Alberta passed new law quickly last fall; federal Liberals and NDP have introduced bills (both opposed by the Conservatives); and Elections Canada has proposed changes

More than 68,000 messages sent in letter-writing drive for robocall law – inquiry into weak election law enforcement also needed

Friday, April 19, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, as Democracy Watch’s online counter shows, the federal Conservatives have now violated for seven months Parliament’s deadline for introducing a bill to restrict election fraud robocalls and strengthen election law enforcement, including delaying the bill again this week.  More than 68,000 messages have been sent through Democracy Watch’s robocall law letter-writing drive – and Democracy Watch called on the Conservatives to end their negligence and introduce the bill next week.

Democracy Watch also called for a public inquiry into Elections Canada’s weak and secretive enforcement of the elections law going back 15 years (See details below).

The Conservatives ongoing excuses for delaying the robocall bill are ridiculous given that:

• the federal Liberals introduced private member Bill C-424 last May to increase fines for false robocalls and other fraudulent attempts to sway voters from $2,000-$5,000 up to $20,000 to $50,000 (the Conservatives killed the bill on Nov. 21);
• the federal NDP introduced private member Bill C-453 last October to prohibit false robocalls during federal elections and strengthen enforcement (the Conservatives have blocked the bill from moving forward);
• the Alberta Conservative government has introduced and passed Bill 7 last Nov.-Dec. which, among other changes, requires the sponsor of any robocall to clearly identify themselves and their contact phone number and political party affiliation in the call (s. 46 changed s. 134 of the province’s Election Act), and;
• Elections Canada proposed changes three weeks ago to ban fraud robocalls.

“The federal Conservatives are being dangerously undemocratic and negligent in failing to comply with the unanimous resolution to ban election fraud robocalls,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

The House of Commons passed a resolution unanimously last March setting a deadline of the end of September for the Conservatives to introduce the bill.

Democracy Watch is calling for a law that:

• requires anyone who transmits an election-related robocall to confirm the identity of the person or organization who makes or pays for the call, and;
• establishes a mandatory penalty for anyone who wins an election through election fraud of the loss of their seat and a ban on running in another election for at least five years.

False robocalls were received by tens of thousands of voters in more than 230 ridings during the spring 2011 federal election, and were also used to mislead voters in some provincial elections

Measures to make false robocalls illegal and essentially impossible will help, but there are also enforcement problems.  Elections Canada and the Director of Public Prosecutions have charged one person for false robocalls from the 2011 federal election, but there are serious questions about Elections Canada’s enforcement over the past 15 years.

Elections Canada has refused to disclose the rulings it has made on more than 2,000 complaints it received from 1997 to 2010, and more than 1,000 complaints it received during the 2011 federal election.  Democracy Watch has filed a complaint with the federal Information Commissioner about Elections Canada’s excessive secrecy.  Elections Canada has also recently made some very questionable rulings.

Elections Canada must be required to disclose every ruling it makes to ensure that it proves it is enforcing the law fairly and properly (and election agencies across Canada must also be required to disclose all their rulings)

Democracy Watch is calling on Canadians to send a letter and to sign the petition that both call not only on federal politicians to introduce and pass a law to stop false election robocalls and strengthen enforcement, but also for politicians in every province and territory to pass similar laws that apply to their provincial, territorial and municipal elections.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Tel: 613-241-5179

Email: [email protected]

Internet: http://democracywatch.ca

Text of March 2012 House of Commons Resolution

The  March 2012 resolution that passed the House of Commons unanimously was introduced by New Democrat MP David Christopherson, and it committed the Conservative government to make three changes to the Elections Canada Act by Sept. 12, 2012:

• Give Elections Canada stronger investigative powers, including the ability to force political parties to provide supporting documents for their expenses;
• Require all telecommunication companies that provide voter contact services during a general election to register with Elections Canada, and;
• Make telecommunication companies identify and verify the identity of election clients.

---

Democracy Watch’s Stop Election Fraud Robocalls Campaign

This week, Mr. Uppal announced he is delaying the tabling of a bill to reform the Election Act because he wants to incorporate changes recommended by Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer. “We will take the time necessary to get the legislation right,” the minister said in a statement.

Surveys show proposals supported by large majority of Canadians, and also endorsed by national coalitions made up of 140 citizen groups with more than 3 million total members

April 15, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch congratulated Justin Trudeau on becoming leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and called on him not only to keep the democratic reform promises he made during the campaign but also to make many more changes that a large majority of Canadians support in keeping his commitments to “reform our political institutions” and in “reconciling the environment and our economy”.  Democracy Watch set out detailed proposals for keeping these commitments.

Mr. Trudeau promised to: open nominations in all ridings and not appoint candidates; free MPs to vote against Cabinet unless the bill is an election platform, budget or Charter of Rights measure; end the use of omnibus bills; not prorogue Parliament to avoid accountability; increase House committees’ independence and resources; support changing election voting system; ban partisan government advertising, and; make the Parliamentary Budget Officer fully independent as well as strengthen other democratic good government watchdogs.

“Justin Trudeau has promised to democratize the Liberal Party and federal government in a few ways and to make a sustainable economy a priority, but will he promise and follow through on making these and many more specific changes that surveys show a large majority of Canadians want to ensure democratic, ethical politics and corporate responsibility,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.  “The Liberals can show they are actually committed to requiring everyone in politics and big business to act honestly, openly, ethically, representatively and sustainably by proposing bills between now and the next federal election that detail the changes they would make if they win that election.”

Democracy Watch called on Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals to propose bills that make the following key changes to close 100 undemocratic and accountability loopholes in the federal government, and to require everyone in federal politics and big business to act honestly, openly, ethically, representatively and sustainably:

Democratic Good Government Changes

1. Require all politicians, their staff, appointees to tell the truth (as federal public servants are required to do by their Values and Ethics Code), including prohibiting politicians from switching parties between elections only to advance their career, and allow complaints about dishonesty to the Ethics Commissioner with high penalties for violators, and enact measures to make fraud robocalls impossible;
2. Ensure all government and government-funded institutions, including politicians’ offices, are open by requiring them to create records detailing all their actions and decisions (as in the UK, U.S., Australia and New Zealand) and to disclose all their communications with anyone trying to influence their decisions (whether or not they are a registered lobbyist), and by giving the Information Commissioner the power to order the disclosure of any record (as in the UK, B.C., Ontario and Quebec) if it is in the public interest and would not cause any actual harm to anyone or any organization (as in B.C. and Alberta), and the power to fine violators and require systemic changes to improve access (as in the UK), and; by fully protecting whistleblowers and allowing government scientists to speak freely about their research;
3. Ensure everyone in politics is ethical by ensuring all politicians, their staff and appointees are required (as federal public servants are): to avoid apparent conflicts of interest (even when making general application decisions), to refuse gifts, and to refrain from lobbying the government after leaving their position for a period of time determined based on their former decision-making power, and by further restricting political donations, and by establishing high penalties for violators and requiring the Ethics Commissioner (and Elections Canada) to rule publicly on every complaint and unethical situation that arises;
4. Ensure everyone in politics is representative by: changing the election and parliamentary voting systems in key ways; requiring meaningful public consultation before every significant government decision; establishing a Public Appointments Commission to ensure merit-based Cabinet appointments; requiring the approval of a majority of party leaders for the appointment of every officer of Parliament; freeing and empowering MPs; creating broad-based, representative citizen watchdog groups for every major government and industry sector, and; abolishing the Senate;
5. Ensure everyone in politics is waste-preventing by: making the Parliamentary Budget Officer fully independent and fully empowered (including to order the release of information needed for spending assessments); strengthening spending rules especially by eliminating loopholes that allow for unjustifiable sole-source contracts; requiring pre-approval by the Auditor General of major spending processes to ensure they follow all the rules; requiring everyone to submit a detailed receipt for expenses, and giving the Auditor General the resources, and requiring him/her, to audit all government and government-funded institutions (including politicians’ offices) at least once every three years;
6. Ensure everyone in politics is accountable by: creating broad-based, representative citizen watchdog groups for every major government and industry sector; allowing a majority of party leaders to initiate a public inquiry into the government’s actions; ensuring anyone can challenge the rulings of all democratic good government watchdog agencies in court; enacting strict rules on the opening and closing of the legislature;

Corporate Responsibility Changes

1. Ensure all businesses are honest by strengthening false advertising rules, enforcement by the Competition Bureau, and penalties;
2. Ensure all businesses are open by requiring full disclosure in a searchable Internet database of all wrongdoing by all businesses, and by fully protecting whistleblowers;
3. Ensure all businesses are ethical by passing a law that prohibits Free Trade deals that are not Fair Trade deals (and amends current Free Trade deals to include fair trade measures), and by requiring independent audits of banks’ lending, investment and service records, and audits of all businesses to ensure gouging is prohibited;
4. Ensure all businesses are representative by creating broad-based, representative citizen watchdog groups for every major industry sector, and; by requiring everyone in business (especially banks and other financial institutions) to consider all stakeholders’ interests when they make decisions (especially lending, investment and insurance decisions) and to account publicly for how they do this, and; by prohibiting CEOs from playing any role in the selection of board members;
5. Ensure all businesses are waste-preventing by phasing out subsidies to polluting businesses, and requiring public disclosure of the expenses of all executives;
6. Ensure all businesses are accountable by creating citizen watchdog groups for every major industry sector, and increasing penalties including prohibiting any business that violates the law from receiving any government contracts or subsidies or tax breaks.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page

---

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