Stage 1 hearing of case is about whether errors in Ethics Commissioner rulings can be challenged in court when government tries to prohibit challenges

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that the Commissioner found Trudeau had

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 25, 2024

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that the court case it filed in June 2021 is finally in the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) today, although still at a preliminary stage.  The case challenges Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.

The hearing is at the FCA today at 9:30 am in Ottawa at the Thomas D’Arcy McGee Building, 90 Sparks Street, 10th Floor.  The case is FCA file #A-169-21, and anyone can click here and register to watch the hearing on Zoom.  Michael Fisher of Ravenlaw is representing Democracy Watch in the case.

The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, which is strange given the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other member of the federal Cabinet.  Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the FCA.  In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case, and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.

Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.

The ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case will set a precedent that not only determines whether DWatch’s case challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling will go ahead, but also determines whether anyone can challenge errors in the rulings of any federal agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the law that governs it.

Democracy Watch is arguing that anyone should be able to challenge errors in Ethics Commissioner and other tribunal rulings in court to ensure that they interpret and enforce the laws they enforce properly. That’s why we have courts, to ensure that every government official, include watchdogs and administrative enforcement agencies, comply with the law.

Click here to see the Backgrounder summarizing the four key errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling.

“Hopefully the court will allow the case to go ahead challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s error-filled ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau participating in the WE Charity grant approval, and will set a precedent that allows future cases challenging of errors in rulings by all federal agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals to ensure that they always enforce the law properly,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Former Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion contradicted himself, tied himself into knots, and cut the federal ethics law into pieces in his ruling letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he clearly violated the federal conflict of interest law by participating, and having his office staff participate, in the WE Charity grant approval,” said Conacher.  “Former Ethics Commissioner Dion rolled over like a lapdog and again failed to properly enforce the ethics law, and Democracy Watch is challenging his ruling in court because it sets a very bad precedent that will allow politicians and government officials to take part in future decisions to hand out money to individuals and organizations that have close relations with their families.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign

Stage 1 hearing of case is about whether errors in Ethics Commissioner rulings can be challenged in court when government tries to prohibit challenges

Federal ethics law prohibits all conflicts of interest and improper decisions, including improper apparent conflict that the Commissioner found Trudeau had

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 25, 2024

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that the court case it filed in June 2021 is finally in the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) today, although still at a preliminary stage.  The case challenges Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion’s May 2021 ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau’s participation in the WE Charity grant approval process because the Commissioner made four key errors in letting Trudeau off even though Trudeau clearly violated the federal government ethics law.

The hearing is at the FCA today at 9:30 am in Ottawa at the Thomas D’Arcy McGee Building, 90 Sparks Street, 10th Floor.  The case is FCA file #A-169-21, and anyone can click here and register to watch the hearing on Zoom.  Michael Fisher of Ravenlaw is representing Democracy Watch in the case.

The Attorney General of Canada (AGC) handles the case when the Ethics Commissioner is challenged in court, which is strange given the Ethics Commissioner issues rulings on the AGC and other member of the federal Cabinet.  Cases challenging Ethics Commissioner rulings go straight to the FCA.  In 2021, the AGC filed a motion to try to stop the case, arguing that DWatch didn’t have standing to pursue the case, and that errors in the Commissioner’s rulings can’t be challenged in court.

Justice Stratas of the FCA ruled in December 2022 that DWatch had public interest standing to pursue the case, but he then ruled in February 2023 that the FCA had to first consider whether section 66 of the Conflict of Interest Act (which is known as a “partial privative clause”) prohibits challenging errors in the Commissioner’s rulings in court.

The ruling on this Stage 1 issue in the case will set a precedent that not only determines whether DWatch’s case challenging errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling will go ahead, but also determines whether anyone can challenge errors in the rulings of any federal agency, board, commission or tribunal that has a “partial privative clause” in the law that governs it.

Democracy Watch is arguing that anyone should be able to challenge errors in Ethics Commissioner and other tribunal rulings in court to ensure that they interpret and enforce the laws they enforce properly. That’s why we have courts, to ensure that every government official, include watchdogs and administrative enforcement agencies, comply with the law.

Click here to see the Backgrounder summarizing the four key errors in the Ethics Commissioner’s ruling.

“Hopefully the court will allow the case to go ahead challenging the Ethics Commissioner’s error-filled ruling on Prime Minister Trudeau participating in the WE Charity grant approval, and will set a precedent that allows future cases challenging of errors in rulings by all federal agencies, boards, commissioners and tribunals to ensure that they always enforce the law properly,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“Former Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion contradicted himself, tied himself into knots, and cut the federal ethics law into pieces in his ruling letting Prime Minister Trudeau off even though he clearly violated the federal conflict of interest law by participating, and having his office staff participate, in the WE Charity grant approval,” said Conacher.  “Former Ethics Commissioner Dion rolled over like a lapdog and again failed to properly enforce the ethics law, and Democracy Watch is challenging his ruling in court because it sets a very bad precedent that will allow politicians and government officials to take part in future decisions to hand out money to individuals and organizations that have close relations with their families.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s and Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Fraud Politician Spending Campaign

Group already has ongoing lawsuit challenging constitutionality of too-political federal judicial appointments and promotions system

Premier Ford’s recent comments/actions make it clear the system is too political, which violates judicial independence and Charter rights of people in court cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 29, 2024

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it will file a court case challenging Ontario’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to provincial courts.  Ross & McBride LLP will represent Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case.

Recent comments by Premier Doug Ford have made it clear that the changes his Progressive Conservative government made in 2021 to Ontario’s judicial appointment system, which gave the Attorney General (AG) more power and control over the appointment process, are intended to allow the government to appoint only Conservatives as judges.

At a news conference last Friday, Premier Ford confirmed that was the intent of the changes when he said: “I’m not going to appoint some NDP or some Liberal” and “I’m appointing judges who believe in what we believe in”.  He said similar statements in the Legislature on Monday and on Tuesday and on Wednesday.

As the Toronto Star reported last week, Premier Ford’s government also recently appointed two former Premier’s Office senior staff to the province’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC), one as Chair and another as a member, and they are also both registered to lobby the Ford government.

“Democracy Watch will file a court case challenging the Ford government’s appointment system for judges because it is open to political interference, patronage and cronyism that violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the courts, independence that is needed to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The previous Ontario judicial appointments system which was in place since 1988 was more independent, but it could have been improved to make it even less under Cabinet control like Quebec’s world-leading system was made just over a decade ago.”

In Quebec’s appointment system, the Minister only appoints (in consultation with others) at most one member of the 5-6 member selection committee, and the committee only recommends three candidates for each open position (Click here and see sections 14-16 and 26).  In the UK system, the committee only recommends one candidate, and the minister must explain in writing to the committee if s/he rejects the recommended candidate.

In contrast, the Ford government’s 2021 changes increased from 7 to 10 (out of 13 total) the number of people the AG appoints as members of the province’s JAAC, and increased from 2 or more to 6 or more the number of candidates the JAAC is required to recommend to the AG for each open position.  The AG is also allowed to reject the list of candidates recommended by the JAAC and require a new list, and to consult with anyone, including ruling party members, about the candidates.  These changes open up the appointments system to political interference, patronage and cronyism (Click here to see Backgrounder for more details).

Ontario’s 2021 changes made Ontario’s appointment system similar to the federal system (the federal Minister appoints 6 of 7 members of the federal Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs), and the JACs send long lists of candidates to the Minister, who then consults with many ruling party politicians and members).

Democracy Watch has an ongoing court case now at the Federal Court of Appeal challenging the federal government’s system for appointing judges because it is open to political interference that violates the public’s Charter right to impartial courts, and the constitutional principle that guarantees the structural independence of judges so that the public can have confidence in the independence and impartiality of the courts.

Democracy Watch’s position is that the 2021 changes made Ontario’s system for appointing judges similarly unconstitutionally political and partisan.

The Advocates’ Society, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association all recently expressed similar concerns about Premier Ford’s comments and actions, and they also criticized the changes when they were made in 2021.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Group already has ongoing lawsuit challenging constitutionality of too-political federal judicial appointments and promotions system

Premier Ford’s recent comments/actions make it clear the system is too political, which violates judicial independence and Charter rights of people in court cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 29, 2024

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it will file a court case challenging Ontario’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to provincial courts.  Ross & McBride LLP will represent Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case.

Recent comments by Premier Doug Ford have made it clear that the changes his Progressive Conservative government made in 2021 to Ontario’s judicial appointment system, which gave the Attorney General (AG) more power and control over the appointment process, are intended to allow the government to appoint only Conservatives as judges.

At a news conference last Friday, Premier Ford confirmed that was the intent of the changes when he said: “I’m not going to appoint some NDP or some Liberal” and “I’m appointing judges who believe in what we believe in”.  He said similar statements in the Legislature on Monday and on Tuesday and on Wednesday.

As the Toronto Star reported last week, Premier Ford’s government also recently appointed two former Premier’s Office senior staff to the province’s Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC), one as Chair and another as a member, and they are also both registered to lobby the Ford government.

“Democracy Watch will file a court case challenging the Ford government’s appointment system for judges because it is open to political interference, patronage and cronyism that violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the courts, independence that is needed to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The previous Ontario judicial appointments system which was in place since 1988 was more independent, but it could have been improved to make it even less under Cabinet control like Quebec’s world-leading system was made just over a decade ago.”

In Quebec’s appointment system, the Minister only appoints (in consultation with others) at most one member of the 5-6 member selection committee, and the committee only recommends three candidates for each open position (Click here and see sections 14-16 and 26).  In the UK system, the committee only recommends one candidate, and the minister must explain in writing to the committee if s/he rejects the recommended candidate.

In contrast, the Ford government’s 2021 changes increased from 7 to 10 (out of 13 total) the number of people the AG appoints as members of the province’s JAAC, and increased from 2 or more to 6 or more the number of candidates the JAAC is required to recommend to the AG for each open position.  The AG is also allowed to reject the list of candidates recommended by the JAAC and require a new list, and to consult with anyone, including ruling party members, about the candidates.  These changes open up the appointments system to political interference, patronage and cronyism (Click here to see Backgrounder for more details).

Ontario’s 2021 changes made Ontario’s appointment system similar to the federal system (the federal Minister appoints 6 of 7 members of the federal Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs), and the JACs send long lists of candidates to the Minister, who then consults with many ruling party politicians and members).

Democracy Watch has an ongoing court case now at the Federal Court of Appeal challenging the federal government’s system for appointing judges because it is open to political interference that violates the public’s Charter right to impartial courts, and the constitutional principle that guarantees the structural independence of judges so that the public can have confidence in the independence and impartiality of the courts.

Democracy Watch’s position is that the 2021 changes made Ontario’s system for appointing judges similarly unconstitutionally political and partisan.

The Advocates’ Society, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association all recently expressed similar concerns about Premier Ford’s comments and actions, and they also criticized the changes when they were made in 2021.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

Unprecedented study of donations and loans from 2016-2022 shows about 75% of donors donate only about $75 a year, only 5% donate more than $1,000

Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funneling of donations, unethical influence, and foreign interference in Canadian politics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 21, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its unprecedented study of political donations, loans and taxpayer-funded subsidies to the main federal parties from 2016-2022 (2023 is not included because most final stats are not yet available).

The statistics show that the current political finance system is rigged in favour of a few wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks, and is unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and essentially a legalized bribery system.

The conclusions of the study are that to have fair, ethical and democratic federal elections and policy-making processes, the annual donation and loan limit should be lowered to $75, and if the parties can prove they can’t raise enough funding to inform voters, run their operations and election campaigns then public funding should be provided by matching donations, giving loans from a public fund (instead of allowing unethical loans from federally regulated banks), and giving election cost reimbursements to all parties (not just the main parties).

The same changes are needed across Canada (except in Quebec which already has a $100 donation limit, donation-matching and other public funding), especially in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon where unlimited donations are still allowed from businesses, unions, other organizations and individuals.

Click here to see an infographic webpage that summarizes the key findings of the study, and contains links to detailed charts and analytical documents.

The key findings of the study are as follows:

1. About 75% of donors to the main federal parties donate only about $75 a year;

2. Only 5% of donors donate more than $1,000 a year – only 11,000 voters out of Canada’s total of more than 27 million voters donate more than $1,000;

3. Because their donations are so much larger than other donors, these 11,000 donors who donate $1,000+ provide on average 30% of the total raised by the main parties each year (especially to the Liberals and Conservatives).

4. The system also favours wealthy nomination contestants as they are allowed to donate $1,000 to their own campaign, wealthy election candidates who are allowed to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy party leadership contestants who are allowed to donate $25,000 to their own campaign;

5. Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funnelling of large amounts of money to federal parties, including foreign governments funnelling donations through front-groups and individuals in Canada, and gives big money donors unethical influence over politicians;

6. Only about 240,000 voters donate each year out of more than 27 million voters, and 9 out of 10 donate less than $500, and they donate $52 million on average to the main parties;

7. Most of the main parties spend what they raise each year, and rely on huge loans from federally regulated banks and financial institutions to pay for their election campaigns (these loans should instead come from a public fund);

8. Lowering the donation limit to $75 would mean the parties would have to attract $75 donations from only about 500,000 more voters (out of the more than 26 million who don’t donate now) to raise the same amount they currently raise each year (the Conservatives would need about 220,000 more donors, the Liberals about 170,000, the NDP about 63,000, the Greens about 30,000 and the Bloc about 10,000), and;

9. Taxpayers subsidize the main parties with about $27 million each year in tax deductions for donations (that mostly go to wealthy donors, and tens of millions more during election years), and about $63 million in post-election campaign cost reimbursements (that almost always goes only to the main parties and their candidates). It would be much more democratic to use this public funding to match donations and reimburse all parties’ and candidates’ election costs.

“Canada’s current undemocratic and unfair big money political finance system is rigged in favour of wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, big parties and the big banks, and the best way to make the system fair and to stop the unethical influence of big money in Canadian politics is to stop big money donations and loans and, if the parties can prove they need it, provide donation-matching public funding, loans from a public fund and election campaign cost reimbursements to all parties and candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, whose PhD thesis contains most of the research, and detailed recommendations, in Chapters 3 and 6 of the thesis. Democracy Watch thanks Cameron Flanagan and Justin Myers for their assistance in completing the political donation calculations for each year.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign and Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

Unprecedented study of donations and loans from 2016-2022 shows about 75% of donors donate only about $75 a year, only 5% donate more than $1,000

Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funneling of donations, unethical influence, and foreign interference in Canadian politics

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 21, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its unprecedented study of political donations, loans and taxpayer-funded subsidies to the main federal parties from 2016-2022 (2023 is not included because most final stats are not yet available).

The statistics show that the current political finance system is rigged in favour of a few wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, the big parties and Canada’s Big Banks, and is unfair, undemocratic, corrupting and essentially a legalized bribery system.

The conclusions of the study are that to have fair, ethical and democratic federal elections and policy-making processes, the annual donation and loan limit should be lowered to $75, and if the parties can prove they can’t raise enough funding to inform voters, run their operations and election campaigns then public funding should be provided by matching donations, giving loans from a public fund (instead of allowing unethical loans from federally regulated banks), and giving election cost reimbursements to all parties (not just the main parties).

The same changes are needed across Canada (except in Quebec which already has a $100 donation limit, donation-matching and other public funding), especially in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon where unlimited donations are still allowed from businesses, unions, other organizations and individuals.

Click here to see an infographic webpage that summarizes the key findings of the study, and contains links to detailed charts and analytical documents.

The key findings of the study are as follows:

1. About 75% of donors to the main federal parties donate only about $75 a year;

2. Only 5% of donors donate more than $1,000 a year – only 11,000 voters out of Canada’s total of more than 27 million voters donate more than $1,000;

3. Because their donations are so much larger than other donors, these 11,000 donors who donate $1,000+ provide on average 30% of the total raised by the main parties each year (especially to the Liberals and Conservatives).

4. The system also favours wealthy nomination contestants as they are allowed to donate $1,000 to their own campaign, wealthy election candidates who are allowed to donate $5,000 to their own campaign, and wealthy party leadership contestants who are allowed to donate $25,000 to their own campaign;

5. Allowing big money donations facilitates illegal funnelling of large amounts of money to federal parties, including foreign governments funnelling donations through front-groups and individuals in Canada, and gives big money donors unethical influence over politicians;

6. Only about 240,000 voters donate each year out of more than 27 million voters, and 9 out of 10 donate less than $500, and they donate $52 million on average to the main parties;

7. Most of the main parties spend what they raise each year, and rely on huge loans from federally regulated banks and financial institutions to pay for their election campaigns (these loans should instead come from a public fund);

8. Lowering the donation limit to $75 would mean the parties would have to attract $75 donations from only about 500,000 more voters (out of the more than 26 million who don’t donate now) to raise the same amount they currently raise each year (the Conservatives would need about 220,000 more donors, the Liberals about 170,000, the NDP about 63,000, the Greens about 30,000 and the Bloc about 10,000), and;

9. Taxpayers subsidize the main parties with about $27 million each year in tax deductions for donations (that mostly go to wealthy donors, and tens of millions more during election years), and about $63 million in post-election campaign cost reimbursements (that almost always goes only to the main parties and their candidates). It would be much more democratic to use this public funding to match donations and reimburse all parties’ and candidates’ election costs.

“Canada’s current undemocratic and unfair big money political finance system is rigged in favour of wealthy donors, wealthy candidates, big parties and the big banks, and the best way to make the system fair and to stop the unethical influence of big money in Canadian politics is to stop big money donations and loans and, if the parties can prove they need it, provide donation-matching public funding, loans from a public fund and election campaign cost reimbursements to all parties and candidates,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, whose PhD thesis contains most of the research, and detailed recommendations, in Chapters 3 and 6 of the thesis. Democracy Watch thanks Cameron Flanagan and Justin Myers for their assistance in completing the political donation calculations for each year.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign and Stop Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics Campaign

RCMP still violating law by failing to disclose 2,200 pages of investigation records that DWatch requested in July 2022

RCMP Commissioner and lead investigating officer still to be questioned by House Ethics Committee about their negligently weak investigation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 15, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the records disclosed by the RCMP that explain how its Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Branch sent a misleading letter dated May 25, 2023 to Democracy Watch in response to DWatch’s July 2022 Access to Information Act (ATIA) request.

The letter contained incorrect information saying that the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet members obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 “is currently under investigation”.

In statements issued to the media late in the afternoon on Monday, June 19, 2023 and in the afternoon of Wednesday, June 21, 2023, the RCMP said that the investigation ended in January 2023, and that the incorrect information in the May 25th letter was sent by its ATIP Branch to Democracy Watch “using information available at the time.”  (Click here to see those two full statements from the RCMP posted in DWatch’s June 19, 2023 News Release).

The RCMP’s internal communications records, recently disclosed in response to Democracy Watch’s request under the Access to Information Act, show that while one division of the RCMP had closed the investigation, an administrative system still registered the investigation as ongoing.  Click here to see the records, with the key information on pages 44-48, and 66-76 (especially 68-69).

“The RCMP’s records show that its internal communications system did not make it clear to all divisions and branches of the RCMP when an investigation has been completed, and that it was committing to correct that problem that caused it to mislead Democracy Watch in May 2023 about the status of the investigation into the Trudeau Cabinet SNC-Lavalin obstruction of justice scandal,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The RCMP’s June 21, 2023 statement said: “The RCMP will undertake a new review of the records, and, following necessary consultations, will provide a new release package to the requester within 90 days.”  However, the RCMP only disclosed about 1,800 pages of documents in September, and said about 2,200 pages of records were still being reviewed.

The disclosed records made it clear that the RCMP’s investigation was very superficial and incomplete, didn’t challenge the Trudeau Cabinet’s withholding of key evidence, characterized all statements by everyone in the Cabinet who was alleged to have obstructed justice in a favourable way whenever possible, always argued in favour of doubts concerning the success of a prosecution, incorrectly claimed that the RCMP required proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere” before a prosecution for obstruction could be pursued, and that the RCMP’s national command tried to bury the investigation by delaying a key decision from March 2021 to January 2023.  Click here to see details.

In an email dated September 29, 2023 on page 123 of the recently disclosed records, Rita Lattanzi-Thomas, Senior Consultant in the RCMP’s ATIP Branch writes that the documents are being reviewed to ensure they “will not reveal any investigation techniques etc.” and that the documents contain “the investigator’s notes (emails and notebook entries), witness interviews etc.”

Ms. Lattanzi-Thomas also writes that she is “hoping to have the remainder of the documents released on or before October 13, 2023.”  Click here to see the record and email on page 123.  Four months later, Democracy Watch is still waiting for disclosure of the documents.

“Given Democracy Watch requested the investigation records in July 2022, and the investigation ended in January 2023, it is completely unjustifiable and a clear violation of the federal open government law that the RCMP continues to fail to disclose all the investigation records,” said Conacher.

On December 11, 2023, the House Ethics Committee was supposed to hold a hearing to ask key questions of the RCMP Commissioner and lead investigating officer about the RCMP’s very, incomplete weak investigation, but the meeting was cancelled at the last minute by Committee Chair John Brassard.  The Committee has not yet re-scheduled the hearing.

“All of the RCMP’s conflicting actions and statements and the problems they have caused in this situation are due to their systemic culture of excessive secrecy, and the lack of timely, effective enforcement of the federal access to information law, including penalties for disclosure delays and other violations.  As a result, the public’s right to know have been violated, but no one will be held accountable, let alone penalized,” said Conacher.  “This shows the importance of the Liberal government acting quickly to make the changes to strengthen the Access to Information Act and enforcement, and to establish penalties for violations, as recommended by a House Committee in its June 2023 report.”

If the RCMP was committed to transparency and independent, effective law enforcement, it would have made it clear back in 2019 when the allegations were first made that an independent special prosecutor would oversee the investigation and would issue a public report as soon as it ended that provided a summary of the investigation process and details about any prosecution decisions.  Instead, the end of the investigation was only disclosed months later after unjustifiable delays and through conflicting, vague statements from the RCMP that provided limited information and raised even more questions.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

RCMP still violating law by failing to disclose 2,200 pages of investigation records that DWatch requested in July 2022

RCMP Commissioner and lead investigating officer still to be questioned by House Ethics Committee about their negligently weak investigation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 15, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the records disclosed by the RCMP that explain how its Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Branch sent a misleading letter dated May 25, 2023 to Democracy Watch in response to DWatch’s July 2022 Access to Information Act (ATIA) request.

The letter contained incorrect information saying that the allegation that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet members obstructed justice by pressuring then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin in 2018 “is currently under investigation”.

In statements issued to the media late in the afternoon on Monday, June 19, 2023 and in the afternoon of Wednesday, June 21, 2023, the RCMP said that the investigation ended in January 2023, and that the incorrect information in the May 25th letter was sent by its ATIP Branch to Democracy Watch “using information available at the time.”  (Click here to see those two full statements from the RCMP posted in DWatch’s June 19, 2023 News Release).

The RCMP’s internal communications records, recently disclosed in response to Democracy Watch’s request under the Access to Information Act, show that while one division of the RCMP had closed the investigation, an administrative system still registered the investigation as ongoing.  Click here to see the records, with the key information on pages 44-48, and 66-76 (especially 68-69).

“The RCMP’s records show that its internal communications system did not make it clear to all divisions and branches of the RCMP when an investigation has been completed, and that it was committing to correct that problem that caused it to mislead Democracy Watch in May 2023 about the status of the investigation into the Trudeau Cabinet SNC-Lavalin obstruction of justice scandal,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

The RCMP’s June 21, 2023 statement said: “The RCMP will undertake a new review of the records, and, following necessary consultations, will provide a new release package to the requester within 90 days.”  However, the RCMP only disclosed about 1,800 pages of documents in September, and said about 2,200 pages of records were still being reviewed.

The disclosed records made it clear that the RCMP’s investigation was very superficial and incomplete, didn’t challenge the Trudeau Cabinet’s withholding of key evidence, characterized all statements by everyone in the Cabinet who was alleged to have obstructed justice in a favourable way whenever possible, always argued in favour of doubts concerning the success of a prosecution, incorrectly claimed that the RCMP required proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere” before a prosecution for obstruction could be pursued, and that the RCMP’s national command tried to bury the investigation by delaying a key decision from March 2021 to January 2023.  Click here to see details.

In an email dated September 29, 2023 on page 123 of the recently disclosed records, Rita Lattanzi-Thomas, Senior Consultant in the RCMP’s ATIP Branch writes that the documents are being reviewed to ensure they “will not reveal any investigation techniques etc.” and that the documents contain “the investigator’s notes (emails and notebook entries), witness interviews etc.”

Ms. Lattanzi-Thomas also writes that she is “hoping to have the remainder of the documents released on or before October 13, 2023.”  Click here to see the record and email on page 123.  Four months later, Democracy Watch is still waiting for disclosure of the documents.

“Given Democracy Watch requested the investigation records in July 2022, and the investigation ended in January 2023, it is completely unjustifiable and a clear violation of the federal open government law that the RCMP continues to fail to disclose all the investigation records,” said Conacher.

On December 11, 2023, the House Ethics Committee was supposed to hold a hearing to ask key questions of the RCMP Commissioner and lead investigating officer about the RCMP’s very, incomplete weak investigation, but the meeting was cancelled at the last minute by Committee Chair John Brassard.  The Committee has not yet re-scheduled the hearing.

“All of the RCMP’s conflicting actions and statements and the problems they have caused in this situation are due to their systemic culture of excessive secrecy, and the lack of timely, effective enforcement of the federal access to information law, including penalties for disclosure delays and other violations.  As a result, the public’s right to know have been violated, but no one will be held accountable, let alone penalized,” said Conacher.  “This shows the importance of the Liberal government acting quickly to make the changes to strengthen the Access to Information Act and enforcement, and to establish penalties for violations, as recommended by a House Committee in its June 2023 report.”

If the RCMP was committed to transparency and independent, effective law enforcement, it would have made it clear back in 2019 when the allegations were first made that an independent special prosecutor would oversee the investigation and would issue a public report as soon as it ended that provided a summary of the investigation process and details about any prosecution decisions.  Instead, the end of the investigation was only disclosed months later after unjustifiable delays and through conflicting, vague statements from the RCMP that provided limited information and raised even more questions.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Unfair Law Enforcement Campaign

He is required to disclose his financial interests, he has an active big business consulting website, and he is a Senior Fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute

He has buried 8 complaints, one about the PM, and created 6 new loopholes in rules – is he the handpicked lapdog Trudeau wants as Commissioner?

Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 7, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the open letter it has sent to Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein calling on him to disclose his assets and liabilities, and his consulting clients, and all the communications and records of communications he had with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Privy Council Office (PCO) during his appointment process for his six-month term that began last September.

Democracy Watch also called on MPs on the House Ethics Committee to call Mr. von Finckenstein back very soon to testify about his negligently bad enforcement record and his appointment process, before his current term ends on February 29th, and to reject any attempt by the Trudeau Cabinet to re-appoint him for another six-month term or a 7-year term (the Cabinet is required to consult with opposition party leaders before making a 7-year term appointment).

Mr. von Finckenstein has an active website for consulting and doing arbitrations for big businesses, and is a Senior Fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute (which is a big business lobby group as the members of its Board of Directors make clear), both which can create clear conflicts of interest for him in his role as Interim Ethics Commissioner.  He is also, it seems, a Count from the aristocratic von Finckenstein family.

As well, as far as Democracy Watch can determine, the Interim Commissioner was required by December 31, 2023 to disclose a public summary of his assets and liabilities in the Public Registry under the Conflict of Interest Act (s. 2 “public office holder” and “reporting public office holder”, ss. 25-26, s. 62.2, and the related Cabinet order).  However, there is no listing for him in the Public Registry.

In violation of the Access to Information Act, the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose Mr. von Finckenstein, and also details about how many qualified candidates have applied to be appointed as Ethics Commissioner for a 7-year term in the process that began in April 2023.  Mr. von Finckenstein did not apply to be appointed for a 7-year term by the May 23, 2023 deadline, and so it would be a violation of the rules to appoint him.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner.  The Trudeau Cabinet in 2016-2017 used a similar secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process to appoint several key democratic good government watchdogs, and the opposition parties pushed back a bit but then rolled over and let the Liberals get away with it.

Mr. von Finckenstein has buried 8 ethics complaints, including one about Prime Minister Trudeau, and created 6 new loopholes in federal ethics laws to add to the 10 huge loopholes in the MP Code and the 10 huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act that applies to the PM, Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, Cabinet appointees and top government officials.  Click here to see details about the 6 new loopholes he has created, which are:

1. Mr. von Finckenstein is now allowing Cabinet staff, Cabinet appointees and top government officials to secretly own up to $60,000 in shares in businesses they make decisions about, which allows them to profit from their own decisions;
2. He is now allowing members of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to secretly invest in energy companies, which is possibly why the CER just approved Trans Mountain Corp. changing its pipeline construction plan;
3. He is now allowing the Prime Minister to appoint anyone to any government position, even family members and friends (like David Johnston) even when they are investigating wrongdoing by the PM;
4. He is now allowing Cabinet ministers (like Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources) and top government officials to participate in a decision-making process even if their spouses have significant financial interests that will be affect by the decision;
5. He is now allowing Cabinet staff and top government officials to leave their position and move to another position in the government, or take a contract with the government, without any cooling-off period, even if the position conflicts with the past position, and;
6. He has set a precedent by deciding not to investigate ethics complaints about a former MP simply because the MP is no longer an MP, which means all MPs have to do is hide their wrongdoing until they resign or retire or are defeated and then they will never be found guilty of violating the law.

“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, and has ties to big businesses that lobby the federal government, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

He is required to disclose his financial interests, he has an active big business consulting website, and he is a Senior Fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute

He has buried 8 complaints, one about the PM, and created 6 new loopholes in rules – is he the handpicked lapdog Trudeau wants as Commissioner?

Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 7, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the open letter it has sent to Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein calling on him to disclose his assets and liabilities, and his consulting clients, and all the communications and records of communications he had with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Privy Council Office (PCO) during his appointment process for his six-month term that began last September.

Democracy Watch also called on MPs on the House Ethics Committee to call Mr. von Finckenstein back very soon to testify about his negligently bad enforcement record and his appointment process, before his current term ends on February 29th, and to reject any attempt by the Trudeau Cabinet to re-appoint him for another six-month term or a 7-year term (the Cabinet is required to consult with opposition party leaders before making a 7-year term appointment).

Mr. von Finckenstein has an active website for consulting and doing arbitrations for big businesses, and is a Senior Fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute (which is a big business lobby group as the members of its Board of Directors make clear), both which can create clear conflicts of interest for him in his role as Interim Ethics Commissioner.  He is also, it seems, a Count from the aristocratic von Finckenstein family.

As well, as far as Democracy Watch can determine, the Interim Commissioner was required by December 31, 2023 to disclose a public summary of his assets and liabilities in the Public Registry under the Conflict of Interest Act (s. 2 “public office holder” and “reporting public office holder”, ss. 25-26, s. 62.2, and the related Cabinet order).  However, there is no listing for him in the Public Registry.

In violation of the Access to Information Act, the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose Mr. von Finckenstein, and also details about how many qualified candidates have applied to be appointed as Ethics Commissioner for a 7-year term in the process that began in April 2023.  Mr. von Finckenstein did not apply to be appointed for a 7-year term by the May 23, 2023 deadline, and so it would be a violation of the rules to appoint him.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner.  The Trudeau Cabinet in 2016-2017 used a similar secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process to appoint several key democratic good government watchdogs, and the opposition parties pushed back a bit but then rolled over and let the Liberals get away with it.

Mr. von Finckenstein has buried 8 ethics complaints, including one about Prime Minister Trudeau, and created 6 new loopholes in federal ethics laws to add to the 10 huge loopholes in the MP Code and the 10 huge loopholes in the Conflict of Interest Act that applies to the PM, Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, Cabinet appointees and top government officials.  Click here to see details about the 6 new loopholes he has created, which are:

1. Mr. von Finckenstein is now allowing Cabinet staff, Cabinet appointees and top government officials to secretly own up to $60,000 in shares in businesses they make decisions about, which allows them to profit from their own decisions;
2. He is now allowing members of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to secretly invest in energy companies, which is possibly why the CER just approved Trans Mountain Corp. changing its pipeline construction plan;
3. He is now allowing the Prime Minister to appoint anyone to any government position, even family members and friends (like David Johnston) even when they are investigating wrongdoing by the PM;
4. He is now allowing Cabinet ministers (like Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources) and top government officials to participate in a decision-making process even if their spouses have significant financial interests that will be affect by the decision;
5. He is now allowing Cabinet staff and top government officials to leave their position and move to another position in the government, or take a contract with the government, without any cooling-off period, even if the position conflicts with the past position, and;
6. He has set a precedent by deciding not to investigate ethics complaints about a former MP simply because the MP is no longer an MP, which means all MPs have to do is hide their wrongdoing until they resign or retire or are defeated and then they will never be found guilty of violating the law.

“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, and has ties to big businesses that lobby the federal government, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

He has buried 8 ethics complaints, including about PM Trudeau, and gutted 3 key rules – is he the handpicked lapdog Trudeau wants as Ethics Commissioner?

Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, January 30, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House Ethics Committee to ask Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein the following key questions when he testifies before the Committee today at 11:00 am:

1.  Why has he and Prime Minister Trudeau not disclosed the communications from the PMO/PCO concerning the Trudeau family’s Jamaica trip? Section 43 of the Conflict of Interest Act applies to the situation and only requires that the Commissioner’s advice be kept confidential – the Commissioner is allowed to disclose the information the office holder submitted. And there is no provision in any federal law that allows the PM to keep that information secret;

2.  How was he appointed and will he disclose the secret communications he had with the Trudeau Cabinet/PMO/PCO during that process (given the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose him)?

3.  What has the Cabinet communicated to him, if anything, about being reappointed for another 6-month term after his current term ends on February 29th? Will he disclose all those communications?

4.  What has the Cabinet communicated to him, if anything, about the appointment process for the Ethics Commissioner to be appointed to a 7-year term (given the deadline to apply was May 23, 2023)? Will he disclose all those communications?

5.  And what is his response to Democracy Watch’s analysis that concludes, after being on the job only a few months, von Finckenstein already has one of the worst government ethics enforcement records it has seen from commissioners across Canada in the past 20 years, given he has buried at least 8 ethics complaints and gutted 3 key ethics rules?

Because of his negligently bad enforcement record, and because the Trudeau Cabinet handpicked von Finckenstein through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process, Democracy Watch also called on opposition parties to do everything they can to stop the Cabinet from renewing him for another 6-month term at the end of February or, even worse, appointing him to a 7-year term as Ethics Commissioner (the Cabinet is required to consult with opposition party leaders before making a 7-year term appointment).

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner.  The Trudeau Cabinet in 2016-2017 used a similar secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process to appoint several key democratic good government watchdogs, and the opposition parties pushed back a bit but then rolled over and let the Liberals get away with it.

“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

He has buried 8 ethics complaints, including about PM Trudeau, and gutted 3 key rules – is he the handpicked lapdog Trudeau wants as Ethics Commissioner?

Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, January 30, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on MPs on the House Ethics Committee to ask Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein the following key questions when he testifies before the Committee today at 11:00 am:

1.  Why has he and Prime Minister Trudeau not disclosed the communications from the PMO/PCO concerning the Trudeau family’s Jamaica trip? Section 43 of the Conflict of Interest Act applies to the situation and only requires that the Commissioner’s advice be kept confidential – the Commissioner is allowed to disclose the information the office holder submitted. And there is no provision in any federal law that allows the PM to keep that information secret;

2.  How was he appointed and will he disclose the secret communications he had with the Trudeau Cabinet/PMO/PCO during that process (given the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose him)?

3.  What has the Cabinet communicated to him, if anything, about being reappointed for another 6-month term after his current term ends on February 29th? Will he disclose all those communications?

4.  What has the Cabinet communicated to him, if anything, about the appointment process for the Ethics Commissioner to be appointed to a 7-year term (given the deadline to apply was May 23, 2023)? Will he disclose all those communications?

5.  And what is his response to Democracy Watch’s analysis that concludes, after being on the job only a few months, von Finckenstein already has one of the worst government ethics enforcement records it has seen from commissioners across Canada in the past 20 years, given he has buried at least 8 ethics complaints and gutted 3 key ethics rules?

Because of his negligently bad enforcement record, and because the Trudeau Cabinet handpicked von Finckenstein through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process, Democracy Watch also called on opposition parties to do everything they can to stop the Cabinet from renewing him for another 6-month term at the end of February or, even worse, appointing him to a 7-year term as Ethics Commissioner (the Cabinet is required to consult with opposition party leaders before making a 7-year term appointment).

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner.  The Trudeau Cabinet in 2016-2017 used a similar secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process to appoint several key democratic good government watchdogs, and the opposition parties pushed back a bit but then rolled over and let the Liberals get away with it.

“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

He has buried 8 ethics complaints, including about PM Trudeau, and gutted 3 key rules – is he the lapdog Trudeau has been trying to get as Ethics Commissioner?

Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, January 26, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its analysis that concludes, after being on the job only a few months, Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein already has one of the worst government ethics enforcement records it has seen from commissioners across Canada in the past 20 years.

In just five months, Mr. Von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints and gutted 3 key ethics rules in ways that will allow Cabinet staff and top government officials to secretly profit from their decisions and be in serious financial conflicts of interest.

Because of his negligently bad enforcement record, and because the Trudeau Cabinet handpicked von Finckenstein through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process, Democracy Watch also called on opposition parties to do everything they can to stop the Cabinet from renewing him for another 6-month term at the end of February or, even worse, appointing him to a 7-year term as Ethics Commissioner (the Cabinet is required to consult with opposition party leaders before making a 7-year term appointment).

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner.  The Trudeau Cabinet in 2016-2017 used a similar secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process to appoint several key democratic good government watchdogs, and the opposition parties pushed back a bit but then rolled over and let the Liberals get away with it.

Mr. von Finckenstein testifies on Tuesday, January 30th before the House Ethics Committee on Tuesday, January 30 and MPs should grill him both about how he was chosen (the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose him), and his negligently bad enforcement record.

“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”

Mr. von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints with secret rulings that let off everyone who was alleged to have violated conflict of interest or other ethics rules, based on what is known so far since September when he started his 6-month term in the position of Interim Ethics Commissioner.

In September he testified before the House Ethics Committee that he had “Eight open cases, which involve 11 people” (p. 3 of testimony).  Then in October he testified again and said that the cases were “gone” (p. 18 of testimony).  He has not issued any rulings finding anyone guilty, which means he let off all 11 of the alleged wrongdoers.

While Mr. von Finckenstein refused DWatch’s request that he disclose all 8 rulings (even though nothing in the Conflict of Interest Act nor in ss. 27(5.1) of the MP Code prohibits such disclosure), 2 of the 8 rulings address complaints that DWatch filed.

The first ruling is about DWatch’s complaint alleging Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Act by appointing his long-time friend David Johnston to investigate the PM’s actions on foreign interference.  Mr. von Finckenstein refused to even investigate the complaint based on the bizarre claim that the PM has a “constitutional prerogative” to appoint whomever he wants to any public office.  This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that allows the PM to appoint family, relatives and close friends to any federal government position.

The second ruling is about DWatch’s complaint requesting an investigation into Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who is Trudeau’s senior B.C. minister, participating in meetings concerning B.C.-based Teck Resources Ltd. (which lobbied Wilkinson six times while his spouse has significant investments in financial institutions that are among the top investors in Teck).  Mr. von Finckenstein also refused to even investigate the situation based on the equally bizarre claim that the private interests “are too remote and speculative to cause them to conflict” with Wilkinson’s public duties.  This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent that allows Cabinet ministers and top government officials to participate in decisions when they have a financial conflict of interest.

Mr. von Finckenstein has also gutted 3 key rules in the Conflict of Interest Act by issuing in October bizarre, dangerously weak interpretations of the rules that will allow many government officials to participate in decisions and actions when they have a significant conflict of interest:

1. He is doubling from $30,000 to $60,000 the value of shares that Cabinet staff and top government officials can own in businesses they regulate or make decisions about, and specifically allowing members of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to invest in exchange-traded funds and mutual funds that own shares in energy companies. (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #3 re: Doubling the minimum value exemption and #4 re: CER appointees).  This will allow Cabinet staff, top government officials and CER appointees to be in a direct, significant financial conflict of interest and to secretly profit from the decisions they make.

2. He is now allowing Cabinet staff and top government officials to leave their position and move to another position in the government, or take a contract with the government, without any cooling-off period because, he told the House Ethics Committee in October, he believes “there cannot be any conflict of interest between different government departments or agencies” and no one in government ever has “confidential information that would be harmful to the government” (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #1 re: Definition of the term “entity”). Among many other conflicts of interest between government departments, his interpretation ignores the obvious reality that the interests and information held by ministers and their staff directly conflict with the interests of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that enforces laws that apply to the minister and his/her department.  It also ignores the reason for the cooling-off period, which is to prevent ministerial staff from developing relationships with top department officials and then receiving preferential treatment in hiring processes.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

He has buried 8 ethics complaints, including about PM Trudeau, and gutted 3 key rules – is he the lapdog Trudeau has been trying to get as Ethics Commissioner?

Ethics standards and enforcement will be dangerously weakened if he is appointed to another term – opposition parties must stop his re-appointment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, January 26, 2024

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its analysis that concludes, after being on the job only a few months, Interim Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein already has one of the worst government ethics enforcement records it has seen from commissioners across Canada in the past 20 years.

In just five months, Mr. Von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints and gutted 3 key ethics rules in ways that will allow Cabinet staff and top government officials to secretly profit from their decisions and be in serious financial conflicts of interest.

Because of his negligently bad enforcement record, and because the Trudeau Cabinet handpicked von Finckenstein through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process, Democracy Watch also called on opposition parties to do everything they can to stop the Cabinet from renewing him for another 6-month term at the end of February or, even worse, appointing him to a 7-year term as Ethics Commissioner (the Cabinet is required to consult with opposition party leaders before making a 7-year term appointment).

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in 2020 that the Cabinet is biased when it chooses democracy watchdogs like the Ethics Commissioner.  The Trudeau Cabinet in 2016-2017 used a similar secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process to appoint several key democratic good government watchdogs, and the opposition parties pushed back a bit but then rolled over and let the Liberals get away with it.

Mr. von Finckenstein testifies on Tuesday, January 30th before the House Ethics Committee on Tuesday, January 30 and MPs should grill him both about how he was chosen (the Trudeau Cabinet is hiding communication records that show how they chose him), and his negligently bad enforcement record.

“Given Mr. von Finckenstein has one of the worst enforcement records of any ethics commissioner across Canada in the past 20 years after being in the job only five months, appointing him to another six-month term or even worse a seven-year term as ethics commissioner would dangerously undermine federal political ethics standards and allow Cabinet ministers, Cabinet staff, top government officials and MPs to make many more unethical decisions and be let off every time,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Canadians can only hope that opposition parties do the right thing and stop Prime Minister Trudeau from once again, as he did in 2017, appointing his own ethics lapdog after handpicking him through a secret, partisan, Cabinet-controlled process.”

Mr. von Finckenstein has buried at least 8 ethics complaints with secret rulings that let off everyone who was alleged to have violated conflict of interest or other ethics rules, based on what is known so far since September when he started his 6-month term in the position of Interim Ethics Commissioner.

In September he testified before the House Ethics Committee that he had “Eight open cases, which involve 11 people” (p. 3 of testimony).  Then in October he testified again and said that the cases were “gone” (p. 18 of testimony).  He has not issued any rulings finding anyone guilty, which means he let off all 11 of the alleged wrongdoers.

While Mr. von Finckenstein refused DWatch’s request that he disclose all 8 rulings (even though nothing in the Conflict of Interest Act nor in ss. 27(5.1) of the MP Code prohibits such disclosure), 2 of the 8 rulings address complaints that DWatch filed.

The first ruling is about DWatch’s complaint alleging Prime Minister Trudeau violated the Act by appointing his long-time friend David Johnston to investigate the PM’s actions on foreign interference.  Mr. von Finckenstein refused to even investigate the complaint based on the bizarre claim that the PM has a “constitutional prerogative” to appoint whomever he wants to any public office.  This ruling sets a dangerous precedent that allows the PM to appoint family, relatives and close friends to any federal government position.

The second ruling is about DWatch’s complaint requesting an investigation into Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who is Trudeau’s senior B.C. minister, participating in meetings concerning B.C.-based Teck Resources Ltd. (which lobbied Wilkinson six times while his spouse has significant investments in financial institutions that are among the top investors in Teck).  Mr. von Finckenstein also refused to even investigate the situation based on the equally bizarre claim that the private interests “are too remote and speculative to cause them to conflict” with Wilkinson’s public duties.  This ruling also sets a dangerous precedent that allows Cabinet ministers and top government officials to participate in decisions when they have a financial conflict of interest.

Mr. von Finckenstein has also gutted 3 key rules in the Conflict of Interest Act by issuing in October bizarre, dangerously weak interpretations of the rules that will allow many government officials to participate in decisions and actions when they have a significant conflict of interest:

1. He is doubling from $30,000 to $60,000 the value of shares that Cabinet staff and top government officials can own in businesses they regulate or make decisions about, and specifically allowing members of the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to invest in exchange-traded funds and mutual funds that own shares in energy companies. (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #3 re: Doubling the minimum value exemption and #4 re: CER appointees).  This will allow Cabinet staff, top government officials and CER appointees to be in a direct, significant financial conflict of interest and to secretly profit from the decisions they make.

2. He is now allowing Cabinet staff and top government officials to leave their position and move to another position in the government, or take a contract with the government, without any cooling-off period because, he told the House Ethics Committee in October, he believes “there cannot be any conflict of interest between different government departments or agencies” and no one in government ever has “confidential information that would be harmful to the government” (Click here to see his bizarre interpretation – #1 re: Definition of the term “entity”). Among many other conflicts of interest between government departments, his interpretation ignores the obvious reality that the interests and information held by ministers and their staff directly conflict with the interests of any agency, board, commission or tribunal that enforces laws that apply to the minister and his/her department.  It also ignores the reason for the cooling-off period, which is to prevent ministerial staff from developing relationships with top department officials and then receiving preferential treatment in hiring processes.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign