RCMP discloses 96-page document under Access to Information Act with 86 pages redacted because “matter is currently under investigation”

NOTE and UPDATE #2
(please see the first NOTE and UPDATE set out below, and click here to see more details in Democracy Watch’s June 22, 2023 New Release)

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023, the RCMP issued another statement to the media about the situation of the RCMP sending a letter dated May 25, 2023 to Democracy Watch that contained incorrect information about the RCMP’s investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau and other Liberal Cabinet ministers obstructing the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin back in 2018. The RCMP’s June 21st statement is as follows:

“In a May 2023 Access to Information (ATI) release, the RCMP informed a requester that records they were seeking were exempt from release as the matter was under investigation. This information was incorrect, and based on the information available to the ATIP Branch at that time.

As previously stated, the RCMP is not investigating allegations of political interference in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to secure a remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin. The RCMP’s Sensitive and International Investigations unit had conducted an assessment pertaining to these allegations and determined there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offence and the file was concluded by January 2023.

The RCMP will undertake a new review of the records, and, following necessary consultations, will provide a new release package to the requester within 90 days.”

Democracy Watch’s response to this statement is as follows:

Based on receiving confirmation from the RCMP that the RCMP misled Democracy Watch by sending it a letter dated May 25, 2023 that contained incorrect information that said the allegation that Prime Minister Trudeau and other members of the Liberal Cabinet obstructed the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin is “currently under investigation” by the RCMP, and based on receiving confirmation from the RCMP that the RCMP’s investigation of that allegation concluded in January 2023, Democracy Watch has updated its Monday, June 19, 2023 News Release on this webpage by changing “is investigating” to “was investigating” in the headline and first paragraph of the Release.

Given the investigation ended in January, and that the only reason the RCMP gave for keeping the documents secret was that the allegations were still being investigated, it is completely unjustifiable to delay the disclosure of the 86 pages for another three months (see details below about the 86 pages).

The RCMP also needs to disclose all the internal communications that led to their access to information branch not knowing at the end of May that their investigation unit had ended the investigation last January so that the public knows who exactly failed to communicate that information internally, who reviewed and approved the May 25th letter that was sent to Democracy Watch, and when each review and approval step took place. Democracy Watch is filing an Access to Information Act (ATIA) request for those internal communications.

NOTE and UPDATE:

The RCMP posted a short tweet about the contents of this news release and media stories about it on its Twitter account at about 6 pm ET on June 19, 2023, and issued a longer statement to the media.

The RCMP’s full statement to the media, which none of the media have included in their stories (so far), is as follows:

“The RCMP is not investigating allegations of political interference in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to secure a remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin. The statement, in a May 2023 Access to Information Release was sent using information available at the time.

The RCMP’s Sensitive and International Investigations unit conducted an assessment pertaining to these allegations. As part of that review the RCMP spoke with and collected information from a variety of sources, and examined the matter in the most thorough, objective and professional manner.

After a comprehensive and impartial assessment of all available information, the RCMP determined that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offence and the file was concluded.

The conclusion of that file was communicated to the original complainant in a letter in January 2023 and was also to be released via several Access to Information Requests received.

Regards,
Media Relations and Communications
RCMP O Division (Ontario)”

Democracy Watch’s response to the RCMP’s statement is as follows:

The RCMP’s statement is weirdly vague. The May 25, 2023 RCMP letter says they were investigating, and redacted 86 pages of the records it disclosed because they were investigating, but actually that decision to end the investigation was made in January 2023 and communicated to an unknown original complainant but not to anyone else? But it was supposed to have been communicated to everyone who filed an access-to-information request? The decision was not even communicated to the RCMP Access to Information unit staff for 5 months and, as a result, they sent the letter to Democracy Watch dated May 25, 2023 that said the matter was “currently under investigation”?

This raises even more questions than the letter sent to Democracy Watch on May 25th.

The RCMP’s story doesn’t add up because they are contradicting themselves about when the allegations were being investigated, and when decisions were made to end the investigation. If the investigation ended in January 2023, then why did the RCMP refuse to disclose 86 pages of their investigation documents just a few weeks ago because, they said, the allegations were still under investigation?

To clear up this matter, the RCMP must answer those questions, and disclose the 86 pages that they refused to disclose.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 19, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the response it received recently to its Access to Information Act (ATIA) filed with the RCMP on July 27, 2022. The RCMP’s response letter, dated May 25, 2023, confirms it is was investigating the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, former Finance Minister Bill Morneau, some members of their staff, and former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018.

Attached to the response letter is a 96-page document with 86 pages fully redacted because “this matter is currently under investigation.” Only Democracy Watch’s 5-page February 2021 letter to the RCMP is unredacted, and four pages are fully redacted because they are “not relevant” and one page because it is “redundant”.

This is the first public statement the RCMP has made about the situation since August 14, 2019 when it stated that it was examining the situation carefully. On September 10, 2019, the Globe and Mail reported that Ian Shugart, then-Clerk of the Privy Council, had refused to waive Cabinet confidence to allow government witnesses to provide full information to the RCMP, and that sources within the RCMP said it was putting its examination on hold through the fall 2019 federal election campaign period. The next day former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould stated publicly that she had been interviewed by the RCMP about the actions of the Prime Minister and others, as reported by the Globe and Mail.

“The RCMP should have confirmed long ago that it was investigating the situation given the evidence, and that more than four years have passed since the situation was made public, and almost four years since the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling finding that Prime Minister Trudeau violated the federal ethics law pressuring the Attorney General,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given four years have passed, it is difficult to believe that the investigation has not been completed, and it raises many questions for the RCMP to answer.”

Democracy Watch called on the RCMP to answer the following questions:

1. When did the examination end and the investigation begin?
2. How many investigators have been investigating?
3. How many hours in total have they spent investigating?
4. Have there been negotiations with the PMO to disclose Cabinet confidences about the situation and, if not, why has the RCMP let almost four years pass without challenging the refusal to disclose in court?
5. When does the RCMP expect that the investigation will conclude?
6. Will the RCMP and Crown prosecutors issue a full public explanation of the investigation and its findings when it concludes?

Democracy Watch sent a letter to the RCMP in February 2021 setting out the grounds for prosecuting for obstruction of justice, and calling on the RCMP and Crown prosecutors to issue the full, public explanation that the public has a right to about the state of the examination (this letter is included in the 96-page record disclosed by the RCMP). The RCMP did not respond.

On June 1, 2022, Democracy Watch sent a second letter to the RCMP again setting out the grounds for prosecuting, and again calling for a full, public update, and also requesting disclosure of records under the ATIA. DWatch filed the ATIA request because the RCMP had disclosed documents in spring 2022 under the ATIA explaining its decisions concerning its investigation into the Aga Khan’s trip gift to Trudeau and his family. After some communications with the RCMP clarifying the request, it was finalized on July 27, 2022.

“Are the RCMP and prosecutors waiting for a third federal election to pass, or doing what often happens in Canada when powerful politicians and government officials are involved in alleged illegal activities – delaying with the hope that they can eventually bury the results of the investigation?” asked Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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

RCMP discloses 96-page document under Access to Information Act with 86 pages redacted because “matter is currently under investigation”

NOTE and UPDATE #2
(please see the first NOTE and UPDATE set out below, and click here to see more details in Democracy Watch’s June 22, 2023 New Release)

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023, the RCMP issued another statement to the media about the situation of the RCMP sending a letter dated May 25, 2023 to Democracy Watch that contained incorrect information about the RCMP’s investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau and other Liberal Cabinet ministers obstructing the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin back in 2018. The RCMP’s June 21st statement is as follows:

“In a May 2023 Access to Information (ATI) release, the RCMP informed a requester that records they were seeking were exempt from release as the matter was under investigation. This information was incorrect, and based on the information available to the ATIP Branch at that time.

As previously stated, the RCMP is not investigating allegations of political interference in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to secure a remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin. The RCMP’s Sensitive and International Investigations unit had conducted an assessment pertaining to these allegations and determined there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offence and the file was concluded by January 2023.

The RCMP will undertake a new review of the records, and, following necessary consultations, will provide a new release package to the requester within 90 days.”

Democracy Watch’s response to this statement is as follows:

Based on receiving confirmation from the RCMP that the RCMP misled Democracy Watch by sending it a letter dated May 25, 2023 that contained incorrect information that said the allegation that Prime Minister Trudeau and other members of the Liberal Cabinet obstructed the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin is “currently under investigation” by the RCMP, and based on receiving confirmation from the RCMP that the RCMP’s investigation of that allegation concluded in January 2023, Democracy Watch has updated its Monday, June 19, 2023 News Release on this webpage by changing “is investigating” to “was investigating” in the headline and first paragraph of the Release.

Given the investigation ended in January, and that the only reason the RCMP gave for keeping the documents secret was that the allegations were still being investigated, it is completely unjustifiable to delay the disclosure of the 86 pages for another three months (see details below about the 86 pages).

The RCMP also needs to disclose all the internal communications that led to their access to information branch not knowing at the end of May that their investigation unit had ended the investigation last January so that the public knows who exactly failed to communicate that information internally, who reviewed and approved the May 25th letter that was sent to Democracy Watch, and when each review and approval step took place. Democracy Watch is filing an Access to Information Act (ATIA) request for those internal communications.

NOTE and UPDATE:

The RCMP posted a short tweet about the contents of this news release and media stories about it on its Twitter account at about 6 pm ET on June 19, 2023, and issued a longer statement to the media.

The RCMP’s full statement to the media, which none of the media have included in their stories (so far), is as follows:

“The RCMP is not investigating allegations of political interference in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to secure a remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin. The statement, in a May 2023 Access to Information Release was sent using information available at the time.

The RCMP’s Sensitive and International Investigations unit conducted an assessment pertaining to these allegations. As part of that review the RCMP spoke with and collected information from a variety of sources, and examined the matter in the most thorough, objective and professional manner.

After a comprehensive and impartial assessment of all available information, the RCMP determined that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offence and the file was concluded.

The conclusion of that file was communicated to the original complainant in a letter in January 2023 and was also to be released via several Access to Information Requests received.

Regards,
Media Relations and Communications
RCMP O Division (Ontario)”

Democracy Watch’s response to the RCMP’s statement is as follows:

The RCMP’s statement is weirdly vague. The May 25, 2023 RCMP letter says they were investigating, and redacted 86 pages of the records it disclosed because they were investigating, but actually that decision to end the investigation was made in January 2023 and communicated to an unknown original complainant but not to anyone else? But it was supposed to have been communicated to everyone who filed an access-to-information request? The decision was not even communicated to the RCMP Access to Information unit staff for 5 months and, as a result, they sent the letter to Democracy Watch dated May 25, 2023 that said the matter was “currently under investigation”?

This raises even more questions than the letter sent to Democracy Watch on May 25th.

The RCMP’s story doesn’t add up because they are contradicting themselves about when the allegations were being investigated, and when decisions were made to end the investigation. If the investigation ended in January 2023, then why did the RCMP refuse to disclose 86 pages of their investigation documents just a few weeks ago because, they said, the allegations were still under investigation?

To clear up this matter, the RCMP must answer those questions, and disclose the 86 pages that they refused to disclose.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 19, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the response it received recently to its Access to Information Act (ATIA) filed with the RCMP on July 27, 2022. The RCMP’s response letter, dated May 25, 2023, confirms it is was investigating the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, former Finance Minister Bill Morneau, some members of their staff, and former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018.

Attached to the response letter is a 96-page document with 86 pages fully redacted because “this matter is currently under investigation.” Only Democracy Watch’s 5-page February 2021 letter to the RCMP is unredacted, and four pages are fully redacted because they are “not relevant” and one page because it is “redundant”.

This is the first public statement the RCMP has made about the situation since August 14, 2019 when it stated that it was examining the situation carefully. On September 10, 2019, the Globe and Mail reported that Ian Shugart, then-Clerk of the Privy Council, had refused to waive Cabinet confidence to allow government witnesses to provide full information to the RCMP, and that sources within the RCMP said it was putting its examination on hold through the fall 2019 federal election campaign period. The next day former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould stated publicly that she had been interviewed by the RCMP about the actions of the Prime Minister and others, as reported by the Globe and Mail.

“The RCMP should have confirmed long ago that it was investigating the situation given the evidence, and that more than four years have passed since the situation was made public, and almost four years since the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling finding that Prime Minister Trudeau violated the federal ethics law pressuring the Attorney General,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given four years have passed, it is difficult to believe that the investigation has not been completed, and it raises many questions for the RCMP to answer.”

Democracy Watch called on the RCMP to answer the following questions:

1. When did the examination end and the investigation begin?
2. How many investigators have been investigating?
3. How many hours in total have they spent investigating?
4. Have there been negotiations with the PMO to disclose Cabinet confidences about the situation and, if not, why has the RCMP let almost four years pass without challenging the refusal to disclose in court?
5. When does the RCMP expect that the investigation will conclude?
6. Will the RCMP and Crown prosecutors issue a full public explanation of the investigation and its findings when it concludes?

Democracy Watch sent a letter to the RCMP in February 2021 setting out the grounds for prosecuting for obstruction of justice, and calling on the RCMP and Crown prosecutors to issue the full, public explanation that the public has a right to about the state of the examination (this letter is included in the 96-page record disclosed by the RCMP). The RCMP did not respond.

On June 1, 2022, Democracy Watch sent a second letter to the RCMP again setting out the grounds for prosecuting, and again calling for a full, public update, and also requesting disclosure of records under the ATIA. DWatch filed the ATIA request because the RCMP had disclosed documents in spring 2022 under the ATIA explaining its decisions concerning its investigation into the Aga Khan’s trip gift to Trudeau and his family. After some communications with the RCMP clarifying the request, it was finalized on July 27, 2022.

“Are the RCMP and prosecutors waiting for a third federal election to pass, or doing what often happens in Canada when powerful politicians and government officials are involved in alleged illegal activities – delaying with the hope that they can eventually bury the results of the investigation?” asked Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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

Trudeau Cabinet currently handpicking Ethics Commissioner, RCMP Commissioner, Integrity Commissioner who all enforce laws that apply to Cabinet

Trudeau Cabinet’s appointments process is as partisan, Cabinet-controlled and political as past government’s processes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 12, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, given Prime Minister Trudeau’s appointment fiasco with David Johnston, Democracy Watch called on the Trudeau Cabinet to stop its multi-year charade and establish an actually independent, merit-based appointment process for all public inquiry commissioners, and all federal democratic good government watchdogs.

The Trudeau Cabinet has, finally, shown openness to having opposition parties participate in choosing the commissioner(s) who will investigate foreign interference in Canadian politics.

However, for appointing key watchdogs who enforce key democratic good government laws that apply to the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers and other top government officials, the Trudeau Cabinet has recently, after a secretive, partisan, Cabinet-controlled processes, appointed new RCMP Commissioner, and nominated a new Integrity Commissioner (who enforces the federal whistleblower protection law).

Also the Trudeau Cabinet is currently completely controlling secretive, partisan processes for handpicking the Interim Ethics Commissioner and the full-term Ethics Commissioner.

Despite promising in the 2015 federal election to change the process, the Trudeau Cabinet didn’t actually change it. Cabinet ministers still choose all inquiry commissioners, all appointment advisory committee members, and choose all watchdog appointees from the long lists of candidates that the committees provide, with little or no consultation with opposition parties.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in January 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when choosing watchdogs such as the Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying.

In addition to the David Johnston fiasco, past appointments by the Trudeau Cabinet have shown clearly that the appointment process is far from merit-based.

1. Interim Ethics Commissioner Martine Richard never should have been appointed given she is the sister-in-law of Trudeau Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc, and thankfully she resigned soon after being appointed;
2. Mario Dion, who was handpicked to be Ethics Commissioner in November 2017 by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process, had a record of eight unethical actions in his former job as Integrity Commissioner. The Cabinet hid emails for two years that showed they had other qualified candidates for Ethics Commissioner, and lied to opposition party leaders.
3. The Trudeau Cabinet used the same secretive, dishonest process to handpick Nancy Bélanger in late 2017 to be the Commissioner of Lobbying;
4. Former Ontario Liberal MPP Madeleine Meilleur admitted in spring 2017 before a House Committee that when she was considering ending her political career she had talked with Trudeau’s then-senior adviser Gerald Butts, and also his Chief of Staff Katie Telford, and asked to be appointed as federal Commissioner of Official Languages. Her statement became so politically costly to the Trudeau Cabinet that she ended up withdrawing her candidacy, and;
5. After Julie Payette resigned from her Governor General position in 2021, the Trudeau Cabinet admitted that she was not properly vetted for the position.

The Trudeau Cabinet has also handpicked, through partisan, political Cabinet-controlled processes, all of Canada’s other current democratic good government watchdogs: the Chief Electoral Officer (who was switched by the Trudeau Cabinet for secret reasons); Auditor General; Information Commissioner; Privacy Commissioner; Parliamentary Budget Officer, and; the Governor General (who plays a key role in judging whether a prorogation or snap election should be allowed, and who governs after an election).

To ensure merit-based appointments, a fully independent Appointments Commission should be established (as Prime Minister Harper promised to do back in 2006), with the Commission members approved by all parties, and then the Commission will do public, merit-based searches and submit a short list of no more than three well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee, which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.

“Like every Cabinet, the Trudeau Cabinet is in a conflict of interest when choosing inquiry commissioners and democratic good government watchdogs because those commissioners and watchdogs investigate and enforce rules that apply to Cabinet ministers and their departments,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process is to establish a fully independent appointments commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and then send a short list of well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.”

Almost 16,000 Canadians have sent a letter through Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign calling on the federal Liberals to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent and merit-based.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Trudeau Cabinet currently handpicking Ethics Commissioner, RCMP Commissioner, Integrity Commissioner who all enforce laws that apply to Cabinet

Trudeau Cabinet’s appointments process is as partisan, Cabinet-controlled and political as past government’s processes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 12, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, given Prime Minister Trudeau’s appointment fiasco with David Johnston, Democracy Watch called on the Trudeau Cabinet to stop its multi-year charade and establish an actually independent, merit-based appointment process for all public inquiry commissioners, and all federal democratic good government watchdogs.

The Trudeau Cabinet has, finally, shown openness to having opposition parties participate in choosing the commissioner(s) who will investigate foreign interference in Canadian politics.

However, for appointing key watchdogs who enforce key democratic good government laws that apply to the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers and other top government officials, the Trudeau Cabinet has recently, after a secretive, partisan, Cabinet-controlled processes, appointed new RCMP Commissioner, and nominated a new Integrity Commissioner (who enforces the federal whistleblower protection law).

Also the Trudeau Cabinet is currently completely controlling secretive, partisan processes for handpicking the Interim Ethics Commissioner and the full-term Ethics Commissioner.

Despite promising in the 2015 federal election to change the process, the Trudeau Cabinet didn’t actually change it. Cabinet ministers still choose all inquiry commissioners, all appointment advisory committee members, and choose all watchdog appointees from the long lists of candidates that the committees provide, with little or no consultation with opposition parties.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in January 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when choosing watchdogs such as the Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying.

In addition to the David Johnston fiasco, past appointments by the Trudeau Cabinet have shown clearly that the appointment process is far from merit-based.

1. Interim Ethics Commissioner Martine Richard never should have been appointed given she is the sister-in-law of Trudeau Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc, and thankfully she resigned soon after being appointed;
2. Mario Dion, who was handpicked to be Ethics Commissioner in November 2017 by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process, had a record of eight unethical actions in his former job as Integrity Commissioner. The Cabinet hid emails for two years that showed they had other qualified candidates for Ethics Commissioner, and lied to opposition party leaders.
3. The Trudeau Cabinet used the same secretive, dishonest process to handpick Nancy Bélanger in late 2017 to be the Commissioner of Lobbying;
4. Former Ontario Liberal MPP Madeleine Meilleur admitted in spring 2017 before a House Committee that when she was considering ending her political career she had talked with Trudeau’s then-senior adviser Gerald Butts, and also his Chief of Staff Katie Telford, and asked to be appointed as federal Commissioner of Official Languages. Her statement became so politically costly to the Trudeau Cabinet that she ended up withdrawing her candidacy, and;
5. After Julie Payette resigned from her Governor General position in 2021, the Trudeau Cabinet admitted that she was not properly vetted for the position.

The Trudeau Cabinet has also handpicked, through partisan, political Cabinet-controlled processes, all of Canada’s other current democratic good government watchdogs: the Chief Electoral Officer (who was switched by the Trudeau Cabinet for secret reasons); Auditor General; Information Commissioner; Privacy Commissioner; Parliamentary Budget Officer, and; the Governor General (who plays a key role in judging whether a prorogation or snap election should be allowed, and who governs after an election).

To ensure merit-based appointments, a fully independent Appointments Commission should be established (as Prime Minister Harper promised to do back in 2006), with the Commission members approved by all parties, and then the Commission will do public, merit-based searches and submit a short list of no more than three well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee, which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.

“Like every Cabinet, the Trudeau Cabinet is in a conflict of interest when choosing inquiry commissioners and democratic good government watchdogs because those commissioners and watchdogs investigate and enforce rules that apply to Cabinet ministers and their departments,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process is to establish a fully independent appointments commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and then send a short list of well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.”

Almost 16,000 Canadians have sent a letter through Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign calling on the federal Liberals to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent and merit-based.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Changes needed to effectively require everyone in politics to be honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 31, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, with Toronto’s mayoral by-election voting day coming up on June 26th, and advance voting starting June 8th, Democracy Watch called on all candidates to make key disclosures of information voters have a right to know before they vote, and to pledge to resign if they break any of their election promises, and to pledge to make key changes to make Toronto’s elections actually democratic and fair.

“Toronto’s mayoral election is undemocratic and unfair because candidates are allowed to mislead voters with false election promises and statements, the system favours wealthy candidates who have wealthy supporters as donating huge amounts of money to your own campaign or third-party advertising blitz is allowed, and voters are denied the right to know, before they vote, who is bankrolling and fundraising and campaigning for candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Voters are also forced to choose only one out of a dizzying number of candidates instead of being allowed to rank them and have the candidate who is supported the most by the most voters win.”

“Voters and the media should be asking key questions of all the candidates before advanced voting begins so that voters have key information they need to make an informed vote,” said Conacher.

Toronto’s election is undemocratic and unfair in the following key ways:

I. Misleading voters is legal

1. Candidates and third parties (interest groups and individuals who are trying to affect the election results) are allowed to lie to voters with the election promises and statements about candidates or anything else;

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Will you resign if you break any of your promises? Do you support a by-law requiring candidates in Toronto elections, and everyone in Toronto politics, to tell the truth, with a high fine for misleaders?

II. Tilted in favour of wealthy candidates who have wealthy supporters

2. A mayoral candidate and their spouse are allowed, together, to donate $25,000 to the candidate’s campaign, which is much more than most candidates can afford;
3. Donors are allowed to donate up to $2,500, which is much more than an average voter can afford;
4. There is no limit to how much an individual can donate to their own third-party advertising, and a $1,200 limit on other donations to third parties, much more than an average voter can afford;
5. The same spending limit ($25,000) applies to an individual who is a third party and a third-party group with thousands of members, which allows a wealthy individual to spend as much as thousands of voters;

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Did you and/or your spouse donate to your campaign? Are you refusing big donations and, if so, what is the maximum donation you are accepting?

III. No disclosure of who is fundraising, campaigning or donating

6. Candidates are not required to disclose who is raising money for them, and people raising money are not required to disclose they are doing it nor how much they raised;
7. Candidates are not required to disclose who is campaigning for them, not even top level people, even if they are lobbyists;
8. Candidates are not required to disclose donations before voters vote (donor disclosure is only required months after voting day);
9. Third parties are not required to disclose how much they spent, nor who funded them, before voters vote;
10. Third parties are not even required to register if they are only doing ads about issues (only third parties who do ads promoting or opposing candidates are required to register);

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates and third parties: Will you, before voters start voting on June 8th, and then regularly after that up to election day June 26th, disclose your donors, disclose who is fundraising for you and how much each person has raised, and disclose who is working on your campaign?

IV. Voting system allows candidate to win with 1.1% of vote

11. Because of the lack of a ranked ballot or run-off voting system, theoretically one of the 102 candidates could win the election with the support of only 1.1% of Toronto voters;

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Do you support a ranked ballot or runoff voting system for Toronto elections?

“Like federal, provincial and territorial elections, and politics, Toronto’s elections and politics need to be cleaned up in many key ways to make elections democratic and fair, and to ensure everyone is required to be honest, ethical, transparent and waste-preventing, and to make representative decisions,” said Conacher.

The top 10 key needed changes to make Toronto a leading democracy are as follows:

1. Enact an honesty-in-politics bylaw that allows for complaints to a fully independent commissioner about broken promises, and about dishonest statements made anywhere (including at council, and during elections) by anyone involved in politics, with mandatory high fines as the penalty;
2. Require all Toronto Hydro and water utilities, and the City of Toronto when sending out property tax bills, to include a notice in their mailings and emails to households inviting them to join and fund citizen watchdog groups for hydro/water service, and for watching over government spending and ethics (as an umbrella group for ratepayer associations);
3. Establish a Public Appointments Commission whose members are not connected to any councillor, and require the Commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and choose a short list of a maximum of 3 candidates for all Council appointments (especially watchdogs), with the Council required to choose from the short list;
4. Enact a meaningful public consultation law that requires broad, in-depth public consultation with voters before any council or City of Toronto institution makes a significant decision;
5. Limit individual political donations to $100 (as in Quebec) and establish donation-matching public funding, and limit advertising spending (including on issue-related ads) to a low amount per voter that the third -party represents;
6. Prohibit everyone in politics from participating in any way in any decision-making process if they have even the appearance of a conflict of interest (even if the decision applies generally), and ban anyone who leaves politics from communicating with anyone involved in politics (or advising others who to communicate with) about their decisions for 5 years, and establish high penalties for violators;
7. Require everyone in politics to disclose through an online registry any communication they have with anyone with regard to decisions they are making (to close the secret lobbying loopholes that now exist) and prohibit lobbyists from helping with political campaigns or fundraising (or, if they do, from lobbying until after then next election), and establish high penalties for violations;
8. Change the voting system to a ranked ballot system with a runoff for the top candidates, to ensure that everyone who is elected is supported the most by the most voters;
9. Strengthen the access-to-information law by reducing loopholes, applying it to all government and government-funded institutions, requiring that records of all decisions and actions be disclosed regularly, and to establish high penalties for violators, and ensure effective whistleblower protection; and
10. Reduce waste by empowering the city’s Auditor General to: audit projected spending to ensure truth-in-budgetting; order changes to clean up the financial management of any institution, and; penalize violators of spending or procurement rules.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

Changes needed to effectively require everyone in politics to be honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 31, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, with Toronto’s mayoral by-election voting day coming up on June 26th, and advance voting starting June 8th, Democracy Watch called on all candidates to make key disclosures of information voters have a right to know before they vote, and to pledge to resign if they break any of their election promises, and to pledge to make key changes to make Toronto’s elections actually democratic and fair.

“Toronto’s mayoral election is undemocratic and unfair because candidates are allowed to mislead voters with false election promises and statements, the system favours wealthy candidates who have wealthy supporters as donating huge amounts of money to your own campaign or third-party advertising blitz is allowed, and voters are denied the right to know, before they vote, who is bankrolling and fundraising and campaigning for candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Voters are also forced to choose only one out of a dizzying number of candidates instead of being allowed to rank them and have the candidate who is supported the most by the most voters win.”

“Voters and the media should be asking key questions of all the candidates before advanced voting begins so that voters have key information they need to make an informed vote,” said Conacher.

Toronto’s election is undemocratic and unfair in the following key ways:

I. Misleading voters is legal

1. Candidates and third parties (interest groups and individuals who are trying to affect the election results) are allowed to lie to voters with the election promises and statements about candidates or anything else;

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Will you resign if you break any of your promises? Do you support a by-law requiring candidates in Toronto elections, and everyone in Toronto politics, to tell the truth, with a high fine for misleaders?

II. Tilted in favour of wealthy candidates who have wealthy supporters

2. A mayoral candidate and their spouse are allowed, together, to donate $25,000 to the candidate’s campaign, which is much more than most candidates can afford;
3. Donors are allowed to donate up to $2,500, which is much more than an average voter can afford;
4. There is no limit to how much an individual can donate to their own third-party advertising, and a $1,200 limit on other donations to third parties, much more than an average voter can afford;
5. The same spending limit ($25,000) applies to an individual who is a third party and a third-party group with thousands of members, which allows a wealthy individual to spend as much as thousands of voters;

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Did you and/or your spouse donate to your campaign? Are you refusing big donations and, if so, what is the maximum donation you are accepting?

III. No disclosure of who is fundraising, campaigning or donating

6. Candidates are not required to disclose who is raising money for them, and people raising money are not required to disclose they are doing it nor how much they raised;
7. Candidates are not required to disclose who is campaigning for them, not even top level people, even if they are lobbyists;
8. Candidates are not required to disclose donations before voters vote (donor disclosure is only required months after voting day);
9. Third parties are not required to disclose how much they spent, nor who funded them, before voters vote;
10. Third parties are not even required to register if they are only doing ads about issues (only third parties who do ads promoting or opposing candidates are required to register);

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates and third parties: Will you, before voters start voting on June 8th, and then regularly after that up to election day June 26th, disclose your donors, disclose who is fundraising for you and how much each person has raised, and disclose who is working on your campaign?

IV. Voting system allows candidate to win with 1.1% of vote

11. Because of the lack of a ranked ballot or run-off voting system, theoretically one of the 102 candidates could win the election with the support of only 1.1% of Toronto voters;

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Do you support a ranked ballot or runoff voting system for Toronto elections?

“Like federal, provincial and territorial elections, and politics, Toronto’s elections and politics need to be cleaned up in many key ways to make elections democratic and fair, and to ensure everyone is required to be honest, ethical, transparent and waste-preventing, and to make representative decisions,” said Conacher.

The top 10 key needed changes to make Toronto a leading democracy are as follows:

1. Enact an honesty-in-politics bylaw that allows for complaints to a fully independent commissioner about broken promises, and about dishonest statements made anywhere (including at council, and during elections) by anyone involved in politics, with mandatory high fines as the penalty;
2. Require all Toronto Hydro and water utilities, and the City of Toronto when sending out property tax bills, to include a notice in their mailings and emails to households inviting them to join and fund citizen watchdog groups for hydro/water service, and for watching over government spending and ethics (as an umbrella group for ratepayer associations);
3. Establish a Public Appointments Commission whose members are not connected to any councillor, and require the Commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and choose a short list of a maximum of 3 candidates for all Council appointments (especially watchdogs), with the Council required to choose from the short list;
4. Enact a meaningful public consultation law that requires broad, in-depth public consultation with voters before any council or City of Toronto institution makes a significant decision;
5. Limit individual political donations to $100 (as in Quebec) and establish donation-matching public funding, and limit advertising spending (including on issue-related ads) to a low amount per voter that the third -party represents;
6. Prohibit everyone in politics from participating in any way in any decision-making process if they have even the appearance of a conflict of interest (even if the decision applies generally), and ban anyone who leaves politics from communicating with anyone involved in politics (or advising others who to communicate with) about their decisions for 5 years, and establish high penalties for violators;
7. Require everyone in politics to disclose through an online registry any communication they have with anyone with regard to decisions they are making (to close the secret lobbying loopholes that now exist) and prohibit lobbyists from helping with political campaigns or fundraising (or, if they do, from lobbying until after then next election), and establish high penalties for violations;
8. Change the voting system to a ranked ballot system with a runoff for the top candidates, to ensure that everyone who is elected is supported the most by the most voters;
9. Strengthen the access-to-information law by reducing loopholes, applying it to all government and government-funded institutions, requiring that records of all decisions and actions be disclosed regularly, and to establish high penalties for violators, and ensure effective whistleblower protection; and
10. Reduce waste by empowering the city’s Auditor General to: audit projected spending to ensure truth-in-budgetting; order changes to clean up the financial management of any institution, and; penalize violators of spending or procurement rules.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

Johnston violating ethics law by ruling on old friend Trudeau’s actions — group will file complaint with Ethics Commissioner office

Public inquiry needed with commissioner(s) chosen by all-party leaders, or House committee needs to be given security clearance to review evidence behind closed doors with Liberal MPs not filibustering again to block review

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 24, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch revealed that a search of Elections Canada’s database shows that lawyer Sheila R. Block, whom David Johnston retained to assist him in obtaining, reviewing and analyzing secret information that Prime Minister Trudeau gave them access to, seems to have donated a total of $7,593.38 (listed under “Sheila Block” and “Sheila R. Block”) to only the Liberal Party of Canada from 2006 to 2022. Johnston confirms that he retained Ms. Block for these purposes on in Section II.2) of his first report (page 6 of PDF) which he released yesterday.

Democracy Watch announced that it will file a complaint with the federal Ethics Commissioner’s office that David Johnston is violating the federal Conflict of Interest Act by ruling on his old friend Justin Trudeau’s actions on foreign interference. DWatch already filed a complaint with the Commissioner about Trudeau violating the Act by handing a government contract to his old friend Johnston – click here to see details.

It is a violation of the Act to participate in any decision or action when there is an opportunity to further your own interests, your relative’s interests, or the interests of a friend, and both Trudeau and Johnston are covered by the Act.

No one should call Mr. Johnston the “Independent Special Rapporteur” because he is not independent in any way from Prime Minister Trudeau – he was chosen by Trudeau; is an old family friend of Trudeau; serves at his pleasure; has no job security, and; has no powers under any statute or regulation to investigate anything.

As a result, it was not at all surprisingly that Johnston’s first report claimed that the Trudeau Cabinet has done nothing wrong, nor that Johnston failed to recommend a public inquiry and tried to close off further questioning of the Trudeau’ Cabinet’s actions.

A House committee could inquire fully into foreign interference if MPs on the committee are given security clearance to view all documents covered by secrecy provisions, and if Liberal MPs don’t filibuster again to block the committee’s review. However, a public inquiry would have more clear powers to examine Trudeau’s and his Cabinet’s actions on foreign interference. But Trudeau would also violate the Act by choosing the inquiry commissioner(s).

To be actually independent, inquiry commissioner(s) must be chosen by all party leaders in the House of Commons or, even better, by an independent appointments commission.

There is no need to wait for an independent inquiry before closing loopholes and correcting flaws in ethics, donation, election and lobbying laws that make secret foreign interference in Canadian elections legal and easy to do. On May 9th, DWatch presented to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee a list of key changes that need to be made to laws and enforcement in eight areas to prevent future foreign interference.

“Incredibly, David Johnston denied his friendship with Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday, and continues to fail to recognize that he is in a clear conflict of interest that violates the federal ethics law because, as a friend, the law prohibits him from judging Trudeau and his Cabinet minister’s actions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The pattern of donations in Elections Canada’s database that seems to show that David Johnston’s lawyer has donated significant amounts only to the Liberal Party for more than 15 years only adds another layer to the layer cake of conflicts of interest that mean that everything Johnston says and reports on the subject of foreign interference has no credibility at all.”

The Trudeau government should, finally, change the political, partisan, Cabinet-controlled appointment process for all the democratic good government watchdogs, including for the Interim Ethics Commissioner (and including inquiry commissioners for any public inquiry), because the Cabinet is biased and so the process is not merit-based. A fully independent committee, together with an all-party committee, should be appointing all the watchdogs because they all enforce laws that apply directly or indirectly to politicians from all parties.

“The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the Cabinet is biased when they choose watchdogs who enforce laws that apply to the Cabinet, and so the appointments system must change for all the watchdogs by having a fully independent committee doing a public, merit-based search for qualified candidates, and then an all-party committee making the final choice,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

Johnston violating ethics law by ruling on old friend Trudeau’s actions — group will file complaint with Ethics Commissioner office

Public inquiry needed with commissioner(s) chosen by all-party leaders, or House committee needs to be given security clearance to review evidence behind closed doors with Liberal MPs not filibustering again to block review

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 24, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch revealed that a search of Elections Canada’s database shows that lawyer Sheila R. Block, whom David Johnston retained to assist him in obtaining, reviewing and analyzing secret information that Prime Minister Trudeau gave them access to, seems to have donated a total of $7,593.38 (listed under “Sheila Block” and “Sheila R. Block”) to only the Liberal Party of Canada from 2006 to 2022. Johnston confirms that he retained Ms. Block for these purposes on in Section II.2) of his first report (page 6 of PDF) which he released yesterday.

Democracy Watch announced that it will file a complaint with the federal Ethics Commissioner’s office that David Johnston is violating the federal Conflict of Interest Act by ruling on his old friend Justin Trudeau’s actions on foreign interference. DWatch already filed a complaint with the Commissioner about Trudeau violating the Act by handing a government contract to his old friend Johnston – click here to see details.

It is a violation of the Act to participate in any decision or action when there is an opportunity to further your own interests, your relative’s interests, or the interests of a friend, and both Trudeau and Johnston are covered by the Act.

No one should call Mr. Johnston the “Independent Special Rapporteur” because he is not independent in any way from Prime Minister Trudeau – he was chosen by Trudeau; is an old family friend of Trudeau; serves at his pleasure; has no job security, and; has no powers under any statute or regulation to investigate anything.

As a result, it was not at all surprisingly that Johnston’s first report claimed that the Trudeau Cabinet has done nothing wrong, nor that Johnston failed to recommend a public inquiry and tried to close off further questioning of the Trudeau’ Cabinet’s actions.

A House committee could inquire fully into foreign interference if MPs on the committee are given security clearance to view all documents covered by secrecy provisions, and if Liberal MPs don’t filibuster again to block the committee’s review. However, a public inquiry would have more clear powers to examine Trudeau’s and his Cabinet’s actions on foreign interference. But Trudeau would also violate the Act by choosing the inquiry commissioner(s).

To be actually independent, inquiry commissioner(s) must be chosen by all party leaders in the House of Commons or, even better, by an independent appointments commission.

There is no need to wait for an independent inquiry before closing loopholes and correcting flaws in ethics, donation, election and lobbying laws that make secret foreign interference in Canadian elections legal and easy to do. On May 9th, DWatch presented to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee a list of key changes that need to be made to laws and enforcement in eight areas to prevent future foreign interference.

“Incredibly, David Johnston denied his friendship with Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday, and continues to fail to recognize that he is in a clear conflict of interest that violates the federal ethics law because, as a friend, the law prohibits him from judging Trudeau and his Cabinet minister’s actions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The pattern of donations in Elections Canada’s database that seems to show that David Johnston’s lawyer has donated significant amounts only to the Liberal Party for more than 15 years only adds another layer to the layer cake of conflicts of interest that mean that everything Johnston says and reports on the subject of foreign interference has no credibility at all.”

The Trudeau government should, finally, change the political, partisan, Cabinet-controlled appointment process for all the democratic good government watchdogs, including for the Interim Ethics Commissioner (and including inquiry commissioners for any public inquiry), because the Cabinet is biased and so the process is not merit-based. A fully independent committee, together with an all-party committee, should be appointing all the watchdogs because they all enforce laws that apply directly or indirectly to politicians from all parties.

“The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the Cabinet is biased when they choose watchdogs who enforce laws that apply to the Cabinet, and so the appointments system must change for all the watchdogs by having a fully independent committee doing a public, merit-based search for qualified candidates, and then an all-party committee making the final choice,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

Lobbying Commissioner’s proposed gutting of key ethical lobbying rules will make secret China and other foreign-government interference easier

Loopholes in election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics rules make secret foreign interference easy, as does very weak enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 9, 2023

OTTAWA – Today at noon, in testimony before the House of Commons Procedural Affairs Committee, Democracy Watch will call on the Committee to strongly recommend that the federal government and Parliament enact many measures needed to actually stop foreign interference.

First, the proposed foreign-agent registry must require anyone or any entity to register if they are paid or compensated in any way, directly or indirectly, by a foreign government, foreign entity or foreigner, or have some other arrangement with them, to be involved in Canada in public relations/communications or any political activities aimed at influencing politicians, parties or governments.

If the registry only requires people or entities paid to directly influence Canadian politics, then they will avoid being required to register by arranging to be compensated for other services or in some other way while doing the influence activities for free.

Secondly, as more than 40 lawyers and professors, and 26 citizen groups, and the Globe and Mail (twice) have called for, the House Ethics Committee must reverse its positions and reject federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger’s proposal to gut key ethical lobbying rules in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct in ways that will make secret interference in elections and secret activities to influence federal MPs easier for China and other foreign governments.

Thirdly, loopholes in the lobbying law allow for secret, unethical lobbying, including by foreign-sponsored lobby groups.

Fourth, loopholes and too-high donation and spending limits allow wealthy interests (including foreign-sponsored lobby groups) to have undue influence over elections and policy-making processes, including by funnelling money to each other to hide the actual source of funds spent.

Fifth, lobbyists and lobby groups, including foreign-sponsored lobbyists and lobby groups, are allowed to collude with nomination race and political party leadership race contestants in secret, and non-citizens are allowed to vote in nomination race and party leadership race votes.

Sixth, federal ethics rules have huge loopholes that allow MPs to have secret jobs, Cabinet ministers and top government officials to have secret investments, and everyone to participate in decisions that they profit from, and to act unethically in many other ways.

The Committee failed to address any of these loopholes when it reviewed MP ethics rules in secret last year and issued an initial report in June. In fact, the Committee proposed, and the House approved on March 30th, a new loophole in their ethics rules that now allows lobbyists and lobby groups, including foreign-government sponsored groups, to secretly pay for interns in MPs’ offices.

The Senate’s ethics code has many of the same loopholes, although it contains a few rules enacted in 2014 that, if the Senate Ethics Officer ever enforces the rules properly, will finally prohibit the unethical business activities and decision-making conflicts of interest by many Senators that the code currently allows.

Seventh, many types of false claims are allowed about election candidates, party leaders and MPs, and during policy-making processes, and no enforcement agency has the power to order social media companies to remove false online posts or ads.

“A foreign-agent registry will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The lobbying commissioner’s proposal to gut key ethical lobbying rules, combined with the existing loopholes and flaws in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, will make it even easier than it is now for foreign governments to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

Eighth, enforcement of the election, political donation, lobbying and ethics laws is very weak, as all the watchdogs are handpicked by Cabinet through secretive, partisan, political appointment processes and they all lack key powers.

The Liberal government’s so-called “independent” Critical Election Incident Public Protocol Panel is not independent at all, as it is made up of public servants who were chosen by, and serve at the pleasure of, Prime Minister Trudeau, and the Cabinet Directive for the Protocol has several flaws that allow for coverups of foreign interference. If the Panel members are not fully independent of the government and all political parties, and the flaws in the Protocol are not corrected, then the Panel will continue to cover up foreign interference instead of reporting it publicly and stopping it.

“All our key democracy laws, including laws that claim to be aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, and they operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.

Click here to see Backgrounder

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, and Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign

Lobbying Commissioner’s proposed gutting of key ethical lobbying rules will make secret China and other foreign-government interference easier

Loopholes in election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics rules make secret foreign interference easy, as does very weak enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 9, 2023

OTTAWA – Today at noon, in testimony before the House of Commons Procedural Affairs Committee, Democracy Watch will call on the Committee to strongly recommend that the federal government and Parliament enact many measures needed to actually stop foreign interference.

First, the proposed foreign-agent registry must require anyone or any entity to register if they are paid or compensated in any way, directly or indirectly, by a foreign government, foreign entity or foreigner, or have some other arrangement with them, to be involved in Canada in public relations/communications or any political activities aimed at influencing politicians, parties or governments.

If the registry only requires people or entities paid to directly influence Canadian politics, then they will avoid being required to register by arranging to be compensated for other services or in some other way while doing the influence activities for free.

Secondly, as more than 40 lawyers and professors, and 26 citizen groups, and the Globe and Mail (twice) have called for, the House Ethics Committee must reverse its positions and reject federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger’s proposal to gut key ethical lobbying rules in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct in ways that will make secret interference in elections and secret activities to influence federal MPs easier for China and other foreign governments.

Thirdly, loopholes in the lobbying law allow for secret, unethical lobbying, including by foreign-sponsored lobby groups.

Fourth, loopholes and too-high donation and spending limits allow wealthy interests (including foreign-sponsored lobby groups) to have undue influence over elections and policy-making processes, including by funnelling money to each other to hide the actual source of funds spent.

Fifth, lobbyists and lobby groups, including foreign-sponsored lobbyists and lobby groups, are allowed to collude with nomination race and political party leadership race contestants in secret, and non-citizens are allowed to vote in nomination race and party leadership race votes.

Sixth, federal ethics rules have huge loopholes that allow MPs to have secret jobs, Cabinet ministers and top government officials to have secret investments, and everyone to participate in decisions that they profit from, and to act unethically in many other ways.

The Committee failed to address any of these loopholes when it reviewed MP ethics rules in secret last year and issued an initial report in June. In fact, the Committee proposed, and the House approved on March 30th, a new loophole in their ethics rules that now allows lobbyists and lobby groups, including foreign-government sponsored groups, to secretly pay for interns in MPs’ offices.

The Senate’s ethics code has many of the same loopholes, although it contains a few rules enacted in 2014 that, if the Senate Ethics Officer ever enforces the rules properly, will finally prohibit the unethical business activities and decision-making conflicts of interest by many Senators that the code currently allows.

Seventh, many types of false claims are allowed about election candidates, party leaders and MPs, and during policy-making processes, and no enforcement agency has the power to order social media companies to remove false online posts or ads.

“A foreign-agent registry will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The lobbying commissioner’s proposal to gut key ethical lobbying rules, combined with the existing loopholes and flaws in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, will make it even easier than it is now for foreign governments to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

Eighth, enforcement of the election, political donation, lobbying and ethics laws is very weak, as all the watchdogs are handpicked by Cabinet through secretive, partisan, political appointment processes and they all lack key powers.

The Liberal government’s so-called “independent” Critical Election Incident Public Protocol Panel is not independent at all, as it is made up of public servants who were chosen by, and serve at the pleasure of, Prime Minister Trudeau, and the Cabinet Directive for the Protocol has several flaws that allow for coverups of foreign interference. If the Panel members are not fully independent of the government and all political parties, and the flaws in the Protocol are not corrected, then the Panel will continue to cover up foreign interference instead of reporting it publicly and stopping it.

“All our key democracy laws, including laws that claim to be aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, and they operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.

Click here to see Backgrounder

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, and Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign

Tomorrow, without changing any law, PM could change selection process for Governor General to make it democratic, multi-partisan and Canadian

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 2, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, as part of its Democratic Head Campaign which is supported by a majority of Canadians according to recent surveys by the Angus Reid Institute and Leger, Democracy Watch called on Prime Minister Trudeau to make three simple changes (none of which need any change to any law, or the Constitution) to democratize and Canadianize the choice of the next Governor General (GG) and each provincial Lieutenant Governor (LG):

1. Change the selection process for the GG by having a fully independent commission (whose members are chosen by all party leaders in the House of Commons) do a merit-based search for a short-list of well-qualified candidates, and then have leaders of the parties in the House and in all provincial legislatures participate in a secret, ranked ballot vote to choose the GG;
2. The PM would then present the choice of GG to King Charles, but make it clear he is not asking for the King’s approval, and if the King then approves Canada’s choice it will change the constitutional protocol and convention and make it clear that the King will always approve whomever Canada chooses as its GG, and;
3. Change the selection process for each LG by having a similar independent commission search for candidates, and then the leaders of the parties in the provincial legislature would choose the LG in a ranked ballot vote, and the GG would then appoint that person as LG as set out in section 58 of the Constitution.

These three simple changes are a reasonable compromise between those who support Canada’s ties to the monarchy and those who support making Canada a republic. The changes will make Canada’s head of state more democratically representative and independent of the British monarchy, and will make Canada more a parliamentary democracy and less a constitutional monarchy. And these changes can be made without changing any law or the Constitution and so, unlike cutting ties with the monarchy, they do not require the agreement of the House, Senate and every provincial legislature.

Changing the selection process for the GG is also needed because, like the Officers of Parliament, the GG makes many key decisions about the operations of Parliament and the government and so should be independent of the Prime Minister. Currently, the Prime Minister chooses the GG alone through a secretive process that taints the position with partisanship.

Provincial party leaders should participate in the proposed new ranked ballot vote to choose the GG because Canada is a federation, and it will make the GG more representative of the entire country.

“Prime Minister Harper appointed his own advisory committee as did Prime Minister Trudeau for choosing the Governor General but it was a charade as they could ignore the committee’s nominees and they controlled the final choice,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Ph.D. student at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law. “Given how important it is for the Governor General to be independent of the Prime Minister and impartial, the opposition parties and an independent commission should be involved in the selection process, as should party leaders from across Canada given that the Governor General appoints the Lieutenant Governors in each province.”

“After using this proposed new, democratized and Canadianized process for choosing the next Governor General, the Prime Minister should then tell the King who Canada has chosen as Governor General, and not ask for his approval, and if he accepts that as the new constitutional protocol it will become clear that Canada chooses its own head of state,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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

 

Tomorrow, without changing any law, PM could change selection process for Governor General to make it democratic, multi-partisan and Canadian

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 2, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, as part of its Democratic Head Campaign which is supported by a majority of Canadians according to recent surveys by the Angus Reid Institute and Leger, Democracy Watch called on Prime Minister Trudeau to make three simple changes (none of which need any change to any law, or the Constitution) to democratize and Canadianize the choice of the next Governor General (GG) and each provincial Lieutenant Governor (LG):

1. Change the selection process for the GG by having a fully independent commission (whose members are chosen by all party leaders in the House of Commons) do a merit-based search for a short-list of well-qualified candidates, and then have leaders of the parties in the House and in all provincial legislatures participate in a secret, ranked ballot vote to choose the GG;
2. The PM would then present the choice of GG to King Charles, but make it clear he is not asking for the King’s approval, and if the King then approves Canada’s choice it will change the constitutional protocol and convention and make it clear that the King will always approve whomever Canada chooses as its GG, and;
3. Change the selection process for each LG by having a similar independent commission search for candidates, and then the leaders of the parties in the provincial legislature would choose the LG in a ranked ballot vote, and the GG would then appoint that person as LG as set out in section 58 of the Constitution.

These three simple changes are a reasonable compromise between those who support Canada’s ties to the monarchy and those who support making Canada a republic. The changes will make Canada’s head of state more democratically representative and independent of the British monarchy, and will make Canada more a parliamentary democracy and less a constitutional monarchy. And these changes can be made without changing any law or the Constitution and so, unlike cutting ties with the monarchy, they do not require the agreement of the House, Senate and every provincial legislature.

Changing the selection process for the GG is also needed because, like the Officers of Parliament, the GG makes many key decisions about the operations of Parliament and the government and so should be independent of the Prime Minister. Currently, the Prime Minister chooses the GG alone through a secretive process that taints the position with partisanship.

Provincial party leaders should participate in the proposed new ranked ballot vote to choose the GG because Canada is a federation, and it will make the GG more representative of the entire country.

“Prime Minister Harper appointed his own advisory committee as did Prime Minister Trudeau for choosing the Governor General but it was a charade as they could ignore the committee’s nominees and they controlled the final choice,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Ph.D. student at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law. “Given how important it is for the Governor General to be independent of the Prime Minister and impartial, the opposition parties and an independent commission should be involved in the selection process, as should party leaders from across Canada given that the Governor General appoints the Lieutenant Governors in each province.”

“After using this proposed new, democratized and Canadianized process for choosing the next Governor General, the Prime Minister should then tell the King who Canada has chosen as Governor General, and not ask for his approval, and if he accepts that as the new constitutional protocol it will become clear that Canada chooses its own head of state,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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

 

Trudeau Liberals’ own report showed all stakeholders want 10 key changes to Access to Information Act, but they refuse to commit to changing it

Other key open government changes also needed to end secret lobbying, end secret investments by politicians, their staff and Cabinet appointees, and strengthen whistleblower protection

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 25, 2023

OTTAWA – In its testimony this afternoon, Democracy Watch will call on MPs on the House of Commons Ethics Committee reviewing the federal Access to Information Act (ATIA) not only to recommend 18 key changes, but also to co-sponsor a private member bill that contains the 18 changes that have been called for by most stakeholders for years to make the ATIA an actual open government law, and to make enforcement more independent, fully resourced, timely and effective, including by penalizing violations with high fines.

Treasury Board Minister Mona Fortier’s testimony on April 18th before the Committee made it very clear that, while the Trudeau Cabinet claims it believes access to government information is essential to democracy, and that the 70% timely response rate on ATIA requests is not good enough, it is only committed to improving administration of the ATIA, not closing any of the many excessive secrecy loopholes in the law or strengthening enforcement or establishing penalties for violations.

The Trudeau Cabinet is refusing to commit to strengthening the ATIA in any way even though its own December 2021 report on public consultations made it clear that all stakeholders want 10 key ATIA rule changes.

The more comprehensive list of 18 changes (click here to see PDF of Democracy Watch’s submission to the Committee from last October) is based mainly upon the Ethics Committee’s unanimous June 2016 report that called for many key changes, the former Information Commissioner’s March 2015 report and the current Commissioner’s January 2021 report that both called for key changes.

“Citizen groups and experts have loudly and clearly called for decades for key changes to close loopholes in the federal access to information law, and strengthen enforcement,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Ethics Committee MPs must not only call on the Trudeau Liberals to stop their spin, lame excuses and unjustifiable delays, they should also co-sponsor a bill as soon as possible to make the key changes that voters want to ensure all federal government and government-funded institutions are transparent and accountable.”

“The federal access to information law is so full of loopholes that it really is just a guide to keeping information secret that the public has a right to know, and the key changes that stakeholders are calling for will, if MPs implement them together, make the law more effective at ensuring transparency,” said Conacher.

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

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

Democracy Watch through its Open Government Campaign has been pushing to strengthen the ATIA for more than 20 years, including through a global coalition open letter in 2017, as have opposition MPs and the Information Commissioner. Democracy Watch’s coalitions have also been pushing for years for key transparency and integrity changes to the federal Lobbying Act, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and Conflict of Interest Act and related MP and Senate and government-wide ethics rules.

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

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign, Protect Whistleblowers Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Trudeau Liberals’ own report showed all stakeholders want 10 key changes to Access to Information Act, but they refuse to commit to changing it

Other key open government changes also needed to end secret lobbying, end secret investments by politicians, their staff and Cabinet appointees, and strengthen whistleblower protection

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 25, 2023

OTTAWA – In its testimony this afternoon, Democracy Watch will call on MPs on the House of Commons Ethics Committee reviewing the federal Access to Information Act (ATIA) not only to recommend 18 key changes, but also to co-sponsor a private member bill that contains the 18 changes that have been called for by most stakeholders for years to make the ATIA an actual open government law, and to make enforcement more independent, fully resourced, timely and effective, including by penalizing violations with high fines.

Treasury Board Minister Mona Fortier’s testimony on April 18th before the Committee made it very clear that, while the Trudeau Cabinet claims it believes access to government information is essential to democracy, and that the 70% timely response rate on ATIA requests is not good enough, it is only committed to improving administration of the ATIA, not closing any of the many excessive secrecy loopholes in the law or strengthening enforcement or establishing penalties for violations.

The Trudeau Cabinet is refusing to commit to strengthening the ATIA in any way even though its own December 2021 report on public consultations made it clear that all stakeholders want 10 key ATIA rule changes.

The more comprehensive list of 18 changes (click here to see PDF of Democracy Watch’s submission to the Committee from last October) is based mainly upon the Ethics Committee’s unanimous June 2016 report that called for many key changes, the former Information Commissioner’s March 2015 report and the current Commissioner’s January 2021 report that both called for key changes.

“Citizen groups and experts have loudly and clearly called for decades for key changes to close loopholes in the federal access to information law, and strengthen enforcement,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Ethics Committee MPs must not only call on the Trudeau Liberals to stop their spin, lame excuses and unjustifiable delays, they should also co-sponsor a bill as soon as possible to make the key changes that voters want to ensure all federal government and government-funded institutions are transparent and accountable.”

“The federal access to information law is so full of loopholes that it really is just a guide to keeping information secret that the public has a right to know, and the key changes that stakeholders are calling for will, if MPs implement them together, make the law more effective at ensuring transparency,” said Conacher.

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

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

Democracy Watch through its Open Government Campaign has been pushing to strengthen the ATIA for more than 20 years, including through a global coalition open letter in 2017, as have opposition MPs and the Information Commissioner. Democracy Watch’s coalitions have also been pushing for years for key transparency and integrity changes to the federal Lobbying Act, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and Conflict of Interest Act and related MP and Senate and government-wide ethics rules.

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

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign, Protect Whistleblowers Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Interim Ethics Commissioner should not investigate if handpicked by Trudeau Cabinet – Commissioner should be appointed by all parties after independent committee does merit-based search for a short list of qualified candidates

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 24, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the 6-page letter it has sent to the federal Ethics Commissioner’s office calling for an independent investigation and ruling on whether Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act (the “COIA”) by giving his friend David Johnston a government contract to be “special rapporteur” on foreign interference.

As Democracy Watch’s letter details, both Prime Minister Trudeau and David Johnston have said publicly that they are friends.

As the letter also details, the COIA prohibits the PM, Cabinet ministers, their staff and appointees from furthering the private interests of themselves, their relatives and friends (sections 4 and 6(1)), as the Ethics Commissioner ruled recently on Minister Mary Ng handing a contract to her friend Amanda Alvaro, and also ruled in 2021 on former Finance Minister Bill Morneau participating in the decision to hand a grant to his friend and WE Canada co-founder Craig Kielburger.

Even if PM Trudeau and Mr. Johnston are only family friends, the COIA also prohibits “improperly” furthering the private interests of any person or entity, and it is clearly improper for the PM to hand a government contract to a family friend.

No one should call Mr. Johnston the “Independent Special Rapporteur” because he is not independent in any way from Prime Minister Trudeau – he was chosen by Trudeau; serves at his pleasure; has no job security, and; has no powers under any statute or regulation to investigate anything.

Given, unless the Liberals do the right thing and quickly change the watchdog appointment process, Trudeau will appoint the Interim Ethics Commissioner and next full-time Ethics Commissioner, whoever is handpicked as the Commissioner should not rule on DWatch’s complaint as they would be biased in favour of Trudeau (especially if they are applying to be appointed by Trudeau to the full-time Commissioner job). The Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer is also Trudeau Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Commissioner. The Trudeau Cabinet should, finally, remove the bias by establishing a fully independent appointments advisory committee whose members are approved by all parties in the House of Commons (which Stephen Harper promised back in 2006), with the committee doing a public, merit-based search for a short list of qualified candidates, and then an all-party House Committee would make the final choice. This appointments system should be used for all the federal democratic good government watchdogs.

“Democracy Watch is calling on the office of the ethics commissioner to ensure an independent investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau handing his friend David Johnston a government contract,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “If the Trudeau Cabinet chooses the interim ethics commissioner, then that person should not rule on this situation because they will be biased in favour of Trudeau.”

“The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the Cabinet is biased when they choose watchdogs who enforce laws that apply to the Cabinet, and so the appointments system must change for all the watchdogs by having a fully independent committee doing a public, merit-based search for qualified candidates, and then an all-party committee making the final choice,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Interim Ethics Commissioner should not investigate if handpicked by Trudeau Cabinet – Commissioner should be appointed by all parties after independent committee does merit-based search for a short list of qualified candidates

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 24, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the 6-page letter it has sent to the federal Ethics Commissioner’s office calling for an independent investigation and ruling on whether Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act (the “COIA”) by giving his friend David Johnston a government contract to be “special rapporteur” on foreign interference.

As Democracy Watch’s letter details, both Prime Minister Trudeau and David Johnston have said publicly that they are friends.

As the letter also details, the COIA prohibits the PM, Cabinet ministers, their staff and appointees from furthering the private interests of themselves, their relatives and friends (sections 4 and 6(1)), as the Ethics Commissioner ruled recently on Minister Mary Ng handing a contract to her friend Amanda Alvaro, and also ruled in 2021 on former Finance Minister Bill Morneau participating in the decision to hand a grant to his friend and WE Canada co-founder Craig Kielburger.

Even if PM Trudeau and Mr. Johnston are only family friends, the COIA also prohibits “improperly” furthering the private interests of any person or entity, and it is clearly improper for the PM to hand a government contract to a family friend.

No one should call Mr. Johnston the “Independent Special Rapporteur” because he is not independent in any way from Prime Minister Trudeau – he was chosen by Trudeau; serves at his pleasure; has no job security, and; has no powers under any statute or regulation to investigate anything.

Given, unless the Liberals do the right thing and quickly change the watchdog appointment process, Trudeau will appoint the Interim Ethics Commissioner and next full-time Ethics Commissioner, whoever is handpicked as the Commissioner should not rule on DWatch’s complaint as they would be biased in favour of Trudeau (especially if they are applying to be appointed by Trudeau to the full-time Commissioner job). The Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer is also Trudeau Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Commissioner. The Trudeau Cabinet should, finally, remove the bias by establishing a fully independent appointments advisory committee whose members are approved by all parties in the House of Commons (which Stephen Harper promised back in 2006), with the committee doing a public, merit-based search for a short list of qualified candidates, and then an all-party House Committee would make the final choice. This appointments system should be used for all the federal democratic good government watchdogs.

“Democracy Watch is calling on the office of the ethics commissioner to ensure an independent investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau handing his friend David Johnston a government contract,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “If the Trudeau Cabinet chooses the interim ethics commissioner, then that person should not rule on this situation because they will be biased in favour of Trudeau.”

“The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the Cabinet is biased when they choose watchdogs who enforce laws that apply to the Cabinet, and so the appointments system must change for all the watchdogs by having a fully independent committee doing a public, merit-based search for qualified candidates, and then an all-party committee making the final choice,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Trudeau Cabinet currently handpicking Ethics Commissioner, RCMP Commissioner, Integrity Commissioner who all enforce laws that apply to Cabinet

Trudeau Cabinet’s appointments process is as partisan, Cabinet-controlled and political as past government’s processes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 20, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the Trudeau Cabinet to stop its multi-year charade and establish an actually independent, merit-based appointment process for all the federal democratic good government watchdogs.

Despite promising in the 2015 federal election to change the process, the Trudeau Cabinet didn’t actually change it. Cabinet ministers still choose all appointment advisory committee members (which all have ministers, their staff and/or Privy Council Office staff as members), and choose all appointees from the long lists of candidates that the committees provide, with little or no consultation with opposition parties.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in January 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when choosing watchdogs such as the Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying.

Past appointments by the Trudeau Cabinet have shown clearly that the appointment process is far from merit-based. Former Ontario Liberal MPP Madeleine Meilleur admitted in spring 2017 before a House Committee that when she was considering ending her political career she had talked with Trudeau’s then-senior adviser Gerald Butts, and also his Chief of Staff Katie Telford, and asked to be appointed as federal Commissioner of Official Languages. Her statement became so politically costly to the Trudeau Cabinet that she ended up withdrawing her candidacy.

Mario Dion, who was handpicked to be Ethics Commissioner in November 2017 by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process, had a record of eight unethical actions in his former job as Integrity Commissioner. The Cabinet hid emails for two years that showed they had other qualified candidates for Ethics Commissioner, and also for the position of Commissioner of Lobbying, and lied to opposition party leaders.

Given the resignation yesterday of Interim Ethics Commissioner Martine Richard, who never should have been appointed given she is the sister-in-law of Trudeau Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc, the Trudeau Cabinet is currently handpicking the following watchdogs, all of whom enforce key democracy laws that apply to the Cabinet:

• the Interim Ethics Commissioner;
• the Ethics Commissioner;
• the Integrity Commissioner, and;
• the RCMP Commissioner.

The Trudeau Cabinet has also handpicked, through partisan, political Cabinet-controlled processes, all of Canada’s other current democratic good government watchdogs: the Chief Electoral Officer (who was switched by the Trudeau Cabinet for secret reasons); Commissioner of Lobbying; Auditor General; Information Commissioner; Privacy Commissioner, and; Parliamentary Budget Officer.

To ensure merit-based appointments, a fully independent Appointments Commission should be established (as Prime Minister Harper promised to do back in 2006), with the Commission members approved by all parties, and then the Commission will do public, merit-based searches and submit a short list of no more than three well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee, which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.

“Like every Cabinet, the Trudeau Cabinet is in a conflict of interest when choosing democratic good government watchdog because those watchdogs enforce laws that apply to Cabinet ministers and their departments,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process is to establish a fully independent appointments commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and then send a short list of well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.”

More than 15,000 Canadians have sent a letter through Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign calling on the federal Liberals to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent and merit-based.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Trudeau Cabinet currently handpicking Ethics Commissioner, RCMP Commissioner, Integrity Commissioner who all enforce laws that apply to Cabinet

Trudeau Cabinet’s appointments process is as partisan, Cabinet-controlled and political as past government’s processes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 20, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the Trudeau Cabinet to stop its multi-year charade and establish an actually independent, merit-based appointment process for all the federal democratic good government watchdogs.

Despite promising in the 2015 federal election to change the process, the Trudeau Cabinet didn’t actually change it. Cabinet ministers still choose all appointment advisory committee members (which all have ministers, their staff and/or Privy Council Office staff as members), and choose all appointees from the long lists of candidates that the committees provide, with little or no consultation with opposition parties.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in January 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when choosing watchdogs such as the Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying.

Past appointments by the Trudeau Cabinet have shown clearly that the appointment process is far from merit-based. Former Ontario Liberal MPP Madeleine Meilleur admitted in spring 2017 before a House Committee that when she was considering ending her political career she had talked with Trudeau’s then-senior adviser Gerald Butts, and also his Chief of Staff Katie Telford, and asked to be appointed as federal Commissioner of Official Languages. Her statement became so politically costly to the Trudeau Cabinet that she ended up withdrawing her candidacy.

Mario Dion, who was handpicked to be Ethics Commissioner in November 2017 by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process, had a record of eight unethical actions in his former job as Integrity Commissioner. The Cabinet hid emails for two years that showed they had other qualified candidates for Ethics Commissioner, and also for the position of Commissioner of Lobbying, and lied to opposition party leaders.

Given the resignation yesterday of Interim Ethics Commissioner Martine Richard, who never should have been appointed given she is the sister-in-law of Trudeau Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc, the Trudeau Cabinet is currently handpicking the following watchdogs, all of whom enforce key democracy laws that apply to the Cabinet:

• the Interim Ethics Commissioner;
• the Ethics Commissioner;
• the Integrity Commissioner, and;
• the RCMP Commissioner.

The Trudeau Cabinet has also handpicked, through partisan, political Cabinet-controlled processes, all of Canada’s other current democratic good government watchdogs: the Chief Electoral Officer (who was switched by the Trudeau Cabinet for secret reasons); Commissioner of Lobbying; Auditor General; Information Commissioner; Privacy Commissioner, and; Parliamentary Budget Officer.

To ensure merit-based appointments, a fully independent Appointments Commission should be established (as Prime Minister Harper promised to do back in 2006), with the Commission members approved by all parties, and then the Commission will do public, merit-based searches and submit a short list of no more than three well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee, which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.

“Like every Cabinet, the Trudeau Cabinet is in a conflict of interest when choosing democratic good government watchdog because those watchdogs enforce laws that apply to Cabinet ministers and their departments,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process is to establish a fully independent appointments commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and then send a short list of well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.”

More than 15,000 Canadians have sent a letter through Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign calling on the federal Liberals to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent and merit-based.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Do the violations include unregistered, unethical lobbying by Facebook, WE Charity and/or SNC-Lavalin lobbyists, or unethical lobbying by Imperial Oil and other business lobbyists at events they sponsor?

Are the RCMP and Commissioner keeping rulings on 11 total violations secret because they relate to her gutting of key ethical lobbying rules?

26 groups with 1.5 million+ supporters, 41 lawyers and professors, 20,000+ voters and the Globe and Mail oppose the Commissioner gutting the rules

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 13, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger to release her rulings on five violations of the Lobbying Act that she referred to the RCMP from January 2018 to fall 2020. The key question is whether Commissioner Bélanger and the RCMP are hiding the rulings on the five violations, and on six other violations, because they involve key ethical lobbying rules that the Commissioner is proposing to gut despite widespread opposition.

The Commissioner testified in November 2020 before the House Ethics Committee that she had referred 11 cases to the RCMP since she became Commissioner in January 2018.

On February 3, 2023, she told the Committee that she had not referred any more cases to the RCMP, but that the RCMP had let the lobbyists involved in five situations off the hook and referred the cases back to her (click here and see page 7 of PDF). She also said that the RCMP had charged one lobbyist – not surprisingly, given how secretive it is, the RCMP did not issue a news release about the charge.

That means there are also five other lobbying law violation cases the RCMP has been investigating for more than two years. How could these five investigations possibly take that long, and why are these five violations still being kept secret?

The five violation situations that have been referred back to the Commissioner may include:

1. The unregistered lobbying and favours for Cabinet ministers that Kevin Chan and others at Facebook did (click here to see DWatch’s April 2018 complaint to the Commissioner);
2. The unregistered lobbying that WE Charity lobbyists did from January 2019 to August 2020, and the trip gifts they gave to former Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his family;
3. The lobbying by former PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch for SNC-Lavalin that was not registered by CEO Neil Bruce (click here to see DWatch’s March 2019 complaint), and also by SNC-Lavalin lawyer Robert Pritchard and others;
4. The lobbying by Imperial Oil of then-Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer, and by CPA Canada of Minister Karina Gould, at a May 2019 event they sponsored?

“It’s shameful that the RCMP and Crown prosecutors continue to take so long to investigate lobbyists who violate the law, and continue to fail to prosecute most violations,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “By continuing to hide her rulings on the five lobbying violation situations, Commissioner Bélanger is not only protecting the lobbyists and the politicians and public officials they were lobbying, she is also covering up situations that may relate to her proposed gutting of key ethical lobbying rules.”

Commissioner Bélanger is currently proposing to gut key federal ethical lobbying rules in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct in ways that will allow lobbyists to do significant campaigning for, and fundraise unlimited amounts of money for, politicians and their parties and lobby them at the same time or soon afterwards. Click here to see Backgrounder.

MPs on the Committee (except the NDP MP) support the gutting of these rules, and all MPs on the Committee also want loopholes added to other rules proposed by Commissioner Bélanger so that it will effectively be legal for lobbyists to use gifts, hospitality and “sponsored travel” as unethical ways of influencing MPs.

The Globe and Mail’s editorial board in an editorial, and then another editorial, and a coalition of 26 citizen groups with 1.5 million total supporters, and 41 lawyers and professors (many of them leading experts in government ethics), and 20,000+ voters, all oppose the Commissioner’s proposed changes, and the Committee’s call for loopholes to be added to the gift rules, because gutting these key ethical lobbying rules violates Canadians’ Charter rights to integrity and equal opportunity to participate in policy-making processes. Click here for details about the groups, lawyers, professors and voters.

“A total of 26 citizen groups supported by more than one-and-a-half million Canadians, 41 lawyers and professors from across Canada, and more than 20,000 voters oppose the Commissioner of Lobbying’s attempt to gut key ethical lobbying rules in ways that will allow lobbyists to lobby Cabinet ministers and MPs soon after campaigning, fundraising or doing favours for them, and so the House Ethics Committee should reverse its position and loudly and clearly reject the Commissioner’s unethical proposals,” said Conacher. “The Commissioner’s proposed unethical changes are based on one secret opinion that she commissioned from one law firm through a sole-source contract, an opinion she refuses to make public, which makes her proposed changes even more questionable.”

“It’s shocking that MPs on the Ethics Committee would call for loopholes to allow lobbyists to buy them off, essentially bribe them, with fundraising, favours, trips, gifts and wining and dining worth thousands of dollars each year,” said Conacher. “The changes that the Ethics Committee wants are deeply unethical and will allow for corrupt favour-trading between lobbyists and politicians.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Do the violations include unregistered, unethical lobbying by Facebook, WE Charity and/or SNC-Lavalin lobbyists, or unethical lobbying by Imperial Oil and other business lobbyists at events they sponsor?

Are the RCMP and Commissioner keeping rulings on 11 total violations secret because they relate to her gutting of key ethical lobbying rules?

26 groups with 1.5 million+ supporters, 41 lawyers and professors, 20,000+ voters and the Globe and Mail oppose the Commissioner gutting the rules

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 13, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger to release her rulings on five violations of the Lobbying Act that she referred to the RCMP from January 2018 to fall 2020. The key question is whether Commissioner Bélanger and the RCMP are hiding the rulings on the five violations, and on six other violations, because they involve key ethical lobbying rules that the Commissioner is proposing to gut despite widespread opposition.

The Commissioner testified in November 2020 before the House Ethics Committee that she had referred 11 cases to the RCMP since she became Commissioner in January 2018.

On February 3, 2023, she told the Committee that she had not referred any more cases to the RCMP, but that the RCMP had let the lobbyists involved in five situations off the hook and referred the cases back to her (click here and see page 7 of PDF). She also said that the RCMP had charged one lobbyist – not surprisingly, given how secretive it is, the RCMP did not issue a news release about the charge.

That means there are also five other lobbying law violation cases the RCMP has been investigating for more than two years. How could these five investigations possibly take that long, and why are these five violations still being kept secret?

The five violation situations that have been referred back to the Commissioner may include:

1. The unregistered lobbying and favours for Cabinet ministers that Kevin Chan and others at Facebook did (click here to see DWatch’s April 2018 complaint to the Commissioner);
2. The unregistered lobbying that WE Charity lobbyists did from January 2019 to August 2020, and the trip gifts they gave to former Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his family;
3. The lobbying by former PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch for SNC-Lavalin that was not registered by CEO Neil Bruce (click here to see DWatch’s March 2019 complaint), and also by SNC-Lavalin lawyer Robert Pritchard and others;
4. The lobbying by Imperial Oil of then-Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer, and by CPA Canada of Minister Karina Gould, at a May 2019 event they sponsored?

“It’s shameful that the RCMP and Crown prosecutors continue to take so long to investigate lobbyists who violate the law, and continue to fail to prosecute most violations,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “By continuing to hide her rulings on the five lobbying violation situations, Commissioner Bélanger is not only protecting the lobbyists and the politicians and public officials they were lobbying, she is also covering up situations that may relate to her proposed gutting of key ethical lobbying rules.”

Commissioner Bélanger is currently proposing to gut key federal ethical lobbying rules in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct in ways that will allow lobbyists to do significant campaigning for, and fundraise unlimited amounts of money for, politicians and their parties and lobby them at the same time or soon afterwards. Click here to see Backgrounder.

MPs on the Committee (except the NDP MP) support the gutting of these rules, and all MPs on the Committee also want loopholes added to other rules proposed by Commissioner Bélanger so that it will effectively be legal for lobbyists to use gifts, hospitality and “sponsored travel” as unethical ways of influencing MPs.

The Globe and Mail’s editorial board in an editorial, and then another editorial, and a coalition of 26 citizen groups with 1.5 million total supporters, and 41 lawyers and professors (many of them leading experts in government ethics), and 20,000+ voters, all oppose the Commissioner’s proposed changes, and the Committee’s call for loopholes to be added to the gift rules, because gutting these key ethical lobbying rules violates Canadians’ Charter rights to integrity and equal opportunity to participate in policy-making processes. Click here for details about the groups, lawyers, professors and voters.

“A total of 26 citizen groups supported by more than one-and-a-half million Canadians, 41 lawyers and professors from across Canada, and more than 20,000 voters oppose the Commissioner of Lobbying’s attempt to gut key ethical lobbying rules in ways that will allow lobbyists to lobby Cabinet ministers and MPs soon after campaigning, fundraising or doing favours for them, and so the House Ethics Committee should reverse its position and loudly and clearly reject the Commissioner’s unethical proposals,” said Conacher. “The Commissioner’s proposed unethical changes are based on one secret opinion that she commissioned from one law firm through a sole-source contract, an opinion she refuses to make public, which makes her proposed changes even more questionable.”

“It’s shocking that MPs on the Ethics Committee would call for loopholes to allow lobbyists to buy them off, essentially bribe them, with fundraising, favours, trips, gifts and wining and dining worth thousands of dollars each year,” said Conacher. “The changes that the Ethics Committee wants are deeply unethical and will allow for corrupt favour-trading between lobbyists and politicians.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign