Liberals misled opposition in letters sent in June-July 2017 – didn’t mention they had found qualified candidates that they could have consulted opposition about

Democracy Watch’s court cases challenging appointments of new Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner in Federal Court this Wed.-Thurs. – Cabinet failed to consult with opposition as required by law, and was biased

Trudeau Cabinet hiding other details about the appointment processes – Information Commissioner is currently investigating DWatch’s complaint

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, November 12, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the document it obtained through an Access to Information Act request that shows the Trudeau Cabinet had qualified candidates for both the Ethics Commissioner position and the Lobbying Commissioner position in spring 2017.

The document confirms at the bottom of the first page what the Trudeau Cabinet hid from opposition party leaders and the public – that more than 50 people applied for each position by April 2017, and that some were qualified for each position.

Democracy Watch requested many more details about the appointment processes in its request filed with the Privy Council Office, including all communications between the selection committee members, and it believes that the Cabinet must have many more documents than have been disclosed. It has filed a “missing records” complaint with the Information Commissioner that is currently being investigated.

“What other damaging details are the Trudeau Cabinet hiding about the appointments of the new Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner?” asked Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, which is challenging the appointments in Federal Court, with the hearings scheduled for this Wednesday, November 14^th and Thursday, November 15^th.

Instead of sending the list of qualified candidates in April 2017 to opposition party leaders to consult with them on who should be appointed as the new commissioners, the Trudeau Cabinet decided to re-appoint Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson and Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd to their third, six-month renewable terms, likely because they both had confirmed records of letting almost everyone off the hook (including several Trudeau Cabinet ministers and lobbyists), and so the Cabinet wanted to keep them around as long as possible.

Those decisions in April 2017 preceded PM Trudeau’s move in mid-May 2017 to recuse himself from the appointment process for the new Ethics Commissioner because the Commissioner was investigating him for accepting the Bahamas trip gift from the Aga Khan. This raises the question of whether Trudeau took part in the April 2017 decision to reappoint the Ethics Commissioner.

Minister Bardash Chagger was chosen by PM Trudeau to take the lead in making the appointment decision for the new Ethics Commissioner.

Trudeau did not recuse himself during 2017 from the appointment decision concerning the Lobbying Commissioner, even though the Commissioner was investigating three situations involving lobbyists’ putting Trudeau in a conflict of interest. See details about those situations here and here and here.

Then, in June-July 2017, PM Trudeau and Minister Chagger sent letters to opposition party leaders that misled them by not mentioning that the Cabinet had qualified candidates for both the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner positions. (See sample letter from Prime Minister Trudeau here).

The letters didn’t even mention that the Cabinet was required to consult the opposition party leaders on the selection of the commissioners (under subsection 81(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act (for the Ethics Commissioner) and subsection 4.1(1) of the Lobbying Act (for the Lobbying Commissioner)).

Then the Trudeau Cabinet continued its secretive, Cabinet-controlled selection process for both commissioner positions until it sent letters in late-November/early December 2017 to the leaders of the NDP and Conservatives. The letters said the Cabinet was going to appoint Mario Dion as the new Ethics Commissioner, and Nancy Bélanger as the new Lobbying Commissioner, in a few days and asked the opposition leaders for their “thoughts.”

At the time of the appointments by the Trudeau Cabinet, the Ethics Commissioner was not only investigating PM Trudeau, but was also investigating Finance Minister Bill Morneau for his role in developing and introducing Bill C-27. The Lobbying Commissioner was not only investigating the three situations involving Trudeau but also another situation involving Minister Chrystia Freeland.

“Democracy Watch is challenging the appointments of the new Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner in court because Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet ministers were biased as they were being investigated when they made the appointments, and they also failed to consult with opposition party leaders on the appointments as required by federal law,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“The Trudeau Cabinet’s appointment processes were secretive, political and partisan, and misled opposition parties and the public, all of which is far from the open, transparent, merit-based appointment processes the Liberals claim they use,” said Conacher.

More than 15,000 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 (as Britain has) for appointments of all judges, officers of parliament, and members of agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 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 Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Liberals misled opposition in letters sent in June-July 2017 – didn’t mention they had found qualified candidates that they could have consulted opposition about

Democracy Watch’s court cases challenging appointments of new Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner in Federal Court this Wed.-Thurs. – Cabinet failed to consult with opposition as required by law, and was biased

Trudeau Cabinet hiding other details about the appointment processes – Information Commissioner is currently investigating DWatch’s complaint

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, November 12, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the document it obtained through an Access to Information Act request that shows the Trudeau Cabinet had qualified candidates for both the Ethics Commissioner position and the Lobbying Commissioner position in spring 2017.

The document confirms at the bottom of the first page what the Trudeau Cabinet hid from opposition party leaders and the public – that more than 50 people applied for each position by April 2017, and that some were qualified for each position.

Democracy Watch requested many more details about the appointment processes in its request filed with the Privy Council Office, including all communications between the selection committee members, and it believes that the Cabinet must have many more documents than have been disclosed. It has filed a “missing records” complaint with the Information Commissioner that is currently being investigated.

“What other damaging details are the Trudeau Cabinet hiding about the appointments of the new Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner?” asked Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, which is challenging the appointments in Federal Court, with the hearings scheduled for this Wednesday, November 14^th and Thursday, November 15^th.

Instead of sending the list of qualified candidates in April 2017 to opposition party leaders to consult with them on who should be appointed as the new commissioners, the Trudeau Cabinet decided to re-appoint Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson and Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd to their third, six-month renewable terms, likely because they both had confirmed records of letting almost everyone off the hook (including several Trudeau Cabinet ministers and lobbyists), and so the Cabinet wanted to keep them around as long as possible.

Those decisions in April 2017 preceded PM Trudeau’s move in mid-May 2017 to recuse himself from the appointment process for the new Ethics Commissioner because the Commissioner was investigating him for accepting the Bahamas trip gift from the Aga Khan. This raises the question of whether Trudeau took part in the April 2017 decision to reappoint the Ethics Commissioner.

Minister Bardash Chagger was chosen by PM Trudeau to take the lead in making the appointment decision for the new Ethics Commissioner.

Trudeau did not recuse himself during 2017 from the appointment decision concerning the Lobbying Commissioner, even though the Commissioner was investigating three situations involving lobbyists’ putting Trudeau in a conflict of interest. See details about those situations here and here and here.

Then, in June-July 2017, PM Trudeau and Minister Chagger sent letters to opposition party leaders that misled them by not mentioning that the Cabinet had qualified candidates for both the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner positions. (See sample letter from Prime Minister Trudeau here).

The letters didn’t even mention that the Cabinet was required to consult the opposition party leaders on the selection of the commissioners (under subsection 81(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act (for the Ethics Commissioner) and subsection 4.1(1) of the Lobbying Act (for the Lobbying Commissioner)).

Then the Trudeau Cabinet continued its secretive, Cabinet-controlled selection process for both commissioner positions until it sent letters in late-November/early December 2017 to the leaders of the NDP and Conservatives. The letters said the Cabinet was going to appoint Mario Dion as the new Ethics Commissioner, and Nancy Bélanger as the new Lobbying Commissioner, in a few days and asked the opposition leaders for their “thoughts.”

At the time of the appointments by the Trudeau Cabinet, the Ethics Commissioner was not only investigating PM Trudeau, but was also investigating Finance Minister Bill Morneau for his role in developing and introducing Bill C-27. The Lobbying Commissioner was not only investigating the three situations involving Trudeau but also another situation involving Minister Chrystia Freeland.

“Democracy Watch is challenging the appointments of the new Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner in court because Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet ministers were biased as they were being investigated when they made the appointments, and they also failed to consult with opposition party leaders on the appointments as required by federal law,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“The Trudeau Cabinet’s appointment processes were secretive, political and partisan, and misled opposition parties and the public, all of which is far from the open, transparent, merit-based appointment processes the Liberals claim they use,” said Conacher.

More than 15,000 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 (as Britain has) for appointments of all judges, officers of parliament, and members of agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 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 Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Former Commissioner Karen Shepherd ignored fact that Aga Khan lobbies for his foundation, which is registered to lobby the federal government, and so his gift caused the foundation to violate the Lobbyists’ Code

Commissioner Shepherd was on a 6-month, renewable contract given by PM Trudeau when she ruled on Aga Khan’s gift, raising questions of bias

Review of federal lobbying law this fall must close secret lobbying loopholes, strengthen enforcement, make Commissioner actually independent, and add high fines as penalties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, November 6, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch’s court case filed last January challenging the ruling in September 2017 by former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd that the Aga Khan’s Bahamas trip gift to Prime Minister Trudeau was legal is being heard by the Federal Court in Ottawa.

Commissioner Shepherd’s ruling stated that even though the Aga Khan was lobbying the PM, and is chair of the Aga Khan Foundation, which is registered to lobby the PM, because someone at the Foundation claimed the Aga Khan wasn’t paid to lobby for it, his gift didn’t violate the Lobbying Act nor the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

Democracy Watch is arguing before the court that the error of the Lobbying Commissioner’s ruling is that the Aga Khan lobbies the Prime Minister and other federal government institutions and officials and politicians not for himself but for the Aga Khan Foundation. As well, as head of the board of the Foundation, he is legally bound to advance the interests of the Foundation, and likely at least some of his expenses are covered by the Foundation.

As a result, the Lobbying Commissioner should have investigated more fully whether the Aga Khan was paid in any way by the Foundation, and also investigated whether the senior officer of the Foundation did everything he could to try to stop the Aga Khan from giving the gift.

If the Aga Khan was paid, then he was required to be registered as a lobbyist and violated the Lobbying Act by failing to register, and his gift violated the Code. Whether or not the Aga Khan was required to register as a lobbyist, if the senior officer didn’t do everything he could to try to stop the Aga Khan from giving the trip gift, then he violated the Code’s principle that requires upholding the highest ethical standards, and he and the Foundation should be found guilty and prohibited from lobbying the federal government for five years.

As well, Democracy Watch is arguing before the court that Commissioner Shepherd was biased when she made the ruling because, at the time, she was serving on a six-month, sole-source, renewable contract handed to her by the Trudeau Cabinet.

“Democracy Watch is challenging the Lobbying Commissioner’s ruling in court because it is legally incorrect, violates the spirit and purpose of the Lobbyists’ Code, and opens up a huge loophole that big businesses and other organizations will exploit by having their unregistered board members or staff do favours for, and give gifts to, politicians and government officials they are lobbying as a way of unethically influencing their policy making decisions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch is also challenging Commissioner Shepherd’s ruling because she was on a six-month, sole-source, renewable contract handed to her by the Prime Minister Trudeau Cabinet at the time she made the ruling, and so she lacked independence and was biased in favour of Trudeau and his Cabinet.”

Although Commissioner Shepherd’s ruling was made in September 2017, it didn’t become public until CBC reported on December 22, 2017 that someone had complained to the Commissioner about the Aga Khan’s trip gift to Trudeau, and had received the Commissioner’s ruling in September.

The Lobbyists’ Code rules 6-10 prohibit lobbyists registered under the Lobbying Act from doing anything significant for, or giving anything significant to, anyone they are lobbying, and requires compliance with strongly worded principles that include always acting with integrity and upholding the highest ethical standards and the spirit of the Code and Act. Rule 4 of the Code also states that the senior officer of a business, union or other organization is responsible for ensuring that every employee is aware of the requirements of the Code and the Act.

On December 20, 2017, before it became public that Commissioner Shepherd had made the ruling in September 2017, Democracy Watch filed a new complaint with new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger alleging the Aga Khan’s gift of the Bahamas trip given to Trudeau in December 2014 and December 2016, and to Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan in December 2016, violated the Lobbyists’ Code. The office of the Lobbying Commissioner confirmed on December 28^th that it was investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint.

Democracy Watch requested in its complaint letter that that the complaint be investigated and ruled on by someone completely independent of Commissioner Bélanger because she was handpicked by Prime Minister Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process and is therefore biased. In a separate court case, Democracy Watch is challenging Trudeau’s appointment of Commissioner Bélanger, and Democracy Watch also has an ongoing campaign to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent, open and merit-based.

“An independent investigation about whether the Aga Khan violated the lobbyist ethics code by giving the trip gift to PM Trudeau and MP O’Regan should have been initiated in January 2017,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given that she was handpicked by Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process, the new Lobbying Commissioner is in a conflict of interest and so must delegate the investigation to a person who is independent of her and all federal political parties.”

Democracy Watch is also calling on the Auditor General to audit Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd and the RCMP because they let off the hook 84% of people who she caught since 2008 violating the Act or Code. Commissioner Shepherd finished her term in office on December 29, 2017. More than 1,700 Canadians have joined the call on the Auditor General to audit the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner and RCMP — see details here.

“Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd went out with a whimper by issuing only one public ruling in the two years after the Liberals were elected, and she also let almost everyone off since 2008, so the Auditor General should also audit her negligently weak record,” said Conacher.

The Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code will soon be reviewed by the House Ethics Committee. The Conservatives rejected many key proposed changes when the laws were last reviewed by the Committee. See details about the changes needed to close loopholes, strengthen enforcement and penalties for the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct here.

– 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

Former Commissioner Karen Shepherd ignored fact that Aga Khan lobbies for his foundation, which is registered to lobby the federal government, and so his gift caused the foundation to violate the Lobbyists’ Code

Commissioner Shepherd was on a 6-month, renewable contract given by PM Trudeau when she ruled on Aga Khan’s gift, raising questions of bias

Review of federal lobbying law this fall must close secret lobbying loopholes, strengthen enforcement, make Commissioner actually independent, and add high fines as penalties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, November 6, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch’s court case filed last January challenging the ruling in September 2017 by former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd that the Aga Khan’s Bahamas trip gift to Prime Minister Trudeau was legal is being heard by the Federal Court in Ottawa.

Commissioner Shepherd’s ruling stated that even though the Aga Khan was lobbying the PM, and is chair of the Aga Khan Foundation, which is registered to lobby the PM, because someone at the Foundation claimed the Aga Khan wasn’t paid to lobby for it, his gift didn’t violate the Lobbying Act nor the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

Democracy Watch is arguing before the court that the error of the Lobbying Commissioner’s ruling is that the Aga Khan lobbies the Prime Minister and other federal government institutions and officials and politicians not for himself but for the Aga Khan Foundation. As well, as head of the board of the Foundation, he is legally bound to advance the interests of the Foundation, and likely at least some of his expenses are covered by the Foundation.

As a result, the Lobbying Commissioner should have investigated more fully whether the Aga Khan was paid in any way by the Foundation, and also investigated whether the senior officer of the Foundation did everything he could to try to stop the Aga Khan from giving the gift.

If the Aga Khan was paid, then he was required to be registered as a lobbyist and violated the Lobbying Act by failing to register, and his gift violated the Code. Whether or not the Aga Khan was required to register as a lobbyist, if the senior officer didn’t do everything he could to try to stop the Aga Khan from giving the trip gift, then he violated the Code’s principle that requires upholding the highest ethical standards, and he and the Foundation should be found guilty and prohibited from lobbying the federal government for five years.

As well, Democracy Watch is arguing before the court that Commissioner Shepherd was biased when she made the ruling because, at the time, she was serving on a six-month, sole-source, renewable contract handed to her by the Trudeau Cabinet.

“Democracy Watch is challenging the Lobbying Commissioner’s ruling in court because it is legally incorrect, violates the spirit and purpose of the Lobbyists’ Code, and opens up a huge loophole that big businesses and other organizations will exploit by having their unregistered board members or staff do favours for, and give gifts to, politicians and government officials they are lobbying as a way of unethically influencing their policy making decisions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch is also challenging Commissioner Shepherd’s ruling because she was on a six-month, sole-source, renewable contract handed to her by the Prime Minister Trudeau Cabinet at the time she made the ruling, and so she lacked independence and was biased in favour of Trudeau and his Cabinet.”

Although Commissioner Shepherd’s ruling was made in September 2017, it didn’t become public until CBC reported on December 22, 2017 that someone had complained to the Commissioner about the Aga Khan’s trip gift to Trudeau, and had received the Commissioner’s ruling in September.

The Lobbyists’ Code rules 6-10 prohibit lobbyists registered under the Lobbying Act from doing anything significant for, or giving anything significant to, anyone they are lobbying, and requires compliance with strongly worded principles that include always acting with integrity and upholding the highest ethical standards and the spirit of the Code and Act. Rule 4 of the Code also states that the senior officer of a business, union or other organization is responsible for ensuring that every employee is aware of the requirements of the Code and the Act.

On December 20, 2017, before it became public that Commissioner Shepherd had made the ruling in September 2017, Democracy Watch filed a new complaint with new Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger alleging the Aga Khan’s gift of the Bahamas trip given to Trudeau in December 2014 and December 2016, and to Liberal MP Seamus O’Regan in December 2016, violated the Lobbyists’ Code. The office of the Lobbying Commissioner confirmed on December 28^th that it was investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint.

Democracy Watch requested in its complaint letter that that the complaint be investigated and ruled on by someone completely independent of Commissioner Bélanger because she was handpicked by Prime Minister Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process and is therefore biased. In a separate court case, Democracy Watch is challenging Trudeau’s appointment of Commissioner Bélanger, and Democracy Watch also has an ongoing campaign to make the Cabinet appointment process actually independent, open and merit-based.

“An independent investigation about whether the Aga Khan violated the lobbyist ethics code by giving the trip gift to PM Trudeau and MP O’Regan should have been initiated in January 2017,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given that she was handpicked by Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process, the new Lobbying Commissioner is in a conflict of interest and so must delegate the investigation to a person who is independent of her and all federal political parties.”

Democracy Watch is also calling on the Auditor General to audit Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd and the RCMP because they let off the hook 84% of people who she caught since 2008 violating the Act or Code. Commissioner Shepherd finished her term in office on December 29, 2017. More than 1,700 Canadians have joined the call on the Auditor General to audit the Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner and RCMP — see details here.

“Lobbying Commissioner Shepherd went out with a whimper by issuing only one public ruling in the two years after the Liberals were elected, and she also let almost everyone off since 2008, so the Auditor General should also audit her negligently weak record,” said Conacher.

The Conflict of Interest Act and the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code will soon be reviewed by the House Ethics Committee. The Conservatives rejected many key proposed changes when the laws were last reviewed by the Committee. See details about the changes needed to close loopholes, strengthen enforcement and penalties for the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct here.

– 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

Approximately 33% of non-government attendees at event were Liberal Party donors, some representing companies seeking decisions from the federal government – violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to the event

DWatch filed same complaint with former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson in December 2016 – she negligently ignored the complaint

Commissioner Dion should delegate investigation to a provincial ethics commissioner – he is biased as Trudeau Cabinet chose him after secretive process

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, November 1, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion calling on him to delegate an inquiry into Prime Minister Trudeau violating the federal government ethics law by giving preferential treatment to the companies and/or organizations or other individuals represented by several Liberal Party donors when he invited those donors to a gala dinner in honour of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on September 22, 2016, as reported in the Globe and Mail.

According to the Globe’s article, some donors who attended the event represent companies that seek decisions from the federal government, including BMO Capital Markets, Huawei Technologies Canada Co., Power Corp., and Wealth One. As well, approximately 33% of non-government attendees at the event were Liberal Party donors – another indication that Prime Minister’s Trudeau’s invitations were based on preferential treatment for donors.

It is a violation of the federal ethics law, the Conflict of Interest Act (section 7), to give preferential treatment to anyone or any business or organization based on the identity of the person who represents them. A full inquiry is needed to determine to determine whether there were other invitees who are Liberal Party fundraisers or assist the Liberal Party in some other way(s), and also represent an individual, company and/or organization that seeks decisions from the federal government and/or has lobbyists registered to lobby the federal government.

“Inviting dozens of Liberal Party donors to a gala government event where they had access to the Chinese Premier, Prime Minister Trudeau and several Liberal Cabinet ministers clearly violates rules in the federal ethics law that prohibit giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their donation, especially when some of the donors who attended represent companies seeking favourable decisions from the Liberal government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given that about a third of the people at the event were Liberal Party donors also amounts to preferential treatment because one-third of Canadians are not Liberal Party donors.”

Democracy Watch filed the same complaint with former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson in December 2016. Commissioner Dawson ignored the complaint – yet another example of her negligently weak enforcement record during her term in office that Democracy Watch and more than 1,500 Canadians have called on Canada’s Auditor General to audit.

Democracy Watch is re-filing the complaint not only because it has not been ruled on by the Ethics Commissioner but also because, as the Globe reported in September, the Liberals continue to invite lobbyists who are lobbying the government to exclusive fundraising events.

Democracy Watch recently called on the Ethics Commissioner to investigate all exclusive Liberal Party events involving lobbyists that have been held in recent years, also because former Ethics Commissioner Dawson negligently refused to investigate the events. Democracy Watch filed the same complaint with Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger, following up on the complaints about lobbyist-organized fundraising event it filed in March 2017 with former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd in 2016-2017 that still haven’t been ruled on by Commissioner Bélanger.

As well, Democracy Watch is challenging Commissioner Bélanger’s January 2018 decision that ended the investigation into the fundraising event Apotex Chairman Barry Sherman held in August 2015, attended by Justin Trudeau, that raised $150,000 for the Liberal Party.

“Any high-priced, exclusive, invite-only fundraising event attended or hosted by the Prime Minister, Cabinet minister or their staff clearly violates rules in the federal ethics law that prohibit giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their donation, and prohibit soliciting or accepting their donation because of the conflict of interest it causes,” said Conacher. “It is also a clear violation of the lobbyists’ ethics code for any lobbyist to be involved in organizing any fundraising or other event for a politician.”

At the December 2017 House Ethics Committee hearing reviewing his nomination to become Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion claimed that he would be focused on “the need for a truly accessible office to make sure that people who want to make a complaint know that the office exists and know the parameters of filing a complaint.” (page 11). As a result, even though the Ethics Commissioner is not required to investigate complaints filed by members of the public, Democracy Watch expects that Commissioner Dion will ensure an investigation of its complaint is undertaken and a public ruling is issued.

However, Democracy Watch has asked Commissioner Dion to recuse himself from investigating and ruling on all its complaints, and delegate them to a provincial ethics commissioner who is not tied to any political party. Democracy Watch has filed a court case challenging Commissioner Dion’s appointment because he was chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet after a secretive, very questionable process. Mr. Dion also has a record 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner. Democracy Watch has also challenged Lobbying Commissioner Bélanger’s appointment in court for the same reasons.

“Commissioner Dion should not be ruling on any situations involving Liberals as he was hand-picked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, very questionable process,” said Conacher.

To stop patronage and cronyism, and the appointment of weak government watchdogs and law enforcement officers, Democracy Watch has called for this change to the appointments process for all Cabinet appointments in its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign. Ontario uses this appointment system to appoint provincial judges, and it is considered to be a world-leading process.

– 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 Money in Politics Campaign

Approximately 33% of non-government attendees at event were Liberal Party donors, some representing companies seeking decisions from the federal government – violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to the event

DWatch filed same complaint with former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson in December 2016 – she negligently ignored the complaint

Commissioner Dion should delegate investigation to a provincial ethics commissioner – he is biased as Trudeau Cabinet chose him after secretive process

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, November 1, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion calling on him to delegate an inquiry into Prime Minister Trudeau violating the federal government ethics law by giving preferential treatment to the companies and/or organizations or other individuals represented by several Liberal Party donors when he invited those donors to a gala dinner in honour of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on September 22, 2016, as reported in the Globe and Mail.

According to the Globe’s article, some donors who attended the event represent companies that seek decisions from the federal government, including BMO Capital Markets, Huawei Technologies Canada Co., Power Corp., and Wealth One. As well, approximately 33% of non-government attendees at the event were Liberal Party donors – another indication that Prime Minister’s Trudeau’s invitations were based on preferential treatment for donors.

It is a violation of the federal ethics law, the Conflict of Interest Act (section 7), to give preferential treatment to anyone or any business or organization based on the identity of the person who represents them. A full inquiry is needed to determine to determine whether there were other invitees who are Liberal Party fundraisers or assist the Liberal Party in some other way(s), and also represent an individual, company and/or organization that seeks decisions from the federal government and/or has lobbyists registered to lobby the federal government.

“Inviting dozens of Liberal Party donors to a gala government event where they had access to the Chinese Premier, Prime Minister Trudeau and several Liberal Cabinet ministers clearly violates rules in the federal ethics law that prohibit giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their donation, especially when some of the donors who attended represent companies seeking favourable decisions from the Liberal government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Given that about a third of the people at the event were Liberal Party donors also amounts to preferential treatment because one-third of Canadians are not Liberal Party donors.”

Democracy Watch filed the same complaint with former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson in December 2016. Commissioner Dawson ignored the complaint – yet another example of her negligently weak enforcement record during her term in office that Democracy Watch and more than 1,500 Canadians have called on Canada’s Auditor General to audit.

Democracy Watch is re-filing the complaint not only because it has not been ruled on by the Ethics Commissioner but also because, as the Globe reported in September, the Liberals continue to invite lobbyists who are lobbying the government to exclusive fundraising events.

Democracy Watch recently called on the Ethics Commissioner to investigate all exclusive Liberal Party events involving lobbyists that have been held in recent years, also because former Ethics Commissioner Dawson negligently refused to investigate the events. Democracy Watch filed the same complaint with Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger, following up on the complaints about lobbyist-organized fundraising event it filed in March 2017 with former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd in 2016-2017 that still haven’t been ruled on by Commissioner Bélanger.

As well, Democracy Watch is challenging Commissioner Bélanger’s January 2018 decision that ended the investigation into the fundraising event Apotex Chairman Barry Sherman held in August 2015, attended by Justin Trudeau, that raised $150,000 for the Liberal Party.

“Any high-priced, exclusive, invite-only fundraising event attended or hosted by the Prime Minister, Cabinet minister or their staff clearly violates rules in the federal ethics law that prohibit giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their donation, and prohibit soliciting or accepting their donation because of the conflict of interest it causes,” said Conacher. “It is also a clear violation of the lobbyists’ ethics code for any lobbyist to be involved in organizing any fundraising or other event for a politician.”

At the December 2017 House Ethics Committee hearing reviewing his nomination to become Ethics Commissioner, Mario Dion claimed that he would be focused on “the need for a truly accessible office to make sure that people who want to make a complaint know that the office exists and know the parameters of filing a complaint.” (page 11). As a result, even though the Ethics Commissioner is not required to investigate complaints filed by members of the public, Democracy Watch expects that Commissioner Dion will ensure an investigation of its complaint is undertaken and a public ruling is issued.

However, Democracy Watch has asked Commissioner Dion to recuse himself from investigating and ruling on all its complaints, and delegate them to a provincial ethics commissioner who is not tied to any political party. Democracy Watch has filed a court case challenging Commissioner Dion’s appointment because he was chosen by the Trudeau Cabinet after a secretive, very questionable process. Mr. Dion also has a record 8 unethical and questionable actions when he was federal Integrity Commissioner. Democracy Watch has also challenged Lobbying Commissioner Bélanger’s appointment in court for the same reasons.

“Commissioner Dion should not be ruling on any situations involving Liberals as he was hand-picked by the Trudeau Cabinet through a secretive, very questionable process,” said Conacher.

To stop patronage and cronyism, and the appointment of weak government watchdogs and law enforcement officers, Democracy Watch has called for this change to the appointments process for all Cabinet appointments in its Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign. Ontario uses this appointment system to appoint provincial judges, and it is considered to be a world-leading process.

– 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 Money in Politics Campaign

Court says case raised “an important question” but screens are reasonably consistent with purpose of federal ethics law to prevent conflicts of interest

Court reaches flawed conclusions that a screen provides as much information as regular, detailed recusal disclosures – DWatch considers appeal to SCC

House Ethics Committee reviewing federal government ethics law soon – DWatch calls on Committee to ban use of screens, and to close loopholes that allow ministers to profit from their decisions (as Parker Commission recommended in 1987)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 30, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released details of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) ruling it received last Friday in its case reviewing the Ethics Commissioner’s use of “screens” that allow Cabinet ministers and senior government officials to hide whether they are actually removing themselves from decision-making processes in which they have a conflict of interest.

Former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson decided to start to use screens years ago for the convenience of ministers and government officials covered by the Conflict of Interest Act (the “Act”). The screens are a public commitment that the minister or official makes to be removed by their assistant from any decision-making processes in which the minister or official has a conflict of interest, except decision-making processes that apply generally (99% of the decisions of ministers and officials apply generally).

Democracy Watch’s position was that, given that the Act requires ministers and officials to remove to themselves from any decision-making processes when they have a conflict of interest (section 21) and to issue a public declaration of the reasons why they removed themselves (subsection 25(1)) that is posted in the Public Registry (subsection 51(1)(a)), the Ethics Commissioner’s screens are “smokescreens” that hide whether ministers and officials are actually removing themselves from processes in which they have a conflict.

Democracy Watch argued before the court that the Ethics Commissioner could use screens, but not to replace the public declarations of recusals that are required by the Act.

The FCA’s ruling says the case raised “an important question” but screens are reasonably consistent with purpose of federal ethics law to prevent conflicts of interest (paras. 43-46).

However, the FCA reached the flawed conclusions:

• that a one-time, general screen statement by a minister or official provides as much information to the public as regular, detailed disclosures of each time they remove themselves from a meeting, discussion or vote (para. 48), and;
• that ministers and officials wouldn’t actually know about meetings, discussions and votes they are prevented from attending by their screen (para. 49).

As well, the FCA ignored the fact that when the Act was enacted in January 2007, the requirements to recuse and disclose the details of recusals were included in the Act, as recommended by the first Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro.

As a result of these errors in the ruling, Democracy Watch is considering an appeal to Supreme Court of Canada.

“The court unfortunately ignored the public’s right to know the details of the actions of Cabinet ministers and top government officials and decided that it is fine to allow them to hide exactly if and when they are removing themselves from decision-making processes because of a conflict of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa.

Because of the ruling, and many flaws and loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act, Democracy Watch called on the House Ethics Committee when it reviews the Act soon to recommend many changes to strengthen rules, enforcement and penalties, including banning the use of blind trusts (as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987), and banning the use of screens because they hide whether ministers and officials actually recuse themselves.

As well, the biggest loophole in the Act must be closed because it allows Cabinet ministers and senior government officials to take part in decision-making processes even when they will profit from the decision, as long as the decision applies generally (the loophole is in the Act’s subsection 2(1) definition of “private interest”). About 99% of Cabinet minister and top official decisions apply generally, so the Act does not apply to 99% of the decisions ministers and top officials make.

Cabinet ministers and officials should be required to sell their shares and other investments, and to remove themselves from every decision-making process when they have even an appearance of a conflict of interest, as the Parker Commission also recommended in 1987.

“The House Committee must recommend that blind trusts and screens and other secret schemes currently allowed under the federal government ethics law be banned and, as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987, that ministers and officials sell their shares and other investments or be prohibited from participating in any way in any decision-making process that affects any of their investments, with all recusals declared publicly,” 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 Government Ethics Campaign

Court says case raised “an important question” but screens are reasonably consistent with purpose of federal ethics law to prevent conflicts of interest

Court reaches flawed conclusions that a screen provides as much information as regular, detailed recusal disclosures – DWatch considers appeal to SCC

House Ethics Committee reviewing federal government ethics law soon – DWatch calls on Committee to ban use of screens, and to close loopholes that allow ministers to profit from their decisions (as Parker Commission recommended in 1987)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 30, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released details of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) ruling it received last Friday in its case reviewing the Ethics Commissioner’s use of “screens” that allow Cabinet ministers and senior government officials to hide whether they are actually removing themselves from decision-making processes in which they have a conflict of interest.

Former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson decided to start to use screens years ago for the convenience of ministers and government officials covered by the Conflict of Interest Act (the “Act”). The screens are a public commitment that the minister or official makes to be removed by their assistant from any decision-making processes in which the minister or official has a conflict of interest, except decision-making processes that apply generally (99% of the decisions of ministers and officials apply generally).

Democracy Watch’s position was that, given that the Act requires ministers and officials to remove to themselves from any decision-making processes when they have a conflict of interest (section 21) and to issue a public declaration of the reasons why they removed themselves (subsection 25(1)) that is posted in the Public Registry (subsection 51(1)(a)), the Ethics Commissioner’s screens are “smokescreens” that hide whether ministers and officials are actually removing themselves from processes in which they have a conflict.

Democracy Watch argued before the court that the Ethics Commissioner could use screens, but not to replace the public declarations of recusals that are required by the Act.

The FCA’s ruling says the case raised “an important question” but screens are reasonably consistent with purpose of federal ethics law to prevent conflicts of interest (paras. 43-46).

However, the FCA reached the flawed conclusions:

• that a one-time, general screen statement by a minister or official provides as much information to the public as regular, detailed disclosures of each time they remove themselves from a meeting, discussion or vote (para. 48), and;
• that ministers and officials wouldn’t actually know about meetings, discussions and votes they are prevented from attending by their screen (para. 49).

As well, the FCA ignored the fact that when the Act was enacted in January 2007, the requirements to recuse and disclose the details of recusals were included in the Act, as recommended by the first Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro.

As a result of these errors in the ruling, Democracy Watch is considering an appeal to Supreme Court of Canada.

“The court unfortunately ignored the public’s right to know the details of the actions of Cabinet ministers and top government officials and decided that it is fine to allow them to hide exactly if and when they are removing themselves from decision-making processes because of a conflict of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa.

Because of the ruling, and many flaws and loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act, Democracy Watch called on the House Ethics Committee when it reviews the Act soon to recommend many changes to strengthen rules, enforcement and penalties, including banning the use of blind trusts (as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987), and banning the use of screens because they hide whether ministers and officials actually recuse themselves.

As well, the biggest loophole in the Act must be closed because it allows Cabinet ministers and senior government officials to take part in decision-making processes even when they will profit from the decision, as long as the decision applies generally (the loophole is in the Act’s subsection 2(1) definition of “private interest”). About 99% of Cabinet minister and top official decisions apply generally, so the Act does not apply to 99% of the decisions ministers and top officials make.

Cabinet ministers and officials should be required to sell their shares and other investments, and to remove themselves from every decision-making process when they have even an appearance of a conflict of interest, as the Parker Commission also recommended in 1987.

“The House Committee must recommend that blind trusts and screens and other secret schemes currently allowed under the federal government ethics law be banned and, as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987, that ministers and officials sell their shares and other investments or be prohibited from participating in any way in any decision-making process that affects any of their investments, with all recusals declared publicly,” 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 Government Ethics Campaign

Court says case raised “a genuine issue of public importance” but, because Morneau sold his shares, the court concluded it can’t issue a full ruling on the issue

Court suggests DWatch could file another court case if Ethics Commissioner has let another minister or official own shares secretly – DWatch has asked Commissioner to disclose if this is true, and is considering appealing the case to the Supreme Court

House Ethics Committee reviewing federal government ethics law this fall – DWatch calls on Committee to close loopholes that allow ministers to profit from their decisions, and to ban so-called “blind” trusts, as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 29, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released details of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) ruling it received last Friday in its case reviewing former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s February 2016 decision to allow Finance Minister Bill Morneau to continue to secretly own $30 million of shares in Morneau Shepell Inc., his family’s company, after he became minister.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson decided that because Minister Morneau had set up an investment scheme so that he owned his shares in Morneau Shepell Inc. through two companies, one in Ontario and one in Alberta, he therefore owned the shares indirectly and so was not required by the rules in the Conflict of Interest Act to divest them by selling them or putting them in a so-called blind trust.

The Act requires any “controlled assets” to be “divested” by being sold or placed in a blind trust (sections 17, 20 and 27(1)), with a public statement issued detailing any divestment (subsection 26(2)(a)). The Act also contains an “anti-avoidance” measure that prohibits Cabinet ministers and senior government officials from taking any action to circumvent the requirements of the Act (section 18).

The FCA’s ruling says whether Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s decision was correct “is a genuine issue of public importance” (para. 16). The ruling then states that the Conflict of Interest Act’s rules concerning divestment of assets like the shares Minister Morneau owned “is open to a broader interpretation” than Ethics Commissioner Dawson used that “could in effect make the divestment requirement in section 17 applicable to assets that are indirectly held” like Morneau’s shares were held (para. 17).

“The court’s ruling strongly suggests that Ethics Commissioner Dawson was wrong to allow Finance Minister Morneau to continue to secretly own $30 million in shares in his family’s company after he became minister,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa. “Hopefully the ruling will be enough to stop the Ethics Commissioner from ever allowing another Cabinet minister or top government official to own shares or have investments in any company through an investment scheme like the one Minister Morneau set up.”

The FCA’s ruling says that it didn’t issue a full ruling because Minister Morneau sold his shares making the situation moot (para. 12), a conclusion Democracy Watch argued against. The court suggests Democracy Watch could file another court case challenging an Ethics Commissioner ruling about another Cabinet minister or senior government official who has an investment scheme like Morneau that has been secretly approved by the Ethics Commissioner, and who has not yet sold his/her shares (para. 18).

Democracy Watch finds this part of the ruling to be quite strange, given that the FCA acknowledges that the Ethics Commissioner’s decisions like the one made about Morneau’s shares are “shielded from public view by confidentiality” (para. 11). As a result, how would Democracy Watch or anyone ever know that the Ethics Commissioner had approved another minister or official owning shares through a secret investment scheme like Minister Morneau had?

Democracy Watch is considering appealing the FCA’s ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada because of this strange, deeply flawed part of the ruling.

In light of the FCA’s ruling, Democracy Watch has sent a letter to new Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion asking him to disclose if there are any other Cabinet ministers or government officials covered by the Act who own shares or have investments directly or indirectly in any company and who have not placed those shares into a so-called blind trust.

While it is public that Prime Minister Trudeau owns shares in many companies, as do Ministers Bennett, Brison, Champagne, MacAulay, and Senator Harder and dozens of top government officials – all of them have put their shares into a so-called blind trust that has been publicly declared. It is a secret whether any other ministers or officials own shares that are not in a so-called blind trust – only the Ethics Commissioner and the minister(s) and/or official(s) know.

“Democracy Watch calls on Ethics Commissioner Dion to disclose immediately if he is allowing any Cabinet ministers or government officials to own shares or have investments in any company directly or indirectly without putting them into a publicly declared blind trust,” said Conacher.

If there are any who own shares or investments, Democracy Watch expects that they will sell their shares or investments right away (just like Minister Morneau did) before Democracy Watch can file a court case challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s decision to allow them to own the shares. Again, that is why it is so strange that the FCA’s ruling suggests that Democracy Watch could bring another “live” case to court.

Because of these flaws and loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act, Democracy Watch called on the House Ethics Committee when it reviews the Act this fall to recommend many changes to strengthen rules, enforcement and penalties. For example, blind trusts are a sham and should be banned, as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987, because the Cabinet minister or government official knows what assets they place in a blind trust, and they choose the trustee and are allowed to give the trustee general instructions (under subsections 27(4) and (5) of the Act).

As well, the biggest loophole in the Act is that Cabinet ministers and senior government officials are allowed to take part in debates, discussions, votes and other decision-making processes even when they will profit from the decision, as long as the decision applies generally (the loophole is in the Act’s subsection 2(1) definition of “private interest”). About 99% of Cabinet minister and top official decisions apply generally, so the Act does not apply to 99% of the decisions ministers and top officials make.

Cabinet ministers and officials should be required to remove themselves from every decision-making process when they have even an appearance of a conflict of interest, as the Parker Commission also recommended in 1987.

“So-called blind trusts don’t prevent conflicts of interest because the Cabinet minister or government official knows what they have put in the trust, and so the House Committee must recommend that blind trusts be banned and that ministers and officials sell their shares and other investments, as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987,” said Conacher. “To prevent conflicts of interest if a minister or official can’t or doesn’t want to sell their shares or investments because they are part of a family company, the House Committee must recommend that the minister or official be required not to participate in any way in any decision-making process that affects the company directly or indirectly, as the Parker Commission also recommended in 1987.”

– 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

Court says case raised “a genuine issue of public importance” but, because Morneau sold his shares, the court concluded it can’t issue a full ruling on the issue

Court suggests DWatch could file another court case if Ethics Commissioner has let another minister or official own shares secretly – DWatch has asked Commissioner to disclose if this is true, and is considering appealing the case to the Supreme Court

House Ethics Committee reviewing federal government ethics law this fall – DWatch calls on Committee to close loopholes that allow ministers to profit from their decisions, and to ban so-called “blind” trusts, as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 29, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released details of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) ruling it received last Friday in its case reviewing former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s February 2016 decision to allow Finance Minister Bill Morneau to continue to secretly own $30 million of shares in Morneau Shepell Inc., his family’s company, after he became minister.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson decided that because Minister Morneau had set up an investment scheme so that he owned his shares in Morneau Shepell Inc. through two companies, one in Ontario and one in Alberta, he therefore owned the shares indirectly and so was not required by the rules in the Conflict of Interest Act to divest them by selling them or putting them in a so-called blind trust.

The Act requires any “controlled assets” to be “divested” by being sold or placed in a blind trust (sections 17, 20 and 27(1)), with a public statement issued detailing any divestment (subsection 26(2)(a)). The Act also contains an “anti-avoidance” measure that prohibits Cabinet ministers and senior government officials from taking any action to circumvent the requirements of the Act (section 18).

The FCA’s ruling says whether Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s decision was correct “is a genuine issue of public importance” (para. 16). The ruling then states that the Conflict of Interest Act’s rules concerning divestment of assets like the shares Minister Morneau owned “is open to a broader interpretation” than Ethics Commissioner Dawson used that “could in effect make the divestment requirement in section 17 applicable to assets that are indirectly held” like Morneau’s shares were held (para. 17).

“The court’s ruling strongly suggests that Ethics Commissioner Dawson was wrong to allow Finance Minister Morneau to continue to secretly own $30 million in shares in his family’s company after he became minister,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor of Law and Politics at the University of Ottawa. “Hopefully the ruling will be enough to stop the Ethics Commissioner from ever allowing another Cabinet minister or top government official to own shares or have investments in any company through an investment scheme like the one Minister Morneau set up.”

The FCA’s ruling says that it didn’t issue a full ruling because Minister Morneau sold his shares making the situation moot (para. 12), a conclusion Democracy Watch argued against. The court suggests Democracy Watch could file another court case challenging an Ethics Commissioner ruling about another Cabinet minister or senior government official who has an investment scheme like Morneau that has been secretly approved by the Ethics Commissioner, and who has not yet sold his/her shares (para. 18).

Democracy Watch finds this part of the ruling to be quite strange, given that the FCA acknowledges that the Ethics Commissioner’s decisions like the one made about Morneau’s shares are “shielded from public view by confidentiality” (para. 11). As a result, how would Democracy Watch or anyone ever know that the Ethics Commissioner had approved another minister or official owning shares through a secret investment scheme like Minister Morneau had?

Democracy Watch is considering appealing the FCA’s ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada because of this strange, deeply flawed part of the ruling.

In light of the FCA’s ruling, Democracy Watch has sent a letter to new Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion asking him to disclose if there are any other Cabinet ministers or government officials covered by the Act who own shares or have investments directly or indirectly in any company and who have not placed those shares into a so-called blind trust.

While it is public that Prime Minister Trudeau owns shares in many companies, as do Ministers Bennett, Brison, Champagne, MacAulay, and Senator Harder and dozens of top government officials – all of them have put their shares into a so-called blind trust that has been publicly declared. It is a secret whether any other ministers or officials own shares that are not in a so-called blind trust – only the Ethics Commissioner and the minister(s) and/or official(s) know.

“Democracy Watch calls on Ethics Commissioner Dion to disclose immediately if he is allowing any Cabinet ministers or government officials to own shares or have investments in any company directly or indirectly without putting them into a publicly declared blind trust,” said Conacher.

If there are any who own shares or investments, Democracy Watch expects that they will sell their shares or investments right away (just like Minister Morneau did) before Democracy Watch can file a court case challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s decision to allow them to own the shares. Again, that is why it is so strange that the FCA’s ruling suggests that Democracy Watch could bring another “live” case to court.

Because of these flaws and loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act, Democracy Watch called on the House Ethics Committee when it reviews the Act this fall to recommend many changes to strengthen rules, enforcement and penalties. For example, blind trusts are a sham and should be banned, as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987, because the Cabinet minister or government official knows what assets they place in a blind trust, and they choose the trustee and are allowed to give the trustee general instructions (under subsections 27(4) and (5) of the Act).

As well, the biggest loophole in the Act is that Cabinet ministers and senior government officials are allowed to take part in debates, discussions, votes and other decision-making processes even when they will profit from the decision, as long as the decision applies generally (the loophole is in the Act’s subsection 2(1) definition of “private interest”). About 99% of Cabinet minister and top official decisions apply generally, so the Act does not apply to 99% of the decisions ministers and top officials make.

Cabinet ministers and officials should be required to remove themselves from every decision-making process when they have even an appearance of a conflict of interest, as the Parker Commission also recommended in 1987.

“So-called blind trusts don’t prevent conflicts of interest because the Cabinet minister or government official knows what they have put in the trust, and so the House Committee must recommend that blind trusts be banned and that ministers and officials sell their shares and other investments, as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987,” said Conacher. “To prevent conflicts of interest if a minister or official can’t or doesn’t want to sell their shares or investments because they are part of a family company, the House Committee must recommend that the minister or official be required not to participate in any way in any decision-making process that affects the company directly or indirectly, as the Parker Commission also recommended in 1987.”

– 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

Changing the rules and enforcement powers won’t stop gouging and abuse by telecom companies – empowering consumer with their own watchdog group will

CRTC can work with federal government to create group – telecom companies would be required to send notices to customers inviting them to join group

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 23, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, as the CRTC holds its week-long hearings and hears hundreds of stories about abusive sales practices and gouging by Canada’s large telecommunications companies, Democracy Watch and more than 30 other citizen and consumer groups called on the CRTC to work with the federal government to create a broad-based, well-resourced, consumer-run Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) using an innovative, low-cost, effective method that has worked in the U.S. Democracy Watch is testifying at the CRTC hearings today at about 3 pm – to listen to the hearings, click here.

The TCO could easily be created by the CRTC and the federal government at no cost, and no cost to telecom companies. Creating the TCO is the most low-cost, effective way to protect consumers and ensure companies serve everyone fairly and well at fair prices.

“Strengthening the consumer protection rules, enforcement and penalties will help a bit, but to really stop ongoing gouging and abuse by Canada’s big telecom companies the CRTC and the federal government need to create a national, consumer-run telecom watchdog group that can empower and provide free help to consumers with shopping around, complaining and suing to get good, fairly priced service from the companies,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and the Corporate Responsibility Coalition, which has 31 member groups from across Canada that all endorse the call for the creation of a TCO. “States in the U.S. have successfully used a low-cost, effective method to create consumer-run industry watchdog groups, and the CRTC and the federal government should use this method to create a telecom watchdog group for Canadians.”

“If the CRTC and the federal government don’t require telecom companies to send out email and other notices inviting their customers to join a national, consumer-run telecom industry watchdog group, they will make it clear they don’t really care about protecting consumers from gouging and abuse,” said Conacher. “Telecom consumers pay all the costs for telecom companies’ ads, lawyers, lobbyists and other advocacy efforts, and requiring the companies to help create a consumer-run telecom watchdog group is most simple, low-cost, effective thing to do to empower and educate consumers, and give them a place to call that will give them free, effective help when they are gouged or abused, and will help ensure telecom companies serve everyone fairly and well at fair prices.”

In addition to the more than 30 citizen groups in the Corporate Responsibility Coalition (see its submission to the CRTC here), the four groups in the ad hoc Fair Communications Sales Coalition (FCSC) are also testifying at today’s CRTC hearings and calling for the creation of the TCO. The FCSC is made up of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), ACORN Canada, the National Pensioners Federation, and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP). To see the FCSC’s submission calling for the creation of the TCO, click here and download the second document.

How would the TCO be created and what would it do?

The Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) would be created by the federal government passing a law establishing the organization (at no cost, with an interim board appointed by the government) and requiring telecom companies to send out notices by email and mail to their customers. Sending out the emails would not cost anything, and the TCO would pay for the printing costs for the pamphlet the telecom companies would mail to customers who still receive bills and notices by mail.

The notices about the TCO would describe the group and invite customers to join, with a nominal annual membership fee of $30 average. Such groups have been created in some U.S. states to watch over state utilities, with usually about 5% of consumers joining. To see more details about the TCO, click here.

The TCO would be consumer-directed, with a board elected from among its members. If only 5% of the more than 20 million individual telecom customers in Canada joined, the group would have 1 million members and a $30 million annual budget.

The TCO would provide telecom customers across Canada with free help shopping around, filing complaints, free lawyers for lawsuits to stop gouging and abuse, and would represent telecom customers in all government policy-making and regulatory processes.

– 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 Questions and Answers about the Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) and Democracy Watch’s Citizen Association Campaign

Changing the rules and enforcement powers won’t stop gouging and abuse by telecom companies – empowering consumer with their own watchdog group will

CRTC can work with federal government to create group – telecom companies would be required to send notices to customers inviting them to join group

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 23, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, as the CRTC holds its week-long hearings and hears hundreds of stories about abusive sales practices and gouging by Canada’s large telecommunications companies, Democracy Watch and more than 30 other citizen and consumer groups called on the CRTC to work with the federal government to create a broad-based, well-resourced, consumer-run Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) using an innovative, low-cost, effective method that has worked in the U.S. Democracy Watch is testifying at the CRTC hearings today at about 3 pm – to listen to the hearings, click here.

The TCO could easily be created by the CRTC and the federal government at no cost, and no cost to telecom companies. Creating the TCO is the most low-cost, effective way to protect consumers and ensure companies serve everyone fairly and well at fair prices.

“Strengthening the consumer protection rules, enforcement and penalties will help a bit, but to really stop ongoing gouging and abuse by Canada’s big telecom companies the CRTC and the federal government need to create a national, consumer-run telecom watchdog group that can empower and provide free help to consumers with shopping around, complaining and suing to get good, fairly priced service from the companies,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and the Corporate Responsibility Coalition, which has 31 member groups from across Canada that all endorse the call for the creation of a TCO. “States in the U.S. have successfully used a low-cost, effective method to create consumer-run industry watchdog groups, and the CRTC and the federal government should use this method to create a telecom watchdog group for Canadians.”

“If the CRTC and the federal government don’t require telecom companies to send out email and other notices inviting their customers to join a national, consumer-run telecom industry watchdog group, they will make it clear they don’t really care about protecting consumers from gouging and abuse,” said Conacher. “Telecom consumers pay all the costs for telecom companies’ ads, lawyers, lobbyists and other advocacy efforts, and requiring the companies to help create a consumer-run telecom watchdog group is most simple, low-cost, effective thing to do to empower and educate consumers, and give them a place to call that will give them free, effective help when they are gouged or abused, and will help ensure telecom companies serve everyone fairly and well at fair prices.”

In addition to the more than 30 citizen groups in the Corporate Responsibility Coalition (see its submission to the CRTC here), the four groups in the ad hoc Fair Communications Sales Coalition (FCSC) are also testifying at today’s CRTC hearings and calling for the creation of the TCO. The FCSC is made up of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), ACORN Canada, the National Pensioners Federation, and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP). To see the FCSC’s submission calling for the creation of the TCO, click here and download the second document.

How would the TCO be created and what would it do?

The Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) would be created by the federal government passing a law establishing the organization (at no cost, with an interim board appointed by the government) and requiring telecom companies to send out notices by email and mail to their customers. Sending out the emails would not cost anything, and the TCO would pay for the printing costs for the pamphlet the telecom companies would mail to customers who still receive bills and notices by mail.

The notices about the TCO would describe the group and invite customers to join, with a nominal annual membership fee of $30 average. Such groups have been created in some U.S. states to watch over state utilities, with usually about 5% of consumers joining. To see more details about the TCO, click here.

The TCO would be consumer-directed, with a board elected from among its members. If only 5% of the more than 20 million individual telecom customers in Canada joined, the group would have 1 million members and a $30 million annual budget.

The TCO would provide telecom customers across Canada with free help shopping around, filing complaints, free lawyers for lawsuits to stop gouging and abuse, and would represent telecom customers in all government policy-making and regulatory processes.

– 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 Questions and Answers about the Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) and Democracy Watch’s Citizen Association Campaign

Bill C-76 makes bad move of more than doubling interest group spending limit during elections, doesn’t lower undemocratically high limits on donations to parties and candidates

Bill should also be changed to prohibit Canadian-based subsidiaries of foreign-owned businesses from spending money on pre-election and election advertising because they are owned by foreigners

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 17, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, as the House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee continues its review of Bill C-76, Democracy Watch called on the Committee to decrease donation limits and not to increase the spending limits for third parties, following up on its call last week that the Committee make changes to extend the federal privacy law to cover political parties, and to actually stop secret, false online election ads.

Democracy Watch testified at the hearings on Bill C-7 in June and pointed to several weaknesses in the bill. While Bill C-76 reduces some key barriers to voting, it does little else to ensure fair, democratic elections.

Bill C-76, like the recently enacted Bill C-50 that comes into effect on December 18th, is a charade that does nothing to stop the unethical influence of big money in Canadian politics. The Bill doesn’t change the annual individual donation limits of $1,575 to each party and another $1,575 to the riding associations of each party (both increased each year by $25) nor does it decrease the $5,000 amount an election candidate can give to their own campaign or the $25,000 a party leadership candidate can give to their campaign.

These high donation limits are much more than an average adult Canadian can afford – they favour wealthy donors and candidates and facilitate funneling of donations from businesses and unions through their executives (which has occurred in every jurisdiction in Canada with such high donation limits). Democracy Watch recently filed complaints with the federal Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner about Liberal Party fundraising events involving ministers and lobbyists who lobby them (as revealed by the Globe and Mail).

As well, Bill C-76 more than doubles the spending limits for third party interest groups and individuals during election campaigns (from approximately $200,000 up to $500,000). The Liberals claim this increase is needed because the spending limit is being extended to cover election surveys and “partisan activities” such as door-knocking, phone calls and rallies but only citizen groups do those kinds of activities (businesses usually only spending money on ads). As a result, the limit should be increased only for citizen groups as the increase in the limit will more than double the amount of advertising businesses can do during an election campaign period.

“The only way to stop big money in politics is to stop big donations and Bill C-76 does nothing to lower the federal donation limits that are much higher than an average Canadian can afford, and that allow lobbyists to buy influence with politicians and parties,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Bill C-76 also more than doubles the ad spending limits for interest groups and lobbyists during elections which will increase the power of wealthy interests to dominate election campaign debates with massive advertising campaigns. Canadian-based subsidiaries of foreign-owned businesses should especially be prohibited from advertising during Canadian elections because they are owned by foreigners.”

Bill C-76 also sets meaninglessly high limits of $1.5 million for party ad spending and $1 million for third-party (interest group) ad spending during the 60-75 days before the election campaign period begins. The limits are meaningless because it is highly unlikely that any party or third-party will spend anywhere near those amounts during July and August – the only times the limits will apply (as the pre-campaign limits only apply when the election is held on the fixed election date of the third Monday in October). As well, the pre-campaign limit only applies to “partisan advertising” that promotes or opposes a party or a candidate, not to issue-based advertising.

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

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

– 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

Bill C-76 makes bad move of more than doubling interest group spending limit during elections, doesn’t lower undemocratically high limits on donations to parties and candidates

Bill should also be changed to prohibit Canadian-based subsidiaries of foreign-owned businesses from spending money on pre-election and election advertising because they are owned by foreigners

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 17, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, as the House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee continues its review of Bill C-76, Democracy Watch called on the Committee to decrease donation limits and not to increase the spending limits for third parties, following up on its call last week that the Committee make changes to extend the federal privacy law to cover political parties, and to actually stop secret, false online election ads.

Democracy Watch testified at the hearings on Bill C-7 in June and pointed to several weaknesses in the bill. While Bill C-76 reduces some key barriers to voting, it does little else to ensure fair, democratic elections.

Bill C-76, like the recently enacted Bill C-50 that comes into effect on December 18th, is a charade that does nothing to stop the unethical influence of big money in Canadian politics. The Bill doesn’t change the annual individual donation limits of $1,575 to each party and another $1,575 to the riding associations of each party (both increased each year by $25) nor does it decrease the $5,000 amount an election candidate can give to their own campaign or the $25,000 a party leadership candidate can give to their campaign.

These high donation limits are much more than an average adult Canadian can afford – they favour wealthy donors and candidates and facilitate funneling of donations from businesses and unions through their executives (which has occurred in every jurisdiction in Canada with such high donation limits). Democracy Watch recently filed complaints with the federal Ethics Commissioner and Lobbying Commissioner about Liberal Party fundraising events involving ministers and lobbyists who lobby them (as revealed by the Globe and Mail).

As well, Bill C-76 more than doubles the spending limits for third party interest groups and individuals during election campaigns (from approximately $200,000 up to $500,000). The Liberals claim this increase is needed because the spending limit is being extended to cover election surveys and “partisan activities” such as door-knocking, phone calls and rallies but only citizen groups do those kinds of activities (businesses usually only spending money on ads). As a result, the limit should be increased only for citizen groups as the increase in the limit will more than double the amount of advertising businesses can do during an election campaign period.

“The only way to stop big money in politics is to stop big donations and Bill C-76 does nothing to lower the federal donation limits that are much higher than an average Canadian can afford, and that allow lobbyists to buy influence with politicians and parties,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Bill C-76 also more than doubles the ad spending limits for interest groups and lobbyists during elections which will increase the power of wealthy interests to dominate election campaign debates with massive advertising campaigns. Canadian-based subsidiaries of foreign-owned businesses should especially be prohibited from advertising during Canadian elections because they are owned by foreigners.”

Bill C-76 also sets meaninglessly high limits of $1.5 million for party ad spending and $1 million for third-party (interest group) ad spending during the 60-75 days before the election campaign period begins. The limits are meaningless because it is highly unlikely that any party or third-party will spend anywhere near those amounts during July and August – the only times the limits will apply (as the pre-campaign limits only apply when the election is held on the fixed election date of the third Monday in October). As well, the pre-campaign limit only applies to “partisan advertising” that promotes or opposes a party or a candidate, not to issue-based advertising.

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

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

– 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 law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, September 28, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Quebec’s political party leaders and the Lieutenant Governor to learn the lesson of the post-election chaos in New Brunswick and agree this weekend on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Even if Quebec 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 (but a large majority of scholars do agree the conventions should be written down). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Premier and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Lieutenant Governor as the representative of the British monarchy to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Premier from doing what they want.

Lieutenant governors in several provinces have almost never stopped a 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 Quebec’s political party leaders and Lieutenant Governor 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 ruling party that violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, the Quebec legislature 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 rules for the legislature are unwritten and unclear in Quebec, the premier and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and the legislature’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. After the election, the former Premier shall resign as Premier and is prohibited from requesting that the Lieutenant Governor give him/her and his party an opportunity to govern (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in the legislature) unless his/her party has won the most seats in the election or s/he can show the Lieutenant Governor that his/her party, (either a formal coalition or a legislative agenda agreement) will be supported by a majority of politicians in the legislature;
2. If the former Premier’s party has not won the most seats in the election or cannot show that it has a coalition/agreement supported by a majority of politicians in the legislature, the leader of the party that won the most seats in the election shall have the right to request the Lieutenant Governor give it an opportunity to govern (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in the legislature);
3. Within 30 days after the Lieutenant Governor decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the governing party/parties will open the legislature with a Speech from the Throne;
4. If the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the legislature indicate that they will vote against the Speech from the Throne of the governing party/parties, the Premier is prohibited from asking the Lieutenant Governor to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the legislature;
5. If a majority of members in the legislature vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Premier shall resign as Premier and is prohibited from requesting that the Lieutenant Governor call an election until the Lieutenant Governor has heard from the opposition parties whether they want an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement);
6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in the legislature that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The legislature 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 and before the next fixed-election date, the Premier is prohibited from requesting the Lieutenant Governor prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the legislature, and if the motion passes the legislature may pass another motion within one week that reverses the non-confidence vote;
8. If the legislature does not vote to reverse the non-confidence vote, the Premier shall resign and is prohibited from requesting the Lieutenant Governor call an election until the Lieutenant Governor has heard from the opposition parties whether they want an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement). The Premier is also prohibited from requesting the Lieutenant Governor call an election in between the fixed-election dates unless a non-confidence vote has been confirmed (and no opposition parties have requested an opportunity to govern) or two-thirds of the politicians in the legislature vote in favour of holding an early election.

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 law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, September 28, 2018

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Quebec’s political party leaders and the Lieutenant Governor to learn the lesson of the post-election chaos in New Brunswick and agree this weekend on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Even if Quebec 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 (but a large majority of scholars do agree the conventions should be written down). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Premier and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Lieutenant Governor as the representative of the British monarchy to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Premier from doing what they want.

Lieutenant governors in several provinces have almost never stopped a 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 Quebec’s political party leaders and Lieutenant Governor 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 ruling party that violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, the Quebec legislature 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 rules for the legislature are unwritten and unclear in Quebec, the premier and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and the legislature’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. After the election, the former Premier shall resign as Premier and is prohibited from requesting that the Lieutenant Governor give him/her and his party an opportunity to govern (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in the legislature) unless his/her party has won the most seats in the election or s/he can show the Lieutenant Governor that his/her party, (either a formal coalition or a legislative agenda agreement) will be supported by a majority of politicians in the legislature;
2. If the former Premier’s party has not won the most seats in the election or cannot show that it has a coalition/agreement supported by a majority of politicians in the legislature, the leader of the party that won the most seats in the election shall have the right to request the Lieutenant Governor give it an opportunity to govern (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in the legislature);
3. Within 30 days after the Lieutenant Governor decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the governing party/parties will open the legislature with a Speech from the Throne;
4. If the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the legislature indicate that they will vote against the Speech from the Throne of the governing party/parties, the Premier is prohibited from asking the Lieutenant Governor to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the legislature;
5. If a majority of members in the legislature vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Premier shall resign as Premier and is prohibited from requesting that the Lieutenant Governor call an election until the Lieutenant Governor has heard from the opposition parties whether they want an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement);
6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in the legislature that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The legislature 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 and before the next fixed-election date, the Premier is prohibited from requesting the Lieutenant Governor prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the legislature, and if the motion passes the legislature may pass another motion within one week that reverses the non-confidence vote;
8. If the legislature does not vote to reverse the non-confidence vote, the Premier shall resign and is prohibited from requesting the Lieutenant Governor call an election until the Lieutenant Governor has heard from the opposition parties whether they want an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement). The Premier is also prohibited from requesting the Lieutenant Governor call an election in between the fixed-election dates unless a non-confidence vote has been confirmed (and no opposition parties have requested an opportunity to govern) or two-thirds of the politicians in the legislature vote in favour of holding an early election.