List of “Dirty Dozen” Seriously Unethical, Secretive and Undemocratic Actions by Doug Ford’s PC Party Government from June 2022 to February 2025

Based on the following “dirty dozen” seriously unethical, secretive and undemocratic actions, Democracy Watch gives the Doug Ford PC Party government an F fail grade since the June 2022 Ontario election:

---

1. As 80% of Ontario voters think, Ford calling a self-interested snap election for no good reason, and also Ford refusing to take questions from the media, and having PC Party candidates not show up to all-candidates debates.
2. The Greenbelt scandal in which the Ford government attempted to transfer protected public land to mostly PC Party-connected property developers who would have reaped an $8 billion profit (the RCMP continues to investigate the scandal).
3. Doubling the political donation limit and keeping it doubled which has allowed rich donors to continue to corrupt political party decision-making.
4. Allowing lobbyists to fundraise, campaign and work for Ford and his Cabinet and then cash in by lobbying Ford’s government soon afterwards.
5. Breaking Ford’s promise to strengthen Ontario’s lobbying law as recommended by the Auditor General.
6. Ford illegally hiding his cellphone records, even though he uses it for government calls.
7. Violating Charter rights to impartial courts by weakening Ontario’s judicial appointment system to give the Ford Cabinet more power to appoint PC Party supporters as judges (Click here to see DWatch’s news release re: the court case it plans to file soon challenging Ford’s appointment system).
8. Extending “strong mayor powers” to 46 cities across Ontario which allow mayors to arbitrarily override city council decisions.
9. Using Ministerial Zoning Orders 17 times more than previous governments, with little or no justification for overriding city and town council decisions and plans.
10. Violating Charter rights by using notwithstanding clause to maintain arbitrary, undemocratic limits on spending by interest groups in election years (the Supreme Court of Canada will soon rule on Ford’s law).
11. Re-developing Ontario Place through a process the Auditor General concluded was not “fair, transparent or accountable” and that increased the cost by $1.8 billion (Click here to see legal arguments DWatch and other groups have jointly filed in the Ontario Court of Appeal case challenging the re-development as a violation of the “public trust”).
12. Accepting family gifts from lobbyists at his daughter’s stag-and-doe party.

Criteria used for the Report Card on the 2025 Democracy and Accountability Election Platforms of the Ontario Political Parties

Set out below are the 16 sub-categories for the five issue area categories that are the basis for the Report Card.

---

GRADING SYSTEM

A – Platform makes clear promise to implement proposal
B – Platform makes vague or partial promise to implement proposals
C – Platform makes clear promise to explore proposal
D – Platform makes vague or partial promise to explore proposal
D- – Platform mentions proposal area
F – Platform doesn’t mention proposal

---

---

I. Honest, Ethical Government Measures

1. Requiring honesty-in-politics – Pass a law that requires all Cabinet ministers, MPPs, political staff, Cabinet appointees and government employees (including at Crown corporations, agencies, boards, commissions, courts and tribunals) nomination race and election candidates to tell the truth, with an easily accessible complaint process to a fully independent watchdog agency that is fully empowered to investigate and penalize anyone who lies. And require honesty in all political statements, especially online posts, and establish a new, fully independent, fully empowered commission to review and remove false online claims (Go to Honesty in Politics Campaign and the Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
2. Strengthening ethics standards for politicians, political staff, Cabinet appointees and government employees, and ethics enforcement – Close the loopholes in the existing ethics rules (including closing the loophole that allows Cabinet ministers, MPPs, their staff and Cabinet appointees to be involved in decisions in which they have a financial interest, and including requiring resignation and a by-election if an MPP switches parties between elections) and apply them to all government institutions (including all Crown corporations) and, as proposed by the federal Department of Finance, place anyone with decision-making power on the anti-corruption watch list of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (Fintrac) so deposits to their bank accounts can be tracked. Strengthen the independence and effectiveness of the Ontario Integrity Commissioner by having the Commissioner selected by a fully independent non-partisan committee, having the legislature (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Commissioner’s annual budgets, prohibiting the watchdogs from giving secret advice, requiring them to investigate and rule publicly on all complaints (including anonymous complaints), fully empowering and requiring them to penalize rule-breakers, changing all the codes they enforce into laws, and ensuring that all their decisions can be reviewed by the courts. (Go to Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
3. Making the political donations and election spending system democratic – Prohibit secret, unlimited donations or gifts of money, property or services by anyone for any reason to nomination, election and party leadership candidates; limit donations to $100 annually from individuals, and ban donations from corporations, unions and other organizations; also limit loans, including from financial institutions, to parties and all types of candidates to the same level as donations are limited; establish $1 per vote public funding of political parties (50 cents per vote for parties that elect a higher percentage of MPPs than the percentage of voter support they receive), and; ensure riding associations receive a fair share of this per-vote funding (so that party headquarters don’t have undue control over riding associations); require disclosure of all donations, gifts and loans of money, property or services (including the identity of the donor’s employer (as in the U.S.) and major affiliations) quarterly and before any election day; limit spending on campaigns for the leadership of political parties; limit advertising spending by the government and opposition parties and third parties (by number of members/supporters) in the six-month period leading up to an election, and limit advertising spending by third parties (by number of members/supporters) during the election campaign period (as spending by parties and candidates is limited). (Go to the Money in Politics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
4. Closing down the revolving door – Prohibit lobbyists from working for government departments or serving in senior positions for political parties or candidates for public office (as in New Mexico and Maryland), and from having business connections with anyone who does, and close the loopholes so that the actual cooling-off period for former Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior public officials is five years (and three years for MPPs, their staff, and government employees) during which they are prohibited from becoming a lobbyist or working with people, corporations or organizations with which they had direct dealings while in government. Make the Integrity Commissioner more independent and effective by having them selected by a fully independent non-partisan commission, by having the legislature (as opposed to Cabinet) approve their annual budget, by prohibiting the Commissioner from giving secret advice, by requiring the Commissioner to investigate and rule publicly on all complaints (including anonymous complaints), and by fully empowering and requiring the Commissioner to penalize rule-breakers, by ensuring all decisions of the Commissioner can be reviewed by the courts. (Go to the Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

II. Open Government Measures

5. Strengthening access-to-information system – Strengthen the access-to-information law and government information management system by applying the law to all government/publicly funded institutions, requiring all institutions and officials to create records of all decisions and actions and disclose them proactively and regularly, creating a public interest override of all access exemptions, having the Information and Privacy Commissioner appointed by a fully independent non-partisan commission, having the legislature (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Commissioner’s annual budgets, and giving the Commissioner the power and mandate to order changes to government institutions’ information systems, and to penalize violators of access laws, regulations, policies and rules. (Go to the Open Government Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
6. Exposing behind-closed-door communications – Require in a new law that Ministers and public officials and MPPs and their staff disclose their contacts with all lobbyists, whether paid or volunteer lobbyists. (Go to the Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
7. Strengthening lobbying disclosure and ethics, and the enforcement system – Strengthen the Lobbying Registration Act by including in it a Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, by closing the loophole that currently allows corporations to hide the number of people involved in lobbying activities, and by requiring lobbyists to disclose their past work with any Canadian or foreign government, political party or candidate, to disclose all their government relations activities (whether paid or volunteer) involving gathering inside information or trying to influence policy-makers (as in the U.S.) and to disclose the amount they spend on lobbying campaigns (as in 33 U.S. states), and; strengthen the ethics and enforcement system by extending the limitation period for prosecutions of violations of the Act to 10 years. Strengthen the Integrity Commissioner appointed by a fully independent non-partisan commission, by having the legislature (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Commissioner’s annual budget, by prohibiting the Commissioner from giving secret advice, by requiring the Commissioner to investigate and rule publicly on all complaints (including anonymous complaints), by fully empowering and requiring the Commissioner to penalize rule-breakers, by ensuring all Commissioner decisions can be reviewed by the courts. (Go to the Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

III. Efficient Government Measures

8. Increasing powers of Auditor General and FAO – Increase the independence of the Auditor General and Financial Accountability Office (FAO) by having them appointed by a fully independent non-partisan commission; increase auditing resources of the Auditor General and FAO by having the legislature (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Auditor General’s and FAO’s annual budget, and; empower the Auditor General to audit all government institutions including the legislature and MPP offices, and also empower the Auditor General and FAO to make orders for changes to government institutions’ spending systems, and to penalize violators of Treasury Board spending rules or Auditor General or FAO orders or requests for information. (Go to the Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
9. Restricting government and campaign advertising – Restore the Auditor General’s power to preview and prohibit government advertising contracting out if there is no reason to have the advertising developed by a contractor, and to reject any government advertising that is essentially a partisan ad for the ruling party, and strictly limit all advertising spending by the government in the six-month period leading up to an election. (Go to the Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

IV. Representative, Citizen-Driven Government Measures

10. Increasing meaningful public consultation – Pass a law requiring all government departments and institutions to use consultation processes that provide meaningful opportunities for citizen participation, especially concerning decisions that affect the lives of all Ontarians. (Go to the Democratic Voting Systems Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
11. Restricting power of Cabinet to make appointments – Strengthen the Public Appointments Secretariat by making it a fully independent non-partisan commission that is appointed by a fully independent non-partisan commission, and have it appoint the approximately 2,000 judicial, agency, board, commission and tribunal appointments currently made by the Premier and Cabinet, especially for appointees to senior and law enforcement positions (including judges), after a merit-based nomination and screening process. (Go to the Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
12. Making the legislature more democratic – Change the law to restrict the Premier’s power to shut down (prorogue) the legislature to only for a very short time during time periods when the legislature is already adjourned, and only for an election (dissolution) or if the national situation has changed significantly or if the Premier can show that the government has completed all their pledged actions from the last Speech from the Throne (or attempted to do so, as the opposition parties may stop or delay completion of some actions). Give all party caucuses the power to choose which MPPs in their party sits on legislature committees, and allow any MPP to introduce a private member bill at any time, and define what a “vote of confidence” is in the law in a restrictive way so most votes in the legislature are free votes, and have a fully independent non-partisan commission choose a short-list of candidates for Lieutenant Governor after a public, merit-based search, with all party leaders making the final choice. (Go to the Stop Muzzling MPs Campaign and the Democratic Voting Systems Campaign and Democratic Head Campaign or details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
13. Ensuring free, fair and representative elections – Change the current voting law and system (the Elections Act) to specifically restrict the Premier’s power to call an unfair snap election, so that election dates are fixed as much as possible under the parliamentary system. Change the Act also so that nomination and party leadership races are regulated by Elections Ontario (including limiting spending on campaigns for party leadership), and so that party leaders cannot appoint candidates except when a riding does not have a riding association, and so that Elections Ontario determines which parties can participate in election debates based upon merit criteria, and so that voters can give a reason if they decline their ballot (i.e. vote for “none of the above”) and to require Elections Ontario to educate voters about their legal right to decline their ballot, and to provide a more equal number of voters in every riding, and a more accurate representation in the legislature of the actual voter support for each political party (with a safeguard to ensure that a party with low-level, narrow-base support does not have a disproportionately high level of power in the legislature). (Go to the Democratic Voting Systems Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

V. General Accountability Measures

14. Facilitating citizen watchdog groups over government and big business sectors – Require provincial government institutions to enclose one-page pamphlets periodically in their mailings to citizens, and to put a notice at the top of every email they send to citizens, inviting citizens to join citizen-funded and directed groups to represent citizen interests in policy-making and enforcement processes of key government departments (for example, on ethics, spending, and health care), and require big businesses in all provincially regulated industries (investment banking, property insurance, energy and other natural resources, food, water and landlords) to do the same thing, as has been proposed in the U.S. and recommended for Canadian banks and other financial institutions in 1998 by a federal task force, a legislature of Commons Committee, and a Senate Committee, and for the investment industry by an Ontario legislature committee. (Go to the Citizen Association Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
15. Ensuring effective whistleblower protection – Require everyone to report any violation of any law, regulation, policy, code, guideline or rule, and require all watchdog agencies over government (for example: Auditor General, Information and Privacy Commissioner, and Integrity Commissioner) to investigate and rule publicly on allegations of violations, and to penalize violators, to protect anyone (not just employees) who reports a violation (so-called “whistleblowers”) from retaliation, and to reward whistleblowers whose allegations are proven to be true, and to ensure a right to appeal to the courts. (Go to the Protect Whistleblowers Who Protect You Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)
16. Ensuring loophole free laws and strong penalties for wrongdoers – Close any technical and other loopholes that have been identified in laws, regulations, policies, codes, guidelines and rules (especially those regulating government institutions and large corporations) to help ensure strong enforcement, and increase financial penalties for violations to a level that significantly effects the annual revenues/budget of the institution or corporation. (Go to the Campaigns page and the Corporate Responsibility Campaign page for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

Backgrounder on Key Loopholes in Canada’s Lobbying, Ethics, Election, Political Donation and Spending Laws that Allow for Foreign Interference

(June 2024)

---

Foreign-agent registry must cover all foreign-influence activities, not just lobbying

The proposed foreign-agent registry must require anyone or any entity to register if they are paid or compensated in any way, directly or indirectly, by a foreign government, foreign entity or foreigner, or have any other type of arrangement with them, to be involved in Canada in public relations/communications or any political activities aimed at influencing politicians, parties or governments.

If the registry only requires people or entities paid to directly influence Canadian politics (which are the only activities covered by the bills that former Conservative Kenny Chiu and Senator Leo Housakas proposed), then it will require nothing more to be disclosed than what is already disclosed in the federal Registry of Lobbyists (under the federal Lobbying Act), and foreign agents will easily avoid being required to register (as some lobbyists do) by arranging to be compensated for other services or in some other way while doing the influence activities for free.

In June 2024, MPs from all parties approved Bill C-70, which creates a Foreign Influence Registry (FIR), but the bill has huge loopholes in it and the enforcement system will be weak, partisan, political and secretive. Click here to see details.

---

Commissioner of Lobbying and so-called Ethics Committee gutted key ethical lobbying rules in ways that will increase foreign interference

As more than 40 lawyers and professors, and 26 citizen groups, and the Globe and Mail (twice) have called for, the House Ethics Committee must reverse its positions and reject federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger’s gutting last year of key ethical lobbying rules in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct in ways that will make secret interference in elections and secret activities to influence federal MPs easier for China and other foreign governments.

Commissioner Bélanger is gutting key ethical lobbying rules in the Lobbyists’ Code in ways that will allow lobbyists to secretly fundraise unlimited amounts of money for, and do significant campaigning for, politicians and their parties and lobby them at the same time or soon afterwards.

The so-called Ethics Committee also ensured loopholes were added to allow lobbyists to give MPs hundreds of dollars in gifts and meals annually, and also tried to convince the Commissioner to continue to allow lobbyists to give MPs trip junkets worth thousands of dollars annually.

---

Loopholes in lobbying law allow for secret lobbying

The federal Lobbying Act contains huge loopholes that allow for secret lobbying and hiding who is behind and funding influence activities such as ad and social media campaigns that appeal to voters to pressure MPs. Some of the biggest loopholes are:

1. Lobbying and influence activities do not have to be registered, even if they are well-funded efforts by a business or organization, if the people overseeing or doing the activities are not paid specifically to do the lobbying activities;
2. Lobbying and influence activities also do not have to be registered if the lobbying is about the enforcement of a law, a government contract or a tax credit (which businesses mostly lobby about, so these loopholes hide mostly big business lobbying);
3. Businesses and organizations are not required to register and disclose their attempts to influence MPs if their employees all together lobby less than 20% of their work time;
4. Even if a lobbyist, business or organization is required to register and disclose its lobbying, it is allowed to keep secret most of its lobbying communications with politicians, their staff and government officials, and;
5. Even if a business or lobby group is registered, it is not required to disclose its source of funding (other than Canadian government funding) or how much it spends on its lobbying and influence activities.

---

Loopholes in ethics laws allow for unethical decision-making

Federal ethics rules have huge loopholes that allow MPs to have secret jobs, Cabinet ministers and top government officials to have secret investments, and everyone to participate in decisions that they profit from, and to act unethically in many other ways.

The Procedure and House Affairs Committee failed to address any of these loopholes when it reviewed MP ethics rules in secret last year and issued an initial report in June 2022. In fact, the Committee proposed, and the House approved on March 30, 2023, a new loophole in their ethics code that now allows lobby groups, including foreign-government sponsored groups, to pay for interns in MPs’ offices.

The Senate’s ethics code has many of the same loopholes, although it contains a few rules enacted in 2014 that, if the Senate Ethics Officer ever enforces the rules properly, will finally prohibit the unethical business activities and decision-making conflicts of interest by many Senators that the code currently allows.

Federal ethics laws also allow foreign governments and organizations to give MPs and Senators the gift of unlimited trips and junkets, and they are allowed to take their family members, staff and associates with them (known as the “sponsored travel” loophole).

In addition, politicians and public officials are allowed to accept hundreds of dollars worth of gifts each year from anyone, including lobbyists, foreign governments and front groups and individuals they sponsor to interfere in and influence Canadian politics. Incredibly, the Criminal Code of Canada (clauses 121(1)(b) and (c)) and many ethics codes for government employees across Canada, allow politicians and public officials to accept even bigger gifts and benefits as long as their boss approves it.

---

Loopholes in election law makes foreign interference and influence easy

The Canada Elections Act has several flaws that make interference and influence easy by foreign-government connected or sponsored individuals, businesses and organizations, as follows:

1. Individuals, businesses and organizations are allowed to collude with and provide secret support to nomination race contestants and party leadership race contestants;
2. Non-citizens and people who are younger than 18 are allowed to vote in nomination races and party leadership races;
3. The high donation limit of $3,450 annually to each party and its riding associations makes it easy to funnel large donations to candidates and parties through just a few people;
4. The identities of people who donate less than $200 annually are not required to be disclosed, making it easy to funnel donations of less than $200 through many people to candidates and parties;
5. Individuals, businesses and organizations are allowed to funnel money to each other to hide the actual source of funds used in election campaign spending;
6. One wealthy individual, or a business with just a couple of shareholders, or an organization supported by just a couple of voters, is allowed to spend up to $1 million during the pre-election period, and more than $500,000 during the election campaign, trying to influence voters;
7. Nomination race contestants, election candidates, parties and party leadership contestants are allowed to audit their own campaigns, which makes it easy for them to hide illegal donations and spending.

(Click here to see infographic webpage and video about the flaws)

---

Lack of effective honesty-in-politics law makes false claims, misinformation and disinformation legal

Many types of false claims are allowed about election candidates, party leaders and MPs, and no enforcement agency has the power to order social media companies to remove false online posts or ads.

In November 2018, the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Canada Elections (CCE) both told the Senate that one of key rules prohibiting false claims, misinformation and disinformation is essentially unenforceable because it requires the CCE to prove that the statement was intended to influence the election.

As well, the Liberal government’s election integrity plan was too weak and focused on the twin charades of educating citizens to recognize misinformation (which is impossible unless you are an expert in everything) and cooperating with social media companies that continue largely ineffective efforts to stop misinformation.

---

Enforcement watchdogs are handpicked partisan lapdogs who are allowed to issue secret rulings, and can’t be held accountable for failing to enforce the law properly

Enforcement of Canada’s election, political donation, lobbying, ethics, anti-corruption and whistleblower protection laws is very weak, as all the watchdogs are handpicked by Cabinet through secretive, partisan, political appointment processes and they are largely unaccountable even if they don’t enforce the law effectively or properly. All of the watchdogs other than the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Canada Elections can also be re-appointed for more than one term in office solely by the ruling party Cabinet, which creates an incentive for the watchdog, during the last part of each term in office, to rule on situations in ways that please the Cabinet.

The watchdogs are also allowed to refuse to investigate an alleged violation of the law they enforce, even if there is clear evidence of a violation, and even if they do investigate they are allowed to keep their rulings on violations secret, which hides whether they are actually enforcing the law properly. Click here to see how the Ethics Commissioner from 2007 to 2017 made more than 200 secret rulings that let off federal politicians and senior government officials for alleged violations of the federal ethics laws. Click here to see how the Commissioner of Lobbying and RCMP from 2008 to 2017 made almost 90 secret rulings that let off lobbyists for violations of the federal lobbying law. And click here to see how the Commissioner of Canada Elections and Elections Canada kept secret how they dealt with more than 3,000 complaints filed with them between 1997 and 2011 about violations of the federal elections law

The watchdogs also can’t be challenged in court if they fail to do their jobs properly.

Under the RCMP Act, the RCMP Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and the Commanding Officer of each Division of the RCMP, are also all appointed by the federal Cabinet alone (no consultation with the opposition parties is required, nor is an independent, merit-based search for qualified candidates required) and all of them also serve at the pleasure of Cabinet (i.e. they can be fired at any time for any reason).

The Liberal government’s so-called “independent” Critical Election Incident Public Protocol Panel is not independent at all, as it is made up of public servants who were chosen by, and serve at the pleasure of, Prime Minister Trudeau, and the Cabinet Directive for the Protocol has several flaws that allow for coverups of foreign interference. If the Panel members are not fully independent of the government and all political parties, and the flaws in the Protocol are not corrected, then the Panel will continue to cover up foreign interference instead of reporting it publicly and stopping it.

Also, the Trudeau Liberals’ Cabinet Directive for the Protocol has several flaws, as follows:

1. It is not legally binding on the Panel, and there are no penalties if the Panel violates any part of the Protocol;
2. The section 6.0 process sets a much-too-high threshold for informing the public of interference (the interference essentially must threaten the ability of the entire national election to be free and fair);
3. Even if the Panel decides (by consensus) that the interference meets the threshold, the section 5.0 process does not set any deadline by which the Panel is required to inform anyone of the interference;
4. The section 9.0 Assessment also does not set any deadline by which a so-called “independent” report is required to be released about the effectiveness of the Protocol at “addressing threats” during the previous election.
5. The section 9.0 Assessment is done by whomever the ruling party Cabinet chooses, so the assessor is not independent in any way. Trudeau’s Cabinet chose Morris Rosenberg, former head of the Trudeau Foundation when the Foundation received a $200,000 donation donation from two China-connected businessmen, to do the assessment for the 2021 election. Mr. Rosenberg’s contract terms have not been disclosed in the federal government contract registry.

---

Whistleblowers are not protected

People who blow the whistle on wrongdoing in Canada are not protected when blowing the whistle, and are also not protected from retaliation after they report wrongdoing. A key step in effective enforcement to prevent foreign interference is to establish a best-practice whistleblower protection system that protects anyone who blows the whistle on violations of any of the laws/rules listed above, including empowering the independent commissions to pay for a lawyer to advise whistleblowers of their rights, to reward whistleblowers if their claims are proven, and to protect them from retaliation and penalize anyone who retaliates against them.

---

See more details at Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign, Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign, Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign, Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign and Protect Whistleblowers Who Protect You Campaign

(February 2024)

To be eligible to be appointed as a provincial judge in Ontario, a person must either be a lawyer for 10 years, or a lawyer and then working full-time in a position that involves exercising powers and duties that are “judicial in nature” for a combined total of 10 years (See section 42(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43).

In 1988, a Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC) was established to search for and evaluate candidates to be appointed as judges.  The Ontario government’s Attorney General appointed 7 of the 13 members of the JAAC, and the JAAC submitted 2 or more candidates to the Attorney General for each open position.  While not ideal, the system was considered to be one of the leading systems in the world because of its level of independence from, and restriction of, political influence.

The Ontario government enacted Bill 245 in 2021, and Schedule 3 in the bill changed Ontario’s previous judicial appointment system.  The changes proposed to the Courts of Justice Act in Schedule 3 of Bill 245 made the Ontario system more political, partisan and Cabinet-controlled by:

1. Increasing the number of members of Ontario’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC) that the Attorney General appoints from 7 to 10 (of 13 total);
2. Increasing the number of candidates the JAAC sends to the Attorney General for each judge position from 2 or more to 6 or more, and;
3. Empowering the Attorney General to reject the entire list of recommended candidates and ask for a new list of candidates as many times as s/he wants.

Under Ontario’s system, the Attorney General is also allowed to consult with anyone, including ruling party members, about the candidates recommended by the JAAC.

Democracy Watch filed a submission in March 2021 with the committee of the Legislature that reviewed Bill 245 that criticized the negative effects the changes in the Bill would have on the independence and impartiality of Ontario judges.

The Advocates’ Society, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations, the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and several associations representing racialized lawyers also all expressed concerns about the negative effect of Bill 245’s changes on the independence and impartiality of Ontario judges.

All of the above parts of Ontario’s system open up the appointments system to political interference, patronage and cronyism.

Ontario’s 2021 changes made Ontario’s appointment system similar to the federal system (the federal Minister appoints 6 of 7 members of the federal Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs), and the JACs send long lists of candidates to the Minister, who then consults with many ruling party politicians and members).

Democracy Watch has an ongoing court case now at the Federal Court of Appeal challenging the federal government’s system for appointing judges because it is open to political interference that violates the public’s Charter right to impartial courts, and the constitutional principle that guarantees the structural independence of judges so that the public can have confidence in the independence and impartiality of the courts.

Democracy Watch’s position is that the 2021 changes made Ontario’s system for appointing judges similarly unconstitutionally political and partisan.

The constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of judges and the courts has been upheld in several rulings on the measures in Part VII of the Constitution. And sections 7 and 11(d) (and, indirectly, 24(1)) of the Charter have been applied in rulings to ensure impartial court hearings.

Like Ontario’s previous system before 2021, the Minister in Manitoba (section 3.3) and in B.C. (section 21) choose a minority of the members of the advisory committee for their provincial courts (ideally the Cabinet should not choose any of the members).

Much better is Quebec’s system in which the Minister in chooses at most one member (in consultation with others) of the 5-6 member advisory committee (Click here and see sections 14-16 and 26).  Ideally, the Cabinet should not choose any of the members of the committees.

Also like Ontario’s previous system before 2021, the advisory committees in Quebec (section 26) and the UK submit only 1-3 candidates for each open judge position, and the minister is required to choose from that short list (and in the UK where the committee only submits one candidate, the minister must explain in writing to the committee if s/he rejects the recommended candidate).

The 1,815 pages of Trudeau Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin scandal investigation records disclosed in September 2023 by the RCMP to Democracy Watch raise the following serious questions (Click here to see a summary of what the records revealed, and a detailed list of, and links to, the records with page references):

1. When will the RCMP disclose the 2,200 pages of investigation records that it has not disclosed since Democracy Watch requested them in July 2022 under the Access to Information Act?  Why is the RCMP still hiding these records even though its ATIP Branch committed to disclose them in October 2023?
2. Why did the RCMP not even try to apply to court to obtain a search warrant for any of the Trudeau Cabinet documents and records of communications (or parts of the documents or records) that were claimed to be “Cabinet confidences” even though they could have likely obtained some or some parts of the documents and records? And, when former Privy Council Office (PCO) Clerk Michael Wernick testifies before the House Ethics Committee, he must be asked why the PCO/Trudeau Cabinet refused to disclose the documents, especially given that the Cabinet disclosed all Cabinet confidence documents to the inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act?
3. Why did the RCMP only interview three witnesses – former Attorney General and Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould, her assistant Jessica Prince, and former Deputy Minister of Justice Nathalie Drouin (who was appointed Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council in 2021, and then in January was appointed as the PM’s National Security Intelligence Adviser)?
4. Why did the RCMP rely almost entirely on public statements the PM, PMO staff, Cabinet ministers and their staff, and Mr. Wernick made, which of course were all aimed at trying to make it seem like they had done nothing wrong?  And why did the RCMP always characterize their statements in a favourable way whenever possible, and always argue in favour of doubts concerning the success of a prosecution?
5. Why did the RCMP continue to call the investigation an “assessment” even though it was clearly an investigation (was it to hide the fact that they were investigating the Prime Minister and others re: a violation of the Criminal Code)?
6. Why did the RCMP national command wait almost two years (from March 2021 to January 2023) to make its decision to end its superficial investigation of the situation without even doing a full investigation, let alone prosecuting anyone?  Why did the RCMP national command try, through its almost two-year delay, to bury and cover-up its investigation?
7. Who exactly in the RCMP was involved in making the delay decision and the decision not to prosecute anyone?
8. Who did they communicate with while making these delay and failure to prosecute decisions?  Did they communicate with anyone in the PCO or Trudeau Cabinet or Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)?
9. Why did the RCMP’s investigating officer initially establish that, to prove obstruction of justice in court, pressure must have been placed on someone to obstruct a proceeding in the justice system (which the RCMP had clear evidence of), but then switched the standard to require proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere”? and;
10. What were the actual legal reasons no one was prosecuted (the RCMP redacted from the records that were disclosed last September the legal opinion it received)?  Who made the decision not to prosecute, and who did they communicate with when making the decision?  Did they communicate with anyone in the PCO or Trudeau Cabinet or PMO?

The rules in Canada for donations and loans to political parties are unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and rigged in favour of a few wealthy voters, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks, and is essentially a legalized bribery system

The only way to stop the unethical influence of big money donations and loans is to prohibit big money donations and loans

This video gives a brief summary of key facts and figures, and all the details are set out below

---

---

Voters are allowed to donate thousands
to federal political parties each year

The amount that a voter is allowed to donate each year to a federal political party grows each year by $25, so the amount was $1,525 in 2016 and the amount in 2024 is $1,725.

Each voter is also allowed in 2024 to donate another $1,725 to each party’s riding associations.

So the total amount each voter is allowed to donate in 2024 to each federal party and its riding associations is $3,450.

Wealthy nomination contestants that can afford it are also allowed to donate an additional $1,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy election candidates are allowed to donate an additional $5,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy party leadership contestants are allowed to donate an additional $25,000 to their own campaign.

---

---

But a large majority of voters only donate about $75 a year

Do you have an extra $3,450 laying around to donate to a federal party?

Did you know that, on average from 2016 to 2022, out of every 100 donors to the main Canadian federal political parties, approximately 75 donors donated only about $75 each year?

To see details about donations to the main federal parties from 2016 to 2022, click here.

NOTE: 2023 donation figures are not included in these calculations because final statistics for the number of voters who donated various amounts to a federal party in 2023 will not be available until summer 2023. To see the 2023 statistics that are available, click here.

---

Only about 5% of donors donate more than $1,000 to a federal party

Did you know that only about 5 out of every 100 donors donates more than $1,000 a year?

To put it another way, out of more than 27 million voters, on average only about 11,000 voters donate more than $1,000 a year to any of the main federal parties.

---

Wealthy donors use their big donations to buy influence

Because their donations are so much bigger than what most people give, those 11,000 donors, which again are only about 5% of all donors each year, donate on average

• about 40% of the total amount donated each year to the Liberal Party
• about 30% of the total amount donated to the Conservative Party
• about 20% of the total amount donated to the NDP
• about 17% of the total amount donated to Green Party
• and about 11% of the total amount donated each year to the Bloc Quebecois

Donors who donate $1,000 or more donated on average 30% of the total average amount raised by the 5 main parties each year from 2016 to 2022.

So those wealthy donors who donate more than $1,000 are very valuable to the main federal parties, especially to the Liberals and Conservatives.

Studies conducted worldwide have shown that the best way to influence someone’s decisions is to give them something or do them a favour, and big money donors give a lot to politicians, which is a huge favour for them. Click here to see a summary of these studies.

There have been examples across Canada of wealthy donors using big donations to gain access to, and influence, politicians:

• at the federal level with the SNC-Lavalin scandal;
• and also at the federal level when B.C. donors donated to Ontario and Quebec ridings;
• and when Quebec construction firm executives made large federal donations;
• and in Ontario with the Greenbelt scandal;
• also in Ontario with the Hydro One scandal;
• in Alberta with the labour law scandal;
• and elsewhere.

To see details about the top donors to the main federal parties, click here.

NOTE: 2023 donation figures are not included in these calculations because final statistics for the number of voters who donated various amounts to a federal party in 2023 will not be available until summer 2023. However, the available 2023 statistics show that donors who donated $1,000 or more donated about 46% of the total amount raised by the Liberals; about 35% of the Conservative total; about 19% of the NDP and Green Party total; about 17% of the PPC total, and about 15% of the Bloc total. To see the 2023 statistics that are available, click here.

Of course, parties supported most by wealthy donors benefit most from big money donations, as do nomination contestants, election candidates and party leadership contestants who are supported by wealthy donors.

Canada’s big money donation system also favours wealthy nomination contestants as they are allowed to donate an additional $1,000 to their own campaign, wealthy election candidates as they are allowed to donate an additional $5,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy party leadership contestants as they are allowed to donate an additional $25,000 to their own campaign.

---

Allowing big money donations also makes it easy to funnel large amounts of money to parties, including from foreign governments

Also, while it is illegal for a business, union, organization or voter to funnel money through other voters, because voters are allowed to donate more than $3,000 a year to federal political parties and their riding associations, it is easy to funnel tens of thousands of dollars annually.

Big businesses and other organizations can do this easily by giving their executives a bonus each year that they donate to the party that does the most for the business or organization.

It is impossible to charge or prosecute any business or organization that does this because all the executives have to do is say that they donated with their own money.

In fact, this has happened at the federal level and in every province and territory because they all, except Quebec, allow donations of more than $1,000 annually.  To see details about all of these donation-funneling schemes across Canada, click here.

When big money donations are allowed, it also makes it easier for foreign governments to funnel large amounts of money through individuals and lobby groups to influence Canadian politicians and parties.

---

No matter what problems concern you, as long as wealthy interests can use big money donations to influence politicians, it is unlikely politicians will solve the problems that concern you.

Democracy Watch needs your support now to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money on politicians across Canada!

Please donate now at: https://democracywatch.ca/donate/

And please go to StopBigMoney.ca and join the tens of thousands of voters calling for these and other key changes to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money on politicians across Canada!

---

Only about 240,000 voters donate to a federal party each year, and 9 out of 10 donate less than $500

What about the people in the middle of the 5% or so of wealthy big money donors who donate more than $1,000 and the 75% or so of donors who donate only about $75 a year?

Only 6 out of every 100 donors donates between $500 and $1,000, while 16 out of every 100 donors donates between $200 and $500.

Only a very small percentage of Canadians donate to any of the main federal political parties.  Out of more than 27 million voters, only about 240,000 donate each year, less than 1% of all voters:

• about 173,000 voters donate only about $75 each year
• about 38,000 donate between $200 and $500
• about 15,000 donate between $500 and $1,000
• and again only about 11,000 donate more than $1,000

In total, all the voters together donate an average of about $52 million each year to the main federal political parties.

To see details about donations to the main federal parties from 2016 to 2022, click here.

---

Federal parties spend most of what they raise each year, and rely on unethical big money loans from banks to pay for their election campaigns

However, most of the main federal parties spend almost all of the money they raise each year, and so when an election happens they don’t have very much money to pay for their election campaign.

So what do they do?  The 3 main parties, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP, get huge loans of millions of dollars from banks and other financial institutions to pay 70% to 80% of their total election costs (and sometimes even more).

These banks and other financial institutions are covered by the federal Bank Act which is under the control of federal politicians.  So giving these loans is a huge favour that the banks do for the main parties, a favour that creates an appearance of a conflict of interest for all the politicians in these parties.

To see details about bank loans to parties, click here.

---

Tens of millions of your tax money is given to the parties each year, mostly to help wealthy donors and the big parties

Canadian taxpayers support the main political parties just as much.  Parties that receive more than 2% of the total number of votes each election – or 5% of the total votes in the ridings where the party runs candidates – get half, 50%, of the money they spent on the election back, reimbursed with our tax money.

Also, election candidates from any party who win 10% or more of the total votes in their riding get 60% of the money they spent on their election back.

On average, the 5 main federal parties all together receive about $34 million back after each election, and their candidates receive about $29 million in total back, paid for with our tax money.

Only 1 other party in one election (the People’s Party of Canada in 2021), and only a few other candidates in each election, have received these taxpayer subsidies since 2004.

To see details about how much the federal election reimbursement system is unfair and favours the main parties, click here.

You may be thinking – but aren’t small donations and big money donations equalized because small donors are allowed to deduct most of their donation from their taxes?

It’s true that all Canadians support federal political parties through the tax system as part of a donation can be deducted from income tax that a donor pays.

But, as with donations, the income tax deduction favours wealthy donors.

First, you have to pay taxes to benefit from the deduction, so people with low incomes, even if they have money to donate to a party, don’t benefit from the deduction because they don’t pay income tax.

Secondly, wealthy voters who make big money donations claim most of the tax deduction.  On average from 2017 to 2020, voters who earn $100,000 or more claimed almost half, 50%, of the about $27 million in total tax deductions claimed each year for donations to federal political parties.

Meanwhile, voters who earn $45,000 or less, the amount most voters make each year, only claimed 13% of all the tax deductions for donations.

To see details about who claims tax deductions, click here.

---

Conclusion: We need to prohibit big money donations and loans and, if public funding is given, make it democratic

So that’s how the rules in Canada for donations and loans to political parties are unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and rigged in favour of a few wealthy voters, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks, and is essentially a legalized bribery system:

1. A small number of wealthy voters donates a large part of the money each of the main federal parties raise each year (especially to the Liberals and Conservatives).
2. The system favours wealthy contestants and candidates – if they can afford it, nomination contestants are allowed to donate an additional $1,000 to their own campaign; election candidates are allowed to donate an additional $5,000 to their own campaign, and party leadership contestants are allowed to donate an additional $25,000 to their own campaign.
3. A small number of banks loan the main parties 70% to 80% of the total amount of money they spend each election.
4. All taxpayers give about $27 million each year to the main parties in subsidies through tax deductions that mostly go to their wealthy big money donors.
5. And after each election all taxpayers give the main parties about $34 million, and their candidates about $29 million, in direct reimbursements of 50% and 60% of the money they spent on their election campaign.

None of this is fair, ethical or democratic.

If we want to have a fair, democratic political system that is not corrupted by wealthy big money interests, the amount that a voter is allowed to donate to each party should be limited to the amount most voters give – only about $75 a year.

And the amount that any voter can loan to a party should also be limited to $75.

If the amount that a voter is allowed to donate and loan to each party is limited to only $75, which is again the amount that about 75% of donors donate each year, what would happen?

The main political parties would likely claim that they would have much less money than they have now, and that would cause problems for them reaching and informing voters, running their operations, and running their election campaigns.

But these would be false claims.

Remember, only about 240,000 out of more than 27 million voters currently donate to any of the main federal parties each year.  So the parties have more than 26 million other voters they could get donations from to make up the amount they would lose from stopping big money donations and limiting donations to $75 each year.

About 1 million voters belong to the 5 main federal parties.  So all the parties have to do is get about 500,000 more of those 1 million voters to donation $75 each a year and they would raise the same amount of money they raise currently each year. Again, that’s only about 500,000 extra new donors out of the total of more than 26 million voters who currently don’t donate to any federal party.

The Conservatives would need to convince about 220,000 more voters to donate to them, the Liberals about 170,000, the NDP about 63,000, the Greens about 30,000 and the Bloc about 10,000.

NOTE: 2023 donation figures are not included in the calculations in the above chart because final statistics for the number of voters who donated various amounts to a federal party in 2023 will not be available until summer 2023. To see the 2023 statistics that are available, click here.

Lowering the donation limit to $75 a year would make all the parties more connected with more voters, and more connected with the concerns of more voters, which is democratic.

Lowering the donation limit to $75 a year would also prohibit wealthy individuals and businesses and lobby groups (including foreign government-sponsored lobby groups) from using big money donations and big money fundraising events as a way of unethically influencing the decisions of politicians and party leaders.

With a donation limit of $75 a year, the only voters who should receive a tax deduction or subsidy for making a donation should be voters who have very low incomes.

What if the parties can’t raise as much as they raise now if donations are limited to $75 a year?

If the parties claim they can’t raise enough from donations to inform voters and run their offices, or that they can’t save some of their money each year so that they have enough to pay for their next election campaign, they should be required to prove both those claims before they are given any public funding.

If the parties can prove either of these claims, the best way to provide public funding is to match the donations the parties raise with public funding, so that the parties always have to convince voters to donate in order to get public funding.

If matching donations still doesn’t give the parties enough to run their election campaigns, a public fund should be set up to lend them money for their campaign based on the number of candidates each party has.

This will stop the Big Banks from buying influence by giving the parties big loans worth millions of dollars for their election campaigns.

And, to make the public election subsidies fair, every party should receive 50% of the money they spend on elections back from public funds, and every candidate should receive 60% of what they spend back.

Making these changes will make Canada’s political donations and loans system fair and democratic, instead of unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and rigged in favour of a few wealthy voters, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks.

Making these changes will also help stop foreign interference in Canadian politics.

These same changes are also needed in all provinces and territories except Quebec which already has a $100 limit on donations each year and donation-matching public funding. 

Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Yukon have no limits on donations, and still allow donations from businesses, unions and organizations even from outside the province or territory.  They are the most undemocratic and unethical jurisdictions in Canada with their “best government money can buy” systems.

But all other provinces and territories also still allow big money interest to unethically influence politicians and parties, as they all still allow individual voters to donate from $1,200 up to $10,000 dollars annually to parties and their riding associations, which is much more than most voters can afford.

---

No matter what problems concern you, as long as wealthy interests can use big money donations to influence politicians, it is unlikely politicians will solve the problems that concern you.

Democracy Watch needs your support now to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money on politicians across Canada!

Please donate now at: https://democracywatch.ca/donate/

And please go to StopBigMoney.ca and join the tens of thousands of voters calling for these and other key changes to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money on politicians across Canada!

Backgrounder on Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein’s negligently bad enforcement record and the 6 new loopholes he has created in federal ethics laws
(February 7, 2024)

---

Konrad von Finckenstein was handpicked in secret by the Trudeau Cabinet and appointed Interim Ethics Commissioner at the end of August 2023, replacing Mario Dion who resigned last February due to health reasons, and replacing Martine Richard who served briefly as Interim Ethics Commissioner but resigned after serious questions were raised about her independence and impartiality given she is Trudeau Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc’s sister-in-law.

In addition to being handpicked in secret by the ruling party Cabinet, Mr. von Finckenstein has a long history in the federal bureaucracy, as well as ties to big businesses, that raise serious questions about his independence and impartiality.  Mario Dion was also handpicked in secret by the Trudeau Cabinet, and also had a long history in the federal bureaucracy, and a record of 8 unethical actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner.

Mr. von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints with secret rulings that let off everyone who was alleged to have violated conflict of interest or other ethics rules, based on what is known so far since September when he started his 6-month term in the position of Interim Ethics Commissioner.

In September he testified before the House Ethics Committee that he had “Eight open cases, which involve 11 people” (p. 3 of testimony).  Then in October he testified again and said that the cases were “gone” (p. 18 of testimony).  He has not issued any rulings finding anyone guilty, which means he let off all 11 of the alleged wrongdoers.

While Mr. von Finckenstein refused DWatch’s request that he disclose all 8 rulings (even though nothing in the Conflict of Interest Act nor in ss. 27(5.1) of the MP Code prohibits such disclosure), 2 of the 8 rulings address complaints that DWatch filed.

The first ruling is about DWatch’s complaint alleging Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Act by appointing his long-time friend David Johnston to investigate the PM’s actions on foreign interference.  Mr. von Finckenstein refused to even investigate the complaint based on the bizarre claim that the PM has a “constitutional prerogative” to appoint whomever he wants to any public office.  This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that allows the PM to appoint family, relatives and close friends to any federal government position.

The second ruling is about DWatch’s complaint requesting an investigation into Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who is Trudeau’s senior B.C. minister, participating in meetings concerning B.C.-based Teck Resources Ltd. (which lobbied Wilkinson six times while his spouse has significant investments in financial institutions that are among the top investors in Teck).  Mr. von Finckenstein also refused to even investigate the situation based on the equally bizarre claim that the private interests “are too remote and speculative to cause them to conflict” with Wilkinson’s public duties.  This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent that allows Cabinet ministers and top government officials to participate in decisions when they have a financial conflict of interest.

Mr. von Finckenstein has also created 6 new loopholes in federal ethics laws to add to the 10 huge loopholes in the MP Code and the 10 huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act that applies to the PM, Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, Cabinet appointees and top government officials.

The 6 new loopholes Mr. von Finckenstein has created are as follows:

1. He is doubling from $30,000 to $60,000 the value of shares that Cabinet staff and top government officials can own in businesses they regulate or make decisions about, (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #3 re: Doubling the minimum value exemption and #4 re: CER appointees). This will allow Cabinet staff, top government officials and CER appointees to be in a direct, significant financial conflict of interest and to profit from the decisions they make.
2. He is now allowing members of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to secretly invest in energy companies, which is possibly why the CER just approved Trans Mountain Corp. changing its pipeline construction plan. (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #4 re: CER appointees).
3. He is now allowing the Prime Minister to appoint anyone to any government position, even family members and friends (like David Johnston) even when they are investigating wrongdoing by the PM. As mentioned above, see for details his ruling on DWatch’s complaint alleging Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Act by appointing his long-time friend David Johnston to investigate the PM’s actions on foreign interference. Mr. von Finckenstein refused to even investigate the complaint based on the bizarre claim that the PM has a “constitutional prerogative” to appoint whomever he wants to any public office.
4. He is now allowing Cabinet ministers and top government officials to participate in a decision-making process even if their spouses have significant financial interests that will be affect by the decision. As mentioned above, see for details his ruling on DWatch’s complaint requesting an investigation into Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who is Trudeau’s senior B.C. minister, participating in meetings concerning B.C.-based Teck Resources Ltd. (which lobbied Wilkinson six times while his spouse has significant investments in financial institutions that are among the top investors in Teck). Mr. von Finckenstein also refused to even investigate the situation based on the equally bizarre claim that the private interests “are too remote and speculative to cause them to conflict” with Wilkinson’s public duties.
5. He is now allowing Cabinet staff and top government officials to leave their position and move to another position in the government, or take a contract with the government, without any cooling-off period, even if the position conflicts with the past position. He is doing this because, he told the House Ethics Committee in October, he believes “there cannot be any conflict of interest between different government departments or agencies” and no one in government ever has “confidential information that would be harmful to the government” (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #1 re: Definition of the term “entity”).  Among many other conflicts of interest between government departments, his interpretation ignores the obvious reality that the interests and information held by ministers and their staff directly conflict with the interests of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that enforces laws that apply to the minister and his/her department.  It also ignores the reason for the cooling-off period, which is to prevent ministerial staff from developing relationships with top department officials and then receiving preferential treatment in hiring processes.
6. He has set a precedent by deciding not to investigate ethics complaints about a former MP simply because the MP is no longer an MP, which means all MPs have to do is hide their wrongdoing until they resign or retire or are defeated and then they will never be found guilty of violating the law. Mr. von Finckenstein disclosed when he testified on January 20, 2024 before the House Ethics Committee that he had decided not to investigate 4 complaints about a former MP solely because the MP was no longer an MP.

See more on Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign
and Government Ethics Campaign pages.

Background on the Trudeau Cabinet’s partisan, political, secretive and dishonest appointment processes for Ethics Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying and other key democracy watchdogs

Through 2016, the Trudeau Cabinet claimed that it was changing the Cabinet appointment process for key democratic good government watchdogs and other positions.  In fact, the Trudeau government did not change the appointment process at all other than adding the objective of diversity.

Then, in 2016-2017, the Trudeau Cabinet used the usual Cabinet-controlled, partisan and political process for appointing various democracy watchdogs.

With the Ethics Commissioner appointment process, the Trudeau Cabinet first misled opposition parties, the media and the public by falsely claiming there were no qualified candidates for Ethics Commissioner, and by falsely claiming that it had made the appointment process merit-based.

In a blatant violation of the federal Access to Information Act (ATIA), the Trudeau Cabinet hid the records for two years that made it clear there were five qualified candidates for Ethics Commissioner by spring 2017, and also qualified candidates for the position of Commissioner of Lobbying.

The Cabinet is still hiding the records concerning the appointment of Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger, also in violation of the ATIA.

Through the 2016-2017 time period, the Trudeau Cabinet reappointed then-Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to three 6-month interim terms after her 7-year term was over, as long as she kept letting Trudeau and her Cabinet ministers off for clear violations of ethics rules.

Then, in November 2017, suddenly Mary Dawson was informed she would not be renewed for another term after she informed Trudeau that she was going to find him guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act for accepting the gifts of family trips to the Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas, and after Democracy Watch challenged her short-term reappointments in court.

To replace Dawson, the Trudeau Cabinet handpicked in secret Mario Dion as Ethics Commissioner, even though he had a record of 8 unethical actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner.

The Cabinet failed to consult in any meaningful way with opposition parties about the appointment of Dion as Ethics Commissioner and Bélanger as Commissioner of Lobbying.  All Trudeau did was send the opposition party leaders a letter saying the Cabinet had chosen Dion and Bélanger and the opposition leaders had seven days to let the Cabinet know what they thought about those choices.

Concerning other federal democratic good government watchdogs, former Ontario Liberal MPP Madeleine Meilleur admitted in spring 2017 before a House Committee that when she was considering ending her political career she had talked with Trudeau’s then-senior adviser Gerald Butts, and also his Chief of Staff Katie Telford, and asked to be appointed as federal Commissioner of Official Languages. Her statement became so politically costly to the Trudeau Cabinet that she ended up withdrawing her candidacy.

After Julie Payette resigned from her Governor General position in 2021, the Trudeau Cabinet admitted that she was not properly vetted for the position.

The Trudeau Cabinet has also handpicked, through partisan, political Cabinet-controlled processes, all of Canada’s other current democratic good government watchdogs: the Chief Electoral Officer (who was switched by the Trudeau Cabinet for secret reasons); Auditor General; Information Commissioner; Privacy Commissioner; Parliamentary Budget Officer, and; the Governor General (who plays a key role in judging whether a prorogation or snap election should be allowed, and who governs after an election).

Democracy Watch has won for you more than 200 democracy, bank accountability and corporate responsibility changes to federal, provincial, territorial and municipal laws across Canada (See details below).

Between now and 2026 is the biggest window of opportunity in decades to win more key democracy, bank accountability and corporate responsibility changes across Canada. Please click here now to support the campaigns winning these key changes.

No matter what issue or problem concerns you about governments or big businesses, these changes will help stop their bad decisions and abuses of power that harm you, your family, the environment and your community.

When Democracy Watch started up in fall 1993, all of the following undemocratic, unethical and secretive political and big business activities were legal across Canada (with just a few exceptions):

1. Unlimited donations to political parties and politicians from businesses, unions, other wealthy private interests and wealthy individuals (except in Quebec)
2. Secret donations to riding associations
3. Unlimited spending during elections by businesses, unions and other wealthy private interests and wealthy individuals (except in Quebec)
4. Secret lobbying
5. Unethical decision-making by politicians and government officials
6. Unethical lobbying
7. False claims in government budgets and spending announcements
8. Politicians having secret trust funds
9. The PM and Premiers calling unfair snap elections
10. Politicians leaving their position and becoming lobbyists right away
11. Big businesses making decisions and doing things only to boost their profits
12. Banks gouging and putting unlimited holds on cheques, and refusing to open accounts for people with low incomes
13. Banks dodging billions in taxes every year

and

1. Ethics laws or codes for politicians and government officials didn’t even exist in most parts of Canada (except in SK and for federal Cabinet ministers, but both were full of loopholes)
2. Government officials enforced their own ethics standards (usually letting each other off for clear violations)
3. Politicians enforced their own ethics rules
4. Federal Cabinet ministers essentially enforced their own secrecy rules
5. Federal politicians enforced many of the rules for Canada’s Big Banks and insurance companies that gave big donations to the politicians and their parties
6. The fines for violating federal lobbying and election laws were too weak to discourage violations
7. Whistleblowers were not protected from retaliation when they reported wrongdoing
8. Banks faced a max. $500,000 penalty for violating consumer protection laws

After all these campaigns Democracy Watch has led, almost always by organizing and coordinating a national coalition of citizen groups to push all together for key changes, and filing strategic lawsuits

And with the support of people from across Canada

 

And after an average of 700 media appearances every year (click here to see details)

Many undemocratic, unethical and secretive political and big business activities are now illegal:

1. Donations by businesses, unions and other wealthy interests are banned almost everywhere in Canada (except in Saskatchewan (SK), Newfoundland (NF) and the Yukon (YK))
2. Donations by individuals to political parties and politicians are limited to $100 annually (in Quebec) or $1,000 up to a few thousand dollars annually (everywhere else, except again in SK, NF and YK)
3. Donations to riding associations are required to be disclosed publicly at least every year
4. Spending is limited during elections by businesses, unions and other wealthy private interests and wealthy individuals (except again in SK, NF and YK)
5. Truth-in-budgeting watchdogs have been established at the federal level and in Ontario
6. Politicians secret trust funds have been banned
7. Ethics laws or codes have been enacted for politicians and government officials across Canada (although they have loopholes in them)
8. Most lobbying is required to be disclosed publicly across Canada
9. Ethics rules for lobbyists exist at the federal level, and in Ontario and B.C.
10. Federal politicians who leave their positions are banned for 5 years from most lobbying
11. Election dates are fixed somewhat at the federal level and in every province and territory
12. Big businesses are now allowed to, and in some ways required to, make decisions and do things to protect the interests of all stakeholders
13. Bank cheque holds are limited and they are required to open accounts for people with low incomes
14. Banks are required to issue an annual Public Accountability Statement that discloses changes to their services across Canada
15. Banks are now paying an excess profits tax and some of their tax-dodging loopholes are being closed

and

1. Ethics watchdogs have been established to enforce ethics rules that apply to politicians and government officials across Canada (and, even though the watchdogs are not as independent as they should be, the Prime Minister and several federal and provincial Cabinet ministers have been found guilty of violating ethics rules)
2. Lobbying watchdogs have been established to enforce lobbying transparency rules across Canada (and to enforce ethical lobbying rules at the federal level and in Ontario and B.C., and even though the watchdogs are not as independent as they should be, several lobbyists have been found guilty of violating the rules)
3. The fines for illegal lobbying and illegal election activities at the federal level have been doubled
4. The federal Information Commissioner now has the power to order the release of federal government information
5. Bank gouging is now monitored by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC)
6. Banks face a max. $50 million penalty for violating consumer protection laws
7. Whistleblowers are protected in some ways when they report government and big business wrongdoing at the federal level, and in Ontario and Alberta

To see details about all these changes, click here.

But we need your support now to win even more changes to protect you and your family and the environment and your community from abuses and gouging.

No matter what issue or problem concerns you about governments or big businesses, these changes will help stop their bad decision and abuses of power that harm you, your family, the environment and your community.

How will these changes help? The changes we are going to win will require politicians and big business executives to be more honest, ethical, open and waste-preventing, and make them more accountable to you and all voters, which help stop their abuses of power.

Federal politicians, and politicians in Ontario, B.C., Manitoba and other provinces, will be reviewing their 7 key democracy laws, and key big bank, insurance and big business accountability laws, over the next couple of years. We need your support now to build 8 national coalitions, and to win 6 key lawsuits, all aimed at winning key changes:

• to stop the influence of big money interests completely (including foreign-funded groups)
• to stop all secret, unethical lobbying (including by foreign-backed lobby groups)
• to stop all excessive government secrecy
• to ban all secret investments by politicians and government officials in businesses they regulate
• to stop all unethical decisions by politicians, their staff, and government officials
• to stop all false claims that mislead voters
• to stop all unfair snap elections
• to stop all gouging by Canada’s big banks, insurance companies, TV, cell phone and Internet companies and other big business abuses of power
• to protect all whistleblowers who report wrongdoing
• to stop politicians choosing their own watchdogs (who often return the favour by acting like lapdogs)
• to ensure strong, independent, effective and quick enforcement of all rules
• and to ensure high penalties for all violations.

Please click here now and become 1 of the 1,000 Canadians giving $5-10 a month to make winning these changes possible

Thank you!  And please Share this page with anyone you think may be interested in helping win these key changes.