Sports referees can’t take gifts from players – why should payoffs be allowed to politicians?

50-group coalition, and more than 11,000 voters, call for annual donation and loan limit for individuals (including candidates) of $100 (as in Quebec), stronger enforcement and penalties for violations, and annual per-vote and donation-matching public funding only if parties can prove it’s needed

High donation limit allows for ongoing funneling of donations by businesses and unions – as happened in Quebec until it was stopped – and ongoing unethical influence by wealthy donors (in 2015, federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more)

Lobbying Commissioner taking too long to investigate Liberal fundraising events, and is biased because Trudeau Cabinet gave her six-month renewable term contract in July

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 5, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, testifying before the House of Commons Committee reviewing the Trudeau Liberals’ political finance Bill C-50, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than 3 million members), joined by more than 11,000 voters who have signed a petition on Change.org, called on the Committee to make the following changes before sending the bill back to the House:

1. set an individual donation limit of $100 per year (as in Quebec) and require all donations of money, property and services to be disclosed (including volunteer services);
2. set a limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign of $100 per year;
3. prohibit loans to parties and candidates except from a public fund (to stop allowing federally regulated banks to buy influence with their loans);
4. only re-establish per-vote annual public funding to of at most $1 per vote, and annual donation-matching public funding, if the parties can prove they need it, and;
5. strengthen enforcement and penalties for violations.

“The Trudeau Liberals’ proposed bill is a charade that doesn’t stop cash-for-access to Cabinet ministers, MPs or their staff or the unethical influence of big money in federal politics, and the only way to stop it is to lower the federal donation limit to $100 as in Quebec,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “The too-high federal donation limit of $3,100 not only continues to allow wealthy people to use money as an unethical way to influence politicians and parties, it also encourages funneling of donations from businesses and unions through their executives and employees and their families, as has happened in Quebec, at the federal level, and in Toronto.”

“Politicians are supposed to be the referees who decide what is in the public interest – so why do federal political party leaders continue to allow wealthy people to buy them off with huge donations, including secret donations? In hockey, baseball, soccer, basketball and other sports, referees are not allowed to accept even small gifts from players,” said Conacher.

Years of experience and scandals in Quebec before 2013, at the federal level since 2007, and in Toronto since 2009, show clearly that a donation limit that allows individuals to donate more than $1,000 each year allows for the unethical influence of big money donations, and cash-for-access fundraising schemes.

“As Quebec, federal and Alberta donation scandals show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of money in federal politics is to stop big money donations by allowing only individuals to donate only $100 a year,” said Conacher.

The many donation scandals across the country show that low donation limits are the only way to stop the influence of big money. Few have been charged in Quebec’s corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.8 million in likely illegally funneled donations from 2006-2011. To stop the corruption, in 2013 Quebec lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate), and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates. B.C. should make the same democratic changes.

Enforcement also needs to be strengthened, as there are likely many more examples of illegally funneling of donations at the federal level than just the case where SNC-Lavalin illegally funneled almost $118,000 to the Liberal and Conservative parties, riding associations and candidates through its executives and employees from 2004 to 2011. Former-Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro’s cousin was charged in 2014 with illegally funneling donations through his business’ employees.

It seems Elections Canada has not yet done the full audit it promised to do in 2013 – it must be required to do such donation audits every year.

As in Quebec, when Elections Alberta did an audit in 2012 it found dozens of illegal donations. As well, in a 2013 scandal in Alberta, a coalition of construction companies made it clear that their big money donations were conditional on the Alberta government changing the labour law.

The federal Liberals were caught last fall in a cash-for-access scandal as Prime Minister Trudeau and several Cabinet ministers have attended about 90 high-priced, exclusive events since January 1, 2016. And, as the Globe and Mail reported on October 25, 2016, one of the events was a fundraising event to be attended by the Finance Minister that a drug company executive helped organize while his company lobbied Finance Canada.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint about the event with federal Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd who is investigating, and also a complaint last November about another event the same drug company executive organized for Justin Trudeau in August 2015 (which is also being investigated), and also a complaint last March about a big money fundraising event held by a corporate board member for the Liberals in August 2014 (which Commissioner Shepherd is also investigating). Commissioner Shepherd’s office is taking much too long investigating the complaints (possibly because she is essentially serving at the pleasure of the Trudeau Cabinet in her current six-month renewable term as commissioner).

In addition, Democracy Watch filed with the federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson a complaint another event top Liberal donors were invited to in September 2016as well as a complaint about the Trudeau Cabinet selecting their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs. Commissioner Dawson has failed to investigate both complaints.

The results of Democracy Watch’s research also show that top federal Liberal Party donors (to the Party only, not its riding associations) who gave $1,100 or more in 2015 were only 4.37% of total donors (4,084 donors out of 93,426 donors total) but they gave the Party 22.87% of total donations raised ($4,866,373.76 out of the $21,276,897.57 total raised).

In addition, the federal Liberals hold special events for donors who donate $1,500 or more annually (they become members of the exclusive Laurier Club). As the Globe and Mail reported, based on Elections Canada figures only 790 people (0.85% of all donors to the Liberals) donated $1,500 or more in 2015, and in 2014 only 522 people (0.68% out of 77,064 total donors) donated $1,200 or more (the amount needed then to attend a Laurier Club event).

Toronto’s experience is another example of how high donation limits allow donors to get around bans of corporate and union donations. Such donations were banned in Toronto elections in 2009, and individual donations limited to $750 annually, but a 2016 analysis by the Toronto Star found that big business and other special interest group executives and their families continue to give large amounts to city councillors.

Loans from financial institutions must also be limited to ensure financial institutions, businesses and unions can’t use loans as a means of unethical influence. Loans should only come from a public fund and be limited to the average total amount donated during the previous two years.

If the parties can prove that they need public funding, annual per-vote funding should be no more than $1 per vote, and the parties should implement a similar annual public funding matching system as Quebec ($2.50 for the first $20,000 raised annually by each party, and $1 for the first $200,000 raised annually). Elections Quebec has analyzed the results of Quebec’s changes and found that the parties are still adequately funded.

“To match Quebec’s world-leading democratic system, the federal Liberals must limit individual donations to about $100 annually and, if the parties can prove they need it, use per-vote and donation-matching public funding to give parties and candidates funding based on their actual level of voter support,” said Conacher.

The key changes that must be made to democratize the federal political finance system are as follows:

1. limit annual combined total donations of money, property and services by individuals to $100-200 to each party (Quebec’s limit is $100), and establish the same limit on candidates donating to their own campaign, with all donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
2. prohibit loans to political parties, riding associations and candidates, except from a public fund (with loans limited to the average annual amount of donations received during the previous two years);
3. limit spending leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and also candidates in party leadership races;
4. require disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of anyone who assists with any fundraising or fundraising event);
5. give annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
6. give annual public funding matching up to $1 million that each political party raises (Quebec matches up to $200,000);
7. give public funding matching up to $25,000 that each nomination race and election candidate (including independent candidate) raises (similar to Quebec’s matching funding system), and public funding matching up to $200,000 that each party leadership campaign candidate raises, and;
8. require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
9. Elections Canada, or the Auditor General, must be empowered to review all government advertising and to stop or change any ad that is partisan or misleading;
10. all penalties for violating donation and spending rules must be increased to minimum $100,000 fine and a multi-year jail term, and loss of any severance payment, and a partial clawback of any pension payments;
11. Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections must be required to disclose the rulings they make on all complaints they receive as soon as they make the ruling, and to disclose the rulings they make on all investigations they initiate themselves.

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Bill 8 prohibits only registered lobbying for two years – many loopholes allow for lobbying without registering

Maximum penalty of $25,000 fine much too weak to discourage violations – law will remain a sad joke until these flaws are corrected (and municipal law should also be enacted with strong measures and penalties)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 4, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch criticized the B.C. NDP government’s Bill 8 proposing changes to the provincial Lobbyists Registration Act because it leaves huge loopholes that allow for secret, unethical lobbying of provincial politicians and government officials, and allow all those politicians, and Cabinet ministers, to lobby government the day after leaving their position.

Despite the government’s claim that the bill imposes a two-year prohibition on lobbying after Cabinet ministers and other officials leave office, loopholes in the definition of “lobbying” in the Act mean that everyone is allowed to lobby the government the day after they leave office (although Cabinet ministers would have to be careful about whom they lobby concerning contracts and a couple of other things, under the provincial Conflict of Interest Act, clauses 8(4)(b) and (c) and subsection 8(7)).

“The B.C. NDP’s bill doesn’t close huge loopholes in the province’s lobbying law that allow for secret, unethical lobbying, and as a result Cabinet ministers and other senior government officials will continue to be allowed to lobby the government the day after they leave office, selling their inside access and influence to the highest bidder,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and part-time professor of law and political science at the University of Ottawa. “The law is a sad joke and makes it easy to lobby in secret, and with some lobbyists making hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to win benefits that are worth tens of millions of dollars, the penalties are much too low to discourage violations.”

The huge secret lobbying loopholes in the Act that Bill 8 fails to close are as follows:

1. secret lobbying will still be legal if the lobbyist is not paid for their lobbying or only paid expenses (under the definitions in section 1 of the Act — a consultant lobbyist can easily arrange for clients to pay them for other services while lobbying for free; former Cabinet ministers and senior government officials collecting rich pensions can afford to lobby for free, and; businesses and other organizations can easily use unpaid board members to do their lobbying);
2. secret lobbying will still be legal if the lobbyist is invited by a politician or government official to lobby (under clause 2(2)(c) of the Act);
3. secret lobbying will still be legal if a lobbyist is lobbying about the enforcement, interpretation or application of laws and regulations (under clause 2(2)(b) of the Act, which is a huge area of lobbying, especially for big businesses), and;
4. secret lobbying will still be legal for in-house lobbyists at businesses and other organizations who lobby for less than 100 hours annually (under section 1 definition of in-house lobbyist in the Act), and;
5. secret emails, texts, phone calls and even meetings between lobbyists and Cabinet ministers and senior government officials will still be legal (which will be used whenever they want to have secret, unethical relations with a lobbyist – all communications should be required to be disclosed).

To actually make secret lobbying in B.C. illegal, the provincial law must be changed in the following ways (and a law covering municipalities should also be enacted with the same measures):

1. require Ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and other senior government officials, members of the legislature and senators and all their staff to disclose all their contacts in an online, searchable database with anyone who communicates with them in any way about their decisions;
2. require lobbyists to disclose how much they and their clients are spending on their campaigns (as required in 33 U.S. states);
3. require lobbyists to disclose past work with political parties, candidates for federal public office and governments;
4. prohibit lobbyists from serving in senior positions for political parties and candidates (as prohibited by the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, and by laws in Maryland and New Mexico);
5. prohibit lobbyists from doing work for government departments (such as providing advice on communications) and from having any business connections with anyone who does such work;
6. eliminate the corporate tax deduction for lobbying expenses.

And to close down the revolving door in B.C. to stop former politicians, their staff and government appointees and officials from using their inside access to have unethical influence, the following changes must be made:

1. increasing the post-public service restriction (“cooling-off period”) on taking a job with a person, company or organization that you had significant dealings with while in office to 3 years for Cabinet ministers, and to 2 years for Cabinet staff and senior government officials and opposition party leaders and critics, and to 1 year for backbench politicians, to help ensure that companies and organizations can’t offer jobs as a payoff to politicians and officials for what they did while in office;
2. increasing the post-public service lobbying restriction for Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government officials to 3-5 years (depending on the decision-making power of the person), and for backbench politicians and senators and their staff, and junior government officials and employees to 1-4 years depending on their decision-making powers (to help close the revolving door through which these people sell their expertise and inside knowledge to private interests when they retire, are defeated in an election, or leave their position for another reason), and;
3. requiring all these people to report their post-public service activities to the ethics enforcement agency during the cooling-off period to ensure they are complying with the rules.

And penalties should be increased for violating all good government laws in B.C. at the provincial and municipal level to match the current penalties for violating the federal Lobbying Act (ie. $50,000 to $200,000 fines and jail terms of 6 months to 2 years), along with a loss of any severance payment, and a partial clawback of any government pension payments.

Finally, to ensure the law (and all of B.C.’s good government laws) are enforced properly, the following changes should be made, covering all provincial government and municipal government institutions (including any entity that receives significant public funding:

1. ensure a “whistleblower” protection law exists that gives anyone the right to reports a violation of any law, policy, code, guideline etc. to a fully independent integrity commissioner who has the power and resources to fully investigate complaints, and to protect all whistleblowers from retaliation and to compensate them fully if they suffer retaliation;
2. appoint all ethics, integrity or lobbying commissioners for fixed, non-renewable terms (to remove the incentive for them to please politicians with weak enforcement and rulings in order to be renewed for another term);
3. require all integrity, ethics and lobbying commissioners to conduct regular, unannounced audits of the activities of the people who are covered by the law they enforce, to ensure everyone is complying with the rules;
4. require all integrity, ethics and lobbying commissioners to review complaints filed by the public, and rule publicly on every complaint;
5. require the commissioners to issue a ruling every time they give advice to anyone on how the law/code rules apply to specific situations, and;
6. allow complainants to go to court if the integrity, ethics or lobbying commissioner delays an investigation an unreasonable length of time, or makes any legal or factual error in a ruling.

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Bill 8 prohibits only registered lobbying for two years – many loopholes allow for lobbying without registering

Maximum penalty of $25,000 fine much too weak to discourage violations – law will remain a sad joke until these flaws are corrected (and municipal law should also be enacted with strong measures and penalties)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 4, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch criticized the B.C. NDP government’s Bill 8 proposing changes to the provincial Lobbyists Registration Act because it leaves huge loopholes that allow for secret, unethical lobbying of provincial politicians and government officials, and allow all those politicians, and Cabinet ministers, to lobby government the day after leaving their position.

Despite the government’s claim that the bill imposes a two-year prohibition on lobbying after Cabinet ministers and other officials leave office, loopholes in the definition of “lobbying” in the Act mean that everyone is allowed to lobby the government the day after they leave office (although Cabinet ministers would have to be careful about whom they lobby concerning contracts and a couple of other things, under the provincial Conflict of Interest Act, clauses 8(4)(b) and (c) and subsection 8(7)).

“The B.C. NDP’s bill doesn’t close huge loopholes in the province’s lobbying law that allow for secret, unethical lobbying, and as a result Cabinet ministers and other senior government officials will continue to be allowed to lobby the government the day after they leave office, selling their inside access and influence to the highest bidder,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and part-time professor of law and political science at the University of Ottawa. “The law is a sad joke and makes it easy to lobby in secret, and with some lobbyists making hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to win benefits that are worth tens of millions of dollars, the penalties are much too low to discourage violations.”

The huge secret lobbying loopholes in the Act that Bill 8 fails to close are as follows:

1. secret lobbying will still be legal if the lobbyist is not paid for their lobbying or only paid expenses (under the definitions in section 1 of the Act — a consultant lobbyist can easily arrange for clients to pay them for other services while lobbying for free; former Cabinet ministers and senior government officials collecting rich pensions can afford to lobby for free, and; businesses and other organizations can easily use unpaid board members to do their lobbying);
2. secret lobbying will still be legal if the lobbyist is invited by a politician or government official to lobby (under clause 2(2)(c) of the Act);
3. secret lobbying will still be legal if a lobbyist is lobbying about the enforcement, interpretation or application of laws and regulations (under clause 2(2)(b) of the Act, which is a huge area of lobbying, especially for big businesses), and;
4. secret lobbying will still be legal for in-house lobbyists at businesses and other organizations who lobby for less than 100 hours annually (under section 1 definition of in-house lobbyist in the Act), and;
5. secret emails, texts, phone calls and even meetings between lobbyists and Cabinet ministers and senior government officials will still be legal (which will be used whenever they want to have secret, unethical relations with a lobbyist – all communications should be required to be disclosed).

To actually make secret lobbying in B.C. illegal, the provincial law must be changed in the following ways (and a law covering municipalities should also be enacted with the same measures):

1. require Ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and other senior government officials, members of the legislature and senators and all their staff to disclose all their contacts in an online, searchable database with anyone who communicates with them in any way about their decisions;
2. require lobbyists to disclose how much they and their clients are spending on their campaigns (as required in 33 U.S. states);
3. require lobbyists to disclose past work with political parties, candidates for federal public office and governments;
4. prohibit lobbyists from serving in senior positions for political parties and candidates (as prohibited by the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, and by laws in Maryland and New Mexico);
5. prohibit lobbyists from doing work for government departments (such as providing advice on communications) and from having any business connections with anyone who does such work;
6. eliminate the corporate tax deduction for lobbying expenses.

And to close down the revolving door in B.C. to stop former politicians, their staff and government appointees and officials from using their inside access to have unethical influence, the following changes must be made:

1. increasing the post-public service restriction (“cooling-off period”) on taking a job with a person, company or organization that you had significant dealings with while in office to 3 years for Cabinet ministers, and to 2 years for Cabinet staff and senior government officials and opposition party leaders and critics, and to 1 year for backbench politicians, to help ensure that companies and organizations can’t offer jobs as a payoff to politicians and officials for what they did while in office;
2. increasing the post-public service lobbying restriction for Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government officials to 3-5 years (depending on the decision-making power of the person), and for backbench politicians and senators and their staff, and junior government officials and employees to 1-4 years depending on their decision-making powers (to help close the revolving door through which these people sell their expertise and inside knowledge to private interests when they retire, are defeated in an election, or leave their position for another reason), and;
3. requiring all these people to report their post-public service activities to the ethics enforcement agency during the cooling-off period to ensure they are complying with the rules.

And penalties should be increased for violating all good government laws in B.C. at the provincial and municipal level to match the current penalties for violating the federal Lobbying Act (ie. $50,000 to $200,000 fines and jail terms of 6 months to 2 years), along with a loss of any severance payment, and a partial clawback of any government pension payments.

Finally, to ensure the law (and all of B.C.’s good government laws) are enforced properly, the following changes should be made, covering all provincial government and municipal government institutions (including any entity that receives significant public funding:

1. ensure a “whistleblower” protection law exists that gives anyone the right to reports a violation of any law, policy, code, guideline etc. to a fully independent integrity commissioner who has the power and resources to fully investigate complaints, and to protect all whistleblowers from retaliation and to compensate them fully if they suffer retaliation;
2. appoint all ethics, integrity or lobbying commissioners for fixed, non-renewable terms (to remove the incentive for them to please politicians with weak enforcement and rulings in order to be renewed for another term);
3. require all integrity, ethics and lobbying commissioners to conduct regular, unannounced audits of the activities of the people who are covered by the law they enforce, to ensure everyone is complying with the rules;
4. require all integrity, ethics and lobbying commissioners to review complaints filed by the public, and rule publicly on every complaint;
5. require the commissioners to issue a ruling every time they give advice to anyone on how the law/code rules apply to specific situations, and;
6. allow complainants to go to court if the integrity, ethics or lobbying commissioner delays an investigation an unreasonable length of time, or makes any legal or factual error in a ruling.

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

50-group coalition, and more than 6,000 B.C. voters, call for annual donation and loan limit for individuals (including candidates) of $100 (as in Quebec), stronger enforcement and penalties for violations, and annual per-vote and donation-matching public funding only if parties can prove it’s needed

High donation limit will lead to funneling of donations by businesses and unions – as happened in Quebec and at the federal level – and ongoing unethical influence by wealthy donors (in 2015, federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more)

Same changes should be made to municipal political finance system across B.C.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, September 18, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, as the B.C. NDP prepare to introduce their political finance bill, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than 3 million members), joined by more than 6,000 B.C. voters who have signed a petition on Change.org, called on B.C.’s political parties to make the following changes before the legislature breaks for the upcoming provincial election:

1. ban corporate and union donations, and set an individual donation limit of $100 per year (as in Quebec);
2. set a limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign of $100 per year;
3. prohibit loans to parties except from a public fund;
4. only establish per-vote annual public funding to of at most $1 per vote, and annual donation-matching public funding, if the parties can prove they need it, and;
5. strengthen enforcement and penalties for violations.

“While it seems like the B.C. government’s political finance bill will include some key changes, the too-high donation limit will encourage funneling of donations from businesses and unions through their executives and employees and their families, as has happened in Quebec and at the federal level,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “The donation limit is much higher than an average B.C. voter can afford, and will allow wealthy people to continue to use money as an unethical way to influence politicians and parties.”

Years of experience and scandals in Quebec before 2013, at the federal level since 2007, and in Toronto since 2009, show clearly that setting a donation limit that allows individuals to donate more than $1,000 each year will allow the unethical influence of big money donations, and cash-for-access fundraising schemes, to continue in B.C.

“As Quebec, federal and Alberta donation scandals show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations by allowing only individuals to donate only $100 a year,” said Conacher.

Enforcement also needs to be strengthened as Elections B.C. was revealed in the spring to be failing to catch violations that the media has exposed with simple audits, including appointing a special prosecutor to ensure all violators are prosecution in the recent lobbyist-donation scandal.

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

The many donation scandals across the country show that low donation limits are the only way to stop the influence of big money. Few have been charged in Quebec’s corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.8 million in likely illegally funneled donations donations from 2006-2011. To stop the corruption, in 2013 Quebec lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate), and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates. B.C. should make the same democratic changes.

At the federal level, SNC-Lavalin illegally funneled almost $118,000 to the Liberal and Conservative parties, riding associations and candidates through its executives and employees from 2004 to 2011. And former-Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro’s cousin was charged in 2014 with illegally funneling donations through his business’ employees. There are likely many more examples of illegally funneling of donations at the federal level, as it seems Elections Canada has not yet done the full audit it promised to do in 2013.

As in Quebec, when Elections Canada has not yet done the full audit it promised to do in 2013 it found dozens of illegal donations. As well, in a 2013 scandal in Alberta, a coalition of construction companies made it clear that Elections Alberta did an audit in 2012
their big money donations were conditional on the Alberta government changing the labour law.

As well, the Liberals have been recently caught in a cash-for-access scandal as Prime Minister Trudeau and several Cabinet ministers have attended about 90 high-priced, exclusive events since January 1, 2016. And, as the Globe and Mail reported on October 25th, one of the events was a fundraising event to be attended by the Finance Minister that a drug company executive helped organize while his company lobbied Finance Canada.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint about the event with the federal Lobbying Commissioner who is investigating, and also a complaint about another event the same drug company executive organized for Justin Trudeau in August 2015, and a complaint about another event top Liberal donors were invited to in September 2016, as well as a complaint about the Trudeau Cabinet selecting their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs. Most recently, Democracy Watch filed a complaint about a big money fundraising event held by a corporate board member for the Liberals in August 2014.

The results of Democracy Watch’s research also show that top federal Liberal Party donors (to the Party only, not its riding associations) who gave $1,100 or more in 2015 were only 4.37% of total donors (4,084 donors out of 93,426 donors total) but they gave the Party 22.87% of total donations raised ($4,866,373.76 out of the $21,276,897.57 total raised.

In addition, the federal Liberals hold special events for donors who donate $1,500 or more annually (they become members of the exclusive Laurier Club). As the Globe and Mail reported recently, based on Elections Canada figures only 790 people (0.85% of all donors to the Liberals) donated $1,500 or more in 2015, and in 2014 only 522 people (0.68% out of 77,064 total donors) donated $1,200 or more (the amount needed then to attend a Laurier Club event).

Toronto’s experience is another example of how high donation limits allow donors to get around bans of corporate and union donations. Such donations were banned in Toronto elections in 2009, and individual donations limited to $750 annually, but a 2016 analysis by the Toronto Star found that big business and other special interest group executives and their families continue to give large amounts to city councillors.

Loans from financial institutions must also be limited to ensure financial institutions, businesses and unions can’t use loans as a means of unethical influence. Loans should only come from a public fund and be limited to the average total amount donated during the previous two years.

If the parties can prove that they need public funding, annual per-vote funding should be no more than $1 per vote, and the parties should implement a similar annual public funding matching system as Quebec ($2.50 for the first $20,000 raised annually by each party, and $1 for the first $200,000 raised annually). Elections Quebec has analyzed the results of Quebec’s changes and found that the parties are still adequately funded.

“To match Quebec’s world-leading democratic system, B.C. must limit individual donations to about $100 annually and, if the parties can prove they need it, use per-vote and donation-matching public funding to give parties and candidates funding based on their actual level of voter support,” said Conacher. “Similar changes should be made to B.C.’s municipal law, taking into account that there are no parties in most municipalities, to ensure every city and town across the province has the same democratic rules.”

The key changes that must be made in B.C. to democratize its political finance system are as follows (and similar changes should be made province-wide to the municipal political finance system, taking into account that many municipalities do not have political parties):

1. ban donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
2. limit annual combined total donations of money, property and services by individuals to $100-200 to each party (Quebec’s limit is $100), and establish the same limit on candidates donating to their own campaign, with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
3. prohibit loans to political parties, riding associations and candidates, except from a public fund (with loans limited to the average annual amount of donations received during the previous two years);
4. limit spending leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and also candidates in party leadership races;
5. require disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of anyone who assists with any fundraising);
6. give annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
7. give annual public funding for parties matching up to the first $500,000 raised (as in Quebec where the first $200,000 raised is matched);
8. give public funding matching up to $25,000 that each nomination race and election candidate (including an independent candidate) raises (similar to Quebec’s matching funding system), and public funding matching up to $100,000 that each party leadership campaign candidate raises, and;
9. require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
10. Elections B.C., or the Auditor General, must be empowered to review all government advertising and to stop or change any ad that is partisan or misleading;
11. all penalties for violating donation and spending rules must be increased to minimum $100,000 fine and a multi-year jail term, and loss of any severance payment, and a partial clawback of any pension payments, and;
12. Elections B.C. must be required to disclose the rulings they make on all complaints they receive as soon as they make the ruling, and to disclose the rulings they make on all investigations they initiate themselves.

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

50-group coalition, and more than 6,000 B.C. voters, call for annual donation and loan limit for individuals (including candidates) of $100 (as in Quebec), stronger enforcement and penalties for violations, and annual per-vote and donation-matching public funding only if parties can prove it’s needed

High donation limit will lead to funneling of donations by businesses and unions – as happened in Quebec and at the federal level – and ongoing unethical influence by wealthy donors (in 2015, federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more)

Same changes should be made to municipal political finance system across B.C.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, September 18, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, as the B.C. NDP prepare to introduce their political finance bill, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than 3 million members), joined by more than 6,000 B.C. voters who have signed a petition on Change.org, called on B.C.’s political parties to make the following changes before the legislature breaks for the upcoming provincial election:

1. ban corporate and union donations, and set an individual donation limit of $100 per year (as in Quebec);
2. set a limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign of $100 per year;
3. prohibit loans to parties except from a public fund;
4. only establish per-vote annual public funding to of at most $1 per vote, and annual donation-matching public funding, if the parties can prove they need it, and;
5. strengthen enforcement and penalties for violations.

“While it seems like the B.C. government’s political finance bill will include some key changes, the too-high donation limit will encourage funneling of donations from businesses and unions through their executives and employees and their families, as has happened in Quebec and at the federal level,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “The donation limit is much higher than an average B.C. voter can afford, and will allow wealthy people to continue to use money as an unethical way to influence politicians and parties.”

Years of experience and scandals in Quebec before 2013, at the federal level since 2007, and in Toronto since 2009, show clearly that setting a donation limit that allows individuals to donate more than $1,000 each year will allow the unethical influence of big money donations, and cash-for-access fundraising schemes, to continue in B.C.

“As Quebec, federal and Alberta donation scandals show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations by allowing only individuals to donate only $100 a year,” said Conacher.

Enforcement also needs to be strengthened as Elections B.C. was revealed in the spring to be failing to catch violations that the media has exposed with simple audits, including appointing a special prosecutor to ensure all violators are prosecution in the recent lobbyist-donation scandal.

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

The many donation scandals across the country show that low donation limits are the only way to stop the influence of big money. Few have been charged in Quebec’s corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.8 million in likely illegally funneled donations donations from 2006-2011. To stop the corruption, in 2013 Quebec lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate), and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates. B.C. should make the same democratic changes.

At the federal level, SNC-Lavalin illegally funneled almost $118,000 to the Liberal and Conservative parties, riding associations and candidates through its executives and employees from 2004 to 2011. And former-Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro’s cousin was charged in 2014 with illegally funneling donations through his business’ employees. There are likely many more examples of illegally funneling of donations at the federal level, as it seems Elections Canada has not yet done the full audit it promised to do in 2013.

As in Quebec, when Elections Canada has not yet done the full audit it promised to do in 2013 it found dozens of illegal donations. As well, in a 2013 scandal in Alberta, a coalition of construction companies made it clear that Elections Alberta did an audit in 2012
their big money donations were conditional on the Alberta government changing the labour law.

As well, the Liberals have been recently caught in a cash-for-access scandal as Prime Minister Trudeau and several Cabinet ministers have attended about 90 high-priced, exclusive events since January 1, 2016. And, as the Globe and Mail reported on October 25th, one of the events was a fundraising event to be attended by the Finance Minister that a drug company executive helped organize while his company lobbied Finance Canada.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint about the event with the federal Lobbying Commissioner who is investigating, and also a complaint about another event the same drug company executive organized for Justin Trudeau in August 2015, and a complaint about another event top Liberal donors were invited to in September 2016, as well as a complaint about the Trudeau Cabinet selecting their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs. Most recently, Democracy Watch filed a complaint about a big money fundraising event held by a corporate board member for the Liberals in August 2014.

The results of Democracy Watch’s research also show that top federal Liberal Party donors (to the Party only, not its riding associations) who gave $1,100 or more in 2015 were only 4.37% of total donors (4,084 donors out of 93,426 donors total) but they gave the Party 22.87% of total donations raised ($4,866,373.76 out of the $21,276,897.57 total raised.

In addition, the federal Liberals hold special events for donors who donate $1,500 or more annually (they become members of the exclusive Laurier Club). As the Globe and Mail reported recently, based on Elections Canada figures only 790 people (0.85% of all donors to the Liberals) donated $1,500 or more in 2015, and in 2014 only 522 people (0.68% out of 77,064 total donors) donated $1,200 or more (the amount needed then to attend a Laurier Club event).

Toronto’s experience is another example of how high donation limits allow donors to get around bans of corporate and union donations. Such donations were banned in Toronto elections in 2009, and individual donations limited to $750 annually, but a 2016 analysis by the Toronto Star found that big business and other special interest group executives and their families continue to give large amounts to city councillors.

Loans from financial institutions must also be limited to ensure financial institutions, businesses and unions can’t use loans as a means of unethical influence. Loans should only come from a public fund and be limited to the average total amount donated during the previous two years.

If the parties can prove that they need public funding, annual per-vote funding should be no more than $1 per vote, and the parties should implement a similar annual public funding matching system as Quebec ($2.50 for the first $20,000 raised annually by each party, and $1 for the first $200,000 raised annually). Elections Quebec has analyzed the results of Quebec’s changes and found that the parties are still adequately funded.

“To match Quebec’s world-leading democratic system, B.C. must limit individual donations to about $100 annually and, if the parties can prove they need it, use per-vote and donation-matching public funding to give parties and candidates funding based on their actual level of voter support,” said Conacher. “Similar changes should be made to B.C.’s municipal law, taking into account that there are no parties in most municipalities, to ensure every city and town across the province has the same democratic rules.”

The key changes that must be made in B.C. to democratize its political finance system are as follows (and similar changes should be made province-wide to the municipal political finance system, taking into account that many municipalities do not have political parties):

1. ban donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
2. limit annual combined total donations of money, property and services by individuals to $100-200 to each party (Quebec’s limit is $100), and establish the same limit on candidates donating to their own campaign, with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
3. prohibit loans to political parties, riding associations and candidates, except from a public fund (with loans limited to the average annual amount of donations received during the previous two years);
4. limit spending leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and also candidates in party leadership races;
5. require disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of anyone who assists with any fundraising);
6. give annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
7. give annual public funding for parties matching up to the first $500,000 raised (as in Quebec where the first $200,000 raised is matched);
8. give public funding matching up to $25,000 that each nomination race and election candidate (including an independent candidate) raises (similar to Quebec’s matching funding system), and public funding matching up to $100,000 that each party leadership campaign candidate raises, and;
9. require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
10. Elections B.C., or the Auditor General, must be empowered to review all government advertising and to stop or change any ad that is partisan or misleading;
11. all penalties for violating donation and spending rules must be increased to minimum $100,000 fine and a multi-year jail term, and loss of any severance payment, and a partial clawback of any pension payments, and;
12. Elections B.C. must be required to disclose the rulings they make on all complaints they receive as soon as they make the ruling, and to disclose the rulings they make on all investigations they initiate themselves.

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign

Can’t tell from annual reports how many new alleged violations she learns about each year, how long she takes to review allegations, and how many outstanding cases she has at the end of each fiscal year

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, August 22, 2017

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch released the letter it sent today to federal Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd calling on her to disclose key details of her enforcement record of the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct since March 2014.

In her annual reports from 2011 to 2014, Commissioner Shepherd disclosed how many new cases arose each year, how many were reviewed and closed, and (in her 2013-2014 annual report), how many cases she had outstanding at the end of the fiscal year.

In her annual reports since 2014, Commissioner Shepherd does not include in her annual report that key information needed to determine whether she is dealing with allegations of violations in a timely, effective way. As well, while Commissioner Shepherd provides some details in annual Compliance Statistics reports on her website, she has not published such a report for the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

As a result, it is impossible to tell, since March 31, 2014: how long Commissioner Shepherd takes on average to review a complaint/situation; how many complaints/situations Commissioner Shepherd has reviewed from what years since then; whether any of the 38 outstanding complaints/situations that Commissioner Shepherd had before her as of March 31, 2014 are still outstanding; and other key details needed to assess Commissioner Shepherd’s enforcement record.

Democracy Watch’s letter calls on Commissioner Shepherd to disclose this information for each fiscal year since 2014 on her website very soon.

“Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd, like all other officers of parliament and law enforcement agencies, has a duty to provide the public with all the information needed to assess her enforcement record,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch hopes that Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd will very soon make public key details about her enforcement record since 2014 so her record for the past three years can be fully assessed.”

In July, Democracy Watch filed court cases challenging the Trudeau Cabinet’s reappointment of both federal Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to their third six-month terms since their multi-year term in office expired in July 2016.

Democracy Watch has also requested that Commissioner Shepherd remove herself from investigating and ruling on several complaints it has filed since last October, and on another complaint it filed in July, concerning lobbyists’ relationships with the Trudeau Cabinet, given that she has been essentially serving at the pleasure of the Trudeau Cabinet since July 2016.

Democracy Watch is also calling on the Trudeau Cabinet to establish an actually new, actually independent and merit-based appointment process for the Lobbying Commissioner and all other officers of Parliament and federal law enforcement agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals.

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

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page

Can’t tell from annual reports how many new alleged violations she learns about each year, how long she takes to review allegations, and how many outstanding cases she has at the end of each fiscal year

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, August 22, 2017

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch released the letter it sent today to federal Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd calling on her to disclose key details of her enforcement record of the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct since March 2014.

In her annual reports from 2011 to 2014, Commissioner Shepherd disclosed how many new cases arose each year, how many were reviewed and closed, and (in her 2013-2014 annual report), how many cases she had outstanding at the end of the fiscal year.

In her annual reports since 2014, Commissioner Shepherd does not include in her annual report that key information needed to determine whether she is dealing with allegations of violations in a timely, effective way. As well, while Commissioner Shepherd provides some details in annual Compliance Statistics reports on her website, she has not published such a report for the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

As a result, it is impossible to tell, since March 31, 2014: how long Commissioner Shepherd takes on average to review a complaint/situation; how many complaints/situations Commissioner Shepherd has reviewed from what years since then; whether any of the 38 outstanding complaints/situations that Commissioner Shepherd had before her as of March 31, 2014 are still outstanding; and other key details needed to assess Commissioner Shepherd’s enforcement record.

Democracy Watch’s letter calls on Commissioner Shepherd to disclose this information for each fiscal year since 2014 on her website very soon.

“Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd, like all other officers of parliament and law enforcement agencies, has a duty to provide the public with all the information needed to assess her enforcement record,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch hopes that Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd will very soon make public key details about her enforcement record since 2014 so her record for the past three years can be fully assessed.”

In July, Democracy Watch filed court cases challenging the Trudeau Cabinet’s reappointment of both federal Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to their third six-month terms since their multi-year term in office expired in July 2016.

Democracy Watch has also requested that Commissioner Shepherd remove herself from investigating and ruling on several complaints it has filed since last October, and on another complaint it filed in July, concerning lobbyists’ relationships with the Trudeau Cabinet, given that she has been essentially serving at the pleasure of the Trudeau Cabinet since July 2016.

Democracy Watch is also calling on the Trudeau Cabinet to establish an actually new, actually independent and merit-based appointment process for the Lobbying Commissioner and all other officers of Parliament and federal law enforcement agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals.

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

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page

Commissioner must also view unedited videotape of Boyd’s presentation in China, and all his receipts, cheques, bank and financial transactions

Legislature should review situation as well and issue decision on whether Boyd violated its code of ethical conduct

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 21, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Saskatchewan’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner Ron Barclay to consider possible insider information and gift rule violations in his investigation into MLA Bill Boyd’s business venture and presentation in China. As CBC Saskatchewan reported first last week, Boyd claimed to be the chairman of a company that he promoted on a trip to China last March to possible investors who would be able to use an investment in the company as a way of immigrating to Saskatchewan and obtaining Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Boyd was the provincial Minister of the Economy until last August, and as minister was responsible for regulation of these kind of companies. Mr. Boyd has asked Commissioner Barclay to investigate the situation, as has the Saskatchewan NDP. Democracy Watch called on Mr. Boyd to disclose the full video publicly, and all his bank and financial transaction records to the Commissioner, which in its opinion he must do to comply with the provincial legislature’s Code of Ethical Conduct (see more details about the Code in the last couple of paragraphs of this release).

“The Conflict of Interest Commissioner should investigate Bill Boyd’s actions to determine if he violated the provincial conflict of interest law by using inside information he gained as a minister to further the interests of his Chinese associates. The Commissioner should also investigate whether Boyd received an illegal gift or other benefit connected to his trip to China and his business venture. If Boyd violated the law, the Commissioner should not allow him to escape accountability just because he has resigned,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To do a thorough investigation, the Commissioner must review an unedited copy of Boyd’s presentation in China, and all of his financial and bank records from the trip and business.”

Section 4 of the provincial Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits MLAs from using inside information to further their own or family’s or associate’s interests:

“Inside Information
4. A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office and is not available to the general public to further or to seek to further the member’s private interest, his or her family’s private interest or the private interest of an associate.
1993, c.M-11.11, s.4.”

“Mr. Boyd couldn’t unlearn the inside information he learned while he was a Cabinet minister, and therefore it seems fairly clear that he would be using that inside information to further his own interests and the interests of his business associates,” said Conacher.

Secondly, if Mr. Boyd didn’t pay for any part of his trip to China, Democracy Watch’s opinion is that he violated subsection 7(1) of the Act:

“Accepting extra benefits
7.(1) Neither a member nor any of the member’s family shall accept a fee, gift or personal benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of the member’s duties of office.”

Mr. Boyd may argue that, since he is no longer minister, any gift or payment he may have accepted from his Chinese associates, or to pay for any part of his trip to China, is not connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his duties of office. However, the promotion for his seminar in China connects the seminar at least indirectly to his official position, so Democracy Watch’s opinion is that if he accepted any fee, gift, pay, reimbursement or other personal benefit connected to his trip or to his business venture, then he violated subsection 7(1) of the Act.

Democracy Watch also called on the Saskatchewan legislature to issue a decision about whether Mr. Boyd violated its Code of Ethical Conduct. Among other rules, the Code requires MLAs to uphold the highest ethical standards to “enhance public confidence and trust in government” and, like the Act, prohibits them from using inside information for personal gain, from accepting gifts, and from engaging “in personal conduct that exploits for private reasons their positions or authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to their offices.”

“All MLAs should be concerned by Boyd’s actions, and should use the results of the Commissioner’s investigation to pass a resolution concerning whether his actions violated the legislature’s code of ethical conduct,” said Conacher.

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Commissioner must also view unedited videotape of Boyd’s presentation in China, and all his receipts, cheques, bank and financial transactions

Legislature should review situation as well and issue decision on whether Boyd violated its code of ethical conduct

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 21, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Saskatchewan’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner Ron Barclay to consider possible insider information and gift rule violations in his investigation into MLA Bill Boyd’s business venture and presentation in China. As CBC Saskatchewan reported first last week, Boyd claimed to be the chairman of a company that he promoted on a trip to China last March to possible investors who would be able to use an investment in the company as a way of immigrating to Saskatchewan and obtaining Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Boyd was the provincial Minister of the Economy until last August, and as minister was responsible for regulation of these kind of companies. Mr. Boyd has asked Commissioner Barclay to investigate the situation, as has the Saskatchewan NDP. Democracy Watch called on Mr. Boyd to disclose the full video publicly, and all his bank and financial transaction records to the Commissioner, which in its opinion he must do to comply with the provincial legislature’s Code of Ethical Conduct (see more details about the Code in the last couple of paragraphs of this release).

“The Conflict of Interest Commissioner should investigate Bill Boyd’s actions to determine if he violated the provincial conflict of interest law by using inside information he gained as a minister to further the interests of his Chinese associates. The Commissioner should also investigate whether Boyd received an illegal gift or other benefit connected to his trip to China and his business venture. If Boyd violated the law, the Commissioner should not allow him to escape accountability just because he has resigned,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To do a thorough investigation, the Commissioner must review an unedited copy of Boyd’s presentation in China, and all of his financial and bank records from the trip and business.”

Section 4 of the provincial Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits MLAs from using inside information to further their own or family’s or associate’s interests:

“Inside Information
4. A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office and is not available to the general public to further or to seek to further the member’s private interest, his or her family’s private interest or the private interest of an associate.
1993, c.M-11.11, s.4.”

“Mr. Boyd couldn’t unlearn the inside information he learned while he was a Cabinet minister, and therefore it seems fairly clear that he would be using that inside information to further his own interests and the interests of his business associates,” said Conacher.

Secondly, if Mr. Boyd didn’t pay for any part of his trip to China, Democracy Watch’s opinion is that he violated subsection 7(1) of the Act:

“Accepting extra benefits
7.(1) Neither a member nor any of the member’s family shall accept a fee, gift or personal benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of the member’s duties of office.”

Mr. Boyd may argue that, since he is no longer minister, any gift or payment he may have accepted from his Chinese associates, or to pay for any part of his trip to China, is not connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his duties of office. However, the promotion for his seminar in China connects the seminar at least indirectly to his official position, so Democracy Watch’s opinion is that if he accepted any fee, gift, pay, reimbursement or other personal benefit connected to his trip or to his business venture, then he violated subsection 7(1) of the Act.

Democracy Watch also called on the Saskatchewan legislature to issue a decision about whether Mr. Boyd violated its Code of Ethical Conduct. Among other rules, the Code requires MLAs to uphold the highest ethical standards to “enhance public confidence and trust in government” and, like the Act, prohibits them from using inside information for personal gain, from accepting gifts, and from engaging “in personal conduct that exploits for private reasons their positions or authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to their offices.”

“All MLAs should be concerned by Boyd’s actions, and should use the results of the Commissioner’s investigation to pass a resolution concerning whether his actions violated the legislature’s code of ethical conduct,” said Conacher.

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner should both recuse themselves from investigating because Trudeau Cabinet gave them illegal 6-month contracts

Despite their false claims, Liberals’ appointment process still Cabinet-controlled not merit-based – 10,000+ call on Liberals to make changes to match Ontario’s and Britain’s world-leading appointment processes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced it is filing complaints with both federal Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson about the relationship and meetings between representatives of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) and Liberal Cabinet officials, and decisions Cabinet ministers may have made about those relationships and meetings.

In both complaints, Democracy Watch will request that the commissioners recuse themselves from ruling on the situation because they are both in a conflict of interest currently as they are serving their third six-month contract handed to them by the Trudeau Cabinet. Democracy Watch recently filed court challenges of both commissioners’ contracts based on the claim the contracts are illegal.

“Given that the former election campaign managers for Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland head up the Council of Canadian Innovators it raises questions of whether government officials are giving them preferential treatment that is illegal under the federal ethics law,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The federal lobbyists’ code prohibits anyone from lobbying a Cabinet minister or their officials for five years after helping them get elected, it’s reasonable to question whether Minister Freeland’s former campaign managers have violated that code given that the Council has lobbied many senior officials at the foreign affairs and trade department.”

Democracy Watch is filing the complaint with the Ethics Commissioner because it believes the evidence shows reasonable grounds to believe that Liberal Cabinet officials may have violated section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act (possibly with the approval of Liberal Cabinet ministers):

“Preferential treatment
7. No public office holder shall, in the exercise of an official power, duty or function, give preferential treatment to any person or organization based on the identity of the person or organization that represents the first-mentioned person or organization.”

The evidence Democracy Watch points to is from a report by Radio-Canada about the CCI’s “Membership Prospectus” document that states the CEOs of so-called “cleantech” companies who are members of CCI participate in “Monthly meetings with the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.” An article in the Globe and Mail states that the CCI claims it changed the prospectus in June to promise only regular meetings with the minister’s chief of staff.

The CCI document also states:

“CCI is a unique forum where CEOs speak directly with government decision makers about ideas that can improve the ecosystem for their companies. The Council hosts regular meetings between government civil servants and our CEOs. Our events have attracted Privy Council Officials, Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers and many others.”
and
“The Council is the only non-governmental referral partner to the Accelerated Growth Service (AGS). All CCI companies that are under 500 employees are enrolled into this new concierge service from the Federal Government.”
and
“Starting in May 2017, a permanent Federal Trade Commissioner from Global Affairs Canada will be part of CCI, exclusively dedicated to helping CCI member companies navigate new markets and advance their companies’ growth globally.”

This evidence of preferential treatment amounts to a violation of section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act unless Liberal Cabinet officials, and ministers who may have approved of their actions, can show that they did not give CCI preferential treatment based on the facts:

• that since March 2016 the CCI’s Executive Director has Benjamin Bergen, who according to the Globe and Mail article, and this CanTechLetter.com article, played a senior management role in the 2015 federal election campaign of former International Trade Minister and, since January 2017, Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland, and/or;
• that Dana O’Born is CCI’s Director of Policy (according to Mr. Bergen (as cited in the Globe article), Ms. O’Born was Ms. Freeland’s 2015 campaign manager).

Democracy Watch is filing the complaint with the Lobbying Commissioner based on the fact that former rule 8 and (since December 2015) current rules 6-9 of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, prohibit people who help in senior positions in election campaigns from lobbying for five years the politician they helped get elected or their staff or department. According to the Registry of Lobbyists, CCI has been registered to lobby the federal government (including Ms. Freeland’s Global Affairs ministry) with Mr. Bergen as the listed senior official since April 4, 2016 and has had 202 registered communications with government officials since then (although many more could have occurred as only oral, pre-arranged communications initiated by the lobbyist are required to be disclosed (unless the communication is about a financial benefit and then even if the government official initiates the communication it must be disclosed)).

The CCI’s monthly communications reports in the registry show that on the following dates (and, again, possibly many more) CCI communicated with Global Affairs Canada officials (when Ms. Freeland was Minister of Foreign Affairs or Minister of International Trade) including deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, special assistants, and the minister’s Parliamentary Secretary: April 21, 2017; April 10, 2017; March 30, 2017; March 24, 2017; March 1, 2017; February 8, 2017; November 4, 2016; November 2, 2016; October 21, 2017; October 20, 2017 (two meetings); October 17, 2016, and; October 13, 2016.

If Mr. Bergen or Ms. O’Born played a role in any of these communications it raises the issue especially of a violation of rule 6 of the current Lobbyists’ Code which is a general prohibition on lobbying a government department when there is even an appearance of conflict of interest for the minister who heads the department.

Democracy Watch wants both commissioners to recuse themselves from ruling on the situations, and has filed court cases challenging their re-appointments to their third six-month term, based on the concern that when Cabinet hands out repeated six-month contracts to government watchdogs who judge and issue rulings about situations involving Cabinet ministers, the contracts create conflicts of interest for those watchdogs as they have an incentive to issue rulings that favour Cabinet, MPs and supporters of their political party (and an incentive to fail to issue rulings on situations in which the evidence clearly shows that a minister or ruling party supporter violated the law).

“The federal lobbying and ethics laws clearly intend that the commissioners who enforce those laws be appointed for seven-year terms to ensure their independence as watchdogs who rule on situations involving Cabinet ministers and their political party supporters. The Trudeau Cabinet is abusing those laws and undermining the independence of those watchdogs by repeatedly handing six-month contracts to the Lobbying Commissioner and Ethics Commissioner,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Both the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner are currently investigating (or refusing to investigate) situations involving Prime Minister Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers. The Ethics Commissioner is investigating complaints filed by Conservative MP Blaine Calkins and Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer about the Aga Khan’s December 2016 trip gift to Trudeau. The Ethics Commissioner has also refused to investigate complaints other situations involving Trudeau and other Liberals.

As far as Democracy Watch knows (it is difficult to tell because the Lobbying Commissioner’s 2016-2017 annual report fails to provide details), the Lobbying Commissioner’s office: 1. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about an August 26, 2015 fundraising event attended by Justin Trudeau and hosted by Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman (Apotex lobbies the PMO); 2. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about an August 25, 2014 fundraising event attended by Justin Trudeau hosted by a Clearwater Seafoods co-founder and board member (Clearwater lobbies the PMO), and; 3. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about the situation revealed in an October 25th Globe and Mail article involving Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman who assisted with selling tickets for a fundraising event that Finance Minister Bill Morneau attended (Apotex lobbies Finance Canada).

However, the Lobbying Commissioner seems to be failing to investigate Democracy Watch’s complaint filed in May 2016 about travel junket gifts given by 16 businesses and lobby organizations to federal MPs (including several Liberal MPs) from 2009 to 2016. There is no mention of the complaint in the compliance section of the Lobbying Commissioner’s 2016-2017 annual report.

That section of the report also states that the Lobbying Commissioner let 10 lobbyists off the hook for clear violations during the 2016-2017 fiscal year (while only finding two guilty). As well the compliance section of the Commissioner’s 2015-2016 annual report states that the Commissioner let seven lobbyists off the hook for clear violations (while only finding two guilty). How many of the lobbyists who broke the Lobbying Act or Lobbyists’ Code since the 2015 election and are Liberal Party supporters is not known because the Commissioner does not disclose the identity of lobbyists she let off the hook (nor the reasons why she let each lobbyist off the hook).

In all of the complaints it has filed in the past year, because they have been essentially serving at the pleasure of the Trudeau Cabinet on six-month contracts, Democracy Watch has requested that the Lobbying Commissioner and Ethics Commissioner recuse themselves from investigating and ruling on the complaints and instead have someone independent of the Trudeau Cabinet rule on the complaint.

“Prime Minister Trudeau finally acknowledged in May that the Ethics Commissioner investigating him causes a conflict of interest that prohibits him from taking part in decisions about the Ethics Commissioner position. The Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner have both failed to acknowledge that they are in a conflict of interest because they have been handed six-month contracts by the Trudeau Cabinet while investigating Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers,” said Conacher.

The case against the Ethics Commissioner’s reappointment replaces an earlier case that Democracy Watch had filed in the Federal Court of Appeal that has been discontinued.

More than 10,000 Canadians have signed Democracy Watch’s Stop Political Lapdog Appointments petition on Change.org in the past few weeks. The petition calls on the federal Liberals to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent and merit-based (as Britain has) for appointments of all judges, officers of parliament, and members of agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals. The petition was launched as part of Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign.

The Liberals haven’t changed the federal Cabinet appointment process at all from what the Conservatives used (other than adding the goal of diversity). In the answer to the third question in the “Frequently Asked Questions” document describing the Liberals’ Cabinet appointment process (which was updated on April 28th), it says Cabinet ministers “manage” all appointment processes.

That means Cabinet appointments are still partisan, political processes, not merit-based as the Liberals claim (as the recent appointment of former Ontario Liberal Cabinet minister Madeleine Meilleur as the federal Languages Commissioner has revealed so clearly). And the government’s website listing openings and qualifications for Cabinet appointments that the Liberals claim makes the appointment process more open and transparent has existed for several years.

As well, the Liberals have made the very questionable claim that they can’t find anyone qualified to be the next Lobbying Commissioner or next Ethics Commissioner.

“The Liberals’ false claims smell very fishy and are clearly an attempt to cover up the fact that their Cabinet appointment system is essentially the same as the Harper Conservatives used, and that it’s still political and partisan, not merit-based, and allows Trudeau Cabinet ministers to choose their own Liberal Party cronies as government and law enforcement lapdogs,” said Conacher.

“The Trudeau Cabinet is in a conflict of interest when choosing any government or law enforcement watchdog because those watchdogs enforce laws that apply to Cabinet ministers or their departments,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process for judges and watchdogs is to establish a fully independent public appointment commission, as Ontario and Britain have, to conduct public, merit-based searches for nominees and send a short list to Cabinet, with Cabinet required to choose from the list.”

The independent commission, whose members are approved by all federal party leaders (and entities such as the Canadian Judicial Council) should be mandated to do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for candidates, and the Trudeau Cabinet should be required to choose appointees from a short-list of one to three candidates that the commission nominates.

Ontario uses this kind of independent appointment system to appoint provincial judges (the advisory committee provides a shortlist of three candidates to the Cabinet). Britain uses it to appoint judges and judicial tribunal members (like the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are) – its advisory committee provides only one candidate to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has to accept the candidate or reject the candidate and provide written reasons. Both of their systems are considered to be world leading.

The new appointment process, and prohibition on being reappointed, should apply to the judicial advisory committees and appointments of all 1,123 federal and provincial superior court judicial appointments listed here, and to the new public appointments commission that must be established to ensure a merit-based selection process for a short list of candidates for appointment to the 32 federal administrative tribunals and 108 agencies/boards listed here.

Democracy Watch also called on the Liberals, and all governments, to change the law to ensure all Cabinet appointees who watch over the government or oversee key democracy laws and processes (especially every Officer of Parliament) serve only one term.

“Like judges, all government and democracy watchdogs must only serve one term, with no possibility that the government can reappoint them, to ensure watchdogs don’t try to please the government in order to keep their job,” said Conacher. “To safeguard our democracy the ruling party must not be allowed to reappoint any government watchdog.”

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign amd Government Ethics Campaign

Laws for both commissioners say interim appointments limited to no more than six months per person, and only allowed when commissioner is absent or incapacitated

Cases also based on concern that Cabinet handing out repeated six-month contracts to government watchdogs creates a conflict of interest for those watchdogs

Despite their false claims, Liberals’ appointment process still Cabinet-controlled not merit-based – 10,000+ call on Liberals to make changes to match Ontario’s and Britain’s world-leading appointment processes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, July 11, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced its court cases challenging the Trudeau Cabinet’s reappointment of both federal Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to their third six-month terms since their multi-year term in office expired in July 2016. Yavar Hameed of Hameed Law and Bijon Roy of Champ and Associates in Ottawa are providing counsel to Democracy Watch for the cases.

The cases are based on the claim that the commissioners’ reappointments for their current third six-month terms are illegal. Clause 4.1(4) of the Lobbying Act says that any qualified person can only be appointed as Lobbying Commissioner for an interim term of no longer than six months, and that such interim appointments are only allowed when there is no commissioner or the commissioner is incapacitated (which was not the situation when the Cabinet made the reappointment).

The Parliament of Canada Act subsection 82(2) says the same things about appointments of anyone as interim Ethics Commissioner. Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd began her third six-month term on June 30th, and Ethics Commissioner began her third six-month term on July 9th.

“The federal lobbying and ethics laws clearly intend that the commissioners who enforce those laws be appointed for seven-year terms to ensure their independence as watchdogs who rule on situations involving Cabinet ministers and their political party supporters. The Trudeau Cabinet is abusing those laws and undermining the independence of those watchdogs by repeatedly handing six-month contracts to the Lobbying Commissioner and Ethics Commissioner,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The cases are also based on the concern that when Cabinet hands out repeated six-month contracts to government watchdogs who judge and issue rulings about situations involving Cabinet ministers, the contracts create conflicts of interest for those watchdogs as they have an incentive to issue rulings that favour Cabinet, MPs and supporters of their political party (and an incentive to fail to issue rulings on situations in which the evidence clearly shows that a minister or ruling party supporter violated the law).

Both the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner are currently investigating (or refusing to investigate) situations involving Prime Minister Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers. The Ethics Commissioner is investigating complaints filed by Conservative MP Blaine Calkins and Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer about the Aga Khan’s December 2016 trip gift to Trudeau. The Ethics Commissioner has also refused to investigate complaints other situations involving Trudeau and other Liberals.

As far as Democracy Watch knows (it is difficult to tell because the Lobbying Commissioner’s 2016-2017 annual report fails to provide details), the Lobbying Commissioner’s office: 1. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about an August 26, 2015 fundraising event attended by Justin Trudeau and hosted by Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman (Apotex lobbies the PMO); 2. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about an August 25, 2014 fundraising event attended by Justin Trudeau hosted by a Clearwater Seafoods co-founder and board member (Clearwater lobbies the PMO), and; 3. is investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about the situation revealed in an October 25th Globe and Mail article involving Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman who assisted with selling tickets for a fundraising event that Finance Minister Bill Morneau attended (Apotex lobbies Finance Canada).

However, the Lobbying Commissioner seems to be failing to investigate Democracy Watch’s complaint filed in May 2016 about travel junket gifts given by 16 businesses and lobby organizations to federal MPs (including several Liberal MPs) from 2009 to 2016. There is no mention of the complaint in the compliance section of the Lobbying Commissioner’s 2016-2017 annual report.

That section of the report also states that the Lobbying Commissioner let 10 lobbyists off the hook for clear violations during the 2016-2017 fiscal year (while only finding two guilty). As well the compliance section of the Commissioner’s 2015-2016 annual report states that the Commissioner let seven lobbyists off the hook for clear violations (while only finding two guilty). How many of the lobbyists who broke the Lobbying Act or Lobbyists’ Code since the 2015 election and are Liberal Party supporters is not known because the Commissioner does not disclose the identity of lobbyists she let off the hook (nor the reasons why she let each lobbyist off the hook).

In all of the complaints it has filed in the past year, because they have been essentially serving at the pleasure of the Trudeau Cabinet on six-month contracts, Democracy Watch has requested that the Lobbying Commissioner and Ethics Commissioner recuse themselves from investigating and ruling on the complaints and instead have someone independent of the Trudeau Cabinet rule on the complaint.

“Prime Minister Trudeau finally acknowledged in May that the Ethics Commissioner investigating him causes a conflict of interest that prohibits him from taking part in decisions about the Ethics Commissioner position. The Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner have both failed to acknowledge that they are in a conflict of interest because they have been handed six-month contracts by the Trudeau Cabinet while investigating Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers,” said Conacher.

The case against the Ethics Commissioner’s reappointment replaces an earlier case that Democracy Watch had filed in the Federal Court of Appeal that has been discontinued.

More than 10,000 Canadians have signed Democracy Watch’s Stop Political Lapdog Appointments petition on Change.org in the past few weeks. The petition calls on the federal Liberals to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent and merit-based (as Britain has) for appointments of all judges, officers of parliament, and members of agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals. The petition was launched as part of Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign.

The Liberals haven’t changed the federal Cabinet appointment process at all from what the Conservatives used (other than adding the goal of diversity). In the answer to the third question in the “Frequently Asked Questions” document describing the Liberals’ Cabinet appointment process (which was updated on April 28th), it says Cabinet ministers “manage” all appointment processes.

That means Cabinet appointments are still partisan, political processes, not merit-based as the Liberals claim (as the recent appointment of former Ontario Liberal Cabinet minister Madeleine Meilleur as the federal Languages Commissioner has revealed so clearly). And the government’s website listing openings and qualifications for Cabinet appointments that the Liberals claim makes the appointment process more open and transparent has existed for several years.

As well, the Liberals have made the very questionable claim that they can’t find anyone qualified to be the next Lobbying Commissioner or next Ethics Commissioner.

“The Liberals’ false claims smell very fishy and are clearly an attempt to cover up the fact that their Cabinet appointment system is essentially the same as the Harper Conservatives used, and that it’s still political and partisan, not merit-based, and allows Trudeau Cabinet ministers to choose their own Liberal Party cronies as government and law enforcement lapdogs,” said Conacher.

“The Trudeau Cabinet is in a conflict of interest when choosing any government or law enforcement watchdog because those watchdogs enforce laws that apply to Cabinet ministers or their departments,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process for judges and watchdogs is to establish a fully independent public appointment commission, as Ontario and Britain have, to conduct public, merit-based searches for nominees and send a short list to Cabinet, with Cabinet required to choose from the list.”

The independent commission, whose members are approved by all federal party leaders (and entities such as the Canadian Judicial Council) should be mandated to do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for candidates, and the Trudeau Cabinet should be required to choose appointees from a short-list of one to three candidates that the commission nominates.

Ontario uses this kind of independent appointment system to appoint provincial judges (the advisory committee provides a shortlist of three candidates to the Cabinet). Britain uses it to appoint judges and judicial tribunal members (like the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are) – its advisory committee provides only one candidate to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has to accept the candidate or reject the candidate and provide written reasons. Both of their systems are considered to be world leading.

The new appointment process, and prohibition on being reappointed, should apply to the judicial advisory committees and appointments of all 1,123 federal and provincial superior court judicial appointments listed here, and to the new public appointments commission that must be established to ensure a merit-based selection process for a short list of candidates for appointment to the 32 federal administrative tribunals and 108 agencies/boards listed here.

Democracy Watch also called on the Liberals, and all governments, to change the law to ensure all Cabinet appointees who watch over the government or oversee key democracy laws and processes (especially every Officer of Parliament) serve only one term.

“Like judges, all government and democracy watchdogs must only serve one term, with no possibility that the government can reappoint them, to ensure watchdogs don’t try to please the government in order to keep their job,” said Conacher. “To safeguard our democracy the ruling party must not be allowed to reappoint any government watchdog.”

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign amd Government Ethics Campaign