Group also launches national letter-writing campaign calling on House Committees reviewing federal Conflict of Interest Act and MP and Senate ethics codes to recommend key changes to strengthen ethics rules, enforcement and penalties

Ethics Commissioner has rejected more than 80 complaints with secret rulings since 2007, and cleared dozens of Cabinet ministers, staff and MPs who violated ethics rules or exploited huge loopholes in the rules

Friday, April 12, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the complaint it has filed with federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson alleging that Prime Minister Harper’s recent decisions and by-election call for the riding of Labrador helped his Conservative friend Peter Penashue’s private career interest in being re-elected in a way that violates the Conflict of Interest Act.

The first questionable decision is allowing Mr. Penashue to make a $1.35 million spending announcement in his riding on March 11, 2013, just four days before Mr. Penashue resigned his seat.  The complaint requests that the Ethics Commissioner investigate if the Prime Minister knew that Mr. Penashue was going to resign and whether he made the decision to allow Mr. Penashue to make that announcement knowing that Mr. Penashue would soon run as a candidate in a by-election in the riding.

The second questionable decision is that by calling the by-election on April 7^th before prosecutors decided whether to charge Mr. Penashue or others involved in his 2011 election campaign for violations of the Canada Elections Act, Prime Minister Harper is essentially furthering Mr. Penashue’s private interests by not allowing voters in the riding to know whether independent investigators at Elections Canada and prosecutors have concluded that there is enough clear evidence of violations to prosecute.  Prime Minister could definitely have waited longer to call the by-election, which would have given prosecutors adequate time needed to make their decision.

The federal Conflict of Interest Act prohibits public office holders like the Prime Minister from exercising “an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.” (sections 4 and 6).

Not only is Mr. Penashue clearly a “friend” of Prime Minister Harper (who recently called Mr. Penashue the “best member of Parliament Labrador has ever had” – something a friend would clearly say), but also the Ethics Commissioner has, in her recent ruling in a situation involving Jim Flaherty, made it clear that the definition of “improperly” includes the standards set out in Prime Minister Harper’s Accountable Government guide for ministers.  That guide requires ministers to “uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of government are maintained and enhanced” and to “make decisions in the public interest” and to “perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny.  This obligation is not fully discharged merely by acting within the law” (Annex A, Part I: Ethical Guidelines and Statutory Standards of Conduct).

It seems very clear that Prime Minister Harper’s recent decisions concerning Mr. Penashue do not uphold the highest ethical standards and are not impartial in a way that enhances public confidence and trust as they are favours that help Mr. Penashue; are not in the public interest because they deny voters key information they have a right to know before they vote in the by-election, and; as a result do not bear the closest public scrutiny, given how clearly they help Mr. Penashue’s private career interest in keeping his job, and pay, as a Member of Parliament.

“If the federal Ethics Commissioner fails to rule that Prime Minister Harper’s favours for Peter Penashue violate the federal ethics law, it will be yet another example of her weak enforcement, and another clear sign that the House committee currently reviewing the law must recommend key changes to strengthen ethics rules, enforcement and penalties,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

In its submission and testimony before the House Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee on February 6th, Democracy Watch and the national Government Ethics Coalition called on the Committee to recommend strengthening the federal Conflict of Interest Act and MP and senator ethics codes, and enforcement system, in 30 key ways (and changing related laws in 14 key ways) to finally make corruption in federal politics illegal.  The committee finally began in February, eight months after the legal deadline, the mandatory five-year review of the Act, and is expected to issue its report in May.

Democracy Watch and the Government Ethics Coalition also called on the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to stop holding secret meetings reviewing the MPs’ ethics code, mainly because when the Committee did that in 2007 and 2009 it weakened the code both times.

The Conflict of Interest Act and the MP and senator ethics codes are so full of loopholes, they should be called the “Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Rules” — and even worse the rules don’t even apply to the staff and advisers of MPs and senators.

The ethics codes that federal politicians have imposed on public servants contain much stronger rules than the rules the politicians have written for themselves, and the penalties are stronger, including the possibility of being fired.

The more than 200 cases of the following people being let off the hook with no penalty, along with many others who escaped accountability for very questionable actions in past decades, show how much federal ethics rules and enforcement are an ongoing bad joke — Prime Minister Harper,  Nigel Wright, Tony Clement, Christian Paradis, Lisa Raitt, Rick Dykstra, Jim Flaherty, 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, and all MPs who accept sponsored travel from lobbyists.

The Ethics Commissioner is a major part of the problem with ethics enforcement – since 2007 she has rejected at least 80 complaints filed with her without issuing a public ruling (it could be more as she did not disclose the total number of complaints she received in 2008-2009 nor in 2010-2011).  She has received complaints about, or become aware of, at total of at least 100 situations, but has only issued 17 public rulings.  In other words, the Ethics Commissioner may be covering up more than 80 dangerously undemocratic ethics violations.

“Unethical decision-making in federal politics is legal, even by Cabinet ministers, and some political staff and appointees are still not covered by any ethics rules, so loopholes must be closed and enforcement strengthened to finally stop these dangerously undemocratic and corrupting actions,” said Duff Conacher, Board member of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the 31-member group, nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition.

“To end the negligent pattern of enforcement of the federal ethics rules, the Ethics Commissioner must be required to conduct regular, random audits, and to investigate and rule publicly whenever there are questions about violations, and the Commissioner must be given the power, and required, to fine anyone who violates ethics rules,” said Conacher. “Also, the Commissioner must not be eligible for a second term in office because that creates an incentive to please the Prime Minister and Cabinet by covering up corruption.”

The Conservatives have also joined the international Open Government Partnership which requires, among other key changes, strengthening laws like the Conflict of Interest Act and the other ethics codes and related laws.

The Ethics Commissioner has made 75 recommendations to change ethics rules, but has ignored the biggest loopholes, and also recommended changes that will weaken the rules.  To finally make corruption in federal politics effectively illegal, the Committee must recommend the following changes:

• Ensure everyone is covered by ethics rules (currently some ministerial staff and advisers, Cabinet appointees, and staff and advisers of MPs and senators are not covered by any rules);
• Add a general ethics/integrity rule to the Act and codes to ensure that no one can escape accountability by exploiting technical loopholes (as already applies to public servants, and as is set out in the Prime Minister’s Accountable Government guide for ministers);
• Add an honesty-in-politics rule to the Act and codes that everyone is required to comply with at all times, even in statements made in Parliament (as already applies to public servants, and as is set out in the Prime Minister’s Accountable Government guide for ministers);
• Add a rule to the Act and codes prohibiting everyone from being in an apparent or foreseeable potential conflict of interest (as already applies to public servants, and as applies to B.C. politicians, and as the Oliphant Commission report recommended) with anyone or any entity, including for their political interests like fundraising or campaigning for re-election;
• Delete the loopholes in the Act’s and codes’ definition of “private interest” that allow everyone to take part in general application decisions even if they have a conflict of interest;
• Require disclosure of all assets worth more than $1,000 (the current threshold of $10,000 is much too high) and require divestment of more assets;
• Strengthen gift rules to make it clear gifts from anyone, including family and friends, that create even the appearance of a conflict of interest must be refused, and delete the loopholes that allow MPs to accept sponsored travel and volunteer service from lobbyists;
• Add a rule to the codes prohibiting acceptance of any benefit in return for switching parties, or giving up one’s seat or nomination as a candidate in an election;
• Add a rule to the Act and codes prohibiting the personal use of government property, especially for political activities;
• Change to a sliding scale for everyone prohibiting lobbying after leaving office for one year to five years (increasing in length as the decision-making power and potential conflicts of the person increase) to ensure everyone must take a cooling-off period;
• Require everyone to report to the Ethics Commissioner their post-employment activities to ensure they are complying with their cooling-off period (as the Oliphant Commission recommended);
• Require the Ethics Commissioner to issue a public ruling for every complaint received, and every time advice is given to anyone;
• Require the Ethics Commissioner to do regular, random audits;
• Ban the use of the illegal “conflict of interest screens” the Ethics Commissioner is currently using, and require disclosure of all recusals from decision-making;
• Require the Ethics Commissioner to impose mandatory minimum penalties for ethics violations that match the penalties for lobbying violations (ie. $50,000 to $200,000 fines and jail terms);
• Allow anyone to challenge any decision or ruling by the Ethics Commissioner in court for any error of fact or law;
• Establish the Public Appointments Commission, and close the loopholes in the Lobbying Act to prohibit secret, unethical lobbying, and in Canada Elections Act to prohibit secret donations and loans, and in the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen whistleblower protection and extend it to everyone (including political staff), and strengthen enforcement of all of these laws to prevent related unethical actions.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Duff Conacher, Board member of Democracy Watch

and Chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition
Tel: (613) 241-5179
[email protected]

---

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

PARLIAMENT HILL—Justin Trudeau is set to claim the leadership of the Liberal party and hopes are high among the Grits that the dashing young statesman will lead them to renewed glory.

The move is in response to a complaint filed by academics and a campaign group.

The story that attracted the most comments over the Easter long weekend was the announcement that the office of Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault will investigate several government institutions over allegations that government scientists are being muzzled.

---

This news release was covered by the following media outlets: Globe and Mail, Winnipeg Free Press, Vancouver Sun, Metro News, iPolitics, CBC.ca, Toronto Star, La Presse, Royal Society of Chemistry, Toronto Sun, Nature.com  and 30 other media outlets with 16 publishing the Canadian Press piece.

---

Canadians can push for much needed changes to Canada’s access to information laws through the letter writing campaign

Monday, April 1, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch expressed its pleasure with the fact that the Information Commissioner has officially confirmed they will conduct a full investigation into the muzzling of federal government scientists by the federal Conservative government.

The complaint was filed by Democracy Watch in collaboration with the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Clinic over new federal government policies that attempt to muzzle scientists.

“We’re very pleased with the fact that this investigation has been called and we will continue to push the Information Commissioner to get to the bottom of this situation, publicly release the results, and push the federal government to change these policies” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “We will also continue to push for the democratic changes to we need to Canada’s access to information law.”

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:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Tel: 613-241-5179

---

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign

Surveys show voters want changes, Justin Trudeau has committed to some changes, the Conservatives promised some changes in 2006, and MPs could work together to make the changes at any time

Send a letter calling for the end of muzzling MPs here

Thursday, March 28, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called for changes to free and empower MPs in key, reasonable ways that recognize there are times when party discipline is appropriate.  Surveys over the past 15 years have shown clearly that voters want changes to empower MPs, Justin Trudeau has committed to some changes in his campaign for leadership of the federal Liberal Party, and MPs could work together to make the changes at any time by simply proposing and agreeing to change the House of Commons rules, the Parliament of Canada Act, and the Canada Elections Act (no party leader could stop them if they would simply all work together to throw off their chains).

“Some federal Conservatives have complained about being muzzled by Prime Minister Harper, but all party leaders have too much power over MPs, including in the provinces,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “Reasonable changes can be made to restrict the powers of party leaders over politicians in their party, while recognizing that party discipline is appropriate in some situations.  What is strange is that politicians across the country could easily change the rules to restrict their party leaders, and no leader could stop them if they would just all come together and throw off their chains and free themselves.”

To ensure politicians across Canada are free to say what they want about any issue, and have some freedom to represent the will of voters who elected them and/or uphold the public interest, without their party leader being able to punish them, the following changes must be made:

• political party leaders must be prohibited from appointing election candidates unless there is no party association in the riding or candidate elected by the riding association;
• political parties must be prohibited from refusing the nomination of a candidate as long as the candidate meets minimal “character” qualifications and is selected by the riding association;
• the elections watchdog agencies (Elections Canada etc.) must be given the mandate and power to oversee nomination races for election candidates to ensure they are run fairly;
• the caucus of each party, not the leader, must be given the power to decide who sits in caucus;
• if a party does not have a clear position on an issue, clearly stated in the previous election and communicated to all candidates in that election before they became a candidate, then the party should be prohibited from disciplining any politician who takes a different position on the issue in any statement they make, or in any vote (even in votes on matters of confidence);
• the caucus of each party, not the party leader, must select the party’s members for each legislative committee;
• the speaker of the legislature should choose who asks questions in each daily question period randomly, ensuring only that the number of questions per party matches the percentage of seats each party has in the legislature over each weekly period;
• every member of the legislature must have the clear right to say whatever they want during their time for a member statement, and;
• the caucus of each party, by two-thirds vote, should be empowered to initiate a review of the party leader’s leadership of the party.

Democracy Watch will soon launch a national letter-writing campaign to push for these changes.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Tel: 613-241-5179

---

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

Majority of committee selecting new PBO nominees must be representatives from opposition parties to ensure independent person is chosen, and mandate and powers of PBO must be strengthened to turn lapdog into watchdog for truth-in-budgeting

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it is preparing a court challenge of the federal Conservatives’ illegal appointment of the Parliamentary Librarian as the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), and launched a national letter-writing campaign to make the PBO a fully independent and fully empowered watchdog.

“The federal Conservatives were negligent in not ensuring the appointment of a new Parliamentary Budget Officer before Kevin Page’s term finished last week, and the law does not allow for the appointment of an interim PBO,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “To stop the web of lies and abuse that wastes taxpayers’ money, and to ensure honest federal government spending, a majority of the members of the nominating committee for the new PBO must be representatives from the opposition parties, and the law must be changed to give the PBO job security and an annual budget based on need not Cabinet whim, and the power to order the release of information needed for spending assessments.”

As well, Democracy Watch called on provincial and territorial governments to establish PBOs that also cover municipal governments in each jurisdiction.

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 in the House and Senate 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.

To ensure truth in federal government budgeting, the following changes need to be made to the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO – and, again all other jurisdictions need to establish a PBO with the following structure and powers):

• the PBO must be made a full Officer of Parliament, independent of Cabinet, with a fixed, non-renewable term of office and full power over the selection and management of their staff;
• the selection of the PBO must be approved by a majority of party leaders after a public, merit-based nomination process to ensure a non-partisan and effective person is selected;
• the PBO must be given the resources needed to fulfill their mandate each year (based on an independent needs assessment of their proposed budget);
• the government must be required, before proposing significant spending, to check with the PBO to ensure that the actual total of the proposed spending is being accurately estimated;
• the PBO must be given the power to order the disclosure of any information (as the information commissioners have in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec) they need to do their cost and spending assessments, and;
• the PBO must be required to release the findings of their investigations as soon as they are completed whether or not parliament is in session.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Tel: 613-241-5179

Democracy Watch’s Stop Fraud Spending Campaign

The resignation of former Conservative Cabinet Minister Peter Penashue from his seat as a result of his campaign taking illegal donations and exceeding the campaign expense limit leaves Prime Minister Harper with two choices: he can choose to delay the by-election in the riding of Labrador or to call a snap by-election.

York University’s whistleblower policy, which didn’t exist during an alleged major fraud a few years ago, is weak and wouldn’t be much help in curbing serious wrongdoing on campus then or today, experts say.

The Bloc Québécois has written Elections Canada demanding an investigation into political donations made to Conservative candidate Michel-Eric Castonguay in the 2011 federal election after CBC News yesterday revealed 12 executives from engineering giant SNC-Lavalin — and two of their wives — donated a total of $14,900 just two days before Canadians went to the polls.