Given past consultations, committee reports and private member bills all calling for the same key changes, federal parties can and should make the changes now

Democracy Watch co-founder applied to be Information Commissioner to test federal Cabinet appointment system – despite almost 30 years’ experience in open government, he has still not been contacted by headhunting firm Liberals hired (and likely other well-qualified people have also not been contacted)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 23, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, testifying before the House of Commons Access, Privacy and Ethics Committee, Democracy Watch and the Open Government Coalition it coordinates called on the MPs on the Committee to make many key changes to Bill C-58 to strengthen the federal Access to Information Act and open government system (SEE the changes listed further below). The Liberals have a majority on the Committee so if all the changes are not made it will clearly be their fault.

The Trudeau Liberals promised several changes not included in Bill C-58 in the Open Government section of their 2015 election platform, and in the specific Access to Information section of the platform. Bill C-58 also includes changes that were not promised in the Liberals’ platform, changes that are big steps backwards in access rights. The Liberals have also failed to keep their international Open Government Partnership commitments, weak as those commitments were. Bill C-58 also ignores many of the recommendations made in the unanimous June 2016 report of the House of Commons Access, Privacy and Ethics Committee.

Tens of thousands of voters have sent messages through Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign page calling on federal parties to make these key changes. Democracy Watch also signed the open letter issued recently by a global coalition of organizations and individuals calling for similar changes.

“To be credible, the Liberals on the House committee must agree to key open government changes to Bill C-58 that many groups, and past committees and reports, have called for over the past 15 years,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Part-time Professor of law and politics at the University of Ottawa. “Given that the federal Access to Information Act and open government system have been reviewed several times in the past 15 years, and that there is a consensus on key changes that must be made, there is no justifiable reason for any further delay in making the changes.”

“If these key changes are finally made, the current federal ‘Guide to Keeping Secrets Act’ will finally become a real access to information act,” said Conacher.

The public was consulted on changes to the Act and system in 2000, and again in 2009 when a House Committee issued a unanimous report calling for changes, and again in 2011 and in 2013 (twice) through the international Open Government Partnership (OGP) process. The Information Commissioner issued a report in late March 2015 recommending many key changes. And, then, as mentioned above, the Liberals have consulted on their weak international Open Government Partnership 2016-2018 plan. Every consultation has resulted in a broad, strong call from the public and citizen groups to make the key changes listed below.

In addition to the changes the Liberals promised in their 2015, election campaign, the Conservatives promised several key changes in their 2006 election platform and federal Conservative Treasury Board minister Tony Clement agreed in 2014 that the Access to Information Act needs to be changed (as did Rob Nicholson in 2009). Also, the NDP and Liberals both introduced private member bills aimed at changing the Act when the Conservatives were in power.

Democracy Watch’s Co-founder Conacher also disclosed that, to test the Liberals’ Cabinet appointment process, he applied last July to be the federal Information Commissioner. He first worked in the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office in 1988, and has almost 30 years’ experience addressing open government issues, including teaching law and politics university courses on the issues for the past six years, and meets all the requirements for the positon. He has not even been contacted by the headhunting firm the Liberals have hired to conduct the search for nominees.

The Trudeau Liberals have falsely claimed that they have changed the Cabinet appointment process to make it merit-based and independent of Cabinet. In fact, as in past governments, Cabinet ministers still control the whole process so it is still political and partisan (as several of the Liberals appointments have made clear).

Tens of thousands of voters have sent a letter through Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign or signed a petition on Change.org calling for key changes to make Cabinet appointments actually merit-based.

Conacher believes that, as with the fiasco that resulted from the Liberals’ attempt to appoint Madeleine Meilleur as Official Languages Commissioner, there are very likely many other well-qualified candidates who have applied that are not even being considered because the Trudeau Cabinet doesn’t want them in the position of Information Commissioner.

“Is the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet’s appointment process really merit-based, and are they really looking to appoint a qualified, fair watchdog to enforce the federal open government law, if they don’t even contact an applicant who has spent as much time as anyone in Canada over the past 20 years focused on strong, non-partisan enforcement of the federal and provincial open government laws?” asked Conacher. “The Trudeau Cabinet is also in a conflict of interest that prohibits it from choosing the next Information Commissioner as the Commissioner regularly investigates the departments of Trudeau Cabinet ministers.”

The key changes that Democracy Watch and the Open Government Coalition have been advocating for more than 15 years are as follows:

1. any type of record created by any entity that receives significant funding from or is connected to the government, or was created by the government and fulfills public interest functions, should be automatically covered by the access to information law and system (as in the United Kingdom);
2. all exemptions under the access to information law should be discretionary, and limited by a proof of harm test and a public interest override (as in B.C. and Alberta);
3. the access to information law and system should require every entity covered (as in the United Kingdom, U.S., Australia and New Zealand): to create detailed records for all decisions and actions and factual and policy research; to routinely disclose records that are required to be disclosed; to assign responsibility to individuals for the creation and maintenance of each record, and; to maintain each record so that it remains easily accessible;
4. the access to information law and system should allow anyone who does factual or policy research for the government to speak to the media and publicly about the topic, findings and conclusions of their research without being required to seek approval first from anyone (including their superior, the Privy Council, the Prime Minister, a Cabinet minister, or any ministerial staff person);
5. severe penalties should be created for not creating records, for not maintaining records properly, and for unjustifiable delays in responses to requests;
6. the Information Commissioner should be given explicit powers under access to information: to order the release of a record (as in the United Kingdom, Ontario, B.C. and Quebec); to penalize violators of the law with high fines, jail terms, loss of any severance payment, and partial clawback of any pension payments, and; to require systemic changes in government departments to improve compliance (as in the United Kingdom);
7. funding to the access to information system and enforcement should be increased to solve backlog problems instead of increasing administrative barriers such as limiting requests in any way, and fees for access should be lower overall and standardized for every entity covered by the access to information law and system; and
8. Parliament must be required to review the ATI Act every 5 years to ensure that problem areas are corrected, and;
9. establish a fully independent, non-partisan appointments commission (with members, appointed by non-governmental organizations like the Canadian Judicial Council, serving fixed terms of office) to conduct a merit-based search for nominees for Information Commissioner and all other officers of Parliament, and to present a short list to the Cabinet that the Cabinet has to choose from after at least consulting with all federal party leaders (even better, require that a majority of party leaders approve of the Cabinet’s choice).

– 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 Open Government Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Given past consultations, committee reports and private member bills all calling for the same key changes, federal parties can and should make the changes now

Democracy Watch co-founder applied to be Information Commissioner to test federal Cabinet appointment system – despite almost 30 years’ experience in open government, he has still not been contacted by headhunting firm Liberals hired (and likely other well-qualified people have also not been contacted)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 23, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, testifying before the House of Commons Access, Privacy and Ethics Committee, Democracy Watch and the Open Government Coalition it coordinates called on the MPs on the Committee to make many key changes to Bill C-58 to strengthen the federal Access to Information Act and open government system (SEE the changes listed further below). The Liberals have a majority on the Committee so if all the changes are not made it will clearly be their fault.

The Trudeau Liberals promised several changes not included in Bill C-58 in the Open Government section of their 2015 election platform, and in the specific Access to Information section of the platform. Bill C-58 also includes changes that were not promised in the Liberals’ platform, changes that are big steps backwards in access rights. The Liberals have also failed to keep their international Open Government Partnership commitments, weak as those commitments were. Bill C-58 also ignores many of the recommendations made in the unanimous June 2016 report of the House of Commons Access, Privacy and Ethics Committee.

Tens of thousands of voters have sent messages through Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign page calling on federal parties to make these key changes. Democracy Watch also signed the open letter issued recently by a global coalition of organizations and individuals calling for similar changes.

“To be credible, the Liberals on the House committee must agree to key open government changes to Bill C-58 that many groups, and past committees and reports, have called for over the past 15 years,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Part-time Professor of law and politics at the University of Ottawa. “Given that the federal Access to Information Act and open government system have been reviewed several times in the past 15 years, and that there is a consensus on key changes that must be made, there is no justifiable reason for any further delay in making the changes.”

“If these key changes are finally made, the current federal ‘Guide to Keeping Secrets Act’ will finally become a real access to information act,” said Conacher.

The public was consulted on changes to the Act and system in 2000, and again in 2009 when a House Committee issued a unanimous report calling for changes, and again in 2011 and in 2013 (twice) through the international Open Government Partnership (OGP) process. The Information Commissioner issued a report in late March 2015 recommending many key changes. And, then, as mentioned above, the Liberals have consulted on their weak international Open Government Partnership 2016-2018 plan. Every consultation has resulted in a broad, strong call from the public and citizen groups to make the key changes listed below.

In addition to the changes the Liberals promised in their 2015, election campaign, the Conservatives promised several key changes in their 2006 election platform and federal Conservative Treasury Board minister Tony Clement agreed in 2014 that the Access to Information Act needs to be changed (as did Rob Nicholson in 2009). Also, the NDP and Liberals both introduced private member bills aimed at changing the Act when the Conservatives were in power.

Democracy Watch’s Co-founder Conacher also disclosed that, to test the Liberals’ Cabinet appointment process, he applied last July to be the federal Information Commissioner. He first worked in the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office in 1988, and has almost 30 years’ experience addressing open government issues, including teaching law and politics university courses on the issues for the past six years, and meets all the requirements for the positon. He has not even been contacted by the headhunting firm the Liberals have hired to conduct the search for nominees.

The Trudeau Liberals have falsely claimed that they have changed the Cabinet appointment process to make it merit-based and independent of Cabinet. In fact, as in past governments, Cabinet ministers still control the whole process so it is still political and partisan (as several of the Liberals appointments have made clear).

Tens of thousands of voters have sent a letter through Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign or signed a petition on Change.org calling for key changes to make Cabinet appointments actually merit-based.

Conacher believes that, as with the fiasco that resulted from the Liberals’ attempt to appoint Madeleine Meilleur as Official Languages Commissioner, there are very likely many other well-qualified candidates who have applied that are not even being considered because the Trudeau Cabinet doesn’t want them in the position of Information Commissioner.

“Is the Trudeau Liberal Cabinet’s appointment process really merit-based, and are they really looking to appoint a qualified, fair watchdog to enforce the federal open government law, if they don’t even contact an applicant who has spent as much time as anyone in Canada over the past 20 years focused on strong, non-partisan enforcement of the federal and provincial open government laws?” asked Conacher. “The Trudeau Cabinet is also in a conflict of interest that prohibits it from choosing the next Information Commissioner as the Commissioner regularly investigates the departments of Trudeau Cabinet ministers.”

The key changes that Democracy Watch and the Open Government Coalition have been advocating for more than 15 years are as follows:

1. any type of record created by any entity that receives significant funding from or is connected to the government, or was created by the government and fulfills public interest functions, should be automatically covered by the access to information law and system (as in the United Kingdom);
2. all exemptions under the access to information law should be discretionary, and limited by a proof of harm test and a public interest override (as in B.C. and Alberta);
3. the access to information law and system should require every entity covered (as in the United Kingdom, U.S., Australia and New Zealand): to create detailed records for all decisions and actions and factual and policy research; to routinely disclose records that are required to be disclosed; to assign responsibility to individuals for the creation and maintenance of each record, and; to maintain each record so that it remains easily accessible;
4. the access to information law and system should allow anyone who does factual or policy research for the government to speak to the media and publicly about the topic, findings and conclusions of their research without being required to seek approval first from anyone (including their superior, the Privy Council, the Prime Minister, a Cabinet minister, or any ministerial staff person);
5. severe penalties should be created for not creating records, for not maintaining records properly, and for unjustifiable delays in responses to requests;
6. the Information Commissioner should be given explicit powers under access to information: to order the release of a record (as in the United Kingdom, Ontario, B.C. and Quebec); to penalize violators of the law with high fines, jail terms, loss of any severance payment, and partial clawback of any pension payments, and; to require systemic changes in government departments to improve compliance (as in the United Kingdom);
7. funding to the access to information system and enforcement should be increased to solve backlog problems instead of increasing administrative barriers such as limiting requests in any way, and fees for access should be lower overall and standardized for every entity covered by the access to information law and system; and
8. Parliament must be required to review the ATI Act every 5 years to ensure that problem areas are corrected, and;
9. establish a fully independent, non-partisan appointments commission (with members, appointed by non-governmental organizations like the Canadian Judicial Council, serving fixed terms of office) to conduct a merit-based search for nominees for Information Commissioner and all other officers of Parliament, and to present a short list to the Cabinet that the Cabinet has to choose from after at least consulting with all federal party leaders (even better, require that a majority of party leaders approve of the Cabinet’s choice).

– 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 Open Government Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Real scandal is that loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act allow Trudeau, Morneau and other ministers and senior government officials to make decisions they, their relatives and friends can profit from – and that sham blind trusts are legal (they all know what they put in their trusts, and they are allowed to choose and instruct their trustees)

Democracy Watch exploring court challenge of Ethics Commissioner’s decision that Morneau didn’t need a blind trust — already challenging her illegal conflict-of-interest screens, and her re-appointment by Trudeau Cabinet, in court

Loopholes must be closed to require selling investments or not taking part in any decision that directly or indirectly affects investments (as all federal public servants are required to do)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 19, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch responded to Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s decision to sell his shares in Morneau Shepell, and have some members of his family (he didn’t say who exactly) sell their shares. Even if his spouse and children sell shares they may own, if his parents or siblings or friends still own shares in the company it will unethical for him to make decisions that affect the company.

No one should trust that Morneau’s blind trust will actually be blind as he knows what he will put in the trust, and he will choose the trustee and is allowed to give the trustee general instructions, so he will very likely continue to know what exact investments he owns.

Democracy Watch is also exploring a court challenge of the Ethics Commissioner’s decision that Morneau did not need to set up a blind trust. Subsection 27(1) of the Act requires Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees (including Deputy Ministers) and other senior government officials to either sell investments they control (such as shares in a family company) or place them in a blind trust, and the section 20 definition of “controlled assets” is clearly broad enough to cover the investment scheme that Morneau set up for his Morneau Shepell shares.

Instead of requiring Minister Morneau to sell the shares or put them in a blind trust, Ethics Commissioner Dawson allowed him to set up what she calls a conflict of interest “screen” that, she claims, prevents him from taking part in discussions and decisions if he has a conflict of interest. In fact, the Ethics Commissioner’s screens are smokescreens that allow Cabinet ministers and others to take part in almost all discussions and decisions even if they have a financial interest and could profit from the decision.

Similar “screens” allow many other Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect their families, friends, and their own financial investments, which is why Democracy Watch has challenged the Ethics Commissioner’s smokescreens in court because they are illegal under the Act.

Democracy Watch has also filed a court case challenging the Ethics Commissioner for being in a conflict of interest because the Trudeau Cabinet’s re-appointed her last June to her third six-month interim term — so she is essentially currently serving at the pleasure of the Trudeau Cabinet.

Minister Morneau’s blind trust, like all blind trusts, will be a sham because he will still know that he owns the investments that he puts in the trust, and he is also allowed under subsection 27(4) to choose his trustee, and is allowed under subsection 27(5) to give them instructions concerning the investments in the trust.

“Loopholes in the federal ethics law allow Finance Minister Morneau to continue to make decisions that affect his family’s company and his investments, so to actually be ethical he must not take part in any future decisions that affect the company or the investments directly or indirectly,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Minister Morneau’s blind trust will be a sham, as all blind trusts are, because he will know what investments he puts in the trust, will choose the trustee, and can give general instructions to the trustee about the investments.”

“Prime Minister Trudeau and all other Cabinet ministers and senior government officials, should be required to sell their investments in any company and buy term deposits or Canadian governments’ bonds until they leave office. If they are not required to do this, they must be required not to take part in decisions that directly or indirectly their investments,” said Conacher.

“Democracy Watch believes the federal Ethics Commissioner’s so-called conflict of interest screens are illegal because they allow cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to avoid the clear legal requirement in the federal ethics law that says they must disclose details each time they remove themselves from any decision-making process due to their conflict of interest, and because the screens also allow them to keep secret whether they have actually removed themselves from any decision-making process,” said Conacher.

“The federal ethics law really should be called the ‘Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Act’ because it allows the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, their staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect the interests of their families, family businesses, friends and friends’ businesses, and also to profit from their own decisions,” said Conacher. “To have a democratic, ethical federal government, the law must be changed to require ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and to sell their investments that cause apparent conflicts, as all federal government employees are required to do.”

Because of a huge loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act, Cabinet ministers and other senior government officials are all allowed to participate in or make any decision that applies generally. Almost all decisions made by ministers, their staff, and appointed senior government officials (all of whom are covered by the Act) apply generally – so in fact they likely don’t have to abstain from participating in very many decision-making processes even when they have a direct conflict of interest.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson negligently refused since she was appointed in July 2007 to define the loophole — what is, and is not, a decision that applies generally? She finally did so somewhat in Minister Dominic LeBlanc’s July 2016 screen statement, writing that a general application decision is not “narrowly focused” but instead “affects the interests of a broad class of persons or entities” not just “a small group” and/or not with only one person or entity with a “dominant interest” in the matter being decided. Very unfortunately, she did not define “narrowly focused” or “small group” or “dominant interest” which means the loophole is still vague.

As well, loopholes in the Act allow ministers, their staff and appointed senior government officials to have investments in mutual funds that invest in businesses they deal with and make decisions that make the businesses money, and make themselves money. They are not required to sell these investments or put them in a so-called “blind trust” or even disclose publicly that they own them (NOTE: the loophole is in the Act’s section 20 definition of “exempt assets” that don’t have to be sold, including “(h) investments in open-ended mutual funds” that can include shares in businesses (only “controlled assets” have to be sold)). Putting an investment in a blind trust is also a charade because the public office holder still knows that they own whatever they put in the trust.

In stark contrast, all federal public servants, even those without any decision-making power, are required by Appendix B of the Treasury Board’s Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment to take “all possible steps to recognize, prevent, report, and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest” and to sell assets that create even the appearance of a conflict of interest or make another arrangement to resolve the conflict created by the asset.

In addition to Dominic LeBlanc, the Ethics Commissioner has established either a blind trust or a conflict of interest screen for the following Cabinet ministers – all of whom are allowed to make “general application” decisions that directly affect the assets or interests listed in their trust or screen:

1. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – so-called “blind” trust for 7664699 Canada Inc.;
2. Finance Minister Bill Morneau – so-called conflict of interest “screen” for Morneau Shepell Inc. or its subsidiaries, affiliates and associates;
3. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould – so-called conflict of interest “screen” for KaLoNa Group.

along with about 45 other federal Cabinet staff, advisors and appointed senior government officials, whose screen statements can been seen here, including Mary Jean McFall, Chief of Staff for Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay (see article about her “screen” 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

Real scandal is that loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act allow Trudeau, Morneau and other ministers and senior government officials to make decisions they, their relatives and friends can profit from – and that sham blind trusts are legal (they all know what they put in their trusts, and they are allowed to choose and instruct their trustees)

Democracy Watch exploring court challenge of Ethics Commissioner’s decision that Morneau didn’t need a blind trust — already challenging her illegal conflict-of-interest screens, and her re-appointment by Trudeau Cabinet, in court

Loopholes must be closed to require selling investments or not taking part in any decision that directly or indirectly affects investments (as all federal public servants are required to do)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 19, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch responded to Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s decision to sell his shares in Morneau Shepell, and have some members of his family (he didn’t say who exactly) sell their shares. Even if his spouse and children sell shares they may own, if his parents or siblings or friends still own shares in the company it will unethical for him to make decisions that affect the company.

No one should trust that Morneau’s blind trust will actually be blind as he knows what he will put in the trust, and he will choose the trustee and is allowed to give the trustee general instructions, so he will very likely continue to know what exact investments he owns.

Democracy Watch is also exploring a court challenge of the Ethics Commissioner’s decision that Morneau did not need to set up a blind trust. Subsection 27(1) of the Act requires Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees (including Deputy Ministers) and other senior government officials to either sell investments they control (such as shares in a family company) or place them in a blind trust, and the section 20 definition of “controlled assets” is clearly broad enough to cover the investment scheme that Morneau set up for his Morneau Shepell shares.

Instead of requiring Minister Morneau to sell the shares or put them in a blind trust, Ethics Commissioner Dawson allowed him to set up what she calls a conflict of interest “screen” that, she claims, prevents him from taking part in discussions and decisions if he has a conflict of interest. In fact, the Ethics Commissioner’s screens are smokescreens that allow Cabinet ministers and others to take part in almost all discussions and decisions even if they have a financial interest and could profit from the decision.

Similar “screens” allow many other Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect their families, friends, and their own financial investments, which is why Democracy Watch has challenged the Ethics Commissioner’s smokescreens in court because they are illegal under the Act.

Democracy Watch has also filed a court case challenging the Ethics Commissioner for being in a conflict of interest because the Trudeau Cabinet’s re-appointed her last June to her third six-month interim term — so she is essentially currently serving at the pleasure of the Trudeau Cabinet.

Minister Morneau’s blind trust, like all blind trusts, will be a sham because he will still know that he owns the investments that he puts in the trust, and he is also allowed under subsection 27(4) to choose his trustee, and is allowed under subsection 27(5) to give them instructions concerning the investments in the trust.

“Loopholes in the federal ethics law allow Finance Minister Morneau to continue to make decisions that affect his family’s company and his investments, so to actually be ethical he must not take part in any future decisions that affect the company or the investments directly or indirectly,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Minister Morneau’s blind trust will be a sham, as all blind trusts are, because he will know what investments he puts in the trust, will choose the trustee, and can give general instructions to the trustee about the investments.”

“Prime Minister Trudeau and all other Cabinet ministers and senior government officials, should be required to sell their investments in any company and buy term deposits or Canadian governments’ bonds until they leave office. If they are not required to do this, they must be required not to take part in decisions that directly or indirectly their investments,” said Conacher.

“Democracy Watch believes the federal Ethics Commissioner’s so-called conflict of interest screens are illegal because they allow cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to avoid the clear legal requirement in the federal ethics law that says they must disclose details each time they remove themselves from any decision-making process due to their conflict of interest, and because the screens also allow them to keep secret whether they have actually removed themselves from any decision-making process,” said Conacher.

“The federal ethics law really should be called the ‘Almost Impossible to be in a Conflict of Interest Act’ because it allows the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, their staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect the interests of their families, family businesses, friends and friends’ businesses, and also to profit from their own decisions,” said Conacher. “To have a democratic, ethical federal government, the law must be changed to require ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and to sell their investments that cause apparent conflicts, as all federal government employees are required to do.”

Because of a huge loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act, Cabinet ministers and other senior government officials are all allowed to participate in or make any decision that applies generally. Almost all decisions made by ministers, their staff, and appointed senior government officials (all of whom are covered by the Act) apply generally – so in fact they likely don’t have to abstain from participating in very many decision-making processes even when they have a direct conflict of interest.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson negligently refused since she was appointed in July 2007 to define the loophole — what is, and is not, a decision that applies generally? She finally did so somewhat in Minister Dominic LeBlanc’s July 2016 screen statement, writing that a general application decision is not “narrowly focused” but instead “affects the interests of a broad class of persons or entities” not just “a small group” and/or not with only one person or entity with a “dominant interest” in the matter being decided. Very unfortunately, she did not define “narrowly focused” or “small group” or “dominant interest” which means the loophole is still vague.

As well, loopholes in the Act allow ministers, their staff and appointed senior government officials to have investments in mutual funds that invest in businesses they deal with and make decisions that make the businesses money, and make themselves money. They are not required to sell these investments or put them in a so-called “blind trust” or even disclose publicly that they own them (NOTE: the loophole is in the Act’s section 20 definition of “exempt assets” that don’t have to be sold, including “(h) investments in open-ended mutual funds” that can include shares in businesses (only “controlled assets” have to be sold)). Putting an investment in a blind trust is also a charade because the public office holder still knows that they own whatever they put in the trust.

In stark contrast, all federal public servants, even those without any decision-making power, are required by Appendix B of the Treasury Board’s Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment to take “all possible steps to recognize, prevent, report, and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest” and to sell assets that create even the appearance of a conflict of interest or make another arrangement to resolve the conflict created by the asset.

In addition to Dominic LeBlanc, the Ethics Commissioner has established either a blind trust or a conflict of interest screen for the following Cabinet ministers – all of whom are allowed to make “general application” decisions that directly affect the assets or interests listed in their trust or screen:

1. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – so-called “blind” trust for 7664699 Canada Inc.;
2. Finance Minister Bill Morneau – so-called conflict of interest “screen” for Morneau Shepell Inc. or its subsidiaries, affiliates and associates;
3. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould – so-called conflict of interest “screen” for KaLoNa Group.

along with about 45 other federal Cabinet staff, advisors and appointed senior government officials, whose screen statements can been seen here, including Mary Jean McFall, Chief of Staff for Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay (see article about her “screen” 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

Ruling meant complaints to Conflicts Commissioner by members of the public about MLAs are ineffective, and Commissioner’s rulings are not binding

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 18, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is in the B.C. Court of Appeal challenging B.C. Supreme Court Justice Affleck’s ruling last January that no court challenges are allowed of B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser’s decisions because they are unreviewable opinions with no direct legal effect limiting the Premier’s conflicts of interest. The notice of appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal can be seen here.

The decision under appeal means that members of the public who make a complaint to the Commissioner about the Premier’s conflicts of interest are not entitled to a remedy, and are not even entitled to any assurance that the Commissioner himself has not been compromised by his own conflict of interest.

The ruling also stopped Democracy Watch’s court case filed last October challenging the Commissioner’s decisions last May and August that Premier Christy Clark’s high-priced, exclusive fundraising events don’t create conflicts of interest for her, and that the donations made at the events do not benefit her personally. Democracy Watch also challenged the Commissioner’s own conflict of interest in ruling on the situation given his son works for Premier Clark’s Cabinet.

“The court unfortunately decided that no one can challenge Commissioner Fraser’s unethical decision that it is legal and ethical for Premier Clark and Liberal Cabinet ministers to sell access to themselves at high-priced, invite-only secretive fundraising events, and that the events don’t create any conflicts of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time, and the court did not even consider this issue. For all these reasons, Democracy Watch is appealing the ruling.”

Jason Gratl of the law firm Gratl and Company, who is counsel for the case and is representing Democracy Watch in the B.C. Court of Appeal today, said: “We say simply that it is an error to find that conflicts of members of the Executive Council, including the Premier, are not always and not in this case protected by legislative privilege”.

Commissioner Fraser will have until late May to file his response to Democracy Watch’s appeal.

According to media reports, Premier Clark has hosted or attended several small, invitation-only fundraising events for the B.C. Liberals with ticket prices ranging from $2,000 to $20,000, and also attended an event in her riding association sponsored for $2,500 each by four sponsors. Premier Clark received an annual salary from the B.C. Liberals for, in part, fundraising activities over the past few years, and that is part of the reason she is in a conflict of interest.

The B.C. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits the Premier and all MLAs from exercising their official powers or performing any official duties or functions if they have an opportunity to further their private interest or if there is a reasonable perception that their private interest affects their actions or decisions (sections 2 and 3). It also prohibits them from receiving any gift or personal benefit directly or indirectly connected to their position (section 7).

Democracy Watch, which filed a complaint with Commissioner Fraser about the Premier’s fundraising events last March, takes the position that Premier Clark benefited personally and was in a conflict of interest when attending the events because she receives some of the money raised as her salary from the B.C. Liberal Party. Democracy Watch’s position is also that the events created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark that prohibit her from making decisions that affect any company or organization that had a representative at any of the events.

Commissioner Fraser ruled on May 4 and August 9, 2016 that the donations made at the events did not benefit Premier Clark personally, and did not amount to a private interest that put her in a conflict of interest. He essentially refused to rule on whether the donations created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark when she is making policy decisions that affect the donors – he didn’t even investigate to find out who attended the events.

Democracy Watch’s case also asked the court to rule that Commissioner Fraser should not have ruled on the complaints filed about the events because he was in a conflict of interest given that his son works as a deputy minister for the B.C. Liberal Cabinet. In 2012, Commissioner Fraser stepped aside and didn’t rule on a complaint filed about Premier Clark because of his son’s connection to the B.C. Liberals. Democracy Watch wanted the court to order a reexamination of the complaints by another person who is fully independent of all B.C. political parties. Justice Affleck did not consider this issue in his ruling.

“Democracy Watch’s position is that big donations made at private fundraising events where the politician is essentially selling access to themselves are a clear violation of the conflict-of-interest law, and we hope the B.C. Court of Appeal will agree and overrule Commissioner Fraser’s decision that the donations didn’t benefit Premier Clark or put her in a conflict of interest,” said Conacher. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time. Commissioner Fraser’s apparent conflict of interest and the legal errors in his ruling give the appeal court many reasons to reject his ruling on Premier Clark’s fundraising events.”

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition also called on B.C.’s political parties to change the provincial Conflict of Interest Act to make the Commissioner’s rulings clearly binding on politicians, and also to allow anyone to appeal to the courts for a review of any decision by the Commissioner, including about the Commissioner’s conflicts of interest.

“It is dangerously undemocratic for B.C. to have an ethics law that politicians can ignore, and an ethics commissioner who is an unaccountable czar, and so B.C.’s political ethics law must be changed to ensure the commissioner’s rulings are binding and that court challenges of the commissioner’s rulings and the commissioner’s conflicts of interest are allowed,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition also called on the B.C. government to make the same world-leading changes to the province’s political donation system (including at the municipal level) as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Democracy Watch detailed in a September 18th news release how inadequate the B.C. NDP’s proposed changes in Bill 3 are, and what key changes are needed to stop cash for access and the unethical influence of big money donations in B.C. politics. More than 6,000 B.C. voters have called for these changes through Democracy Watch’s Change.org petition.

“The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations,” said Conacher. “Any political party that refuses to support key changes to the B.C. political finance system changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics.”

– 30 –

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

Jason Gratl, Gratl and Company, Tel: 604-694-1919

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Ruling meant complaints to Conflicts Commissioner by members of the public about MLAs are ineffective, and Commissioner’s rulings are not binding

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 18, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is in the B.C. Court of Appeal challenging B.C. Supreme Court Justice Affleck’s ruling last January that no court challenges are allowed of B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser’s decisions because they are unreviewable opinions with no direct legal effect limiting the Premier’s conflicts of interest. The notice of appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal can be seen here.

The decision under appeal means that members of the public who make a complaint to the Commissioner about the Premier’s conflicts of interest are not entitled to a remedy, and are not even entitled to any assurance that the Commissioner himself has not been compromised by his own conflict of interest.

The ruling also stopped Democracy Watch’s court case filed last October challenging the Commissioner’s decisions last May and August that Premier Christy Clark’s high-priced, exclusive fundraising events don’t create conflicts of interest for her, and that the donations made at the events do not benefit her personally. Democracy Watch also challenged the Commissioner’s own conflict of interest in ruling on the situation given his son works for Premier Clark’s Cabinet.

“The court unfortunately decided that no one can challenge Commissioner Fraser’s unethical decision that it is legal and ethical for Premier Clark and Liberal Cabinet ministers to sell access to themselves at high-priced, invite-only secretive fundraising events, and that the events don’t create any conflicts of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time, and the court did not even consider this issue. For all these reasons, Democracy Watch is appealing the ruling.”

Jason Gratl of the law firm Gratl and Company, who is counsel for the case and is representing Democracy Watch in the B.C. Court of Appeal today, said: “We say simply that it is an error to find that conflicts of members of the Executive Council, including the Premier, are not always and not in this case protected by legislative privilege”.

Commissioner Fraser will have until late May to file his response to Democracy Watch’s appeal.

According to media reports, Premier Clark has hosted or attended several small, invitation-only fundraising events for the B.C. Liberals with ticket prices ranging from $2,000 to $20,000, and also attended an event in her riding association sponsored for $2,500 each by four sponsors. Premier Clark received an annual salary from the B.C. Liberals for, in part, fundraising activities over the past few years, and that is part of the reason she is in a conflict of interest.

The B.C. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits the Premier and all MLAs from exercising their official powers or performing any official duties or functions if they have an opportunity to further their private interest or if there is a reasonable perception that their private interest affects their actions or decisions (sections 2 and 3). It also prohibits them from receiving any gift or personal benefit directly or indirectly connected to their position (section 7).

Democracy Watch, which filed a complaint with Commissioner Fraser about the Premier’s fundraising events last March, takes the position that Premier Clark benefited personally and was in a conflict of interest when attending the events because she receives some of the money raised as her salary from the B.C. Liberal Party. Democracy Watch’s position is also that the events created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark that prohibit her from making decisions that affect any company or organization that had a representative at any of the events.

Commissioner Fraser ruled on May 4 and August 9, 2016 that the donations made at the events did not benefit Premier Clark personally, and did not amount to a private interest that put her in a conflict of interest. He essentially refused to rule on whether the donations created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark when she is making policy decisions that affect the donors – he didn’t even investigate to find out who attended the events.

Democracy Watch’s case also asked the court to rule that Commissioner Fraser should not have ruled on the complaints filed about the events because he was in a conflict of interest given that his son works as a deputy minister for the B.C. Liberal Cabinet. In 2012, Commissioner Fraser stepped aside and didn’t rule on a complaint filed about Premier Clark because of his son’s connection to the B.C. Liberals. Democracy Watch wanted the court to order a reexamination of the complaints by another person who is fully independent of all B.C. political parties. Justice Affleck did not consider this issue in his ruling.

“Democracy Watch’s position is that big donations made at private fundraising events where the politician is essentially selling access to themselves are a clear violation of the conflict-of-interest law, and we hope the B.C. Court of Appeal will agree and overrule Commissioner Fraser’s decision that the donations didn’t benefit Premier Clark or put her in a conflict of interest,” said Conacher. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time. Commissioner Fraser’s apparent conflict of interest and the legal errors in his ruling give the appeal court many reasons to reject his ruling on Premier Clark’s fundraising events.”

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition also called on B.C.’s political parties to change the provincial Conflict of Interest Act to make the Commissioner’s rulings clearly binding on politicians, and also to allow anyone to appeal to the courts for a review of any decision by the Commissioner, including about the Commissioner’s conflicts of interest.

“It is dangerously undemocratic for B.C. to have an ethics law that politicians can ignore, and an ethics commissioner who is an unaccountable czar, and so B.C.’s political ethics law must be changed to ensure the commissioner’s rulings are binding and that court challenges of the commissioner’s rulings and the commissioner’s conflicts of interest are allowed,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition also called on the B.C. government to make the same world-leading changes to the province’s political donation system (including at the municipal level) as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Democracy Watch detailed in a September 18th news release how inadequate the B.C. NDP’s proposed changes in Bill 3 are, and what key changes are needed to stop cash for access and the unethical influence of big money donations in B.C. politics. More than 6,000 B.C. voters have called for these changes through Democracy Watch’s Change.org petition.

“The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations,” said Conacher. “Any political party that refuses to support key changes to the B.C. political finance system changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics.”

– 30 –

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

Jason Gratl, Gratl and Company, Tel: 604-694-1919

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 5, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 4, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 4, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, September 18, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, September 18, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, August 22, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, August 22, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 21, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 21, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 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