80%+ of Canadians, 78% of constitutional scholars surveyed, and former Governor General all say write down the rules, as the UK, Australia and New Zealand have done

Rules should make it clear when the legislature will open, what a vote of non-confidence is, what will trigger next election etc.

Should issue public statement of agreement on the rules, and then first bill passed by legislature should make the rules a law (as many other countries have)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 23, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on federal political party leaders to learn the lesson of the minority governments from 2004-2011 and agree this week on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Agreeing on the rules now will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

The rules should make clear: when the legislature will open; when it can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date and; which party will get to try governing first after the next election.

The current rules are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw. A large majority (78%) of constitutional scholars surveyed in fall 2012 supported writing down the conventions (See pp. 111-112). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Prime Minister and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Governor General to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Prime Minister from doing what they want.

The Governor General, and lieutenant governors in several provinces, have almost never stopped a Prime Minister or Premier from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

In England, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public rules so what happens after an election is fair for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public post-election rules.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said in August 2016 in an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for Canada’s political party leaders and the Governor General to fail to approve eight key rules for a minority government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It is clearly in the public interest that the rules be approved to stop unfair abuses of power by the Prime Minister and ruling party that violate the rights of Parliament and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, Parliament should, as the legislatures in England, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen, and; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

“As long as the federal rules for Parliament are unwritten and unclear, the Prime Minister and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and Parliament’s ability to hold the government accountable will be undemocratically restricted,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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 PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

---

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

1. Until the Governor General has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Governor General will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in Parliament);
2. The party that wins the most seats in the election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Governor General that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda;
3. Within 30 days after the Governor General decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Governor General and the governing party/parties will open Parliament with a Speech from the Throne;
4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the House of Commons do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the House of Commons;
5. If a majority of members in the House of Commons vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Governor General will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister’s to call an election;
6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in House of Commons that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The House of Commons does not have confidence in the government.”
7. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister to prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the House of Commons, and;
8. If a majority in the House of Commons votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Governor General will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister that the Governor General call an election.

Given lack of honesty-in-politics law, and past pattern of ruling party breaking half of democratic reform promises, voters should be skeptical of all parties’ promises

8 key, written rules needed to have a fair post-election, and minority government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, October 18, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its Report Card on the Federal Parties’ 2019 Democratic Reform Platforms (See the full Report Card chart below, and click here to see the Report Card Backgrounder).

Voters should be very skeptical of all the parties’ promises given the lack of an honesty-in-politics law, and the fact that Prime Minister Chrétien, Prime Minister Harper, and Prime Minister Trudeau all failed to keep half of their democratic reform promises, and the fact that no party promised an honesty law covering promises in their platforms.

The Green Party received the best grade B- as it promised 25 key, systemic democratic reforms and had good grades in four of the five areas graded in the Report Card.

“Given only the Green Party has a strong democracy platform, hopefully all the parties will get serious after the election and work together to finally make the key changes needed to give Canadians the fully democratic and accountable federal government that many surveys over the past 15 years have shown a large majority of voters want,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Liberals and the Conservatives especially made a big mistake in this election thinking they could ignore key democracy reforms and still have voters hand them power – voters have clearly been disappointed too many times by past Liberal and Conservative governments abusing their power.”

“Unfortunately, even if the Green Party is able to push through all the changes it promised, everyone in federal politics would still be allowed to lie to voters, politicians would still be allowed to make money from their decisions, secret lobbying would still be legal, wealthy individuals would still be allowed to use money to have unethical influence, and enforcement and penalties would still be too weak to stop wrongdoing,” said Conacher.

Hundreds of thousands of messages have been sent to federal party leaders and politicians through Democracy Watch’s campaigns calling for the 100 key changes needed to ensure fully honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing federal politics, and accountability for everyone who violates any rule.

Democracy Watch and the coalitions it leads will continue to push for all 100 key changes.

The NDP received the next best grade of D+ because it had only a dozen vague promises in its platform, and no promises in the area of open government.

The Conservatives failed to make any promises in three of the five categories measured by the Report Card, and ended up with a D- grade. This is a big change from their 2006 election platform – in that platform the Conservatives promised 60 democratic reform and government accountability changes in their so-called “Federal Accountability Act”, which earned them a B grade.

The Liberals failed to make any promises in two of the five categories measured by the Report Card, and also ended up with a D- grade. This is a big change from their 2015 election platform – in that platform the Liberals promised about 75 democratic reform and government accountability changes, which earned them a B grade.

The Liberals’ 2019 platform is as weak as their democratic reform record since 2015:

1. they broke most of their open government promises;
2. Prime Minister Trudeau broke his electoral reform promise;
3. they failed to make the political finance system more democratic;
4. they ignored recommendations to strengthen whistleblower protection in a unanimous House Committee report;
5. they ignored recommendations to stop secret, fake online election ads in a unanimous House Committee report, and weakened a key honest election rule;
6. Prime Minister Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet ministers have been involved in many secrecy and ethics scandals.

The Bloc received an F as it had no promises in four of the five categories of the Report Card, and the People’s Party of Canada received an Incomplete as it had no democratic reform promises in its platform.

– 30 –

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

---

---

Democracy Watch’s
Report Card on the Federal Parties’
2019 Democratic Reform Platforms

Sources:

Bloc Québécois platform webpage
(NOTE: nothing in platform, just these Oct. 16^th proposals)

Conservative Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 54-55, 71, and 75-76 of platform PDF, and Oct. 16th news release)

Green Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 31-32, 47, 73-79 of platform PDF, and many other pages containing proposals to strengthen law enforcement and penalties in many areas of platform)

Liberal Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 39-41, 44, 47, 53-55 of platform PDF, and some other pages containing proposals to strengthen law enforcement in some areas)

NDP platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 21-22, 24, 32, 54, 94-97, 99-103 of platform PDF

People’s Party of Canada platform webpage

Given election law, and past court rulings, DWatch believes either Manning Centre or the groups are required to disclose the donors who funded the groups’ election ads

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 17, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté calling for an investigation into possible disclosure and election collusion violations by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy and five “Proud” groups it has funded to do election advertising this election.

According to this Globe and Mail article published yesterday, and this earlier Canadian Press article, the Manning Centre raised funds from donors for election advertising spending during the election, then transferred the funds (along with general revenues, more than $300,000 in total) to the five groups who have used it to pay for advertising.

The Manning Centre didn’t register as a third party even though the groups are really a front for its advertising spending, and the groups haven’t disclosed the identities of the Manning Centre’s donors, making the Manning Centre essentially a front group for the donors.

The Canada Elections Act (CEA) requires individuals, businesses, unions and other organizations to register as a third party if they spending more than $500 on partisan activities, election advertising or surveys during the election campaign period and, if they spending more than $10,000, to disclose (21 days and 7 days before election day), the identities of contributors who donate to pay for activities, ads or surveys.

The arrangement between the Manning Centre and the five “Proud” groups also raises the questions of whether any of the funds that the Manning Centre transferred to the groups was donated by foreign entities (which is prohibited under the CEA), and whether the six organizations are attempting to exceed the third party spending limit of $511,700 for this election by colluding together (which is also prohibited by the CEA).

The Supreme Court ruled in the 2004 Harper v. Canada case that the third party registration and donation disclosure requirements are intended to ensure voters and enforcement agencies are fully informed of who is actually bankrolling each third party, and so the law can be effectively enforced (See paragraphs 140 to 145 of the ruling).

“Given the rules in the federal election law, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in a past case, the Commissioner should investigate and rule that either the Manning Centre or the five Proud groups are required to disclose the identities of the donors who funded the election advertising they have done,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Supreme Court also ruled in the Harper case that the third party spending limit, and the anti-collusion rule, are needed to ensure fair, democratic election debates that are not dominated by wealthy interest groups, and so the Commissioner should also investigate whether the Manning Centre and the five Proud groups colluded in an attempt to violate that spending limit.”

No matter how the Commissioner rules on its complaint, Democracy Watch called on federal parties to cooperate to strengthen the rules, and the penalties which are much too low to discourage violations, before the next federal by-election or election.

– 30 –

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

Rules should make clear which party will try governing first, when the legislature will open, what a vote of non-confidence is, what will trigger next election etc.

Should issue public statement of agreement on the rules, and then first bill passed by legislature should make the rules a law (as many other countries have)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 15, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on federal political party leaders to learn the lesson of the post-Sept. 2018 election chaos in New Brunswick and agree this week on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Even if Canada does not have a minority government after next week’s election, agreeing on the rules now will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election.

The rules should make clear: which party will get to try governing first; when the legislature will open; when it can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern and; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

The current rules are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw. The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Prime Minister and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Governor General to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Prime Minister from doing what they want.

The Governor General, and lieutenant governors in several provinces, have almost never stopped a Prime Minister or Premier from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

In England, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public rules so what happens after an election is fair for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public post-election rules.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said last August in an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for Canada’s political party leaders and the Governor General to fail to approve eight key rules for a minority government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It is clearly in the public interest that the rules be approved to stop unfair abuses of power by the Prime Minister and ruling party that violate the rights of Parliament and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, Parliament should, as the legislatures in England, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen, and; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

“As long as the federal rules for Parliament are unwritten and unclear, the Prime Minister and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and Parliament’s ability to hold the government accountable will be undemocratically restricted,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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 PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

---

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

1. Until the Governor General has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Governor General will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in Parliament);
2. The party that wins the most seats in the election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Governor General that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda;
3. Within 30 days after the Governor General decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Governor General and the governing party/parties will open Parliament with a Speech from the Throne;
4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the House of Commons do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the House of Commons;
5. If a majority of members in the House of Commons vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Governor General will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister’s to call an election;
6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in House of Commons that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The House of Commons does not have confidence in the government.”
7. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister to prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the House of Commons, and;
8. If a majority in the House of Commons votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Governor General will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister that the Governor General call an election.

Conservatives and CAPP sharing same ad firm, and party leader shared events with CAPP members in spring

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 10, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté calling for an investigation into possible illegal election collusion between the Conservative Party and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

Set out in the letter to Commissioner Côté is the evidence that raises the question of whether the Conservatives and CAPP have violated the new rule in the Canada Elections Act (subsection 351.01(1)) that prohibits a party and a third party from colluding, including by sharing information, in order to influence the third party’s partisan activities, advertising or surveys during the election campaign period.

According to an article in the Globe and Mail, the advertising firm One Persuasion Inc., co-founded by Hamish Marshall who has been on leave since last June to be the Conservatives campaign manager, is providing services to both the Conservatives and CAPP.

This is the latest in a series of situations that raise questions about collaboration and support between the Conservatives and CAPP. According to another Globe and Mail article, last April CPC Leader Andrew Scheer and Mr. Marshall attended a private meeting with oil-industry executives that included Mr. Marshall speaking on a panel about using third-party interest groups to rally support for the party. Some of the executives at the meeting are members of the Board of Governors of CAPP.

According to a National Observer article, Imperial Oil sponsored a gala dinner event that was held on May 15th in Ottawa and then, due to a “last minute” seating change, Imperial Oil’s CEO Rich Kruger, who is a member of the Board of Governors of CAPP, sat beside Andrew Scheer and lobbied him. And according to another Globe and Mail article, a June 4th fundraising event for the CPC attended by Andrew Scheer was organized by several energy company executives.

“The anti-collusion rules are aimed at ensuring fair and democratic elections, and preventing lobby groups from unethically helping political parties and leaders get elected, and the relationship between the Conservatives and oil and gas companies warrants investigation by the elections commissioner to ensure the rules have not been violated,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch’s position is that, to find a violation of the anti-collusion rule, the Commissioner is not required to find proof that CAPP undertook an activity, advertisement or survey because of the sharing of information with the Conservatives. Instead, all the Commissioner needs to find is evidence that information was shared “in order to influence” CAPP’s activities, ads or surveys.

– 30 –

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

DWatch considering court challenge of part of Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that actions of other Trudeau PMO and Cabinet ministers and staff not covered by the ethics law as they were directed by Trudeau

RCMP must issue public explanation if they decide not to prosecute PM for obstruction of justice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, August 14, 2019

OTTAWA — Today, Democracy Watch applauded the part of the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that found Prime Minister Trudeau violated section 9 the Conflict of Interest Act by improperly trying to influence the Attorney General to drop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. The ruling agreed completely with the points argued in the complaint Democracy Watch filed on February 8, 2019, which can be seen here.

The Ethics Commissioner’s ruling can be seen here.

Democracy Watch filed a follow-up complaint on March 5, 2019 about other PMO officials, Cabinet ministers and their staff also pressuring the Attorney General. That complaint can be seen here.

Unfortunately, in paragraphs 262-281 of his ruling (pages 41-44), the Ethics Commissioner summarizes the actions of PMO officials, Cabinet ministers and their staff that put pressure on the Attorney General. However, in paragraphs 282-286, the Ethics Commissioner excuses the actions of everyone except Prime Minister Trudeau on the very questionable basis that the other officials “could not have influenced the Attorney General” and were acting “under the direction or authority of the Prime Minister…”

Attempting to influence the Attorney General violates Rule 9, and these officials attempted to influence the Attorney General — it is irrelevant whether they had the same power over the PM as the PM has. For this reason, DWatch is considering challenging this part of the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling in court.

“The Ethics Commissioner made the right ruling by finding Prime Minister Trudeau guilty of violating the ethics law for pressuring the Attorney General to drop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, but he should have also found other PMO and government officials guilty because they also pressured the Attorney General,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch is considering challenging in court the part of the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling that lets the other PMO and government officials off the hook given they, like the Prime Minister, clearly violated the federal ethics law.”

Given the evidence in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling, Democracy Watch also called on the RCMP to issue a full, public explanation before the election if they decide not to prosecute the PM for obstruction of justice.

– 30 –

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

Voters have a right to know before they vote this fall if Facebook violated federal lobbying law and ethics code

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, August 1, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger calling on her to ensure an independent ruling, before Parliament is shut down for the fall election, on the complaint letter it filed in late April 2018 about unregistered lobbying and doing favours for Cabinet and federal politicians by Facebook employees, and employees of its subsidiary Instagram.

“More than a year ago Democracy Watch filed a complaint calling for an investigation of Facebook’s unregistered lobbying and favours for Liberal Cabinet ministers and MPs, and the Lobbying Commissioner has negligently failed to issue a ruling on the complaint,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Voters have a right to know before they vote this fall if Facebook violated federal lobbying rules, and given that Democracy Watch’s April 2018 complaint provided detailed evidence to the Lobbying Commissioner, there is no justifiable reason for any further delay by the Commissioner in issuing a ruling.”

The federal Lobbying Act requires businesses to register if its employees spent more than 20% of their collective time lobbying during any 6-month period, including arranging meetings, and Some communications are also required to be disclosed in monthly reports. The Professionalism principle in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct requires that lobbyists follow the spirit of the registration requirements of the Act.

The Lobbyists’ Code prohibits anyone from lobbying a Cabinet minister or their officials for four years after doing favours for them (former Rule 8 and, since December 2015, Rules 6-9).

The question posed in Democracy Watch’s April 2018 complaint was whether Facebook’s employees had ever crossed the 20% line from 2010 to 2018 and violated the Act by failing to register, and whether any of Facebook’s employees violated the Code by doing favours for Cabinet ministers or MPs and then lobbying them afterwards.

As Maclean’s magazine first reported, Facebook was not registered as a company in the Registry of Lobbyists to lobby the federal government from 2010 on, until it announced in spring 2018 it would register (while still maintaining that it is not required to register). Facebook also has several consultant lobbyists on contract but they have reported only one communication with federal government politicians and officials since 2014.

In contrast, other social media companies such as Google have had several employees and consultant lobbyists registered, and many monthly communications reports.

As well, Facebook has provided cyber-threat training and services for free to federal politicians, and Facebook Canada’s head of public policy Kevin Chan provided advice for free to Finance Minister Morneau about how to do a Facebook Live event for his budget speech.

Democracy Watch also recently requested that the Lobbying Commissioner rule on another two-year-old complaint involving Liberal Cabinet ministers.

Democracy Watch requested in its April 2018 letter that Lobbying Commissioner Bélanger recuse herself from ruling on the situation because she was handpicked by Trudeau, and has also made statements that show a bias in favour of lobbyists.

Democracy Watch is challenging Commissioner Bélanger’s appointment in the Federal Court of Appeal as part of its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign.

– 30 –

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 and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Voters have a right to know before they vote this fall if top people at CCI, who were Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland’s 2015 election campaign managers, violated lobbying rules

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, July 17, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter with federal Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger calling on her to ensure an independent ruling, before Parliament is shut down for the fall election, on the complaint letter it filed in July 2017 about the relationship and meetings between representatives of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) and Liberal Cabinet officials. The Lobbying Commissioner confirmed that the complaint was being investigated in a July 20, 2017 letter.

“Two years ago Democracy Watch filed a complaint calling for an investigation of former election campaign managers for Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland heading up the Council of Canadian Innovators, and the Lobbying Commissioner has negligently failed to issue a ruling on the complaint,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Voters have a right to know before they vote this fall if Minister Freeland’s former election campaign managers violated federal lobbying rules, and given that Democracy Watch’s July 2017 complaint provided detailed evidence to the Lobbying Commissioner, there is no justifiable reason for any further delay by the Commissioner in issuing a ruling.”

The federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct prohibits anyone from lobbying a Cabinet minister or their officials for four years after helping them get elected (former Rule 8 and, since December 2015, Rules 6-9 (see especially Rule 9)). The question posed in Democracy Watch’s July 2017 complaint was whether Minister Freeland’s former campaign managers violated the Code given that they headed up CCI, and CCI had lobbied the foreign affairs and trade departments.

Since March 2016, the CCI’s Executive Director has been 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 Dana O’Born was CCI’s Director of Policy and is now its Director of Strategic Initiatives. According to Mr. Bergen (as cited in this Globe and Mail article), Ms. O’Born was Ms. Freeland’s 2015 campaign manager.

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 as of July 2017 had 202 registered communications with government officials (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.

Democracy Watch requested in July 2017 that the former Lobbying Commissioner recuse herself from ruling on the situation because she had been handpicked by Trudeau, and Democracy Watch’s letter sent today requests that current Commissioner Bélanger also recuse herself because she also was handpicked by Trudeau.

Democracy Watch is challenging Commissioner Bélanger’s appointment in the Federal Court of Appeal as part of its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign.

– 30 –

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 and Stop Bad Government Campaign

Law prohibits doing anything that makes it improper for Premier or Cabinet ministers to participate in decisions that affect the lobbyists’ clients

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, July 11, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake calling on him to issue a public ruling on lobbyist Melissa Lantsman, who advised Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party (PC Party) during the spring 2018 provincial election campaign, and was on Ford’s transition team, and is currently Regional Vice President for Toronto for the PC Party.

Ms. Lantsman was hired as Vice-President of Public Affairs at Hill & Knowlton Strategies after the election in June 2018 and is now registered to lobby Premier Ford and various Cabinet ministers on specific issues for 13 clients (as well as other clients on general issues).

It has been illegal under Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (LR Act) since June 2014 for an Ontario lobbyist to do anything for a politician or government official that caused them to be in a real or potential conflict of interest or make it improper for them to further the interests of the lobbyist or their clients.

Incredibly, as Democracy Watch’s letter summarizes (pp. 6-7), the Integrity Commissioner has not issued any guideline or interpretation bulletin in the past five years concerning what the rules in the LR Act mean.

Based on what the LR Act (section 3.4) and the Members’ Integrity Act (sections 2, 3, 4 and 6(1)) say, and the unanimous Federal Court of Appeal ruling Democracy Watch won in 2009 (paras. 52-53), and a similar federal lobbying rule, and past rulings concerning what are improper actions are by politicians (see pages 6-16 of Democracy Watch’s letter), Democracy Watch’s position is that it is a violation of section 3.4 of the LR Act for a lobbyist to do anything significant for, or give anything significant to, a politician they are registered to lobby (or the politician’s political party), as it creates a potential conflict of interest that makes it improper for the politician to participate in any decision, or try to influence any decision that affects the interests of the lobbyist or their clients.

Integrity Commissioner Wake is not required to investigate or issue a public ruling, but Democracy Watch’s position is that it would be simply negligent for him to fail to do both given the ruling will be the first time he has publicly enforced section 3.4 of the LR Act and, therefore, the ruling will make it finally clear what actions by lobbyists that section prohibits.

“The Integrity Commissioner has been negligent in not issuing a ruling the past five years setting out what actions by lobbyists are prohibited by the conflict of interest rule in the lobbying law,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given the clear evidence set out in Democracy Watch’s complaint, hopefully Integrity Commissioner Wake will do the right thing and issue a public ruling very soon finding that anyone who worked for Doug Ford or PC Party headquarters during the spring 2018 campaign, or is serving in a senior position of the party, violates the conflict of interest rule in the lobbying law if they lobby Premier Ford or any of his Cabinet ministers.”

– 30 –

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

Federal Liberals should suspend judicial and watchdog appointments until appointment process is changed to be actually independent and merit-based

Ontario and United Kingdom judicial appointment processes are world-leading models, and federal politicians must make changes to match them

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, July 4, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter federal Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion calling on him to ensure an independent investigation and ruling on recent Trudeau Cabinet appointments of judges who have connections to Cabinet Minister Dominic LeBlanc. DWatch also called on the federal Liberals to suspend the appointment of all judicial and watchdog appointments until the appointment process is changed to be actually independent and merit-based.

As first reported by CBC New Brunswick, Justice Charles LeBlond who was appointed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, and Justice Arthur Doyle and Justice Robert Dysart who were appointed to the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench all donated to help Minister LeBlanc pay off his debt from his 2008 Liberal Party leadership race campaign. GlobalNews.ca reported other donations made by these three justices to Minister LeBlanc’s riding association, and to the Liberal Party.

These outlets also reported that Jacques Pinet, the husband of Tracey DeWare, who was appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench by Prime Minister Trudeau in June, also donated to Minister LeBlanc’s campaign, among other donations to the Liberal Party. CBC also reported that the couple purchased a seaside home from Minister LeBlanc in 2013 for $430,000, located next to Minister LeBlanc’s summerhouse.

Democracy Watch also revealed that, according to Minister LeBlanc’s federal ethics disclosure registration, sometime in 2017, a Jacques Pinet, Vice-President, Assumption Life Insurance Co. of New Brunswick, gave Minister LeBlanc a gift of 3 days hospitality at Ledges Lodge, Doarktown, New Brunswick. If this is the same Jacques Pinet who is married to Chief Justice DeWare, it would only compound the appearance of conflict of interest for Minister LeBlanc.

The Globe and Mail reported that Minister LeBlanc participated in the decisions for all of these appointments, while recusing himself from the appointment of one other judge who is a relative of his.

“Dominic LeBlanc should be investigated to determine if he violated the federal ethics law by participating in the decisions to appoint these judges,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Ethics Commissioner Dion cannot do the investigation as he was handpicked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, dishonest process that is being challenged in courts, and his senior lawyer is LeBlanc’s sister-in-law. Commissioner Dion must delegate the investigation to someone independent of his office and all political parties.”

Section 4 and subsection 6(1) of the COIA together prohibit public office holders like Cabinet ministers from making or taking part in decisions when they have an opportunity to further their own, their family’s or their friends private interests, or improperly furthering another person’s interests (and section 9 prohibits trying to influence such decision). Democracy Watch’s position is that appointing someone as a judge furthers their private interest, and that “friends” should be defined by the Ethics Commissioner as including political friends such as significant supporters of the governing party.

In any case, donations and gifts and friend relationships make it improper for a minister to take part in a decision that affects someone.

While the Trudeau Liberals added the goal of diversity for appointments, and reduced the number of members chosen by the Minister of Justice from four to three out of seven judicial advisory committee members, the committees still produce long lists of candidates which allow the Minister and Cabinet to appoint essentially whomever they want as a judge.

For quasi-judicial positions like key government watchdogs, Liberal Cabinet ministers still choose all advisory committee members and control the appointment process completely.

“The Trudeau Liberal Cabinet appointment system is essentially the same as the Harper Conservatives used, and it allows Cabinet ministers to choose their own Liberal party cronies as judges, and to choose lapdogs instead of watchdogs,” said Conacher. “To stop this dangerously undemocratic and unethical appointment process for judges and watchdogs, the appointment process should be suspended until, as in the UK and Ontario, a fully independent public appointment commission is created to conduct public, merit-based searches for nominees and send a short list to Cabinet, with Cabinet required to choose from the list.”

Federal NDP MP Charlie Angus issued a statement that criticized the LeBlanc-related appointments and said “It is time for this patronage to end” but the NDP’s 2019 federal election platform does not include any promise to change the appointment process to prevent patronage and crony appointments (See pp. 100-102 for the very few, vague democratic reform promises the NDP has made).

Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer was also quoted criticizing the appointments, but said nothing in 2009 when the Harper Conservatives appointed several donors as judges nor in 2006 they broke their election promise to establish an independent Public Appointments Commission.

Also, Democracy Watch filed a complaint in April 2017 about former Conservative Minister of Justice Peter MacKay appointing some of his friends as judges, including his former Cabinet colleague Vic Toews (Toews was finally found guilty in April 2017 by the Ethics Commissioner of violating the federal ethics law). The Scheer Conservatives have not issued their 2019 federal election platform.

Democracy Watch also called on federal politicians 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) be only allowed to serve 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.

See Backgrounder below for more details concerning the current appointment process, and needed changes.

– 30 –

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 and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

---

---

Details on the Current Federal Cabinet Appointments Process, and Needed Changes to ensure Independence and Integrity

Democracy Watch is currently challenging the appointment of the new Ethics Commissioner and the new Lobbying Commissioner – who judge whether the federal ethics law and lobbying law have been violated – in the Federal Court of Appeal as both commissioners were investigating situations involving Prime Minister Trudeau and other Cabinet ministers at the time the Trudeau Cabinet handpicked them through a secretive, biased, dishonest process. The case file numbers are A-142-19 and A-143-19, and the cases have been consolidated and will be heard together by the FCA this fall.

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign proposes that the way to ensure the appointment of fully independent, merit-based judges and watchdogs is to have a fully independent commission whose members are approved by all federal party leaders (along with entities such as the Canadian Judicial Council) do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for candidates, and to require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of 1-3 candidates that the commission nominates.

The new appointment process, and a 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.

Ontario uses this kind of independent appointment system to appoint provincial judges (the advisory committee provides a shortlist of three candidates to the Cabinet). The United Kingdom uses it to appoint judges and judicial tribunal members (like the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner are). The UK 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.