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.

“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 because Prime Minister Trudeau and his Cabinet will decide whether she gets to keep her job,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

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.

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.

“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 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.

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:

1. lowering the annual individual donation limit from $4,000 to $100;
2. also ensuring candidates can’t donate more than $100 to their own campaign;
3. prohibiting loans to parties except from a public fund (limited to average amount donated in past two years);
4. 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.

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 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.

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).

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

Loans from financial institutions 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):

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

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:

1. 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);
2. Allows one voter to “vouch” for the identity of one other voter (the Conservatives had prohibited this vouching), and;
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Allow independent candidates to raise money in-between elections.
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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).
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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).
18. 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).
19. 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.
20. Give whistleblowers a financial reward if they disclose evidence to Elections Canada, the CCE, or the CRTC that leads to a conviction.
21. 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

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. 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).
2. 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).
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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).
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Allow independent candidates to raise money in-between elections.
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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).
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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).
20. 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).
21. 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.
22. Give whistleblowers a financial reward if they disclose evidence to Elections Canada, the CCE, or the CRTC that leads to a conviction.
23. 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

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:

1. lowering the annual individual donation limit from $2,400 to $100;
2. also lowering the limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign to $100);
3. prohibiting loans to parties except from a public fund;
4. decreasing per-vote annual public funding to $1, and;
5. (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:

1. 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;
2. 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;
3. 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.”

“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.

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.

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.

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).

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

Loans from financial institutions 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):

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

Lobbyists who assist parties, candidates or politicians with fundraising or campaigning are prohibited from lobbying them or their staff for 5 years – Apotex is now registered to lobby Prime Minister Trudeau’s office

Federal political parties should change political finance system to stop big money’s unethical influence by matching Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, November 4, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch filed an ethics complaint with federal Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd calling on her to investigate an August 26, 2015 fundraising event for the Liberal Party of Canada hosted by Apotex Inc. chairman Barry Sherman at his home and attended by Justin Trudeau and then-candidate, now-Liberal MP Michael Levitt. According to an article in the National Post, tickets for the event cost $1,500.

At the time of the event, Apotex was registered to lobby the House of Commons (which means it claimed it was lobbying at least some MPs, possibly including Trudeau) and Mr. Sherman was included as a registered lobbyist in that registration. Currently, Apotex itself (including Mr. Sherman), along with several consultant lobbyists it has hired since March 1, 2016, are all registered to lobby the Prime Minister’s Office. The consultant lobbyists registered to lobby the Prime Minister’s Office on behalf of Apotex are Aaron Dobbin, John Duffy, Andrew Steele, Brian Teefy and Danya Vered (all five work at StrategyCorp Inc.), as well as Lester Scheininger.

“Federal lobbying ethics rules say it is illegal for a lobbyist to do anything that puts any federal politician or candidate in even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and a person crosses that line if they help in any way with a fundraising event involving a politician while they or their business or organization is lobbying the politician,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Federal lobbyist ethics rules also say it is illegal for anyone to help a party, candidate or politician with fundraising or campaigning and then be involved in lobbying them any time within the following five years.”

The Lobbying Commissioner office confirmed in a letter dated October 25, 2016 that it is already investigating Democracy Watch’s complaint about the situation revealed in an October 25th Globe and Mail article involving Barry Sherman, the chairman of generic drug manufacturer Apotex Inc., assisting with selling tickets for a $500-per-ticket fundraising event to be held in Toronto on November 7, 2016 featuring Finance Minister Bill Morneau while Apotex is registered to lobby, and is lobbying, Finance Canada.

Rule 6 of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct states:

A lobbyist shall not propose or undertake any action that would place a public office holder in a real or apparent conflict of interest.

Rule 9 of the Lobbyists’ Code prohibits anyone from assisting a party, candidate or politician (or other public office holder) with fundraising or campaigning or any way that creates a sense of obligation, and then lobbying them afterwards for a period of five years because of the ongoing apparent conflict of interest that person’s assistance has caused for the politician or other type public office holder.

While Rule 9 came into effect in December 2015, in a public guidance document on Rule 8 published in 2009, and a clarification document published later, and in an updated guidance document on Rule 8 published on June 25, 2015, and in a reminder to lobbyists about Rule 8 and political activities published on June 25, 2015, the Lobbying Commissioner made it clear that lobbyists assisting a party, candidate or politician with campaigning or fundraising violate Rule 8 by creating an apparent conflict of interest for the politician that continues into the future for five years. Therefore, anyone who assists with campaigning or fundraising cannot be involved, and their organization cannot be involved, in lobbying the politicians involved in campaign or fundraising for the following five years.

Democracy Watch advocated through 10 years of campaigns and court cases until 2009 to win the enforcement of Rule 8 of the Lobbyists’ Code (now Rule 6 in a new version of the Code in force since December 1, 2015). In March 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in the case Democracy Watch v. Barry Campbell, the Attorney General of Canada and the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, rejecting former Registrar Michael Nelson’s “deeply flawed” interpretation of Rule 8 (Commissioner Shepherd was Deputy Registrar at the time) and making it clear that Rule 8 (now Rule 6) prohibits lobbyists from doing anything that puts a public office holder in even an appearance of a conflict of interest. Registrar Nelson had used the same “deeply flawed” interpretation of Rule 8 as former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson, both of whom had negligently weak enforcement records that let hundreds of lobbyists get away with violating the Lobbyists’ Code or the Lobbying Act. Commissioner Shepherd has had a similar negligently weak enforcement record over the past nine years.

Democracy Watch also called on federal political parties to stop the unethical influence of big money in federal politics by making the same world-leading changes to the federal political donation system 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.

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 and Nova Scotia have banned corporate and union donations (and Ontario will likely do this soon), they still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford.

Donations to parties in Quebec, the federal parties in the past few years, and to Toronto city councillors, show what happens with such high donation limits. 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.

And to give one example from the federal level, in 2014 only 8.9% of donors gave 41.7% of total donations to federal Liberal Party (and 3.8% of donors gave the party 23.1% of the total donated to the Party – neither of these figures count how much more these people gave to riding associations that year).

And 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.

“Any political party that refuses to make 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 Canadian politics is to stop big money donations.”

The key changes that must be made across Canada to democratize political finance systems are as follows;

1. a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations;
2. a limit on annual donations by individuals to each party of $100-200 annually (Quebec’s limit is $100) with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec) to prevent businesses and other organizations funneling donations through their executives or employees or their families;
3. a ban on donations from individuals who do not live in the jurisdiction;
4. a prohibition on 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);
5. a limit on spending during campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and candidates in party leadership races (Alberta and the Yukon have no limits at all; only the federal government, B.C., Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec limit third party spending, and; no jurisdictions have limits on party leadership race spending);
6. 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 disclosure of the identity of anyone who assists with any fundraising, campaign or party event or activity);
7. a base amount of annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (which Quebec has — no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
8. annual public funding for parties matching the first $100,000-$200,000 raised (as in Quebec);
9. public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (as in Quebec), and;
10. a requirement that election, donation and ethics watchdogs conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone.

– 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

Also asks court to rule Commissioner Paul Fraser was in a conflict of interest when ruling on complaints as his son works for B.C. Cabinet – Fraser should have recused himself as he did in 2012

B.C. political parties should also change political finance system to match Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch applied to the B.C. Supreme Court for a ruling rejecting B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser’s decision 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 case also asks the court to rule that Commissioner Fraser shouldn’t have ruled on 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 Premier’s office. Democracy Watch wants the court to order a reexamination of the complaints by another person who is fully independent of all B.C. political parties.

According to media reports, Premier Clark has hosted or attended several small, invitation-only fundraising events for the B.C. Liberals with ticket prices ranging from $2,000 to $20,000, and also attended an event in her riding association sponsored for $2,500 each by four sponsors. Not only does Premier Clark receive an annual salary from the B.C. Liberals for, in part, fundraising activities, she also makes policy decisions as Premier that affect at least some of the donors.

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

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

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

“Democracy Watch’s 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 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. Liberal Cabinet, 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 court many reasons to reject his ruling on Premier Clark’s fundraising events.”

Jason Gratl of the law firm Gratl and Company, who is Democracy Watch’s counsel for the case, said: “Reasonable people perceive the connection between the Premier being paid to attend Liberal fundraisers and donors paying to access the Premier. It is unreasonable to miss this connection.”

Democracy Watch 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.

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 and Nova Scotia have banned corporate and union donations (and Ontario will likely do this soon), they still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford.

Donations to parties in Quebec, the federal parties in the past few years, and to Toronto city councillors, show what happens with such high donation limits. 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.

And to give one example from the federal level, in 2014 only 8.9% of donors gave 41.7% of total donations to federal Liberal Party (and 3.8% of donors gave the party 23.1% of the total donated to the Party – neither of these figures count how much more these people gave to riding associations that year).

And 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.

“Any political party that refuses to make 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 Canadian politics is to stop big money donations.”

The key changes that must be made across Canada to democratize political finance systems are as follows;

1. a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
2. a limit on annual donations by individuals to each party of $100-200 annually (Quebec’s limit is $100) with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
3. a ban on donations from individuals who do not live in the jurisdiction;
4. a prohibition on 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);
5. a limit on spending during campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and candidates in party leadership races (Alberta and the Yukon have no limits at all; only the federal government, B.C., Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec limit third party spending, and; no jurisdictions have limits on party leadership race spending);
6. 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);
7. a base amount of annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (which Quebec has — no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
8. annual public funding for parties matching the first $100,000-$200,000 raised (as in Quebec);
9. public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (as in Quebec), and;
10. a requirement that election, donation and ethics watchdogs conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone.

– 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

Calls on Lobbying Commissioner to remove herself from ruling on complaint because she has expressed interest in being reappointed by MPs – a similar commissioner from another jurisdiction should rule on the complaint

Federal political parties should also change political finance system to stop big money’s unethical influence by matching Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 25, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch filed an ethics complaint with federal Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd about the situation reported in an article in the Globe and Mail today. According to the article, Barry Sherman, the chairman of generic drug manufacturer Apotex Inc., is assisting with selling tickets for a $500-per-ticket fundraising event to be held in Toronto on November 7, 2016 featuring Finance Minister Bill Morneau.

Apotex is registered to lobby Finance Canada (with Mr. Sherman listed in the registration as one of its lobbyists), as are three consultant lobbyists registered on behalf of the company (two from StrategyCorp Inc. and one with Goodmans LLP). The most recent monthly communication with Finance Canada officials is by one of Apotex’s consultant lobbyists at StrategyCorp Inc. occurring on September 20, 2016.

However, the complaint requests that the Commissioner Shepherd not rule on the complaint because she has expressed interest in being reappointed by MPs to the position (her term ends this July) and is therefore in a conflict of interest when considering a complaint that affects the reputation and activities of MPs. Democracy Watch is also concerned about Commissioner Shepherd’s very weak enforcement record, and its position is that in order to have proper enforcement of the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists’ Code Commissioner Shepherd must be replaced by someone who has a demonstrated strong enforcement attitude and record.

Democracy Watch’s complaint letter calls on Commissioner Shepherd to remove herself from ruling on the complaint and to delegate consideration of the complaint to a similar commissioner in another jurisdiction. However, the complaint should not be delegated to federal Ethics Commissioner Dawson because she also has a very weak enforcement record (including ruling in 2010 that it is fine for Cabinet ministers to have lobbyists who are lobbying them raise thousands of dollars for them). As well, federal Cabinet and MPs will also soon consider whether to reappoint Commissioner Dawson for another term (her term also ends in July) and so she is also in an appearance of a conflict of interest when considering a complaint that affects the reputations and activities of MPs.

“Federal ethics rules say it is illegal for lobbyists to do anything that puts a politician or government official in even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and a business lobbyist selling tickets for a fundraising event involving the Finance Minister while the business is lobbying the minister crosses that line,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Neither the federal Commissioner of Lobbying nor the federal Ethics Commissioner should rule on this complaint because they are up for possible reappointment by the Liberals and also have very weak enforcement records.”

Democracy Watch advocated through 10 years of court cases until 2009 to win the enforcement of Rule 8 of the Lobbyists’ Code (now Rule 6 in a new version of the Code in force since December 1, 2015). In March 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in the case Democracy Watch v. Barry Campbell, the Attorney General of Canada and the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, rejecting the Registrar’s “deeply flawed” interpretation of Rule 8 (Commissioner Shepherd was Deputy Registrar at the time) and making it clear that Rule 8 (now Rule 6) prohibits lobbyists from doing anything that puts a public office holder in even an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Rule 6 of the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct states:

A lobbyist shall not propose or undertake any action that would place a public office holder in a real or apparent conflict of interest.

Democracy Watch also called on federal political parties to make the same world-leading changes to the federal political finance system 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.

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 and Nova Scotia have banned corporate and union donations (and Ontario will likely do this soon), they still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford.

Donations to parties in Quebec, the federal parties in the past few years, and to Toronto city councillors, show what happens with such high donation limits. 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.

And to give one example from the federal level, in 2014 only 8.9% of donors gave 41.7% of total donations to federal Liberal Party (and 3.8% of donors gave the party 23.1% of the total donated to the Party – neither of these figures count how much more these people gave to riding associations that year).

And 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.

“Any political party that refuses to make 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 Canadian politics is to stop big money donations.”

The key changes that must be made across Canada to democratize political finance systems are as follows:

1. a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
2. a limit on annual donations by individuals to each party of $100-200 annually (Quebec’s limit is $100) with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
3. a ban on donations from individuals who do not live in the jurisdiction;
4. a prohibition on 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);
5. a limit on spending during campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and candidates in party leadership races (Alberta and the Yukon have no limits at all; only the federal government, B.C., Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec limit third party spending, and; no jurisdictions have limits on party leadership race spending);
6. 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);
7. a base amount of annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (which Quebec has — no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
8. annual public funding for parties matching the first $100,000-$200,000 raised (as in Quebec);
9. public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (as in Quebec), and;
10. a requirement that election, donation and ethics watchdogs conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone.

– 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

Three months have passed since Ethics Commissioner Dawson resumed her investigation into Wright – what’s taking so long? And is she going to let Wright off the hook yet again, as well as the PMO officials who helped him?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

October 6, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch re-filed the letter it sent to federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson on December 10, 2013 and called on her to rule, finally, on whether the intervention into the Senate Committee’s audit of Senator Mike Duffy by Nigel Wright, Patrick Rogers, Chris Woodcock and Benjamin Perrin violated the Conflict of Interest Act (the “Act”). Democracy Watch’s December 2013 letter also requested an inquiry into Mr. Perrin’s actions of assisting Mr. Wright in making the payment of more than $90,000 to Senator Duffy.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson stated in her most recent annual report that she had resumed the investigation into Nigel Wright’s actions in early June. Three months have passed and the full record of what happened has already been revealed in the ruling in Senator Duffy’s court case – what’s taking her so long? And is she going to let the other PMO officials who assisted Wright off the hook?

Democracy Watch’s complaint letter is based on the provisions of the Act, publicly confirmed facts, and the evidence set out in the affidavit of RCMP Corporal Greg Horton.

Another big question is whether the Ethics Commissioner will once again let Nigel Wright off the hook as she has twice already (See Backgrounder below).

“Will Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson continue her weak lapdog enforcement record by letting Nigel Wright off the hook for a third time, and by failing, as she has more than 145 times, to rule publicly on a complaint about possible violations of the federal ethics law?” asked Duff Conacher, Board member of Democracy Watch. “Not only is an investigation of Benjamin Perrin helping Nigel Wright negotiate his payment to Senator Duffy warranted, but also investigations into the interventions by Mr. Perrin, Mr. Wright and Patrick Rogers and Chris Woodcock in the audit of Senator Duffy which were as bad as contacting a judge and trying to influence the judge’s ruling,” said Conacher.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson initiated an inquiry in 2013 into whether Nigel Wright’s payment to Senator Duffy of more than $90,000 violated the Act but she suspended that inquiry in July 2013. As a result, in Democracy Watch’s opinion there are justifiable reasons for the Ethics Commissioner to initiate an inquiry into Benjamin Perrin helping Mr. Wright negotiate the payment to Senator Duffy.

Democracy Watch’s opinion is that it seems improper for Nigel Wright, Patrick Rogers, Chris Woodcock and Benjamin Perrin to have intervened in the Senate Committee’s audit of Senator Duffy, and for Mr. Perrin to have assisted Mr. Wright in making the payment to Senator Duffy, for the following reasons:

• It seems that they either violated sections 4 and 6(1) of the Act because they made a decision “related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function” (ss.6(1)) when they “reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision” he “would be in a conflict of interest” (ss. 6(1)) because the decision provided “an opportunity . . . to improperly further another person’s private interests” (s. 4) – namely Senator Duffy’s private interest in having the results of the audit, and recommended penalties, altered to protect his financial interests (and, concerning Mr. Perrin, his interest in having someone else pay the expenses he owed);
• As well, given that they intervened in the audit in secret, it seems they also violated section 8 of the Act which prohibits using “information that is obtained in his or her position as a public office holder and that is not available to the public” to further the interest of a friend “or to improperly further or to seek to improperly further another person’s private interests”; and
• And finally, it seems by intervening in the audit process they also violated section 9 of the Act because they used their “position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as… to improperly further another person’s private interests.”

Democracy Watch’s opinion is that it was improper for Nigel Wright, Benjamin Perrin, Patrick Rogers and Chris Woodcock to intervene in the Senate committee’s audit process, and for all of them to obtain and convey information about the audit processes, simply because it is improper for anyone who is not involved in an audit to attempt to influence auditors.

A spokesperson for Deloitte has stated publicly that it is improper for any information about an audit to be given to anyone other than the people involved in the audit – therefore it was, by definition, improper to seek information about the audit, and to try to influence the audit. Democracy Watch’s opinion is that it is analogous to someone in government contacting a judge of a court or a tribunal in an attempt to influence the judge’s ruling.

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

BACKGROUNDER

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.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s first cover-up for Nigel Wright
Commissioner Dawson’s first cover-up for Nigel Wright was her creation of an illegal, so-called ethics screen when Wright first took the job that violated the requirement in subsection 25(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act to make a public declaration within 60 days every time Wright recused himself from a decision-making process because of a conflict of interest. This “screen” was supposedly enforced by the Deputy Chief of Staff. As a result of this cover-up, all of Wright’s recusals were kept secret, and there is no way to tell if he ever failed to recuse himself as required by the Act.

Ethics Commissioner Dawson’s second cover-up for Nigel Wright
Commissioner Dawson’s second cover-up for Wright was when she abandoned her investigation in fall 2012 without issuing a notice, let alone a ruling, of whether Wright violated the Act by taking part in discussions of issues that affect Barrick Gold. The Ethics Commissioner is allowed to do this under s. 45 of the Act. The cover-up only came to light because Canadian Press journalist Joan Bryden pressed Commissioner Dawson to make a public statement about the case. Commissioner Dawson’s statement failed to set out any reasons why she concluded that Wright had not violated the Act.

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 the rules in Annex A, Part 1 of the Guide).

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 and has ignored the rules in his code just like Prime Minister Harper did.

Because of section 66 added to the new 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. There are no mandatory penalties for violating the ethics rules in the Act. As well, if Prime Minister Harper approves it, Commissioner Dawson’s term in office can be renewed for another seven years in 2014 so she has an incentive to please him

Media should ask Prince William if he thinks Britain writing down its conventions years ago clarified the role of the Crown in British politics

Unclear, unwritten conventions caused constitutional crisis in 2008 – another crisis can be prevented by clearly restricting Prime Minister (and premiers’) powers by writing Canada’s conventions into laws, as large majority wants

Canada should also Canadianize and democratize the selection process for the Governor General, to make Canada a more democratic, independent country

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, September 28, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch highlighted that in an interview with the Hill Times, Governor General David Johnston supported writing down Canada’s unwritten constitutional conventions concerning key Parliament and election operations to make them more clear and enforceable. The unwritten conventions in Britain, Australia and New Zealand have all been written into laws or documents called “Cabinet manuals.”

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

Democracy Watch called on the media to ask Prince William whether he thinks that writing Britain’s constitutional conventions in laws and other public documents has been helpful in clarifying the role of the Crown in British politics and government.

Writing down Canada’s conventions will prevent abuses of power by the Prime Minister like calling a snap election, and the prorogation crisis, that happened in 2008.

Canada’s Governor General, the unelected and unaccountable representative of the Crown, has the very important powers to decide (among other things):

• whether and when an election will be called (as the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in 2010 that Canada’s federal election dates are not actually fixed);
• which party will be given the opportunity to try to govern first after an election;
• when Parliament will open after an election and can be shut down, and;
• whether MPs support the government or whether a vote of non-confidence has occurred.

However, none of the rules for these decisions are written down, and that allows the Prime Minister to advise the Governor General to do these things essentially whenever the Prime Minister wants.

In Britain, very specific rules (for example, a law that actually fixes election dates unless a clear vote of non-confidence occurs), and other written rules make it clear when and what the Prime Minister is allowed to advise the Queen to do, and whether the Queen should accept or reject the Prime Minister’s advice.

Australia and New Zealand also wrote down their conventions years ago to restrict abuses by their prime ministers, and so that their governors general know whether to accept or reject the advice from the prime minister. Most other countries that call themselves democracies also have these rules written into their constitution or other laws.

“The Governor General and federal party leaders can prevent future constitutional crises and abuses of power by the Prime Minister by agreeing on and passing laws that detail our currently unwritten conventions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Lieutenant Governor and party leaders in every province should do the same to prevent future crises and abuses.”

Democracy Watch also proposes that the selection process for the Governor General be Canadianized and democratized, as more than two-thirds of Canadians want. This can be done without changing the Constitution. All the Prime Minister has to do is:

1. establish an independent commission to conduct a merit-based search for qualified nominees;
2. send the short list the commission develops to the leaders of all federal, provincial and territorial parties that are represented in the legislature and ask for their choice from the short list, and;
3. then tell the Queen that Canada is appointing the person that most of the party leaders support.

Given that the Governor General chooses provincial lieutenant governors, leaders from all parties represented in the legislatures across Canada should be involved in choosing the Governor General. Along with writing Canada’s constitutional conventions into laws, implementing this simple, multi-partisan appointment process will make Canada a more democratic and independent country.

– 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 Head Campaign