Link to Calgary Herald article

Link to Toronto Star article

---

The following op-ed, by Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher, was published by the Globe and Mail on December 12, 2014, by the HuffingtonPost.ca and Rabble.ca on December 15, 2014, and by the Hill Times on December 16, 2014

---

Conservative MPs last week had an historic, unprecedented chance to throw off their chains and empower themselves and all MPs, and political party riding associations, to represent voters. A House Committee was reviewing Bill C-586, known as the Reform Act, which takes away many party leader powers (as a majority of voters want).

Instead, the Conservative MPs (who hold a majority of seats on the Committee) changed the bill into the “Hope for Reform Act” by taking out clear restrictions and replacing them with measures that allow MPs and parties to choose if they want to restrict any of their party leader’s powers.

Supporters of the changes, including the Reform Act’s sponsor Conservative MP Michael Chong, claim the bill now has a better chance of passing, and that parties and MPs will seize the opportunity to take away their leaders’ powers.

It’s likely true that the changed bill will be passed – why would party leaders resist it now. They know parties and MPs have always been allowed to rein leaders in (since leaders started consolidating their power 45 years ago) and haven’t done it, and they know MPs just passed up another chance to do it — so why would any leader worry they will do it in the future?

Before the changes, the Reform Act took away each federal party leader’s power to approve their party’s election candidates and gave it to a riding-association elected nomination officer in each province (and one for all the territories).

The Reform Act also took away each leader’s power to: choose the party’s caucus chair; kick an MP out of caucus (and re-admit them), and choose an interim leader if the leader resigns. Instead, the bill required a secret-ballot vote of a majority of MPs in each party to make these decisions, and it also gave 20% of any party’s MPs the power to initiate a secret-ballot vote of all the party’s MPs on whether to fire the party’s leader.

The changed “Hope for Reform Act” bill allows parties to decide — however they want — who will approve candidates (so leaders could end up keeping this power). It also allows each party’s MPs to vote after each election behind closed doors how they will choose their caucus chair, expel or re-admit an MP, and review their leader.

The NDP MPs on the Committee proposed measures to require disclosure of details of these decisions but the Conservatives rejected the proposals.

Why were the changes made? Only the Conservative MPs on the Committee know for sure. They could have passed the Reform Act without changes or even strengthened it.

They could have, but then Prime Minister Harper may have retaliated against them. Or Prime Minister Harper could have threatened all Conservative MPs with retaliation to try to force them to reject the bill when the House of Commons next votes on it (something he could still do even though the bill has been greatly weakened).

What we know for sure is that the changes mean restrictions on leader powers that a large majority of voters want have been rejected by the Conservatives. A national survey in May 2013 found that 71% of adult Canadians want restrictions on the powers of leaders to choose their party’s election candidates, to choose which MPs sit on committees, and to penalize politicians who don’t vote with their party (only 20% were opposed; 9% did not answer).

Another national survey in November 2014 found that 61% want local riding associations to choose election candidates (only 24% want the leader to do this), and 73% want a majority of MPs to decide whether to expel an MP from the party (only 17% want the leader to decide).

This survey indicated that voters wanted the Reform Act changed in only one way, as 68% want the members of the party to decide whether to fire the party leader (only 26% want the party’s MPs to decide).

The Reform Act will now go back to the House of Commons where it could still (and hopefully will) be restored to its original, stronger version or even strengthened further. However, even if it isn’t, if the House approves the Reform Act the Senate will hopefully, even in its much-weakened state, pass it before the next election.

And then, hopefully, many voters will ask election candidates how they will vote, if elected, to restrict their party leaders. And hopefully that pressure from voters will, sooner rather than later, lead MPs and parties to choose, finally, to take away power from their party leaders and give it back to themselves, and to voters, where it belongs in any country that calls itself a democracy.

Hopefully all this will happen – hopefully it really will.

Conservatives’ weakening of environmental protections and refusal to act on climate change raises question about whether biggest donations that helped make Harper party leader caused an ongoing conflict of interest

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Monday, December 15, 2014

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch launched a letter-writing campaign calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to finally come clean about who paid off his costs of winning power. The campaign page is at: http://ComeClean.ca/Harper/.

“The public has a right to know who gave Prime Minister Harper more than $2 million to help him win power, especially the identities of the biggest donors, so they can judge whether those donations have influenced his decisions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Were Prime Minister Harper’s biggest donors oil and gas companies or climate change deniers or foreign-owned companies?” asked Conacher. “Democracy Watch is launching this campaign because it’s long overdue for Prime Minister Harper to come clean about who paid off his costs of winning power.”

In 2002, Stephen Harper campaigned and won the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party. Since then, he has disclosed the identities of only 54 of the donors to his campaign. Prime Minister Harper has kept secret the identities of 10 of his biggest donors, and thousands of other donors, even though they donated more than $900,000 of the $1.1 million he raised for his campaign.

In 2004, Stephen Harper won the leadership of the Conservative Party (formed out of a merger of the Canadian Alliance Party and the old Progressive Conservative Party) and spent more than $2 million on his campaign. According to Tom Flanagan, Harper raised $2.7 million with about half (ie. about $1.3 million) coming from 1,829 donations of more than $200. Since then, the list of the biggest donors to his campaign (he may have kept some of them secret) has disappeared from the Conservative Party’s website.

When Prime Minister campaigned to be party leader in 2002 and 2004, secret, unlimited donations by big businesses, including foreign-owned big businesses operating in Canada, were legal. Big businesses and their executives could have given Harper hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, in secret.

Were Prime Minister Harper’s donors all or mostly oil and gas and pipeline companies and their executives? Were they major polluters? Were they large foreign-based companies that want weaker corporate responsibility laws in Canada? Were they companies owned or controlled by the Koch brothers from the U.S. – notorious opponents of environmental protection and other corporate responsibility laws?

Given the amounts involved, and given that even small gifts have been proven scientifically to be one of the most potent ways to influence decisions, and given that the Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper have weakened environmental protection regulations and refused to regulate oil and gas companies or address climate change, the public has a right to know who paid off Harper’s campaign costs so they can determine whether those donations may be still influencing Harper’s decisions.

Donations to federal parties, election candidates and riding associations from corporations, unions and other organizations were effectively prohibited in January 2004, and then essentially fully prohibited in January 2007. However, the federal Conservatives recently raised the annual donation limit for individuals from $2,400 to $3,000 (and during an election year from $3,600 to $4,500).

“By increasing individual donation limits, the federal Conservatives have made it easy for a few executives from a big business to have undue and unethical influence over politicians by giving tens of thousands of dollars to a party and its candidates and riding associations,” said Duff Conacher. “Quebec recently lowered the individual donation limit to $100 specifically to reduce the undemocratic influence of big money in politics.”

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: 613-241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443

---

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Link to CTV News article

Link to CBC.ca article

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, December 4, 2014

OTTAWA – Today, in testimony before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher will call for changes to strengthen the Reform Act (Bill C-586) measures that restrict the powers of party leaders, and free and empower MPs in key, reasonable ways, as a majority of Canadians want.

“The Reform Act gives MPs a rare opportunity to throw off their chains and free and empower themselves by restricting party leaders in ways that a large majority of Canadians want,” said Conacher, “Very unfortunately, there are signs the Committee may instead bend over to please party leaders by weakening the bill so much that it’s name should be changed to the ‘Hope for Reform Act’”.

Surveys show that a large majority of Canadians want clear restrictions on the powers of party leaders. A national survey in May 2013 found that 71% of adult Canadians want restrictions on the powers of leaders to choose their party’s election candidates, to choose which MPs sit on committees, and to penalize politicians who don’t vote with their party (only 20% were opposed; 9% did not answer).

Another national survey in November 2014 found that 61% want local riding associations to choose election candidates (only 24% want the leader to have this power), and 73% want a majority of MPs to decide whether to expel an MP from the party (only 17% want the leader to have this power).

This survey indicated that the Reform Act should be changed in only one way, as 68% want the members of the party to decide whether to fire the party leader (26% want the party’s MPs to decide).

The Reform Act as currently written takes away the power of federal party leaders to approve election candidates and gives it to a provincial nomination officer elected by a majority of the heads of riding associations in each province (and to one nomination officer elected for all the territories).

The Reform Act also takes away other federal party leader powers over MPs. It requires secret-ballot votes by a majority of MPs to choose each party’s caucus chair, and gives 20% of the MPs in each party the power to initiate a secret-ballot vote by all the MPs in the party on whether to expel an MP from the caucus (or re-admit them), and on whether to keep or fire the party’s leader. If the leader is fired by a majority of MPs, the bill requires another secret-ballot vote of MPs be held right away to elect an interim party leader.

The Reform Act’s sponsor, Conservative MP Michael Chong, has proposed weakening his bill to allow parties to decide — however they want — who will approve candidates (which could result in party leaders keeping this power), and to allow each party’s MPs to decide after each election how they will choose their caucus chair, expel or re-admit an MP, review a leader, and choose an interim leader (with MPs deciding whether to disclose publicly how they voted).

Everyone should be watching very closely for any sign of party leaders using their powers to force the MPs on the committee to change the Reform Act in ways the leaders want.

“Will the committee ensure the final version of the Reform Act takes away key powers of federal party leaders as a large majority of Canadians want or will the committee change it into a “Hope for Reform Act” that allows parties and MPs to decide if they even want to restrict their leaders’ powers?” asked Conacher.

The Liberals committed to “open, democratic nominations of candidates” and fewer “whipped” votes and more “free” votes at their 2014 policy convention.

To ensure politicians across Canada are free to say what they want about any issue, and have some freedom to represent the will of voters who elected them and/or uphold the public interest, without their party leader being able to punish them, the following changes should be made to the Reform Act:

• political party leaders must be prohibited from appointing election candidates unless there is no party association in the riding or candidate elected by the riding association;
• political parties must be prohibited from refusing the nomination of a candidate as long as the candidate meets minimal “character” qualifications and is selected by the riding association;
• the elections watchdog agencies (Elections Canada etc.) must be given the mandate and power to oversee nomination races for election candidates to ensure they are run fairly;
• the caucus of each party, not the leader, must be given the power to decide who sits in caucus;
• if a party does not have a clear position on an issue, clearly stated in the previous election and communicated to all candidates in that election before they became a candidate, then the party should be prohibited from disciplining any politician who takes a different position on the issue in any statement they make, or in any vote (even in votes on matters of confidence);
• the caucus of each party, not the party leader, must select the party’s members for each legislative committee;
• the speaker of the legislature should choose who asks questions in each daily question period randomly, ensuring only that the number of questions per party matches the percentage of seats each party has in the legislature over each weekly period;
• every member of the legislature must have the clear right to say whatever they want during their time for a member statement, and;
• the caucus of each party, by two-thirds vote, should be empowered to initiate a review of the party leader’s leadership of the party with the members deciding by one-person, one-vote whether to fire the leader.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT

Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: 613-241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443

---

Democracy Watch’s Stop Muzzling MP’s Campaign

Link to Globe and Mail article