Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

The following op-ed by Democracy Watch Co-founder Duff Conacher was published in slightly edited form in the Hill Times on January 19, 2022.

---

The federal Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, and federal ethics rules in the Conflict of Interest Act, MPs’ and Senators’ ethics codes, and public servants’ code, continue to be a collective sad joke because of huge loopholes, fatal flaws, and weak, secretive enforcement by the Ethics Commissioner, Lobbying Commissioner, deputy ministers and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

These commissioners are handpicked by the Cabinet through secretive processes that the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled are biased. The appointment process for these and all other federal democratic good government watchdogs, including judges, needs to be made much more independent of Cabinet to remove the taint of self-interested partisanship that undermines public confidence.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that government ethics-related laws and codes must set high transparency and integrity standards, and be strictly and strongly enforced, or Canada will not be a democracy. More than 25 years later, we are still far from meeting the Supreme Court’s standard.

The loophole-filled, flawed federal rules: 1. allow for secret, unethical lobbying, mainly by big business lobbyists; 2. allow Cabinet ministers, their staff, top government officials, MPs and senators all to participate in decisions that they and their family members can profit or benefit from in secret, and; 3. do not even cover staff of MPs and senators.

Only one of the loopholes is usually mentioned in articles about the Lobbying Act – the rule that allows an employee of a business to lobby in secret without registering as long as they don’t lobby more than 20 percent of their work time. The House Ethics Committee unanimously called for that loophole to be closed 10 years ago, and again last June.

But there are other huge loopholes the Committee continues to ignore. Businesses often lobby enforcement agencies about the enforcement of a law or regulation – none of that lobbying is required to be disclosed. Many businesses also lobby for tax credits but in a highly questionable enforcement policy the Commissioner of Lobbying ruled that the credits are not a “financial benefit” (even though they clearly are) and, therefore, that lobbying also does not have to be disclosed.

No one is required to register and disclose their lobbying if they are not paid for it. Hired-gun “consultant” lobbyists can easily have their contract say their clients will pay them for advice, and then lobby for them in secret for free. This loophole also allows unpaid board members and retired executives of businesses and other organizations to lobby in secret.

Another loophole is that anyone can secretly lobby senior officials in any federal political party and they can pass on your demands to their party’s politicians.

Even if a person is required to register their lobbying, only oral, pre-arranged communications that they initiate with office holders are required to be disclosed. Emails, letters, and any communications initiated by the office holder (other than about a government financial benefit) can be kept secret.

If you can exploit a loophole so you are not required to register your lobbying, then the ethics rules in the Lobbyists’ Code don’t apply to you and you can do favours for politicians you are lobbying or will lobby, like fundraising and campaigning for them.

Even if you are a registered lobbyist, the Code together with a loophole in the MP and senator ethics codes legalize lobbyists giving MPs the gift of unlimited sponsored travel, and other loopholes allow all federal politicians to accept gifts from friends, even if they are lobbyists.

The Lobbying Commissioner is currently proposing to weaken other Code rules to allow for even more unethical lobbying.

The loopholes also allow federal politicians and officials to leave office and start lobbying federal politicians and government officials the next day, in secret and unregistered. The so-called “five-year ban” in the Lobbying Act only applies to registered lobbyists.

And while there is a cooling-off period in the ethics law for Cabinet ministers and top government officials after they leave office, it is also so full of loopholes that they can start working right away with most lobby groups. The stronger rules that prohibit giving advice based on secret information obtained in office, or taking improper advantage of your former office, have essentially been ignored by the Ethics Commissioner.

The much-too-high political donation and third-party spending limits in the Canada Elections Act, are additional layers in this smelly layer cake of unethical federal political decision-making. They allow people who can afford it to buy influence by donating up to $3,350 annually to each party and its riding associations, and wealthy individuals and lobby groups to spend more than $500,000 supporting parties during election campaigns, up to $1 million in the couple of months before that, and an unlimited amount between elections. Banks, which are regulated by the federal government, are also allowed to buy influence by making unlimited loans to parties and candidates.

Finally, the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are allowed to make secret rulings, both have let many people off for clear violations of the rules and, even if you are found guilty, the only penalty in most cases is a public report. The commissioners should be required to rule publicly on every situation they examine, and to impose significant fines on all violators.

Add it all up and it’s essentially a legalized bribery system of unethical, biased favour-trading – pay to play, cash for access and influence. This is not to say that every federal political decision-making process is undermined by politicians and officials returning favours – only that every process is vulnerable to being tainted, in secret, by serious conflicts of interests.

The key question is, will a critical mass of MPs in the current minority government situation work together to pass a bill to clean up this unethical mess, finally?

To join the call for key changes, go to the Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics CampaignThe following op-ed by Democracy Watch Co-founder Duff Conacher was published in slightly edited form in the Hill Times on January 19, 2022.

---

The federal Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, and federal ethics rules in the Conflict of Interest Act, MPs’ and Senators’ ethics codes, and public servants’ code, continue to be a collective sad joke because of huge loopholes, fatal flaws, and weak, secretive enforcement by the Ethics Commissioner, Lobbying Commissioner, deputy ministers and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

These commissioners are handpicked by the Cabinet through secretive processes that the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled are biased. The appointment process for these and all other federal democratic good government watchdogs, including judges, needs to be made much more independent of Cabinet to remove the taint of self-interested partisanship that undermines public confidence.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that government ethics-related laws and codes must set high transparency and integrity standards, and be strictly and strongly enforced, or Canada will not be a democracy. More than 25 years later, we are still far from meeting the Supreme Court’s standard.

The loophole-filled, flawed federal rules: 1. allow for secret, unethical lobbying, mainly by big business lobbyists; 2. allow Cabinet ministers, their staff, top government officials, MPs and senators all to participate in decisions that they and their family members can profit or benefit from in secret, and; 3. do not even cover staff of MPs and senators.

Only one of the loopholes is usually mentioned in articles about the Lobbying Act – the rule that allows an employee of a business to lobby in secret without registering as long as they don’t lobby more than 20 percent of their work time. The House Ethics Committee unanimously called for that loophole to be closed 10 years ago, and again last June.

But there are other huge loopholes the Committee continues to ignore. Businesses often lobby enforcement agencies about the enforcement of a law or regulation – none of that lobbying is required to be disclosed. Many businesses also lobby for tax credits but in a highly questionable enforcement policy the Commissioner of Lobbying ruled that the credits are not a “financial benefit” (even though they clearly are) and, therefore, that lobbying also does not have to be disclosed.

No one is required to register and disclose their lobbying if they are not paid for it. Hired-gun “consultant” lobbyists can easily have their contract say their clients will pay them for advice, and then lobby for them in secret for free. This loophole also allows unpaid board members and retired executives of businesses and other organizations to lobby in secret.

Another loophole is that anyone can secretly lobby senior officials in any federal political party and they can pass on your demands to their party’s politicians.

Even if a person is required to register their lobbying, only oral, pre-arranged communications that they initiate with office holders are required to be disclosed. Emails, letters, and any communications initiated by the office holder (other than about a government financial benefit) can be kept secret.

If you can exploit a loophole so you are not required to register your lobbying, then the ethics rules in the Lobbyists’ Code don’t apply to you and you can do favours for politicians you are lobbying or will lobby, like fundraising and campaigning for them.

Even if you are a registered lobbyist, the Code together with a loophole in the MP and senator ethics codes legalize lobbyists giving MPs the gift of unlimited sponsored travel, and other loopholes allow all federal politicians to accept gifts from friends, even if they are lobbyists.

The Lobbying Commissioner is currently proposing to weaken other Code rules to allow for even more unethical lobbying.

The loopholes also allow federal politicians and officials to leave office and start lobbying federal politicians and government officials the next day, in secret and unregistered. The so-called “five-year ban” in the Lobbying Act only applies to registered lobbyists.

And while there is a cooling-off period in the ethics law for Cabinet ministers and top government officials after they leave office, it is also so full of loopholes that they can start working right away with most lobby groups. The stronger rules that prohibit giving advice based on secret information obtained in office, or taking improper advantage of your former office, have essentially been ignored by the Ethics Commissioner.

The much-too-high political donation and third-party spending limits in the Canada Elections Act, are additional layers in this smelly layer cake of unethical federal political decision-making. They allow people who can afford it to buy influence by donating up to $3,350 annually to each party and its riding associations, and wealthy individuals and lobby groups to spend more than $500,000 supporting parties during election campaigns, up to $1 million in the couple of months before that, and an unlimited amount between elections. Banks, which are regulated by the federal government, are also allowed to buy influence by making unlimited loans to parties and candidates.

Finally, the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are allowed to make secret rulings, both have let many people off for clear violations of the rules and, even if you are found guilty, the only penalty in most cases is a public report. The commissioners should be required to rule publicly on every situation they examine, and to impose significant fines on all violators.

Add it all up and it’s essentially a legalized bribery system of unethical, biased favour-trading – pay to play, cash for access and influence. This is not to say that every federal political decision-making process is undermined by politicians and officials returning favours – only that every process is vulnerable to being tainted, in secret, by serious conflicts of interests.

The key question is, will a critical mass of MPs in the current minority government situation work together to pass a bill to clean up this unethical mess, finally?

To join the call for key changes, go to the Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

Trudeau Cabinet still trying to stop court from seeing government emails reported on in La Presse, and evidence that lawyer associations, law professors, experts and media all think the Liberals’ appointment process is too political

Case hearing in 2022 – case alleges Trudeau Liberal’s consultation with only Liberals across Canada taints appointments with partisan bias that violates independence of courts and public’s Charter right to impartial courts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, December 15, 2021

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that the Federal Court rejected (PDF) the Trudeau Cabinet’s first attempt to have key evidence thrown out in its case challenging the federal government’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to the federal courts and all provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, and promoting judges within those courts.

The evidence shows clearly that federal appointments system for judges is too open to political interference that violates the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts, and the public’s Charter right to impartial courts.

Department of Justice lawyers are still trying to prevent the Federal Court from considering almost all of the evidence that Democracy Watch filed in a December 2020 affidavit (PDF) and in a second affidavit (PDF) about internal government emails reported on in La Presse on October 31, 2020.

Parts of the evidence in exhibits attached to the second affidavit will be considered confidentially by the Federal Court under an order of the court (the PDF of the second affidavit that is linked above is redacted to remove the currently confidential information).

The Trudeau Cabinet’s lawyers are trying to hide from the Federal Court almost all of Democracy Watch’s December 2020 affidavit – exhibits D to J, N to W and Z to BB – which contain all of the open letters and articles that lawyer associations, law professors, lawyers, experts and media have produced in the last few years expressing their concerns about how political the federal judicial appointment is, and how that undermines the public’s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

Wade Poziomka of Ross & McBride LLP is leading the litigation team representing Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case.

The federal appointment process for the federal and provincial superior and appeal courts matters a lot because the Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear 90% of appeals from these courts, and many appeals are also refused by provincial appeal courts, so in many cases the provincial superior courts are the public’s court of last resort. The constitutional guarantee of the independence of the courts has been upheld in several rulings on the measures in Part VII of the Constitution. And sections 7 and 11(d) (and, indirectly, 24(1)) of the Charter have been applied in rulings to ensure impartial court hearings.

The problems are longstanding, and have been raised in the past: unlike in the UK and Quebec, the federal Minister of Justice has too much political control of the process from start to finish, from choosing the majority of the members of the judicial appointment advisory committees in each province and territory (who serve renewable two-year terms), to receiving long lists of candidates from those committees, to circulating those lists secretly to MPs, Cabinet ministers and ruling party officials before making the final choice. The Minister also makes the decision, without any advisory committee involved making recommendations, to promote a sitting judge by appointing them to a court of appeal. (See Backgrounder for details)

Details about how many ruling party officials the Minister of Justice involves in reviewing the long lists of candidates for judicial appointments submitted by the advisory committees have been confirmed by whistleblowers disclosing internal government emails to the Globe and Mail and CBC and Radio-Canada.

And in April 2020 the Canadian Judicial Council found that Justice Colleen Suche, spouse of then-federal Natural Resources Cabinet Minister Jim Carr, had violated the judiciary’s ethics code by providing suggestions about who the federal Cabinet should appoint as judges.

In November 2020, the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) expressed concern about the final step of the federal appointment process in which the Minister circulates the long lists of candidates to many ruling party officials, saying that it is “a process that is open to speculation about political interference” that may be “a factor in the number of vacancies on the bench, which is a direct contributor to court delays and the access to justice crisis in Canada.”

There are also concerns that the partisan nature of the appointment process may be inhibiting the appointment of judges that reflect Canada’s diversity. Last June, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed the need for a “our courts, including our highest court, to reflect the diversity of Canadians.” In September 2020, 36 lawyers associations, legal clinics and advocacy groups called for changes to the appointment process, as did the CBA, to increase the appointment of more Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) judges.

“The current federal judicial appointment system is open to too much political interference by the ruling party, which violates the independence of the courts that is need to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully this case will lead to key changes that will ensure the appointment process for judges across Canada is truly independent and merit-based.”

“The power of Parliament is checked by the power of the judiciary, which has the ability to declare laws enacted by Parliament to be unconstitutional,” said Wade Poziomka, a partner at Ross & McBride LLP who is leading the litigation team representing Democracy Watch. “The independence of the judiciary is a necessary safeguard in a healthy democracy. This case challenges an appointment process that has been in place over more than one government, a process that is ripe for change because it allows partisan considerations to affect appointments.”

“Democracy Watch wants to strengthen the independence of our judiciary and, in turn, public confidence in the justice system,” said Poziomka. “Our first choice is to work with federal politicians and other stakeholders to achieve this goal. If litigation is necessary however, Democracy Watch will argue the merits of its case before the Federal Court.”

– 30 –

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

See more at Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Trudeau Cabinet still trying to stop court from seeing government emails reported on in La Presse, and evidence that lawyer associations, law professors, experts and media all think the Liberals’ appointment process is too political

Case hearing in 2022 – case alleges Trudeau Liberal’s consultation with only Liberals across Canada taints appointments with partisan bias that violates independence of courts and public’s Charter right to impartial courts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, December 15, 2021

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that the Federal Court rejected (PDF) the Trudeau Cabinet’s first attempt to have key evidence thrown out in its case challenging the federal government’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to the federal courts and all provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, and promoting judges within those courts.

The evidence shows clearly that federal appointments system for judges is too open to political interference that violates the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts, and the public’s Charter right to impartial courts.

Department of Justice lawyers are still trying to prevent the Federal Court from considering almost all of the evidence that Democracy Watch filed in a December 2020 affidavit (PDF) and in a second affidavit (PDF) about internal government emails reported on in La Presse on October 31, 2020.

Parts of the evidence in exhibits attached to the second affidavit will be considered confidentially by the Federal Court under an order of the court (the PDF of the second affidavit that is linked above is redacted to remove the currently confidential information).

The Trudeau Cabinet’s lawyers are trying to hide from the Federal Court almost all of Democracy Watch’s December 2020 affidavit – exhibits D to J, N to W and Z to BB – which contain all of the open letters and articles that lawyer associations, law professors, lawyers, experts and media have produced in the last few years expressing their concerns about how political the federal judicial appointment is, and how that undermines the public’s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

Wade Poziomka of Ross & McBride LLP is leading the litigation team representing Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case.

The federal appointment process for the federal and provincial superior and appeal courts matters a lot because the Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear 90% of appeals from these courts, and many appeals are also refused by provincial appeal courts, so in many cases the provincial superior courts are the public’s court of last resort. The constitutional guarantee of the independence of the courts has been upheld in several rulings on the measures in Part VII of the Constitution. And sections 7 and 11(d) (and, indirectly, 24(1)) of the Charter have been applied in rulings to ensure impartial court hearings.

The problems are longstanding, and have been raised in the past: unlike in the UK and Quebec, the federal Minister of Justice has too much political control of the process from start to finish, from choosing the majority of the members of the judicial appointment advisory committees in each province and territory (who serve renewable two-year terms), to receiving long lists of candidates from those committees, to circulating those lists secretly to MPs, Cabinet ministers and ruling party officials before making the final choice. The Minister also makes the decision, without any advisory committee involved making recommendations, to promote a sitting judge by appointing them to a court of appeal. (See Backgrounder for details)

Details about how many ruling party officials the Minister of Justice involves in reviewing the long lists of candidates for judicial appointments submitted by the advisory committees have been confirmed by whistleblowers disclosing internal government emails to the Globe and Mail and CBC and Radio-Canada.

And in April 2020 the Canadian Judicial Council found that Justice Colleen Suche, spouse of then-federal Natural Resources Cabinet Minister Jim Carr, had violated the judiciary’s ethics code by providing suggestions about who the federal Cabinet should appoint as judges.

In November 2020, the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) expressed concern about the final step of the federal appointment process in which the Minister circulates the long lists of candidates to many ruling party officials, saying that it is “a process that is open to speculation about political interference” that may be “a factor in the number of vacancies on the bench, which is a direct contributor to court delays and the access to justice crisis in Canada.”

There are also concerns that the partisan nature of the appointment process may be inhibiting the appointment of judges that reflect Canada’s diversity. Last June, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed the need for a “our courts, including our highest court, to reflect the diversity of Canadians.” In September 2020, 36 lawyers associations, legal clinics and advocacy groups called for changes to the appointment process, as did the CBA, to increase the appointment of more Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) judges.

“The current federal judicial appointment system is open to too much political interference by the ruling party, which violates the independence of the courts that is need to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully this case will lead to key changes that will ensure the appointment process for judges across Canada is truly independent and merit-based.”

“The power of Parliament is checked by the power of the judiciary, which has the ability to declare laws enacted by Parliament to be unconstitutional,” said Wade Poziomka, a partner at Ross & McBride LLP who is leading the litigation team representing Democracy Watch. “The independence of the judiciary is a necessary safeguard in a healthy democracy. This case challenges an appointment process that has been in place over more than one government, a process that is ripe for change because it allows partisan considerations to affect appointments.”

“Democracy Watch wants to strengthen the independence of our judiciary and, in turn, public confidence in the justice system,” said Poziomka. “Our first choice is to work with federal politicians and other stakeholders to achieve this goal. If litigation is necessary however, Democracy Watch will argue the merits of its case before the Federal Court.”

– 30 –

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

See more at Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

Voluntary, vague disclosure and investment plans announced today by alliance of banks and other financial institutions too weak to stop polluting investments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, November 3, 2021

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch, backed by thousands of Canadians that have sent a letter through its Stop Fossil Fuel Financing Campaign and/or signed its Change.org petition, called on Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Ontario Premier Doug Ford to work together with all parties and make three key changes that will expose, and end, fossil fuel financing by Canada’s Big Banks and other key financial institutions, and empower financial consumers and retail investors to have a much greater say in what financial institutions are doing with their money.

Democracy Watch is one of 231 organizations in 38 countries calling for key changes to disclose and stop bank financing of fossil fuels and other major polluting industries that are causing the climate crisis.

According to research by the Rainforest Action Network and other organizations, 3 of Canada’s Big 5 Banks are among the top 12 banks worldwide financing the fossil-fuel industry, and the other 2 are in the top 25 banks. Click here to see their report.

It was difficult for the organizations to find out this information, and Canada’s Big Banks are denying it is accurate. The information also doesn’t include other Canadian financial institutions, such as insurance companies, that support the industry, nor does it cover other major industries that create the pollution that is causing the climate crisis.

At the ongoing international meeting addressing the climate crisis (COP26), an international alliance of banks and other financial institutions (GFANZ) led by former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney announced today a voluntary plan that will let them continue to hide their actual investments in fossil fuels and other polluting industries, and do little to stop those investments, for at least another decade.

Democracy Watch supports Reclaim Finance’s critical analysis of the weak and flawed plan proposed by GFANZ.

In April’s federal government budget, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland didn’t include any measures to require the Big Banks or other financial institutions to disclose their climate-related investments. The government only committed to talk to provincial and territorial governments about disclosure (p. 175).

The international Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) has recommended requiring disclosure, as did an Ontario government task force in January 2021 (Recommendation 41, pp. 68-71). Canada’s Big Banks and other financial institutions are also not required to lend and invest in actually sustainable businesses that will create long-term jobs that don’t pollute or harm Canadians and their communities.

“Canada’s big banks and other financial institutions wouldn’t be able to operate without our money, and so they shouldn’t be allowed to keep details of their fossil fuel industry loans, investments and insurance secret from us or be allowed to make up their own voluntary disclosure and investment standards,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, which has led the bank accountability movement in Canada in the past 25 years. “The federal and Ontario governments must require all financial institutions to disclose their fossil fuel financing, to finance only actually sustainable big businesses, and establish two citizen groups that will empower financial consumers and retail investors to have more say over how financial institutions are using their money.”

Democracy Watch Stop Fossil Fuel Financing Campaign calls for 3 key changes which either the federal government (through federal laws) or the Ontario government (through securities laws) can make. The changes that would require disclosure of fossil-fuel investments by banks and other key financial institutions; require them to finance only actually sustainable big businesses, and empower financial consumers and investors to ensure their money is used to support sustainable, job-creating businesses:

1. Require banks, insurance, trust and mutual fund companies, and other financial institutions, to disclose their lending, investments and insurance for the fossil fuel industry, and all other major carbon-producing industries (coal, heavy manufacturing), by company as recommended by the international Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD);
2. Add the Equator Principles and other real sustainability rules to Canada’s and Ontario’s laws to require banks and other financial institutions to lend, invest and provide insurance only to actually sustainable big businesses, and;
3. Establish a Financial Consumer Organization (FCO) using this innovative method that has been proven effective in the U.S., and an Individual Investor Organization (IIO) using the same method. Together these groups will exponentially increase the information available to financial institution customers and individual investors about how financial institutions use and invest their money, and will also exponentially increase the power of financial consumers and individual investors to have a say in the use of their money, and to push for actually responsible, sustainable investing.

– 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 Fossil Fuel Financing Campaign and Bank Accountability Campaign and Corporate Responsibility Campaign

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

Senate Ethics Officer has ignored how several senators’ business board and employee positions and investments violate key ethics code rules

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 18, 2021

OTTAWA –Democracy Watch criticized the so-called “Independent Senators Group” (ISG) for planning to hold a secretive, closed-door hearing today to decide whether to expel Senator Marilou McPhedran for questioning weak, loophole-filled Senate ethics and anti-harassment rules and enforcement.

“If they want to claim to be independent, senators in the so-called Independent Senators Group should have rejected the attempt to use a secretive, kangaroo court process to punish a senator for questioning the Senate’s weak, loophole-filled ethics and anti-harassment measures,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Senators in the ISG should be ashamed for trying to expel Senator McPhedran, and it shows yet again why the Senate should be abolished as senators continue to refuse to reform it in any meaningful ways to make it democratic, ethical and accountable.”

The Senate’s anti-harassment measures, like the measures across the federal government, are far from a best-practice system to protect complainants who blow the whistle on wrongdoing.

In terms of ethics, the Senate’s Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators is full of loopholes, and Senate Ethics Officer Pierre Legault continues to fail to issue guidelines for key (but vague) rules in the Code. In fact, in July 2021, the Ethics Officer finally issued the first guidelines ever issued since the office was created in 2005, but only for two of the many rules in the Code.

Specifically, the Senate Ethics Officer continues to fail to explain how more than 60 senators (To see list, click here) can be paid to be board members of businesses or organizations and/or have stock market or mutual fund investments (but not disclose which companies they are invested in) and/or other paid work, and yet not be in violation of:

1. subsection 2(1) of the Code which requires senators to give precedence to their parliamentary duties and functions over any other duty or activity;
2. subsection 2(2) which sets out principles senators are expected to uphold, including avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest,
3. section 7.1 that requires senators to “uphold the highest standards of dignity” and prohibits acting in a way that “could reflect adversely” on the position of Senator or the Senate overall, and;
4. section 7.2 requires senators to perform their parliamentary functions and duties with “dignity, honour and integrity.”

“No senator can claim to be independent or provide sober second thought on any issue when they are on the board of or working for a private business or firm or have secret financial investments in the stock market,” said Conacher. “Senators should be required to work only as senators, and should only be allowed to invest in term deposits and government bonds, to prevent conflicts with their duty to act in the public interest.”

Democracy Watch sent a letter in September 2018 to Ethics Officer Legault calling on him to issue a ruling that Senator Larry Campbell’s then-position as a board member with Great Canadian Gaming Corporation (with stock options in the company), a position he retired from only in June 2021, violated the purpose and rules 2(1), 2(2) and 7.2 of the Senate ethics code.

In the letter, Democracy Watch also called on the Ethics Officer Legault to review the board positions and investments of all senators, and to issue the same ruling for any senator who holds a position as a board member, executive or employee, or who has investments, in any corporation that has interests in the province they represent or interests affected by federal laws duties because their board and financial interests conflict with the overall public interest that senators have a duty to represent and uphold under their ethics code.

“The Senate ethics rules require senators to dedicate themselves to their duties as a senator over all other activities, and to always act with integrity and avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and no senator can comply with those rules when they are a board member, executive or investor in a corporation that is regulated by federal laws or operates in the province they are supposed to represent,” said Conacher. “Senators can unethically help their company’s interests not only by taking part in discussions, debates and votes that affect the company’s interests but also by not doing anything such as not making any public statements or proposals that would hurt the company’s interests.”

– 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 Shut Down the Senate Campaign