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

Category: Uncategorized

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Complaints and Court Cases from 2016 on

Posted on by Bradford

Please help support all these government ethics complaints and court cases here and/or support complaints and cases against the federal government by clicking here, and please help support complaints and court cases against the Ontario government by clicking here, please help support complaints and court cases against the Alberta government by clicking here.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Commissioner of Lobbying (Federal)
1. Complaints
2. Court Cases

B. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (Federal) and RCMP
1. Complaints
2. Court Cases

C. Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections
1. Complaints

D. Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (Federal)
1. Complaints

E. Ontario government, Integrity Commissioner, Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Auditor General (Ontario), and OIPRD and Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC)
1. Complaints
2. Court Cases

F. Chief Electoral Officer (Ontario)
1. Complaints

G. Ethics Commissioner and RCMP (Alberta)
1. Complaints

H. Conflict of Interest Commissioner (B.C.) and B.C. Courts
1.Complaints
2. Court Cases

I. City of Toronto
1.Complaints

A. Commissioner of Lobbying (Federal)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint concerning various lobby groups giving the gift of “sponsored travel” to various MPs from all parties between 2009 and 2016 (filed May 26, 2016)

(b) Complaint about the Aga Khan’s gift to PM Trudeau of two trips, and Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan of one trip, to his Bahamas island (filed December 20, 2017)

(c) Complaint about Facebook not having employees registered as lobbyists, and doing favours for federal politicians (filed April 25, 2018)

(d) Complaint about Liberal Party of Canada fundraising events in recent years that involved Cabinet ministers, their staff and lobbyists, and similar events held by other federal parties (September 17, 2018)

(e) Complaint about lobbyists possibly assisting Liberal Party with fundraising that puts Cabinet ministers in a conflict of interest (November 28, 2018)

(f) Complaint re: questions about Kevin Lynch lobbying for SNC-Lavalin (March 13, 2019)

(g) Complaint to Elections Canada, Commissioner of Canada Elections, and Commissioner of Lobbying requesting audit of donations and lobbyist fundraising back to 2007 (May 1, 2019)

2. Court Cases

(a) Case challenging the appointment of new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger because Trudeau Cabinet ministers were in a conflict of interest when they made the appointment. (NOTE: Unfortunately the courts allowed the biased appointment)

(b) Case challenging former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd’s ruling that the Aga Khan is not covered by the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and, therefore, she would not investigate whether his Bahamas trip gift to Prime Minister Trudeau was legal. (NOTE: Unfortunately, the courts ruled that the public does not have a right to have a complaint it files with the Commissioner investigated and ruled on and, therefore, does not have a right to file a lawsuit challenging the Commissioner’s decision not to investigate).

(c) Case challenging new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger’s ruling ending the investigation into whether Barry Sherman of Apotex Inc.’s fundraising activities for the Liberal Party violated the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct. (NOTE: Unfortunately, the courts ruled that the public does not have a right to have a complaint it files with the Commissioner investigated and ruled on and, therefore, does not have a right to file a lawsuit challenging the Commissioner’s decision not to investigate).

(d) Case challenging new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger’s ruling that she would not investigate whether a Clearwater Seafoods shareholder and board member hosting a fundraising event in August 2014 attended by Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau violated the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct. (NOTE: Unfortunately, the courts ruled that the public does not have a right to have a complaint it files with the Commissioner investigated and ruled on and, therefore, does not have a right to file a lawsuit challenging the Commissioner’s decision not to investigate).

(e) Case challenging new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger’s ruling that Council of Canadian Innovators staff Ben Bergen and Dana O’Born did not violate the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct when they lobbied senior officials of Minister of International Trade Chrystia Freeland after co-managing her 2015 federal election campaign and serving in senior roles in her riding association. (NOTE: Unfortunately the Federal Court of Appeal refused to review the Commissioner of Lobbying’s decision)

Top

B. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (Federal)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint about federal Cabinet ministers attending fundraising events organized by lobbyists (filed December 6, 2016)

(b) Complaint about the Liberal Cabinet reappointing the Ethics Commissioner for a second six-month term while she is investigating Prime Minister Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers (filed December 14, 2016)

(c) Complaint about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau inviting top Liberal Party donors to a gala dinner with the Chinese Premier (filed December 16, 2016)

(d) Complaint about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accepting the gift of a trip from the Aga Khan whose organization lobbies the federal government (filed February 8, 2017)

(e) Complaint about Conservative Party Interim Leader Rona Ambrose accepting the gift of a trip from the Murray Edwards whose company lobbies the federal government (filed February 8, 2017)

(f) Complaint about Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan accepting the gift of a trip from the Aga Khan whose organization lobbies the federal government (filed February 8, 2017)

(g) Complaint about some of former federal Minister of Justice Peter MacKay’s judicial appointments, including his appointment of Vic Toews (filed April 24, 2017)

(h) Complaint about federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s relationship with his Advisory Council on Economic Growth (filed May 8, 2017)

(i) Complaint about federal Cabinet’s relationship with BlackRock Asset Management Canada Ltd. (filed May 24, 2017)

(j) Complaint about Council of Canadian Innovators staff lobbying Global Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland after working on her 2015 federal election campaign (filed July 12, 2017)

(k) Complaint about Liberal Party of Canada fundraising events in recent years that involved Cabinet ministers, their staff and lobbyists, and similar events held by other federal parties (September 17, 2018)

(l) Complaint about Liberal Party possibly rewarding lobbyists who did fundraising for the party (November 28, 2018)

(m) Complaint about PMO trying to influence Attorney General to stop prosecution of SNC-Lavalin (February 8, 2019) and expanded complaint (March 5, 2019)

(n) Complaint about Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick giving preferential treatment to SNC-Lavalin Chair Kevin Lynch (April 17, 2019)

(o) Complaint about SNC-Lavalin Chair and Bank of Montreal Vice Chair Kevin Lynch, and SNC-Lavalin and Citibank Canada board member Eric D. Siegel, possibly violating federal ethics law (May 7, 2019)

(p) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner about Minister Dominic LeBlanc’s participation in decisions to appoint judges with connections to him (July 4 , 2019)

(q) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner about Prime Minister Trudeau and/or anyone acting on his behalf intervening in the contracting process with WE Charity (July 13, 2020)

(r) Complaint to RCMP about Prime Minister Trudeau and/or anyone acting on his behalf intervening in the contracting process with WE Charity (July 13, 2020)

(s) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner about Finance Minister Bill Morneau participating in approval of WE Charity sole-source contract (July 13, 2020)

(t) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner about Finance Minister Morneau and/or anyone acting on his behalf participating in the contracting process with WE Charity in spring 2020, and announcing WE Charity funding in August 2019 (July 27, 2020)

(u) Complaint to RCMP about Minister Morneau and/or anyone acting on his behalf participating in the contracting process with WE Charity in spring 2020 (July 27, 2020)

(v) Complaint to RCMP calling for a public update about the state of the investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau and other government officials obstructing the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin (February 11, 2021)

(w) Complaint to Ottawa police requesting that they investigate Prime Minister Trudeau and other government officials for obstructing the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and committing a breach of trust by doing so, because the RCMP seems to be refusing to investigate (July 21, 2022)

(x) Complaint to RCMP calling yet again (as DWatch did in Feb. 2021 and July 2022) for disclosure of all the details of the investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau and other government officials obstructing the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and a full, detailed explanation of why no one was prosecuted (October 16, 2023)

2. Court Cases

(a) Case challenging Ethics Commissioner’s conflict of interest “screens” that she has set up for more than 20 Cabinet ministers and senior federal government officials. (NOTE: Unfortunately the courts allowed the smokescreens)

(b) Case challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that Finance Minister Morneau didn’t have to sell his millions of shares in his family’s company. (NOTE: Unfortunately the courts allowed the Finance Minister’s secret investment)

(c) Case challenging the appointment of new Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion because Trudeau Cabinet ministers were in a conflict of interest when they made the appointment. (NOTE: Unfortunately the courts allowed the biased appointment)

(d) Case challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s August 2019 ruling on the SNC-Lavalin scandal because he let off many government officials who, like PM Trudeau, pressured the Attorney General. (NOTE: Unfortunately the Federal Court of Appeal refused to review the Ethics Commissioner’s decision).

(e) Case challenging the federal judicial appointments system for being too politically biased, and therefore unconstitutional. To support this case, click here.

(f) Case challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that let off Prime Minister Trudeau even though he clearly violated the federal government ethics law by participating in the WE Charity grant approval decision. To support this case, click here.

Top

C. Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint re: Prime Minister Trudeau violating his 2015 election promise to change Canada’s voting system (February 22, 2018)

(b) Complaint to Elections Canada, Commissioner of Canada Elections, and Commissioner of Lobbying requesting audit of donations and lobbyist fundraising back to 2007 (May 1, 2019)

(c) Complaint to Commissioner of Canada Elections about the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) possibly colluding (October 10, 2019)

(d) Complaint to Commissioner of Canada Elections about the Manning Centre and five “Proud” groups violating donor disclosure requirements and colluding (October 17, 2019)

(e) Complaint about RightNow third-party interest group recruiting and training volunteers for Conservative Party of Canada candidates (March 15, 2021)

(f) Complaint to Commissioner of Canada Elections about China-sponsored interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections (February 28, 2023).

Top

D. Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (Federal)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint about Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer Martine Richard having a conflict of interest as her sister is the spouse of Liberal Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc

Top

E. Ontario government, Integrity Commissioner, Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Auditor General (Ontario), and OIPRD and Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint re: Premier Wynne and her Cabinet ministers selling access to themselves at high-priced, exclusive fundraising events (March 31, 2016)

(b) Complaint about Premier Ford and his Cabinet using public money to pay for video ads on social media (September 26, 2018)

(c) Complaint about Premier Ford and his Cabinet hiding their private financial interests while they make major decisions in the first 6 months of their government (November 13, 2018)

(d) Complaint about Premier Ford appointing his friend as the head of the OPP (December 4, 2018)

(e) Complaint about Premier Ford’s appointment of one of his top election campaign advisers to a plum job in Washington, and increasing his pay by $75,000 (December 18, 2018)

(f) Complaint about Premier Ford’s appointment of his campaign adviser and staffperson Jenni Byrne to the Ontario Energy Board (January 17, 2019)

(g) Complaint about Premier Ford’s appointment of his family lawyer to chair the Public Accountants Council (March 11, 2019)

(h) Complaint about Premier Ford’s staff and deputy minister giving preferential treatment to his friend Ron Taverner (March 25, 2019)

(i) Complaint about Premier Ford offering his friend Ron Taverner an executive job at the Ontario Cannabis Store (April 2, 2019)

(j) Complaint to Ontario Ombudsman about Premier Ford’s staff and others giving preferential treatment to Ford’s friend Ron Taverner, etc. (April 9, 2019)

(k) Release calling on Ontarians to file complaints with Ad Council about Ford government’s false carbon tax ad (April 26, 2019)

(l) Complaint to Ontario Integrity Commissioner re: Ford-government appointed LCBO Chair’s selling access to Finance Minister violates provincial ethics rules (May 9, 2019)

(m) Complaint to OIPRD and Ontario Civilian Police Commission about Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff Dean French demanding government employees pressure police to change law enforcement practices (May 16, 2019)

(n) Complaint to Integrity Commissioner about lobbyists helping organize Premier Ford’s fundraising dinner (June 13, 2019)

(o) Complaint to Integrity Commissioner about Premier Ford’s former Chief of Staff Dean French giving preferential treatment to family members, friends and PC Party people with government appointments (June 27, 2019)

(p) Complaint to Integrity Commissioner about lobbying of Premier Ford and Cabinet ministers by Melissa Lantsman, who advised Ford and the PC Party during the 2018 election and is a Regional VP of the PC Party (July 11, 2019)

(q) Complaint calling on Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner to update Premier Ford’s financial conflicts of interest disclosure statement, and to impose strict monitoring measures to ensure he doesn’t help his family business (November 27, 2019)

(r) Letter to Energy and Mines Minister Greg Rickford asking him to disclose if he owns any energy or mining investments (December 9, 2019)

(s) Complaint calling on Integrity Commissioner to rule that Peter Van Loan is violating lobbying law’s ethics rule by lobbying Minister Caroline Mulroney and other Ford Cabinet ministers after assisting her and PC Party (April 13, 2021)

(t) Complaint calling on the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to investigate whether any public official gave advance notice to anyone of the Ford government’s decision to remove specific lands from Greenbelt protection (December 14, 2022)

(u) Complaint calling on the Ontario Integrity Commissioner to investigate whether Premier Doug Ford accepted illegal gifts from lobbyists and property developers who seek favourable decisions from the Ford Cabinet (February 23, 2023)

2. Court Cases

(a) Case challenging the Integrity Commissioner’s refusal to issue a public ruling about former Premier Ford’s former Chief of Staff Dean French, and former Deputy Minister Steve Orsini, and other Premier Ford staff violating ethics rules re: the Ron Taverner appointment (October 10, 2019 on). Unfortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided in February 2021 not to hear Democracy Watch’s appeal of the very bad ruling by the Divisional Court that Democracy Watch did not have standing to challenge the Integrity Commissioner’s refusal to issue a public ruling.

(b) Case challenging the Ford government’s illegal, unconstitutional changes to the administrative tribunal appointment system (July 16, 2020 on)

(c) Case challenging Integrity Commissioner’s rulings allowing lobbyists who campaigned or fundraised for politicians to lobby the politicians soon afterwards (February 10, 2021 on)

(d) Case challenging Integrity Commissioner’s rulings that failed to penalize 6 lobbyists who violated the lobbying law in serious ways (March 4, 2021 on)

(e) Cases challenging 3 of the Integrity Commissioner’s rulings allowing lobbyists who campaigned or fundraised for politicians to lobby the politicians soon afterwards, and 3 rulings that failed to penalize lobbyists who violated the lobbying law in serious ways (November 8, 2021)

(f) Intervention in court case challenging Ford government’s limits on third-party pre-election advertising spending as a violation of Charter rights (November 23, 2021)

(g) Case challenging another Integrity Commissioner ruling issued in June 2022 that let yet another lobbyist off the hook even though they violated the law in several ways (July 2022 on).

(h) Case challenging the Ford government’s judicial appointments system for being too politically biased, and therefore unconstitutional.

(i) Court case challenging another Integrity Commissioner ruling issued in June 2023 that let yet another lobbyist off the hook even though he failed to register his lobbying, and put politicians in a conflict of interest by fundraising and doing other political activities for them while lobbying them (July 2023 on).

Top

F. Chief Electoral Officer (Ontario)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint calling for public inquiry into parts of Election Ontario’s running of the provincial election (June 26, 2018)

(b) Complaint about oil and gas industry’s ads during Ontario provincial election (August 1, 2018)

(c) Complaint to Elections Ontario about Ontario Proud’s election ads not identifying that they were 90% paid for by development and construction companies (January 10, 2019)

(d) Complaint calling on Elections Ontario to investigate gift tickets given by Mr. X to municipal politicians to attend the PC Party’s Doug Ford fundraising event in March 2023 (September 22, 2023)

Top

G. Ethics Commissioner and RCMP (Alberta)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint calling on Alberta RCMP to investigate Jason Kenney Cabinet firing Election Commissioner as an obstruction of justice (December 4, 2019)

(b) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler about Minister of Justice Doug Schweitzer violating Alberta’s government ethics law by appointing his election campaign supporter Steve Allan as an inquiry commissioner (December 11, 2019)

(c) Complaint requesting that Chief Electoral Officer stop ruling on election violations because UCP Kenney Cabinet will decide by next April whether he keeps his job (December 17, 2019)

Top

H. Conflict of Interest Commissioner (B.C.) and B.C. Courts

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint concerning conflicts of interest created by former B.C. Premier Christy Clark holding high-priced, exclusive fundraising events. The Commissioner rejected the complaint, and so Democracy Watch filed the court case linked below under 2(a).

2. Court Cases

(a) Case challenging Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s ruling that the fundraising events held by former B.C. Premier Christy Clark do not create apparent conflicts of interest (filed October 26, 2016). The B.C. Court of Appeal decided not to rule on the case on Oct. 18, 2017 — see details here.

(b) Case challenging former B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline (filed January 31, 2017). The B.C. Supreme Court judge indicated he was going to rule against Democracy Watch and PIPE UP, and so the case was withdrawn in fall 2017.

(c) Case challenging Premier John Horgan’s September 2020 snap election call

Top

I. City of Toronto

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint to Toronto Integrity Commissioner about Councillor Jim Karygiannis giving preferential treatment to some constituents and retaliating against other constituents (February 11, 2020)

Top

Please help support all these government ethics complaints and court cases here and/or support complaints and cases against the federal government by clicking here, and please help support complaints and court cases against the Ontario government by clicking here, please help support complaints and court cases against the Alberta government by clicking here.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Commissioner of Lobbying (Federal)
1. Complaints
2. Court Cases

B. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (Federal) and RCMP
1. Complaints
2. Court Cases

C. Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections
1. Complaints

D. Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (Federal)
1. Complaints

E. Ontario government, Integrity Commissioner, Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Auditor General (Ontario), and OIPRD and Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC)
1. Complaints
2. Court Cases

F. Chief Electoral Officer (Ontario)
1. Complaints

G. Ethics Commissioner and RCMP (Alberta)
1. Complaints

H. Conflict of Interest Commissioner (B.C.) and B.C. Courts
1.Complaints
2. Court Cases

I. City of Toronto
1.Complaints

A. Commissioner of Lobbying (Federal)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint concerning various lobby groups giving the gift of “sponsored travel” to various MPs from all parties between 2009 and 2016 (filed May 26, 2016)

(b) Complaint about the Aga Khan’s gift to PM Trudeau of two trips, and Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan of one trip, to his Bahamas island (filed December 20, 2017)

(c) Complaint about Facebook not having employees registered as lobbyists, and doing favours for federal politicians (filed April 25, 2018)

(d) Complaint about Liberal Party of Canada fundraising events in recent years that involved Cabinet ministers, their staff and lobbyists, and similar events held by other federal parties (September 17, 2018)

(e) Complaint about lobbyists possibly assisting Liberal Party with fundraising that puts Cabinet ministers in a conflict of interest (November 28, 2018)

(f) Complaint re: questions about Kevin Lynch lobbying for SNC-Lavalin (March 13, 2019)

(g) Complaint to Elections Canada, Commissioner of Canada Elections, and Commissioner of Lobbying requesting audit of donations and lobbyist fundraising back to 2007 (May 1, 2019)

2. Court Cases

(a) Case challenging the appointment of new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger because Trudeau Cabinet ministers were in a conflict of interest when they made the appointment. (NOTE: Unfortunately the courts allowed the biased appointment)

(b) Case challenging former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd’s ruling that the Aga Khan is not covered by the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and, therefore, she would not investigate whether his Bahamas trip gift to Prime Minister Trudeau was legal. (NOTE: Unfortunately, the courts ruled that the public does not have a right to have a complaint it files with the Commissioner investigated and ruled on and, therefore, does not have a right to file a lawsuit challenging the Commissioner’s decision not to investigate).

(c) Case challenging new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger’s ruling ending the investigation into whether Barry Sherman of Apotex Inc.’s fundraising activities for the Liberal Party violated the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct. (NOTE: Unfortunately, the courts ruled that the public does not have a right to have a complaint it files with the Commissioner investigated and ruled on and, therefore, does not have a right to file a lawsuit challenging the Commissioner’s decision not to investigate).

(d) Case challenging new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger’s ruling that she would not investigate whether a Clearwater Seafoods shareholder and board member hosting a fundraising event in August 2014 attended by Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau violated the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct. (NOTE: Unfortunately, the courts ruled that the public does not have a right to have a complaint it files with the Commissioner investigated and ruled on and, therefore, does not have a right to file a lawsuit challenging the Commissioner’s decision not to investigate).

(e) Case challenging new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger’s ruling that Council of Canadian Innovators staff Ben Bergen and Dana O’Born did not violate the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct when they lobbied senior officials of Minister of International Trade Chrystia Freeland after co-managing her 2015 federal election campaign and serving in senior roles in her riding association. (NOTE: Unfortunately the Federal Court of Appeal refused to review the Commissioner of Lobbying’s decision)

Top

B. Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (Federal)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint about federal Cabinet ministers attending fundraising events organized by lobbyists (filed December 6, 2016)

(b) Complaint about the Liberal Cabinet reappointing the Ethics Commissioner for a second six-month term while she is investigating Prime Minister Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers (filed December 14, 2016)

(c) Complaint about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau inviting top Liberal Party donors to a gala dinner with the Chinese Premier (filed December 16, 2016)

(d) Complaint about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accepting the gift of a trip from the Aga Khan whose organization lobbies the federal government (filed February 8, 2017)

(e) Complaint about Conservative Party Interim Leader Rona Ambrose accepting the gift of a trip from the Murray Edwards whose company lobbies the federal government (filed February 8, 2017)

(f) Complaint about Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan accepting the gift of a trip from the Aga Khan whose organization lobbies the federal government (filed February 8, 2017)

(g) Complaint about some of former federal Minister of Justice Peter MacKay’s judicial appointments, including his appointment of Vic Toews (filed April 24, 2017)

(h) Complaint about federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s relationship with his Advisory Council on Economic Growth (filed May 8, 2017)

(i) Complaint about federal Cabinet’s relationship with BlackRock Asset Management Canada Ltd. (filed May 24, 2017)

(j) Complaint about Council of Canadian Innovators staff lobbying Global Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland after working on her 2015 federal election campaign (filed July 12, 2017)

(k) Complaint about Liberal Party of Canada fundraising events in recent years that involved Cabinet ministers, their staff and lobbyists, and similar events held by other federal parties (September 17, 2018)

(l) Complaint about Liberal Party possibly rewarding lobbyists who did fundraising for the party (November 28, 2018)

(m) Complaint about PMO trying to influence Attorney General to stop prosecution of SNC-Lavalin (February 8, 2019) and expanded complaint (March 5, 2019)

(n) Complaint about Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick giving preferential treatment to SNC-Lavalin Chair Kevin Lynch (April 17, 2019)

(o) Complaint about SNC-Lavalin Chair and Bank of Montreal Vice Chair Kevin Lynch, and SNC-Lavalin and Citibank Canada board member Eric D. Siegel, possibly violating federal ethics law (May 7, 2019)

(p) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner about Minister Dominic LeBlanc’s participation in decisions to appoint judges with connections to him (July 4 , 2019)

(q) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner about Prime Minister Trudeau and/or anyone acting on his behalf intervening in the contracting process with WE Charity (July 13, 2020)

(r) Complaint to RCMP about Prime Minister Trudeau and/or anyone acting on his behalf intervening in the contracting process with WE Charity (July 13, 2020)

(s) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner about Finance Minister Bill Morneau participating in approval of WE Charity sole-source contract (July 13, 2020)

(t) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner about Finance Minister Morneau and/or anyone acting on his behalf participating in the contracting process with WE Charity in spring 2020, and announcing WE Charity funding in August 2019 (July 27, 2020)

(u) Complaint to RCMP about Minister Morneau and/or anyone acting on his behalf participating in the contracting process with WE Charity in spring 2020 (July 27, 2020)

(v) Complaint to RCMP calling for a public update about the state of the investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau and other government officials obstructing the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin (February 11, 2021)

(w) Complaint to Ottawa police requesting that they investigate Prime Minister Trudeau and other government officials for obstructing the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and committing a breach of trust by doing so, because the RCMP seems to be refusing to investigate (July 21, 2022)

(x) Complaint to RCMP calling yet again (as DWatch did in Feb. 2021 and July 2022) for disclosure of all the details of the investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau and other government officials obstructing the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and a full, detailed explanation of why no one was prosecuted (October 16, 2023)

2. Court Cases

(a) Case challenging Ethics Commissioner’s conflict of interest “screens” that she has set up for more than 20 Cabinet ministers and senior federal government officials. (NOTE: Unfortunately the courts allowed the smokescreens)

(b) Case challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that Finance Minister Morneau didn’t have to sell his millions of shares in his family’s company. (NOTE: Unfortunately the courts allowed the Finance Minister’s secret investment)

(c) Case challenging the appointment of new Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion because Trudeau Cabinet ministers were in a conflict of interest when they made the appointment. (NOTE: Unfortunately the courts allowed the biased appointment)

(d) Case challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s August 2019 ruling on the SNC-Lavalin scandal because he let off many government officials who, like PM Trudeau, pressured the Attorney General. (NOTE: Unfortunately the Federal Court of Appeal refused to review the Ethics Commissioner’s decision).

(e) Case challenging the federal judicial appointments system for being too politically biased, and therefore unconstitutional. To support this case, click here.

(f) Case challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that let off Prime Minister Trudeau even though he clearly violated the federal government ethics law by participating in the WE Charity grant approval decision. To support this case, click here.

Top

C. Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint re: Prime Minister Trudeau violating his 2015 election promise to change Canada’s voting system (February 22, 2018)

(b) Complaint to Elections Canada, Commissioner of Canada Elections, and Commissioner of Lobbying requesting audit of donations and lobbyist fundraising back to 2007 (May 1, 2019)

(c) Complaint to Commissioner of Canada Elections about the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) possibly colluding (October 10, 2019)

(d) Complaint to Commissioner of Canada Elections about the Manning Centre and five “Proud” groups violating donor disclosure requirements and colluding (October 17, 2019)

(e) Complaint about RightNow third-party interest group recruiting and training volunteers for Conservative Party of Canada candidates (March 15, 2021)

(f) Complaint to Commissioner of Canada Elections about China-sponsored interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections (February 28, 2023).

Top

D. Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (Federal)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint about Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer Martine Richard having a conflict of interest as her sister is the spouse of Liberal Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc

Top

E. Ontario government, Integrity Commissioner, Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Auditor General (Ontario), and OIPRD and Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint re: Premier Wynne and her Cabinet ministers selling access to themselves at high-priced, exclusive fundraising events (March 31, 2016)

(b) Complaint about Premier Ford and his Cabinet using public money to pay for video ads on social media (September 26, 2018)

(c) Complaint about Premier Ford and his Cabinet hiding their private financial interests while they make major decisions in the first 6 months of their government (November 13, 2018)

(d) Complaint about Premier Ford appointing his friend as the head of the OPP (December 4, 2018)

(e) Complaint about Premier Ford’s appointment of one of his top election campaign advisers to a plum job in Washington, and increasing his pay by $75,000 (December 18, 2018)

(f) Complaint about Premier Ford’s appointment of his campaign adviser and staffperson Jenni Byrne to the Ontario Energy Board (January 17, 2019)

(g) Complaint about Premier Ford’s appointment of his family lawyer to chair the Public Accountants Council (March 11, 2019)

(h) Complaint about Premier Ford’s staff and deputy minister giving preferential treatment to his friend Ron Taverner (March 25, 2019)

(i) Complaint about Premier Ford offering his friend Ron Taverner an executive job at the Ontario Cannabis Store (April 2, 2019)

(j) Complaint to Ontario Ombudsman about Premier Ford’s staff and others giving preferential treatment to Ford’s friend Ron Taverner, etc. (April 9, 2019)

(k) Release calling on Ontarians to file complaints with Ad Council about Ford government’s false carbon tax ad (April 26, 2019)

(l) Complaint to Ontario Integrity Commissioner re: Ford-government appointed LCBO Chair’s selling access to Finance Minister violates provincial ethics rules (May 9, 2019)

(m) Complaint to OIPRD and Ontario Civilian Police Commission about Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff Dean French demanding government employees pressure police to change law enforcement practices (May 16, 2019)

(n) Complaint to Integrity Commissioner about lobbyists helping organize Premier Ford’s fundraising dinner (June 13, 2019)

(o) Complaint to Integrity Commissioner about Premier Ford’s former Chief of Staff Dean French giving preferential treatment to family members, friends and PC Party people with government appointments (June 27, 2019)

(p) Complaint to Integrity Commissioner about lobbying of Premier Ford and Cabinet ministers by Melissa Lantsman, who advised Ford and the PC Party during the 2018 election and is a Regional VP of the PC Party (July 11, 2019)

(q) Complaint calling on Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner to update Premier Ford’s financial conflicts of interest disclosure statement, and to impose strict monitoring measures to ensure he doesn’t help his family business (November 27, 2019)

(r) Letter to Energy and Mines Minister Greg Rickford asking him to disclose if he owns any energy or mining investments (December 9, 2019)

(s) Complaint calling on Integrity Commissioner to rule that Peter Van Loan is violating lobbying law’s ethics rule by lobbying Minister Caroline Mulroney and other Ford Cabinet ministers after assisting her and PC Party (April 13, 2021)

(t) Complaint calling on the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to investigate whether any public official gave advance notice to anyone of the Ford government’s decision to remove specific lands from Greenbelt protection (December 14, 2022)

(u) Complaint calling on the Ontario Integrity Commissioner to investigate whether Premier Doug Ford accepted illegal gifts from lobbyists and property developers who seek favourable decisions from the Ford Cabinet (February 23, 2023)

2. Court Cases

(a) Case challenging the Integrity Commissioner’s refusal to issue a public ruling about former Premier Ford’s former Chief of Staff Dean French, and former Deputy Minister Steve Orsini, and other Premier Ford staff violating ethics rules re: the Ron Taverner appointment (October 10, 2019 on). Unfortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided in February 2021 not to hear Democracy Watch’s appeal of the very bad ruling by the Divisional Court that Democracy Watch did not have standing to challenge the Integrity Commissioner’s refusal to issue a public ruling.

(b) Case challenging the Ford government’s illegal, unconstitutional changes to the administrative tribunal appointment system (July 16, 2020 on)

(c) Case challenging Integrity Commissioner’s rulings allowing lobbyists who campaigned or fundraised for politicians to lobby the politicians soon afterwards (February 10, 2021 on)

(d) Case challenging Integrity Commissioner’s rulings that failed to penalize 6 lobbyists who violated the lobbying law in serious ways (March 4, 2021 on)

(e) Cases challenging 3 of the Integrity Commissioner’s rulings allowing lobbyists who campaigned or fundraised for politicians to lobby the politicians soon afterwards, and 3 rulings that failed to penalize lobbyists who violated the lobbying law in serious ways (November 8, 2021)

(f) Intervention in court case challenging Ford government’s limits on third-party pre-election advertising spending as a violation of Charter rights (November 23, 2021)

(g) Case challenging another Integrity Commissioner ruling issued in June 2022 that let yet another lobbyist off the hook even though they violated the law in several ways (July 2022 on).

(h) Case challenging the Ford government’s judicial appointments system for being too politically biased, and therefore unconstitutional.

(i) Court case challenging another Integrity Commissioner ruling issued in June 2023 that let yet another lobbyist off the hook even though he failed to register his lobbying, and put politicians in a conflict of interest by fundraising and doing other political activities for them while lobbying them (July 2023 on).

Top

F. Chief Electoral Officer (Ontario)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint calling for public inquiry into parts of Election Ontario’s running of the provincial election (June 26, 2018)

(b) Complaint about oil and gas industry’s ads during Ontario provincial election (August 1, 2018)

(c) Complaint to Elections Ontario about Ontario Proud’s election ads not identifying that they were 90% paid for by development and construction companies (January 10, 2019)

(d) Complaint calling on Elections Ontario to investigate gift tickets given by Mr. X to municipal politicians to attend the PC Party’s Doug Ford fundraising event in March 2023 (September 22, 2023)

Top

G. Ethics Commissioner and RCMP (Alberta)

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint calling on Alberta RCMP to investigate Jason Kenney Cabinet firing Election Commissioner as an obstruction of justice (December 4, 2019)

(b) Complaint to Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler about Minister of Justice Doug Schweitzer violating Alberta’s government ethics law by appointing his election campaign supporter Steve Allan as an inquiry commissioner (December 11, 2019)

(c) Complaint requesting that Chief Electoral Officer stop ruling on election violations because UCP Kenney Cabinet will decide by next April whether he keeps his job (December 17, 2019)

Top

H. Conflict of Interest Commissioner (B.C.) and B.C. Courts

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint concerning conflicts of interest created by former B.C. Premier Christy Clark holding high-priced, exclusive fundraising events. The Commissioner rejected the complaint, and so Democracy Watch filed the court case linked below under 2(a).

2. Court Cases

(a) Case challenging Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s ruling that the fundraising events held by former B.C. Premier Christy Clark do not create apparent conflicts of interest (filed October 26, 2016). The B.C. Court of Appeal decided not to rule on the case on Oct. 18, 2017 — see details here.

(b) Case challenging former B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline (filed January 31, 2017). The B.C. Supreme Court judge indicated he was going to rule against Democracy Watch and PIPE UP, and so the case was withdrawn in fall 2017.

(c) Case challenging Premier John Horgan’s September 2020 snap election call

Top

I. City of Toronto

1. Complaints

(a) Complaint to Toronto Integrity Commissioner about Councillor Jim Karygiannis giving preferential treatment to some constituents and retaliating against other constituents (February 11, 2020)

Top

Survey Results

Posted on by Bradford

If you think Democracy Watch is exaggerating how much Canada’s government accountability and corporate responsibility systems are the scandal, and how much Canadians want democratizing changes, consider the following survey results and reports:

  • According to a national survey of 1,515 adult Canadians conducted from January 9 to 18, 2025, only 17% of Canadians trust politicians in general.
  • A national survey of 1,077 adult Canadians conducted between January 31 and February 3, 2025 found that more than 80% are concerned about the corrupting effects of secret, unethical lobbying on politicians’ policy-making decisions, and want to know about all lobbying activities.
  • A national survey of 1,615 adult Canadians conducted from November 14-19, 2024 found that 86% believe corrupt backroom political deals happen regularly; 91% believe business corruption is a common occurrence; 88% believe people involved in corruption get away with it; 65% have no trust and 28% little trust that politicians follow rules; 70-80% lack confidence in any level of government tackling corruption, and; 77% lack confidence in business self-regulating to prevent illegal activities in their business.
  • According to a national survey of 1,502 adult Canadians conducted between January 5-12, 2023, only 22% of Canadians trust in politicians in general.
  • An October-November 2022 national survey of 1,084 adult Canadians rated Canada’s democracy as a 5.7 out of 10, equivalent to a D+ grade.
  • A survey conducted in August 2022 of 2,000 adult Canadians, 66% are concerned or surprised that Canada ranks 59th in the world in representation of women in Parliament (down from 27th place in 2002), 77% agree that women face greater criticism than men when running for public office, and 84-86% agree that having gender parity in the legislature is good for communities, the economy and effective representation.
  • A December 2021 national survey of 1,750 Canadians age 16 to 24 found that 63% don’t feel welcome to participate in civic engagement activities including involvement in politics.
  • A national survey in 2021 found 71% of Canadian voters want government regulation of social media companies and sites to reducing the amount of hate speech, harassment and false information (especially false information concerning politics) online.
  • A national CBC-commissioned survey of 4,500 adult Canadians in May-June 2019 finds 88% feel that politicians care more about staying in power than doing what’s right, and 78% say they believe that the country is divided between “ordinary people” and “elites.”
  • A February 2019 online national survey of 1,511 English- and French-speaking adult Canadians found that 86% agree that politicians have lost touch and 73% agree that politicians don’t care (with both percentages increasing by 11% since the same questions were asked in 2006), and; 77% agree that we could solve most of our problems if decisions were brought back to the grassroots (an increase of 16% since 2006).
  • A September-October 2018 hybrid phone and online national survey of 1,000 adult Canadians found that more than 80% were not comfortable or somewhat not comfortable when parties allow registered lobbyists to attend fundraising events featuring the party leader that are only open to top donors. Click here to see an article about the survey.
  • A December 2014 survey of 1,000 adult Canadians by Nanos Research found that 61% of those surveyed supported the position that the views of local party constituent members “should be supreme in determining who represents the party locally” and only 24% supported the party leader having the power “to prevent someone from becoming a party candidate in a riding.” The survey also found that 73% of those surveyed said that a majority vote of MPs in a party caucus should be needed to expel an MP from the caucus, while only 17% supported allowing a party leader to make a unilateral decision to expel an MP (10% were unsure).
  • An international survey conducted in spring 2017 by the Pew Research Centre (that included Canada) found that only 20% of voters have lot of trust in the federal government
  • A national survey released in June 2017 found that only 27% of Canadians have a lot of trust in the justice system, only 26% in the Prime Minister, 22% in municipal government, 19% in Parliament, and 10% in political parties.
  • A national survey released in November 2015 found that: more than 60% of voters believe that Canadian politics is a corrupt game; 50% said that they would vote for a party that they didn’t really support if the politician or party they support acted unethically, and; 20% said that political corruption had led them to stop voting;
  • An October 2014 survey by the Gandalf Group for Ryerson University found only 13% of adult Canadians trust politicians (and only 9% trust lobbyists);
  • A summer 2014 survey by the Environics Institute found that almost 70% of Canadians are concerned the political parties may try to illegally rig election results;
  • The October-December 2013 Ekos Research polls found that only 24% of Canadians think government does the right thing most of the time (the lowest percentage in the past 20 years); 59% of Canadians think our democracy is unhealthy and 54% see this as their greatest concern;
  • A national survey released in July 2013 found that: 53% of Canadians believed the level of corruption in Canada had increased in the previous two years; 54% believed the government is either “entirely” or “to a large extent” run by a few big entities acting in their own best interests, and; 62% of Canadians thought political parties are affected by corruption;
  • The May 2013 Environics poll found that 71% of Canadians want legal restrictions on the powers of political party leaders to control politicians in their party;
  • The May 2013 Ekos Research poll found that 90% of Canadians do not trust politicians;
  • The December 2012 Harris-Decima poll found that 84% of Canadians want legal restrictions to stop abuses of power by the Prime Minister and premiers;
  • The June 2012 Ipsos Reid poll found that 95% of Canadians believe politicians have little or nothing in common with voters;
  • The 2010 Global Integrity Report which ranked Canada 19th overall out of more than 100 countries assessed since 2006, with an overall score of only 75;
  • Democracy Watch’s List of much-needed federal government inquiries (archive website);
  • The Fall 2011 Nanos Research survey (PDF) showing that a majority of Canadians do not trust federal and provincial governments;
  • The Fall 2007 Ipsos Reid poll found that more than 70% of Canadians believe large companies have too much influence on the decisions of their government and they want a more aggressive crack down on the activities and influence of national and multinational corporations. To see a PDF of the survey results, click here;
  • a 2007 Ekos Research survey found that only 18% of Canadian voters thought the federal government was doing a good job of consulting them about decisions;
  • The 2006 Nanos Research survey (PDF) that found that 62%-76% of Canadians felt that the federal Conservatives’ so-called Federal Accountability Act represented positive change (NOTE: the survey did not describe the Act‘s promised measures accurately — the measures are full of loopholes because the Conservatives broke their 2006 election promises);
  • The 2005 SES Research survey (PDF) that found 61% of Canadians want more input into Canadian government decision-making;

Governor General must be an independent, impartial guardian of Canada’s democracy – Prime Minister should not be choosing alone

Posted on by Bradford

Choice of next Governor General should be democratized and Canadianized to celebrate 150th anniversary of Canada’s federal government

All federal parties should agree on key rules of Parliament before next election to prevent confused situation that B.C. is going through now, as 80% of voters and the current Governor General want

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, July 5, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, as part of its Democratic Head Campaign, Democracy Watch called on Prime Minister Trudeau to democratize and Canadianize the choice of the next Governor General. Like the Officers of Parliament, the Governor General (GG) must be independent of the Prime Minister because s/he makes many key decisions about the operations of Parliament and the government, and so the Prime Minister should not be choosing the GG alone as that taints the position with partisanship.

To democratize the selection of the Governor General, Democracy Watch has proposed that an independent committee (whose members are approved by all federal party leaders in the House of Commons) conduct a public, merit-based search for a shortlist of three nominees for GG, and then at least all federal party leaders should approve the choice of GG or, even better given that the GG appoints the Lieutenant Governors of each province, Prime Minister Trudeau should send the shortlist of nominees to the party leaders of each legislature and have them rank the nominees. The GG would be the person who receives the most votes from this ranked ballot vote.

To Canadianize the selection of the Governor General, Democracy Watch proposes that the Prime Minister should not request that Queen Elizabeth approve of the person chosen through the above process. The Queen does have to approve the person formally, but if the Prime Minister does not request the approval, and the Queen accepts being told, then a new constitutional convention will be established that Canada chooses its own Head of State. This will be a small but significant step toward full independence for Canada.

“Prime Minister Harper appointed his own advisory committee for choosing the Governor General but it was a charade as he could ignore the committee’s nominees and he controlled the final choice. Given how important it is for the Governor General to be independent of the Prime Minister and impartial, Prime Minister Trudeau must involve opposition parties in choosing the Governor General, and it would be even better to involve party leaders from across Canada given that the Governor General appoints the Lieutenant Governors in each province,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Prime Minister Trudeau should also tell the Queen who Canada has chosen as Governor General, and not ask her approval, and if she accepts that as the new protocol it will become clear that Canada chooses its own head of state.”

As well, Democracy Watch called on federal party leaders in the House of Commons to agree on public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want and as Britain’s Parliament did seven years ago with its 110-page Cabinet manual. Agreeing on and writing down the rules now (and making them law as soon as possible) will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election.

The rules should make clear: which party will get to try governing first after the next election; when the legislature will open; when it can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern and; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

In England, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public rules so what happens after an election is fair for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public post-election rules.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said last August in an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

“Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public know the rules for its minority government because its rules are written but B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public don’t because its rules are unwritten,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “As in B.C., if federal party leaders don’t agree to written rules before the next election, several constitutional crises will very likely happen with politicians, lawyers and academics having ridiculous arguments, and the unelected, unaccountable Governor General forced to make decisions, based on conflicting opinions about unwritten rules. Meanwhile, in Britain everyone will be following clear, written rules.”

“Nobody knows for sure what an unwritten rule says, and that’s why Britain, Australia, New Zealand and most other countries have written down their key constitutional rules,” said Conacher. “It’s clearly in the public interest that the federal rules be written down to stop unfair abuses of power by the ruling parties that will violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters right through the next election.”

For example, Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public all know that the only way an election can occur before the next fixed election date under Britain’s Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is if at least two-thirds of MPs vote in favour of a motion to call an early election or if a resolution is passed that states the legislature has no confidence in the government and that resolution is not reversed within 14 days. Many commentators claimed Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May called a “snap” election but she didn’t – she proposed an early election and more than two-thirds of MPs approved her proposal.

In contrast, B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public do not know how the next election could happen – which gives the unelected B.C. Lieutenant Governor enormous, unaccountable power (and the situation is the same at the federal level. The current rules in Canada are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw (and, as a result, a large majority of scholars agree they should be written down). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the Prime Minister and premiers and their ruling parties to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Governor General and Lieutenant Governors to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Prime Minister or Premier from doing what they want.

The Governor General has almost never stopped a Prime Minister from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for Canada’s political party leaders to fail to approve at least eight key rules for Parliament,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It is clearly in the public interest that the rules be approved to stop unfair abuses of power by the ruling party that violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, Parliament should, as the legislatures in England, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen, and; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

“As long as the rules for Parliament are unwritten and unclear, the Prime Minister and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and Parliament’s ability to hold the government accountable will be undemocratically restricted,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Democracy Watch’s Democratic Head Campaign and Stop PM/Premier Abuses Campaign

Background

8 Key Rules for a Fair and Democratic Parliament

  1. Until the Governor General has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Governor General will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in Parliament);
  2. The party that wins the most seats in the election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Governor General that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda;
  3. Within 30 days after the Governor General decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Governor General and the governing party/parties will open the legislature with a Speech from the Throne;
  4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the legislature do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Prime Minister-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of Parliament;
  5. If a majority of members in Parliament vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Governor General will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before calling an election;
  6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in Parliament that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The legislature does not have confidence in the government.”
  7. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament before the motion is voted on by Parliament, and;
  8. If a majority in Parliament votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Governor General will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister that the Governor General call an election.

Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public know rules for its minority government because they are written – B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public don’t because rules are unwritten

Posted on by admin

B.C. Party leaders should agree to written rules – as British MPs did in 2010 – making it clear when the legislature can be closed, what a vote of non-confidence is, when and how opposition parties will get a chance to govern, what will trigger next election etc.

As showdown over Speaker of the B.C. legislature continues, DWatch’s proposal to change to non-partisan, non-MLA Speaker is still the best solution (would be similar to B.C.’s non-MLA ethics and information commissioners, and AG and CEO)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, June 20, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, with B.C.’s legislature finally opening in two days, Democracy Watch called on the B.C. party leaders and the Lieutenant Governor to agree on public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want and as Britain’s Parliament did seven years ago with its 110-page Cabinet manual. Agreeing on and writing down the rules now (and making them law as soon as possible) will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election.

The rules should make clear: when the legislature can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern, and; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date (See Backgrounder below for the rules).

“Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public know the rules for its minority government because its rules are written but B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public don’t because its rules are unwritten,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “If B.C.’s politicians don’t agree to written rules for the minority government, several constitutional crises will very likely happen with politicians, lawyers and academics having ridiculous arguments, and the unelected, unaccountable Lieutenant Governor forced to make decisions, based on conflicting opinions about unwritten rules. Meanwhile, in Britain everyone will be following clear, written rules.”

“Nobody knows for sure what an unwritten rule says, and that’s why Britain, Australia, New Zealand and most other countries have written down their key constitutional rules,” said Conacher. “It’s clearly in the public interest that the rules be written down to stop unfair abuses of power by the ruling parties that will violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters right through to the next election.”

For example, Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public all know that the only way an election can occur before the next fixed election date under Britain’s Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is if at least two-thirds of MPs vote in favour of a motion to call an early election or if a resolution is passed that states the legislature has no confidence in the government and that resolution is not reversed within 14 days. Many commentators claimed Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May called a “snap” election – she didn’t she proposed an early election and more than two-thirds of MPs approved her proposal.

In contrast, B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public do not know how the next election could happen – which gives the unelected Lieutenant Governor enormous, unaccounable power. The current rules in B.C., are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw (and, as a result, a large majority of scholars agree they should be written down). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Premier and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Lieutenant Governor to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Premier from doing what they want.

Lieutenant governors in B.C. other provinces have almost never stopped a premier from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

In Britain, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public constitutional rules to ensure the legislature runs fairly (especially during a minority government) for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public rules written down in laws or their constitution concerning how the legislature runs and how elections happen.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said last August in an an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

After initial rules are enacted into law, the B.C. legislature should, as the legislatures in Britain, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: when the legislature is required to open after an election; which party has the right to attempt to govern first after an election; what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

As the showdown over the Speaker of the B.C. legislature continues, Democracy Watch again called on B.C. party leaders to change the province’s Constitution Act (section 37) so that the legislature has a non-partisan, non-MLA as Speaker. The change would take at most a month, as the Standing Orders of the Legislature (PDF) state in section 81: “On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.”

Establishing a non-MLA Speaker would be similar to the non-MLA B.C.’s legislature has already established for its other Officers of the Legislature – the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Information Commissioner, Auditor General and Chief Electoral Officer.

In the interim any MLA could serve as Speaker, even an MLA from the likely NDP-Green partnership government, as they could vote to break any ties in favour of the government without violating any constitutional convention given that conventions are vague, unwritten standards (which is why they should be written down as clear rules – see details above).

Some commentators have claimed that the legislature must also have a Deputy Speaker – in fact, section 37(3) of the Constitution Act says that the legislature “may” choose a Deputy Speaker so there is no requirement.

“Politicians shouldn’t ever be in a position like the speaker of a legislature where they judge other politicians because they are in a conflict of interest when doing so, and can easily make decisions for partisan, political reasons,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To prevent bad political decisions by the speaker of the B.C. legislature, and because of the current seat-split, it is a great time to change to a non-partisan, non-MLA speaker for the legislature.”

At the federal level, former Speaker of the House of Commons Andrew Scheer was a great example in 2014 of why you don’t want a partisan politician as Speaker when he let fellow Conservative MP Paul Calandra off the hook for clearly violating the rules concerning answering questions during Question Period.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

  1. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the legislature do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the legislature;
  2. If a majority of members in the legislature vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before calling an election;
  3. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in the legislature that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The legislature does not have confidence in the government.”
  4. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier to prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the legislature;
  5. If a majority in the legislature votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Premier that the Lieutenant Governor call an election;
  6. After the next election, until the Lieutenant Governor has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Lieutenant Governor will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in the legislature);
  7. The party that wins the most seats in the next election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Lieutenant Governor that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda, and;
  8. Within 30 days after the Lieutenant Governor decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Lieutenant Governor and the governing party/parties will open the legislature with a Speech from the Throne.

B.C. legislature should change to non-partisan, non-MLA Speaker – B.C.’s Constitution Act allows any MLA to preside over legislature until Act is changed

Posted on by admin

Party leaders should also agree to written rules making it clear when legislature will open, what a vote of non-confidence is, what will trigger next election etc., and should pass bill making the rules law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 5, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on B.C. party leaders to change the province’s Constitution Act (section 37) so that the legislature has a non-partisan, non-MLA as Speaker. The change would take at most a month, as the Standing Orders of the Legislature (PDF) state in section 81: “On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.”

In the interim any MLA could serve as Speaker, even an MLA from the likely NDP-Green partnership government, as they could vote to break any ties in favour of the government without violating any constitutional convention given that conventions are vague, unwritten standards (which is why they should be written down as clear rules – see details below).

Some commentators have claimed that the legislature must also have a Deputy Speaker – in fact, section 37(3) of the Constitution Act says that the legislature “may” choose a Deputy Speaker so there is no requirement.

“Politicians shouldn’t ever be in a position like the speaker of a legislature where they judge other politicians because they are in a conflict of interest when doing so, and can easily make decisions for partisan, political reasons,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To prevent bad political decisions by the speaker of the B.C. legislature, and because of the current seat-split, it is a great time to change to a non-partisan, non-MLA speaker for the legislature.”

At the federal level, former Speaker of the House of Commons Andrew Scheer was a great example in 2014 of why you don’t want a partisan politician as Speaker when he let fellow Conservative MP Paul Calandra off the hook for clearly violating the rules concerning answering questions during Question Period.

Democracy Watch also called on the B.C. party leaders and the Lieutenant Governor to agree on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Agreeing on the rules now will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election.

The rules should make clear: when the legislature will open; when it can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern and; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

The current rules are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw (and, as a result, a large majority of scholars agree they should be written down). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Premier and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Lieutenant Governor to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Premier from doing what they want.

Lieutenant governors in B.C. other provinces have almost never stopped a premier from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

In England, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public rules so what happens after an election is fair for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public post-election rules.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said last August in an an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for B.C.’s political party leaders and Lieutenant Governor to fail to approve eight key rules for a minority government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It is clearly in the public interest that the rules be approved to stop unfair abuses of power by the ruling party that violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, the B.C. legislature should, as the legislatures in England, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen, and; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

“As long as the rules for the legislature are unwritten and unclear in B.C., the premier and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and the legislature’s ability to hold the government accountable will be undemocratically restricted,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

  1. Until the Lieutenant Governor has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Lieutenant Governor will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in the legislature);
  2. The party that wins the most seats in the election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Lieutenant Governor that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda;
  3. Within 30 days after the Lieutenant Governor decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Lieutenant Governor and the governing party/parties will open the legislature with a Speech from the Throne;
  4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the legislature do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the legislature;
  5. If a majority of members in the legislature vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before calling an election;
  6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in the legislature that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The legislature does not have confidence in the government.”
  7. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier to prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the legislature, and;
  8. If a majority in the legislature votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Premier that the Lieutenant Governor call an election.

Democracy Watch calls on Elections BC to request a prosecution within 30 days of everyone who illegally concealed political donations, and to issue a public report within 60 days on all likely concealed donations

Posted on by Bradford

Special prosecutor needed for all cases to prevent political interference – Saturday’s Globe and Mail article shows Elections B.C. has been negligent in enforcing law

B.C. political parties should also democratize province’s political finance system to match Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 6, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Elections B.C. to end its negligent enforcement of the provincial political donation rules by, within 30 days, investigating and recommending prosecution of everyone revealed by Saturday’s Globe and Mail article to be involved in schemes where lobbyists made donations to the B.C. Liberals and then were reimbursed by their clients.

Democracy Watch also called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to handle all the cases to help prevent political interference in the prosecutions by the B.C. Liberal Cabinet. Under B.C.’s provincial Elections Act section 252, the CEO must approve all prosecutions and, especially because so few such cases have been in the courts in the past, the policy of the CEO for these cases should be to request prosecution of all of the individuals involved and let the courts decide whether they have violated the law.

“The fact that the media is discovering violations of political donation rules that Elections B.C. hasn’t even looked for shows that Elections B.C. has been negligent in enforcing the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Elections B.C. has to start enforcing the law properly by requesting prosecution within 30 days of everyone who has been involved in illegal donation concealed schemes in the past year, and by immediately auditing donation lists to find all illegally concealed donations since the last election and issuing a report within 60 days.”

“It would not only be negligent for Elections B.C. to let anyone who has violated the rules off the hook with just a warning, instead of requesting that they be prosecuted, it will also encourage more violations in the future,” said Conacher. “A special prosecutor is needed for all these cases to prevent interference by the B.C. Liberal Cabinet.”

Democracy Watch called on the CEO to issue a special public report within 60 days on all large individual donations that were likely funneled from businesses or unions through their executives (or their family members), employees or lobbyists since the last election. This report can easily be done, and should have been done every year in the past by Elections B.C., by comparing the donation database with the lobbyists registry database, and with the business registry database, and with the list of executives of B.C.’s unions.

Elections B.C. should then follow up on that report by investigating and requesting prosecution of everyone who has been involved in an illegally concealed donation scheme in the past four years.

Democracy Watch and the PIPE UP Network are currently challenging in court the B.C. Liberal Cabinet’s approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline because of the appearance of conflict of interest caused by more than $550,000 in donations to the B.C. Liberals from pipeline related companies in the past few years.

Democracy Watch is also challenging in court the B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s ruling that no conflicts of interest were caused by B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s high-priced, exclusive fundraising events.

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition also called on the B.C. government to make the same world-leading changes to the province’s political donation system (including at the municipal level) as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Democracy Watch detailed in a January 31st news release the key changes needed stop cash for access or the unethical influence of big money donations. More than 6,000 B.C. voters have called for these changes to B.C.’s provincial donation rules through Democracy Watch’s Change.org petition.

“The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations,” said Conacher. “Any political party that refuses to support key changes to the B.C. political finance system changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics.”

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Democracy Watch appeals ruling that Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s decision on B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s $50,000 salary and “cash-for-access” events can’t be challenged in court

Posted on by Bradford

Ruling means complaints to Conflicts Commissioner by members of the public about the Premier or Cabinet Ministers are effectively a meaningless dead end

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, February 24, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch appealed B.C. Supreme Court Justice Affleck’s ruling in January that no court challenges are allowed of B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser’s decisions because they are unreviewable opinions with no direct legal effect limiting the Premier’s conflicts of interest. The notice of appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal can be seen here.

The decision under appeal means that members of the public who make a complaint to the Commissioner about the Premier’s conflicts of interest are not entitled to a remedy, and are not even entitled to any assurance that the Commissioner himself has not been compromised by his own conflict of interest.

The ruling also stopped Democracy Watch’s court case filed last October challenging the Commissioner’s decisions last May and August that Premier Christy Clark’s high-priced, exclusive fundraising events don’t create conflicts of interest for her, and that the donations made at the events do not benefit her personally. Democracy Watch also challenged the Commissioner’s own conflict of interest in ruling on the situation given his son works for Premier Clark’s Cabinet.

“The court unfortunately decided that no one can challenge Commissioner Fraser’s unethical decision that it is legal and ethical for Premier Clark and Liberal Cabinet ministers to sell access to themselves at high-priced, invite-only secretive fundraising events, and that the events don’t create any conflicts of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time, and the court did not even consider this issue. For all these reasons, Democracy Watch is appealing the ruling.”

Jason Gratl of the law firm Gratl and Company, who is Democracy Watch’s counsel for the case, said: “We say simply that it is an error to find that conflicts of members of the Executive Council, including the Premier, are not always and not in this case protected by legislative privilege”.

According to media reports, Premier Clark has hosted or attended several, invitation-only fundraising events for the B.C. Liberals with he was in a conflict of interest, and also attended an event in her riding association sponsored for $2,500 each by four sponsors. Premier Clark received an annual salary from the B.C. Liberals for, in part, fundraising activities over the past few years, and that is part of the reason she is in a conflict of interest.

The B.C. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits the Premier and all MLAs from exercising their official powers or performing any official duties or functions if they have an opportunity to further their private interest or if there is a reasonable perception that their private interest affects their actions or decisions (sections 2 and 3). It also prohibits them from receiving any gift or personal benefit directly or indirectly connected to their position (section 7).

Democracy Watch, which filed a complaint with Commissioner Fraser about the Premier’s fundraising events last March, takes the position that Premier Clark benefited personally and was in a conflict of interest when attending the events because she receives some of the money raised as her salary from the B.C. Liberal Party. Democracy Watch’s position is also that the events created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark that prohibit her from making decisions that affect any company or organization that had a representative at any of the events.

Commissioner Fraser ruled on May 4 and August 9, 2016 that the donations made at the events did not benefit Premier Clark personally, and did not amount to a private interest that put her in a conflict of interest. He essentially refused to rule on whether the donations created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark when she is making policy decisions that affect the donors – he didn’t even investigate to find out who attended the events.

Democracy Watch’s case also asked the court to rule that Commissioner Fraser should not have ruled on the complaints filed about the events because he was in a conflict of interest given that his son works as a deputy minister for the B.C. Liberal Cabinet. In 2012, Commissioner Fraser stepped aside and didn’t rule on a complaint filed about Premier Clark because of his son’s connection to the B.C. Liberals. Democracy Watch wanted the court to order a reexamination of the complaints by another person who is fully independent of all B.C. political parties. Justice Affleck did not consider this issue in his ruling.

“Democracy Watch’s position is that big donations made at private fundraising events where the politician is essentially selling access to themselves are a clear violation of the conflict-of-interest law, and we hope the B.C. Court of Appeal will agree and overrule Commissioner Fraser’s decision that the donations didn’t benefit Premier Clark or put her in a conflict of interest,” said Conacher. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time. Commissioner Fraser’s apparent conflict of interest and the legal errors in his ruling give the appeal court many reasons to reject his ruling on Premier Clark’s fundraising events.”

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition also called on B.C.’s political parties to change the provincial Conflict of Interest Act to make the Commissioner’s rulings clearly binding on politicians, and also to allow anyone to appeal to the courts for a review of any decision by the Commissioner, including about the Commissioner’s conflicts of interest.

“It is dangerously undemocratic for B.C. to have an ethics law that politicians can ignore, and an ethics commissioner who is an unaccountable czar, and so B.C.’s political ethics law must be changed to ensure the commissioner’s rulings are binding and that court challenges of the commissioner’s rulings and the commissioner’s conflicts of interest are allowed,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition also called on the B.C. government to make the same world-leading changes to the province’s political donation system (including at the municipal level) as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Democracy Watch detailed in a January 31st news release the key changes needed stop cash for access or the unethical influence of big money donations.

“The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations,” said Conacher. “Any political party that refuses to support key changes to the B.C. political finance system changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics.”

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
[email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Thank you for donating!

Posted on by Bradford

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