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

Liberals’ Action Plan violates Open Government Partnership (OGP) membership requirements — fails to commit to strengthening ethics, lobbying, political finance, public consultation and whistleblower protection laws and enforcement

Commitment to strengthen Access to Information Act may also be unjustifiably delayed if government ignores House Committee recommendations

Proposed changes to government spending and procurement processes do not include key change of increasing enforcement powers of Parliamentary Budget Officer and Auditor General

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, September 8, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, two months after the Liberals released the federal government’s third biennial Action Plan for submission to the international Open Government Partnership (OGP), the nation-wide Open Government Coalition, Government Ethics Coalition and Money in Politics Coalition, made up of more than 70 citizen groups in total with more than three million members (all coordinated by Democracy Watch), called on the Liberals to release the “What We Heard” consultation report as promised in section III of their Action Plan.

The report likely shows that Canadians called for many more changes than the Liberals have pledged to make in the next two years, and so the coalitions also called on the OGP Steering Committee to pressure the federal Liberals to strengthen their Action Plan because it fails to fulfill the commitment to increase government integrity.

“While the Liberals have committed to strengthening Canada’s open government law, and transparency in government spending, it looks like those changes may be unjustifiably delayed and they are clearly too weak to stop secret lobbying and secret political donations and to protect whistleblowers who report government wrongdoing,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Liberals’ plan, like the Conservatives’ past plans, continues to focus more on making currently available information available online through open data systems than on real open government changes that will ensure they keep their commitment to openness by default.”

“Secret, unethical lobbying, secret donations, secret expenses, conflicts of interest, sole-source contracts and excessive secrecy overall are currently legal, and enforcement of key democracy and good government laws is too weak, as is whistleblower protection and public consultation, and so many key changes are clearly needed to ensure everyone in federal politics is effectively required to act honestly, openly, ethically, representatively and to prevent waste,” said Conacher.

In all these ways, the Liberals’ Action Plan violates the Open Government Partnership (OGP) requirements set out in the Open Government Declaration that all countries are required to sign. To fulfill the Declaration requirements, the Liberals’ Plan has to commit to strengthening open government in every way. Their Action Plan should have included measures to strengthen not only transparency laws and financial administration laws, but also federal ethics, lobbying, anti-corruption, political finance, whistleblower protection and public consultation laws, and enforcement of all these laws, in government and in the private sector.

As a result, the OGP Steering Committee should pressure the Liberals to improve their Action Plan.

In January 2012, Democracy Watch and the coalitions it coordinates submitted a 19-page letter to the Conservatives which set out 45 recommendations containing dozens of needed changes to key laws. Many of the recommended changes were promised by the Conservatives in their 2006 federal election platform, and by the Liberals in their 2015 federal election platform, and many have also been recommended (in their respective issue areas) by the federal Information Commissioner, Ethics Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Oliphant Commission, and by many other citizen groups.

Democracy Watch and its coalitions have been pushing for years for key transparency and integrity changes to the federal Lobbying Act, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and Conflict of Interest Act and related MP and Senate ethics rules. As well, opposition MPs and the Information Commissioner and the Open Government Coalition have been pushing to strengthen the Access to Information Act for several years, and most recently a House Committee recommended key changes to the Act.

The Canada Elections Act must be strengthened to close loopholes that allow for secret, unlimited donations and loans and false false phone calls to voters. The Parliament of Canada Act must be changed to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the independence and powers needed to ensure truth-in-budgeting. The Financial Administration Act must be strengthened to tighten up rules on sole-source contracting, and the Auditor General Act strengthened to increase enforcement. Related Treasury Board codes, policies and rules in all of the above areas must also be strengthened (To see more details, click here). And a “Meaningful Public Consultation Act” must be passed to help ensure representative government decisions.

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Coalition, Government Ethics Coalition and Money in Politics Coalition will continue to push the federal Liberals to make complete open government commitments, and to fulfill all of the Open Government Partnership OGP requirements, and if they don’t will continue to appeal to the OGP Steering Committee to pressure the Liberals to fulfill all these requirements.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign

With the same donation limit as proposed by the Ontario Liberals, businesses flowed $12.8 million through their executives to Quebec parties from 2006-2011, and 8.9% of donors gave 41.7% of total donations to the federal Liberals in 2014
(and top donors get perks from many parties)

As 50-group coalition, and almost 10,000 Ontarians, have called for, annual donation limit for all individuals (including candidates) should be lowered to Quebec limit of $100, and annual per-vote public funding amount should also be decreased and replaced with annual public funding that matches funds raised

Same changes should be made to municipal system across province

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, August 24, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, 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 stop going for the gold during their summer games and make changes to Bill 201 that will actually democratize Ontario’s political finance system by: lowering the individual donation limit from $2,400 to $100 (and also lower the limit of what candidates can give to their own campaign to $100), prohibiting loans to parties except from a public fund; decreasing per-vote annual funding, and; increasing donation-matching funding.

The Ontario legislative committee reviewing Bill 201 will consider amendments next week – Democracy Watch presented these proposed changes to the committee on June 28th during its hearings in Ottawa (See the submission here (PDF)).

“While some of the political parties’ proposals to change Bill 201 are good steps forward, the proposed individual donation limit is clearly undemocratic and unethical because it will continue to allow wealthy people to give 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 Toronto’s experience, both 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.”

According to the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, the Ontario Liberals are proposing to change Bill 201 by lowering the annual donation limit for individuals to each party and its riding associations and candidates to $2,400 (and to $3,600 during a year with an election or by-election). Opposition parties are proposing to: ban cash-for-access events that create a real or apparent conflict of interest (NDP) or ban MPPs and ministers from soliciting donations from stakeholders (PC) – while the Liberals want to address the issue of fundraising from stakeholders through a code of conduct to be drafted later. The Liberals have also proposed some changes to make fundraising more transparent and to tighten and clarify a few other rules.

Because the donation limit will continue to be much higher than an average Ontario voter can afford, none of these amendments will stop donors who donate the most from having greater access and influence over politicians and political parties, and none of the amendments will stop businesses, unions and other organizations from funneling large donations through their executives and members of their family.

Even though funneling donations is made illegal by Bill 201 (as it was in Quebec), the donors will just claim they were not forced by their company, union or organization to make the donation, and no one will be able to prove otherwise. 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.

Loans from financial institutions will also be unlimited under Bill 201, 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.

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.

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).

The federal Liberals hold special events for those 3.8% of top donors (members of the exclusive Laurier Club) and the Ontario Liberals do the same (people who donate $1,000 or more become members of the exclusive Red Trillium Club) – events that give them special access.

(NOTE: The details are that in 2014, federal individual donations were limited to $1,200 to each party (and another $1,200 combined total to each party’s riding associations). Total donations in 2014 (the most recent year for which full data is available) to the federal Liberal Party only (not including donations to its riding associations) were $15,063,142 from a total of 77,064 donors. Of that amount, only 2,937 individuals (3.8% of total) donated more than $1,100 each (up to the then-limit annually of $1,200), for a total of $3,493,227 (23.1% of the total donated to the Party). Also of the total amount donated to the Liberals in 2014, only 3,913 individuals (5.07% of the total) donated from $500 to $1,100 each, for a total of $2,802,998 (18.6% of the total donated to the Party)).

Bill 201 also allows nomination race and election candidates to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, and party leadership candidates to donate $25,000 to their own campaign. Candidates should not be allowed to donate more than anyone else to their campaign as it gives an advantage to wealthy candidates.

“Allowing candidates to donate thousands of dollars to their own campaign undemocratically favours wealthy candidates,” said Conacher.

According to the Toronto Star, the Liberals are also proposing to increase the annual per-vote funding amount from $2.26 per vote to $2.71. Instead, all parties should agree to lower the per-vote annual public funding amount 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. Matching funds raised by parties and candidates with public funding should also be added to the new system.

The proposed annual per-vote public funding subsidy should be lowered to no more than $1 per vote, and instead the parties should implement the same 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. 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 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);
4. a limit on spending during leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and candidates in party leadership races;
5. 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);
6. a base amount of 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. annual public funding for parties matching the first $100,000-$200,000 raised (as in Quebec);
8. public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (as in Quebec), and;
9. 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 Money in Politics Campaign

Ontario’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee is best appointments process in Canada – same process (with one change) should be used for all appointments

Thousands have written letter to Trudeau and provincial premiers calling on them to end patronage and cronyism by matching Ontario’s system

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, August 2, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the federal Liberals to improve their proposed new Supreme Court appointments system by requiring the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice to appoint one of the people the new advisory board recommends (as Ontario’s Attorney General is required to do for provincial court appointments). The Liberals could make this change immediately as this part of the appointment process is at the discretion of the Prime Minister and is not covered by any law.

Once this change is made, the new process should be added to the Supreme Court Act and the Federal Courts Act, and to all other federal laws that address judicial or quasi-judicial appointments (including for all Officers of Parliament), so that, as in Ontario, the system is part of laws and the Prime Minister’s and Minister of Justice’s appointment powers are restricted by law and they can’t change the system whenever and however they wants without parliamentary review.

Thousands of Canadians have written to Prime Minister Trudeau and provincial premiers through Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign calling on them to make changes to ensure their Cabinet and judicial appointment processes match Ontario’s judicial appointment process (with one change to ensure a majority of the appointment advisory committee members are not appointed by the government).

“While it is good that a majority of the Supreme Court appointments advisory board members are chosen by independent organizations, and that the Minister of Justice will consult with the Chief Justice, provincial ministers and House and Senate committees, the fact remains that the process is partisan because the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice are not required to choose from the advisory board’s list of nominees and so, unlike Ontario’s Attorney General, they can still appoint whomever they want as a judge,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Ontario’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC) is the best appointments process in Canada as the committee: is largely independent from the government; does a public, merit-based search for nominees to fill each available provincial court judge position, and: then sends a short list of nominees to the Attorney General who is required to choose from the list.

However the JAAC has one flaw – the ruling party in Ontario appoints the majority – 7 of 13 — of the JAAC members. To be truly independent from the ruling party, the members of an appointment committee must be approved by opposition party leaders or by organizations that are independent of the government. Otherwise, the ruling party still controls who is selected and patronage and cronyism is still possible.

The Liberals similarly called their new Senate appointments advisory board process “non-partisan” but it isn’t because Prime Minister Trudeau appoints all the board members, and the process isn’t guaranteed to be merit-based because the PM can ignore the board’s list of nominees, and secretly appoint whomever he wants as a senator.

The Liberals have sketched out their plans for what they claim is a “new” general Cabinet appointments process – but it is essentially the same process the Conservatives used to appoint whomever they wanted. In the “Frequently Asked Questions” document, letter-writing campaign says explicitly that members of appointment advisory committees “will be chosen to represent the interests of those who are responsible for decision-making on appointments (the Minister, the Prime Minister).” That is a recipe for patronage and crony appointments.

“The federal Liberals’ proposed Cabinet appointment system is essentially the same as the Conservatives used and will do little to stop patronage and cronyism,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor and LL.M. candidate at the University of Ottawa. “To stop patronage and crony appointments by the ruling party, appointment committees must be created with members approved by opposition party leaders, and the committees must conduct public, merit-based searches for nominees and send a short list to Cabinet of qualified nominees, with Cabinet required to choose from the list.”

Democracy Watch’s letter-writing campaign calls for the following changes to all government appointment processes across Canada:

1. Pass a law that sets up an independent appointments committee for all government appointments (including the Senate and Deputy Ministers, but not including law enforcement positions) with the committee members approved by at least a majority of leaders whose political party won 10% or more of the vote in the last election;
2. Pass a law that sets up another independent appointments committee for all appointments to law enforcement positions (including all government watchdogs) with the committee members approved by at least a majority of leaders whose political party won 10% or more of the vote in the last election, and with the committee members required to have knowledge of law enforcement (and require municipalities in every province and territory to use this committee to choose their watchdogs);
3. Require both committees to advertise publicly and widely on a website and through the print media all appointment jobs, including a list of merit-based criteria for each job;
4. Require both committees to review applications, conduct interviews, and choose a ranked list of 3 very qualified people for each position and send the list to the government (or city council);
5. Require the government (or city council) to choose whom they appoint to the job from the list of 3 people.
6. Prohibit by law anyone serving in any government or democracy watchdog position (especially every Officer of Parliament) from serving more than one term – to ensure they don’t try to please the government/ruling party in order to keep their job.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

After nine years of negligence, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson finally somewhat defines the size of the huge loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act

Loopholes in the Act allow Trudeau, LeBlanc and other ministers to profit from their decisions – must be closed to have democratic, ethical government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, July 19, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch revealed the details of the court challenge it has launched of the new, so-called “conflict of interest screen” set up by Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson for federal Liberal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc, a screen that allows LeBlanc to hide whether and when he participates in or makes decisions that affect the interests of his friend J.D. Irving and/or J.D. Irving Ltd. and its subsidiaries etc.

Similar “screens” allow many other Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect their families, friends, and their own financial investments.

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

Subsection 25(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act requires public office holders to issue a detailed public declaration each time they recuse themselves from a discussion, decision or vote because of a conflict of interest. There is no provision in the Act that says the Commissioner can set up a “conflict of interest screen” scheme that allows a public office holder to avoid the requirement in the law to issue the public declaration.

Democracy Watch’s judicial review application was filed last Friday, July 14, 2016 in the Federal Court of Appeal, Court File #T-1169-16, and the organization is represented by Yavar Hameed of Hameed Law.

In part because the screens hide whether and when Cabinet ministers and other senior government officials are removing themselves from decision-making because of a conflict of interest, some media outlets have mistakenly reported that conflict of interest screens set up by the Ethics Commissioner for LeBlanc and various other federal public office holders require them to abstain from participating in all decision-making processes in which they have a conflict of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

After nine years of negligence, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson finally somewhat defines the size of the huge loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act

Loopholes in the Act allow Trudeau, LeBlanc and other ministers to profit from their decisions – must be closed to have democratic, ethical government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, July 15, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch revealed that the loopholes in the new, so-called “conflict of interest screen” set up by Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson for federal Liberal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc allow LeBlanc to participate in and make decisions that affect the interests of his friend J.D. Irving, as well as J.D. Irving Ltd. and its subsidiaries. Similar screens allow many other Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials to make decisions that affect their families, friends, and their own financial investments.

“The federal Ethics Commissioner’s so-called conflict of interest screen is a charade that obscures the fact that a cabinet minister or other senior government official will make decisions even when they have a conflict of interest involving their own interests or the interests of their family or friends,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition.

Some media outlets have mistakenly reported that conflict of interest screens set up by the Ethics Commissioner for LeBlanc and various other federal public office holders require them to abstain from participating in all decision-making processes in which they have a conflict of interest. In fact, because of a huge loophole in the Conflict of Interest Act, they are all allowed to participate in or make any decision that applies generally. Almost all decisions made by ministers, their staff, and appointed senior government officials (all of whom are covered by the Act) apply generally – so in fact they likely only have to abstain from participating in a very few decision-making processes even when they have a direct conflict of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Democracy Watch’s position is that the Ethics Commissioners screens are illegal because they allow ministers and other public officials to avoid the clear legal requirement that they issue a detailed public declaration each time they remove themselves from a decision-making process because of a conflict of interest,” said Conacher. Subsection 25(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act requires public office holders to issue a detailed public declaration each time they recuse themselves from a decision-making process.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign