Elections Ontario claims requirement to disclose “location” of an event only means the town or city – email exchange shows agencies’ twisted logic and its own violation of Ontario’s election finances law

Liberals and NDP disclose address of event, PC Party often keeps it secret

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 10, 2023

TORONTO – Today Democracy Watch revealed the email exchange it had recently with Kevin Thomas, Elections Ontario’s Manager of Compliance Enforcement, in which he confirmed the agency is letting parties, especially Premier Ford’s PC Party, hide whether lobbyists are holding fundraising events for them. This violates the Ontario’s Elections Finances Act (EFA – ss. 23(5) and (6)) which requires that parties, riding associations, candidates, nomination and party leadership contestants disclose the exact location of fundraising events.

The public, and Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, need to know the exact location of events because if a lobbyist or anyone connected to any business or organization that lobbies any MPP or Cabinet minister or Ontario government department holds a fundraising event, it could create a conflict of interest that would mean restrictions on lobbying. Lobbyists are prohibited under Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (s. 3.4) from putting a politician or government official in a real or potential conflict of interest.

Democracy Watch’s analysis, set out in the exchange of emails, shows that the Progressive Conservative Party in 2019 usually disclosed the exact location/address of fundraising events, but in the past few years often only discloses the town/city. The Liberal Party and NDP still disclose the exact address almost all of the time. The Green Party did not have any fundraising events on its website.

The word “location” is defined in the dictionary, including Black’s Law Dictionary, as a specific property. Mr. Thomas claims in his emails that Elections Ontario has since 2016 defined “location” in a directive to parties etc. as only meaning the town or city of the event. Mr. Thomas says in his emails that Elections Ontario refuses to disclose the directive, or the legal opinion that is the basis of the directive.

The EFA (clause 2(1)(k)) requires Elections Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa to publish all guidelines he issues to parties etc. (under clause 2(1)(j)) in the Ontario Gazette and on Elections Ontario’s website. Given Mr. Thomas claims that a directive was issued to parties etc. years ago concerning the definition of the word “location”, the directive should have been on Elections Ontario’s website for the past several years, and also should have been published in the Gazette.

The directive has not been published in the Gazette, and the word “location” is not defined in any of the guides Elections Ontario has published for Chief Financial Officers (known as a “CFO Handbook” – to see the handbooks, click here and follow the links).

Mr. Thomas claims in his emails that Elections Ontario will, finally, include the definition in its next version of the guides to be published in the new year.

“For no good reason, and in violation of the legal requirement to notify the public, Elections Ontario and the Chief Electoral Officer has been secretly allowing parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants to hide whether lobbyists are holding fundraising events for them, which hides conflicts of interest that undermine the integrity of provincial policy-making processes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Elections Ontario must immediately change its position and require parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants to disclose whether lobbyists are holding fundraising events for them so that the public, and Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, is notified every time a lobbyist is trying to buy influence over politicians by raising money for them,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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

Letter to Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa also calls for investigation of all ticket gifting for the event, and a ruling that gifting tickets is illegal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 22, 2023

TORONTO – Today Democracy Watch sent a letter to Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa calling on him to investigate and rule whether gifts of a ticket to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party’s March 2023 “Leader’s Dinner” fundraising event given by Mr. X to a mayor and a councillor violate Ontario’s political donations law.

As CTV Toronto reported recently, John Mutton, the head of the firm Municipal Solutions, who has been identified by the media as the “Mr. X” referred to in the report on the Greenbelt decision by Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner, provided as a gift a $1,500 ticket to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party March 2023 “Premier’s Dinner” fundraising event to both Pickering Mayor Kevin Ashe and Councillor Lisa Robinson, and also offered a ticket to Councillor Maurice Brenner (who refused the gift).

None of these people’s names appear in Ontario’s online registry of donations related to the contribution made to the PC Party through buying a ticket to the event. This raises questions concerning who bought the tickets, how Mr. Mutton obtained the tickets, whether Mr. Mutton offered or gave tickets to anyone else, and whether the people who actually paid for the tickets were recorded and disclosed in the online registry of donations?

This situation also raises questions about how many other people or entities that purchased tickets to the event secretly funnelled tickets to other people, including to municipal or provincial politicians, political staff or government employees?

Democracy Watch’s position is that several overlapping provisions in Ontario’s Election Finances Act (EFA) clearly prohibit buying a ticket for a fundraising event for another person who attends the event:

• whether the ticket is given by the person or entity who bought the ticket to the person who attends the event;
• or whether the ticket is given by the person or entity who bought the ticket to another person who then provides it to the person who attends the event;
• or whether the person who attends the event reimburses the person/entity who bought the ticket (unless they ensure that they are recorded as the donor by the party, and in the online registry of donors).

As section D of the letter details, the EFA contains several requirements and prohibitions intended to ensure that only individuals, using their own money, donate no more than the allowed amount to parties, riding associations, candidates and contestants, and that their identity and amount of their donations are disclosed in the online registry of provincial Political Contributions.

In other words, many provisions in the EFA prohibit so-called “straw-person” donations where a person, corporation, union or other organization funnels their money through another person to hide the fact that they are the actual donor so they can get away with violating restrictions on donations.

“Mr. X’s gift tickets to municipal politicians so they could attend the PC Party Doug Ford fundraising event raise serious questions about violations of the political donations law, and Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer should investigate not only those gifts but also how many other people secretly funnelled tickets to the event to others,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“If Elections Ontario doesn’t rule that it is illegal to give fundraising event tickets as a gift because it hides the identity of the actual donor and violates the law in other ways, it will open a huge loophole in the law that will effectively allow corporations, unions and other organizations to make secret donations, and for individuals to secretly funnel donations through others, and for individuals to donate more than the allowed amount,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has financial and other interests connected to Teck, and John Horgan became a director of a Teck company the day he resigned

Investigation needed into whether they tried to influence government decisions about investigation of contamination of water systems caused by Teck mines, or tried to further Teck’s interests in any other way

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 21, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it sent last Thursday to the federal Ethics Commissioner’s office calling for an investigation and ruling on whether Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has violated the federal Conflict of Interest Act (the “COIA”) by participating in or trying to influence the Government of Canada’s decision about requesting an investigation by the International Joint Commission (IJC) of contamination of water systems by mines owned and operated by Teck Resources Ltd., or by furthering Teck’s interests in any other way.

Democracy Watch also released the letter it sent last Thursday to the B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner calling for an investigation and ruling on whether former B.C. Premier John Horgan violated the B.C. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act (the “MCOIA”) by trying to influence the B.C. government’s position on the IJC investigation after he started negotiating his director position with Teck months before he resigned as an MLA on March 31, 2023. The B.C. government, and Teck, both oppose the investigation.

As the letters detail, the Trudeau Cabinet has been actively considering for the past couple of years whether to request an investigation by the IJC of contamination of water systems in B.C., Montana and Idaho by runoff from mines operated by Teck Resources Ltd. and its subsidiaries, including by selenium. In October 2021, the US Department of State formally requested that Canada agree to a joint referral of the matter to the IJC. That request has been endorsed U.S. President Joe Biden, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the state governments of Montana and Idaho.

As the letters also detail, both the COIA and MCOIA prohibit politicians from participating in or attempting to influence a decision that applies to a company when a politician has an apparent conflict of interest, and from using insider information to further their interests. The COIA also prohibits giving preferential treatment.

As the letter to the federal Ethics Commissioner details, Minister Wilkinson’s past roles as minister and parliamentary secretary since December 2015 have always been in the areas of resources and the environment, and he is a senior Trudeau Cabinet minister from B.C., the home of Teck’s mines. His conflict of interest is based on the fact that:

1. Teck has lobbied him directly on mining issues six times in the past year;

2. His spouse has investments in financial institutions (BlackRock Inc., RBC and TD) that are among the top 25 institutional investors in Teck, and;

3. He was CEO of BioteQ when it had a Teck contract to clean up selenium contamination before he became an MP.

Former B.C. Premier John Horgan led the B.C. government to oppose the investigation into contamination by Teck’s mines, and his conflict of interest is based on the fact that:

1. He was lobbied directly by Teck on mining issues in October 2022;

2. Teck was registered to lobby B.C. MLAs until Mr. Horgan resigned at the end of March 2023 and joined the board of Elk Valley Resources;

3. Horgan claims, but has not proven, that the process that led to joining the board of Teck’s Elk Valley Resources company began only in Dec. 2022, and;

4. B.C. Environment Minister Heyman has said that his best recollection is that he has not communicated with Mr. Horgan about the IJC investigation issue, but has not proven that there were no communications.

“Given the conflicts of interest both Minister Wilkinson and former Premier Horgan have concerning Teck, a full investigation is warranted by the commissioners to ensure they haven’t done anything to try to stop the investigation of water contamination caused by Teck’s mines,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The Trudeau Cabinet is currently choosing the next Ethics Commissioner through a secretive process. As a result, whoever is handpicked as the Commissioner should not rule on DWatch’s complaint as they would be biased in favour of the Cabinet.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unethical Lobbying Campaign

RCMP concluded “there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offence”

RCMP needs to explain how incorrect May 25th letter was sent to DWatch, and to disclose 86 pages now that it withheld about the investigation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, June 22, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the RCMP to explain how its Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Branch sent a letter dated May 25, 2023 to Democracy Watch in response to Democracy Watch’s July 2022 Access to Information Act (ATIA) request that contained incorrect information saying that the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet members obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 “is currently under investigation”.

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

“The RCMP needs to disclose all the internal communications that led to their access to information branch not knowing at the end of May that their investigation unit had ended the investigation last January so that the public knows who exactly failed to communicate that information internally, who reviewed and approved the May 25th letter that was sent to Democracy Watch, and when each review and approval step took place,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch is filing an access to information request with the RCMP for all those internal communications.”

Attached to the May 25th letter was a 96-page document with 86 pages fully redacted because, the letter incorrectly claimed, “this matter is currently under investigation.” Only Democracy Watch’s 5-page February 2021 letter to the RCMP is unredacted, and four pages are fully redacted because they are “not relevant” and one page because it is “redundant”. As a result, questions about when the RCMP’s investigation began, who and what it involved, and the basis of its conclusions, all remain unanswered.

The RCMP’s June 21, 2023 statement says: “The RCMP will undertake a new review of the records, and, following necessary consultations, will provide a new release package to the requester within 90 days.”

“Given the investigation ended in January, and that the only reason the RCMP gave for keeping the documents secret was the incorrect claim that the allegations were still being investigated, it is completely unjustifiable to delay the disclosure of the 86 pages for another three months,” said Conacher.

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

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

– 30 –

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

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

RCMP discloses 96-page document under Access to Information Act with 86 pages redacted because “matter is currently under investigation”

NOTE and UPDATE #2
(please see the first NOTE and UPDATE set out below, and click here to see more details in Democracy Watch’s June 22, 2023 New Release)

On Wednesday, June 21, 2023, the RCMP issued another statement to the media about the situation of the RCMP sending a letter dated May 25, 2023 to Democracy Watch that contained incorrect information about the RCMP’s investigation into Prime Minister Trudeau and other Liberal Cabinet ministers obstructing the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin back in 2018. The RCMP’s June 21st statement is as follows:

“In a May 2023 Access to Information (ATI) release, the RCMP informed a requester that records they were seeking were exempt from release as the matter was under investigation. This information was incorrect, and based on the information available to the ATIP Branch at that time.

As previously stated, the RCMP is not investigating allegations of political interference in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to secure a remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin. The RCMP’s Sensitive and International Investigations unit had conducted an assessment pertaining to these allegations and determined there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offence and the file was concluded by January 2023.

The RCMP will undertake a new review of the records, and, following necessary consultations, will provide a new release package to the requester within 90 days.”

Democracy Watch’s response to this statement is as follows:

Based on receiving confirmation from the RCMP that the RCMP misled Democracy Watch by sending it a letter dated May 25, 2023 that contained incorrect information that said the allegation that Prime Minister Trudeau and other members of the Liberal Cabinet obstructed the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin is “currently under investigation” by the RCMP, and based on receiving confirmation from the RCMP that the RCMP’s investigation of that allegation concluded in January 2023, Democracy Watch has updated its Monday, June 19, 2023 News Release on this webpage by changing “is investigating” to “was investigating” in the headline and first paragraph of the Release.

Given the investigation ended in January, and that the only reason the RCMP gave for keeping the documents secret was that the allegations were still being investigated, it is completely unjustifiable to delay the disclosure of the 86 pages for another three months (see details below about the 86 pages).

The RCMP also needs to disclose all the internal communications that led to their access to information branch not knowing at the end of May that their investigation unit had ended the investigation last January so that the public knows who exactly failed to communicate that information internally, who reviewed and approved the May 25th letter that was sent to Democracy Watch, and when each review and approval step took place. Democracy Watch is filing an Access to Information Act (ATIA) request for those internal communications.

NOTE and UPDATE:

The RCMP posted a short tweet about the contents of this news release and media stories about it on its Twitter account at about 6 pm ET on June 19, 2023, and issued a longer statement to the media.

The RCMP’s full statement to the media, which none of the media have included in their stories (so far), is as follows:

“The RCMP is not investigating allegations of political interference in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to secure a remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin. The statement, in a May 2023 Access to Information Release was sent using information available at the time.

The RCMP’s Sensitive and International Investigations unit conducted an assessment pertaining to these allegations. As part of that review the RCMP spoke with and collected information from a variety of sources, and examined the matter in the most thorough, objective and professional manner.

After a comprehensive and impartial assessment of all available information, the RCMP determined that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offence and the file was concluded.

The conclusion of that file was communicated to the original complainant in a letter in January 2023 and was also to be released via several Access to Information Requests received.

Regards,
Media Relations and Communications
RCMP O Division (Ontario)”

Democracy Watch’s response to the RCMP’s statement is as follows:

The RCMP’s statement is weirdly vague. The May 25, 2023 RCMP letter says they were investigating, and redacted 86 pages of the records it disclosed because they were investigating, but actually that decision to end the investigation was made in January 2023 and communicated to an unknown original complainant but not to anyone else? But it was supposed to have been communicated to everyone who filed an access-to-information request? The decision was not even communicated to the RCMP Access to Information unit staff for 5 months and, as a result, they sent the letter to Democracy Watch dated May 25, 2023 that said the matter was “currently under investigation”?

This raises even more questions than the letter sent to Democracy Watch on May 25th.

The RCMP’s story doesn’t add up because they are contradicting themselves about when the allegations were being investigated, and when decisions were made to end the investigation. If the investigation ended in January 2023, then why did the RCMP refuse to disclose 86 pages of their investigation documents just a few weeks ago because, they said, the allegations were still under investigation?

To clear up this matter, the RCMP must answer those questions, and disclose the 86 pages that they refused to disclose.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 19, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the response it received recently to its Access to Information Act (ATIA) filed with the RCMP on July 27, 2022. The RCMP’s response letter, dated May 25, 2023, confirms it is was investigating the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, former Finance Minister Bill Morneau, some members of their staff, and former Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018.

Attached to the response letter is a 96-page document with 86 pages fully redacted because “this matter is currently under investigation.” Only Democracy Watch’s 5-page February 2021 letter to the RCMP is unredacted, and four pages are fully redacted because they are “not relevant” and one page because it is “redundant”.

This is the first public statement the RCMP has made about the situation since August 14, 2019 when it stated that it was examining the situation carefully. On September 10, 2019, the Globe and Mail reported that Ian Shugart, then-Clerk of the Privy Council, had refused to waive Cabinet confidence to allow government witnesses to provide full information to the RCMP, and that sources within the RCMP said it was putting its examination on hold through the fall 2019 federal election campaign period. The next day former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould stated publicly that she had been interviewed by the RCMP about the actions of the Prime Minister and others, as reported by the Globe and Mail.

“The RCMP should have confirmed long ago that it was investigating the situation given the evidence, and that more than four years have passed since the situation was made public, and almost four years since the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling finding that Prime Minister Trudeau violated the federal ethics law pressuring the Attorney General,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given four years have passed, it is difficult to believe that the investigation has not been completed, and it raises many questions for the RCMP to answer.”

Democracy Watch called on the RCMP to answer the following questions:

1. When did the examination end and the investigation begin?
2. How many investigators have been investigating?
3. How many hours in total have they spent investigating?
4. Have there been negotiations with the PMO to disclose Cabinet confidences about the situation and, if not, why has the RCMP let almost four years pass without challenging the refusal to disclose in court?
5. When does the RCMP expect that the investigation will conclude?
6. Will the RCMP and Crown prosecutors issue a full public explanation of the investigation and its findings when it concludes?

Democracy Watch sent a letter to the RCMP in February 2021 setting out the grounds for prosecuting for obstruction of justice, and calling on the RCMP and Crown prosecutors to issue the full, public explanation that the public has a right to about the state of the examination (this letter is included in the 96-page record disclosed by the RCMP). The RCMP did not respond.

On June 1, 2022, Democracy Watch sent a second letter to the RCMP again setting out the grounds for prosecuting, and again calling for a full, public update, and also requesting disclosure of records under the ATIA. DWatch filed the ATIA request because the RCMP had disclosed documents in spring 2022 under the ATIA explaining its decisions concerning its investigation into the Aga Khan’s trip gift to Trudeau and his family. After some communications with the RCMP clarifying the request, it was finalized on July 27, 2022.

“Are the RCMP and prosecutors waiting for a third federal election to pass, or doing what often happens in Canada when powerful politicians and government officials are involved in alleged illegal activities – delaying with the hope that they can eventually bury the results of the investigation?” asked Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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

Trudeau Cabinet currently handpicking Ethics Commissioner, RCMP Commissioner, Integrity Commissioner who all enforce laws that apply to Cabinet

Trudeau Cabinet’s appointments process is as partisan, Cabinet-controlled and political as past government’s processes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 12, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, given Prime Minister Trudeau’s appointment fiasco with David Johnston, Democracy Watch called on the Trudeau Cabinet to stop its multi-year charade and establish an actually independent, merit-based appointment process for all public inquiry commissioners, and all federal democratic good government watchdogs.

The Trudeau Cabinet has, finally, shown openness to having opposition parties participate in choosing the commissioner(s) who will investigate foreign interference in Canadian politics.

However, for appointing key watchdogs who enforce key democratic good government laws that apply to the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers and other top government officials, the Trudeau Cabinet has recently, after a secretive, partisan, Cabinet-controlled processes, appointed new RCMP Commissioner, and nominated a new Integrity Commissioner (who enforces the federal whistleblower protection law).

Also the Trudeau Cabinet is currently completely controlling secretive, partisan processes for handpicking the Interim Ethics Commissioner and the full-term Ethics Commissioner.

Despite promising in the 2015 federal election to change the process, the Trudeau Cabinet didn’t actually change it. Cabinet ministers still choose all inquiry commissioners, all appointment advisory committee members, and choose all watchdog appointees from the long lists of candidates that the committees provide, with little or no consultation with opposition parties.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in January 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when choosing watchdogs such as the Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying.

In addition to the David Johnston fiasco, past appointments by the Trudeau Cabinet have shown clearly that the appointment process is far from merit-based.

1. Interim Ethics Commissioner Martine Richard never should have been appointed given she is the sister-in-law of Trudeau Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc, and thankfully she resigned soon after being appointed;
2. Mario Dion, who was handpicked to be Ethics Commissioner in November 2017 by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process, had a record of eight unethical actions in his former job as Integrity Commissioner. The Cabinet hid emails for two years that showed they had other qualified candidates for Ethics Commissioner, and lied to opposition party leaders.
3. The Trudeau Cabinet used the same secretive, dishonest process to handpick Nancy Bélanger in late 2017 to be the Commissioner of Lobbying;
4. Former Ontario Liberal MPP Madeleine Meilleur admitted in spring 2017 before a House Committee that when she was considering ending her political career she had talked with Trudeau’s then-senior adviser Gerald Butts, and also his Chief of Staff Katie Telford, and asked to be appointed as federal Commissioner of Official Languages. Her statement became so politically costly to the Trudeau Cabinet that she ended up withdrawing her candidacy, and;
5. After Julie Payette resigned from her Governor General position in 2021, the Trudeau Cabinet admitted that she was not properly vetted for the position.

The Trudeau Cabinet has also handpicked, through partisan, political Cabinet-controlled processes, all of Canada’s other current democratic good government watchdogs: the Chief Electoral Officer (who was switched by the Trudeau Cabinet for secret reasons); Auditor General; Information Commissioner; Privacy Commissioner; Parliamentary Budget Officer, and; the Governor General (who plays a key role in judging whether a prorogation or snap election should be allowed, and who governs after an election).

To ensure merit-based appointments, a fully independent Appointments Commission should be established (as Prime Minister Harper promised to do back in 2006), with the Commission members approved by all parties, and then the Commission will do public, merit-based searches and submit a short list of no more than three well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee, which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.

“Like every Cabinet, the Trudeau Cabinet is in a conflict of interest when choosing inquiry commissioners and democratic good government watchdogs because those commissioners and watchdogs investigate and enforce rules that apply to Cabinet ministers and their departments,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process is to establish a fully independent appointments commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and then send a short list of well-qualified candidates to an all-party committee which will make the final choice for each watchdog position.”

Almost 16,000 Canadians have sent a letter through Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign calling on the federal Liberals to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent and merit-based.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Changes needed to effectively require everyone in politics to be honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 31, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, with Toronto’s mayoral by-election voting day coming up on June 26th, and advance voting starting June 8th, Democracy Watch called on all candidates to make key disclosures of information voters have a right to know before they vote, and to pledge to resign if they break any of their election promises, and to pledge to make key changes to make Toronto’s elections actually democratic and fair.

“Toronto’s mayoral election is undemocratic and unfair because candidates are allowed to mislead voters with false election promises and statements, the system favours wealthy candidates who have wealthy supporters as donating huge amounts of money to your own campaign or third-party advertising blitz is allowed, and voters are denied the right to know, before they vote, who is bankrolling and fundraising and campaigning for candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Voters are also forced to choose only one out of a dizzying number of candidates instead of being allowed to rank them and have the candidate who is supported the most by the most voters win.”

“Voters and the media should be asking key questions of all the candidates before advanced voting begins so that voters have key information they need to make an informed vote,” said Conacher.

Toronto’s election is undemocratic and unfair in the following key ways:

I. Misleading voters is legal

1. Candidates and third parties (interest groups and individuals who are trying to affect the election results) are allowed to lie to voters with the election promises and statements about candidates or anything else;

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Will you resign if you break any of your promises? Do you support a by-law requiring candidates in Toronto elections, and everyone in Toronto politics, to tell the truth, with a high fine for misleaders?

II. Tilted in favour of wealthy candidates who have wealthy supporters

2. A mayoral candidate and their spouse are allowed, together, to donate $25,000 to the candidate’s campaign, which is much more than most candidates can afford;
3. Donors are allowed to donate up to $2,500, which is much more than an average voter can afford;
4. There is no limit to how much an individual can donate to their own third-party advertising, and a $1,200 limit on other donations to third parties, much more than an average voter can afford;
5. The same spending limit ($25,000) applies to an individual who is a third party and a third-party group with thousands of members, which allows a wealthy individual to spend as much as thousands of voters;

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Did you and/or your spouse donate to your campaign? Are you refusing big donations and, if so, what is the maximum donation you are accepting?

III. No disclosure of who is fundraising, campaigning or donating

6. Candidates are not required to disclose who is raising money for them, and people raising money are not required to disclose they are doing it nor how much they raised;
7. Candidates are not required to disclose who is campaigning for them, not even top level people, even if they are lobbyists;
8. Candidates are not required to disclose donations before voters vote (donor disclosure is only required months after voting day);
9. Third parties are not required to disclose how much they spent, nor who funded them, before voters vote;
10. Third parties are not even required to register if they are only doing ads about issues (only third parties who do ads promoting or opposing candidates are required to register);

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates and third parties: Will you, before voters start voting on June 8th, and then regularly after that up to election day June 26th, disclose your donors, disclose who is fundraising for you and how much each person has raised, and disclose who is working on your campaign?

IV. Voting system allows candidate to win with 1.1% of vote

11. Because of the lack of a ranked ballot or run-off voting system, theoretically one of the 102 candidates could win the election with the support of only 1.1% of Toronto voters;

Key questions for voters and media to ask candidates: Do you support a ranked ballot or runoff voting system for Toronto elections?

“Like federal, provincial and territorial elections, and politics, Toronto’s elections and politics need to be cleaned up in many key ways to make elections democratic and fair, and to ensure everyone is required to be honest, ethical, transparent and waste-preventing, and to make representative decisions,” said Conacher.

The top 10 key needed changes to make Toronto a leading democracy are as follows:

1. Enact an honesty-in-politics bylaw that allows for complaints to a fully independent commissioner about broken promises, and about dishonest statements made anywhere (including at council, and during elections) by anyone involved in politics, with mandatory high fines as the penalty;
2. Require all Toronto Hydro and water utilities, and the City of Toronto when sending out property tax bills, to include a notice in their mailings and emails to households inviting them to join and fund citizen watchdog groups for hydro/water service, and for watching over government spending and ethics (as an umbrella group for ratepayer associations);
3. Establish a Public Appointments Commission whose members are not connected to any councillor, and require the Commission to conduct public, merit-based searches and choose a short list of a maximum of 3 candidates for all Council appointments (especially watchdogs), with the Council required to choose from the short list;
4. Enact a meaningful public consultation law that requires broad, in-depth public consultation with voters before any council or City of Toronto institution makes a significant decision;
5. Limit individual political donations to $100 (as in Quebec) and establish donation-matching public funding, and limit advertising spending (including on issue-related ads) to a low amount per voter that the third -party represents;
6. Prohibit everyone in politics from participating in any way in any decision-making process if they have even the appearance of a conflict of interest (even if the decision applies generally), and ban anyone who leaves politics from communicating with anyone involved in politics (or advising others who to communicate with) about their decisions for 5 years, and establish high penalties for violators;
7. Require everyone in politics to disclose through an online registry any communication they have with anyone with regard to decisions they are making (to close the secret lobbying loopholes that now exist) and prohibit lobbyists from helping with political campaigns or fundraising (or, if they do, from lobbying until after then next election), and establish high penalties for violations;
8. Change the voting system to a ranked ballot system with a runoff for the top candidates, to ensure that everyone who is elected is supported the most by the most voters;
9. Strengthen the access-to-information law by reducing loopholes, applying it to all government and government-funded institutions, requiring that records of all decisions and actions be disclosed regularly, and to establish high penalties for violators, and ensure effective whistleblower protection; and
10. Reduce waste by empowering the city’s Auditor General to: audit projected spending to ensure truth-in-budgetting; order changes to clean up the financial management of any institution, and; penalize violators of spending or procurement rules.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

Johnston violating ethics law by ruling on old friend Trudeau’s actions — group will file complaint with Ethics Commissioner office

Public inquiry needed with commissioner(s) chosen by all-party leaders, or House committee needs to be given security clearance to review evidence behind closed doors with Liberal MPs not filibustering again to block review

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, May 24, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch revealed that a search of Elections Canada’s database shows that lawyer Sheila R. Block, whom David Johnston retained to assist him in obtaining, reviewing and analyzing secret information that Prime Minister Trudeau gave them access to, seems to have donated a total of $7,593.38 (listed under “Sheila Block” and “Sheila R. Block”) to only the Liberal Party of Canada from 2006 to 2022. Johnston confirms that he retained Ms. Block for these purposes on in Section II.2) of his first report (page 6 of PDF) which he released yesterday.

Democracy Watch announced that it will file a complaint with the federal Ethics Commissioner’s office that David Johnston is violating the federal Conflict of Interest Act by ruling on his old friend Justin Trudeau’s actions on foreign interference. DWatch already filed a complaint with the Commissioner about Trudeau violating the Act by handing a government contract to his old friend Johnston – click here to see details.

It is a violation of the Act to participate in any decision or action when there is an opportunity to further your own interests, your relative’s interests, or the interests of a friend, and both Trudeau and Johnston are covered by the Act.

No one should call Mr. Johnston the “Independent Special Rapporteur” because he is not independent in any way from Prime Minister Trudeau – he was chosen by Trudeau; is an old family friend of Trudeau; serves at his pleasure; has no job security, and; has no powers under any statute or regulation to investigate anything.

As a result, it was not at all surprisingly that Johnston’s first report claimed that the Trudeau Cabinet has done nothing wrong, nor that Johnston failed to recommend a public inquiry and tried to close off further questioning of the Trudeau’ Cabinet’s actions.

A House committee could inquire fully into foreign interference if MPs on the committee are given security clearance to view all documents covered by secrecy provisions, and if Liberal MPs don’t filibuster again to block the committee’s review. However, a public inquiry would have more clear powers to examine Trudeau’s and his Cabinet’s actions on foreign interference. But Trudeau would also violate the Act by choosing the inquiry commissioner(s).

To be actually independent, inquiry commissioner(s) must be chosen by all party leaders in the House of Commons or, even better, by an independent appointments commission.

There is no need to wait for an independent inquiry before closing loopholes and correcting flaws in ethics, donation, election and lobbying laws that make secret foreign interference in Canadian elections legal and easy to do. On May 9th, DWatch presented to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee a list of key changes that need to be made to laws and enforcement in eight areas to prevent future foreign interference.

“Incredibly, David Johnston denied his friendship with Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday, and continues to fail to recognize that he is in a clear conflict of interest that violates the federal ethics law because, as a friend, the law prohibits him from judging Trudeau and his Cabinet minister’s actions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The pattern of donations in Elections Canada’s database that seems to show that David Johnston’s lawyer has donated significant amounts only to the Liberal Party for more than 15 years only adds another layer to the layer cake of conflicts of interest that mean that everything Johnston says and reports on the subject of foreign interference has no credibility at all.”

The Trudeau government should, finally, change the political, partisan, Cabinet-controlled appointment process for all the democratic good government watchdogs, including for the Interim Ethics Commissioner (and including inquiry commissioners for any public inquiry), because the Cabinet is biased and so the process is not merit-based. A fully independent committee, together with an all-party committee, should be appointing all the watchdogs because they all enforce laws that apply directly or indirectly to politicians from all parties.

“The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the Cabinet is biased when they choose watchdogs who enforce laws that apply to the Cabinet, and so the appointments system must change for all the watchdogs by having a fully independent committee doing a public, merit-based search for qualified candidates, and then an all-party committee making the final choice,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

Lobbying Commissioner’s proposed gutting of key ethical lobbying rules will make secret China and other foreign-government interference easier

Loopholes in election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics rules make secret foreign interference easy, as does very weak enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 9, 2023

OTTAWA – Today at noon, in testimony before the House of Commons Procedural Affairs Committee, Democracy Watch will call on the Committee to strongly recommend that the federal government and Parliament enact many measures needed to actually stop foreign interference.

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

If the registry only requires people or entities paid to directly influence Canadian politics, then they will avoid being required to register by arranging to be compensated for other services or in some other way while doing the influence activities for free.

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

Thirdly, loopholes in the lobbying law allow for secret, unethical lobbying, including by foreign-sponsored lobby groups.

Fourth, loopholes and too-high donation and spending limits allow wealthy interests (including foreign-sponsored lobby groups) to have undue influence over elections and policy-making processes, including by funnelling money to each other to hide the actual source of funds spent.

Fifth, lobbyists and lobby groups, including foreign-sponsored lobbyists and lobby groups, are allowed to collude with nomination race and political party leadership race contestants in secret, and non-citizens are allowed to vote in nomination race and party leadership race votes.

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

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

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

Seventh, many types of false claims are allowed about election candidates, party leaders and MPs, and during policy-making processes, and no enforcement agency has the power to order social media companies to remove false online posts or ads.

“A foreign-agent registry will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The lobbying commissioner’s proposal to gut key ethical lobbying rules, combined with the existing loopholes and flaws in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, will make it even easier than it is now for foreign governments to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

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

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

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

Click here to see Backgrounder

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Honesty in Politics Campaign, and Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign