Cleaning up and making governments and corporations more accountable to you, and making Canada the world’s leading democracy
OTTAWA — It was one in a seemingly innocuous list of emails Elections Canada received from a member of the public last year.
But the questions put forward by this particular, unidentified voter touched on what some say is a major loophole in the conduct of fair and honest federal election campaigns.
If there were more rock ‘n’ roll, at least Canadian politics would be entertaining. But the drugs, corruption and bitter negativity that have plagued every level of government this spring is just turning people off.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
OTTAWA – Today Democracy Watch called for democratic changes to Ontario’s election system in response to low voter turnout in the recent provincial by-elections. Voter turnout will increase if the voting system is changed, an honesty-in-politics law is passed, by-election and election dates are fixed for late fall or early spring, and if Elections Ontario is required to educate Ontarians about all their voting rights in its advertising.
“The low average voter turnout of about 37% in the five by-elections held last week, along with the 49% turnout in the 2011 Ontario election, show clearly that major changes are needed to counter the threat of low turnout to the provincial government’s democratic legitimacy.” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “Unfortunately Elections Ontario and the Government of Ontario have failed to change anything so far, and Premier Wynne chose dates for the by-elections when many people were on holiday which likely hurt voter turnout.”
In addition to Elections Ontario being given the power to set by-election dates, and requiring it to educate voters about their right to decline the ballot (and disclosing declined ballot totals in election results), the provincial Election Act must also be changed to require the holding of by-elections and elections in the late fall or early spring, when holidays, student exams and summer jobs, and general busyness of anyone with kids, are least likely to make it difficult for large numbers of people voting.
In addition, the most important changes the Ontario parties can make to increase voter turnout are as follows:
These changes would give voters a reason to vote because they would know that voting for a specific party would mean a guaranteed result in terms of percentage of MPPs elected and promises kept.
In addition, if the parties strengthen provincial ethics, political finance, lobbying, open government, and whistleblower protection laws, voters will have more reason to vote because they would be more assured of good government no matter which party won.
“In addition to election dates often making it difficult for people to pay full attention to campaigns and get to the polls on election day, Canadians know from experience that they are not going to get what they vote for, and are likely to get dishonest, secretive, unethical, unrepresentative and wasteful government no matter who they vote for, and as a result no one should be surprised to see voter turnout at such low levels,” said Sommers.
These problems exist in all the provinces and territories across Canada. All of these changes should be made by the federal and provincial and territorial governments, and for their municipalities, before either mandatory or Internet voting are tried (because both of those changes will likely have serious negative effects).
-30-
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
[email protected]
Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting Systems Campaign
Ken Dryden – the former Toronto MP who lent himself $300,000 to take part in the 2006 Liberal leadership race – has no plans to raise money from individual contributors to pay off his outstanding campaign debt, says his lawyer.
Ontario Speaker Dave Levac says he did not feel politically pressured to change a gas plant contempt ruling, despite meeting with a senior Liberal staff member who wanted him to change his mind.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
OTTAWA — Democracy Watch announced today that it will file complaints with every provincial and territorial ethics/integrity commissioner about the benefits every premier is receiving from various corporations who are sponsoring the Council of the Federation meeting, and will also ask the police to investigate as the premiers are directly selling access to themselves at the meeting, given the Criminal Code anti-bribery measures.
The premiers are benefiting from the corporations’ sponsorship of the meeting. Premiers oversee all decision-making in their governments, and so every gift or benefit they receive relates to every decision the government makes. Almost all provincial and territorial ethics laws across Canada prohibit politicians from accepting any benefit that relates to their position except their pay and pension etc., and the usual hospitality and protocol gifts they receive when meeting with other governments or speaking at events. The corporate sponsorship of the event is far more than usual hospitality and protocol gifts, as it covers a significant portion of the costs of the event.
As well, sponsors get the benefit in return of reserved attendance at social events held during the three-day meeting, events attended by the premiers and their staff. Other people are also invited to those events, but only sponsors are guaranteed a spot. As a result, in effect the premiers are selling access to themselves and their staff.
The Criminal Code of Canada prohibits politicians and other public officials from accepting any direct or indirect gift or benefit in respect of doing anything or making any decision — the politician or official does not actually have to do anything or make any decision to violate these measures. In a leading 1996 case ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted government integrity measures in the Criminal Code and stated:
“it is not necessary for a corrupt practice to take place in order for the appearance of integrity to be harmed. Protecting these appearances is more than a trivial concern. . .” and “given the heavy trust and responsibility taken on by the holding of a public office or employ, it is appropriate that government officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct which, for an ordinary person, would be quite severe . . .” and “The magnitude and importance of government business requires not only the complete integrity of government employees and officers conducting government business but also that this integrity and trustworthiness be readily apparent to society as a whole.”
Corporate sponsorship of the event has gone on for years, and so Democracy Watch complaints will also cover past years‘ meetings.
“Corporate lobbyists providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsorship to cover the costs of a meeting of premiers, and getting special access in return, is dangerously unethical and undemocratic, and hopefully ethics commissioners and the police will finally put a stop to this unethical favour-trading,” said Duff Conacher, Founding Director of Democracy Watch and Adjunct Professor in good governance and ethics law at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law.
It is true that corporations and other organizations often hold events at which premiers and other politicians speak, and their attendance gives the corporation or organization access to them. But these events do not excuse the corporate sponsorship of the Council of the Federation meeting — instead they highlight how ethics commissioners and police forces cross the country should be auditing politicians to ensure they are not, in effect, selling special access to themselves in many of these situations, access that voters do not have, in clear violation of ethics rules, and possible violation of the Criminal Code.
– 30 –
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
[email protected]
Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign
With the birth of their son, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have unwittingly given the British government some breathing room in efforts to modernize royal succession laws.
Corporate sponsors and lobby groups are offering nearly $270,000 in funding, goods and services for the upcoming retreat of Canadian premiers this week in Niagara-on-the-Lake.
Do you suspect that your MP, now back in the riding for the summer break, has been cheating on his or her expense claims? According to a recent Harris-Decima poll, an overwhelming number of Canadians – an astonishing 89 per cent of British Columbians among them – believe it’s “very or somewhat likely” their political representative has had a hand in the cookie jar.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called for transparency in the Wright-Duffy situation in order to ensure that Canadians can be confident that those making decisions relating to charges and prosecution are fully independent and cannot be influenced by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Office, or any federal politician.
The RCMP recently revealed that the Prime Minister’s former Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, gave Senator Mike Duffy $90,000 in return for two things, which means that it is fair to say that Wright should be charged and prosecuted for bribing Senator Duffy, and Senator Duffy for taking the bribe.
The problem is that, in a widely criticized new policy, the RCMP Commissioner has aligned his office with the office of the Minister of Public Safety in all communications about the RCMP’s actions. Many commentators have raised concerns about how this policy affects the ability of the RCMP to make independent law enforcement decisions (See criticisms here, and here, and here).
“The public has a clear right to know who is making decisions relating to whether to charge and prosecute in the Wright-Duffy situation,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “Transparency is essential to this process so that Canadians can keep a close eye out for any signs that anyone is attempting to influence key decision makers. This is especially important with reports relating to Duffy having been watered down already.”
To ensure that the decisions whether to prosecute anyone are made independently, the government must also verify that every prosecutor who will be involved in those decisions is fully independent from the federal Conservative Attorney General and Minister of Justice, and if they are not then the government should appoint a special prosecutor chosen with the approval of opposition party leaders to ensure the prosecutor’s independence from the government.
The evidence of violations in this situation is so clear that the watchdogs investigating should all be able to issue rulings charging and/or finding people guilty by the end of August at the latest. Any delay should be viewed as a red flag as Canadians closely watch to ensure that the facts of this situation come to light and all parties involved are charged and prosecuted in accordance with the law.
-30-
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
[email protected]
Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign
