Case alleges Trudeau Liberal’s consultation with only Liberals across Canada taints appointments with partisan bias that violates independence of courts and public’s Charter right to courts that appear, and are, impartial

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 15, 2024

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch is at the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Toronto challenging the Federal Court ruling in January 2023 that the federal government’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to the federal courts and all provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, and promoting judges within those courts, is constitutional. Ross & McBride LLP is representing Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case.

The case is being heard in person at the FCA at 180 Queen St. W., 7th floor, Toronto, and you click here to register to watch the hearing on Zoom.

Click here to see DWatch’s arguments that the federal appointments system is too open to political interference that violates the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts under Part VII of the Constitution, and the public’s Charter right to impartial courts under sections 7, 11(d) (and, indirectly, 24(1)).

Click here to see the Backgrounder on how political and partisan the federal appointments system is compared to the Quebec and UK systems.  The federal Minister has too much political control of the process from start to finish, from choosing the majority of the members of the advisory committees, to receiving long lists of candidates from those committees, to circulating those lists secretly to MPs, Cabinet ministers and ruling party officials before making the final choice.  The Minister also makes decisions, without any restrictions, about promoting sitting judges to a court of appeal.

The appointment process for the federal and provincial superior and appeal courts matters a lot because the Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear 90% of appeals from these courts, and many appeals are also refused by provincial appeal courts, so in many cases the provincial superior courts are the public’s actual court of last resort.

In addition, the Ford Conservative government in Ontario used the federal system as cover for changes to Ontario’s judicial appointment system made in 2021 to allow Ford to appoint only Conservatives who agree with his government’s agenda.

Details about how the federal Minister of Justice only consults with officials from Liberal Party not other parties, and only the Liberal Party’s database, in reviewing the long lists of candidates for judicial appointments submitted by advisory committees made up of people chosen mostly by the Minister have been confirmed by whistleblowers disclosing internal government emails to the Globe and Mail and CBC and Radio-Canada and La Presse, and the appointments system has been shown to favour Liberal donors.

Democracy Watch has also submitted to the court public letters and articles that lawyer associations (including the Canadian Bar Association), law professors, lawyers, experts and media have produced in the last few years expressing their concerns about how political the federal judicial appointment is, and how that undermines the public’s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.  In April 2020, the Canadian Judicial Council found that Justice Colleen Suche, spouse of then-federal Natural Resources Cabinet Minister Jim Carr, had violated the judiciary’s ethics code by providing suggestions about who the federal Cabinet should appoint as judges.

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

Department of Justice lawyers are asking the FCA to ignore almost all this evidence that Democracy Watch filed in a December 2020 affidavit (PDF) and in a second affidavit (PDF) about internal government emails reported on in La Presse October 2020.

– 30 –

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

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

Trudeau Cabinet also withheld the documents from David Johnston – no sign inquiry is pressing Trudeau Cabinet to disclose the documents

Loopholes in election, political finance, lobbying and ethics rules and weak enforcement make secret, unethical interference and misinformation legal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 11, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the submission it made on February 8th to the Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Canadian politics requesting that the Inquiry demand written, public answers from the Trudeau Cabinet about why it is withholding some Cabinet documents from the Inquiry, and also withheld them from Special Rapporteur David Johnston, and to ensure the Cabinet discloses the documents to the Inquiry.

Canada’s spy agencies have disclosed all foreign-interference related documents they have without redactions to the Inquiry so Commissioner Hogue can see all the details to determine what actually happened. The Trudeau Cabinet disclosed Cabinet confidence documents to last year’s inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act, so it clearly can disclose such records to the Hogue Inquiry.

The submission is also posted on the Inquiry’s website.  The Inquiry Commissioner and staff have not responded to the requests set out in the submission.  Democracy Watch is an intervener in the Inquiry and is represented at the Inquiry by Wade Poziomka and Nick Papageorge of Ross & McBride LLP.

“The foreign interference inquiry commissioner should not tolerate this excessive secrecy by the Trudeau Cabinet and should demand disclosure of the records,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “If the Trudeau Cabinet continues to hide records from the inquiry into foreign interference, Canadians are justified in assuming that disclosure of the records would make the Cabinet look bad, and that is why the records are being kept secret.”

On March 23, 2024, Democracy Watch also submitted to the Hogue Inquiry a list of 10 key witnesses and about 140 key questions to ask them.  The questions are aimed mainly at revealing the many loopholes in Canadian federal election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, and the lack of independent, effective enforcement of those laws.

The loopholes in the laws make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation activities legal, so no watchdog is even monitoring the activities, which makes it impossible to determine the extent of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, or after those elections up to now, or to stop the interference.

Almost all the watchdogs who are supposed to enforce the few rules that exist chosen in secret by the ruling party Cabinet, many of them serve at the pleasure of the Cabinet, most don’t do inspections or audits, most are not required to issue public rulings on every allegation they investigate, and in many cases there are no penalties for violating the laws.  As a result, their enforcement is weak and ineffective and does little to discourage violations.

“A foreign-agent registry will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Conacher. “Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes and flaws in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

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

Click here to see the Backgrounder that summarizes all the loopholes and weak enforcement problems that make foreign interference legal and easy to do.

Click here to see summary list of 17 key changes to stop foreign interference.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign and Open Government Campaign

If lobbyists are allowed to campaign for and assist politicians and then lobby them, then unethical, favour-trading lobbying will be allowed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 8, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is at the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Ottawa appealing the June 2023 Federal Court ruling that it was reasonable for federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger to let lobbyists Ben Bergen and Dana O’Born of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) off the hook even though they lobbied Liberal Cabinet minister Chrystia Freeland’s department and staff soon after co-managing her election campaign and serving on her riding association executive.

Democracy Watch’s two cases are being heard together given they are about the same situation, and DWatch argues that Bergen and O’Born’s lobbying violated the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct Rule 6 which was in force at the time and which, according to the Commissioner’s own website, prohibits lobbyists from putting a politician in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, and Rule 9 which prohibits lobbying a politician or their staff for years after campaign or fundraising for them or assisting them in any other significant way.

Democracy Watch is asking the FCA to overturn the Commissioner’s and Federal Court’s rulings and find that lobbyists who campaign for or assist politicians and then lobby them soon afterwards put them in an apparent conflict of interest.  Another similar situation came to light recently involving Jenni Byrne, who assisted Pierre Poilievre’s campaign to win the Conservative Party leadership, and has served as an adviser since, has been linked to lobbying of Poilievre’s staff and Shadow Cabinet ministers.

The hearing of the appeal is at 9:30 am at the Federal Court Building, 90 Sparks St., 10^th floor, Ottawa, and also online on Zoom (click here to register to watch the hearing on Zoom).  The case is FCA File No. A-181-23.  Democracy Watch is represented by Andrew Montague-Reinholdt and Rhian Foley of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP.

“The federal lobbying ethics code prohibits anyone from lobbying a Cabinet minister or their officials for years after helping them get elected or assisting them in a significant way, and so hopefully the Federal Court of Appeal will overrule the Commissioner of Lobbying and find Minister Freeland’s former election campaign and riding association managers guilty of violating the code given they lobbied many senior officials in Minister Freeland’s former department soon after co-managing her election campaign,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

 “By letting the CCI lobbyists off the hook, issuing other similarly weak rulings in recent years letting off other unethical lobbyists, and by gutting key ethical lobbying rules, Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger is continuing the negligent enforcement record of her predecessor Karen Shepherd who let off 84% of the lobbyists who violated the law during her decade as commissioner,” said Conacher.

Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger finally issued two rulings in March 2020 (a completely unjustifiable delay of almost three years after Democracy Watch filed its complaint) that Mr. Bergen and Ms. O’Born did not violate Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct rules 6, 8, 9 or 10 which prohibit assisting a politician in any significant way and then lobbying their office or officials afterwards.

The cases have been delayed multiple times.  First in fall 2020 waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) to decide whether to allow DWatch to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling on its case challenging former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd’s decision not to investigate the Aga Khan for giving Justin Trudeau’s family and friends a trip to his private Bahamas island.  Incredibly, the FCA ruled that the public has no right to have a complaint ruled on by the Commissioner, and therefore no right to challenge a decision not to investigate a complaint.  The SCC decided not to hear DWatch’s appeal.

Then, the Trudeau Cabinet filed a motion to have Democracy Watch’s cases thrown out, but the Federal Court rejected the motion because in the Bergen and O’Born cases DWatch is challenging the Commissioner’s final rulings under section 10.5 of the Lobbying Act after completing her investigations.  In contrast, in the Aga Khan case, the Commissioner refused to investigate under subsection 10.4(1) of the Act.

– 30 –

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

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

Nine court cases challenge Commissioner’s first three public rulings on lobbying ethics rule since July 2016, and failure to penalize six lobbyists who violated law

Eight other cases DWatch has filed challenging Commissioner’s rulings from 2021-2023 on hold while courts decide the first nine cases

Huge loopholes in law allow for secret, unethical lobbying, which Premier Ford promised to review after Auditor General’s report on the Greenbelt scandal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, April 5, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is at the Ontario Court of Appeal appealing an August 2022 ruling of a Divisional Court panel of justices that upheld a November 2021 ruling by a judge that unjustifiably blocked nine court cases Democracy Watch filed in December 2020 challenging nine rulings by Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner J. David Wake that let lobbyists off even though they clearly violated Ontario’s lobbying law.

DWatch is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the Divisional Court rulings and let DWatch’s nine cases go ahead so the courts will review the Integrity Commissioner’s rulings and hopefully reject them. Nick Papageorge and Wade Poziomka of Ross McBride LLP are representing DWatch for the cases.

To watch the appeal hearing on Zoom at 10 am ET today, click here (Meeting passcode is: 442189) or it can be viewed in person at Courtroom #1, Court of Appeal for Ontario, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto.

See in this Backgrounder details about the nine cases, and about an additional eight cases DWatch filed in 2021, 2022 and 2023 challenging eight other Commissioner rulings.  The other eight cases are hold until the rulings are issued in the initial nine cases.  In total, Democracy Watch is challenging 17 rulings issued by the Integrity Commissioner from 2020-2023.

Three of the nine cases challenge the first three public rulings of the Integrity Commissioner’s unknown number of decisions in the past few years that have let dozens of people (and maybe more) violate section 3.4 of Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (LR Act) by fundraising or campaigning or working for a politician and lobbying them at the same time or soon afterwards.

It is likely that many of the lobbyists involved in the situations ruled on were advising Ford and/or in senior PC Party positions while they continued to lobby Ford’s Cabinet on long-term care, property development, COVID-19 relief, mining, and other big issues.  Click here to see a fairly complete list of lobbyists who were lobbying unethically from 2018-2020, and click here to see Toronto Star articles from 2021 about even more lobbyists lobbying the Ford Cabinet unethically.

Commissioner Wake’s three rulings are based on a very weak Interpretation Bulletin he issued in June 2020 that claims when a lobbyist assists a politician with fundraising or campaigning or gives them a gift, the conflict of interest created by the assistance or gift disappears soon afterwards, so the lobbyist can then lobby the politician and their staff.

All other commissioners in Canada have ruled that the conflict of interest created by assisting a politician in any significant way lasts for several years.  For example, until recent changes, the federal Commissioner of Lobbying’s ruling said the conflict lasts four years.  The federal lobbying law also prohibits Cabinet staff from lobbying for five years after leaving their position (s. 10.11 – though it has loopholes).  Click here to see Backgrounder on Conflict of Interest Rule in Ontario’s Lobbying Law.

The other six cases challenge Commissioner Wake’s arbitrary failure to penalize six lobbyists who violated Ontario’s lobbying law in serious ways, mainly by failing to register and disclose their lobbying for a year or more.  The Commissioner failed to penalize 23 of 27 lobbyists (85%) who violated the law from 2018-2020.

During the 2019-2020 fiscal year, Commissioner Wake only penalized one lobbyist, Lawrence Gold, for violating LR Act by failing to register and disclose his lobbying for a long period of time.  The Commissioner only imposed the minimum penalty of naming Mr. Gold publicly.  Four of the other six lobbyists who were not penalized by the Commissioner did exactly the same thing as Mr. Gold.  The other two lobbyists violated the law by lobbying politicians after campaigning for them or giving them gifts, in violation of section 3.4 of the LR Act.

All nine cases also ask the courts to rule that Commissioner Wake was biased when he issued the six rulings, given he knew that he would need the unanimous approval of Ford’s Cabinet and all MPPs to be re-appointed for a second five-year term, which happened on December 1, 2020 (although many MPPs were not present for that snap vote).

“Dozens of people who have helped or worked for Doug Ford or his Cabinet ministers or the PC Party have set themselves up in lobbying firms and, even though many of them have never lobbied before, big businesses are hiring them because they know it will get them inside access to Ford and his ministers,” Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “Democracy Watch is challenging the first three very weak decisions that Ontario’s so-called Integrity Commissioner has made public that have allowed lobbyists to corrupt Ontario government policy-making as they cash in on their so-called public service. Hopefully the court of appeal will allow these cases to go ahead and, in the end, order the Commissioner to stop this unethical lobbying of Ford’s Cabinet.”

“Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner has also failed to penalize almost all the lobbyists he has found in violation of the lobbying law since 2018, and so Democracy Watch is taking the commissioner to court to challenge the worst of his many bad rulings,” said Conacher.  “Hopefully the courts will issue rulings that require the Commissioner to start enforcing the lobbying rules strictly by penalizing all lobbyists who violate the law.”

Huge loopholes in the LR Act allow countless other lobbyists to lobby in secret and unethically.  None of the following lobbying activities are required to be disclosed: unpaid lobbying, business lobbying or non-profit organization lobbying of less than 50 hours a year, lobbying about the enforcement of a law, or in response to a request for feedback from a Minister, official or MPP.  As a result, anyone lobbying in these ways is also allowed to lobby secretly and unethically.

In response to the August 2023 Auditor General report on the scandal-plagued decision by the Ford government to open up development in the Greenbelt, Premier Ford created a working group and promised to review and strengthen Ontario’s political finance, ethics and lobbying laws, but it seems that all that has happened since is that a memo was sent to political staff reminding them to follow ethics rules.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Lobbying firm interconnected with Byrne’s firm, with lobbyists who seem to work for both firms lobbying top federal Conservatives, puts Poilievre in an appearance of a conflict of interest in violation of ethical lobbying code

Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger biased as she was handpicked by Trudeau Cabinet through secretive, PMO-controlled process, and is up for reappointment by the Cabinet at end of year – she should not investigate

Ruling on complaint should come after ruling in DWatch court case about activities by lobbyists that create an apparent conflict of interest

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, April 1, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger requesting that she ensure an independent investigation and ruling on the activities of lobbyists registered under lobbying firm Forecheck Strategies, which has several interconnections with the lobbying firm of Jenni Byrne, who is one of the top advisors to Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre and also advised him during his party leadership campaign.

The evidence set out in the letter points to Forecheck Strategies, which was created the first business day after Pierre Poilievre became Conservative Party leader, as being a façade or front for Jenni Byrne and Associates, created solely to allow Jenni Byrne’s associates to lobby the associates of the politician she is advising (and possibly, an investigation may show, also to lobby Mr. Poilievre directly).

As section 2 of the letter details, as revealed recently in a Globe and Mail article and a CBC.ca article and in the federal Registry of Lobbyists and LinkedIn, Forecheck Strategies and Jenni Byrne and Associates share senior executives and staff and an office, and have staff registered to lobby under Forecheck’s name who are listed (and identify themselves) only as staff of Ms. Byrne’s firm, and they have lobbied at least two of Mr. Poilievre’s staff, at least 13 of his Shadow Cabinet Ministers, and at least one Conservative MP, and possibly even Mr. Poilievre directly, given that loopholes in the Lobbying Act mean not all details of lobbying are disclosed in the Registry.

As section 1 of the letter details, it is a violation of the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct to create an appearance of a conflict of interest for a politician or other public official by lobbying them whenever they have a sense of obligation to you or your clients (Rule 4.3) or when they have close relationship with you or your clients (Rule 4.2), or by lobbying them at the same time or after doing favours or assisting them in some way that makes them feel a sense of obligation to protect your or your clients’ interests (Rule 4.1).  It is a violation of the Lobbying Act to fail to register paid lobbying accurately.

The Commissioner of Lobbying is required by the Act to investigate and issue a public ruling when a situation raises enough questions that an investigation is needed to ensure compliance with the Act or the Code, which is a low threshold.

Any reasonable person, knowing the above facts (which are all the facts that can be known as an outside observer), would conclude that Ms. Byrne’s work for Mr. Poilievre, combined with her direct connections with Forecheck’s founders and many interconnections between Forecheck and her firm, creates an appearance of a conflict for Mr. Poilievre and other Conservatives when someone from Forecheck lobbies them between their duty as MPs to uphold the public interest and their sense of obligation to do something to help the private interests the lobbyist represents.

If the Commissioner of Lobbying fails to enforce Rules 4.1 to 4.3 of the Lobbyists’ Code in this way, it will create another huge loophole in the Code (adding to the loopholes put into the new version of the Code last year by the Commissioner and House Ethics Committee).  Any lobby firm would be able to have its partners or lobbyists fundraise or campaign for or do other favours for party leaders, parties, MPs and senators and their staff, and then use a partner lobbying firm as  a facade or front to lobby those party leaders, MPs and senators and their staff.

“If Commissioner Bélanger handles this complaint, and does not interpret the lobbying code rules in a way that prohibits the sham scheme that associates of Jenni Byrne concocted to make money through unethical lobbying of federal Conservative politicians, then the Commissioner will not only add to the evidence that she is a dedicated lapdog who will do almost anything to encourage and allow unethical lobbying, but also that the new lobbyists’ code that she drafted and has claimed is aimed at ensuring transparent and ethical lobbying actually has a huge loophole that allows for clearly unethical lobbying,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Section 3 of Democracy Watch’s letter also requests that Commissioner Bélanger delegate the investigations and rulings to a provincial ethics or lobbying commissioner who has no ties to any political party.  Commissioner Bélanger was handpicked by Prime Minister Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process, and has also made several public statements that she believes lobbyists are good and that public officials should be trusted, and she is also possibly up for re-appointment for a second seven-year term by the Trudeau Cabinet at the end of 2024.

For these reasons, Democracy Watch’s position is that Commissioner Bélanger is biased against enforcing the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code effectively, especially in situations involving the Trudeau Cabinet.

“Given that she was handpicked by Trudeau through a secretive, PMO-controlled process, and is up for reappointment by the Trudeau Cabinet at the end of this year, the Lobbying Commissioner is in a conflict of interest in dealing with this situation and so must delegate the investigation to a person who is independent of her and all political parties,” said Conacher.

Finally, section 4 of Democracy Watch’s letter requests that a ruling not be issued on the situation described in this letter until the FCA and Supreme Court of Canada have issued final rulings in DWatch ongoing court case challenging two rulings by the Commissioner concerning lobbying by people who co-chaired Chrystia Freeland’s 2015 election campaign and whether that created a sense of obligation/appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of Ms. Freeland.

The Lobbying Act was required to be reviewed by the House Ethics Committee 2017 and 2022, and the Committee will hopefully finally undertake the review in the next couple of months.  Click here to see details about the changes needed to close loopholes and strengthen enforcement and penalties for the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

– 30 –

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

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

Loopholes in election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics rules make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation legal

Loopholes and weak, partisan enforcement mean it’s impossible to know extent of interference during past elections or since then, or to stop it

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, March 28, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the list of 10 key witnesses and about 140 key questions to ask them that it has submitted to the Hogue Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Canadian politics.  Democracy Watch is an intervener in the Inquiry and is represented at the Inquiry by Wade Poziomka and Nick Papageorge of Ross & McBride LLP.

About half of the questions are for the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, both of whom are testifying today.

The questions are aimed mainly at revealing the many loopholes in Canadian federal election, donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, and the lack of independent, effective enforcement of those laws.

The loopholes in the laws make secret, unethical foreign interference and misinformation activities legal, so no watchdog is even monitoring the activities, which makes it impossible to determine the extent of interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, or before or after those elections up to now, or to stop the interference.

Almost all the watchdogs who are supposed to enforce the few effective rules that exist are chosen in secret by the ruling party Cabinet, many of them serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister or Cabinet ministers, most don’t do inspections or audits, most are not required to issue public rulings on every allegation they investigate, and in many cases there are no penalties for violating the laws.

As a result, their enforcement is weak and ineffective and does little to discourage violations.

“A foreign-agent registry will not be enough to stop foreign interference in Canadian politics, especially if it is full of loopholes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Last year the lobbying commissioner gutted ethical lobbying rules, and MPs added a loophole to their ethics code so foreign-sponsored lobby groups can sponsor intern spies in their offices.  Those changes, combined with the existing loopholes and flaws in Canada’s election, political donation and spending, lobbying and ethics laws, make it even easier than it was in the past for foreign governments, businesses and organizations to influence Canadian politics and politicians in secret, including by making false claims on social media sites.”

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

Click here to see the Backgrounder that summarizes all the loopholes and weak enforcement problems that make foreign interference legal and easy to do.

Click here to see summary list of 17 key changes to stop foreign interference.

– 30 –

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

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

Stage 1 hearing of case is about whether errors in Ethics Commissioner rulings can be challenged in court when government tries to prohibit challenges

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that the Commissioner found Trudeau had

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 25, 2024

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that the court case it filed in June 2021 is finally in the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) today, although still at a preliminary stage.  The case challenges Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.

The hearing is at the FCA today at 9:30 am in Ottawa at the Thomas D’Arcy McGee Building, 90 Sparks Street, 10th Floor.  The case is FCA file #A-169-21, and anyone can click here and register to watch the hearing on Zoom.  Michael Fisher of Ravenlaw is representing Democracy Watch in the case.

The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, which is strange given the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other member of the federal Cabinet.  Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the FCA.  In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case, and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.

Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.

The ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case will set a precedent that not only determines whether DWatch’s case challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling will go ahead, but also determines whether anyone can challenge errors in the rulings of any federal agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the law that governs it.

Democracy Watch is arguing that anyone should be able to challenge errors in Ethics Commissioner and other tribunal rulings in court to ensure that they interpret and enforce the laws they enforce properly. That’s why we have courts, to ensure that every government official, include watchdogs and administrative enforcement agencies, comply with the law.

Click here to see the Backgrounder summarizing the four key errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling.

“Hopefully the court will allow the case to go ahead challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s error-filled ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau participating in the WE Charity grant approval, and will set a precedent that allows future cases challenging of errors in rulings by all federal agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals to ensure that they always enforce the law properly,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Former Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion contradicted himself, tied himself into knots, and cut the federal ethics law into pieces in his ruling letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he clearly violated the federal conflict of interest law by participating, and having his office staff participate, in the WE Charity grant approval,” said Conacher.  “Former Ethics Commissioner Dion rolled over like a lapdog and again failed to properly enforce the ethics law, and Democracy Watch is challenging his ruling in court because it sets a very bad precedent that will allow politicians and government officials to take part in future decisions to hand out money to individuals and organizations that have close relations with their families.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign

Group already has ongoing lawsuit challenging constitutionality of too-political federal judicial appointments and promotions system

Premier Ford’s recent comments/actions make it clear the system is too political, which violates judicial independence and Charter rights of people in court cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 29, 2024

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it will file a court case challenging Ontario’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to provincial courts.  Ross & McBride LLP will represent Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case.

Recent comments by Premier Doug Ford have made it clear that the changes his Progressive Conservative government made in 2021 to Ontario’s judicial appointment system, which gave the Attorney General (AG) more power and control over the appointment process, are intended to allow the government to appoint only Conservatives as judges.

At a news conference last Friday, Premier Ford confirmed that was the intent of the changes when he said: “I’m not going to appoint some NDP or some Liberal” and “I’m appointing judges who believe in what we believe in”.  He said similar statements in the Legislature on Monday and on Tuesday and on Wednesday.

As the Toronto Star reported last week, Premier Ford’s government also recently appointed two former Premier’s Office senior staff to the province’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC), one as Chair and another as a member, and they are also both registered to lobby the Ford government.

“Democracy Watch will file a court case challenging the Ford government’s appointment system for judges because it is open to political interference, patronage and cronyism that violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the courts, independence that is needed to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The previous Ontario judicial appointments system which was in place since 1988 was more independent, but it could have been improved to make it even less under Cabinet control like Quebec’s world-leading system was made just over a decade ago.”

In Quebec’s appointment system, the Minister only appoints (in consultation with others) at most one member of the 5-6 member selection committee, and the committee only recommends three candidates for each open position (Click here and see sections 14-16 and 26).  In the UK system, the committee only recommends one candidate, and the minister must explain in writing to the committee if s/he rejects the recommended candidate.

In contrast, the Ford government’s 2021 changes increased from 7 to 10 (out of 13 total) the number of people the AG appoints as members of the province’s JAAC, and increased from 2 or more to 6 or more the number of candidates the JAAC is required to recommend to the AG for each open position.  The AG is also allowed to reject the list of candidates recommended by the JAAC and require a new list, and to consult with anyone, including ruling party members, about the candidates.  These changes open up the appointments system to political interference, patronage and cronyism (Click here to see Backgrounder for more details).

Ontario’s 2021 changes made Ontario’s appointment system similar to the federal system (the federal Minister appoints 6 of 7 members of the federal Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs), and the JACs send long lists of candidates to the Minister, who then consults with many ruling party politicians and members).

Democracy Watch has an ongoing court case now at the Federal Court of Appeal challenging the federal government’s system for appointing judges because it is open to political interference that violates the public’s Charter right to impartial courts, and the constitutional principle that guarantees the structural independence of judges so that the public can have confidence in the independence and impartiality of the courts.

Democracy Watch’s position is that the 2021 changes made Ontario’s system for appointing judges similarly unconstitutionally political and partisan.

The Advocates’ Society, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association all recently expressed similar concerns about Premier Ford’s comments and actions, and they also criticized the changes when they were made in 2021.

– 30 –

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

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

Unprecedented study of donations and loans from 2016-2022 shows about 75% of donors donate only about $75 a year, only 5% donate more than $1,000

Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funneling of donations, unethical influence, and foreign interference in Canadian politics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 21, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its unprecedented study of political donations, loans and taxpayer-funded subsidies to the main federal parties from 2016-2022 (2023 is not included because most final stats are not yet available).

The statistics show that the current political finance system is rigged in favour of a few wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks, and is unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and essentially a legalized bribery system.

The conclusions of the study are that to have fair, ethical and democratic federal elections and policy-making processes, the annual donation and loan limit should be lowered to $75, and if the parties can prove they can’t raise enough funding to inform voters, run their operations and election campaigns then public funding should be provided by matching donations, giving loans from a public fund (instead of allowing unethical loans from federally regulated banks), and giving election cost reimbursements to all parties (not just the main parties).

The same changes are needed across Canada (except in Quebec which already has a $100 donation limit, donation-matching and other public funding), especially in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon where unlimited donations are still allowed from businesses, unions, other organizations and individuals.

Click here to see an infographic webpage that summarizes the key findings of the study, and contains links to detailed charts and analytical documents.

The key findings of the study are as follows:

1. About 75% of donors to the main federal parties donate only about $75 a year;

2. Only 5% of donors donate more than $1,000 a year – only 11,000 voters out of Canada’s total of more than 27 million voters donate more than $1,000;

3. Because their donations are so much larger than other donors, these 11,000 donors who donate $1,000+ provide on average 30% of the total raised by the main parties each year (especially to the Liberals and Conservatives).

4. The system also favours wealthy nomination contestants as they are allowed to donate $1,000 to their own campaign, wealthy election candidates who are allowed to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy party leadership contestants who are allowed to donate $25,000 to their own campaign;

5. Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funnelling of large amounts of money to federal parties, including foreign governments funnelling donations through front-groups and individuals in Canada, and gives big money donors unethical influence over politicians;

6. Only about 240,000 voters donate each year out of more than 27 million voters, and 9 out of 10 donate less than $500, and they donate $52 million on average to the main parties;

7. Most of the main parties spend what they raise each year, and rely on huge loans from federally regulated banks and financial institutions to pay for their election campaigns (these loans should instead come from a public fund);

8. Lowering the donation limit to $75 would mean the parties would have to attract $75 donations from only about 500,000 more voters (out of the more than 26 million who don’t donate now) to raise the same amount they currently raise each year (the Conservatives would need about 220,000 more donors, the Liberals about 170,000, the NDP about 63,000, the Greens about 30,000 and the Bloc about 10,000), and;

9. Taxpayers subsidize the main parties with about $27 million each year in tax deductions for donations (that mostly go to wealthy donors, and tens of millions more during election years), and about $63 million in post-election campaign cost reimbursements (that almost always goes only to the main parties and their candidates). It would be much more democratic to use this public funding to match donations and reimburse all parties’ and candidates’ election costs.

“Canada’s current undemocratic and unfair big money political finance system is rigged in favour of wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, big parties and the big banks, and the best way to make the system fair and to stop the unethical influence of big money in Canadian politics is to stop big money donations and loans and, if the parties can prove they need it, provide donation-matching public funding, loans from a public fund and election campaign cost reimbursements to all parties and candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, whose PhD thesis contains most of the research, and detailed recommendations, in Chapters 3 and 6 of the thesis. Democracy Watch thanks Cameron Flanagan and Justin Myers for their assistance in completing the political donation calculations for each year.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign and Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign