Big 6 banks double their profits since 2009 to $29.29 billion, and increase executive bonuses by 51% since 2008 to $10.3 billion

 Comprehensive audits, and new Financial Consumer Organization needed for effective bank and financial services industry accountability, and for financial literacy

“It is essential, for deterrence, to have strong penalties that we know will be enforced.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
CTV National News, February 26, 2009

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

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

OTTAWA – Today, in response to Canada’s big six banks reporting their new record annual total profits for the fourth year in a row — totalling $29.29 billion (up 15% from $25.46 billion in 2011, and more than double their 2009 total profits of $14.34 billion), the Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition (CCRC – Canada’s largest and leading bank accountability coalition) is making it easy for Canadians to send a letter to the federal Conservatives and opposition parties 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

For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Bank Accountability Campaign page

The Senate will audit a housing allowance program that subsidizes senators who pay toward a second home in Ottawa in the wake of reports of a misuse of funds by three Senators.

Set out below is a letter-to-the-editor by Democracy Watch Board Member Duff Conacher which was published in the Hill Times on December 3, 2012

While being removed from office is too high a penalty to pay for Toronto Mayor Ford’s ethics violations, at least the judge took the situation and the ethics rules seriously, and at least the rules and penalties are strong.

Other than Cabinet ministers, politicians in federal and provincial legislatures across Canada are allowed to be involved in a business while in office.

And the ethics rules for all of them, including Cabinet ministers, are so weak they are allowed to make decisions even if they have a financial interest in the outcome.

As well, in most provinces and at the federal level, there is either no penalty for violating ethics rules, or the penalty is minimal.

For example, federal Conservative Cabinet minister Christian Paradis was found guilty last March of violating a key ethics rule for giving preferential treatment to a lobbyist, and the only possible penalty of being kicked out of Cabinet did not happen as Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to ignore the clear violation.

As well, many ethics commissioners across Canada have let politicians off the hook for ethics violations for very questionable reasons.

These huge loopholes must be closed, and enforcement and penalties strengthened, in order to have ethical federal, provincial and territorial politicians.

For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Many recent scandals show the current system is not preventing politicians from using taxpayer money to pay their personal or political party costs

November 30, 2012

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch launched a national letter-writing and petition drive calling on politicians across Canada to pass laws to strengthen politician spending rules and require Auditor Generals to audit all politicians for fraudulent spending to prevent politicians from using taxpayer money to pay their personal or political party costs.

“Recent spending scandals involving federal politicians have revealed loopholes and shown clearly that the current system is not preventing misspending, and past audits of politicians in some provinces have shown that audits catch wrongdoers,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “The spending loopholes must be closed and auditor generals across Canada required to audit all politician spending regularly to prevent politicians from using taxpayers’ money to pay their personal or political party costs.”

Recent spending scandals involve 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.

These federal politicians were caught by chance. In contrast, many politicians from many political parties were caught misspending or stealing public funds through comprehensive audits by the auditor generals in England, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia leading to politicians being forced to resign, charged, and found guilty of abusing their access to taxpayers’ money.

The enforcement of spending rules is also far from transparent in some jurisdictions, such as federally where cases are examined in secret, behind closed doors, by the Board of Internal Economy which is made up of politicians from all parties who protect themselves and their party members instead of enforcing the rules and ensuring that taxpayer money is not spent inappropriately.

These scandals and weak enforcement systems clearly show that the laws and enforcement of politician spending must be strengthened to ensure all politicians follow the rules at all times.

Democracy Watch’s letter-writing and petition drive makes it easy for all Canadians to send a letter to key politicians across Canada calling for the following key changes to strengthen rules and auditing of politician spending across Canada to ensure they are not using taxpayers’ money to pay their personal or political party costs:

1. require all politicians, their offices and staff people to submit actual, detailed receipts and information showing the number and identity of people at any event, what exactly was purchased, by whom exactly, for what use, and at what price, for all expenses claimed;
2. require all politicians, their offices and staff people, before making significant purchases, to check early on with the federal, provincial or territorial Auditor General’s office to ensure that what is being bought, and the proposed spending process, comply with spending rules;
3. require the federal, provincial and territorial Auditor General to regularly audit spending by all politicians, their office, and their staff;
4. require that all investigations of politician spending be conducted by an federal, provincial or territorial Auditor General who is fully independent from Cabinet, and fully empowered and required to investigate all alleged violations of rules, and give all the Auditor Generals the power to penalize violators and to order a correction of any wrongdoing;
5. require the federal, provincial and territorial Auditor General to rule publicly on every complaint and situation in which there is reasonable evidence of wrongdoing, and;
6. require the federal, provincial and territorial Auditor General to release the findings of their investigations as soon as they are completed regardless of whether parliament is in session.

Democracy Watch will continue pushing, and helping Canadians push, until politicians across Canada make these key changes to prevent politician misspending and fraudulent spending of any kind.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Tel: 613-241-5179

Email: [email protected]

Internet: http://democracywatch.ca

For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Voter Rights Campaign page

Calls are growing for an investigation into Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue’s family and business ties to a multi-billion dollar project in his home riding of Labrador.

Federal Liberals and NDP have introduced anti- false robocall bills, as have Alberta Conservatives – Federal Conservatives continue to break promise to introduce government bill banning false robocalls, and other provincial government also fail to take action

Friday, November 23, 2012

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the federal Conservatives to introduce the bill to ban false election robocalls and strengthen election law enforcement that they promised to introduce by the end of September under a resolution passed unanimously last March by federal politicians.

Democracy Watch’s national letter-writing and petition drive has resulted in more than 56,000 messages being sent to politicians across Canada calling on them to pass effective laws to stop election fraud robocalls, and to strengthen enforcement of election laws.

To their credit, 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 rejected Bill C-424 on Wednesday (Nov. 21).

Also to their credit, the federal NDP introduced private member Bill C-453 on October 17th, sponsored by Democratic Reform Critic MP Craig Scott, that would, if enacted, make changes to prohibit false robocalls during federal elections and strengthen enforcement in ways that match most of Democracy Watch’s recommended changes.

The Alberta Conservative government has also introduced Bill 7 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.

In contrast, the federal Conservatives continue to fail to introduce their promised bill.

“Canadians have heard the federal Conservatives talk the talk about concerns over false election robocalls and weak enforcement of election laws, but the Conservatives continue to fail to walk the walk and introduce a bill to ban false robocalls and strengthen enforcement,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator for Democracy Watch. “Clearly the Conservatives and politicians in the provinces and territories need to be pushed and so Democracy Watch will continue its letter-writing drive that makes it easy for people across the country to call on key politicians across Canada to make the changes needed to clean up and ensure our elections are fair.”

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 is investigating the false robocalls from the 2011 federal election, but there are serious questions about its enforcement.

Elections Canada has failed 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. It 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

For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Voter Rights Campaign page

Refusal to disclose past rulings illegal, and raises question of whether Chief Electoral Officer will keep commitment to disclose rulings on more than 1,300 robocall complaints – full public inquiry needed

More than 44,000 messages have been sent by Canadians through Democracy Watch’s letter-writing drive calling for disclosure of election complaint rulings, and other fair election enforcement measures

Monday, November 19, 2012

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released Elections Canada’s preliminary refusal and final refusal to disclose its rulings on more than 3,000 complaints filed by Canadians in the past 15 years, which Democracy Watch requested under the federal Access to Information Act initially last March.

Elections Canada’s main reason for refusing to disclose the rulings is that the rulings could make the Commissioner of Elections look bad – which is a bizarre reason given that Elections Canada has sent a ruling letter to each of the complainants, and all Democracy Watch has requested are copies of those already public letters.

By deciding to keep its complete past record of enforcement of the Canada Elections Act secret, Elections Canada also raises serious doubts about whether it will actually disclose the rulings the Commissioner makes after investigating the 1,300 robocall complaints filed during and after the 2011 election.  It is completely contradictory and hypocritical for Elections Canada to commit to disclosing its rulings on every robocall complaint while at the same time refusing to disclose its rulings on past complaints.

More than 44,000 messages have been sent by Canadians to key politicians through Democracy Watch’s national letter-writing drive calling for clear requirements to disclose election complaint rulings, and for passage of other fair election and strong enforcement measures.

“Elections Canada raises serious questions about its commitment to transparency and accountability by refusing to disclose its rulings on more than 2,000 complaints filed during elections since 1997, on an unknown number of complaints filed in-between elections since 1997, and on more than 1,000 complaints filed during the 2011 election, even though the Access to Information Act allows the rulings to be disclosed, even though the Canada Elections Act requires that most of the rulings be disclosed, and even though the rulings have been publicly  disclosed in letters to almost all the complainants over the past 15 years”  said Democracy Watch Coordinator Tyler Sommers.  “This is more evidence that a full public inquiry is needed into how Elections Canada has been enforcing the law for the past several elections, because if it is allowed to keep its rulings secret it can hide a biased, unfair or ineffective enforcement record.”

Democracy Watch will continue to seek the information from Elections Canada as the public has a clear right to see the rulings that any law enforcement agency makes on any complaint.  If this information is kept secret, it is a recipe for abuse and corruption as it can allow any agency to hide a biased, unfair, discriminatory, ineffective or otherwise improper enforcement record.

Last March, Democracy Watch submitted an access to information request about a total of 2,982 complaints people have filed during elections since 1997, requesting the ruling letters Elections Canada has sent to the complainants.  Democracy Watch also requested the ruling letters Elections Canada has sent to an unknown number of people who filed complaints in-between elections (the total is unknown because Elections Canada does not disclose any information about complaints it receives in-between elections).

Democracy Watch was seeking the rulings on complaints about possible violations of the Canada Elections Act over the past 15 years, with the personal information removed, in order to determine whether Elections Canada has been fairly, properly, and effectively enforcing the Canada Elections Act since 1997.  Democracy Watch has serious questions about the effectiveness of Elections Canada’s enforcement given a very questionable ruling Elections Canada made in July (the complainant sent the ruling to Democracy Watch).

In a preliminary letter and then final letter responding to Democracy Watch’s Access to Information request, Elections Canada invoked a blanket exemption in the Access to Information Act, section 16.3 (SEE below) which allows the Chief Electoral officer to refuse any record that contains information “created by or on behalf of a person who conducts an investigation, examination or review in the performance of their functions under the Canada Elections Act.”  In using this exemption, Elections Canada stated that the reason was:

… there is a very [real] risk that if all the responses to complainants were released, precisely because they are drafted in a summary way and because they do not provide the full background to any decision, erroneous or wrong conclusions could be drawn with respect to particular cases or to classes of cases, which could negatively affect the Commissioner in the discharge of his mandate.

This, as with the other excuses Elections Canada is using to refuse to disclose its past rulings, is an invalid concern.  Democracy Watch was only requesting the final ruling letter sent to each complainant, not information about the investigations, examinations or reviews of the complaints.  As well, if all past rulings have been legally correct and proper, Elections Canada will have no difficulty at all convincing the public that it has been fairly, properly, and effectively enforcing the Canada Elections Act.

In addition, section 16.3 of the Access to Information Act is restricted by section 541.(1) of the Canada Elections Act (SEE sections set out below) which explicitly states that correspondence and other reports of this nature, specifically “all decisions or rulings” by the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) “are public records and may be inspected by any person on request during business hours.”  It is very likely that most of the complaints were ruled on by the CEO as most would be about minor disputes and problems that would not have been referred to the Commissioner of Canada Elections for investigation and/or possible prosecution.

Also, Elections Canada has sent a letter with its ruling to each complainant, so it has already made each ruling public, and in doing so it has made it clear that it is comfortable with members of the public seeing the rulings.

Elections Canada is also trying to use the excuse that the ruling letters contain private personal information (such as the name of the complainant) – but Democracy Watch made it clear in its request that it was fine with that information being kept secret and redacted from the rulings.

Democracy Watch will continue to push Elections Canada to disclose all its past rulings since 1997 to ensure the public has the evidence it needs to determine whether Elections Canada’s enforcement record over the past 15 years has been fair and effective.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Voter’s Rights Campaign

16.3 Access to Information Act

Subject to section 541 of the Canada Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information that was obtained or created by or on behalf of a person who conducts an investigation, examination or review in the performance of their functions under the Canada Elections Act.

541.(1) Canada Elections Act:

Inspection of instructions, correspondence and other reports

541.(1) All documents referred to in section 403.35, 424, 429, 435.3, 435.35, 451, 455, 478.23 or 478.3, all other reports or statements, other than election documents received from election officers, all instructions issued by the Chief Electoral Officer under this Act, all decisions or rulings by him or her on points arising under this Act and all correspondence with election officers or others in relation to an election are public records and may be inspected by any person on request during business hours.

19.(1) Access to Information Act

Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal information as defined by section 3 of the Privacy Act.

NDP introduces anti-robocall bill – Conservatives continue to break promise to introduce government bill banning false robocalls

Thursday, November 15, 2012

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the federal Conservatives to introduce the bill to ban false election robocalls and strengthen election law enforcement that they promised to introduce by the end of September under a resolution passed unanimously last March by federal politicians.

Democracy Watch’s national letter-writing and petition drive has resulted in more than 27,000 messages being sent to politicians across Canada calling on them to pass effective laws to stop election fraud robocalls, and to strengthen enforcement of election laws.

To their credit, the federal NDP recently introduced private member bill C-453, sponsored by Democratic Reform Critic MP Craig Scott, that would, if enacted, make changes to prohibit false robocalls during federal elections and strengthen enforcement in ways that match most of Democracy Watch’s recommended changes.

In contrast, the federal Conservatives continue to fail to introduce their promised bill.

“Canadians have heard the federal Conservatives talk the talk about concerns over false election robocalls and weak enforcement of election laws, but the Conservatives continue to fail to walk the walk and introduce a bill to ban false robocalls and strengthen enforcement,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator for Democracy Watch. “Clearly the Conservatives and politicians in the provinces and territories need to be pushed and so Democracy Watch will continue its letter-writing drive that makes it easy for people across the country to call on key politicians across Canada to make the changes needed to clean up and ensure our elections are fair.” 

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 is investigating the false robocalls from the 2011 federal election, but there are serious questions about its enforcement.

Elections Canada has failed 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.  It 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

For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Voter Rights Campaign page