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

DWatch calls on inquiry to call key witnesses, ask key questions during fact-finding phase

Loopholes in election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics rules make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation legal

Loopholes and weak, partisan enforcement mean it’s impossible to know extent of interference during past elections or since then, or to stop it

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, March 28, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the list of 10 key witnesses and about 140 key questions to ask them that it has submitted to the Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Canadian politics.  Democracy Watch is an intervener in the Inquiry and is represented at the Inquiry by Wade Poziomka and Nick Papageorge of Ross & McBride LLP.

About half of the questions are for the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, both of whom are testifying today.

The questions are aimed mainly at revealing the many loopholes in Canadian federal election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, and the lack of independent, effective enforcement of those laws.

The loopholes in the laws make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation activities legal, so no watchdog is even monitoring the activities, which makes it impossible to determine the extent of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, or before or after those elections up to now, or to stop the interference.

Almost all the watchdogs who are supposed to enforce the few effective rules that exist are chosen in secret by the ruling party Cabinet, many of them serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister or Cabinet ministers, most don’t do inspections or audits, most are not required to issue public rulings on every allegation they investigate, and in many cases there are no penalties for violating the laws.

As a result, their enforcement is weak and ineffective and does little to discourage violations.

“A foreign-agent registry will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes and flaws in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

“All our key democracy laws, including laws that claim to be aimed at stopping foreign interference, are enforced by weak lapdogs who are handpicked by the ruling party Cabinet, and they operate largely in secret and lack powers and accountability for doing their jobs properly,” said Conacher.

Click here to see the Backgrounder that summarizes all the loopholes and weak enforcement problems that make foreign interference legal and easy to do.

Click here to see summary list of 17 key changes 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, Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, and Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign

Backgrounder

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

(March 2024)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loopholes in lobbying law allow for secret lobbying

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

  1. Lobbying and influence activities do not have to be registered, even if they are well-funded efforts by an organization, if the people overseeing or doing the activities are not paid specifically to do the lobbying activities;
  2. Businesses and organizations are not required to register and disclose their attempts to influence MPs if their employees all together lobby less than 20% of their work time, and;
  3. Even if a lobby group is registered, it is not required to disclose its source of funding (other than Canadian government funding) or how much it spends on its lobbying and influence activities.

Loopholes in ethics laws allow for unethical decision-making

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

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

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

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

Loopholes in election law makes foreign interference and influence easy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement watchdogs are handpicked partisan lapdogs who lack key powers and accountability

Enforcement of Canada’s election, political donation, lobbying and ethics laws is very weak, as all the watchdogs are handpicked by Cabinet through secretive, partisan, political appointment processes and they all lack key powers.

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

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

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

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

See more details at Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign, Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, and Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign

DWatch in court today vs. Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that ignored PM Trudeau’s clear violation in WE Charity grant approval

Stage 1 hearing of case is about whether errors in Ethics Commissioner rulings can be challenged in court when government tries to prohibit challenges

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that the Commissioner found Trudeau had

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 25, 2024

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that the court case it filed in June 2021 is finally in the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) today, although still at a preliminary stage.  The case challenges Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.

The hearing is at the FCA today at 9:30 am in Ottawa at the Thomas D’Arcy McGee Building, 90 Sparks Street, 10th Floor.  The case is FCA file #A-169-21, and anyone can click here and register to watch the hearing on Zoom.  Michael Fisher of Ravenlaw is representing Democracy Watch in the case.

The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, which is strange given the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other member of the federal Cabinet.  Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the FCA.  In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case, and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.

Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.

The ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case will set a precedent that not only determines whether DWatch’s case challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling will go ahead, but also determines whether anyone can challenge errors in the rulings of any federal agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the law that governs it.

Democracy Watch is arguing that anyone should be able to challenge errors in Ethics Commissioner and other tribunal rulings in court to ensure that they interpret and enforce the laws they enforce properly. That’s why we have courts, to ensure that every government official, include watchdogs and administrative enforcement agencies, comply with the law.

Click here to see the Backgrounder summarizing the four key errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling.

“Hopefully the court will allow the case to go ahead challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s error-filled ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau participating in the WE Charity grant approval, and will set a precedent that allows future cases challenging of errors in rulings by all federal agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals to ensure that they always enforce the law properly,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Former Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion contradicted himself, tied himself into knots, and cut the federal ethics law into pieces in his ruling letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he clearly violated the federal conflict of interest law by participating, and having his office staff participate, in the WE Charity grant approval,” said Conacher.  “Former Ethics Commissioner Dion rolled over like a lapdog and again failed to properly enforce the ethics law, and Democracy Watch is challenging his ruling in court because it sets a very bad precedent that will allow politicians and government officials to take part in future decisions to hand out money to individuals and organizations that have close relations with their families.”

– 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 and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign

DWatch to file lawsuit challenging constitutionality of too-political Ontario judicial appointments and promotions system

Group already has ongoing lawsuit challenging constitutionality of too-political federal judicial appointments and promotions system

Premier Ford’s recent comments/actions make it clear the system is too political, which violates judicial independence and Charter rights of people in court cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 29, 2024

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it will file a court case challenging Ontario’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to provincial courts.  Ross & McBride LLP will represent Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case.

Recent comments by Premier Doug Ford have made it clear that the changes his Progressive Conservative government made in 2021 to Ontario’s judicial appointment system, which gave the Attorney General (AG) more power and control over the appointment process, are intended to allow the government to appoint only Conservatives as judges.

At a news conference last Friday, Premier Ford confirmed that was the intent of the changes when he said: “I’m not going to appoint some NDP or some Liberal” and “I’m appointing judges who believe in what we believe in”.  He said similar statements in the Legislature on Monday and on Tuesday and on Wednesday.

As the Toronto Star reported last week, Premier Ford’s government also recently appointed two former Premier’s Office senior staff to the province’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC), one as Chair and another as a member, and they are also both registered to lobby the Ford government.

Democracy Watch will file a court case challenging the Ford government’s appointment system for judges because it is open to political interference, patronage and cronyism that violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the courts, independence that is needed to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The previous Ontario judicial appointments system which was in place since 1988 was more independent, but it could have been improved to make it even less under Cabinet control like Quebec’s world-leading system was made just over a decade ago.”

In Quebec’s appointment system, the Minister only appoints (in consultation with others) at most one member of the 5-6 member selection committee, and the committee only recommends three candidates for each open position (Click here and see sections 14-16 and 26).  In the UK system, the committee only recommends one candidate, and the minister must explain in writing to the committee if s/he rejects the recommended candidate.

In contrast, the Ford government’s 2021 changes increased from 7 to 10 (out of 13 total) the number of people the AG appoints as members of the province’s JAAC, and increased from 2 or more to 6 or more the number of candidates the JAAC is required to recommend to the AG for each open position.  The AG is also allowed to reject the list of candidates recommended by the JAAC and require a new list, and to consult with anyone, including ruling party members, about the candidates.  These changes open up the appointments system to political interference, patronage and cronyism (Click here to see Backgrounder for more details).

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

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

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

The Advocates’ Society, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association all recently expressed similar concerns about Premier Ford’s comments and actions, and they also criticized the changes when they were made in 2021.

– 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 Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Background on Key Problems that Make Ontario’s Judicial Appointments System Too Political

(February 2024)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will RCMP Commissioner and officer answer key questions today about weak, lapdog Trudeau Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin investigation?

RCMP still hiding 2,200+ pages of investigation records in violation of the Access to Information Act

Public inquiry needed into why RCMP’s national command tried to cover up its investigation, and why they rolled over and didn’t prosecute anyone

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 27, 2024

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House Ethics Committee to ask RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme and lead investigating officer Frédéric Pincince key questions when they testify today from 11 am to 1 pm about the RCMP’s investigation into the Trudeau Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin scandal.  Click here to see the list of key questions.

The Ethics Committee hearing is happening because the RCMP sent Democracy Watch a letter on September 22nd disclosing 1,815 pages of very questionable investigation records in response to DWatch’s July 2022 Access to Information Act (ATIA) request for all records of the RCMP’s 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”).

The disclosure of the records 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 was supposed to hold the hearing on December 11, 2023, but the meeting was cancelled at the last minute by Committee Chair John Brassard.

In addition to hearing from the RCMP Commissioner and lead investigator today, the motion approves future hearings at which former Privy Council Office Clerk Michael Wernick, former Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion and (for some reason) very conflicted Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein (who should not be reappointed at the end of Feb.) will testify.

“The RCMP Commissioner and lead investigator must answer many key questions because the evidence that has been disclosed so far shows 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 Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The RCMP also misled the public by claiming it wasn’t investigating, continues to violate the open government law by keeping thousands of pages of investigation records secret much longer than is allowed, and is refusing to disclose the legal details why no one was prosecuted.”

In violation of the ATIA, the RCMP is still hiding about 2,200 pages of investigation records, and the Information Commissioner’s office is investigating DWatch’s complaint about the RCMPs’ now 20-month delay in disclosing the records.

A recent disclosure of related RCMP records to DWatch contains on p. 123 an email dated September 29, 2023 in which Rita Lattanzi-Thomas, Senior Consultant in the RCMP’s ATIP Branch writes that the 2,200 pages of documents are being reviewed to ensure they “will not reveal any investigation techniques etc.” and that the documents contain “the investigator’s notes (emails and notebook entries), witness interviews etc.” and that she is “hoping to have the remainder of the documents released on or before October 13, 2023.”  The records have still not been disclosed.

“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 and Crown prosecutors could not win a prosecution, they should have 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 making a behind-closed-doors and very questionable decision to cover up their investigation,” said Conacher.

“If the RCMP does not answer the many key questions about its weak, lapdog investigation, and does not disclose all of its investigation records, then a public inquiry will be needed to determine why the RCMP’s national command tried to cover up its investigation, and exactly how and why they and Crown prosecutors decided not to prosecute anyone,” 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 Government Ethics Campaign, Open Government Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

List of key questions the RCMP must answer about its superficial, weak, lapdog investigation of the Trudeau Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin scandal

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

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

Federal political donation and loan limit should be lowered to $75, public funding implemented if parties can’t raise enough

Unprecedented study of donations and loans from 2016-2022 shows about 75% of donors donate only about $75 a year, only 5% donate more than $1,000

Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funneling of donations, unethical influence, and foreign interference in Canadian politics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 21, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its unprecedented study of political donations, loans and taxpayer-funded subsidies to the main federal parties from 2016-2022 (2023 is not included because most final stats are not yet available).

The statistics show that the current political finance system is rigged in favour of a few wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks.

The conclusions of the study are that to have fair, ethical and democratic federal elections and policy-making processes, the annual donation and loan limit should be lowered to $75, and if the parties can prove they can’t raise enough funding to inform voters, run their operations and election campaigns then public funding should be provided by matching donations, giving loans from a public fund (instead of allowing unethical loans from federally regulated banks), and giving election cost reimbursements to all parties (not just the main parties).

The same changes are needed across Canada (except in Quebec which already has a $100 donation limit, donation-matching and other public funding), especially in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon where unlimited donations are still allowed from businesses, unions, other organizations and individuals.

Click here to see an infographic webpage that summarizes the key findings of the study, and contains links to detailed charts and analytical documents.

The key findings of the study are as follows:

1. About 75% of donors to the main federal parties donate only about $75 a year;

2. Only 5% of donors donate more than $1,000 a year – only 11,000 voters out of Canada’s total of more than 27 million voters donate more than $1,000;

3. Because their donations are so much larger than other donors, these 11,000 donors who donate $1,000+ provide on average 30% of the total raised by the main parties each year (especially to the Liberals and Conservatives).

4. The system also favours wealthy nomination contestants as they are allowed to donate $1,000 to their own campaign, wealthy election candidates who are allowed to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy party leadership contestants who are allowed to donate $25,000 to their own campaign;

5. Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funnelling of large amounts of money to federal parties, including foreign governments funnelling donations through front-groups and individuals in Canada, and gives big money donors unethical influence over politicians;

6. Only about 240,000 voters donate each year out of more than 27 million voters, and 9 out of 10 donate less than $500, and they donate $52 million on average to the main parties;

7. Most of the main parties spend what they raise each year, and rely on huge loans from federally regulated banks and financial institutions to pay for their election campaigns (these loans should instead come from a public fund);

8. Lowering the donation limit to $75 would mean the parties would have to attract $75 donations from only about 500,000 more voters (out of the more than 26 million who don’t donate now) to raise the same amount they currently raise each year (the Conservatives would need about 220,000 more donors, the Liberals about 170,000, the NDP about 63,000, the Greens about 30,000 and the Bloc about 10,000), and;

9. Taxpayers subsidize the main parties with about $27 million each year in tax deductions for donations (that mostly go to wealthy donors, and tens of millions more during election years), and about $63 million in post-election campaign cost reimbursements (that almost always goes only to the main parties and their candidates). It would be much more democratic to use this public funding to match donations and reimburse all parties’ and candidates’ election costs.

“Canada’s current undemocratic and unfair big money political finance system is rigged in favour of wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, big parties and the big banks, and the best way to make the system fair and to stop the unethical influence of big money in Canadian politics is to stop big money donations and loans and, if the parties can prove they need it, provide donation-matching public funding, loans from a public fund and election campaign cost reimbursements to all parties and candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, whose PhD thesis contains most of the research, and detailed recommendations, in Chapters 3 and 6 of the thesis. Democracy Watch thanks Cameron Flanagan and Justin Myers for their assistance in completing the political donation calculations for each year.

– 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 and Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

Key Facts About Canada’s Undemocratic Big Money Political Donation and Loan Rules, and How to Stop the Unethical Influence of Big Money in Canadian Politics

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Wealthy donors use their big donations to buy influence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

None of this is fair, ethical or democratic.

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

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

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

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

But these would be false claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RCMP confirms its access to information unit was misinformed and so misled Democracy Watch with letter saying investigation into obstruction of SNC-Lavalin prosecution was ongoing

RCMP still violating law by failing to disclose 2,200 pages of investigation records that DWatch requested in July 2022

RCMP Commissioner and lead investigating officer still to be questioned by House Ethics Committee about their negligently weak investigation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 15, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the records disclosed by the RCMP that explain how its Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Branch sent a misleading letter dated May 25, 2023 to Democracy Watch in response to D\Watch’s July 2022 Access to Information Act (ATIA) request.

The letter contained incorrect information saying that the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet members obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 “is currently under investigation”.

In statements issued to the media late in the afternoon on Monday, June 19, 2023 and in the afternoon of Wednesday, June 21, 2023, the RCMP said that the investigation ended in January 2023, and that the incorrect information in the May 25th letter was sent by its ATIP Branch to Democracy Watch “using information available at the time.”  (Click here to see those two full statements from the RCMP posted in DWatch’s June 19, 2023 News Release).

The RCMP’s internal communications records, recently disclosed in response to Democracy Watch’s request under the Access to Information Act, show that while one division of the RCMP had closed the investigation, an administrative system still registered the investigation as ongoing.  Click here to see the records, with the key information on pages 44-48, and 66-76 (especially 68-69).

“The RCMP’s records show that its internal communications system did not make it clear to all divisions and branches of the RCMP when an investigation has been completed, and that it was committing to correct that problem that caused it to mislead Democracy Watch in May 2023 about the status of the investigation into the Trudeau Cabinet SNC-Lavalin obstruction of justice scandal,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The RCMP’s June 21, 2023 statement said: “The RCMP will undertake a new review of the records, and, following necessary consultations, will provide a new release package to the requester within 90 days.”  However, the RCMP only disclosed about 1,800 pages of documents in September, and said about 2,200 pages of records were still being reviewed.

The disclosed records made it clear that the RCMP’s investigation was very superficial and incomplete, didn’t challenge the Trudeau Cabinet’s withholding of key evidence, characterized all statements by everyone in the Cabinet who was alleged to have obstructed justice in a favourable way whenever possible, always argued in favour of doubts concerning the success of a prosecution, incorrectly claimed that the RCMP required proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere” before a prosecution for obstruction could be pursued, and that the RCMP’s national command tried to bury the investigation by delaying a key decision from March 2021 to January 2023.  Click here to see details.

In an email dated September 29, 2023 on page 123 of the recently disclosed records, Rita Lattanzi-Thomas, Senior Consultant in the RCMP’s ATIP Branch writes that the documents are being reviewed to ensure they “will not reveal any investigation techniques etc.” and that the documents contain “the investigator’s notes (emails and notebook entries), witness interviews etc.”

Ms. Lattanzi-Thomas also writes that she is “hoping to have the remainder of the documents released on or before October 13, 2023.”  Click here to see the record and email on page 123.  Four months later, Democracy Watch is still waiting for disclosure of the documents.

“Given Democracy Watch requested the investigation records in July 2022, and the investigation ended in January 2023, it is completely unjustifiable and a clear violation of the federal open government law that the RCMP continues to fail to disclose all the investigation records,” said Conacher.

On December 11, 2023, the House Ethics Committee was supposed to hold a hearing to ask key questions of the RCMP Commissioner and lead investigating officer about the RCMP’s very, incomplete weak investigation, but the meeting was cancelled at the last minute by Committee Chair John Brassard.  The Committee has not yet re-scheduled the hearing.

“All of the RCMP’s conflicting actions and statements and the problems they have caused in this situation are due to their systemic culture of excessive secrecy, and the lack of timely, effective enforcement of the federal access to information law, including penalties for disclosure delays and other violations.  As a result, the public’s right to know have been violated, but no one will be held accountable, let alone penalized,” said Conacher.  “This shows the importance of the Liberal government acting quickly to make the changes to strengthen the Access to Information Act and enforcement, and to establish penalties for violations, as recommended by a House Committee in its June 2023 report.”

If the RCMP was committed to transparency and independent, effective law enforcement, it would have made it clear back in 2019 when the allegations were first made that an independent special prosecutor would oversee the investigation and would issue a public report as soon as it ended that provided a summary of the investigation process and details about any prosecution decisions.  Instead, the end of the investigation was only disclosed months later after unjustifiable delays and through conflicting, vague statements from the RCMP that provided limited information and raised even more questions.

– 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 and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign