News – Page 40 – Democracy Watch

Lawsuit says Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline approval appears corrupted by $550,000 in donations to B.C. Liberal Party

Posted on January 31, 2017July 24, 2017 by Bradford

Kinder Morgan and oil companies who plan to ship bitumen through the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline donated more than $550,000 to the B.C. Liberals in the past five years, putting Premier Clark and her Cabinet in a conflict of interest that prohibited them from making the pipeline approval decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, January 31, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the PIPE UP Network applied to the B.C. Supreme Court for an order quashing the approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline approval on the basis that more than $550,000 in donations to the B.C. Liberal Party by Kinder Morgan and pipeline-connected companies created an apparent conflict of interest that prohibited Premier Christy Clark, Environment Minister Mary Polak and Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman from deciding the pipeline approval.

Democracy Watch and PIPE UP also contend that the apparent conflict of interest was compounded by the fact that Premier Clark benefited personally from the donations as she received a $50,000 salary each year from the party, a total salary of $300,000, during the same years the donations were made. The conflict of interest was also created because Premier Clark and Cabinet ministers participated in obtaining some of the donations at high-priced, secretive “cash-for-access” fundraising events.

“The Premier may have recently stopped receiving her $50,000 salary each year from the B.C. Liberal Party but that does nothing to erase the conflicts of interest and appearance of bias created by her receiving more than $300,000 in salary from the party during the same years Kinder Morgan and pipeline-connected companies donated more than $550,000 to the party,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Lynn Perrin, a Director of the PIPE UP Network, stated “The fate of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which puts our oceans and rivers at extreme risk, should be decided by people who do not have their hands in the pockets of Kinder Morgan and pipeline-connected companies.”

“B.C.’s Conflict of Interest Commissioner in 1993 and 2003, and the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously in 2009, have ruled that political donations by companies and other lobbyists create conflicts of interest that mean politicians can’t make decisions that affect the companies, and we hope the B.C. courts will enforce this key ethical government standard,” said Conacher.

“To stop big money political donations from tainting B.C. politics, all the parties must work together to make changes that match Quebec’s world-leading system by banning donations from corporations, unions and other organizations and limiting individual donations to $100 a year,” said Conacher.

A copy of the lawsuit application and supporting affidavits can be seen here.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Democracy Watch, Cell: 416-546-3443
Lynn Perrin, PIPE UP Network, Tel: 604-309-9369
Jason Gratl, legal counsel, Tel: 604-317-1919
[email protected]

See below for Backgrounder on flaws in B.C.’s and other Canadian political finance systems, and how to democratize them.

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

Backgrounder on
How Flaws in British Columbia’s and Other Canadian Political Finance Systems Allow for Unethical Big Money Donations, and How to Democratize the Systems

(Democracy Watch: January 2017)

Political finance systems across Canada, other than Quebec’s provincial system, are all undemocratic and unethical in various ways, and B.C.’s system is one of the worst.

B.C., Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon have the most undemocratic and unethical political finance systems in Canada as they allow unlimited donations from corporations, unions and other organizations, and individuals, even if they are not located in or don’t live in the jurisdiction. Saskatchewan is almost as bad, with the only difference being that individual donors have to be a Canadian citizen.

New Brunswick, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are also almost as bad because they allow undemocratically high donations from corporations, unions and organizations (and New Brunswick allows those donations to come from outside the province).

And while the federal government, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario have banned corporate and union donations, they still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford.

Only Quebec has stopped the unethical influence of big money donations by stopping big money donations. In 2013, the Quebec government lowered provincial individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, ($200 during an election year), with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and also required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates (NOTE: It is, of course, still possible that bribery is occurring at a high rate in Quebec, as no law, police force or tax agency can effectively stop someone from giving a politician or public official a bag of cash that they spend slowly over the rest of their life).

Donations to parties in Quebec before 2013, to the federal parties since 2007, and to Toronto city councillors, show clearly that unethical big money cash-for-access will continue even in the jurisdictions that have banned corporate and union donations as long as their donation limit is still higher than an average voter can afford.

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. Ontario 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 Alberta did an audit in 2012 it found dozens of illegal donations.

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.

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 ($4,866,373.76 out of $21,276,897.57 total raised).

As well, 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 in 2014 to qualify to attend a Laurier Club event). The Ontario Liberals also hold exclusive Red Trillium Club events for anyone who donates $1,000 or more.

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.

The key changes that must be made in B.C., and across Canada, to democratize all political finance systems are as follows (and in each province and territory, similar changes should be to the municipal political finance law, taking into account in some jurisdictions that there are no political parties at the municipal level):

ban donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (as Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and the federal government have);
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);
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);
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;
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);
require disclosure of how much any individual or interest group spends on each issue campaign, and their funding sources. If that reveals a huge disparity in funding, and funding sources, then donations to issue campaigns, or at least paid campaign ads, should also be limited;
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 (as Ontario has done) with riding associations);
give annual public funding for each party matching up to the first $200,000 to $500,000 it raises (similar to Quebec, with the amount depending on the size of the province – the first $1 million raised could be matched at the federal level);
give public funding matching up to $10,000 to $25,000 that each nomination race and election candidate (including an independent candidate) raises (similar to Quebec’s matching funding system, and again depending on the size of the riding), and public funding matching up to $50,000 to $100,000 that each party leadership campaign candidate raises (again depending on the size of the party and jurisdiction of the leadership race);
require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
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;
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;
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.

To explain some of the above proposals, some commentators argue against the per-vote subsidy – even though it most closely upholds the key democratic principle of one-person, one-vote – by making the absurd claim that it forces voters to give money to parties they don’t support. Actually, the $1-2 amount comes from the taxes everyone pays and goes only to the party each person supports (and only if they vote).

Matching funds raised is also more democratic than other options as a party or candidate needs the support of many voters in order to access significant funds, and the matching helps equalize the funding available to all.

True, the per-vote subsidy should not be too high – no party should receive more than one-half of its annual funding from it to ensure the parties can’t unjustifiably prosper by baiting voters with false promises to boost their support during an election.

Many commentators also ignore the fact that the current voting system and other subsidies shift a lot of taxpayer money in undemocratic directions. For example, in the 2011 federal election the Conservatives received 24 MPs more than they deserved (they received 39.6 percent of the vote, but 54 percent of the MPs). Each of those MPs received about $440,000 annually in salary and for their offices, so the Conservatives received an undemocratic subsidy of $10.5 million every year until the 2015 election. Now the Liberals are receiving roughly the same amount as an unfair subsidy.

As well, the average individual donation to each federal party is only $100-250 yet people who donate up to $400 receive a 75% tax deduction. Even worse, wealthy people who can afford to donate between $1,275 and the $1,550 maximum allowed receive the huge subsidy of almost half that total ($650) as a tax deduction. These taxpayer-funded subsidies add up to more than $20 million annually for all federal parties.

Compared to these subsidies, it is much more democratic to have a combination of a base amount from a per-vote subsidy for parties, only individuals allowed to donate only a small amount (verified by the election watchdog agency), and matching public funding. Such a system also ensures only parties that continue to appeal to voters in between elections will prosper financially.

Some parties and candidates will continue to claim they need more money to reach and engage with voters even though there is little evidence to back their claims, especially given the relatively low-cost, broad reach of email and social media.

If anything, the reimbursement of half their election expenses that federal parties and candidates receive for obtaining a very low percentage of the vote should be reduced. Federal parties are given 50% of their election expenses if the party receives 2% or more of the national vote (or 5% or more of the vote in any riding), and election candidates get back 60% of their expenses if they receive 10% or more of their riding vote. These subsidies total about 60% of the total amount spent by all parties and candidates each election (about $30 million alone for an average federal election).

Six out of 10 provinces have similar party and candidate election expense subsidies, while two provinces only subsidize candidates – only B.C. and Alberta and the three territories don’t provide them.

Other key changes needed to stop big money include limiting loans as strictly as donations. Currently, financial institutions (and in some jurisdictions also businesses, unions and individuals) can loan unlimited amounts to parties and candidates.

Spending on advertising by third party interest groups must be limited leading up to election day – only the federal government, B.C., Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec currently have such limits – and each third party should have to prove that its members (or, in the case of a business, shareholders) approved the spending.

Election and ethics watchdogs must be required to do regular audits, including of politicians’ bank accounts, to ensure everyone follows all the rules. 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 organizers of any fundraising event).

Finally, to ensure fair issue debates in between elections, we should start with requiring disclosure of how much any individual or interest group spends on each issue campaign, and their funding sources. If that reveals a huge disparity in funding, and funding sources, then donations to issue campaigns, or at least paid campaign ads, should also be limited.

These changes won’t stop bribery but they will discourage it by making it more clearly illegal, and by increasing the chances of getting caught. Until all Canadian jurisdictions (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal) make these changes, big money will continue to dominate, and corrupt, our politics.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition.

Tel: 613-241-5179 Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Big Money in Politics Across Canada petition movement on Change.org.

Federal Liberal’s proposal to make some cash-for-access fundraising events more transparent a charade – won’t stop cash-for-access or the unethical influence of big money donations

Posted on January 27, 2017July 24, 2017 by Bradford

MPs still allowed to do secret cash-for-access events – and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more, and gave them special access to Cabinet ministers

Nation-wide coalition representing 3.5 million voters calls for real changes to democratize federal political finance system by matching Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, January 27, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, responding to the federal Liberal’s proposed plan to make Cabinet ministers’s and party leaders’ cash-for-access fundraising events more transparent, which is a charade that won’t stop cash for access or the unethical influence of big money donations, Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total membership of 3.5 million Canadians), and joined by the thousands of voters who have signed an online Change.org petition, called on the federal political parties to make real changes that will actually democratize the federal political finance system by matching Quebec’s world-leading measures:

lowering the annual individual donation limit from $3,100 to $100 (as in Quebec, with donations routed through the election agency to prevent funnelling);
also lowering the limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign to $100;
prohibiting loans to parties except from a public fund;
if the parties can prove they need it, implement maximum $1 per-vote annual public funding (with part of funding shared with riding associations, as Ontario has done), and;
if the parties can prove they need it, also implement donation-matching public funding for parties and candidates (including independent candidates).

The current federal annual donation limit to each party is undemocratically high, and donations to parties in Quebec, the federal parties in the past few years, and
to Toronto city councillors, show clearly that cash-for-access will continue at the federal level as long as the donation limit is high. In 2013, the Quebec government lowered provincial individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, ($200 during an election year), with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and also required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Even if the Liberals’ proposed changes are made, cash-for-access will still be allowed at the now public events, and also:

the federal Liberals’ special events will still be allowed at which donors who donate $1,500 or more annually (they become members of the exclusive Laurier Club) get special access to the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers. As the Globe and Mail reported in the fall, 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 in 2014 to qualify to attend a Laurier Club event).
Prime Minister Trudeau, Cabinet ministers, opposition leaders and MPs, and their staff, will also still be allowed to solicit donations by phone and email from people who want to meet with them, and they will likely meet and communicate with top donors more than with people who don’t donate.

The results of Democracy Watch’s research 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). These figures are based on donations disclosed and listed in Elections Canada’s Registered Party Financial Transactions Return database which has some problems and inaccuracies in it.

“The federal Liberals’ proposal to make Cabinet minister and party leaders cash-for-access fundraising events more transparent is a charade that won’t stop cash-for-access fundraising, it will just hide it as they will still be allowed to hold thank-you events for top donors and meet with them more than other voters, as well as ask people lobbying them for thousands of dollars in donations by phone and email,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “Unless other key changes are made, the new federal political finance system will continue to facilitate illegal funneling of donations from corporations and other organizations through their executives and families, as happened in Quebec.”

“As Quebec and federal donation scandals show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of big money in politics is to stop big money donations by lowering the donation limit to $100-$200 as Quebec did in 2013,” said Conacher.

“Any political party that refuses to support these 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,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in federal politics is to stop big money donations.”

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

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);
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);
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;
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);
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);
give annual public funding matching up to $1 million that each political party raises (Quebec matches up to $200,000);
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;
require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
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 (the federal Liberals have proposed doing this but haven’t done it yet);
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;
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

Court rules against democracy challenge of B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s decision on Premier Clark’s $50,000 salary and “cash-for-access” events

Posted on January 25, 2017July 24, 2017 by Bradford

Ruling means complaints to Conflicts Commissioner by members of the public about the Premier or government Ministers are ‘an effectively meaningless dead end’. Democracy Watch may well appeal and intends to explore other legal avenues for challenging Premier Clark’s conflicts of interest

B.C. political parties should make Commissioner’s ruling binding and allow appeals to court, and should also democratize province’s political finance system to match Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, January 25, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch responded to B.C. Supreme Court Justice Affleck’s ruling (PDF) 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 ruling 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.

Commissioner Fraser filed a motion to stop 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.

“The court has 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. Democracy Watch is not prepared to let this issue go because the corrupting influence of big money donations in B.C. politics must be stopped.”

Jason Gratl of the law firm Gratl and Company, who is Democracy Watch’s counsel for the case, said: “The judge accepted the Commissioner’s submission that the Commissioner lacks any statutory authority to declare conflicts of interest or limit the power of the government executive. If that is true, then the Commissioner’s office holds little or no promise as a mechanism for public complaints about corruption. We will have to explore other legal avenues to challenge Premier Clark’s conflicts of interest and will seriously consider appealing the ruling.”

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.

According to media reports, Premier Clark has hosted or attended several small, invitation-only undraising 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 (sections 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 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. Supreme Court 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 higher courts 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 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.

“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 make the commissioner’s rulings binding, and to allow court challenges of the commissioner’s rulings,” 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.

Political finance systems across Canada, other than Quebec’s provincial system, are all undemocratic in various ways. B.C. (along with Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon) have the most undemocratic political finance systems in Canada as they allow unlimited donations from corporations, unions and other organizations, and individuals, even if they are not located in or don’t live in the jurisdiction. Saskatchewan is almost as bad, with the only difference being that individual donors have to be a Canadian citizen.

And while the federal government, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have banned corporate and union donations, they still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford.

“As Quebec and federal donation scandals show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of money in politics is to stop big money donations by lowering the donation limit to $100-$200,” said Conacher.

As well, the federal 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 to organize while his company is lobbying the Finance department. 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.

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.

“Any political party that refuses to make changes to stop big money in politics 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,” said Conacher. “The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations.”

The key changes that must be made in B.C. to democratize its political finance system are as follows 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):

ban donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
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);
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);
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;
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);
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);
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);
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;
require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
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;
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;
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]

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

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

Democracy Watch calls on Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to launch inquiry into Prime Minister inviting dozens of Liberal Party donors to gala dinner for Chinese Premier

Posted on December 16, 2016July 24, 2017 by Bradford

Some donors represent companies seeking decisions from the federal government – violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to event

Approximately 33% of non-government attendees at event were Liberal Party donors – also a violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to event

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, December 16, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson calling on her to launch an inquiry into Prime Minister Trudeau giving preferential treatment to the companies and/or organizations or other individuals represented by several Liberal Party donors when he invited those donors to a gala dinner in honour of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on September, as reported in the Globe and Mail today.

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

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

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

The letter also requests that Ethics Commissioner Dawson disclose whether she has applied to be reappointed by Prime Minister Trudeau when her current term ends in early January. The deadline for applying to be Ethics Commissioner passed at the end of November, and then was extended by the Liberal Cabinet. The extension came after the deadline passed, so Commissioner Dawson must know whether she is applying to be reappointed.

In another letter sent to the Ethics Commissioner on December 6th, Democracy Watch also called for a reconsideration of Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s ruling that none of the sections of the Conflict of Interest Act apply to the fundraising events attended or hosted by Prime Minister Trudeau and/or Cabinet ministers, and an investigation into the approximately 90 high-priced, exclusive events the Liberals have held since January 1, 2016.

If Commissioner Dawson is not applying to be reappointed, she should issue the new ruling as soon as possible; if she has applied to be reappointed, she should recuse herself and designate someone else to issue the new ruling (such as a provincial ethics commissioner).

“Any high-priced, exclusive, invite-only fundraising event attended or hosted by the Prime Minister, Cabinet minister or their staff clearly violates rules in the federal ethics law that prohibit giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their donation, and prohibit soliciting or accepting their donation because of the conflict of interest it causes,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch’s position is that, based on the main purpose of the Conflict of Interest Act of preventing conflicts of interests and resolving them in the public interest (as set out in section 3), the events are a violation of one or more (depending on the situation) of the following sections of the Conflict of Interest Act:

section 7 which prohibits giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their identity (including being a top-level donor);
section 5 that requires ministers to arrange their private affairs to prevent conflicts of interest;
section 16 which prohibits soliciting donations if it would cause a conflict of interest (which includes real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest);
subsection 11(1) which prohibits accepting any gift or other advantage that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the minister.

Democracy Watch also pointed out in another letter it sent on December 14th to the Ethics Commissioner that Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet are also in a conflict of interest that means they can’t decide who will be the Ethics Commissioner after Commissioner Dawson’s term ends in early January.

“Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet are in a clear conflict of interest when choosing who will be the ethics watchdog who watches over them, especially when there are active complaints about them filed with the watchdog,” said Conacher. “The only solution is to change the Cabinet appointment process to have a fully independent commission, whose members are approved by all federal party leaders, do a public, non-partisan, merit-based search for the next ethics commissioner, and require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of candidates that the commission proposes.”

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

Democracy Watch also urged federal politicians not to reappoint Ethics Commissioner Dawson given how negligently weak her enforcement record has been since 2007. “It would be tragic if Ethics Commissioner Dawson was reappointed because it would mean Canadians would have to wait even longer for effective enforcement of the federal government ethics rules,” said Conacher. (See Backgrounder below for details)

– 30 –

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

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

BACKGROUNDER

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Conflict of Interest Act missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, as Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially the rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises to close the huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

Democracy Watch files complaint with Ethics Commissioner to stop Trudeau Cabinet from appointing their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs

Posted on December 14, 2016July 24, 2017 by Bradford

If Ethics Commissioner has applied to be reappointed, she is in a financial conflict of interest and must delegate ruling on complaint to provincial ethics commissioner

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, December 14, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson calling for a ruling that Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet cannot appoint the new Ethics Commissioner or Commissioner of Lobbying in January because they are in a conflict of interest given both commissioner offices are currently investigating them for violations of the federal ethics and lobbying laws.

Both commissioners terms end in early January, and if Trudeau and his Cabinet reappoint either commissioner for a six-month interim term or a new seven-year term they will be choosing their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs. They have a conflict of interest when they make that choice, a conflict compounded by the fact that the Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying are both investigating situations right now in which Trudeau and his Cabinet ministers are alleged to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act or had a relationship with a lobbyist that violates the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct.

“It’s a conflict of interest for Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet to choose their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs, especially when they are being investigated by those watchdogs,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch requested that the Ethics Commissioner disclose whether she has applied to be reappointed by Trudeau, and if she has to refer the complaint to an independent decision-maker (such as a provincial ethics commissioner) because she is in a conflict of interest. The deadline for applying to be Ethics Commissioner passed at the end of November, and then was extended by the Liberal Cabinet. The extension came after the deadline passed, so Commissioner Dawson must know whether she is applying to be reappointed.

“The public has a right to know if Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has applied to be reappointed for another term, and if she has she is in a conflict of interest and can’t rule on any situation involving Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet because they will decide whether she gets to keep her job,” said Conacher. “If she has applied to Trudeau’s Cabinet to keep her job she must refer all complaints about the Trudeau Cabinet to an independent decision-maker like a provincial ethics commissioner.”

As detailed in the letter it has sent to the Ethics Commissioner, Democracy Watch’s position is that, based on the main purpose of the Conflict of Interest Act of preventing conflicts of interests and resolving them in the public interest (section 3), Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet will violate the following sections of the Conflict of Interest Act if they choose the next Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying:

section 4 which states that a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when s/he exercises “an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests,” and;
section 6 which prohibits making or participating in a decision when in conflict of interest.

Democracy Watch proposes that the solution is to have a fully independent commission whose members are approved by all federal party leaders do a public, non-partisan merit-based search for the next Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying, and to require the Trudeau Cabinet to choose from a short-list of candidates that the commission nominates, with approval still by the House of Commons.

– 30 –

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

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

BACKGROUNDER

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Conflict of Interest Act missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, as Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially the rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises to close the huge loopholes in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

Democracy Watch calls on Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to disclose whether she has applied to be reappointed, asks for investigation and correct ruling on Cabinet minister fundraising

Posted on December 6, 2016July 24, 2017 by Bradford

If she has applied she is in a financial conflict of interest and so can’t rule on any situation, especially about PM or Cabinet

Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet also in a conflict of interest – can’t be allowed to choose their own ethics watchdog, especially given current complaints

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, December 6, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch sent a letter to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson calling on her to disclose whether she has applied to be reappointed to another term by the Liberal Cabinet. If she has applied, she must remove herself from ruling on any situation, especially complaints concerning Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet ministers, because they will determine whether she keeps her job in an interim position for six months, or for another 7-year term with a yearly salary of approximately $200,000.

The deadline for applying to be Ethics Commissioner passed at the end of November, and then was extended by the Liberal Cabinet. The extension came after the deadline passed, so Commissioner Dawson must know whether she is applying to be reappointed.

Democracy Watch also called for a reconsideration of Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s ruling that none of the sections of the Conflict of Interest Act apply to the fundraising events attended or hosted by Prime Minister Trudeau and/or Cabinet ministers, and an investigation into the approximately 90 high-priced, exclusive events the Liberals have held since January 1, 2016.

As detailed in the letter it has sent to the Ethics Commissioner, Democracy Watch’s position is that, based on the main purpose of the Conflict of Interest Act of preventing conflicts of interests and resolving them in the public interest (as set out in section 3), the events are a violation of one or more (depending on the situation) of the following sections of the Conflict of Interest Act:

section 7 which prohibits giving preferential treatment to anyone based on their identity (including being a top-level donor);
section 5 that requires ministers to arrange their private affairs to prevent conflicts of interest;
section 16 which prohibits soliciting donations if it would cause a conflict of interest (which includes real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest);
subsection 11(1) which prohibits accepting any gift or other advantage that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the minister.

Democracy Watch also pointed out that Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet are also in a conflict of interest that means they can’t decide who will be the Ethics Commissioner after Commissioner Dawson’s term ends in early January.

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

Democracy Watch urged the Trudeau government not to reappoint Ethics Commissioner Dawson given how negligently weak her enforcement record has been since 2007. “It would be tragic if Ethics Commissioner Dawson was reappointed because it would mean Canadians would have to wait even longer for effective enforcement of the federal government ethics rules,” said Conacher. “Many loopholes in the rules need to be closed but even that wouldn’t change much if enforcement remains as weak as it has been since the ethics rules were first made public in 1985.” (See Backgrounder below for details).

– 30 –

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

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

BACKGROUNDER

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson has had a very weak enforcement record since 2007, including (as of June 2015) making 149 secret rulings, issuing only 25 public rulings, and letting 75 (94%) of people who clearly violated ethics rules off the hook.

Because of section 66 added to the then-new Conflict of Interest Act by the Conservatives in 2006, the Ethics Commissioner’s rulings cannot be challenged in court if she has factual or legal errors in her rulings. If this section had not been added to the Act, Democracy Watch would have challenged several of Commissioner Dawson’s rulings since 2007 in court.

Democracy Watch is currently challenging Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s use of conflict-of-interest screens in court on the basis that the screens are unlawful.

2. Conflict of Interest Act missing key rules and accountability measures

The Conservatives broke a 2006 election promise (one of their many broken accountability promises) to include key ethics rules in the new Conflict of Interest Act prohibiting dishonesty and being in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, as Prime Minister Harper instead put those rules in his Accountable Government code for ministers and other senior officials so he could ignore the rules (as he did until the Conservatives were defeated in the 2015 election – see especially the rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the code).

The Liberals made no promises in their 2015 election platform to close the huge loopholes in the huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act (and they also made no promises in their 2015 election platform in the Lobbying Act or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act). Instead, Prime Minister Trudeau re-named and re-issued the Accountability Government code as his Open and Accountable Government code. He has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

Alberta’s NDP government proposes some good political finance changes in Bill 35, but federal, Quebec and Toronto political donations and scandals show proposed donation limit of $4,000 is a charade that won’t stop unethical cash for access or influence of big money donations

Posted on November 30, 2016July 24, 2017 by Bradford

Cash for access still allowed – proposed Alberta limit more than federal limit, and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more

Alberta’s proposed limit will likely also lead to illegal funneling of donations by corporations (as happened in Quebec and at the federal level)

A 50-group coalition calls for lowering annual donation limit for all individuals (including candidates) to Quebec limit of $100, and implementing annual per-vote and donation-matching public funding if parties can prove it is needed

Same changes should be made to municipal system across Alberta

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, November 29, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, the day after Alberta’s NDP government introduced Bill 35 to change the provincial political finance system, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than 3 million members), called on Alberta’s political parties to make changes to Bill 35 that will actually democratize Alberta’s political finance system by:

lowering the annual individual donation limit from $4,000 to $100;
also ensuring candidates can’t donate more than $100 to their own campaign;
prohibiting loans to parties except from a public fund (limited to average amount donated in past two years);
implementing annual per-vote and donation-matching public funding (if parties can prove that it is needed).

The proposed Alberta annual donation limit to each party is higher than the federal donation limit, and donations to parties in Quebec, the federal parties in the past few years, and to Toronto city councillors, show clearly that cash-for-access will continue in Alberta with such a high donation limit.

Bill 35 makes the following good changes: limiting campaign spending by parties and candidates; requiring leadership candidates to disclose all their donors; limiting spending on advertising by third party interest groups during campaign periods, and; requiring donations to third party interest groups, and the identity of anyone backing each group, to be disclosed.

While some of Alberta NDP’s proposals in Bill 35 are good steps forward, the proposed individual donation limit is clearly undemocratic and unethical because it will continue to allow wealthy people to buy influence by donating thousands of dollars more to parties and candidates than an average voter can afford,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “As Quebec’s corruption scandal, and donations to federal parties and Toronto city councillors show clearly, the proposed high donation limits will also allow corporations, unions and other organizations to continue to donate large amounts by having their executives and their family members all make the maximum donation each year. The proposed high donation limit will only obscure the corrupting influence of donations from wealthy interests, not stop it.”

“As Quebec and the federal donation scandals show clearly, the only way to stop the unethical, undemocratic influence of money in politics is to stop big money donations by lowering the donation limit to $100-$200,” said Conacher.

At the federal level, SNC-Lavalin 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 Alberta did an audit in 2012 it found dozens of illegal donations.

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 to organize while his company is lobbying the Finance department. 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.

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.

Loans from financial institutions and other organizations will also continue to be unlimited under Bill 35, giving the financial sector another avenue of 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 more money than they can raise from $100-200 donations, annual per-vote funding should be implemented at no more than $1 per vote, along with 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, Alberta must limit individual donations to about $100 annually and use per-vote and 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 Alberta’s municipal law, taking into account that there are no parties at the municipal level, so that every municipality in the province has the same democratic rules.”

The key changes Alberta must make to actually democratize its provincial political finance system are as follows (and similar changes should be made province-wide to the municipal political finance system, taking into account that there are no political parties at the municipal level):

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);
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);
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;
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);
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);
give annual public funding for parties matching up to the first $500,000 raised (as in Quebec);
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;
require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
give the Auditor General’s full power to review all government advertising and to stop or change any ad that is partisan or misleading;
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;
Elections Alberta 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

Democracy Watch applauds Liberal government’s initial changes to Canada Elections Act but many more changes needed for fair, democratic elections

Posted on November 24, 2016July 24, 2017 by Bradford

Representative public consultation needed on electoral reform, and Supreme Court reference case on vote percentage threshold

Changes also still needed to stop false election promises, make every vote count, allow none-of-the above vote, ensure democratic nomination races, stop big money, stop misleading robocalls, regulate election debates, strengthen independence of enforcement agencies and their enforcement powers, and to increase penalties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, November 24, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch applauded the initial changes that the federal Liberal government’s Bill C-33 makes to the Canada Elections Act but called for many more changes to ensure fair and democratic federal elections. Bill C-33 makes the following three changes that Democracy Watch and others have called for since the Conservatives’ enacted their so-called “Fair Elections Act” in 2014:

Empowers the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to conduct and provide funding to broad voter turnout public education programs (the Conservatives had limited education to “how to vote” instructions);
Allows one voter to “vouch” for the identity of one other voter (the Conservatives had prohibited this vouching), and;
Allows voters to use the voter registration card (VIC) as ID for voting.

As well, Bill C-33 removes the restrictions on Canadians living abroad voting – a 1993 change to the Act had prohibited Canadians from voting if they lived more than five years outside Canada and did not intend to return to become a resident of Canada again.

“The Liberal government’s bill makes some initial changes to remove barriers to voting that the Conservatives set up in 2014, but many more changes are needed to ensure fair and democratic federal elections,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The other key changes are to stop false election promises, make every vote count, allow none-of-the above vote, ensure democratic nomination races, stop big money donations, stop misleading robocalls, regulate election debates, strengthen the independence and transparency of enforcement agencies and their enforcement powers, and to increase penalties.”

Democracy Watch called for these changes in its submission to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. The submission calls on the federal Liberal government to take two immediate actions, and for all federal parties to work together to make 20 key changes to ensure democratic and fair federal elections.

The two immediate actions that the federal Liberal government must take are:

Undertake a meaningful, demographically representative public consultation: As detailed in the Democracy Watch op-ed set out here, a referendum can be a meaningful consultation method but there are other methods that are just as valid. Neither the Committee nor the government has used a meaningful consultation method so far because the hearings, town halls, online questionnaire all involve submissions by self-selected people, and so they are not demographically representative of Canadian voters. And while media reports say the Liberals are planning to mail a postcard to 13 million households directing them to an online survey, people who complete the survey will still be self-selected (and an online survey can also be filled out several times by one person). To ensure that Canadians’ values are upheld in any changes that are made (which the federal Liberals have committed to do in every decision they make), a meaningful consultation using either the best-practice study-circle method or constituent assembly method should be undertaken before any changes are implemented.
The government should refer a case to the Supreme Court to rule on whether a vote percentage threshold is constitutional: If the voting system is changed to include proportionality in some way, most commentators propose that, as in other countries, there should be a national threshold of percentage of votes (of 3-5%) that a party would have to obtain in order to be represented in the House of Commons. However, according to two past rulings by the courts (Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912, 2003 SCC 37 (CanLII) and Longley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 ONCA 149 (CanLII)), it may not be constitutional to have a threshold. To determine the constitutionality of a threshold, the government should refer a case to the Supreme Court for a ruling before any changes are made to the Canada Elections Act (CEA).

Democracy Watch also called on all federal parties to work together to make the following 20 key changes to ensure democratic and fair federal elections:

Prohibit parties and candidates from baiting voters with false election promises or advertising, and from breaking election promises (unless truly unforeseen circumstances require them to be broken).
Do not implement mandatory voting as it violates the right of voters to refuse to endorse a candidate or party, and instead create a right to refuse to cast a ballot (as voters in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan have in their provincial elections) or to vote “none of the above” and require election commissions to report how many Canadians do so (so voters can, if they want to, send a clear message that they do not support any of the candidates or political parties).
Change the federal election voting system to provide a more accurate representation of the popular vote results in each election in the seats held by each party in the federal House of Commons (as in many other countries) while ensuring that all elected officials are supported by, and are accountable to, voters in each riding/constituency (with a safeguard to ensure that a party with a low-level, narrow-base of support does not have a disproportionately high level of power in Parliament), and also to actually fix election dates for late fall every four years (an actual vote on non-confidence occurs earlier).
Regulate nomination races to ensure party leaders can’t appoint candidates or stop candidates from running (other than on grounds of “good character” such as no criminal convictions) and to ensure nomination races are conducted in a fair, transparent, and democratic manner by giving Elections Canada the power to run nomination races and enforce the rules.
The federal political finance system must be democratized by: reducing the annual donation and loan limits to an amount an average voter can afford (ie. $100-200, as in Quebec); reinstating the annual per-vote funding for parties along with public funding matching donations raised annually by parties and leading up to and during elections by candidates (as in Quebec), and; requiring disclosure of all gifts and donations to all types of candidates (including donations of volunteer labour).
As part of the changes to the political finance system, restrict pre-election ad spending by parties and candidates (including via their riding association) and by third parties.
Have Elections Canada determine the date and number of election debates, and oversee them, with the leader of every party that won at least 5% of the popular vote in the last election or that has at least one MP in the House of Commons allowed to participate, and require all broadcasters to broadcast the debates.
Allow independent candidates to raise money in-between elections.
Change the federal Referendum Act to allow for petitions leading to referendums, and also in all the other applicable ways recommended in this submission (especially concerning political finance and spending).
Prohibit online voting as it is presents a very real danger to the integrity of voting results according to almost all computer technologists including Stanford University’s David Dill who was one of the organizers of the statement by technologists warning of the dangers of online voting.
Empower Elections Canada to appoint all election workers – currently political parties and candidates who won or came second in the previous election have the dangerously unethical power to force returning officers to appoint the deputy returning officers, poll clerks, registration officers and central poll supervisors that they choose.
Empower Elections Canada to appoint the auditors for all the parties, riding associations and candidates – currently these entities choose their own auditors (which is a recipe for abuse and corruption).
Make the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, actually independent by requiring them to be approved by at least a majority of opposition party leaders.
Require (finally) that Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections (CCE) disclose the results of investigations and rulings on all complaints, and require the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to publish their reasons whenever they decide not to prosecute or agree to a plea deal, so they can be held accountable if they make unfair, biased or improper rulings or enforcement decisions.
Require anyone or any entity that uses robocalls to file a copy of each robocall script and recording, and a list of the numbers called, with the CRTC for the CRTC to keep for 5 years, and require political parties to keep a record of who accesses their voter database, and make it a violation for political parties to allow their database to be misused.
Increase the amount of all proposed fines to a level that will actually discourage violations (all the fines in the Canada Elections Act should be 10 times higher) and require courts to impose the maximum fine unless extraordinary circumstances mean it would be unjust to do so.
Give voters up to one year to challenge a fraudulent election result (voters only have 30 days now), and remove the requirement that a voter must give written notice to the returning officer when the voter applies to a judge for a recount (as that makes it more difficult to challenge election results).
Give the Commissioner of Canada Elections (CCE), and the CRTC, the clear power to apply for a court order that compels a person to testify, or a person or entity to disclose records, needed to investigate alleged violations of the CEA (as Elections Canada recommended in its 2012 report, and as election watchdogs in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Yukon, and Australia and the U.S. can do, and as the Competition Bureau of Canada can do).
Require political parties, riding associations, candidates and third parties to provide any document requested by Elections Canada or the CCE to confirm compliance with the CEA, as recommended by Elections Canada.
Give whistleblowers a financial reward if they disclose evidence to Elections Canada, the CCE, or the CRTC that leads to a conviction.
Extend the federal Privacy Act and Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to cover political parties, riding associations and political candidates, as Elections Canada recommended in its 2012 report.

– 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 Democratic Voting Systems Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Democracy Watch calls for representative public consultation on electoral reform, Supreme Court reference on vote percentage threshold, and other key changes to ensure democratic, fair federal elections

Posted on November 21, 2016July 24, 2017 by Bradford

Changes needed to stop false election promises, make every vote count, allow none-of-the above vote, ensure democratic nomination races, stop big money, stop misleading robocalls, strengthen independence of enforcement agencies and their enforcement powers, and to increase penalties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, November 21, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its submission to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. The submission calls on the federal Liberal government to take two immediate actions, and for all federal parties to work together to make 23 key changes to ensure democratic and fair federal elections.

The two immediate actions that the federal Liberal government must take are:

Undertake a meaningful, demographically representative public consultation: As detailed in the Democracy Watch op-ed set out here, a referendum can be a meaningful consultation method but there are other methods that are just as valid. Neither the Committee nor the government has used a meaningful consultation method so far because the hearings, town halls, online questionnaire all involve submissions by self-selected people, and so they are not demographically representative of Canadian voters. And while a media report says the Liberals are planning to mail a postcard to 13 million households directing them to an online survey, people who complete the survey will still be self-selected (and an online survey can also be filled out several times by one person). To ensure that Canadians’ values are upheld in any changes that are made (which the federal Liberals have committed to do in every decision they make), a meaningful consultation using either the best-practice study-circle method or constituent assembly method should be undertaken before any changes are implemented.
The government should refer a case to the Supreme Court to rule on whether a vote percentage threshold is constitutional: If the voting system is changed to include proportionality in some way, most commentators propose that, as in other countries, there should be a national threshold of percentage of votes (of 3-5%) that a party would have to obtain in order to be represented in the House of Commons. However, according to two past rulings by the courts (Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912, 2003 SCC 37 (CanLII) and Longley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 ONCA 149 (CanLII)), it may not be constitutional to have a threshold. To determine the constitutionality of a threshold, the government should refer a case to the Supreme Court for a ruling before any changes are made to the Canada Elections Act (CEA).

Democracy Watch also called on all federal parties to work together to make the following key changes to ensure democratic and fair federal elections:

Prohibit parties and candidates from baiting voters with false election promises or advertising, and from breaking election promises (unless truly unforeseen circumstances require them to be broken).
Do not implement mandatory voting as it violates the right of voters to refuse to endorse a candidate or party, and instead create a right to refuse to cast a ballot (as voters in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan have in their provincial elections) or to vote “none of the above” and require election commissions to report how many Canadians do so (so voters can, if they want to, send a clear message that they do not support any of the candidates or political parties).
Change the federal election voting system to provide a more accurate representation of the popular vote results in each election in the seats held by each party in the federal House of Commons (as in many other countries) while ensuring that all elected officials are supported by, and are accountable to, voters in each riding/constituency (with a safeguard to ensure that a party with a low-level, narrow-base of support does not have a disproportionately high level of power in Parliament), and also to actually fix election dates for late fall every four years (unless an actual vote on non-confidence occurs earlier).
Regulate nomination races to ensure party leaders can’t appoint candidates or stop candidates from running (other than on grounds of “good character” such as no criminal convictions) and to ensure nomination races are conducted in a fair, transparent, and democratic manner by giving Elections Canada the power to run nomination races and enforce the rules.
Change section 18 of the Canada Elections Act (CEA)) so that the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) is empowered not only to “provide” the public with information about how, when and where to become a candidate and to vote but can also conduct and provide funding to other broader voter turnout public education programs.
The prohibitions on one voter “vouching” for the identity of one other voter, and on using the voter registration card (VIC) as ID should be removed Instead, add the VIC to the current list of valid ID, and empower Elections Canada, and provide it with adequate funding, to hire and fully train all election workers for elections well before each election, and to make the voter registration list and ID checking even more accurate.
The federal political finance system must be democratized must be democratized by: reducing the annual donation and loan limits to an amount an average voter can afford (ie. $100-200, as in Quebec); reinstating the annual per-vote funding for parties along with public funding matching donations raised annually by parties and leading up to and during elections by candidates (as in Quebec), and; requiring disclosure of all gifts and donations to all types of candidates (including donations of volunteer labour).
As part of the changes to the political finance system, restrict pre-election ad spending by parties and candidates (including via their riding association) and by third parties.
Have Elections Canada determine the date and number of election debates, and oversee them, with the leader of every party that won at least 5% of the popular vote in the last election or that has at least one MP in the House of Commons allowed to participate, and require all broadcasters to broadcast the debates.
Allow independent candidates to raise money in-between elections.
Change the federal Referendum Act to allow for petitions leading to referendums, and also in all the other applicable ways recommended in this submission (especially concerning political finance and spending).
Prohibit online voting as it is presents a very real danger to the integrity of voting results according to almost all computer technologists including Stanford University’s David Dill who was one of the organizers of the statement by technologists warning of the dangers of online voting.
Empower Elections Canada to appoint all election workers – currently political parties and candidates who won or came second in the previous election have the dangerously unethical power to force returning officers to appoint the deputy returning officers, poll clerks, registration officers and central poll supervisors that they choose.
Empower Elections Canada to appoint the auditors for all the parties, riding associations and candidates – currently these entities choose their own auditors (which is a recipe for abuse and corruption).
Make the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, actually independent by requiring them to be approved by at least a majority of opposition party leaders.
Require (finally) that the Commissioner of Canada Elections (CCE) disclose the results of investigations and his rulings on all complaints, and require the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to publish their reasons whenever they decide not to prosecute or agree to a plea deal, so they can be held accountable if they make unfair, biased or improper rulings or enforcement decisions.
Require anyone or any entity that uses robocalls to file a copy of each robocall script and recording, and a list of the numbers called, with the CRTC for the CRTC to keep for 5 years, and require political parties to keep a record of who accesses their voter database, and make it a violation for political parties to allow their database to be misused.
Increase the amount of all proposed fines to a level that will actually discourage violations (all the fines in the Canada Elections Act should be 10 times higher) and require courts to impose the maximum fine unless extraordinary circumstances mean it would be unjust to do so.
Give voters up to one year to challenge a fraudulent election result (voters only have 30 days now), and remove the requirement that a voter must give written notice to the returning officer when the voter applies to a judge for a recount (as that makes it more difficult to challenge election results).
Give the Commissioner of Canada Elections (CCE), and the CRTC, the clear power to apply for a court order that compels a person to testify, or a person or entity to disclose records, needed to investigate alleged violations of the CEA (as Elections Canada recommended in its 2012 report, and as election watchdogs in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Yukon, and Australia and the U.S. can do, and as the Competition Bureau of Canada can do).
Require political parties, riding associations, candidates and third parties to provide any document requested by Elections Canada or the CCE to confirm compliance with the CEA, as recommended by Elections Canada.
Give whistleblowers a financial reward if they disclose evidence to Elections Canada, the CCE, or the CRTC that leads to a conviction.
Extend the federal Privacy Act and Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to cover political parties, riding associations and political candidates, as Elections Canada recommended in its 2012 report.

– 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 Democratic Voting Systems Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Federal, Quebec and Toronto political donations and scandals show proposed Ontario donation limit in Bill 2 is a charade that won’t stop unethical cash for access or influence of big money donations

Posted on November 15, 2016July 24, 2017 by Bradford

Cash for access still allowed in three ways – proposed Ontario limit essentially the same as federal limit, and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more

Ontario’s proposed limit will likely also lead to illegal funneling of donations by corporations (as happened in Quebec and at the federal level)

A 50-group coalition, and almost 10,000 Ontarians, call for lowering annual donation limit for all individuals (including candidates) to Quebec limit of $100, and decreasing annual per-vote public funding amount and replacing it (if parties can prove it is needed) with annual public funding that matches funds raised

Same changes should be made to municipal system across Ontario

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, November 15, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, as the Ontario legislative committee completes its final review of Bill 2, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than 3 million members), joined by almost 10,000 Ontarians who have signed a petition on Change.org, called on Ontario’s political parties to make changes to Bill 2 that will actually democratize Ontario’s political finance system by:

lowering the annual individual donation limit from $2,400 to $100;
also lowering the limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign to $100);
prohibiting loans to parties except from a public fund;
decreasing per-vote annual public funding to $1, and;
(as in Quebec) increasing donation-matching public funding.

The proposed Ontario annual donation limit to each party is just a bit lower than the federal donation limit, and donations to parties in Quebec, the federal parties in the past few years, and to Toronto city councillors, show clearly that cash-for-access will continue in Ontario with such a high donation limit. The Ontario legislative committee reviewing Bill 2 (formerly Bill 201, before the Ontario legislature was prorogued) is considering amendments this week – Democracy Watch presented the above proposed changes to the committee on June 28th during its hearings in Ottawa (See the submission here (PDF)).

Even with the changes made by Bill 2, cash-for-access will still be allowed in three ways:

events will still be allowed at which people who have made top donations get special access to the Premier and Cabinet ministers (such as the Liberals exclusive Red Trillium Club events for anyone who donates $1,000 or more), or to opposition party leaders and MPPs, and their staff;
the Premier, Cabinet ministers, opposition leaders and MPPs, and their staff, will also still be allowed to solicit donations by phone and email from people who want to meet with them, and they will likely meet and communicate with top donors more than with people who don’t donate, and;
lobbyists will still be allowed to assist with fundraising and campaigns for ministers, party leaders and MPPs they lobby.

“The Ontario Liberals’ proposal to ban ministers, MPPs and staffers from attending fundraising events is a charade that won’t stop cash-for-access fundraising, it will just hide it as they will still be allowed to hold thank-you events for top donors and meet with them more than other voters, as well as ask people lobbying them for thousands of dollars in donations by phone and email, and lobbyists will still be allowed to help ministers and MPPs with fundraising and campaigning,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalion. “Unless key changes are made, the new Ontario political finance system will also facilitate illegal funneling of donations from corporations and other organizations through their executives and families, as happened in Quebec and at the federal level.”

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.

Loans from financial institutions will also be unlimited under Bill 2, giving the financial sector another avenue of influence. Loans should only come from a public fund and be limited to the average total amount donated during the previous two years.

As well, the Liberals’ proposed $2.71 annual per-vote public funding is much too high as it will give parties more than a base amount of funding and will allow them to prosper even if they lose significant voter support in between elections. The per-vote funding should be lowered to 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, Ontario must limit individual donations to about $100 annually and use per-vote and 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 Ontario’s municipal law, taking into account that there are no parties at the municipal level, so that every municipality in the province has the same democratic rules.”

The key changes Ontario must make to actually democratize its provincial political finance system are as follows (and similar changes should be made province-wide to the municipal political finance system, taking into account that there are no political parties at the municipal level):

ban donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
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);
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);
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;
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);
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);
give annual public funding for parties matching up to the first $500,000 raised (as in Quebec);
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;
require election, donation and ethics watchdogs to conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone;
the Auditor General’s full power must be restored to review all government advertising and to stop or change any ad that is partisan or misleading;
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;
Elections Ontario 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

Please support democracy

Category: News

Lawsuit says Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline approval appears corrupted by $550,000 in donations to B.C. Liberal Party

Backgrounder on
How Flaws in British Columbia’s and Other Canadian Political Finance Systems Allow for Unethical Big Money Donations, and How to Democratize the Systems

Federal Liberal’s proposal to make some cash-for-access fundraising events more transparent a charade – won’t stop cash-for-access or the unethical influence of big money donations

MPs still allowed to do secret cash-for-access events – and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more, and gave them special access to Cabinet ministers

Nation-wide coalition representing 3.5 million voters calls for real changes to democratize federal political finance system by matching Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

Court rules against democracy challenge of B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s decision on Premier Clark’s $50,000 salary and “cash-for-access” events

Ruling means complaints to Conflicts Commissioner by members of the public about the Premier or government Ministers are ‘an effectively meaningless dead end’. Democracy Watch may well appeal and intends to explore other legal avenues for challenging Premier Clark’s conflicts of interest

B.C. political parties should make Commissioner’s ruling binding and allow appeals to court, and should also democratize province’s political finance system to match Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

Democracy Watch calls on Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to launch inquiry into Prime Minister inviting dozens of Liberal Party donors to gala dinner for Chinese Premier

Some donors represent companies seeking decisions from the federal government – violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to event

Approximately 33% of non-government attendees at event were Liberal Party donors – also a violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to event

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

BACKGROUNDER

Democracy Watch files complaint with Ethics Commissioner to stop Trudeau Cabinet from appointing their own ethics and lobbying watchdogs

If Ethics Commissioner has applied to be reappointed, she is in a financial conflict of interest and must delegate ruling on complaint to provincial ethics commissioner

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

BACKGROUNDER

Democracy Watch calls on Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to disclose whether she has applied to be reappointed, asks for investigation and correct ruling on Cabinet minister fundraising

If she has applied she is in a financial conflict of interest and so can’t rule on any situation, especially about PM or Cabinet

Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet also in a conflict of interest – can’t be allowed to choose their own ethics watchdog, especially given current complaints

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

BACKGROUNDER

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

2. Conflict of Interest Act missing key rules and accountability measures

Alberta’s NDP government proposes some good political finance changes in Bill 35, but federal, Quebec and Toronto political donations and scandals show proposed donation limit of $4,000 is a charade that won’t stop unethical cash for access or influence of big money donations

Cash for access still allowed – proposed Alberta limit more than federal limit, and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more

Alberta’s proposed limit will likely also lead to illegal funneling of donations by corporations (as happened in Quebec and at the federal level)

A 50-group coalition calls for lowering annual donation limit for all individuals (including candidates) to Quebec limit of $100, and implementing annual per-vote and donation-matching public funding if parties can prove it is needed

Same changes should be made to municipal system across Alberta

Democracy Watch applauds Liberal government’s initial changes to Canada Elections Act but many more changes needed for fair, democratic elections

Representative public consultation needed on electoral reform, and Supreme Court reference case on vote percentage threshold

Democracy Watch calls for representative public consultation on electoral reform, Supreme Court reference on vote percentage threshold, and other key changes to ensure democratic, fair federal elections

Changes needed to stop false election promises, make every vote count, allow none-of-the above vote, ensure democratic nomination races, stop big money, stop misleading robocalls, strengthen independence of enforcement agencies and their enforcement powers, and to increase penalties

Federal, Quebec and Toronto political donations and scandals show proposed Ontario donation limit in Bill 2 is a charade that won’t stop unethical cash for access or influence of big money donations

Cash for access still allowed in three ways – proposed Ontario limit essentially the same as federal limit, and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more

Ontario’s proposed limit will likely also lead to illegal funneling of donations by corporations (as happened in Quebec and at the federal level)

Same changes should be made to municipal system across Ontario

Please support democracy

Backgrounder onHow Flaws in British Columbia’s and Other Canadian Political Finance Systems Allow for Unethical Big Money Donations, and How to Democratize the Systems

MPs still allowed to do secret cash-for-access events – and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more, and gave them special access to Cabinet ministers

Nation-wide coalition representing 3.5 million voters calls for real changes to democratize federal political finance system by matching Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

Ruling means complaints to Conflicts Commissioner by members of the public about the Premier or government Ministers are ‘an effectively meaningless dead end’. Democracy Watch may well appeal and intends to explore other legal avenues for challenging Premier Clark’s conflicts of interest

B.C. political parties should make Commissioner’s ruling binding and allow appeals to court, and should also democratize province’s political finance system to match Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

Some donors represent companies seeking decisions from the federal government – violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to event

Approximately 33% of non-government attendees at event were Liberal Party donors – also a violation of ethics law to give them preferential access to event

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

BACKGROUNDER

If Ethics Commissioner has applied to be reappointed, she is in a financial conflict of interest and must delegate ruling on complaint to provincial ethics commissioner

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

BACKGROUNDER

If she has applied she is in a financial conflict of interest and so can’t rule on any situation, especially about PM or Cabinet

Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet also in a conflict of interest – can’t be allowed to choose their own ethics watchdog, especially given current complaints

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s enforcement record since 2007 is so bad it would be tragic if she was reappointed even for another six-month term, let alone for 7 years

BACKGROUNDER

1. Federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s weak enforcement record

2. Conflict of Interest Act missing key rules and accountability measures

Cash for access still allowed – proposed Alberta limit more than federal limit, and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more

Alberta’s proposed limit will likely also lead to illegal funneling of donations by corporations (as happened in Quebec and at the federal level)

A 50-group coalition calls for lowering annual donation limit for all individuals (including candidates) to Quebec limit of $100, and implementing annual per-vote and donation-matching public funding if parties can prove it is needed

Same changes should be made to municipal system across Alberta

Representative public consultation needed on electoral reform, and Supreme Court reference case on vote percentage threshold

Changes needed to stop false election promises, make every vote count, allow none-of-the above vote, ensure democratic nomination races, stop big money, stop misleading robocalls, strengthen independence of enforcement agencies and their enforcement powers, and to increase penalties

Cash for access still allowed in three ways – proposed Ontario limit essentially the same as federal limit, and in 2015 federal Liberals received almost 23% of their donations from just over 4% of wealthy donors who gave $1,100 or more

Ontario’s proposed limit will likely also lead to illegal funneling of donations by corporations (as happened in Quebec and at the federal level)

Same changes should be made to municipal system across Ontario

Backgrounder on
How Flaws in British Columbia’s and Other Canadian Political Finance Systems Allow for Unethical Big Money Donations, and How to Democratize the Systems