Case will target retroactive, excessive secrecy measures in Ford’s budget Bill 97, opposed by most voters, that hide communications between ministers and lobbyists and others trying to influence the government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 30, 2026

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it will soon file a constitutional challenge to the excessive government secrecy measures in the PC Party Doug Ford government’s recently enacted budget Bill 97.

The measures, which were rammed through the Ontario legislature along with the rest of Bill 97 without any committee hearings, make records in the custody or control of a Cabinet Minister’s or Parliamentary Assistant’s office (unless the records are in the custody of another institution) exempt from disclosure under Ontario’s open government law (the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA)). The measures apply retroactively back to 1988.

The changes mean that communications of Cabinet ministers, Parliamentary Assistants or their staff with lobbyists and others outside the government who are trying to influence the Cabinet’s decisions can no longer be requested under Ontario’s open government law.  Because the measures apply retroactively, every past request back to 1988 in which the records have not yet been disclosed is effectively cancelled, even if Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner or a court has issued an order that those records be disclosed.

Premier Ford and his Cabinet ministers made many false claims about the measures, but Ford essentially admitted when responding to media questions, and in the legislature, that the measures are to protect his cellphone records from being disclosed to the public.

Ford uses his personal cellphone for government business calls.  Several years ago, a journalist and a member of the public requested Ford’s cellphone call log records (not including personal information contained in the records) concerning the Greenbelt scandal and decisions made during COVID.  Premier Ford refused to disclose the records.  The Information Commissioner’s office ordered Ford to disclose the records in November 2024.  Ford challenged the order in court, and in December 2025 the Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner’s order that Ford was required to disclose the records.

The changes make the Ford Cabinet the most secretive of all cabinets across Canada, and will derail freedom of information (FOI) requests that have revealed scandals in the past, including the Greenbelt scandal.  A survey showed that 60% of Ontario voters oppose the changes (including 53% of PC Party supporters), while only 24% support them, and 64% think the changes are aimed at reducing government accountability.

According to a survey in January 2025, more than 85% of Canadians want to know the details of all lobbying activities, and more than 80% are concerned about the corrupting effects of secret, unethical lobbying on politicians’ policy-making decisions.

“The changes that the Ford government rammed through the legislature are dangerously undemocratic and will make Cabinet ministers’ decisions and actions much more secretive, and that will lead to even more corruption, waste of the public’s money and other abuses of power,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch’s court case will challenge the constitutionality of both Ford’s excessive secrecy measures, and the fact that they apply retroactively and, in effect, overturn a binding court order.”

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that voters have a constitutional right to disclosure of government information that they need to have meaningful debates, and make informed choices, on matters of public importance, including concerning the conduct of politicians and government officials. As far as Democracy Watch has determined, the retroactivity issue in the case has not been ruled on by Canadian courts.

– 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 Open Government Campaign

The loopholes also make secret foreign interference in B.C. politics easy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 23, 2026

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch called on the MLAs on B.C.’s Special Committee on the Lobbyists Transparency Act to recommend all the changes needed to stop secret, unethical lobbying at the provincial and municipal level across B.C.

Last September, Democracy Watch filed a 26-page submission with the Special Committee during its public consultation phase that detailed all the loopholes in B.C.’s lobbying law, and set out 30 key measures needed to stop secret, unethical lobbying.  The Special Committee has until April 29, 2026 to release its report.

“B.C.’s lobbying law allows for secret, unethical lobbying and legalized bribery that corrupts policy-making by the provincial government and municipal councils and leads to decisions that protect private interests, ignore voters’ concerns, waste the public’s money, and harm the environment and cities and towns across the province,” said Duff Conacher, PhD and Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

B.C.’s lobbying law has the following huge loopholes that allow for secret, unethical lobbying at the provincial and municipal levels (and these loopholes also allow for secret foreign interference in B.C. politics):

1. The law only applies to lobbying of provincial politicians and government officials. Surrey and Kelowna have set up lobbying registries, but other municipalities in the province haven’t.  The province should establish a province-wide municipal registry to ensure best-practice lobbying disclosure and ethics requirements across the province.

2. Lobbyists are allowed to fundraise and campaign for, and assist in other ways, politicians they are lobbying (which is essentially legalized bribery), because B.C.’s lobbying law does not prohibit this (lobbyists are only required to comply with some non-governmental organization’s code of conduct);

3. While lobbyists can only give gifts worth $100 annually to provincial politicians and officials, they can give unlimited gifts to nomination contestants, and to political party officials and party leadership contestants who are not an MLA (which is also essentially legalized bribery);

4. Unpaid lobbying is not required to be disclosed;

5. Lobbying in response to a written request from a politician, political staff person or government official is not required to be disclosed;

6. Lobbying by a business or organization with fewer than six employees who collectively lobby less than 50 hours a year is not required to be disclosed (unless the organization’s primary purpose is advocacy, and then it is required to register all of its lobbying);

7. Lobbying of provincial political party officials (who can easily pass on the lobbyist’s message to party leaders) is not required to be disclosed;

8. Lobbying of an enforcement agency that oversees a business or organization is not required to be disclosed;

9. The amount spent on a lobbying effort (including the amount paid to “hired gun” consultant lobbyists) is not required to be disclosed;

10. Only donations of $1,000 or more to a lobby group are required to be disclosed;

11. The loopholes that allow for secret lobbying mean that the limits on gifts do not apply to lobbyists who are not required to register, and there is not actually a prohibition on Cabinet ministers and top government officials lobbying for 2 years after they leave office (it is only a prohibition on doing registrable lobbying – also, the prohibition should be for at least 5 years).

– 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 World’s Best Democracy Fund

Federal Court of Appeal should hear the appeal, and should issue ruling that not only rejects Trudeau’s unjustifiable prorogation, but also restricts PM’s power to prorogue Parliament in future

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, April 22, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is an intervener at the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in the first hearing of the first step of the appeal of the Federal Court’s ruling in the case challenging the January 6, 2025 request by Prime Minister Trudeau that the Governor General prorogue (shut down) Parliament until March 24, 2025.

Today’s hearing is focused solely on the issue of whether or not the FCA should hear the appeal given the prorogation ended long ago.  Both the appellants and the Attorney General of Canada want the appeal to go ahead, as does Democracy Watch, so that the FCA will issue a ruling on the important legal issues re:

1. Whether the Prime Minister can prorogue Parliament anytime the PM wants, or are their constitutional restrictions on prorogations?

2. Whether the courts should hear and rule on challenges to prorogations?

The hearing of this first step of the appeal is this morning, April 22nd from 9:30 am to about 11:30 am at 180 Queen St. W., 7th floor in Toronto or click here to register to watch it online (under Hearing Lists, File #A-131-25,  David Joseph MacKinnon et al v. Canada (Attorney General) et al).  Democracy Watch is represented at the hearing by Justyna Zukowski, and also Wade Poziomka, Nick Papageorge, of Ross & McBride LLP.

The prorogation was clearly in the Liberal Party’s self-interest as it gave the party time to hold its leadership contest to replace Trudeau, and happened 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 27, 2025.  (Click here to see DWatch’s legal arguments).

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 Trudeau’s 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 sometime in 2024 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

Review confirmed PM Carney has millions in financial conflicts of interest he knows about with the Brookfield conglomerate, and he illegally enforces part of his so-called “ethics screen” himself, and has likely violated the ethics law

Ethics Commissioner misled the Committee re: loopholes that allow the PM, ministers, Cabinet staff and top government officials to secretly profit from their decisions without any penalties

Many other members of Cabinet, their staff and top government officials have “not-blind” trusts and unethical smokescreens, including Liberal PS Leslie Church who participated behind closed doors in the review of the ethics law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 16, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its second submission to the House Ethics Committee, which is completing its first review since 2012 of Canada’s federal government ethics law (the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA)) which applies to the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, their staff and almost 3,000 of the top Cabinet-appointed federal government officials.  The Committee has met five times behind closed doors for since February 23, 2026 to consider its draft report on recommendations for closing huge loopholes in the COIA and for strengthening enforcement of the law.

Liberal MP Leslie Church is a member of the Ethics Committee and is covered by the COIA’s rules as she is a Parliamentary Secretary (PS), and she has both a so-called “blind trust” and a conflict of interest screen (“ethics screen) established under the COIA (as do several Cabinet ministers, PMO and Cabinet staff and other top government officials).  Despite having this clear conflict of interest, Ms. Church has been participating in the hearings reviewing whether and how the COIA should be changed since last September, including five behind-closed-door meetings on February 23rd, March 12th, March 23rd, March 26th and April 13th.  As a result, she has a secret, inside avenue to further her own and Cabinet’s interests on the Committee.

“It’s dangerously undemocratic and unethical alone to have parliamentary secretaries, who are members of the executive branch Cabinet, sit on House committees which are supposed to operate independently of Cabinet and hold ministers accountable,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and PhD in ethics, political finance and lobbying law.  “It is even more dangerously undemocratic and unethical when a parliamentary secretary with financial and personal interests covered by the federal Cabinet ethics law participates in a committee’s review of that law that is focused on deciding whether or not to close huge loopholes in the law and strengthen enforcement and penalties for violations.”

Democracy Watch’s testimony before the Ethics Committee on October 1, 2025, and first submission to the Committee in November (en français), called on the Committee to recommend closing a “dirty dozen” unethical loopholes and seven key changes to strengthen enforcement of the COIA.

Key much-needed, long-overdue changes are to: 1. Close two huge loopholes in the COIA that mean it doesn’t apply to 99% of decisions and actions of office holders (it really should be called the “Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Act”); 2. Ban “not-blind” trusts and unethical smokescreens and business investments; 3. Establish a sliding scale of mandatory, significant penalties for violations (so people like recent COIA violator Deputy Minister Christiane Fox are not let off without any penalty), and; 4. To make the COIA enforcement system independent, transparent, timely, effective and publicly accountable (it is currently partisan, secretive, slow, ineffective and largely unaccountable).

Similar loopholes exist in the MP Code, but the Senate Code has fewer loopholes than the COIA.  The loopholes in those codes also need to be closed, and enforcement of those codes also needs to be strengthened, including by adding mandatory, significant penalties for violations.  In direct contrast, the Values and Ethics Code and Directive on Conflict of Interest, which the federal Cabinet imposed 30 years ago on all federal government employees (other than the people covered by the COIA), do not have the loopholes in them that the COIA has as they prohibit being in even an apparent conflict of interest (with no exceptions), and section 7 of the Directive sets out significant penalties for violations.  This shows clearly that the loopholes can be closed and penalties added in the COIA.

Democracy Watch’s second submission to the Committee highlights the following key facts that were confirmed by the Committee’s hearings reviewing the COIA since last September, and by DWatch’s own research:

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein misled the Committee three times re: federal ethics rules and re: loopholes in the COIA and MP Code that are not in the ethics codes for federal government employees, and could be easily closed in the COIA (See submission Part I).

2. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s so-called “blind trust” is a complete sham as he knows that he owns millions of dollars of stock options and other investments in Brookfield’s conglomerate of more than 2,000 companies that neither he nor his hand-picked trustee can sell until 2033-2024, and so he has a blatant, significant and ongoing financial conflict of interest until then (which he lied about during last year’s federal election), and he can personally profit from making decisions that affect those companies (See submission Part II).

3. PM Carney’s so-called “ethics screen” is a secretive, unethical smokescreen that he enforces himself, in violation of both the terms of his screen and the COIA, for emails, texts and calls on his cell phone and any discussions or meetings he has outside of the PMO (See submission Part III).

4. PM Carney has not been able to do his job on major issue files almost 50% of the time because of his conflicts of interest. He was prohibited from participating in 6 of 13 major files from federal government departments that were flagged for review under his ethics screen (See submission Part IV).

5. The federal Cabinet office continues to refuse to disclose many details re: whether and how PM Carney’s ethics screens have been enforced (in blatant violation of the federal Access to Information Act), especially exactly how many discussions, decisions and votes have been flagged for Carney conflicts, and how many he has not participated in because of conflicts, for both his initial two, secret, self-imposed and self-administered screens (from March to July 2025) and his Ethics Commissioner-approved screen that has been in force since July 10, 2025 (See submission Part V).

6. From the evidence available, it seems PM Carney has violated the COIA by participating in budget Bill C-15 decisions (which has a tax credit in it that specifically benefits a Brookfield-owned company), and by giving preferential treatment by meeting personally with Brookfield’s COO Justin Beber (See submission Part VI).

7. Again, closing the two biggest loopholes in the COIA, and banning not-blind trusts and unethical smokescreens and business investments, are the top priorities and can be done effectively. The loopholes mean the COIA doesn’t apply to 99% of decisions and actions of office holders, and their sham trusts and screens allow them to secretly profit from their decisions (See submission Part VII).

8. In addition to PM Carney, many other Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff and top government officials have sham “not-blind” trusts (See submission Part VIII).

9. In addition to PM Carney, many other Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff and top government officials have so-called “ethics screens” that are unethical smokescreens (See submission Part IX).

“Prime Minister Carney has as many financial conflicts of interest as Donald Trump, and Canada’s federal ethics law and enforcement system are so loophole-filled and weak that Carney is allowed profit from his decisions as much as Trump,” said Conacher. “The weak enforcement system has also failed to prevent Carney from participating in discussions and decisions that the evidence shows violated the federal ethics law.”

“Canada’s political ethics laws and codes for Cabinet ministers, their staff and top government officials are full of loopholes that allow them to secretly profit financially from their decisions, and are weaker than the rules for senators and federal government employees, and as weak as the rules for backbench MPs, which makes no sense at all,” said Conacher.  “Hopefully, the House Ethics Committee will make strong, comprehensive recommendations in its report for key changes to finally close all the loopholes in all federal political ethics laws and codes, and strengthen enforcement and establish mandatory, significant penalties for all violations, so politicians and their staff and top government officials are no longer allowed to make unethical, self-interested decisions or profit from their decisions in secret, and are held publicly accountable and penalized for violations.”

The Conservatives and Bloc together currently have a majority on the Ethics Committee and all other House Committees.  On March 31st, Prime Minister Mark Carney stated publicly that he would not prorogue Parliament or restructure House committees if the Liberals obtained a majority, which they have through dishonest, unethical floor-crossings by five MPs.

Prime Minister Mark Carney also needs to re-enact publicly the PM Code for ministers and their staff covering accountability, ethics, fundraising, relationships with lobbyists etc.  The PM Code sets out very important ethics rules that the Ethics Commissioner has stated repeatedly are enforceable requirements that define in detail key measures in the COIA.  The version of the PM Code on the PM’s website is from November 2015, and Carney has said nothing about it since becoming PM, including nothing in his May 21, 2025 Mandate Letter to Cabinet.  Click here to see details about the PM Code.

“If Prime Minister Carney doesn’t re-enact the code for ministers in his own name, or weakens or cancels it, it will gut Canada’s already weak, loophole-filled government ethics law, and add to his negligently weak record and attitude so far concerning ethics,” said Conacher.

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws to ensure democratic good government, including closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes, decreasing the donation limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current annual individual donation limit of $3,550 (which increases by $50 each year) is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make a top donation), closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act, and strengthening the whistleblower protection law.

– 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

Ethics law for PM, Cabinet ministers, their staff and top government officials has no penalties for violations of ethics rules – but PM can suspend, demote or fire any Deputy Minister as they all serve at his and Cabinet’s pleasure

In contrast, ethics code for federal government employees has penalties for violations including being fired – ethics law should have mandatory penalties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, April 14, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Prime Minister Mark Carney to penalize Department of Defence Deputy Minister Christiane Fox because she violated Canada’s federal government ethics law by, in her former position as  Deputy Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), giving preferential treatment to someone she and her husband had past direct connections with by improperly intervening in and trying to influence the hiring of that person even though he wasn’t qualified for the position at IRCC.

Federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein issued a ruling last week finding her guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act (COIA), which applies to the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, their staff and almost 3,000 of the top Cabinet-appointed federal government officials.

Democracy Watch also called on the House Ethics Committee, which is completing its first review since 2012 of the ethics law, to recommend a sliding scale of significant, mandatory penalties for violations of key ethics rules in the COIA.  The Committee has met behind closed doors six times since February 23rd considering its draft report on recommendations for closing huge loopholes in the COIA and for strengthening enforcement of the law, including establishing penalties for ethics violations.

Democracy Watch’s testimony before the Ethics Committee on October 1, 2025, and first submission to the Committee in November (en français), called on the Committee to recommend closing a “dirty dozen” unethical loopholes and seven key changes to strengthen enforcement of the COIA, including establishing a sliding scale of mandatory, significant penalties for violations so people like Fox are not let off without any penalty as many others have been in the past including former Prime Minister Trudeau (twice) and past and still current Cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc.

Have the Liberal MPs on the Ethics Committee deliberately delayed the finalizing of the report for six meetings with the hope that they would get a majority government through unethical floor-crossings and yesterday’s by-elections and, after that, prorogue Parliament or pass a resolution in the House to give the Liberals a majority of seats on each House committee so they could control what the report says?  On March 31st, Prime Minister Mark Carney stated publicly that he would not prorogue Parliament or restructure House committees if the Liberals obtain a majority.  In any case, the Liberals won’t have a majority of seats until the three new MPs actually enter Parliament which won’t likely happen for another week or so, which gives the Ethics Committee ample time to complete its report on the COIA.

Concerning penalizing Deputy Minister Fox, Prime Minister Carney can suspend with pay, suspend without pay, demote or fire any Cabinet minister, Cabinet staff, Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister or Associate Deputy Minister for any reason, including an ethics violation, as they all serve at his and Cabinet’s pleasure.  The PM can also impose these penalties on any of the hundreds of other top government officials who serve at his and Cabinet’s pleasure.

If the PM does not penalize Fox, she will not face any other penalty.  Currently, the Ethics Commissioner cannot impose monetary penalties for violations of the conflict-of-interest prohibition in the COIA that Fox violated, nor can the Commissioner impose monetary penalties for any of the other key conflict of interest and ethics prohibitions in the COIA.  Also, the Commissioner cannot recommend any other sanctions. The Commissioner can issue a compliance order, but that is not a penalty or sanction, it is just an order to comply with the COIA in the future.

The Ethics Commissioner can only impose a penalty for violating the requirements in the Act to disclose accurately to the Commissioner (and, in some cases, publicly): assets and liabilities; gifts received worth more than $200; job offers, recusals, outside activities, travel on a private plane, and; details concerning a blind trust. The maximum allowable penalty for violating these disclosure requirements is the ridiculously low amount of $500.

Ethics Commissioner von Finckenstein only proposed in his 2024-2025 Annual Report (pp. 9-10) increasing the fine for violating the disclosure requirements in COIA from maximum $500 to maximum $3,000, which is still a ridiculously low amount that will do very little to discourage violations given the Commissioner is not required to impose the maximum fine, and given almost all office holders covered by the law are paid more than $200,000 a year. Incredibly, he did not recommend any penalty for violating the conflict-of-interest prohibitions in the COIA, and his failure to do that was simply negligent.

In direct contrast, the Values and Ethics Code and Directive on Conflict of Interest, which the federal Cabinet imposed 30 years ago on all federal government employees (other than the people covered by the COIA), do not have the loopholes in them that the COIA has, and section 7 of the Directive sets out significant penalties for violations, which shows clearly that the loopholes can be closed and penalties added in the COIA.

Deputy Ministers are the top enforcement officer of the Directive for employees in their department, so Deputy Minister Fox could penalize an employee at the Department of Defence, or could have penalized an employee at IRCC, for doing what she did.

“If Prime Minister Carney doesn’t penalize his deputy minister even though she violated one of the most important laws that ensures democratic good government, he will show yet again that he doesn’t care about governing with integrity, as he has already shown by having an ongoing, significant financial conflict of interest due to the millions of dollars of stock options he knows he owns in Brookfield’s conglomerate of companies, and by lying to voters about his stock options during last year’s federal election, and by accepting floor-crossing MPs to the Liberal caucus,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and PhD in ethics, political finance and lobbying law.

“Incredibly, and deeply hypocritically, while federal Cabinet ministers imposed conflict of interest rules on all federal government employees with penalties including being fired for violations, they didn’t include any penalties for violations of the conflict of interest rules in the ethics law that applies to themselves, their staff, deputy ministers and other top government officials,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and PhD in ethics, political finance and lobbying law. “This is one of many loopholes and flaws that make the federal ethics law almost completely ineffective at stopping the most powerful people in the federal government from acting unethically, and hopefully the House Ethics Committee will recommend closing all the loopholes, correcting all the flaws, and establishing a sliding scale of significant, mandatory penalties for violations of the ethics law in its upcoming report on the law.”

Similar loopholes exist in the MP Code and the Senate Code and those loopholes also need to be closed, and enforcement of those codes also needs to be strengthened, including by adding mandatory, significant penalties for violations.

Many other changes are needed to other federal laws to ensure democratic good government, including closing huge secret, unethical lobbying loopholes, decreasing the donation limit in the Canada Elections Act to $75 (as the current annual individual donation limit of $3,500 (which increases by $50 each year) is essentially legalized bribery for those who can afford to make a top donation), closing huge excessive secrecy loopholes in the federal Access to Information Act, and strengthening the whistleblower protection law.

– 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

Legal action targets sweeping undemocratic Cabinet powers under Special Economic Zones Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, April 8, 2026

TORONTO – A coalition of public interest and environmental organizations has launched a constitutional challenge to one of Ontario’s most controversial new laws, warning it creates “lawless zones” where legal rights, protections, and accountability give way to Cabinet discretion.

Ecojustice, on behalf of Democracy Watch, Environmental Defence Canada, Friends of the Earth Canada, and Wildlands League, announced today that it has commenced a court challenge to Ontario’s Special Economic Zones Act (SEZA).

Advocates say the SEZA is an alarming bypassing of democratic processes to accelerate development.

The government can pick winners, draw a boundary on a map, and decide that inside it, the rules no longer apply. Safeguards people rely on — for clean air, safe water, and a say in decisions — simply disappear, says the coalition.

“This case is about whether Ontario is governed by laws passed through public legislative debate or behind closed doors by Cabinet members picking and choosing,” said Lindsay Beck, Ecojustice lawyer.

“The Premier and his cabinet now have unfettered power to exempt any person or business they like (“trusted proponents” and “designated projects”) from any provincial or municipal law they choose in as much of the province as they like (“special economic zones”), for any purpose, and based on whatever criteria they themselves decide,” said Phil Pothen, Counsel with Environmental Defence.

“The law is dangerously undemocratic as it gives the Doug Ford cabinet unconstitutional, king-like powers to change any law without a review or vote of approval by Ontario’s legislature,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “These excessive powers are a recipe for corruption, trading of favours and preferential treatment by the Ford Cabinet of lobbyists, businesses, unions and other organizations that they favour, waste of the public’s money on boondoggles and pie-in-the-sky pet projects, and other abuses of power that benefit friends of Premier Ford and his Cabinet ministers.”

The coalition argues the law violates the Constitution by concentrating law-making authority in the Cabinet, bypassing the legislature. They warn it opens the door to environmental harm, weakened oversight, reduced public participation, and corruption. Environmental assessments, labour laws, and health and safety requirements could all be set aside for designated projects and proponents.

The Premier has already indicated he would like to use these extreme powers to pave the path the way for development including building a tunnelled expressway under Highway 401, expediting mining in northern Ontario, building nuclear power generating stations; a deep-sea port in James Bay; massive expansion to the GO Train system, among others.

“Doug Ford is doing what Donald Trump does, opening the door for corrupt backroom deals,” said Beatrice Olivastri, CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada.  “Bill 5 gives billionaires free reign to pollute. No one will be enforcing environmental laws that protect vulnerable people and their communities from toxic dumps, dirty air, and overuse and contamination of water and land.”

The challenge comes as recent polling shows a majority of Ontarians believe the government is failing to protect key aspects of daily life, including housing, health care, and affordability.

Advocates say the Special Economic Zones Act reflects a broader trend — one where democratic processes are weakened, and environmental safeguards are treated as obstacles rather than protections.

“When vital safeguards are recklessly sacrificed to create private profits for proponents, we all pay the price,” says Jan Sumner, Executive Director of Wildlands League. “This new law is the culmination of years of attacks on threatened wildlife, our natural world and treating the environment, Indigenous rights and public consultation as red tape.”

The applicants are asking the court to strike down the law and reaffirm a core democratic principle: laws must be made openly, by elected representatives — not quietly, by executive decree.

The case is expected to have implications beyond Ontario, as governments across Canada consider similar “fast-track” legislation.

– 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 PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign and Stop Bill 5 Court Challenge Fund

Did the Commissioner let off the lobbyists, hide her investigation records, and gut key ethical lobbying rules in Lobbyists’ Code, to get reappointed by the Trudeau Cabinet in December 2024 for another 7-year term?

Did the RCMP Commissioner let off the lobbyists and hide investigation records to get appointed by the Trudeau Cabinet in 2023-2024?

RCMP record confirms violations by SNC-Lavalin lobbyists were investigated, and reveals federal prosecutors’ secret decision not to prosecute violations of key rule in Lobbying Act – do other cases include violations by lobbyists from Facebook, WE Charity, Imperial Oil and associates of Jenni Byrne?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 9, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, as federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger is scheduled to testify this afternoon before the House Ethics Committee as it begins its 10-year overdue review of the federal Lobbying Act, Democracy Watch criticized Commissioner Bélanger for abusing her discretionary powers in secret rulings since 2018 letting off all lobbyists in 13 separate situations even though she had concluded they violated the federal Lobbying Act (and, therefore, she could have issued a public ruling identifying all the lobbyists and finding that they all violated the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct).

Democracy Watch also criticized Commissioner Bélanger for clearly violating the federal Access to Information Act (ATIA) by delaying for 18 months (from June 2024 to December 2025) disclosure of her investigation records in the 13 cases, and then redacting 80-90% of key information, using invalid reasons that violate the ATIA’s disclosure requirements, in the almost 6,000 total pages of records she has disclosed.

Subsection 16.2(2) of the ATIA clearly requires the Commissioner to disclose all investigation records of completed cases within 30 days of receiving an ATIA request (with a reasonable extension of a few months allowed). The Commissioner’s records show that all 13 cases have been completed.

The Commissioner is hiding the following information about all 13 cases that she could have legally disclosed under the ATIA: the identity of the federal politicians, public officials and government institutions that were lobbied (and interviewed for the investigation); the business/organization lobbied for; any general issue lobbied about; the number of lobbyists involved in each case; all the allegations that were investigated (some are redacted); the date she initiated her investigation; the date she referred each case to the RCMP, and; the date the RCMP referred each case back to her.  If the allegations of illegal lobbying were made publicly in any of the cases, it is also legal for the Commissioner to disclose the identities of the lobbyists who were investigated.

Commissioner Bélanger’s annual reports since 2018 also show that she has let off 98% of lobbyists she has found violating the Lobbying Act. Previous Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd had an almost as bad enforcement record from 2007 to the end of 2017. And the Act has a “dirty dozen” loopholes that allow for secret lobbying, and the Code has huge loopholes that allow for unethical lobbying, and 10 key changes are needed to strengthen the enforcement system to make it independent, timely, transparent, effective and accountable.  In her submission to the House Ethics Committee, Commissioner Bélanger has only recommended closing half of the dozen secret lobbying loopholes, none of the unethical lobbying loopholes, and making only two of the 10 needed enforcement changes.

Democracy Watch also criticized the RCMP for failing to prosecute fully any of the lobbyists involved in the 13 situations, and for continuing to fail to disclose almost all of its investigation records.  Democracy Watch filed a request with the RCMP for its investigation records in 6 of the 13 cases in October 2023, and it clearly violated the ATIA for more than two years before it finally disclosed last week one heavily redacted (with no reasons given for any of the redactions), unclear document containing its mixed up combined investigation records for only 4 of the 6 cases.

Once Commissioner Bélanger concluded in each of the 13 cases that a lobbyist or lobbyists had violated the Act, she referred (as required under Lobbying Act ss. 10.4(7)) each case to the RCMP at undisclosed times since January 2018, and the RCMP referred the cases back to her at undisclosed times after letting the lobbyists off.

Commissioner Bélanger could then have issued a public ruling in each of the 13 cases naming the lobbyist and finding them guilty of violating the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct (which requires lobbyists to comply with the Act, and has no limitation period on ruling on violations, and only requires proof on balance of probability, and has no penalty other than being named and shamed). A former Commissioner did this in a past case. Instead, Commissioner Bélanger buried all 13 cases and covered up the wrongdoing by the lobbyists without issuing a public ruling or identifying any of the lobbyists.

While the RCMP’s document is an unclear mix of records from 4 cases, it does reveal on one page (accidentally it seems) that one case involved investigating SNC-Lavalin lobbyists, very likely concerning lobbying during the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet/SNC-Lavalin scandal by former PCO Clerk Kevin Lynch for SNC-Lavalin that was not registered by CEO Neil Bruce (click here to see DWatch’s March 2019 complaint), and by SNC-Lavalin lawyer Robert Pritchard and others.  This is clearly the same case as File #8 of the Commissioner of Lobbying’s 13 case files.

The RCMP’s document also reveals that it let off the lobbyists involved in at least one of the 4 cases (and likely more) because a federal Crown prosecutor told an RCMP investigating officer on an undisclosed date that one of the key provisions of the Lobbying Act known as “the 20% rule” (which sets the threshold for registration of officers and employees lobbying for a business or organization) was unenforceable and so would never lead to a prosecution.

This raises key questions: When did Crown prosecutors or the Commissioner make that this key provision of the Act was unenforceable?  Did they inform the Commissioner of Lobbying and, if so, when did they do that?  Why didn’t Crown prosecutors make that information public?  The RCMP’s document also hides other reasons why none of the lobbyists were prosecuted.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint with the Information Commissioner about the violations of the ATIA by the Commissioner of Lobbying’s redactions of 80-90% of the disclosed investigation records, and the Information Commissioner is investigating the complaint.  Democracy Watch also filed a complaint about the ATIA violations by the RCMP, and the Information Commissioner is investigating that complaint.  Democracy Watch has also requested the RCMP’s records in the other 7 of the 13 cases.

Click here to see charts summarizing and linking to the heavily redacted almost 6,000 pages of records in the Commissioner’s 13 case files (Chart 1), and the RCMP’s one, heavily redacted, mixed up 227-page document about 4 of the cases (Chart 2).

Democracy Watch’s conclusion is that the letting off of all the lobbyists, and the multi-year disclosure delays and ongoing hiding of most of the investigation records, by Commissioner Bélanger and RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme amount to a cover-up, quite possibly done by both to secure appointments to their positions by the Trudeau Cabinet in 2024.

“By negligently letting off all of the lobbyists in 13 cases who violated the federal lobbying law since 2018, and violating the law by hiding almost all their investigation records, the Commissioner of Lobbying and RCMP are covering up scandalous situations, protecting the lobbyists and the politicians and public officials they were lobbying, encouraging further violations, and making it even more clear the Commissioner should not have been re-appointed for a second seven-year term,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “It’s shameful that the RCMP, whose top officers are chosen by and serve at the pleasure of the ruling party Cabinet, continues to take so long to investigate lobbyists who violate the law given they receive clear evidence from the Commissioner of Lobbying, and it’s shameful that they fail to prosecute fully all violations.”

“The RCMP’s negligently bad enforcement record of Canada’s lobbying law, similar to its negligently bad enforcement in the SNC-Lavalin and Aga Khan scandals involving former Prime Minister Trudeau, is more clear evidence that a new, fully independent federal anti-corruption police and prosecution force is needed, said Conacher.

If and when the full investigation records are disclosed, beyond the one disclosed RCMP document that reveals it and the Commissioner both investigated SNC-Lavalin lobbyists, the records may reveal that of the other 12 cases some are about:

1. The unregistered lobbying and favours for Trudeau Liberal Cabinet ministers that Kevin Chan and others at Facebook did (click here to see DWatch’s April 2018 complaint to the Commissioner);

2. The unregistered lobbying that WE Charity lobbyists did of Trudeau Liberal Cabinet ministers from January 2019 to August 2020, and the trip gifts they gave to former Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau and his family;

3. The lobbying by Imperial Oil of then-Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer, and by CPA Canada of Minister Karina Gould, at a May 2019 event they sponsored, and/or;

4. The lobbying done by associates of Jenni Byrne, then at top adviser to Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre.

Did Commissioner Bélanger hide her rulings (9 of the 13 cases were shut down by her and the RCMP from February 2023 to May 2024), fail to enforce the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code, and gut key rules in the Lobbyists’ Code (ignoring the opposition to the changes from a coalition of 26 citizen groups with 1.5 million total supporters, and 41 lawyers and professors, and 20,000+ voters – Click here for details), in order to have the Trudeau Cabinet reappoint her to a second seven-year term in November 2024?

Did former RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki let off the lobbyists because she was appointed by and served at the pleasure of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?  Did former Deputy RCMP Commissioner and current RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme fail to enforce the Lobbying Act effectively and hide investigation records from October 2023 until February 2026 (with more records still hidden) so Trudeau would appoint him first as Interim Commissioner in March 2023 and then as Commissioner in April 2024?  The RCMP similarly covered up its investigation of the Trudeau Cabinet SNC-Lavalin scandal from July 2022 through to May 2024, and let Trudeau off also for unjustifiable reasons.

A national survey commissioned by Democracy Watch in January 2025 showed that more than 80% of Canadians are concerned about the corrupting effects of secret, unethical lobbying on politicians’ policy-making decisions, and want to know the details of all lobbying activities.

“The public’s high level of concern about secret, unethical lobbying, and the negligently weak enforcement records and excessive secrecy of the Commissioner of Lobbying and the RCMP, make it clear that all the secret lobbying loopholes need to be closed, along with all the unethical lobbying loopholes, and that the enforcement system must be made independent and strengthened to require the Commissioner to issue a public ruling in every case, and to empower and require her to penalize every violation with a sliding scale of high fines and prohibitions on lobbying for long time periods,” 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 Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Open Government Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Fraud costing Canadian bank customers $640 million + each year

Key measures also needed (which U.S., Australia and/or England have enacted), to stop bank gouging, discrimination and abuse and ensure banks pay their fair share in taxes – Liberals have done little since 2015

Big Six Banks gouged out $70 billion in profits in 2025 (almost $50 billion more than 2010), paid their CEOs more than $12 million each, and gave out more than $27 billion in bonuses to employees

Five of the Big 6 are in top 50 most profitable banks in the world despite being much smaller than many banks in other countries

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 26, 2026

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch criticized Liberal and Conservative MPs on the House Finance Committee for rejecting measures proposed by NDP and Bloc Québecois MPs that would have amended budget Bill C-15 to make proposed bank account fraud measures actually effective at ensuring consumers are compensated for frauds they are not responsible for, like the measures Australia has enacted.  Canadian bank customers are being defrauded of more than $640 million each year due to bank account fraud.

“By rejecting changes to Bill C-15 proposed by NDP and Bloc MPs to make its bank account fraud protection measures effective, the Liberals and Conservatives have condemned customers of Canada’s big banks to waste years and money trying to get their lost money back in the same way that customers of Canada’s big airlines waste years and money trying to get compensation for delayed or cancelled flights because of weak, ineffective measures the Liberals enacted for airline passengers,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“The Carney Liberal government’s proposed anti-bank account fraud measures, which the Conservatives have backed, amount to more hot air promises of future ineffective, mostly voluntary measures that, even if they are undertaken, are much weaker than the actual bank customer protection Australia has already imposed on banks, telecom and Internet companies that require them to pay customers back when they lose their money to fraudsters,” said Conacher.  (Click here to see a summary of the Australian anti-fraud measures).

Democracy Watch also called on the Carney Liberals to stop protecting his Big Bank executive friends and work with all federal parties to make key changes that the U.S., Australia and/or England have already made to protect bank customers from gouging, discrimination and other abuses.

More than 120,000 voters have signed on to Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign or Change.org petition calling for these key changes, some of which the U.S. enacted decades ago, and some of which Australia and England have enacted in the past several years (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

The Carney Liberals re-hashed old 2021 election promises made by the Trudeau government by proposing only weak, ineffective, largely voluntary measures in the 2025 budget Bill C-15 (Part V, Division 16, sections 333-336) that only require the bank to have policies and procedures aimed at preventing account fraud.  The measures will do nothing to address the role of telecom and Internet companies in allowing fraud scam calls and websites, and will let those companies and the Big Banks off when they allow or facilitate bank account fraud.  The Conservatives promised similarly weak and incomplete anti-fraud measures in their 2025 federal election platform.

The banks often blame their customers for the fraud and refuse to compensate them for lost money even if the fraudsters do account transactions that the customer has never done in decades or if bank staff allow or facilitate the fraud.

In its submission to the federal Finance Department in response to its recent consultation paper on bank account fraud, and in its submission to the Finance Committee, Democracy Watch called for key changes to Bill C-15 to immediately require banks to compensate customers partially for fraud losses right away (given the banks are almost always partially responsible for the losses), and to require banks to compensate the customer for their entire loss unless the bank can prove to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) that they have adequate safeguards to prevent fraudulent account transactions, have fully trained their staff in those safeguards, and did their due diligence to prevent the fraud from happening.

In addition, the OBSI must be given the power to make binding orders on the banks, and the banks must be required to disclose quarterly exactly how many fraud cases their customers have suffered, and what they did in each case, and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) must also be required to report on how they held the bank accountable for the fraud, and to audit the banks and penalize them with high fines for every violation.  (See details re: weak financial consumer and investor protection enforcement in Canada).

At the House Finance Committee meeting on Monday, NDP MP Don Davies proposed the changes described above to Bill C-15, and Bloc MP Jean-Denis Garon proposed an amendment to make the banks liable for customer fraud losses unless the customer was grossly negligent.  Liberal and Conservative MPs on the Committee voted against these measures.

All federal parties should also work together to enact the same requirements for telecom and Internet companies.

The Liberals’ Budget 2025 document (pp. 116-122 and 163-164) also repeats the Liberals’ 2021 election promise to have the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) review banking fees, and says nothing about decreasing fees or credit card interest rates from their current gouging levels, or doing anything to stop gender or racial discrimination in lending.

Democracy Watch’s submissions also call for several other key bank accountability measures, neasures that the U.S., Australia and/or England enacted years ago, to stop gouging fees and interest rates, discrimination in lending and services, and other banking abuses.  (See Full List of Key Bank Accountability Changes).

“The Liberals continue to protect the big bank’s excessive gouging profits and their executives’ excessive multi-million salaries instead of making the changes needed to stop banks from gouging billions from their 28 million customers and to protect bank customers from discrimination and other abuses,” said Conacher.

“Every dollar of excessive profit for the banks, and every person and business the banks unjustifiably refuse to loan to, costs the Canadian economy because it means that the banks are overcharging for their essential services and loans, and choking off job creation and spending,” said Conacher.

Canada’s big banks recorded huge, gouging profits in 2025 of $70 billion, almost $50 billion more than in 2010.

All of Canada’s Big 6 Banks are listed in the top 300 of Fortune’s Global 2000 for 2025 (based on 2024 size, assets, profits and market value).  RBC (13th), TD (32nd), BMO (38th), CIBC (44th) and Scotiabank (48th) were also in the top 50 most profitable banks in the world in 2024 (more profitable than most other larger banks) and RBC, TD, BMO, CIBC and Scotiabank were the top five most profitable Canadian companies in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also handed out $27.3 billion in 2025 in bonuses to their employees, 15% more than the $23.75 billion in bonuses to their employees in 2024.

Canada’s Big 6 Banks also paid their CEOs an average of $12.3 million in 2024 – 55% higher than in 2008.

See Canada’s Big Banks Backgrounder.

– 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 Bank Accountability Campaign