individuals be allowed to donate $1,550 annually to each party (which means one person could donate a total of $6,200 to four parties).

During an election year the Liberals propose that individuals be allowed to donate $1,550 annually to each political party; $1,550 annually to a party’s election candidate (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s candidates); and $1,550 to a party’s constituency association (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s constituency associations). This means one person could donate a total of $31,000 to four parties. And the Liberals are not proposing to limit loans to parties and candidates at all.

Even if funneling donations is made illegal (as it was in Quebec), the donors will just claim they were not forced by their company or union to make the donation, and no one will be able to prove otherwise.

Corporate and union donations were banned in Toronto elections in 2009, 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.

And 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.

The bill also allows nomination race and election candidates to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, and party leadership candidates to donate $25,000 to their own campaign. Candidates should not be allowed to donate more than anyone else to their campaign as it gives an advantage to wealthy candidates.

“Allowing candidates to donate thousands of dollars to their own campaign undemocratically favours wealthy candidates,” said Conacher.

The Ontario Liberals should also lower the proposed annual per-vote public funding subsidy from $2.26 per vote to no more than $1 per vote, and implement the same annual public funding matching system as Quebec ($2.50 for the first $20,000 raised annually by each party, and $1 for the first $200,000 raised annually). Elections Quebec has analyzed the results of Quebec’s changes and found that the parties are still adequately funded.

“To match Quebec’s world-leading democratic system, Ontario must limit individual donations to about $100 annually and use per-vote and matching public funding to give parties and candidates funding based on their actual level of voter support,” said Conacher. “Similar changes should be made to Ontario’s municipal law, taking into account that there are no parties at the municipal level, so that every municipality in the province has the same democratic rules.”

The key changes Ontario must make to actually democratize its provincial political finance system are as follows (and similar changes should be made province-wide to the municipal political finance system, taking into account that there are no political parties at the municipal level):

1. a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
2. a limit on annual donations by individuals to each party of $100-200 annually (Quebec’s limit is $100) with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
3. a prohibition on 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. a limit on spending during leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and candidates in party leadership races;
5. 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);
6. a base amount of 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. annual public funding for parties matching the first $100,000-$200,000 raised (as in Quebec);
8. public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (as in Quebec), and;
9. a requirement that election, donation and ethics watchdogs conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Calls on Lobbying Commissioner to remove herself from ruling on complaint because she has expressed interest in being reappointed by MPs – a similar commissioner from another jurisdiction should rule on the complaint

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 26, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch filed an ethics complaint with federal Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd about the gifts of paid travel that various lobbying organizations have given to MPs (and a few senators) since spring 2009. Democracy Watch believes the gifts violate a rule in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct that prohibits lobbyists from doing anything that would put an MP, senator or other public office holder in even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The complaint lists 16 businesses and lobby organizations from various sectors that are registered in the federal Registry of Lobbyists and that, since 2009 according to the Sponsored Travel reports and registry of federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, have paid for trips by MPs (and in one case, also by senators). Sometimes the MP’s spouse or staff has accompanied the MP or senator on the trip, and often the trips have cost thousands of dollars.

As well, the complaint lists six other lobby organizations that are not registered in the Registry of Lobbyists but have given many paid trips to many MPs (and, in one case, also to senators) from 2009 to 2016. The complaint requests an investigation to determine whether any of these organizations have done enough lobbying to require that they should have registered their lobbying under the Lobbying Act at any time in the past seven years.

However, the complaint requests that the Commissioner Shepherd not rule on the complaint because she has expressed interest in being reappointed by MPs to the position (her term ends this July) and is therefore in a conflict of interest when considering a complaint that affects the reputation and activities of MPs. Democracy Watch is also concerned about Commissioner Shepherd’s very weak enforcement record, and its position is that in order to have proper enforcement of the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists’ Code Commissioner Shepherd must be replaced by someone who has a demonstrated strongenforcement attitude and record.

Democracy Watch’s complaint letter calls on Commissioner Shepherd to remove herself from ruling on the complaint and to delegate consideration of the complaint to a similar commissioner in another jurisdiction. However, the complaint should not be delegated to federal Ethics Commissioner Dawson because she also has a very weak enforcement record (including ruling in 2010 that it is fine for Cabinet ministers to have lobbyists who are lobbying them raise thousands of dollars for them). As well, federal Cabinet and MPs will also soon consider whether to reappoint Commissioner Dawson for another term (her term also ends in July) and so she is also in an appearance of a conflict of interest when considering a complaint that affects the reputations and activities of MPs.

“Federal ethics rules say it is illegal for lobbyists to do anything that puts an MP or government official in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, and paying for an MP’s trip that costs thousands of dollars definitely crosses that line,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor at the University of Ottawa. “Neither the federal Commissioner of Lobbying nor the federal Ethics Commissioner should rule on this complaint because they are up for possible reappointment and also have a very weak enforcement record.”

Democracy Watch pushed for 15 years, including 10 years of 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 the Registrar’s “deeply flawed” interpretation of Rule 8 (Commissioner Shepherd was Deputy Registrar at the time) and making it clear that Rule 8 prohibits lobbyists from doing anything that puts a public office holder in even an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Democracy Watch also called on MPs and senators to act with integrity, finally, and eliminate the rules in their ethics codes that say they are allowed to accept the gift of paid travel from anyone. Democracy Watch and the nation-wide, 31-member group Government Ethics Coalition will continue pushing for these and other key changes to federal ethics rules, and enforcement and penalties, so that Canadians will finally have the ethical government they deserve.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Should be lowered to Quebec limit of $100, and candidate personal donations, and annual per-vote public funding amount, also much too high — ban on corporate, union etc. donations, and limits on party and third-party ad spending, are good

Same changes should be made at same time to municipal system across province

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 17, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the 50-member group Money in Politics Coalition applauded some of the Ontario Liberals’ proposed political finance reform bill, but called on them to lower their proposed annual political donation limit, candidate personal donation limit because both are much too high and will allow wealthy interests, and wealthy candidates, to continue to have an undemocratic advantage over most voters. The high donation limits will, as Quebec’s experience shows, also facilitate and hide corrupting large donations from business and union executives and their families.

The Liberals should also lower the per-vote annual public funding amount as it will give parties more than a base amount of funding and will allow them to prosper even if they lose significant voter support in between elections. Matching funds raised by parties and candidates with public funding should also be added to the new system.

According to the Ontario government’s news release, the Liberals’ bill proposes the following good changes: a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations; limits on political party and third party advertising spending leading up to an election, and during an election campaign period, and; registration requirements and limits on donations to nomination race candidates and political party leadership race candidates.

“While some of the bill’s proposals are good steps forward, the proposed annual individual political donation limit of $7,750 to each party is clearly undemocratic because it is many times higher than an average voter can afford,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “As Quebec’s corruption scandal shows clearly, such a high donation limit will allow wealthy individuals to continue to use money as an unethical way to influence politicians, and will also allow corporations, unions and other organizations to continue to donate large amounts by having their executives and their family members all make the maximum donation each year.”

“The Ontario Liberals’ proposed high donation limit will only hide the corrupting influence of donations from wealthy interests, not stop it,” said Conacher.

Instead of matching Quebec’s world-leading political finance system of a $100 annual individual donation limit to each party, and annual public per-vote and matching funding, the Liberals propose that individuals be allowed to donate up to $7,750 annually to each party, as follows: $1,550 annually to a political party; $1,550 annually to an individual candidate (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s candidates); and $1,550 to a constituency association (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s constituency associations). And the Liberals are not proposing to limit loans to parties and candidates at all.

Even if funneling donations is made illegal (as it was in Quebec), the donors will just claim they were not forced by their company or union to make the donation, and no one will be able to prove otherwise.

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.

The bill also allows nomination race and election candidates to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, and party leadership candidates to donate $25,000 to their own campaign. Candidates should not be allowed to donate more than anyone else to their campaign as it gives an advantage to wealthy candidates.

“Allowing candidates to donate thousands of dollars to their own campaign undemocratically favours wealthy candidates,” said Conacher.

The Ontario Liberals should also lower the proposed annual per-vote public funding subsidy from $2.26 per vote to no more than $1 per vote, and implement the same annual public funding matching system as Quebec ($2.50 for the first $20,000 raised annually by each party, and $1 for the first $200,000 raised annually). Elections Quebec has analyzed the results of Quebec’s changes and found that the parties are still adequately funded.

“To match Quebec’s world-leading democratic system, Ontario must limit individual donations to about $100 annually and use per-vote and matching public funding to give parties and candidates funding based on their actual level of voter support,” said Conacher. “Similar changes should be made to Ontario’s municipal law, taking into account that there are no parties at the municipal level, so that every municipality in the province has the same democratic rules.”

The key changes Ontario must make to actually democratize its provincial political finance system are as follows (and similar changes should be made province-wide to the municipal political finance system, taking into account that there are no political parties at the municipal level):

1. a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
2. a limit on annual donations by individuals to each party of $100-200 annually (Quebec’s limit is $100) with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
3. a prohibition on 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. a limit on spending during leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and candidates in party leadership races;
5. 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);
6. a base amount of 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. annual public funding for parties matching the first $100,000-$200,000 raised (as in Quebec);
8. public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (as in Quebec), and;
9. a requirement that election, donation and ethics watchdogs conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign