Please support democracy

Without your support, Democracy Watch can't win key changes to stop governments and big businesses from abusing their power and hurting you and your family. Please click here to support democracy now

Three key political finance questions for federal party leaders

Which financial institution gave them an election loan? For how much? What will their deficit/surplus be after election subsidies are received?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, November 6, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than 3 million members), joined by almost 90,000 voters, called on the media to ask federal party leaders 3 key questions that will very likely effect the timing of the next election:

  1. Which financial institution gave them a loan to pay their election expenses?
  2. How much was the loan?
  3. What will their estimated deficit/surplus be in 4 months after they receive the subsidies the public pays for any candidate or party that wins 10% of the popular vote?

The parties know the details of their loans, and can now make fairly accurate projections, based on the election results and past fundraising patterns for November-January post-election periods, of what their financial position will be mid-February when they receive the post-election subsidies.

The public has a right to know this information, and shouldn’t have to wait and always be guessing the financial position of the parties, especially not in a minority government situation when the finances of each party is a big factor affecting when the next election will happen, given the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Bloc (and, possibly the Greens) all some power in making that decision. Unfortunately, due to unwritten rules, the Prime Minister still has the most power, and the ability to abuse that power.

“The public has a right to know which financial institutions bankrolled the parties’ election campaigns, and what the debt levels are of each party, as those are major factors in federal Cabinet ministers’ and MPs’ conflicts of interest concerning banking law decisions, and in the timing of the next election given the minority government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “Hopefully the media will ask the federal party leaders the key questions about the state of their party finances, and they will soon give the public the information they have a right to know.”

“Banks and other financial institutions should not be allowed to loan parties and candidates any more than individuals are allowed to donate, as it creates a real conflict of interest for federal ministers and MPs,” said Conacher. “Instead, any loans should come from a public fund, but only after parties can prove they actually need the money to reach voters and run election campaigns.”

The media hasn’t paid much attention to these key questions, and any coverage is always out of date by six months or more because of weak federal party finance disclosure rules. Looking over the past year, there is only this CBC article about the financial status of most of the main federal parties as of December 31, 2018, and then this follow-up CBC article about the NDP’s finances as of December 31, 2018. This Canadian Press article a couple of months later covered the same figures for 2018.

The CBC then did this article about the parties’ first-quarter fundraising totals, and this iPolitics article summarized the parties’ fundraising totals for 2019 up to June 30, 2019. However, neither of these articles contain any statistics on how much the parties spent up to June 30, 2019, or after.

As a result, no one except the parties knew how much money they had in the bank when the federal election began, nor how big their loans are, from which financial institution(s). Voters have a right to know before they vote who bankrolled each party’s, and each candidate’s, campaign, but this information is still hidden from them by weak disclosure rules.

Many commentators were saying at the beginning of the election that the Conservatives had tons of money for their campaign, the Liberals had an adequate amount of money, the Greens had some money, and that the NDP was in a lot of debt. But all of those comments were inaccurate guesses based on the information in the above articles, none of which took into account what the parties spent since Jan. 1, 2019.

For example, the Conservatives had $9.9 million in the bank at the end of 2018, and raised $16.5 million up June 30, 2019, and may have raised $5 million up to the beginning of the election. However, they may have spent $25 million from January to September 2019, which means they may have actually only had $6.4 million in the bank going into the election.

As a result, if the Conservatives planned to spend the full estimated $28 million allowed (under the election spending limit) on their campaign, they must have had a loan or loans of about $21 million from some financial institution or institutions.

The Liberals had $2.3 million in the bank at the end of 2018, and raised $8.85 million up to June 30, 2019, and may have raised $3.5 million up to the beginning of the election. However, they may have spent $10 million so far in 2019, which means they may have actually only had $4.65 million in the bank going into the election campaign, and likely needed a loan or loans of about $23 million in order to spend the maximum allowed during the election campaign.

The other parties have also likely gone into debt with a loan or loans from a financial institution(s). If any party’s loan(s) come from a bank, the bank is regulated by the federal government under the Bank Act, so the bank will have done a huge favour to the party by lending them millions for their election campaign.

Democracy Watch’s position is that loans to parties should be limited just like donations are, to prevent the conflict of interest created by the big banks lending so much money to the federal parties’ election campaigns. It would be much more democratic if election loans to parties came from a public fund, with the amount each party would be allowed to borrow based on the number of donors and members it has, combined with the average amount it has raised in the previous two years.

Many other changes are needed to make Canada’s political finance system democratic and ethical. See details on Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign page.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Backgrounder on Key Changes to Ensure Honest, Fair Canadian Elections

BACKGROUNDER
(October 28, 2019)

Democracy Watch testified at the House Committee’s hearings on Bill C-76 in June 2018 and highlighted all the serious flaws in the bill that are set out below, along with 20 or so other changes needed to ensure fair, democratic elections and strong enforcement – changes that Democracy Watch submitted to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform and to the government in fall 2016.

Democracy Watch’s recommendations were almost completely ignored by the Trudeau Liberals, as were the recommendations of many experts, a House Committee (made up of a majority of Liberal MPs), the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

The key changes needed to ensure honest, fair, democratic federal elections in the future are as follows:

To stop secret, fake online election advertising by anyone (not just foreigners)

  1. Bill C-76 only prohibited big social media companies from knowingly running an ad paid for by a foreigner or foreign entity (section 190 of the Bill, adding new subsection 282.4(5) to the CEA), and requires them to publish a registry of election-related ads and maintain it for two years (section 208.1 of the Bill, adding new section 325.1 to the CEA). Those measures will do nothing to stop secret, fake online election ads paid for by Canadians or Canadian entities, and will do little to stop foreign-paid ads as the social media companies will just claim they didn’t know the ads were paid for by foreigners.
To see details of the key changes needed to actually stop secret, false, online election ads by foreigners and Canadians, click here.

To require honesty by everyone during the pre-election and election periods

  1. Bill C-76 does nothing to strengthen subsection 482(b)) of the Canada Elections Act, which prohibits false election promises by parties and candidates but needs to be strengthened because the Commissioner of Canada Elections negligently refuses to enforce it. The Commissioner responded to Democracy Watch’s complaint about Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau baiting voters with his false promise of electoral reform during the 2015 election with a decision refusing to enforce the rule;
  2. Bill C-76 also made false claims about candidates legal by narrowing the rule that prohibit false claims, and requiring proof of intent to affect the election (section 91 of the Canada Elections Act). The current rule prohibits any false claim “in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate or prospective candidate.” Bill C-76 narrows the rule so it only covers false claims that these people (or a party leader or officials) violated the law or have been charged or investigated for a violation, and false claims about the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of these people. Senators tried to amend Bill C-76 to restore the broader rule but the amendment was rejected.
  3. The words in section 91 requiring that to charge someone with making a false claim you have to prove they made the claim with the “intention of affecting the results of an election” also must be deleted because it is almost impossible in many cases that they had that intention (the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections both called for this change, and the change summarized above in #2, when testifying before the Senate Committee that review Bill C-76).

To stop wealthy interests from dominating pre-election and election campaigns

  1. Bill C-76 more than doubled the spending limits for third party interest groups and individuals during election campaigns from approximately $200,000 up to $500,000 (section 224 of Bill C-76 changing subsections 350(1) to 350(4.1) of the Canada Elections Act (CEA)). The Trudeau Cabinet claimed this increase was needed because the spending limit is being extended to cover election surveys and “partisan activities” such as door-knocking, phone calls and rallies. However, only citizen groups do those kinds of activities (businesses usually only spend money on ads), and social media and email have significantly lowered ad costs for third parties. The limit for ad spending should be decreased back to at least $200,000 (if not lower, an assessment is needed to determine the actual current costs of reaching voters across Canada), and new, separate limits should be set for spending on surveys, and spending on partisan activities.
  2. Bill C-76 also set meaninglessly high limits of $1.5 million for party ad spending and $1 million for third-party (interest group) ad spending during the 60-75 days before the election campaign period begins (section 223 of Bill C-76, adding sections 349.1 to 349.94 to the CEA). The pre-electionm limits are meaningless because, as this past summer proved, it is highly unlikely that any party or third-party will spend anywhere near those amounts during July and August – the only times the limits apply (as the pre-campaign limits only apply when the election is held on the fixed election date of the third Monday in October). As well, the pre-campaign limit only applies to “partisan advertising” that promotes or opposes a party or a candidate, not to issue-based advertising. The limit should be lowered, and extended to cover issue ads.
  3. Bill C-76 also didn’t lower the much too high donations limits that allow wealthy people to use money as a way to influence politicians, including the annual individual donation limits for 2019 of $1,600 to each party and another $1,600 to the riding associations of each party (both increase each year by $25). Bill C-76 also doesn’t lower the $5,000 amount an election candidate can give to their own campaign or the $25,000 a party leadership candidate can give to their campaign. To actually have a democratic political finance system, all these limits shold be lowered to $100 and, if the parties can prove they need it, per-vote and matching public funding should be established.
To see details, click here.

To protect privacy of voters, and all Canadians

Bill C-76 also didn’t do enough to require political parties to protect the private, personal information they collect about voters, as it only requires that they publish their privacy protection policy on their website (sections 254-255 of the Bill, changing section 385 and adding section 385.1 to the CEA) instead of extending federal privacy laws to cover parties.

The House of Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics issued its report in December 2018 on stopping secret, false online election ads, and protecting voters’ privacy, and recommendations 1-3, 6-8, 10, 19, 22-24 match the changes that Democracy Watch has been calling for in these areas.

More celebrities coming to the VoteParty.ca to help young voters Make a #VoteDate — National #VoteParty on October 21st

Celebrity promo videos showing before movies in 160 Cineplex theatres across Canada

Please air the videos as PSAs on your TV or radio station (the audio track) before Oct. 21st – click here to see them on the VoteParty.ca website, and click here to see them on VoteParty.ca’s YouTube channel, and please contact info@VoteParty.ca if you need them sent to you in order to air them as a PSA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, October 11, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, VoteParty.ca released its second Canadian celebrity montage video calling on voters to Make a #VoteDate with a non-voter – all part of VoteParty.ca’s campaign to increase the number of voters, especially young voters, who vote. The video will be shown before movies in 160 Cineplex Entertainment theatres across Canada starting this Friday until Oct. 17th.

The second video features David Suzuki (environmentalist and host of CBC TV’s “The Nature of Things”), Lindsay Broughton (country singer), Greg Bryk (actor on Space TV’s “Bitten” and in Brad Pitt’s latest film “Ad Astra”), Mary Walsh (comedian and former co-host of CBC TV’s “This Hour Has 22 Minutes”) and Rick Miller (comedian, creator of the “BOOM” and “BOOM X” theatre shows, and former host of “Just for Laughs” TV show).

Last Friday Cineplex starting showing VoteParty.ca’s first Canadian celebrity montage video featuring Rick Mercer (comedian and former host of CBC TV’s “Rick Mercer Report”), Elena Juatco (actress from ABC’s “Open Heart” and CTV’s “JANN” show), MAGIC! (#1 song “Rude” and other top songs), Ashley Callingbull (actress and Mrs. Universe), and Michelle Morgan (actress from CBC’s “Heartland”).

Cineplex Entertainment has generously donated the cost of showing the videos at its theatres. Both videos are also available on VoteParty.ca’s homepage, and along with many other videos can also be seen on VoteParty.ca’s Celebrity Videos webpage.

VoteParty.ca isn’t urging young voters to vote, it’s inviting young voters to Make a #VoteDate at VoteParty.ca with a non-voter and take them to vote with you.

Don’t vote alone, Vote Party together.

Many other celebrities are also supporting the partner initiative VotePromise.ca including George Stroumboulopoulos, Patrick McKenna and Julian Taylor.

All are invited to come to the national #VoteParty on October 21st election night. Share your reaction to the election results, and what’s going at your local Vote Party, on Twitter with #VoteParty, and on Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/events/394589891203780/.

Vote Party promises to be a great party.

VoteParty.ca is an initiative of Democracy Education Network, since 1993 one of Canada’s leading civics education organizations.

Let’s get this Vote Party started!

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of VoteParty.ca
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@voteparty.ca
Internet: http://VoteParty.ca

Le PartyVote.ca commence aujourd’hui – Le #partyvote national aura lieu le 21 octobre

Regardez l’annonce vidéo PartyVote.ca avant chaque film dans tous les cinémas Cineplex le 4-17 octobre

Fixez un #rendezvousdevote à PartyVote.ca avec une personne qui ne vote pas

COMMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE
POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE
03 octobre 2019

OTTAWA – Aujourd’hui, PartyVote.ca a lancé sa nouvelle initiative nationale visant à augmenter le nombre d’électeurs, notamment les jeunes électeurs, qui votent.

Regardez l’annonce vidéo PartyVote.ca, avec Florence K, musicienne et animateur du programme radio « C’est formidable », avant chaque film dans tous les cinémas Cineplex le 4-17 octobre. Vous pouvez regarder l’annonce aussi ici et http://PartyVote.ca.

PartyVote.ca n’exhorte pas les jeunes électeurs à aller voter, il invite les jeunes électeurs à fixer un #rendezvousdevote avec un jeune qui ne vote pas et d’aller voter ensemble.

Ne votez pas seul, allez voter ensemble.

Ensuite, venez au #PartyVote national le 21 octobre au moment de la soirée électorale. Partagez votre réaction aux résultats des élections et dites ce qui se passe à votre « party » local sur Twitter et Instagram en utilisant le mot-clic #PartyVote, et sur Facebook à : https://www.facebook.com/events/982691178745019/

Le « party vote » se promet d’être une grande fête.

PartyVote.ca est une initiative du Réseau d’éducation de la démocratie, l’une des principales organisations canadiennes d’éducation civique établie depuis 1993.

Commençons maintenant ce « party » pour célébrer le vote!

– 30 –

POUR OBTENIR DE PLUS AMPLES RENSEIGNEMENTS :

Duff Conacher, Coordonnateur
Cell: 416-546-3443
Courriel: info@partyvote.ca
Internet: http://PartyVote.ca

 

Celebrities coming to VoteParty.ca to help young voters vote — National #VoteParty on Election Night October 21st

VoteParty.ca ad running before all movies in Cineplex theatres across Canada Oct. 4-17 with message:
Make a #VoteDate at VoteParty.ca and take a non-voter to vote with you

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, September 30, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, VoteParty.ca launched its national effort to increase the number of voters, especially young voters, who vote in the federal election, following up on its successful effort during the 2015 fall federal election that reached 3.5 million people across Canada.

The launch includes a Canadian celebrity montage video on the http://VoteParty.ca homepage featuring Rick Mercer, MAGIC! (#1 song “Rude”), Ashley Carlingbull (actress and Mrs. Universe), Michelle Morgan (from CBC’s “Heartland”) and Elena Juatco (from CTV’s “Jann”).

Cineplex is generously supporting this initiative by showing the VoteParty.ca video before all movies in 162 Cineplex theatres across Canada from this Friday, October 4th until Thursday, Oct. 17th. The company will also be livestreaming the federal election leadership debates in 24 of its theatres across the country. Canadians can reserve free tickets by visiting http://Cineplex.com/Events

VoteParty.ca will also soon release videos by many other well-known Canadians, as will its partner initiative http://VotePromise.ca.

VoteParty.ca isn’t urging young voters just to vote, it’s also encouraging them to:
Make a #VoteDate with a non-voter and take them to vote with you.

Don’t vote alone, Vote Party together.

And then all are invited to come to the national #VoteParty on October 21st election night. Share your reaction to the election results, and what’s going on at your local Vote Party, on Twitter with #VoteParty, and on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/events/394589891203780/

Vote Party promises to be a great party.

Anyone who wants to invite other people in their area to a local Vote Party on October 21st can upload their party details, and if they want send out invitations at: http://www.voteparty.ca/vote_parties

VoteParty.ca is an initiative of Democracy Education Network, since 1993 one of Canada’s leading civics education organizations.

Let’s get this Vote Party started!

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of VoteParty.ca
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@voteparty.ca
Internet: http://VoteParty.ca

Democracy Watch in B.C. Court of Appeal arguing for more independence from Cabinet for law enforcement tribunals

DWatch intervening in challenge of ruling that failed to uphold measures to prevent political interference by Premier and Cabinet ministers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 4, 2019

OTTAWA – Today and tomorrow, Democracy Watch will be at the B.C. Court of Appeal intervening in the challenge of a B.C. Supreme Court judge’s ruling that failed to uphold key measures to ensure law enforcement tribunals are protected from political interference by the Premier and Cabinet ministers.

The case Walter v. Attorney General (B.C.) is about whether the Attorney General can control the salaries of members of the B.C. Review Board (including Mr. Bernd Walter, Chair of the Board, who filed the court challenge and appeal). The Board decides the conditions of sentences for some people convicted of a crime who are not criminally responsible due to mental illness.

If the Attorney General can control the salaries, it means the Attorney General could cut the salaries of members of the Review Board if they made a decision that the Attorney General didn’t like. As a result, the case raises the issue of whether the Board members have adequate protection from political interference by the Attorney General, and the Cabinet overall.

The B.C. Supreme Court judge decided that, unlike court judges, members of tribunals like the Board are not protected by Canada’s constitution from political interference by Cabinet ministers.

The ruling was based on a 2001 Supreme Court of Canada ruling that set a standard that undermined the independence protection measures for hundreds of federal and provincial tribunals that make rulings on important situations involving human rights, legal rights, health and safety, government accountability and corporate responsibility. However, since that ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has issued rulings that seem to contradict and raise questions about what level of protection members of law enforcement tribunals should have.

Democracy Watch is intervening in support of Mr. Walter’s appeal, urging the B.C. Court of Appeal to establish a broad new standard that ensures law enforcement tribunals are protected from political interference as much as judges are protected. See Democracy Watch’s legal arguments here (PDF).

“In order to ensure fair law enforcement across Canada, it is important that the court of appeal rules that members of law enforcement tribunals are protected in the same ways judges are from interference by politicians,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Ottawa.

Democracy Watch is represented at the appeal hearing by Sean Hern and Brent Ryan of the law firm Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP.

The hearing in the Walter v. Attorney General (B.C.) appeal is at:

TIME:  10 am PST
DATE:  Thursday and Friday, April 4-5
LOCATION:  B.C. Court of Appeal (Courtroom 50)
400-800 Hornby Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 2C5

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179 Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

10,000+ sign petition calling on Finance Minister Morneau to make key changes to make big businesses and banks pay their fair share of taxes

Key changes also needed to stop Big Bank gouging and abuse – Canada’s Big 6 Banks made a record profit of $42.3 billion in 2017

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Today, Democracy Watch revealed that more than 10,000 voters from across Canada have signed its national petition on Change.org calling for key changes to make Canada’s big businesses and Big Banks pay their fair share of taxes.

A special report recently published in the Toronto Star details how Canadian big businesses, especially the Big Banks, have higher profits but pay a lower rate of taxes than ever before.

“Like Scrooge, Canada’s big businesses and banks are trying to keep all the money for themselves, and key changes are needed to close loopholes and match the average tax rate in G7 countries to ensure they pay their fair share of taxes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “As well, Canada’s big banks have gouged their way to record profits again this year, and key changes are needed to stop the gouging and ensure they serve all customers fairly at fair prices.”

In 2016, big businesses paid only 22% of total taxes collected by governments — Canadians paid 78%. In contrast, in 1952 big businesses and Canadians paid the same amount in taxes.

As the report says: “Canada’s largest corporations use complex techniques and tax loopholes to reduce their taxes significantly below the official corporate tax rate set by the government.”

As well, the report details how cutting Canada’s corporate tax rate by 16% from 1997 to 2016 has not increased corporate investment in machinery and equipment and in intellectual property like it was supposed to do. Investments by Canada’s big businesses in these areas are still below the 1997 level as a percentage of GDP.

Canada’s official corporate tax rate is now 26.6% but, on average, Canadian big businesses paid only 17.7% from 2011-2016 — one of the lowest rates of all G7 countries.

Canada’s Big Banks paid a tax rate of only 16% over the past 6 years — lower than banks in other G7 countries. They are the biggest tax evaders of all Canadian big businesses and, not surprisingly, also the most profitable. They made a record $42.3 billion in profits in 2017.

If Canada’s big businesses and banks paid the official tax rate from 2011-2016, governments across Canada would have almost $64 billion more to spend on making hospitals, schools, housing, public transit and roads better, and on other things Canadians need.

Making Canada’s big businesses and banks pay their fair share in taxes will raise at least $10 billion each year, and billions more if the corporate tax rate is increased to the average rate in G7 countries.

The petition calls on Liberal Finance Minister Morneau to work with federal political parties to work together to make the following three key changes:

  1. Close all the loopholes that allow Canada’s big businesses and banks to evade paying taxes in Canada by pretending they make their money through companies they own in low-tax countries;
  2. Increase Canada’s business tax rate to match the average rate in G7 countries, and;
  3. Impose a special tax (like England and Australia have) on any Canadian business or bank that has excessively high profits like Canada’s Big Banks have had in the past several years.

Democracy Watch is also calling on Finance Minister Morneau to work with federal political parties to make key changes to stop gouging and abuse by Canada’s big banks. The Big Six Banks made a record $42.3 billion profit in 2017.

As the report also shows, most Canadians don’t benefit from excessive Big Bank profits because they don’t own shares in the banks. As the report says: “more than 80 per cent of Canadian stocks are owned (both directly and indirectly through pensions and mutual funds) by foreigners and the wealthiest households in the country.”

As well, the report reveals that Canada’s Big Banks donate to charities only 10% of what they avoid in taxes – only $2.1 billion donated compared to $23 billion in taxes avoided.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Bank Accountability Campaign and Corporate Responsibility Campaign

Thank you for donating!

Thank you very much for your donation to support Democracy Watch’s campaigns to stop abuses of power by governments and big businesses across Canada, and to make Canada the world’s leading democracy.

Your transaction has been completed, and a receipt for your donation should have been emailed to you. If you donated using PayPal, you may log into your account at www.paypal.com to view details of your transaction.

If you donated using your credit card, your next monthly statement will show details of your donation to Democracy Watch.

Thank you again – we couldn’t win key democracy changes for you and all Canadians without your support!

Cheers,
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
and the whole Democracy Watch team

Report of 1996 survey of Canadians about citizen associations

The survey was conducted by Environics in 1996 on behalf of a dozen Canadian consumer groups and involved questioning 2,000 Canadians in personal interviews about their support of the pamphlet method for organizing citizen watchdog groups for business sectors in Canada.

The survey found that 64% of Canadians want governments to require businesses to enclose the watchdog group pamphlet in their mailings to customers, or distribute a notice about the watchdog group in other ways to individual customers and shareholders, to give them an easy way to join together in the watchdog group and have their interests represented in the marketplace and in government policy-making, and to learn about products and services and have a place to help with complaints about unfair service and poor products.

People surveyed also said that they were willing to pay a membership fee of about $30 annually, and 35% of those who would join the group would also be willing to donate $35 annually above the membership fee.

To see the full survey report, click here (PDF).

As well, in 1997, Canadian citizen groups were surveyed about the pamphlet method for forming and funding citizen associations to watch over business sectors — to see the survey report, click here (PDF).

Back to Citizen Association Campaign main page