OTTAWA – A Canadian border guard had known ties to organized crime, protected his underworld associates and used his own position to evade the law, an investigation by the federal public sector watchdog has found.

Comprehensive audits, and new Financial Consumer Organization needed to ensure profits are not excessive, and for accountability and financial literacy

Send a letter calling for audits of profits, and bank accountability measures by clicking here

For more information contact:
Duff Conacher, Board member of Democracy Watch
Chairperson of the CCRC
Tel: (613) 789-5753

Tuesday, March 5, 2012

OTTAWA – Today, in response to Canada’s big six banks reporting their new record profits for the past three months of $7.7 billion, the Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition (CCRC – Canada’s largest and leading bank accountability coalition) broadened its national letter writing drive that has already helped Canadians send more than 23,000 messages to key politicians calling on them to implement accountability measures to ensure bank profits are not based on gouging customers and arbitrarily cutting credit, loans and services, and to ensure the banks support Canadian economic development and job growth.

The big six banks’ profits for the 2011-2012 fiscal year were as follows:

BMO – $4.19 billion (up 35% from 2011′s total of $3.3 billion)
CIBC – $3.3 billion (up slightly from 2011′s total of $3.1 billion)
National Bank – $1.6 billion (up 26% from 2011′s total of $1.2 billion)
Royal – $7.5 billion (up 17% from 2011′s total of $6.7 billion)
Scotia – $6.2 billion (up 17.6 from 2011′s total of $5.27 billion)
TD Canada Trust – $6.5 billion (up 10% from 2011′s total of $5.89 billion)

As the CCRC predicted in December 2008, the failure of the federal Conservatives and opposition parties to regulate Canada’s big banks in the public interest has allowed the banks to gouge out of Canadians the more than $16 billion dollars in losses and writedowns they suffered in 2008 – losses which were due mainly to their own irresponsibly risky investments.

Canada’s wage gap is growing and the highest in 30 years, and Canada’s big six banks are taking $10.3 billion dollars of Canadians’ money to give as bonuses to their executives and staff (7.5% more than in 2011).

Beyond the record-high gap between the prime rate and credit card interest rates that the banks have maintained for the past decade, and the regular gouging practice of continuing to charge interest on the full amount of a credit card debt even if most of the debt has been paid off, other examples of bank gouging and excessive profits include the following:

• CBC TV’s Marketplace piece about bank gouging of seniors (April 6, 2012 — NOTE: Piece starts at 21 minute mark and runs for 5 minutes);
• CBC TV story about credit-card gouging of another type, and;
• CBC.ca article about gouging of retail companies by credit card companies.

Every survey done in the past decade has shown 90 percent of Canadians believe access to banking services and credit is essential for functioning in society – so given that the consumer is always right the federal government should regulate banks as they do other essential services like heat and electricity.

These regulations are also needed to increase bank accountability in return for the almost $200 billion in support the federal government gave the banks in 2008-2009.

“Past government actions and the Conservatives’ recent credit card and debit card codes and regulations are too little, too late to ensure Canada’s big banks are not making excessive profits from gouging customers and cutting services and failing to lend to job-creating Canadian businesses,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the CCRC.

“To help the Canadian economy overall, and to ensure the big banks serve everyone fairly at fair prices, the federal government must facilitate the creation of a national financial consumer-directed watchdog group, and require independent audits to determine if the banks are reaping excessive profits through gouging interest rates and fees, and the arbitrary cutting of credit and services for some customers and communities,” said Conacher.

“Every dollar of excessive profit for the banks, and every person and business the banks unjustifiably cut off from credit, costs the Canadian economy because it means that the banks are overcharging for their essential services and loans, and choking off spending and job creation,” said Conacher.

In February 2011, the federal Conservatives’ Task Force recommended extensive measures to increase financial literacy in Canada, but ignored the lowest-cost, most effective and broadly supported solution to this problem which is to use the innovative “pamphlet method” to create a membership-based Financial Consumer Organization as recommended by the federal MacKay Task Force and House and Senate committees in 1998, and an Individual Investor Organization as proposed by an Ontario legislature committee in 2006.

Financial service industry customers and investors are currently gouged with extra charges that companies in the industry use to pay their more than $400 million annual costs for industry advocacy efforts (advertising, lobbying, political donations and gifts).  The most effective way for the federal government to balance the marketplace is to implement the pamphlet method to give customers and investors an easy way to fund their own advocacy watchdog groups.

“No corporation has a right to gouge or unjustifiably cut services, especially when providing an essential service such as banking or trying to recoup self-inflicted losses like the banks are suffering from, but the Conservative government is continuing the negligence of past federal governments by subsidizing the big banks and other financial institutions with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars while failing to effectively require them to maintain loans to creditworthy customers and serve everyone fairly and well at fair prices,” said Conacher.

“The best thing the federal government can do to help the Canadian economy overall is to ensure effective, ongoing financial services industry accountability by requiring banks to prove their loan and investment interest rates and charges are fair, by auditing bank lending and competition levels in communities across Canada and, as recommended by the 1998 MacKay Task Force and House and Senate committees, by requiring financial and investment companies to distribute a pamphlet in their mailings to customers and investors that invites them to join a citizen watchdog group to watch over the financial industry and federal government,” said Conacher.  “At little or no cost to the federal government or the financial services industry, consumers and investors across Canada can be given a very easy way to band together to help and protect themselves through forming and funding their own watchdog groups.”

In addition to the creation of the two watchdog groups using the pamphlet method, the Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition (CCRC), established in 1997 and made up of 100 citizen groups from across Canada with a collective membership of more than three million citizens, called on federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to work with opposition parties for effective bank and financial institution accountability by (See details about these proposals below):

• requiring banks to prove through an independent audit (that goes back at least 10 years) that their credit card and other consumer and small- and medium-sized business loan interest rates and fees do not amount to gouging, with a public report on the extent of gouging issued by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) – To see details about this proposal, click here;
• empowering the Competition Bureau to, as has been done in the U.S. for 20 years, evaluate and publicly report on the number of business loans applied for, approved, rejected and called for specific categories of business borrowers, and the level of competition in basic banking services, across the country – To see details about how the U.S. has required for more than 20 years, click here, and;
• Require federally regulated banks and other financial institutions to use the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (the Conservatives have allowed banks to set up their own complaint dispute resolution systems that are not as independent and effective as the Ombudsman).

Details of Canada’s big bank profits and failure of federal government to ensure they are fair
According to Fortune magazine’s 2012 Global 500 Report, based on FY 2011 annual revenues five of the 11 Canadian companies to make the list of the 500 largest companies in the world were financial institutions, including three of Canada’s big six banks (RBC (282nd with revenues of $37.23 billion, profits of $6.7 billion); TD Canada Trust (403rd with revenues of $27.59 billion, profits of $5.89 billion), and; Scotiabank (409th with revenues of $27.09 billion, profits of $5.27 billion), as well as Manulife Financial at 181st with revenues of $51.55 billion, and Sun Life Financial at 485th with revenues of $22.83 billion.

According to Fortune magazine’s 2010 Global 500 Report, based on FY 2009 annual revenues, three of Canada’s big six banks were among the 500 largest companies in the world (RBC (228th with revenues of $32.61 billion, profits of $3.298 billion); TD Canada Trust (401st with revenues of $21.733 billion, profits of $2.667 billion), Scotiabank (414th with revenues of $21.428 billion, profits of $3.032 billion)

In the 2009 Global 500 Report (based on 2008 annual financial reports), four of Canada’s big six banks were within the top 18 banks in the world in terms of profit as a percentage of revenues (TD – 6th; Royal – 11th; Scotiabank – 13th; BMO – 17th), and four were within the top 30 banks in the world in terms of overall profits (Royal Bank – 13th; TD – 18th; Scotiabank – 21st; BMO – 29th), and four were within the top 21 banks in terms of profits as a percentage of assets (TD – 15th; Scotiabank and Royal – tied for 19th; Bank of Montreal – 21st).

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has implemented only a voluntary, loophole-filled code of conduct in August 2010 covering business relations between retail companies and credit card and debit card companies.

And three of the eight credit-card regulations implemented in January and September 2010 by the Conservatives change only credit-card-disclosure requirements, another proposal only addresses consumer consent for increasing a credit limit, and another only limits debt collection practices in one way.

None of these five proposed regulations do anything to prevent gouging, nor does the Conservatives’ Task Force on Financial Literacy (which is redundant given the existence of the 8-year-old Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) and other federal and provincial financial education agencies).

And while the other three credit-card regulations (a 21-day interest-free period (which came into effect until September 2010), a restriction on one fee, and payment allocation requirements) will protect a few customers from a few charges, none of the proposals will decrease already excessive credit card interest rates (which are especially galling given the Bank of Canada’s prime lending rate has dropped to its lowest level ever), nor the extra interest rate and fee hikes the banks and other companies have unilaterally imposed in the past couple of years, nor their overcharging for various credit card and other banking services.

And none of the Conservatives’ proposals prevent the banks from cutting off credit for people and businesses that have made their payments consistently for years and are very creditworthy.

The Conservatives’ so-called ”Economic Action Plan” offered huge, public-funded subsidies to the big banks of more than $200 billion, but the Conservatives (just as past Liberal governments did) continue to fail to require the banks to charge fair prices and treat all customers fairly.

To their credit, both the federal NDP and the federal Liberals proposed in fall 2009 more effective gouging-protection measures, but unfortunately they have not worked together and with other MPs to pass a bill imposing these measures on the big banks and other credit card issuers, nor have they proposed an industry-wide audit which is needed to determine whether banks are treating all customers fairly and what are actual fair prices for all banking services, nor have they proposed any effective financial consumer empowerment initiatives such as creating the watchdog groups using the low-cost method proposed by the CCRC.

Details about the CCRC’s proposals
In addition to having the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) examine profit levels for credit cards and service charges for the past decade and annually in the future (To see details about this proposal, click here), and the Competition Bureau examine lending records and competition levels across Canada for the past decade and annually in the future (To see details about the U.S. requires this under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), click here – To see details about the $4.5 trillion in reinvestments that have resulted from the CRA since 1977 (in a PDF-format document), click here – To see the CCRC’s position paper describing how this bank accountability system should work, click here), the federal government should finally actually regulate Canada’s banks and investment companies through the following actions:

• If the FCAC study shows gouging in the past decade, require banks to refund customers;
• If the Competition Bureau shows lack of competition in any community, require banks to open branches or subsidize credit unions opening branches;
• Require banks to provide detailed information on loans, investments and services to customers, require corrective action and deny mergers and takeovers if banks are not meeting customer needs, as in the U.S.
• Every government in Canada contracts money-handling and credit card business to the banks, and should award contracts based on which bank serves the most people well;
• Facilitate the creation of a Financial Consumer Organization (FCO)  and an Individual Investor Organization (IIO) to help consumers by requiring banks and other financial institutions to enclose an FCO or IIO pamphlet in their mailings to customers, inviting people to join the watchdog groups (To see the CCRC’s position paper describing the FCO proposal in detail, click here and for other details click here) — NOTE: Creating such an organization using the pamphlet method was recommended by the Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Services Sector in its September 1998 Report (See Recommendation #56(b) on page 208 of the Report), and the House of Commons and Senate committees that reviewed the report endorsed the recommendation);
• Require federally regulated banks and other financial institutions to use the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (two banks have set up their own complaint dispute resolution systems that are not as independent and effective as the Ombudsman);
• Require banks to give customers access to their money as soon as a cheque clears (as 98 percent of cheques in Canada clear in one day), and;
• Increase the maximum penalty for violating the Bank Act to $50 million (currently, the maximum penalty is $200,000, much too low to encourage compliance, and the government’s recent increase to $500,000 is still much too low), and;
• Require the FCAC to disclose the name of violators in every case (currently, the FCAC is only allowed to disclose the identity of a financial institution that violates a consumer protection measure if the FCAC prosecutes, which it rarely does).

– 30 –

For more information contact:
Duff Conacher, Board member of Democracy Watch
Chairperson of the CCRC
Tel: (613) 789-5753

---

Democracy Watch’s Bank Accountability Campaign

Link to NOW magazine article

Scandals with F-35 purchase, government program cuts, government advertising, and MP and senator expenses show clear need for changes to the spending watchdog system

Send a letter to key politicians calling for fully independent and empowered AGs and PBOs by clicking here

Thursday, February 28, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called for key changes to give the Auditor Generals (AGs) across Canada, and the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the independence, mandate and powers needed to ensure honesty in government and politician spending.  As well, Democracy Watch called on provincial and territorial governments to establish PBOs that also cover municipal governments in each jurisdiction.

The key problems that the AGs across Canada, and the federal PBO, cannot currently prevent because of lack of independence, weak mandates, or lack of resources or powers, are as follows:

• government spending can violate rules for years before an AG finds out;
• spending by most politicians on their office budgets can break every rule because such spending is not fully audited by an AG or anyone else (except in Nova Scotia, and in Newfoundland and Labrador, where AG audits led to criminal charges against some politicians);
• government advertising can often be propaganda for the ruling party (as it has been federally since 2008 as it has increased at an alarming rate – although Ontario at least gives the AG the power to reject government ads leading up to an election);
• the federal government can easily thwart attempts by the PBO to produce an accurate report on the actual cost of any government initiative, simply by refusing to provide, or delaying release of, key information;

“To ensure honest federal government and politician spending that follows all the rules, the Auditor General and Parliamentary Budget Officer must be chosen by a majority of all party leaders not by Cabinet, with their budgets determined based on need not Cabinet whim, and they must be given the power and be required to pre-approve significant spending initiatives including advertising, to conduct much more frequent audits of all spending, to force corrective actions and to penalize violations with high penalties,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.  “If these changes are not made, spending by the federal government and politicians will continue to be a web of lies and abuse that wastes Canadians’ hard-earned money.”

Democracy Watch will soon launch a national letter-writing campaign pushing the federal government, and all governments across Canada, to make these key changes.

The need for effective enforcement by AGs of government spending rules has been shown by every AG report ever issued, and the need in the politician spending area has been shown through the recent Senate spending scandal that includes up to 22 Senators who have refused to answer questions about where they live and whether they are illegally collecting tens of thousands of dollars a year in residence allowances.  As well, ample evidence is provided by the spending scandals involving politicians from various parties and levels of government including federal Conservative Cabinet ministers Bev Oda and Jason Kenney, former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, Liberal MPs Judy Sgro, Wayne Easter, John Cannis and Andrew Telegdi, and former Liberal Cabinet minister Joe Fontana.

As the only organization that has defended the federal PBO and called for key changes to make the PBO more effective since the office was created in 2007, including during 2009 when all federal parties were attacking the PBO, Democracy Watch has documented again and again how the PBO’s lack of independence and effective powers has allowed the federal government to escape accountability for dishonest budgetting.  With the current Parliamentary Budget Officer’s term coming to an end in mid-March, key changes must be made to the PBO’s office immediately to ensure it is an effective watchdog.

To ensure the ongoing proper use of taxpayer dollars, and to ensure that government advertisements don’t further partisan interests more than informing Canadians, the following changes need to be made to all Auditor Generals (AGs) across Canada, and the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO – and all other jurisdictions need to establish a PBO):

• the PBO must be made a fully independent officer of Parliament, with a fixed term of office and control over his staff;
• the AG and PBO must be appointed with the approval of a majority of federal political party leaders (currently opposition leaders are only “consulted” on the nominees);
• the annual budgets of the AG and PBO must be determined through a needs-based evaluation process that ensures all significant spending initiatives will be fully scrutinized, and all government institutions will be audited at least every three years;
• the AG and PBO must be given the power, and required, to pre-approve all significant spending initiatives to ensure honest disclosure of costs, and compliance with all spending rules;
• the PBO and AG must be required to disclose the number of complaints/requests they receive each year, and what they do/are doing with each request;
• the AG must fully audit politicians’ office spending every three years (the AG has the clear power to do this, but has failed to do such an audit for 20 years);
• the PBO must be given the power to order the release of information (as the information commissioners have in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec);
• the AG must be given the power to review and reject proposed government advertising if it promotes the ruling party’s agenda more than it inform voters;
• the PBO and AG must be given the power to fine violators who break spending rules or fail to provide them with the information they request within specific timelines.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Tel: 613-241-5179

Democracy Watch’s Voter Rights Campaign

At least 50 federal Cabinet ministers have been let off the hook in the past 20 years, along with dozens of MPs, senators, political staff, Cabinet appointees and government officials – and more than 80 secret rulings since 2007 by the federal Ethics Commissioner are likely hiding other serious violations

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, to end the dangerously unethical fiasco that has played out across Canada for more than 145 years, including more than 200 recent cases across the country, Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition called on all governments to finally pass strong, clear, transparent ethics rules for all politicians, political staff, Cabinet appointees and government officials, along with strengthening enforcement, and establishing mandatory high penalties for violations.  Federal ethics rules are being reviewed right now by House of Commons committees, and an Alberta legislative committee will also soon reviewing its rules – will they and other politicians across the country finally push to clean things up?

Democracy Watch’s and the Coalition’s submission to the federal House Ethics Committee, prepared by Duff Conacher, Founding Director of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of ethics law at the University of Toronto, sets out 30 key changes to federal ethics rules, enforcement and penalties that are also needed for every government in Canada.

Not one Canadian politician has pushed for strong ethics rules, enforcement and penalties in the past 20 years.  Jean Chretien lied to get into power in 1993, and Stephen Harper lied to get into power in 2006, both by making false promises that they would strengthen federal ethics rules and penalties, and then both ignored ethics rules almost every time they or their Cabinet ministers violated them.  This is only slightly worse than all the other party leaders who never even made significant promises to clean up politics, as Democracy Watch’s 2011 Report Card on the federal parties’ election platform shows (and parties in Ontario and Quebec, for example, haven’t addressed ethics issues any better recently).

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson is so ineffective that the media, not her, have revealed all of the ethics violations the public has learned about in the past five years.  She has also let many politicians off the hook for breaking ethics rules and has rejected more than 80 cases since 2007 with secret rulings that hide the details and reasons for her decisions.

“Canadians are justifiably outraged that politicians across Canada for the past 145 years have failed to pass strong, clear, transparent ethics rules that are well-enforced with mandatory high penalties, and that this failure has allowed dozens of politicians and public officials to be let off the hook when they have clearly violated the rules or done something that most people find unethical, including at least 50 federal Cabinet ministers in the past 20 years, and many other politicians just in the past month,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “The committees reviewing ethics rules for the federal and Alberta governments must, finally, take a much-needed step forward and set a new national standard with strong reports calling for changes to close loopholes, clear up rules, strengthen transparency and enforcement, and increase penalties.”

“Dishonesty, unethical fundraising and unethical decision-making in politics are all legal across Canada, and Canadians are more likely to get caught parking their car illegally than politicians are likely to get caught violating key ethics rules, and the penalties for illegal parking are often higher than for being an unethical politician or government official,” said Duff Conacher.  “This dangerously undemocratic fiasco must finally be stopped with clear, strong rules and enforcement and penalties.”

The following more than 200 current and recent cases reveal all the problems with ethics rules and enforcement across Canada, and the changes needed to have, finally, effective rules and enforcement:

• the rampant, daily dishonesty in politics across Canada, which is the top voter turnoff, shows clearly that an honesty-in-politics law is needed to penalize misleaders;
• all of the federal cases mentioned below, as well as the cases of Peter MacKay (case 1 and case 2), and of former Liberal Cabinet minister Joe Fontana, former Prime Minister advisor Bruce Carson, and former Conservative MPs Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis, show how negligent Mary Dawson has been since she became federal Ethics Commissioner in July 2007 because all the cases were revealed by the media, not by her as she has failed to conduct audits of the activities and disclosures of federal Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and advisors, Cabinet appointees and MPs – she and every other democratic good government watchdog must be required to conduct regular, random audits;
• the many cases in Quebec show how negligent provincial and municipal election, ethics, lobbying and auditing watchdog agencies have been for decades there;
• the cases of Nigel Wright and Andrew Cash show clearly that the huge “general application” loophole that is in all government ethics rules across Canada (except the rules for federal government employees) must be closed because the loophole means the rules do not apply to 99% of the decisions and actions of politicians, political staff and appointees, and it explicitly allows them to be involved in decisions even when they or their family members or friends have an interest in the outcome of the decision – a new rule prohibiting even being in an appearance of a conflict of interest must be passed;
• the cases of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, former Ontario Liberal MP Chris Bentley, federal Liberal MPs Judy Sgro,  Wayne Easter, John Cannis and Andrew Telegdi, former federal Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb all show that committees of politicians cannot properly enforce ethics rules because they are kangaroo courts that make decisions for political, not legal, reasons, often enforcing secret rules in behind-closed-door meetings with no public ruling — the federal Board of Internal Economy for the House of Commons and Senate should be disbanded and all the rules they and other committees enforce should be enforced by independent Officers of Parliament or by the courts, and the same change should be made in every government in Canada;
• the 80 secret rulings federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has issued since 2007, any of which could be covering up a dangerously unethical situation, show clearly that all ethics enforcement agencies must be required to issue public rulings in every case;
• the case of Justin Trudeau, and the cases of all federal MPs who have accepted the gift of sponsored travel from lobbyists, shows clearly that huge loopholes must be closed in federal ethics rules, and the job description and minimum hours for politicians must be set out in detailed rules to make it clear what work they must do, and that if they do other work during their politician work time their pay must be reduced for those hours, and an online, searchable public registry must be created and MPs and senators required to disclose what work they’re doing when they are in Parliament or outside Parliament, including details about whether they are making money through other means while they should be in the House of Commons or Senate;
• the case of Alison Redford shows clearly that politicians must be prohibited from being involved in decisions if the interests (financial or otherwise) of their friends could be affected (federal MPs do not have this prohibition), and the word “friend” must be clearly defined (which it isn’t in federal rules);
• the ethics and other good governance cases of Prime Minister Harper, and Conservative ministers Peter MacKay, Lisa Raitt, Tony Clement (who also violated federal spending rules in the G8-G20 fiasco), and Bev Oda, and former Conservative Cabinet Minister John Duncan, and Conservative Parliamentary Secretary Rick Dykstra, and 25 Cabinet ministers, ministers of state and parliamentarians who along with 35 Conservative MPs handed out government cheques with Conservative Party logos on them, show clearly how negligent federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has been in enforcing ethics rules because she either failed to find these people guilty for very questionable reasons, or failed to even investigate them – anyone must have the right to take any democratic good government watchdog to court if they fail to do their job properly (currently the federal Ethics Commissioner cannot be challenged in court even if she ignores the facts and the law in a ruling), and;
• the ethics cases of federal Conservative Minister Jim Flaherty and Conservative parliamentary secretaries Eve Adams and Colin Carrie and Paul Calandra, and Conservative minister Christian Paradis, show clearly how there is no penalty even when you clearly violate federal ethics rules, and why mandatory high penalties are needed (and the case of former New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham shows how provincial penalties are also too weak).

Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition will continue pushing all governments across Canada until all of these needed changes, and more, are made to ensure honest, ethical politics.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Tel: 613-241-5179

---

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Freedom to Read Week begins on Feb. 24, bringing with it the perfect opportunity to kick the tires of democracy and make sure the old jalopy’s still running as she should.

Democracy Watch founder Duff Conacher talking about what makes an actual democracy, and how Canada can become the world’s leading democracy.

Full Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niMKi-vMZrY

Powerpoint slideshow that accompanies the video: http://democracywatch.ca/wp-content/uploads/SciForPeaceTalk.ppt

A comprehensive, transparent, and independent review of the flawed Act is required

Friday, February 22, 2012

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced it is planning a lawsuit to force Conservative Cabinet Minister Tony Clement to initiate the review of Canada’s very weak whistleblower law, which was legally required to begin April 15, 2012 (by section 54 of the law).

The Conservative Government’s whistleblower protection regime is in disarray, having been discredited by former integrity commissioner Christiane Ouimet.  Under the new commissioner Mario Dion, virtually nothing has been achieved; where wrongdoing has been found the individual(s) responsible have not been named or punished.

“Canada’s whistleblower law is broken. It simply does not work and one of the few ways to punish people who break the rules is to name them and even this is not being used,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “The whistleblower protection law clearly requires an independent review by last April and Minister Clement failed to meet that deadline, so it seems that a lawsuit and court order is needed to ensure he complies with the law.”

Failing to name individuals guilty of violating federal government rules and laws can lead to them resigning from their job and keeping their wrongdoing secret when applying for other jobs, which has already happened.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint on April 5, 2012 with the Information Commissioner asking her to clearly state that the names of individuals found to have broken whistleblower law can be published.  And Democracy Watch has filed a new complaint about the most recent ruling by Dion that failed to name the wrongdoer.

The root cause of these problems lies in the deeply-flawed law passed by the Conservative government in 2006, after coming to power on a promise to clean up the federal government and specifically to protect whistleblowers.

“We need a full, independent, public review of Canada’s whistleblower law and we need it now.  Unfortunately this government is not taking the protection of whistleblowers seriously, this is shown through the review of this law being a year overdue,” said Sommers.

Democracy Watch calls on all federal political parties to make the following changes to the federal whistleblower protection system to make it effective:

1. all whistleblowers must be effectively protected from retaliation, including politicians, political staff, government suppliers and contractors and members of the public;
2. whistleblowers must be allowed, in all cases, to file their complaint directly with the integrity commissioner or similar commissioner;
3. everyone who witnesses or receives evidence of wrongdoing by anyone in politics or government must be required to report it to the integrity commissioner or similar commissioner (with the commissioner strictly and strongly required to keep their identity secret, and people allowed to submit evidence anonymously);
4. the identity of anyone in government or politics found guilty of wrongdoing must be made public in all cases;
5. the integrity commissioner or similar commissioner must be clearly designated as the trainer (including by issuing interpretation bulletins), investigator and enforcer of all Treasury Board manual or equivalent policies (other than the policies enforced by the Auditor General) and must be required to conduct training sessions, conduct regular random audits of compliance and to investigate whistleblower complaints about violations of these policies;
6. when the integrity commissioner or similar commissioner refers a whistleblower complaint about the violation of another law, regulation or policy for which a designated investigative and enforcement agency exists, the commissioner must be required to ensure that the agency investigates the complaint within 90 days, and if an investigation does not begin within this time frame the commissioner must be required to investigate the complaint;
7. the law must require employers to prove that no retaliation against a whistleblower has taken place (as opposed to requiring the whistleblower to prove that retaliation has occurred);
8. the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner must be given the power to order chief executives/heads of departments to take corrective action, and chief executives/heads must be required to report to the Commissioner on corrective actions taken;
9. the integrity commissioner or similar commissioner must be given the power to penalize any chief executive/head with a fine, suspension or firing if the chief executive does not comply with the commissioner’s order, or if anyone retaliates against a whistleblower or does not maintain a system that complies with the law;
10. the minimum fine for taking a reprisal against a whistleblower must be increased to $50,000, with a maximum range of fines from $100,000 to $200,000;
11. whistleblowers must receive adequate funding for legal advice;
12. whistleblowers must receive compensation from the government general revenue fund adequate to seek another job (at least 6 months salary) if they want to (for example, if the whistleblowing process leaves them completely alienated from all their co-workers) and/or priority in switching jobs in the federal public service;
13. any person nominated and chosen to be the integrity commissioner or similar whistleblower protection commissioner must be required to have legal experience enforcing ethics rules or laws to ensure proper enforcement of whistleblower protection measures, and must not be eligible for a renewal of their fixed term in office (to ensure that the commissioner does not act as a lapdog to Cabinet to try to get re-appointed for a second term), and;
14. at least every 3 years, it must be required that an independent audit (by the Auditor General or other independent body) of the entire whistleblower protection system be conducted.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Chair of the Open Government Coalition:
(613) 241-5179
[email protected]
Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign

Public Servant Disclosure Protection Act

Section 54:

Five years after this section comes into force, the President of the Treasury Board must cause to be conducted an independent review of this Act, and its administration and operation, and must cause a report on the review to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the review is completed.

---

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign

Outdated provincial laws shield city councillors from public scrutiny, allowing them to work behind a wall of secrecy.

Report highlights federal Conservatives muzzling scientists like former Bush administration did

Send a letter to Prime Minister Harper calling on him to stop muzzling scientists by clicking here

---

This release was covered in the Globe and Mail, Canada.com, Vancouver Sun, Ottawa Citizen, The Tyee, Global News, Calgary Herald, Sun News, Maclean’s Magazine, CBC News, Jian Ghomeshi on CBC Radio’s Q Show, CBC radio afternoon shows in 9 cities across the country, and 6 other media outlets

---

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch, in partnership with the Environmental Law Clinic of the University of Victoria, filed a complaint with the federal Information Commissioner and called for a full investigation following the release of a report on the lack of freedom of federal government scientists to speak with the public and journalists.

The complaint is being filed as a new federal government policy that attempts to muzzle other scientists who do research with federal government scientists recently came to light.

As the report details, in contrast to President Obama who issued a policy that says government scientists can speak freely about the results of their research, the federal Conservatives have muzzled government scientists in the same way former U.S. President George W. Bush did.

“In sharp contrast to past Canadian practice and current U.S. Government practice, the federal government has recently made efforts to prevent the media and the general public from speaking to government scientists,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Open Government Coalition.  “This is research that taxpayers have paid for and without it society cannot make informed choices about critical issues.”

“Canadians cannot make smart choices about critical issues such as climate change, oil sands development, and environmental protection if the public does not have full, timely access to the Government’s best scientific knowledge on those issues.  This is why we’ve filed this complaint and why we are asking for a full investigation into whether federal government policy forcing scientists to jump through hoops before speaking with the media violates the spirit of access to information law” said Professor Calvin Sandborn, Legal Director of the UVic Environmental Law Clinic.

The report produced by Democracy Watch in partnership with the Environmental Law Clinic of the University of Victoria involved access to information requests, conversations with non-profit and charitable organization representatives, and interviews with current and former public servants.  It highlights access to information policy changes and their consequences at Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources Canada, the National Research Council, and other federal government departments.

The report details several situations where changes to information policies prevented scientists from commenting on research or responding to questions from the media, and documents illustrative cases, such as one  where public servants discussed the “tone” they believed the article would take prior to deciding whether to allow scientists to speak with journalists.  It also showcases the general trend toward limiting information in Canada compared to the increase in freedom and openness in the United States.

Government secrecy is not just a federal government problem, and so Democracy Watch and the national Open Government Coalition it coordinates launched its national Open Government Action Alert which makes it easy for Canadians to send a letter to the federal Information Commissioner (who is currently consulting the public on needed changes to the federal Access to Information Act), and to key politicians across Canada, calling for changes to strengthen open government laws and enforcement in every jurisdiction.

Systemic problems in the federal government were revealed recently by Canada’s Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault, who publicly criticized Canada’s access to information system highlighting that fewer requests were answered within 30 days in 2011-12 than during the previous year and about 15 percent of applications were being responded to late, even though government departments are able to grant themselves lengthy extensions.

In response to the many loopholes that exist in the access to information laws across Canada, and the lack of enforcement and lack of audits to ensure people are following the law in some jurisdictions, and, Democracy Watch and the Open Government Coalition call for the following 8 key changes:

1. any type of record created by any entity that receives significant funding from or is connected to the government, or was created by the government and fulfills public interest functions, should be automatically covered by access to information laws and systems (as in the United Kingdom);
2. all exemptions under access to information law should be discretionary, and limited by a proof of harm test and a public interest override (as in B.C. and Alberta);
3. the access to information law and system should require every entity covered (as in the United Kingdom, U.S., Australia and New Zealand): to create detailed records for all decisions and actions and factual and policy research; to routinely disclose records that are required to be disclosed; to assign responsibility to individuals for the creation and maintenance of each record, and; to maintain each record so that it remains easily accessible;
4. the access to information law and system should allow anyone who does factual or policy research for the government to speak to the media and publicly about the topic;
5. severe penalties should be created for not creating records, for not maintaining records properly, and for unjustifiable delays in responses to requests;
6. the Information Commissioner should be given explicit powers under the access to information: to order the release of a record (as in the United Kingdom, Ontario, B.C. and Quebec); to penalize violators of the law, and; to require systemic changes in government departments to improve compliance (as in the United Kingdom);
7. funding to the access to information system and enforcement should be increased to solve backlog problems instead of increasing administrative barriers, and fees for access should be lower overall and standardized, and;
8. Parliament must be required to review the ATI Act every 5 years to ensure that problem areas are corrected.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Open Government Coalition
Tel: (613) 241-5179
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign

---

SUMMARY OF REPORT

U.S. Government Policy

After President Barack Obama was elected in 2009 he instructed federal agencies to develop “scientific integrity policies” to outline guidelines for scientists and other civil servants to follow when interacting with the media.  In late 2011, the U.S. National Science Foundation and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued such integrity policies which not only allow scientists to speak freely with the media, but allows them to actively approach such interaction.

Findings by federal Canadian government department

Environment Canada

Implemented the Media Relations Policy in November 2007 requiring “Media Relations Headquarters” to “Coordinate all media calls coming into the department.”  Upon receiving a media call the individual is to inform their immediate supervisor or media relations contact who will then inform them of the best way to handle the call including “asking the program expert to respond with approved lines, having Media Relations respond, [or] referring the call to the Minister’s Office.”  Environment Canada clarified this system with the following points:

•  ”All media requests – including interviews with Environment Canada scientists – are routed through the media relations team. A media relations officer then liaises with the appropriate official to identify the right spokesperson to respond to the request.”
• “On other calls [any calls other than routine inquiries for weather information], EC [Environment Canada]must consult the Minister’s office and obtain approval before proceeding with providing responses to reporters.”
• “…media relations provides a proposed response and recommendations to the minister’s office for approval as to whether an interview will be scheduled or a written response will be provided.”

In action this policy has led to the inability of scientists to speak about the work that they conducted, including preventing Environment Canada scientist David Tarasick from speaking about his research titled “Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011″ in the fall of 2011 until two weeks after the report was released when all news stories on the subject had been published without comments from Mr. Tarasick.

It resulted in scientists attending the International Polar Year 2012 conference in Montreal being told, if approached by journalists, to “ask them for their business card and tell them you will get back to them with a time for [an] interview” and that Media Relations would schedule and attend any interviews. Media relations employees were also sent to shadow Canadian government scientists who attended the conference to monitor and record their conversations.

The policy also resulted in scientists attending the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 32nd Annual Meeting in Boston to be issued a “Q&A Package” containing 20 expected questions and the answers to be given by designated spokespersons and directions to respond to some questions with “I’m a scientist.  I’m not in a position to answer that question, but I’d be happy to refer you to the appropriate spokesperson.”

In 2010, under access to information, an internal Environment Canada document examining the effects of the Media Relations Policy was released.  According to the document:

• Scientists noticed a major decline in the number of media requests they received;
• Media coverage of climate change science reduced by over 80 percent;
• Scientists were very frustrated with the new process, feeling the intent was to prevent them from speaking to the media;
• There was a widespread perception among Canadian media that Environment Canada scientists were being muzzled.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

The communications policies for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are outlined in the National Media Relations and Spokesperson Policy.  According to this policy communications staff should be the “first point of contact for media” and emphasizes the involvement of communications prior to interviews regarding certain “high profile” or “controversial” issues.  Examples of these issues include oil and gas industry issues, seal fishery issues, aboriginal issues, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization related issues, and cod fishery issues.  Communications dictates whether or not responses will be provided and who the spokesperson will be providing no guidelines for how these decisions are made.

In practice this policy prevented Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristi Miller from discussing her research examining sockeye salmon populations in rapid decline as the Privy Council Office would not grant Miller permission to speak about her research because of the Cohen Commission – a judicial inquiry ordered by Prime Minister Harper to look into the decline of the salmon.  She was eventually permitted to speak about her research months later, testifying at the Commission.

Natural Resources Canada

In March 2010 Natural Resources Canada implemented a new media relations policy, which was described by the western regional communications manager for NRC: “we have new media interview procedures that require pre-approval of certain types of interview requests by the minister’s office.”

In April 2010 Scott Dallimore and a team of scientists published a study about a colossal flood that had occurred in northern Canada almost 13,000 years ago, however when journalists attempted to contact Dallimore they were told he was required to receive pre-approval from the Minister of Natural Resources.  Dallimore attempted to tell Communications that the study was not politically sensitive and that it had no anticipated links to minerals, energy, or anthropogenic climate change, however staff insisted on pre-approval.  Eventually approval was granted, but not until after the deadlines for journalists had passed and stories had been published.

National Research Council

In March 2012, Tom Spears, a reporter for the Ottawa Citizen was gathering information for a story on regional snowfall patterns and came across a joint project between NASA and Canada’s National Research Council.  Spears contacted NASA and was able to speak directly to a scientist about the project, when he contacted the National Research Council to request an interview he received a response a day after his acknowledged deadline consisting of five bullet points lacking even basic information about the projects goals.  He filed access to information requests to learn what happened behind the scenes and found documents showing a day long public relations ordeal that involved 11 government employees and over 50 emails discussing whether an interview was necessary and the “tone” of the request.

Other cases

In the fall of 2012 an extensive beef recall was issued after meat tainted with E. coli bacteria was discovered in an Alberta food packing plant.  George Da Pont, president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency attended a live interview to discuss the government’s handling of the recall, but was interrupted mid-sentence and taken away from cameras by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz.

In April 2011 the Ottawa Citizen published an article about the Department of National Defence’s handling of taxpayer dollars and called for a hunt for source documents.  The article prompted official to issue a directive to all Canadian Forces members as well as civilian employees directing them to give all papers that crossed their desk a second glance with an eye to keeping it hidden.