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, June 23, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, as the federal government develops its third 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 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 are committing 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, excessive secrecy overall, conflicts of interest and sole-source contracts are currently legal, 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’ draft 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 phone calls. 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

To stop unethical and undemocratic political financing, 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:
Thursday, June 16, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 groups with a total of more than three million members), were joined by more than 9,000 Ontarians who have signed a petition on Change.org. Together, they applauded some of the Ontario Liberals’ proposed political finance reform bill but called on them to lower their proposed annual political donation limit and candidate personal donation limit because both are much too high and will allow wealthy interests, and wealthy candidates, to continue to have an undemocratic advantage over most voters.

The high donation limits will, as Quebec’s and Toronto’s experiences show clearly, also facilitate and hide corrupting large donations from business and union executives and their families.

The Liberals should also 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.

According to the Ontario government’s news release, the Liberals’ bill proposes the following good changes: a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations; limits on political party and third party advertising spending leading up to an election, and during an election campaign period, and; registration requirements and limits on donations to nomination race candidates and political party leadership race candidates.

“While some of the bill’s proposals are good steps forward, the proposed individual political donation limits are clearly undemocratic and unethical because they will 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 shows clearly, the Liberals’ 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 Ontario Liberals’ proposed high donation limit will only obscure the corrupting influence of donations from wealthy interests, not stop it,” said Conacher.

Instead of matching Quebec’s world-leading political finance system of a $100 annual individual donation limit to each party, and annual public per-vote and matching funding, the Liberals propose that individuals be allowed to donate $1,550 annually to each party (which means one person could donate a total of $6,200 to four parties).

During an election year the Liberals propose that individuals be allowed to donate $1,550 annually to each political party; $1,550 annually to a party’s election candidate (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s candidates); and $1,550 to a party’s constituency association (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s constituency associations). This means one person could donate a total of $31,000 to four parties. And the Liberals are not proposing to limit loans to parties and candidates at all.

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

Corporate and union donations were banned in Toronto elections in 2009, 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 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.

The bill 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.

The Ontario Liberals should also lower the proposed annual per-vote public funding subsidy from $2.26 per vote to no more than $1 per vote, and 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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 26, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch filed an ethics complaint with federal Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd about the gifts of paid travel that various lobbying organizations have given to MPs (and a few senators) since spring 2009. Democracy Watch believes the gifts violate a rule in the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct that prohibits lobbyists from doing anything that would put an MP, senator or other public office holder in even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The complaint lists 16 businesses and lobby organizations from various sectors that are registered in the federal Registry of Lobbyists and that, since 2009 according to the Sponsored Travel reports and registry of federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, have paid for trips by MPs (and in one case, also by senators). Sometimes the MP’s spouse or staff has accompanied the MP or senator on the trip, and often the trips have cost thousands of dollars.

As well, the complaint lists six other lobby organizations that are not registered in the Registry of Lobbyists but have given many paid trips to many MPs (and, in one case, also to senators) from 2009 to 2016. The complaint requests an investigation to determine whether any of these organizations have done enough lobbying to require that they should have registered their lobbying under the Lobbying Act at any time in the past seven years.

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 strongenforcement 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 an MP or government official in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, and paying for an MP’s trip that costs thousands of dollars definitely crosses that line,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor at the University of Ottawa. “Neither the federal Commissioner of Lobbying nor the federal Ethics Commissioner should rule on this complaint because they are up for possible reappointment and also have a very weak enforcement record.”

Democracy Watch pushed for 15 years, including 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 prohibits lobbyists from doing anything that puts a public office holder in even an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Democracy Watch also called on MPs and senators to act with integrity, finally, and eliminate the rules in their ethics codes that say they are allowed to accept the gift of paid travel from anyone. Democracy Watch and the nation-wide, 31-member group Government Ethics Coalition will continue pushing for these and other key changes to federal ethics rules, and enforcement and penalties, so that Canadians will finally have the ethical government they deserve.

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

Should be lowered to Quebec limit of $100, and candidate personal donations, and annual per-vote public funding amount, also much too high — ban on corporate, union etc. donations, and limits on party and third-party ad spending, are good

Same changes should be made at same time to municipal system across province

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, May 17, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the 50-member group Money in Politics Coalition applauded some of the Ontario Liberals’ proposed political finance reform bill, but called on them to lower their proposed annual political donation limit, candidate personal donation limit because both are much too high and will allow wealthy interests, and wealthy candidates, to continue to have an undemocratic advantage over most voters. The high donation limits will, as Quebec’s experience shows, also facilitate and hide corrupting large donations from business and union executives and their families.

The Liberals should also 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.

According to the Ontario government’s news release, the Liberals’ bill proposes the following good changes: a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations; limits on political party and third party advertising spending leading up to an election, and during an election campaign period, and; registration requirements and limits on donations to nomination race candidates and political party leadership race candidates.

“While some of the bill’s proposals are good steps forward, the proposed annual individual political donation limit of $7,750 to each party is clearly undemocratic because it is many times higher 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 shows clearly, such a high donation limit will allow wealthy individuals to continue to use money as an unethical way to influence politicians, and 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 Ontario Liberals’ proposed high donation limit will only hide the corrupting influence of donations from wealthy interests, not stop it,” said Conacher.

Instead of matching Quebec’s world-leading political finance system of a $100 annual individual donation limit to each party, and annual public per-vote and matching funding, the Liberals propose that individuals be allowed to donate up to $7,750 annually to each party, as follows: $1,550 annually to a political party; $1,550 annually to an individual candidate (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s candidates); and $1,550 to a constituency association (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s constituency associations). And the Liberals are not proposing to limit loans to parties and candidates at all.

Even if funneling donations is made illegal (as it was in Quebec), the donors will just claim they were not forced by their company or union 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.

The bill 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.

The Ontario Liberals should also lower the proposed annual per-vote public funding subsidy from $2.26 per vote to no more than $1 per vote, and 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

Liberals’ proposed Cabinet appointment process essentially the same as the Conservatives used – says PM and Cabinet will control entire appointment process

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

Federal Ethics Commissioner and Commissioner of Lobbying must not be re-appointed – all government and democracy watchdogs must serve only one term

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, May 9, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the federal Liberals to change their proposed “new” Cabinet appointments system as it is essentially the same process the Conservatives used, and will do little to stop patronage and cronyism for the more than 2,500 federal Cabinet appointees. Democracy Watch launched a letter-writing campaign calling on the Liberals and all provincial and territorial governments to establish truly independent appointments committees to ensure merit-based Cabinet appointments.

The Liberals call their new Senate appointments advisory board “independent” 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, the answer to question A.6.. 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 Conservative’s 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 also called on the Liberals, and all governments, to change the law to ensure all Cabinet appointees who watch over the government or oversee key democracy laws and processes (especially every Officer of Parliament) be only allowed to serve one term.

“All government and democracy watchdogs must only serve one term, with no possibility that the government can reappoint them, to ensure watchdogs don’t try to please the government in order to keep their job,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor and LL.M. candidate at the University of Ottawa. “To safeguard our democracy the ruling party must not be allowed to reappoint any government watchdog.”

In particular, Democracy Watch opposes the reappointment of federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson and Commissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd to new terms, not only because reappointments undermine democratic good government but also because of the Ethics Commissioner’s very weak enforcement record and the Lobbying Commissioner’s very weak enforcement record. For both commissioners, their current terms end this July.

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. Otherwise, the ruling party still controls who is selected and patronage and cronyism is still possible.

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

• 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;
• 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);
• 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;
• 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);
• Require the government (or city council) to choose whom they appoint to the job from the list of 3 people.
• 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

Group still planning private prosecution if RCMP and Crown prosecutors continue to fail to prosecute Wright and others

Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer must prepare rulings on Democracy Watch’s complaints about Wright and others to be released as soon as appeal period passes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 22, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, given Justice Charles Vaillancourt’s conclusions that Nigel Wright and others in Prime Minister Harper’s office (PMO) actions were “covert,” “driven by deceit,” “shocking” and “unacceptable” in a democracy, Democracy Watch again called on the RCMP and Crown prosecutors to prosecute Nigel Wright, and PMO and Conservative Party officials who aided him, for bribing Senator Mike Duffy.

Democracy Watch also reaffirmed its plan to pursue a private prosecution if RCMP and Crown prosecutors continue to fail to uphold the law and cover up the reasons why Wright and others have not been charged.

Democracy Watch filed an ethics complaint against Wright and other PMO staff with the federal Ethics Commissioner in December 2013, and that month also filed a complaint with the RCMP about PMO staff and Conservatives who assisted Wright, and a complaint with the Senate Ethics Officer against all the senators involved in the scandal.

Democracy Watch called on Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson and Senate Ethics Officer Lyse Ricard to prepare rulings on those complaints to be released as soon as the appeal period passes (if prosecutors don’t file an appeal).

Justice Vaillancourt ruled that Senator Duffy did not “corruptly” accept the $90,000 payment but was “coerced” in such a way that his “true will was overcome.” However, under the Criminal Code it is an offence to “directly or indirectly, corruptly” even “offer” any money to a member of Parliament “in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity” (section 119(1)(b)).

Justice Vaillancourt’s ruling quotes past court rulings (at p.258) that have highlighted that making such a payment secretly and manipulatively (which Nigel Wright did) is enough to conclude that the payment was made “corruptly.”

See details further below about why in Democracy Watch’s opinion Nigel Wright and the other PMO and Conservative Party officials should be prosecuted for paying money to Senator Duffy in return for actions by Senator Duffy, and/or also click here and here.

Democracy Watch has for the past two years been leading a national campaign to ensure all wrongdoers in the Nigel Wright-PMO-Mike Duffy scandal are held accountable for their wrongdoing.

Democracy Watch called for criminal prosecutions of both Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright for the $90,000 payment Wright made to Duffy when the payment was first made public two years ago, and launched a national petition that was signed by more than 33,000 Canadians calling for an independent prosecutor to be appointed to review evidence and make prosecution decisions (given the serious, ongoing questions about the independence of the RCMP).

Last summer, reporter Laura Stone (then of Global News) spent time with the public sector corruption investigation unit of the RCMP, and in her story the RCMP officers involved in the investigation essentially said that they decided for very questionable reasons to charge only Senator Duffy with receiving a bribe and no one from the Harper PMO with giving the bribe.

In Democracy Watch’s opinion, the key legal measure for the prosecution is subsection 119(1) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits even offering (as well as giving) “corruptly” any benefit to any public official “in respect of” any action or inaction by the official in their capacity as a public official (even if the official never acts). This subsection also prohibits the public official from even attempting to obtain (as well as obtaining) the benefit. And under section 21 of the Criminal Code, it is a violation to aid or abet anyone in violating any prohibition in the Code, and under section 24 it is a violation to attempt to violate any prohibition in the Code.

There are no past court rulings on subsection 119(1). As Democracy Watch’s December 2013 letter to the RCMP detailed, based on past rulings concerning a similar section in the Code (subsection 426(1)), Democracy Watch’s opinion is that to violate subsection 119(1) there does not have to be a “corrupt bargain” or a trading of favours between the person who offers or gives the benefit and the public official attempting to obtain or receiving the benefit. All that is needed for a violation is for the benefit to be given in a corrupt way (for example, in secret with a commitment to keep it secret), and for the benefit to be “in respect of” actions or inactions by the official.

The evidence in Corporal Horton’s affidavit revealed in November 2013 shows that at least three people other than Nigel Wright were involved in the secret negotiations involving offers of benefits, and payments of money, to Senator Duffy in return for at least three actions by Senator Duffy in his capacity as a senator. And the evidence shows that at least one other person was involved in attempting to obtain, and obtaining, benefits and payments of money for Senator Duffy in return for at least three actions by Senator Duffy in his capacity as a senator.

The secrecy of the negotiations and agreements between Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy; the attempt to change the results of an independent audit of Senator Duffy’s expenses; the resignation or firing of Wright, and; the agreement by many of the people involved to issue public statements that concealed that the payment had been given to Senator Duffy, and their agreement to mislead the public about the facts of the situation, is all evidence that the benefits were offered and given to Senator Duffy “corruptly”.

For all of the above reasons, Democracy Watch is requesting that the RCMP officials and the prosecutors involved explain exactly how they took into account the evidence and legal measures set out above in their decision not to prosecute Nigel Wright (and, by implication, others involved), and Democracy Watch will continue pursuing this matter until all the evidence and legal arguments are given a full public hearing.

– 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