Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.
Category: News
Nigel Wright’s meetings wrong, but legal (and that is the problem)
Set out below is a letter-to-the-editor by Democracy Watch Board member Duff Conacher which was published on Rabble.ca on August 29, 2012
While most everyone would say that it is a conflict of interest for Prime Minister Harper’s chief of staff Nigel Wright to meet and be lobbied by Barrick Gold or any of the dozens of companies in which he has friends and/or financial or other interests, in almost every case the lobbying is legal.
In fact, in almost every case it is legal for Wright, and every cabinet minister and staff person, and every senior government official, and every MP and senator and their staff, to lobby and make decisions on issues and matters in which they, their families and friends have financial or other interests.
This is all legal because of a huge loophole added in December 2003 by Paul Martin to the federal cabinet ethics law, and that MPs and senators included in 2004-2005 in their new House and Senate ethics codes. Stephen Harper promised in the 2006 election to remove the loophole from the cabinet ethics law but he broke his promise.
Prime Minister Harper put stronger ethics rules into his Accountability Guide for cabinet ministers, but those rules do not apply to cabinet staff, and so far he has ignored every violation of those rules. In addition, the staff of MPs and senators are not covered by any ethics rules (except senior staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s office).
The effect of the Martin loophole is that no one is considered to be in a conflict of interest unless they are dealing with a very specific matter such as a merger, takeover, license, approval or contract (and only about 1 per cent of their decisions are about these things).
To put it another way, federal ethics rules do not apply to 99 per cent of the decisions and actions of federal politicians and senior policy-makers.
These very weak rules combined with the very weak enforcement attitude and record of federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson (who has interpreted rules in many cases in very questionable ways that let Cabinet ministers and MPs off-the-hook), and the weak enforcement powers of the Senate Ethics Officer, mean that it is effectively legal for all federal politicians, staff and senior government officials to be unethical.
BACKGROUNDER
Before 2004, ethics rules applied to all the decisions and actions of Cabinet ministers, their staff and senior government officials because they were required to, in every case, avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The rules were almost never enforced because of lapdog ethics officers, but they did exist. In December 2003, Paul Martin put in the loophole that gutted the rules in the Conflict of Interest Act, and Stephen Harper promised in the 2006 election to remove that loophole but he broke his promise. See details in Democracy Watch’s December 3, 2010 news release at: <http://dwatch.ca/camp/RelsDec0310.html> (archive website)
Prime Minister Harper put stronger ethics rules into his Accountability Guide for Cabinet ministers, but those rules do not apply to Cabinet staff, and he has ignored every violation of those rules. See details at: <http://dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdAug0612.html> (archive website)
In 2004, MPs finally (137 years after Canada became a country) enacted an ethics code for themselves, and senators followed in 2005 with their code. Both MPs and senators included the loophole that Paul Martin put in the Cabinet rules, and failed to apply the rules to their staff. See details in Democracy Watch’s recent op-ed at: <http://dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdJuly2312.html> (archive website)
While the Ethics Commissioner has been independent of Cabinet since spring 2004, current Commissioner Mary Dawson and her predecessor Bernard Shapiro (and the lapdog Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson before them, who had no independence or powers), have all let dozens of Cabinet ministers, staff, senior officials, and MPs off the hook for clearly unethical activities. See details at: <http://dwatch.ca/camp/Ethics_Court_Cases.html> (archive website) and specifically about Commissioner Dawson at: <http://dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdJuly1912.html> (archive website)
The Senate Ethics Officer, like the former Ethics Counsellor, has no independence and very weak enforcement powers. See details at: <http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/OpEdJun0109.html> (archive website)
For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics page
Situation with Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff Nigel Wright highlights major loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act that need to be closed
Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.
Elections Canada refuses to clarify key measures in federal elections law – Democracy Watch again calls for clarification of recent flawed ruling
News Release
Elections Canada refuses to clarify key measures in federal elections law – Democracy Watch again calls for clarification of recent flawed ruling
Ruling means no foreigner will likely ever be prosecuted, and raises questions about enforcement standards being applied in robocall and many other cases
Public inquiry is clearly needed to disclose and audit rulings on more than 3,000 complaints filed with the Commissioner since 1997 to ensure past enforcement has been proper and effective, and will be in the future
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
OTTAWA – Today Democracy Watch released the second letter it has sent asking Elections Canada to clarify a ruling by the Commissioner of Canada Elections on a recent complaint after Elections Canada responded with a refusal to clarify the interpretation. Democracy Watch received the ruling from the person who filed the complaint and in it the Commissioner refused to investigate based upon a much too narrow and restrictive interpretation of a key measure in the Canada Elections Act that prohibits influence of voters by foreigners.
Democracy Watch sent the first letter on August 6, 2012 asking specifically for Elections Canada to clarify their interpretation of the word “induce” in section 331 of the Canada Elections Act which was interpreted in such a way to mean that a voter “was actually induced or affected in their voting behaviour due to the activity complained of.” In Democracy Watch’s opinion, the legally correct definition of this measure is that “induce” also includes trying to persuade someone to vote one way or another (or not to vote), especially given that the heading of section 331 reads “Non-Interference by Foreigners” and the sub-heading is “Prohibition – inducements by non-residents”.
In responding to the request for clarification on their interpretation and their enforcement standard overall, Elections Canada refused to provide any further detail and to publicly clarify how they enforce the Canada Elections Act, instead choosing to dodge the question.
“We’re facing an incredibly dangerous situation where Elections Canada refuses to make their interpretation of the Canada Elections Act clear, preventing Canadians from understanding the way they enforce the law,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “Canadians expect Elections Canada to ensure that our elections are free and fair and that the rules are followed, however they’re refusing to let us know whether they’re actually performing this task, instead asking us to blindly trust them, which doesn’t make sense.”
Given this very flawed ruling which sets a weak enforcement standard, the Commissioner’s continuing refusal to clarify their interpretation in this situation, and his refusal to disclose the rulings it made on more than 3,000 complaints from the 1997 election on through the 2011 election, Democracy Watch is calling for a public inquiry into the Commissioner’s enforcement standards and practices from the past 15 years.
Democracy Watch is also attempting to shed light on Elections Canada’s practices through an access-to-information request, filed last April, seeking details on how Elections Canada handled the thousands of complaints it received since 1997. Democracy Watch is still waiting for a full response while Elections Canada continues to make excuses for the delay.
“Elections Canada runs one of the most important events in Canada’s democracy and yet they continue to hide whether they are properly ensuring that federal elections are actually free and fair. Clearly, federal politicians must require Elections Canada to regularly disclose the details of how they handle complaints so Canadians can finally know if they’re doing their job properly and effectively,” said Sommers
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
[email protected]
Democracy Watch’s Voter’s Rights Campaign
Ontario by-election dates bad for voter turnout — Changes needed to election timing, voting system, and voter rights and advertising…
News Release
Ontario by-election dates bad for voter turnout
Changes needed to election timing, voting system, and voter rights and advertising to increase voter turnout in by-elections and general elections
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
OTTAWA – Today Democracy Watch renewed its call for democratic changes to Ontario’s election system in response to the clear crisis of record low voter turnout in the last provincial election. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s chosen dates for the Kitchener-Waterloo and Vaughan by-elections are, like the fixed election date, far from ideal for many voters and as a result voter turnout will likely be much lower than it could have been.
“Given that only 48.2% of eligible voters cast their ballots in the last provincial election, the lowest percentage in Ontario history, major changes are clearly needed to counter this threat to the provincial government’s democratic legitimacy.” Said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “Unfortunately Elections Ontario and the Government of Ontario have failed to change anything so far, and Premier McGuinty has also chosen a date for by-elections when many people are on holiday, helping their children get ready for school, or moving for college or university, all of which will also hurt voter turnout.”
In addition to Elections Ontario properly educating voters about their right to decline the ballot (and disclosing declined ballot totals in election results), and the government changing the fixed election date to late October-early November (as with municipal elections), the provincial Election Act must also be changed to prohibit holding by-elections during the summer months and holiday periods, and at times when post-secondary students are moving, to ensure many voters are not essentially prevented from voting.
In addition, the most important changes the Ontario parties can make to increase voter turnout are as follows:
- pass an honesty-in-politics law that gives voters an easy, low-cost way to file complaints to the Integrity Commissioner, and gives the Commissioner the power to penalize misleaders (and requires MPPs who switch parties in-between elections to resign and run in a by-election);
- change the voting system so that the percentage of MPPs each party receives more closely matches the popular vote percentages.
These changes would give voters a reason to vote because they would know that voting for a specific party would mean a guaranteed result in terms of percentage of MPPs elected and promises kept.
In addition, if the parties strengthen provincial ethics, political finance, lobbying, open government, and whistleblower protection laws, voters will have more reason to vote because they would be more assured of good government no matter which party won.
“In addition to election dates often making it difficult for people to pay full attention to campaigns and get to the polls on election day, Canadians know from experience that they are not going to get what they vote for, and are likely to get dishonest, secretive, unethical, unrepresentative and wasteful government no matter who they vote for, and as a result no one should be surprised to see voter turnout dropping lower and lower,” said Sommers.
These problems exist in all the provinces and territories across Canada. All of these changes should be made by the federal and provincial and territorial governments, and for their municipalities, before either mandatory or Internet voting are tried (because both of those changes will likely have serious negative effects).
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
[email protected]
Democracy Watch’s Voter’s Rights Campaign
Exemptions and discretion in watchdog legislation must be eliminated. Regular audits and a requirement to punish must be implemented to ensure adherence to the law
Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.
Quebec election timing is unfair and undemocratic
Set out below is a letter-to-the-editor by Democracy Watch Coordinator Tyler Sommers which was published in the the Hill Times on August 17, 2012
Quebec Premier Jean Charest recently triggered an election which will be held on Sept. 4. In doing so he chose to call the election at a time which suits his party best and which will make it difficult for many people, especially youth, to follow election coverage closely and vote because they will be moving to a new location for college or university, on holiday, or helping their kids start school.
This may be a costly decision with turnout in the 2008 general election at 57 per cent, the lowest in 70 years. Turnout could be increased if Quebeckers were given the right to vote “none of the above” through declined ballots, the voting system was changed so that the percentage of MNAs each party receives more closely matches the popular vote percentages, and an honesty-in-politics law was passed to punish politicians who mislead the public.
Voters know from their experience of the past few decades of elections that they are not going to get what they vote for and as a result it shouldn’t be surprising to see voter turnout decline to the levels it has recently reached. Governments must take steps to address the many issues voters have with our democratic systems in order to better represent them, provide them with honest governments, and increase popular support for our democratic institutions.
For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Voter Rights Campaign page
Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson ignores evidence and rules in refusing to investigate Conservative MP Paul Calandra
Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.
Quebec election date unfair and undemocratic — bad timing will likely result in low voter turnout
News Release
Quebec election date unfair and undemocratic — bad timing will likely result in low voter turnout
Voting system, inability of Quebeckers to decline their ballot likely reasons for 70 year low in turnout
Thursday, August 16, 2012
OTTAWA – Today Democracy Watch called for democratic changes to Quebec’s political system in response to the clear crisis of low voter turnout in the last provincial election. The 2008 general election in Quebec saw a turnout of only 57%, the lowest in the province in 70 years. Voters in Quebec do not have the right to decline their vote and Premier Jean Charest’s recent decision to hold the election on September 4th puts many voters in a difficult position.
“With a 70 year low in voter turnout Elections Quebec and the provincial government should have taken important steps toward increasing turnout in the next election, which will be held in less than a month.” Said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “Unfortunately it doesn’t look as though they’re taking this problem seriously, instead of implementing a fixed election date Premier Charest picked a time for the election advantageous to him, even though it is when many people are on holiday, helping their children get ready for school, or moving for college or university.”
In addition to Quebec voters being given the right to decline their ballots and establishing a fixed-election date, the most important changes the Quebec parties can make to increase turnout are as follows:
- pass an honesty-in-politics law that gives voters an easy, low-cost way to file complaints to an ethics commissioner, and gives the commissioner the power to penalize misleaders (and requires MNAs who switch parties in-between elections to resign and run in a by-election);
- change the voting system so that the percentage of MNAs each party receives more closely matches the popular vote percentages
These two changes would give voters a reason to vote because they would know that voting for a specific party would mean a guaranteed result in terms of percentage of MNAs elected and promises kept.
In addition, if the parties strengthened provincial ethics, political finance, lobbying, open government, and whistleblower protection laws, voters would have more reason to vote because they would be more assured of good government no matter which party won.
“More and more voters know from their experience of the past few decades of elections that they are not going to get what they vote for, and are likely to get dishonest, secretive, unethical, unrepresentative, and wasteful government no matter who they vote for, and as a result no one should be surprised to see voter turnout dropping lower and lower,” said Sommers.
These problems exist in all the provinces and territories across Canada. All of these changes should be made by the federal and provincial and territorial governments, and for their municipalities, before either mandatory or Internet voting are tried (because both of those have likely serious negative effects).
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
[email protected]
Democracy Watch’s Voter’s Rights Campaign
If Quebec politicians are serious about fighting corruption they must target Bill 48 and close major loopholes that allow politicians to be unethical
Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.