Please support democracy

Without your support, Democracy Watch can't win key changes to stop governments and big businesses from abusing their power and hurting you and your family. Please click here to support democracy now

Category: News

As Quebec’s experience shows clearly, Ontario Liberals’ proposed annual political donation limit of $7,750 to each party won’t do anything to stop unethical influence of wealthy interests

Posted on by Bradford

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

Before making any other changes, make the 5-year ban on federal lobbying an actual ban, and make it fair, and strengthen enforcement

Posted on by Bradford

The following op-ed, by Democracy Watch Co-founder Duff Conacher, was published in the Hill Times on May 16, 2016

Rather than scrap the so-called five-year ban on lobbying as some high-powered, high-priced lobbyists are proposing (which will only increase the level of unethical lobbying in Ottawa, as a May 3rd Globe and Mail editorial pointed out), how about actually making it a ban, and then adjusting it to make it more fair and effective.

As is unfortunately usually not mentioned, the five-year ban is only a ban on being a registered lobbyist, not on lobbying. Technical loopholes in the rules in the Lobbying Act and the Conflict of Interest Act allow the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, and senior government officials to be paid to lobby some federal government institutions the day after they leave office (and to lobby all government institutions one to two years after they leave).

Only one of those loopholes, and not the biggest one, is mentioned most articles about the federal lobbying law — the rule that allows people employed by businesses and other organizations to lobby without registering as long as collectively all employees don’t lobby more than 20 pecent of their time.

Probably the biggest loophole, which former PM Harper adviser Bruce Carson exploited, is that unpaid lobbying does not have to be registered or disclosed. As a result, former public office holders can easily have anyone pay them for advice while lobbying for them for free (in secret, and right after they leave office). The loophole is so huge prosecutors didn’t even charge Carson when he was caught lobbying without registering for a water filtration company — both he and his client simply said he wasn’t paid for the lobbying.

Another huge loophole is that no one is required to register when lobbying a law enforcement agency of any kind about “the enforcement, interpretation or application” of a law or regulation that applies to them. This is a very active area of business lobbying especially, and public office holders can do this lobbying and be paid for it the day after they leave their position.

Until all the loopholes are closed, secret, unethical lobbying will continue to undermine and corrupt our democracy.

When these loopholes are closed — when secret, unregistered lobbying is actually made illegal — we will actually have a five-year ban. Then, and only then, the five-year ban should be modified.

Right now backbench MPs have the same cooling-off period as the PM, Cabinet ministers and senior government officials. That doesn’t make sense in most cases. The ban should be changed into a sliding scale from one to five years that applies to all politicians, staff, appointees and government officials — with a longer cooling-off period for people who have more power and connections, and a shorter cooling-off period for people with neither. The Commissioner of Lobbying should be empowered to decide the specific period for each person.

The length of any public office holder’s cooling-off period should be based on the appearance of a conflict of interest standard. That would mean an opposition backbench MP who is a good friend of his/her party’s leader and senior MPs who loses his/her seat in an election may, if his/her party wins that election, have a longer cooling-off period from lobbying some public office holders or departments than a defeated Cabinet minister from the party that was in power.

This would be a more complicated system for the Commissioner of Lobbying to administer, but no more complicated than the current post-employment cooling-off system that the Ethics Commissioner administers. And it would also be more fair, and prevent apparent conflicts of interest more directly and comprehensively.

Whether the Commissioner of Lobbying position and the Ethics Commissioner position are ever combined, as some have proposed, the positions should be changed into three-member commissions. The current commissioners have had reigns of error since 2007 in enforcing the Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and the Conflict of Interest Act and Conflict of Interest Code for MPs, during which both of them have issued dozens of secret rulings, and let dozens of people who have clearly violated various rules off the hook (they have both let off more than 75% of rule violators).

Even worse, it is likely, given that both commissioners have failed to conduct random audits (which are key to effective enforcement of any law), that only five percent of rule violators have been caught. This means since 2007 likely more than 1,500 public office holders have violated ethics rules, and likely more than 1,500 lobbyists have violated lobbying rules, without getting caught.

The unfortunate, very weak enforcement records of the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Ethics Commissioner have shown clearly that not only would it be a very bad idea to re-appoint either of them this July to a new term, but also that one person should not be trusted with enforcing these key democratic good government laws and codes. A commission with three members will ensure that weak enforcement will be checked, and will make it more difficult for the ruling party to appoint a negligent lapdog “czar” who rubber stamps most everything they do as ethical and legal.

As the Supreme Court stated in a 1996 ruling, and the Federal Court of Appeal echoed in a 2009 ruling, if we don’t have strong ethics rules and lobbying restrictions, both strongly enforced, we won’t have a democratic government.

Because it’s 2016, Canadians deserve these and other real changes, finally, to clean up federal politics.

Group launches letter-writing campaign calling on federal Liberals, and governments across Canada, to stop patronage and cronyism with truly independent appointments committees to ensure merit-based Cabinet appointments

Posted on by Bradford

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

As Quebec’s experience shows clearly, Ontario Liberals proposed annual political donation limit of $7,750 to each party won’t do anything to stop unethical influence of wealthy interests

Posted on by Bradford

Should be lowered to Quebec limit of $100, 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

Changes should be made at same time to municipal system across province

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, May 6, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the 50-member group Money in Politics Coalition applauded some of the Ontario Liberals’ proposed political finance reforms, but called on them to lower their proposed annual political donation limit, and annual per-vote funding amount, because both are much too high. The Liberals should also make their proposals available to the public – they were only provided to opposition parties and the media yesterday and are not on any Ontario government website.

According to media reports, the Liberals are proposing the following good changes: a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations; limits on political party and third party advertising leading up to an election, and during an election campaign period, and; limits on donations to party leadership race candidates.

However, 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 are instead proposing 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 at all.

“The Ontario Liberals’ proposed annual individual political donation limit of $7,750 to each party is clearly undemocratic because it is almost 80 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.

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 llowered 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 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):

  • a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
  • 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);
  • 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);
  • 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;
  • 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);
  • 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);
  • annual public funding for parties matching the first $100,000-$200,000 raised (as in Quebec);
  • public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (as in Quebec), and;
  • 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

Given judge’s conclusions in Senator Mike Duffy trial ruling, Democracy Watch again calls for Nigel Wright, and PMO and Conservative Party officials who aided him, to be prosecuted for bribing Duffy

Posted on by Bradford

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

Group calls on Ontario Liberals to undertake meaningful public consultation before changing political finance system

Posted on by Bradford

Key democracy laws usually developed by all parties after public consultation – Ontario Liberals unilateral action similar to the so-called “Fair Election Act” the federal Conservatives’ imposed on other parties in 2014

Proposed donation limit of $1,500 undemocratically high – changes should also be made to municipal system across province

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 14, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the Ontario Liberals to undertake a meaningful public consultation before changing the political finance system. The unilateral decision by the Liberals on changes that will be made goes against their own commitment to consult with Ontarians before making decisions, and also goes against the mandate given by Premier Wynne to Treasury Board minister Deb Matthews to ensure consultation occurs.

“Key democracy laws across Canada are usually developed by all parties after meaningful public consultation and the Ontario Liberals should follow this tradition before changing the political finance system,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor and LL.M. candidate at the University of Ottawa. “In 2014 the federal Conservatives failed to consult with anyone before introducing big changes to the election law, and the Ontario Liberals should not follow the Conservatives’ undemocratic process.”

Democracy Watch also called for key changes to ensure the new political finance system will actually be democratic. While the Liberals have made good proposals to ban corporate and union donations, and limit donations and spending by all candidates (including party leadership candidates), the Toronto Star has reported that the Ontario Liberals will also set the limit on individual donations at the undemocratically high level of $1,500.

“The proposed $1,500 donation limit is undemocratic because most Ontarians can’t afford it and so it will allow wealthy interests to still use money as an unethical way of influencing parties and politicians,” said Conacher. “As Quebec’s corruption scandal shows clearly, it will also allow corporations, unions and other organizations continue to donate large amounts by having their executives and their family members all make the maximum donation each year.”

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 would be able to prove otherwise.

Few have been charged in Quebec’s corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.5 million in likely illegally funneled donations from 2006-2011. To stop the corruption, in 2013 Quebec lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates. Ontario should make the same democratic changes.

“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 that ensures parties and candidates have a level of funding based on their 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 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 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 Money in Politics Campaign

Group launches petition calling on Prime Minister Trudeau and Revenue Minister Lebouthillier to call public inquiry into CRA’s relationship with big accounting firms – more than 15,000 have signed already

Posted on by Bradford

Proposed House Finance Committee hearings a “kangaroo court” – partisan politicians can’t investigate past governments impartially

Ethics rules, enforcement and penalties for former government employees also need to be strengthened to ensure they don’t sell their inside access and knowledge

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, April 14, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch launched a petition on Change.org calling on Prime Minister Trudeau and Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier to call a public inquiry into the Canada Revenue Agency’s relationship with big accounting firms. The petition already has more than 15,000 signatures.

The House of Commons Finance Committee is considering holding hearings on the relationship but a partisan committee dominated by Liberals can’t impartially investigate what happened during a previous Conservative government.

“An independent, impartial public inquiry is needed to find out the whole truth about whether the CRA’s relationship with big accounting firms has allowed their wealthy clients to get away with cheating on their taxes,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, and Visiting Professor and LL.M. candidate at the University of Ottawa. “The House Finance Committee holding hearings on the situation is not enough to find out the whole truth because committees are kangaroo courts made up of partisan politicians judging other politicians and past governments.”

As the CBC has reported over the past six months, dozens of people have left the CRA or the Department of Justice and gone to work for the big accounting companies. Top CRA officials regularly attend behind-closed-door events with top accounting company officials. As well, Cabinet ministers have also played questionable roles at events, and the Canadian government even works in partnership with the accounting industry association.

Also as the CBC has reported, the CRA also failed to aggressively pursue a case against a tax-evasion scheme involving KPMG and some of it wealthy clients, and the CRA offered a secret amnesty to some of those clients.

Democracy Watch also called on the federal government to change federal laws as soon as possible:

  • to increase the cooling-off period for former federal government employees from one year to up to five years based on their last one year up to five years in their job (on a sliding scale depending on whether they are a junior or senior employee);
  • to require all employees to notify the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner when they leave government so the Commissioner can ensure they don’t take jobs or share information with individuals or entities they watched over when they were in government, and;
  • to establish strong penalties for former government employees who violate key ethics rules (there are no penalties now), and to give the Integrity Commissioner the power to impose the penalties.

“The ethics rules and enforcement for CRA and all former federal government employees are too weak to ensure they don’t secretly sell their inside access and knowledge to companies or others they watched over, and the lack of penalties for violating post-employment rules makes the system a sad joke,” said Conacher. “The cooling-off period for former employees must be increased, and they should be required to tell the Integrity Commissioner what they are doing during their cooling-off period, with the Commissioner empowered to impose strong penalties on anyone who violates the rules.”

The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector (which covers the CRA and all government institutions) requires public servants to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and the Policy on Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment requires government institutions to prevent situations “that could impair either the integrity of the public service or the public’s perception of its integrity.”

However, the Policy (Appendix B) only specifically prohibits senior government employees, for only one year after they leave their job, from working with anyone or any entity that they had significant official dealings with only during the last year of their job, and to disclose what jobs they take during that one year only to their deputy head (who can exempt them from the cooling-off period).

The CRA’s own Code of Integrity and Professional Conduct also requires avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and says CRA’s employees and former employees can never “communicate any information or share any proprietary knowledge that you obtained while on the job, and that has not been made public by the CRA.”

However, the CRA’s Directive on conflict of interest, gifts and hospitality, and post-employment says all employees only have a one-year cooling-off period after they leave their job that prohibits them from working with anyone or any entity that they had significant official dealings with during the last year of their job (and it can be reduced or waived by their manager), and they are not required to notify anyone about their work after they leave, and there are no penalties for violating any post-employm`ent rule.

Even worse, the most senior government officials at the CRA and all government institutions – people who are appointed by Cabinet like deputy ministers and commissioners and heads of institutions – are only required to comply with the much weaker rules in the Conflict of Interest Act. The Act allows Cabinet ministers, their staff, and Cabinet appointees like deputy ministers, to make decisions they can profit from, and while the Act requires a one- to two-year cooling-off period after they leave their position, they don’t have to notify the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner about who they are working for during that period. There are also no penalties for violating any of the ethics or post-employment rules in the Act.

“The ethics rules from the top to the bottom of the federal government, and enforcement of the rules and penalties for violations, are all dangerously weak – they need to be strengthened, and until they are unethical relationships between politicians and government officials and lobbyists will continue to undermine our democracy,” said Conacher.

– 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

How to reform political finance across Canada democratically

Posted on by Bradford

The following op-ed by Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher, was published in the Hill Times on April 11, 2016 and on Rabble.ca on April 14, 2016.

Some recent commentary on reforming political finance across Canada has unfortunately included incomplete proposals that won’t stop big money from corrupting Canadian politics.

The most questionable claim by some commentators is that the federal law is the best model. While the federal government banned corporate and union donations in 2007, its $3,050 annual donation limit for individuals ($1,525 to a party and the same amount to its riding associations) is much more than any average person can afford – given that the average annual income in Canada is only about $40,000.

As a result, wealthy people can still use money as an unethical way to influence federal parties and politicians, especially since they can hedge their bets by giving the $3,050 amount to more than one party. That high donation limit also facilitates businesses, unions and other organizations getting around the ban by funneling donations through their executives – 10 executives giving the maximum adds up to a $30,500 donation.

Some have proposed that requiring donors to identify their employer would stop this funneling. However, donors would claim they were not forced by their organization to give the money, and no one would be able to prove otherwise, or they would funnel donations through their family members further hiding the source of the money.

Quebec learned this the hard way, as few have been charged in its corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.8 million in likely funneled donations from 2006-2011. To stop the corruption, in 2013 Quebec lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Some party leaders and other politicians, and some commentators, claim political parties wouldn’t have the money they need to operate under the Quebec limit. They conveniently fail to mention other elements of Quebec’s world-leading system.

Quebec also has $1.50 per-vote annual funding for political parties (as do four other provinces, and so did the federal level before the Harper Conservatives eliminated it) and public funding that matches the first $200,000 raised by a political party, and $20,000 raised by an election candidate. These amounts close the gap left by ending undemocratic large donations from wealthy interests.

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

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

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

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

As well, the average individual donation to each federal party is only $100-250 yet people who donate up to $400 receive a 75% tax deduction. Even worse, wealthy people who can afford to donate between $1,275 and the maximum donation allowed of $1,525 receive the huge subsidy of almost half that total ($650) as a tax deduction. These taxpayer-funded subsidies add up to more than $20 million annually for all parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election and ethics watchdogs must be required to do regular audits, including of politicians’ bank accounts, to ensure everyone follows all the rules. Disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of organizers of any fundraising event);

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

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

Will Prime Minister Trudeau enforce his own code rule that prohibits ministers fundraising from stakeholders?

Posted on by Bradford

Will federal Ethics Commissioner enforce federal ethics rule that prohibits politicians from accepting gifts that might influence them – and rule that donations at private fundraising events are illegal gifts?

Ethics Commissioner must also investigate and publicly disclose identities of all who have donated at the exclusive events, and must monitor all policy-making processes that affect the donors to ensure no preferential treatment occurs

Federal government must also make same world-leading changes to political donations laws as Quebec made in 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, April 6, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Prime Minister Trudeau to enforce the rule in his Open and Accountable Government code for ministers that prohibits ministers from fundraising from department stakeholders. The rules are in Annex B and state:

“Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should ensure that the solicitation of political contributions on their behalf does not target:
  –  departmental stakeholders, or
  –  other lobbyists and employees of lobbying firms.”

and

“Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must avoid conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest and situations that have the potential to involve conflicts of interest.”

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould is scheduled to attend a $500-a-ticket private, exclusive fundraising event at a law firm in Toronto on Thursday. This event clearly violates the rules in Prime Minister Trudeau’s code. Will he enforce his own rules?

Democracy Watch also called on federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to do her job properly, finally, by issuing a ruling prohibiting politicians from taking part in private, exclusive fundraising events because they violate the rules in the Conflict of Interest Act (subsection 11(1)) and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (subsection 14(1)) that prohibit federal ministers and MPs from accepting gifts or other benefits “that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence” them. Section 16 of the Act also states public office holders can’t “personally solicit funds from any person or organization if it would place the public office holder in a conflict of interest.

As well, the federal Ethics Commissioner must investigate how many private, exclusive high-priced events have occurred since July 2007 when the Conflict of Interest Act came into force. There is no limitation period on violations of the Act, and so the Commissioner should investigate and obtain and release the list of donors to all the events that have happened, and also investigate and monitor all policy-making processes that affect the donors to ensure no preferential treatment occurs (preferential treatment is illegal under section 7 of the Conflict of Interest Act).

“Big donations made at private fundraising events where the politician is essentially selling access to themselves are a clear violation of federal ethics rules that prohibit ministers and MPs from accepting gifts or benefits that might influence them,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor and LL.M. candidate at the University of Ottawa. “If Ethics Commissioner Dawson doesn’t issue a ruling that these unethical fundraising events are illegal, and investigate all such events in recent years, she will not only be negligently ignoring the law she will also be approving corrupting relationships between donors and politicians.”

Democracy Watch is not claiming that all fundraising events are illegal — just high-priced, private, exclusive events where politicians sell access to themselves in return for a donation, as the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star have recently revealed are happening frequently in Ontario and B.C. (and they happen across the country at all levels of government). Low-priced, large, public events at which no one gets special access to the politician are clearly legal under the conflict-of-interest rules because the donation is not made to gain access to the politician.

While the donations for a high-priced, private, exclusive event go to a party or riding association, access to the politician is part of the ticket price for these exclusive events (which connects the donation to their position as a politician); the politician takes part in directing the spending of the money (as the party leader or local politician for the riding association), and; at least some of the donated money is spent on the politician’s re-election campaign. As a result, the politician is receiving part of a donation made because the politician attended an event – and therefore the politician is receiving an illegal gift.

“Any politician who claims that the donations are funneled to a party or riding association before they are used for the politician’s election campaign, and therefore selling access to themselves is fine, is hiding behind an unethical façade,” said Conacher. “If Ethics Commissioner Dawson has integrity she will end this unethical charade by issuing a ruling that exclusive, high-priced fundraising events violate the federal ethics rule that prohibits politicians from accepting gifts that could influence them.”

Democracy Watch also called on federal parties to make the same world-leading changes to the federal political donation system as Quebec made in 2013, along with other key changes.

While the federal government banned corporate and union donations, it still allows undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford ($1,525 annually to each party, and another $1,525 combined total to each party’s riding associations). As Quebec’s corruption scandal showed, these high donation limits facilitate corporations and unions funneling donations through their executives and/or employees. Few have been charged in its corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.8 million in likely funneled donations from 2006-2011.

“Any political party that refuses to support these changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the corrupt best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics,” said Conacher.

The key changes that to democratize the federal political finance systems are as follows:

  1. 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);
  2. 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);
  3. a limit on spending by nomination race and party leadership candidates;
  4. if an election is held on the fixed election date, a limit on paid issue and campaign advertising spending by individuals and third party interest groups during the 4-month period before election day;
  5. disclosure of amounts spent by individuals and third party interest groups on issue campaigns in between elections, and disclosure of the source of their funding;
  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 (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 and release the results of annual random audits to ensure everyone is following all the rules.

– 30 –

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

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

Group calls on Ontario and B.C. and all other ethics commissioners to stop unethical fundraising events by premiers and Cabinet ministers by issuing ruling that the events are illegal

Posted on by Bradford

Conflict-of-interest laws across country prohibit politicians from accepting gifts connected with their position — donations at private fundraising events are illegal gifts

Ethics commissioners must also investigate and publicly disclose identities of all who have donated at the exclusive events, and must monitor all policy-making processes that affect the donors to ensure no preferential treatment occurs

All governments must also make same world-leading changes to political donations laws as Quebec made in 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, March 31, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the Ontario and B.C. ethics commissioners, and ethics commissioners across the country, to do their jobs properly by issuing rulings prohibiting politicians from taking part in private fundraising events because they violate the rules in conflict-of-interest laws across Canada that prohibit politicians from accepting gifts connected with their positions. The request has been sent to every ethics commissioner in Canada (federal, provincial and territorial).

“Big donations made at private fundraising events where the politician is essentially selling access to themselves are a clear violation of conflict-of-interest laws that prohibit politicians across Canada from accepting gifts connected with their positions,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Visiting Professor and LL.M. candidate at the University of Ottawa. “If ethics commissioners across Canada don’t issue rulings that these unethical fundraising events are illegal, they will not only be negligently ignoring the law they will also be approving corrupting relationships between donors and politicians.”

Democracy Watch also called on all ethics commissioners to investigate whether such events have occurred, and if they have to obtain and release the list of donors to the events, and to monitor all policy-making processes that affect the donors to ensure no preferential treatment occurs.

Democracy Watch is not claiming that all fundraising events are illegal — just high-priced, exclusive events where politicians sell access to themselves in return for a donation, as the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star have recently revealed are happening frequently in Ontario and B.C. (and they happen across the country at all levels of government). Low-priced, large, public events at which no one gets special access to the politician are clearly legal under the conflict-of-interest laws because the donation is not made to gain access to the politician.

The federal, provincial and territorial conflict-of-interest laws all have the same provision that says politicians cannot accept any gift or benefit “directly or indirectly” connected to their position or “that might reasonably be seen to be given to influence” them (for example, see Ontario’s rule here and B.C.’s rule here). While the donations go to a party or riding association, access to the politician is part of the ticket price for these exclusive events (which connects the donation to their position as a politician); the politician takes part in directing the spending of the money (as the party leader or local politician for the riding association), and; at least some of the donated money is spent on the politician’s re-election campaign. As a result, the politician is receiving part of a donation made because the politician attended an event – and therefore the politician is receiving an illegal gift.

“Any politician who claims that the donations are funnelled to a party or riding association before they are used for the politician’s election campaign, and therefore selling access to themselves is fine, is hiding behind a corrupt façade,” said Conacher. “Any ethics commissioner with integrity will end this unethical charade by issuing a ruling that exclusive, high-priced fundraising events violate the rule that prohibits receiving gifts that is in every conflict of interest law across Canada.”

Democracy Watch also called on governments across the country to make the same world-leading changes to their political donation systems (federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal in each province and territory) as Quebec made in 2013, along with other key changes.

Political finance systems across Canada, other than Quebec’s provincial system, are all undemocratic in various ways. B.C., Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon are the worst 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.

Ontario, 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, they still allow undemocratically high donations that only wealthy people can afford. As Quebec’s corruption scandal showed, these high donation limits facilitate corporations and unions funneling donations through their executives and/or employees.

“Any political party that refuses to make these changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the corrupt best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics,” said Conacher.

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);
  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 politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations;
  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 (which Quebec has);
  9. public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (which Quebec has), 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 Money in Politics Campaign
Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign