Public has right to know, given Lobbyists’ Code was gutted to allow lobbyists to secretly fundraise and campaign for politicians they lobby, and given it is legal for foreigners to secretly help contestants

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, March 4, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch emailed a letter to each of the Liberal Party leadership contestants calling on them to disclose the identity of their top campaign managers and staff, top volunteers, and top fundraisers (anyone who has helped organize a fundraising event or appeal, and anyone who has sent out a personal fundraising appeal or held a fundraising event).

Liberal Party members have a right to know before they vote who each contestant owes, and what conflicts of interest have been created by the help provided by each contestant’s campaigners and fundraisers, and the public also has a right to know this information.

Huge loopholes in Canada’s laws allow foreigners, including foreign-government funded front groups and “proxies”, to secretly campaign and fundraise for party leadership contestants.

Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger, with the support of the House of Commons Ethics Committee, gutted key ethical lobbying rules in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct in 2023, and since then lobbyists have been allowed to do significant campaigning for, and fundraise unlimited amounts of money for, politicians and their parties and lobby them at the same time or soon afterwards.

Still, the campaigning and fundraising lobbyists do for contestants creates a clear conflict of interest, and the federal ethics law prohibits participating in some decisions as Prime Minister when in a conflict of interest (although the law has many huge loopholes).

“Liberal Party members before they vote, and the public generally, have a right to know who each leadership contestant owes, and what conflicts of interest have been created by the people campaigning and fundraising for each contestant,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given federal ethical lobbying rules have been gutted to allow lobbyists to assist politicians they are lobbying, and given foreign interference in party leadership contests is legal, it is even more important to have public disclosure of who is helping each leadership contestant.”

More than 40 lawyers and professors, many of them leading experts in government ethics, and 26 citizen groups with a total membership of 1.5 million Canadians, and more than 20,000 voters who signed on to Democracy Watch’s petition on Change.org or its letter-writing campaign, have called on federal parties to reverse the gutting of the Lobbyists’ Code so that lobbyists would again be prohibited from assisting politicians and lobbying them at the same time or soon afterwards.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Liberals and NDP or Bloc should strike deal to enact bills containing key changes to prevent, prohibit and penalize foreign interference, including long-delayed bill that strengthens whistleblower protection

Elon Musk and big business executives allowed to secretly spend unlimited amounts and secretly fundraise, campaign and lobby to influence Canadian politics, and to spend $600,000+ each to influence an election

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 3, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch issued an open letter to all federal party leaders, and all Liberal Party leadership contestants, called on federal parties, or at least the Liberals and NDP or Bloc, to set aside their partisan self-interest and, before a federal election happens, act in the public interest by enacting bills to close all the huge loopholes that allow for secret, undemocratic and unethical spending, fundraising, donations, loans, lobbying and disinformation campaigns by foreign “proxies” and by enacting the long-delayed bill that strengthens federal whistleblower protection in key ways, and to strengthen enforcement and penalties.

Because of these huge loopholes, Elon Musk, and foreign-owned big businesses that operate in Canada and their multi-millionaire executives, and foreign governments using Canadian front groups and “proxies”, are all allowed to interfere in and influence Canadian policy-making processes by:

•  secretly spending unlimited amounts of money on ads and other influence and interference activities;

•  secretly fundraising and campaigning for nomination and political party leadership contestants, election candidates, parties and party leaders;

•  secretly lobbying party leaders, MPs, Senators and their staff, and top government and party officials;

•  spreading disinformation anonymously, and;

they are also allowed to spend more than $600,000 each to influence a federal election.  And Canada’s anti-foreign interference, political finance, elections, ethics and lobbying enforcement systems are all ineffective because they all lack independence, and are allowed to be secretive, slow and largely unaccountable.

All opposition party leaders have stated that they will force an election with a vote of non-confidence right after Parliament’s scheduled opening on March 24th.  Mark Carney, who seems likely to win the Liberal Party leadership contest and become Prime Minister next week, has suggested he may call a snap election.

There is no good reason for an early election, and it is clearly not in the public interest.  Canada’s fixed election date means the pre-election period would start anyway on July 1st, and the election period in early September.  Sticking to this timetable not only gives time to enact anti-foreign interference measures, it is also fair to all the parties, gives people who want to run as candidates or volunteer on campaigns or volunteer or work for Elections Canada time to arrange their lives to make that possible.

“The federal parties all worked together to enact Bill C-70 in five weeks last spring, and there is no good reason why, before the next federal election happens, they can’t work together to pass bills to close all the loopholes in our laws that allow for secret, unethical and undemocratic foreign interference in Canadian politics, including the bill that strengthens whistleblower protection, and to make enforcement agencies independent and effective,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Any party that prevents these bills from passing into law before the next election will show that they are clearly more self-interested than dedicated to protecting the public interest.” 

“Every voter should seriously consider not voting for any party that prevents these bills from passing before a federal election happens,” said Conacher.

Bill C-65, which was introduced in the House in March 2024 and changes the Canada Elections Act in some ways to prevent foreign interference and improve election fairness, was being amended by a House Committee before Prime Minister Trudeau prorogued Parliament unjustifiably (Democracy Watch is participating in the court case challenging the prorogation, which should be ruled on very soon).

The Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions issued a negligently weak, cover-up final report at the end of January recommending only a few of many key changes needed to stop foreign interference.  For example, Commissioner Hogue said disinformation is the greatest threat to Canada’s democracy, but didn’t recommend any effective measures to prevent, prohibit or penalize disinformation.

Another comprehensive bill is needed to close the many huge loopholes ignored by Commissioner Hogue, and left open by Bill C-65 and Bill C-70, which was passed by the House and Senate in five weeks last May-June, but is full of loopholes, and still needs to be implemented to require foreign agents to disclose their activities in the Foreign Influence Registry (FIR), and to establish the new Foreign Influence Transparency (FIT) Commissioner.

Bill C-290, which strengthens federal whistleblower protection in key ways, including for people who want to blow the whistle on foreign interference activities, and cover ups of interference activities, was introduced by a Bloc MP in the House way back in June 2022, and is at second reading in the Senate.

With the approval of a majority of MPs, any bill can be moved right back to whatever stage of parliamentary review that it reached before the prorogation.

If the Bloc care about their own bill, and if they and the Liberals and NDP care about actually stopping foreign interference, and about key workplace protections for federal government employees, then they can easily, before Parliament closes for the summer at the end of June, pass these key bills just like Bill C-70 was passed last May-June.

Click here to see the Backgrounder that summarizes all the loopholes and weak enforcement problems that make foreign interference legal and easy to do across Canada at every level of government.

Click here to see summary list of 17 key changes that need to be made to stop foreign interference.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign and Protect Whistleblowers Who Protect You Campaign and Honesty in Politics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign and Stop Secret Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Snap election, voting system, dishonesty, lack of key democratic reform promises and measures, and failure of Elections Ontario to inform voters of real reasons to vote and how to decline their ballot, are likely reasons for second lowest turnout in the province’s history

Honesty law, representative voting system, key democratic good government reforms, fixing election dates, and effective ads by Elections Ontario will increase voter turnout – mandatory voting and Internet voting are not solutions and are dangerously undemocratic

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, February 28, 2025

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch called for democratic changes to Ontario’s political system in response to the clear crisis of low voter turnout in the provincial election.  Initial results show that the PC Party won a majority of 80 of 124 seats (three fewer than in 2022) with the support of only 19.5% of eligible voters, which raises serious questions about their mandate to govern, let alone to implement any specific law or policy.

The voting results were very unrepresentative for most of the main parties. Only 45.5% of eligible voters cast a ballot, the second lowest turnout ever, and only 43% of the ballots cast were for the PC Party but they won almost 65% (80) of the seats in the legislature. The Liberals won 30% of the votes but only 11% (14) of the seats, and the Greens won 4.8% of the votes but only 1.6% (2) of the seats. The NDP’s vote percentage of 18.6% was closer to the 22% (27) of seats they won, but still unrepresentative.

“With less than half of eligible voters casting ballots in the Ontario election, the second lowest turnout ever, and a distorted false majority, alarm bells should be going off and questions raised about the legitimacy of Doug Ford’s PC Party government which wasted almost $200 million of the public’s money on his self-interested, mid-winter snap election,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “More and more voters know from their experience of the past few decades of elections, and from Ford’s term in office, that they are not going to get what they vote for, and are likely to get dishonest, secretive, unethical, unrepresentative and wasteful government, and as a result no one should be surprised to see voter turnout at such a low level.”

“Voter turnout will go up significantly only if the voting system is changed, if the parties make changes to require everyone in politics to be honest, ethical, open and waste-preventing, and if Elections Ontario does its job properly and informs Ontarians of the real reasons to vote and their right to decline their ballot,” said Conacher.

Ontario’s parties must work together to make the following changes if they want to increase voter turnout up to the past modern high of 65% (in 1990) let alone 73% (in 1971):

1.  Pass an honesty-in-politics law that gives voters an easy, low-cost way to file complaints to the Integrity Commissioner, and requires the Commissioner the power to penalize misleaders (and requires MPPs who switch parties in-between elections to resign and run in a by-election).

2.  Change the voting system to provide a more accurate representation of the popular vote in the seats held by each party in the legislature (as in many other countries) while ensuring that all elected officials are supported by, and are accountable to, voters in each riding/constituency (with a safeguard to ensure that a party with a low-level, narrow-base of support does not have a disproportionately high level of power in the legislature).

3.  Strengthen provincial political ethics, lobbying, open government, whistleblower protection, and government spending and accountability laws and penalties, and democratize Ontario’s legalized bribery political finance system (the Green Party received only a C as the best grade of overall bad grades in DWatch’s Report Card on the Parties’ Democracy and Accountability Platforms, while Ford’s PC Party received a F).

4.  Actually fix election dates every four years, to prohibit self-interested snap elections, and only allow elections in between the four-year period if a vote of non-confidence in the government is passed by the legislature, and make the election campaign period at least six weeks to give late-nominated candidates time to campaign, parties time to finalize and release platforms, Elections Ontario time to educate voters and set up operations, and voters time to get registered, learn platforms and question candidates and parties.

5.  Mandate Elections Ontario to spend the $6 million or so it spends each election on voter education on effective ads that include the following two key messages – the real reasons to vote which DWatch’s partner organization Democracy Education Network includes in its VoteParty.ca and VotePromise.ca voter turnout initiatives:

•  “You never know when your vote may count” — with examples from past elections, and from specific ridings in various elections, which show clearly that election results cannot be predicted in advance, and;

•  “If you don’t vote, you don’t count” — making it clear that politicians don’t really care about you if you don’t vote because non-voters do not help them get elected or defeated.

6.  Instead of having the right to decline your ballot (which Ontarians and voters in three other provinces have, but it has to be done verbally which violates the right to a secret ballot), voters should have the right to vote “none of the above” and to give a reason on election and by-election ballots (as was recommended 25 years ago by Elections Canada).

As well, Elections Ontario again violated the provincial election law by failing to inform voters about their right to decline the ballot, and failing to include the total of declined ballots in its election results report.

These changes would give voters many more reasons to vote because they would know that voting for a specific party would mean their vote would count, and the party’s promises would be kept, and they would be more assured of democratic good government overall no matter which party won.  As well, moving the fixed election date to the last Monday in October would make it easier for people with kids, and students, to follow and participate in the election campaign and have the identification needed to vote.

These problems exist in all the provinces and territories across Canada.  All of these changes should be made by the federal and provincial and territorial governments, and for their municipalities, before mandatory voting is even considered because forcing voters to vote creates false legitimacy for political parties and politicians (and mandatory voting must never be implemented unless “none of the above” is one of the options on the ballot). Internet voting should also not even be considered currently given it would dangerously undermine the integrity of the voting system.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

Voters should not get fooled again – PC Party re-election would mean more dishonest, unethical, secretive and wasteful government decisions and actions

Green Party receives overall C best grade, NDP a C- and Liberals a D- in Report Card on parties’ 2025 election platforms

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 25, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch issued its Report Card on the Doug Ford PC Party’s seriously unethical and undemocratic record since it was re-elected in 2022, and its Report Card on the Ontario Parties’ 2025 Democracy and Accountability Platforms (To see the Report Card, click here, and to see the criteria and grading system used to assess the parties, click here).

Democracy Watch gives the Ford PC Party government an F fail grade since the June 2022 election because of a “dirty dozen” seriously unethical, undemocratic actions. Click here to see Ford’s Dirty Dozen Unethical, Undemocratic Actions since June 2022.

From 2018 to 2022, Ford’s PC government had 25 seriously unethical and undemocratic actions.

The Ford PC Party also received an F fail grade overall, and in all five areas of DWatch’s Report Card – the worst grade ever for any party across Canada in the past 30 years.

“Don’t get fooled again Ontario voters, as the Ford PC Party’s dirty dozen seriously unethical, secretive and undemocratic actions in the past three years show clearly that if the PC Party wins the election we’re in for more years of wasteful, dishonest, unethical, secretive, unrepresentative government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The other three main Ontario parties have not promised nearly enough changes to reverse the Ford PC Party government’s bad record, or prevent ongoing unethical, secretive and undemocratic actions.  The Green Party received a C as the best grade of overall bad grades for all the parties, while the NDP received a C- and the Liberals a D-.

“While the Greens and NDP have some key democracy reforms in their platforms, and all three opposition parties promise some important general accountability reforms, they unfortunately continue to fail to promise key changes,” said Conacher. “One can only hope that the parties will actually address these concerns when the Ontario legislature opens again so that everyone in Ontario politics will, finally after 158 years, be effectively required to act honestly, ethically, openly, representatively and to prevent waste.”

The Greens and NDP had their best grades in the area of Representative Government as they both promise to change Ontario’s voting system and consult with the public in many policy areas (in contrast to the Ford government’s regular practice of imposing decisions on Ontarians without any consultation).  In the area of Honest, Ethical Government, they both promise a few measures to strengthen ethics rules for politicians and lobbyists (in contrast to the Ford government’s horribly unethical record).

All three opposition parties had their other best grades in the area of General Accountability as they all promise to increase the independence and strength of watchdogs over various Ontario industries and sectors (in contrast to the Ford government which has weakened accountability in many industries and sectors).

However, the three opposition parties’ grades were not good in the areas of Open Government or Efficient Government.

Many surveys over the past 15 years have shown that a large majority of voters do not trust politicians, and want honesty, ethics, lobbying, open government and other key reforms to stop politicians from abusing their power.  Tens of thousands of messages have been sent to Ontario party leaders and politicians through Democracy Watch’s campaigns calling for dozens of key changes needed to ensure fully democratic, ethical, open, representative, waste-preventing and accountable government and politics across Ontario.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page

---

Democracy Watch’s Report Card on the Ontario Parties’ 2025 Democracy and Accountability Platforms

Sources

To see the criteria and grading system used to assess the parties’ platforms, click here

Mike Schreiner’s Green Party of Ontario platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 15, 18-19, 22, 27, 29, 30-31, 34, 46, 50-53 and 58-59 (and re: General Accountability see pages 12, 14, 21-23, 28-29, 33, 41, 44, 53 and 55-57) of platform PDF)

Bonnie Crombie Ontario Liberal Party platform webpage
(NOTE re: General Accountability see pages 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 ,12 and 14 of platform PDF)

Marit Stile’s Ontario NDP platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 7, 14, 17, and 19-20 (and re: General Accountability see pages 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 and 20) of platform PDF)

Doug Ford’s Ontario Progressive Conservative Party platform webpage

Other main parties’ top donors also provided too-high amount of funding

Ford doubled donation limit in spring 2021, allowing rich donors to buy even more influence over parties and politicians, especially Ford’s PC Party

To make system democratic and ethical, donations and loans should be limited to $100 a year (as in Quebec) and per-vote funding reviewed to prove it is needed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, February 24, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its analysis of 2021-2024 donations to Ontario’s main political party donations.  The analysis shows Doug Ford’s PC Party is supported much more by rich donors than the other three main Ontario parties.

According to data from Elections Ontario’s donations database, from 2021-2024:

•  Ford’s PC Party received on average 71% of its total donations from donors who each donated $1,000 or more, and those donors are 48% of its total number of donors.

•  Liberals received almost 48% of their donations from donors who donated $1,000 or more, who are 22% of their total donors.

•  NDP received 28% of their total donations from only 10% of their donors who each donated $1,000 or more.

•  Greens received just under 24% of their total from only 9% of their donors who each donated $1,000 or more.

The Ford government’s Bill 254, enacted in May 2021, doubled the annual donation limit to $3,300 annually (the limit increases by $25 automatically each year), which has allowed wealthy donors to buy even more unethical influence over parties and politicians, including by having business executives and their family members all make donations.  Click here to see how studies worldwide show that giving even small gifts have influence over decision-makers.

“Doug Ford claims that he cares about all Ontario voters, but rich voters are buying influence over him with high-level donations much more than any other party leader, donations that have corrupted the Ford government’s decisions and actions in many areas in favour of rich donors,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“The Ford PC Party’s doubling of the donation limit has created an unethical, undemocratic pay to play, cash-for-access system that allows rich donors to buy even more unethical influence over parties and politicians.” said Conacher.

Based on the donation patterns since Ford doubled the donation limit in 2021, Democracy Watch, joined by thousands of  Ontario voters who support the call for these changes, issued an urgent call on Ontario’s political parties to make the following changes to get big money out of Ontario politics finally:

1. set an individual donation limit of $100 per year (as in Quebec);

2. set a limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign of $100 per year;

3. prohibit loans to parties except from a public fund;

4. review the per-vote annual public funding and, if the parties can actually prove they need it, set it at most $1 per vote (and instead use annual donation-matching public funding if parties prove it is needed as that is a better system), and;

5. strengthen enforcement and penalties for violations.

Democracy Watch also called on Elections Ontario to conduct an annual audit to ensure that businesses are not funneling donations through their executives and family members, and to ensure that lobbyists are not holding fundraising events to be “bundlers” of donations as a way of having undue influence over parties or politicians, as has happened across Canada wherever donors are allowed to donate more than $1,000 annually.  Click here to see a summary of donation funneling scandals across Canada.

“Ontario’s too-high donation limit has been shown to encourage funneling of donations from businesses through their executives and employees and their families, and bundling of donations by lobbyists, and Elections Ontario must conduct an annual audit to catch these unethical donations,” said Conacher.

“As donation scandals across Canada show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of money in Ontario politics is to stop big money donations by allowing only individuals to donate or loan only $100 a year,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Application in Ottawa provincial court calls for open court hearing to consider evidence of obstruction of justice and breach of trust

RCMP did weak, much-delayed investigation, and made secret, behind-closed doors, very questionable decision not to prosecute, and hid investigation records for years, and is still hiding key evidence

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 19, 2025

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that it is filing an application in the Ontario Court of Justice in Ottawa today for approval from the court to proceed with a private prosecution of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for pressuring, and directing others to pressure, then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 (now operating under the name “AtkinsRéalis”).

Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C., is a key supporter of the application.

The application includes a legal opinion by a retired superior court justice (who did the opinion on the condition of remaining anonymous) supporting prosecuting the PM for the allegation of obstruction of justice, and possibly also for breach of trust.  The application also includes a “will say” document that summarizes the reasons for the application, and a summary of how the RCMP failed to investigate and uphold the law properly.

As detailed in Democracy Watch’s news release from yesterday, the RCMP’s internal records, obtained by DWatch and also included in today’s application, show that the RCMP’s investigation was weak, incomplete, delayed and buried for years, and amounts to an attempted cover up.  The RCMP only interviewed four of 15 key witnesses, and is hiding key testimony from Wilson-Raybould, her Chief of Staff Jessica Prince, and her friend and confidante Jane Philpott.  The RCMP also accepted the Trudeau Cabinet hiding key internal communication records, and trusted without question the biased, self-interested public statements of the PM and everyone else who pressured the AG.

In addition, and importantly, as the “will say” document details, the RCMP applied an improper legal standard for proving obstruction of justice, and didn’t even consider prosecuting anyone for the general violation of breach of trust.

“The RCMP did a very superficial investigation into the Trudeau Cabinet’s obstruction of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, didn’t even interview many witnesses or try to obtain key secret Cabinet communication records, and buried the investigation with an almost two-year delay, and then made a behind-closed-doors, very questionable decision not to prosecute anyone,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch’s position is that the evidence and testimony of all witnesses should be considered by a judge in an open court hearing, and that is why it is applying for court approval to proceed with a private prosecution.”

“Private prosecutions allow an individual citizen to initiate criminal proceedings against another person when they believe a crime has been committed and the police have either chosen not to investigate or press charges. Democracy Watch has gathered evidence, through repeated access to information requests, to develop an informed genuinely held belief that there is reasonable grounds to charge Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with the offences of breach of trust and obstruction of justice contrary to ss. 122 and 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada,” said Jen Danch of Swadron Associates law firm, which is representing Democracy Watch for the application.

“A public inquiry is needed to determine why the RCMP’s national command tried to cover up its investigation, and exactly how and why they decided not to prosecute anyone,” said Conacher.

“The RCMP lacks independence from the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers who handpick the RCMP Commissioner and deputy commissioners and division heads through a secretive process, and they all serve at the pleasure of the Cabinet so they are vulnerable to political interference,” said Conacher.  “The RCMP consistently fails to enforce Canada’s anti-corruption laws in a timely, effective way, which shows the need for key changes that many experts have called for to make the RCMP more independent, effective and publicly accountable, especially when it is investigating corruption cases, or even better to establish a new fully independent anti-corruption police force including independent prosecutors.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign, Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign and Open Government Campaign

Records show RCMP hiding AG Wilson-Raybould’s and others’ answers to key question re: whether PM and PMO actions were obstruction of justice

Given RCMP’s weak, incomplete investigation, and given extensive evidence of obstruction, group takes next step to hold PM accountable

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 18, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the 1,832-page second set of internal investigation records that the RCMP has disclosed about its investigation of the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet officials obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 (now operating under the name “AtkinsRéalis”).

Given the RCMP’s weak, incomplete investigation and attempted cover up, and given the extensive evidence of obstruction of justice and breach of trust, Democracy Watch will take its next step tomorrow to hold the PM accountable.

The records were disclosed, finally, in response to DWatch’s July 2022 Access to Information Act (ATIA) request for all the internal investigation records re: the PM Trudeau / SNC-Lavalin affair.  Records requested under the ATIA are supposed to be disclosed within 30 days, with reasonable time extensions allowed.  But the RCMP failed to disclose the Part 1 set of 1,815 pages of records until September 2023, and delayed the disclosure of the Part 2 set of records until May 2024.

For the Part 1 set of records, click here to see the List of records and links to the records, and click here to see a Summary of the records.  And click here to see a Summary of the Part 2 set of records.

The Part 2 set of records raise serious questions because they show that the RCMP is hiding key answers to questions about the pressuring the AG to stop the prosecution given during RCMP interviews by:

1. Jody Wilson-Raybould in Feb. 2020 (see Part 2 of RCMP Records, pages 373 and 395-397).

2. Jessica Prince, former AG Chief of Staff, in Oct. 2020 (see Part 2 of RCMP Records, pages 472-474, 478, 487-488, 498, 519, 527, 528 and 532).

3. Jane Philpott, former Treasury Board President and confidante of Wilson-Raybould, in Oct. 2020 (see Part 2 of RCMP Records, pages 1792, 1796-1797, 1803, 1804, 1806-1808, 1810-1816).

4. And, overall, the Part 1 and Part 2 set of records show that the RCMP is still hiding approximately 300 pages of its investigation records (mainly legal opinions concerning the decision not to prosecute anyone).

“Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jessica Prince and Jane Philpott should be asked what exactly they told the RCMP that the RCMP is still hiding,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The Summary of the Part 1 set of records shows how weak and incomplete the RCMP’s investigation was as the RCMP:

1. Over an almost four-year period, only interviewed Wilson-Raybould, Prince, Philpott and the AG’s former Deputy Minister Nathalie Drouin (now Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council and Trudeau’s National Security and Intelligence Adviser). The RCMP never interviewed the PM or any of the dozen or so other people who pressured the AG or her staff.

2. Never considered prosecuting anyone for breach of trust.

3. Called the investigation an “assessment” so that it could say to the media that it wasn’t investigating anyone.

4. Accepted the Trudeau Cabinet’s restricted disclosure order and didn’t apply to court for a search warrant or try to obtain secret internal Cabinet and PMO documents.

5. Relied entirely on the public claims made by the PM and everyone who pressured Wilson-Raybould and her staff which, of course, were all aimed at trying to make it seem like they had done nothing wrong.

6. Initially established that, to prove obstruction of justice in court, pressure must have been placed on someone to obstruct a proceeding in the justice system, and that such pressure had been put on Wilson-Raybould by Trudeau and various other Cabinet officials.

7. But then switched the standard to require proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere” before a prosecution for obstruction would be pursued, even though that is not the correct legal standard.

“The evidence shows clearly that the RCMP is a negligently weak lapdog that rolled over for Prime Minister Trudeau by doing a very superficial investigation into his Cabinet’s obstruction of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, not trying to obtain key secret Cabinet communication records, and burying the investigation with an almost two-year delay,” said Conacher.

“Given pressure by the Prime Minister and Cabinet officials to obstruct a prosecution is a situation that has not been revealed publicly before, and given no past court ruling makes it clear that the RCMP could not win a prosecution, a fully independent special prosecutor should have been appointed and tried to get a search warrant for secret Cabinet communications, and prosecuted so a judge could decide in an open court whether obstruction had occurred instead of the RCMP making a secret, behind-closed-doors and very questionable decision to cover up their investigation,” said Conacher.

The Part 1 and Part 2 records also show that the RCMP’s national command took from March 2021, when it received the final investigation report, until January 2023 to make its decision to conclude the investigation without prosecuting anyone.

The disclosure of the Part 1 set of records in September 2023 caused two MPs on the House Ethics Committee to file motions to call the RCMP and other witnesses to testify about why the investigation was so weak, delayed, secretive and biased in favour of the Trudeau Cabinet.  The Committee approved one of the motions and finally questioned RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme and lead investigating officer Sgt. Frederic Pincince at a hearing on Feb. 27, 2024.

At the hearing, Commissioner Duheme committed to disclose all internal RCMP communications concerning why the RCMP took from March 2021 to January 2023 to make the final decision not to prosecute anyone.  However, Commissioner Duheme did not keep his commitment, and instead sent a brief, vague letter on April 26, 2024 to the Committee (Click here to see the letter in English.  Cliquez-ici pour voir la lettre en français).

Unfortunately, the Ethics Committee accepted Commissioner Duheme’s failure to keep his commitment, and MPs from the Committee gave up examining the scandal.  Duheme also dodged questions about the RCMP’s negligently weak investigation asked at a Public Accounts Committee hearing in June 2024.

“A public inquiry is needed to determine why the RCMP’s national command tried to cover up its investigation, and exactly how and why they decided not to prosecute anyone,” said Conacher.

“All of the RCMP’s conflicting actions and statements and the problems and delays with the investigation in Trudeau-SNC-Lavalin scandal are due to their systemic culture of excessive secrecy and lack of independence from the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers who handpick the RCMP Commissioner through a secretive process,” said Conacher.  “The RCMP consistently fails to enforce Canada’s anti-corruption laws in a timely, effective way, which shows the need for key changes that many experts have called for to make the RCMP more independent, effective and publicly accountable, or even better to establish a new fully independent anti-corruption police force and prosecutors.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign, Open Government Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Court should issue ruling that not only rejects Trudeau’s unjustifiable prorogation, but also restricts PM’s power to prorogue Parliament in future

Prorogation clearly in Liberal’s self-interest, opposition parties intended to vote non-confidence in the government, and other options were available

All parties should work together to write down rules restricting PM’s powers, as parties in Britain, Australia and New Zealand did long ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 13, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is an intervener at the Federal Court hearing of the case challenging the January 6th request by Prime Minister Trudeau that the Governor General prorogue (shut down) Parliament until March 24th.  The prorogation is clearly in the Liberal Party’s self-interest as it gives the party time to hold its leadership contest to replace Trudeau, and is happening at a time when the opposition parties were clearly intending to vote non-confidence in the government soon after Parliament’s usual winter break was scheduled to end on January 27th.  (Click here to see DWatch’s legal arguments).

The hearing of the case is today and Friday, February 14th from 9:30 am to about 4:30 pm at 90 Sparks St., 10th floor or click here to register to watch it online.  Democracy Watch will be presenting its arguments this afternoon or Friday morning, and is represented by Wade Poziomka and Nick Papageorge of Ross & McBride LLP.

While the Federal Court ordered the case to move forward on an expedited schedule, given the case likely won’t be ruled on until late February-early March, and the Liberal Party’s leadership contest is over on March 9th, with Parliament re-opening a couple of weeks later, the court’s ruling won’t have much impact on the current prorogation.

Still Democracy Watch is calling on the court to reject Trudeau’s unjustifiable prorogation and issue a ruling like the UK Supreme Court’s unanimous 2019 ruling that it was illegal for then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament for no justifiable reason when a majority of MPs wanted Parliament to stay open and operating.

Democracy Watch is also calling on the court to look forward and issue a ruling that will prevent the current bad situation from happening again.  The court should establish restrictions on the Prime Minister’s power to prorogue Parliament in the future, restrictions that comply with binding Supreme Court of Canada rulings that mandate courts to balance the power of the PM with Canada’s key constitutional principles that require the government (the PM and Cabinet) to have the support of a majority of MPs (known as the principles of responsible government, the sovereignty of Parliament, and democracy).

The three practical restrictions that Democracy Watch is calling on the court to establish on the PM’s power to prorogue, restrictions that will work in every future situation, especially during minority governments, are as follows:

1. Has notice of a motion of non-confidence in the government been given in Parliament, or has a vote on a matter of confidence (e.g. a supply measure) been scheduled in Parliament? If yes, then the Prime Minister is prohibited from proroguing until the motion or vote is decided.

2. If the answer to question #1 is no, have the leaders of opposition parties who represent a majority of MPs in the House of Commons clearly and publicly indicated that their parties’ MPs intend to vote non-confidence in the government? If yes, then the Prime Minister is prohibited from proroguing outside of, and longer than, a scheduled adjournment period of Parliament.

3.  If the answer to question #2 is no, have a majority of MPs voted in favour of a prorogation at a time that is outside of and/or longer than a scheduled adjournment period of Parliament? If yes, then the Prime Minister is permitted prorogue Parliament for that time period.

“While a non-confidence motion was not being debated when the prorogation was requested, and while it is fair to allow a political party to change leaders before an election occurs, the Prime Minister dictating that Parliament must shut down for almost three months to avoid a non-confidence vote in his government that would trigger an election, without consulting any opposition leaders or even Liberal MPs, is fundamentally undemocratic and unjustifiable,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The Prime Minister had other options and, from all evidence, could have reached an agreement some time ago with one or more opposition parties to have the Liberals hold a party leadership contest while Parliament continued operating.”

“Hopefully the courts will take this opportunity to restrict this kind of abuse of power from happening in the future by issuing a ruling that makes it clear what is a legal, justifiable prorogation and what amounts to an illegal prorogation,” said Conacher.  “All federal parties should also work together to set out clear rules that restrict prorogations, snap elections, and other powers of the Prime Minister, like the rules enacted years ago by all parties in Britain, Australia and New Zealand parties.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Prorogations and other Power Abuses Fund