Surveys show voters want changes, Justin Trudeau has committed to some changes, the Conservatives promised some changes in 2006, and MPs could work together to make the changes at any time

Send a letter calling for the end of muzzling MPs here

Thursday, March 28, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called for changes to free and empower MPs in key, reasonable ways that recognize there are times when party discipline is appropriate.  Surveys over the past 15 years have shown clearly that voters want changes to empower MPs, Justin Trudeau has committed to some changes in his campaign for leadership of the federal Liberal Party, and MPs could work together to make the changes at any time by simply proposing and agreeing to change the House of Commons rules, the Parliament of Canada Act, and the Canada Elections Act (no party leader could stop them if they would simply all work together to throw off their chains).

“Some federal Conservatives have complained about being muzzled by Prime Minister Harper, but all party leaders have too much power over MPs, including in the provinces,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “Reasonable changes can be made to restrict the powers of party leaders over politicians in their party, while recognizing that party discipline is appropriate in some situations.  What is strange is that politicians across the country could easily change the rules to restrict their party leaders, and no leader could stop them if they would just all come together and throw off their chains and free themselves.”

To ensure politicians across Canada are free to say what they want about any issue, and have some freedom to represent the will of voters who elected them and/or uphold the public interest, without their party leader being able to punish them, the following changes must be made:

• political party leaders must be prohibited from appointing election candidates unless there is no party association in the riding or candidate elected by the riding association;
• political parties must be prohibited from refusing the nomination of a candidate as long as the candidate meets minimal “character” qualifications and is selected by the riding association;
• the elections watchdog agencies (Elections Canada etc.) must be given the mandate and power to oversee nomination races for election candidates to ensure they are run fairly;
• the caucus of each party, not the leader, must be given the power to decide who sits in caucus;
• if a party does not have a clear position on an issue, clearly stated in the previous election and communicated to all candidates in that election before they became a candidate, then the party should be prohibited from disciplining any politician who takes a different position on the issue in any statement they make, or in any vote (even in votes on matters of confidence);
• the caucus of each party, not the party leader, must select the party’s members for each legislative committee;
• the speaker of the legislature should choose who asks questions in each daily question period randomly, ensuring only that the number of questions per party matches the percentage of seats each party has in the legislature over each weekly period;
• every member of the legislature must have the clear right to say whatever they want during their time for a member statement, and;
• the caucus of each party, by two-thirds vote, should be empowered to initiate a review of the party leader’s leadership of the party.

Democracy Watch will soon launch a national letter-writing campaign to push for these changes.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Tel: 613-241-5179

---

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

Majority of committee selecting new PBO nominees must be representatives from opposition parties to ensure independent person is chosen, and mandate and powers of PBO must be strengthened to turn lapdog into watchdog for truth-in-budgeting

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that it is preparing a court challenge of the federal Conservatives’ illegal appointment of the Parliamentary Librarian as the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), and launched a national letter-writing campaign to make the PBO a fully independent and fully empowered watchdog.

“The federal Conservatives were negligent in not ensuring the appointment of a new Parliamentary Budget Officer before Kevin Page’s term finished last week, and the law does not allow for the appointment of an interim PBO,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “To stop the web of lies and abuse that wastes taxpayers’ money, and to ensure honest federal government spending, a majority of the members of the nominating committee for the new PBO must be representatives from the opposition parties, and the law must be changed to give the PBO job security and an annual budget based on need not Cabinet whim, and the power to order the release of information needed for spending assessments.”

As well, Democracy Watch called on provincial and territorial governments to establish PBOs that also cover municipal governments in each jurisdiction.

As the only organization that has defended the federal PBO and called for key changes to make the PBO more effective since the office was created in 2007, including during 2009 when all federal parties in the House and Senate were attacking the PBO, Democracy Watch has documented again and again how the PBO’s lack of independence and effective powers has allowed the federal government to escape accountability for dishonest budgetting.

To ensure truth in federal government budgeting, the following changes need to be made to the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO – and, again all other jurisdictions need to establish a PBO with the following structure and powers):

• the PBO must be made a full Officer of Parliament, independent of Cabinet, with a fixed, non-renewable term of office and full power over the selection and management of their staff;
• the selection of the PBO must be approved by a majority of party leaders after a public, merit-based nomination process to ensure a non-partisan and effective person is selected;
• the PBO must be given the resources needed to fulfill their mandate each year (based on an independent needs assessment of their proposed budget);
• the government must be required, before proposing significant spending, to check with the PBO to ensure that the actual total of the proposed spending is being accurately estimated;
• the PBO must be given the power to order the disclosure of any information (as the information commissioners have in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec) they need to do their cost and spending assessments, and;
• the PBO must be required to release the findings of their investigations as soon as they are completed whether or not parliament is in session.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Tel: 613-241-5179

Democracy Watch’s Stop Fraud Spending Campaign

The resignation of former Conservative Cabinet Minister Peter Penashue from his seat as a result of his campaign taking illegal donations and exceeding the campaign expense limit leaves Prime Minister Harper with two choices: he can choose to delay the by-election in the riding of Labrador or to call a snap by-election.

York University’s whistleblower policy, which didn’t exist during an alleged major fraud a few years ago, is weak and wouldn’t be much help in curbing serious wrongdoing on campus then or today, experts say.

The Bloc Québécois has written Elections Canada demanding an investigation into political donations made to Conservative candidate Michel-Eric Castonguay in the 2011 federal election after CBC News yesterday revealed 12 executives from engineering giant SNC-Lavalin — and two of their wives — donated a total of $14,900 just two days before Canadians went to the polls.

---

Letter to the Editor by Democracy Watch Coordinator Tyler Sommers published in the Hill Times on March 18, 2013

---

It is outrageous that federal Public Sector Integrity Commissioner Mario Dion continues to refuse to identify federal government employees found guilty of wrongdoing.

Mr. Dion continues to say that federal privacy law prohibits him from identifying the three federal government employees he has found guilty of violating federal laws or codes. The law clearly allows their identities to be disclosed if it is in the public interest, and it is always in the public interest to disclose the identity of wrongdoers.

Recently, Mr. Dion refused to disclose the name of the Department of Foreign Affairs wrongdoer, and a journalist found out that CIDA had hired the wrongdoer after he resigned from his Foreign Affairs job. This situation shows very clearly that failing to name individuals guilty of violating federal government rules and laws can lead to them resigning from their job and keeping their wrongdoing secret when applying for other jobs—which is not in any way in the public interest.

Democracy Watch has filed a complaint with the federal Information Commissioner’s Office asking her to issue a public statement that it is both legal, and in the public interest, to disclose the identity of federal government employees found guilty of wrongdoing.

This is not just a problem with the integrity commissioner—the identities of dozens of federal government wrongdoers have been kept secret by other officers of Parliament and enforcement agencies in recent years, even though all of their identities can legally be disclosed.

BACKGROUND NOTE:

Section 8 of the federal Privacy Act, and corresponding section 19 of the federal Access to Information Act, make it very clear that anyone’s personal information, including their identity, may be disclosed if it is in the public interest, as follows.

The federal Privacy Act, subsection 8(1) and clause 8(2)(m)(i) states:

“Disclosure of personal information

8. (1) Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.

Where personal information may be disclosed

(2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed . . .

(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution,

(i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, . . .”

The federal Access to Information Act, subsection 19(1) and clause 19(2)(c) states:

“19. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal information as defined in section 3 of the Privacy Act.

Where disclosure authorized

(2) The head of a government institution may disclose any record requested under this Act that contains personal information if . . .

(c) the disclosure is in accordance with section 8 of the Privacy Act.”

---

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign

Federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault is being asked to investigate the “muzzling” of Canadian government scientists in a request backed by a 128-page report detailing “systemic efforts” to obstruct access to researchers.

OTTAWA – A democracy watchdog is nipping at the heels of Elections Canada over Liberal leadership race campaign loans it says doesn’t pass the smell test.

Canada Elections Act must be changed to prohibit any organization from making a loan, and to prohibit anyone from loaning more than the current donation limit, and to require disclosure of all donations, and to make leadership races democratic in other key ways

Monday, March 11, 2013

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Canada Elections at Elections Canada about the several federal Liberal leadership race candidates who made “loans” to themselves to enter the race in amounts that exceed the legal contributions set out in the Canada Elections Act.

“When you loan money to yourself as a political candidate you are actually giving money to yourself which is illegal if it is more than $1,200, and Elections Canada must end this charade and properly enforce the federal elections law by declaring these excessive loans illegal and requiring the Liberal candidates to repay them immediately or drop out of the race if they don’t have enough money to repay,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition (made up of 50 citizen groups with a total membership of more than 3.5 million Canadians).  “While the Liberals set an undemocratically high entry fee of $75,000, all the candidates should have done a reality and ego check and realized if they couldn’t raise those funds through donations from many people they shouldn’t be running to be leader of a national political party.”

Democracy Watch also called on federal parties to finally pass Bill C-21 that sets limits on loans made by third parties or individuals to candidates, but to change the bill before it is passed to only allow loans from individuals of no more than the contribution limit (the limit is currently $1,200, and it increases annually by the rate of inflation), and also to close the loophole that currently allows secret donations and gifts of money, property or services (including volunteer labour) to leadership race candidates that do not have be disclosed if the candidate does not use them directly for their campaign.

“Federal parties must work together to finally pass Bill C-21 to close the undemocratic loopholes that allow corporations, unions and other organizations and wealthy individuals to use loans and secret donations and gifts to buy influence over political candidates, but the bill must be changed to ensure only individuals are allowed to make loans to candidates of no more than the current donation limit, and to require disclosure by all candidates of every donation or gift given to them,” said Sommers.

The following Liberal Party of Canada leadership contestants all “loaned” themselves more than the current donation limit of $1,200 to pay the cost of entering the race: David Bertschi ($75,000), Deborah Coyne ($25,000), Martha Hall Findlay ($25,000) and Karen McCrimmon ($32,000).

The practice of leadership candidates loaning themselves money is not new or limited to the Liberal Party, as federal NDP leadership candidate Martin Singh ($35,000) and Bloc Quebecois leadership candidate Maria Mourani ($10,000) also loaned themselves money in recent leadership elections.

Several Liberal Party leadership candidates in 2006 also loaned themselves huge amounts of money to enter that race, and some have failed to repay the loans — this ridiculous situation continues to drag on and would never have happened if Elections Canada had simply enforced the law properly in the first place.

In addition to restricting loans, and requiring disclosure of all donations and gifts (even if the donation or gift is not used for a campaign), the Canada Elections Act should also be changed to make all riding nomination and party leadership races finally democratic (as the Conservatives promised to do in their 2006 federal election platform):

1. the entry barriers to becoming a party leadership race candidate should be a relatively low fee (ie. $10,000) plus signatures of a significant number of voters from across the country (ie. 5,000 voters from at least 5 provinces), and;
2. Elections Canada should be given the power and mandate to oversee the entire process for both party leadership and riding nomination races — especially for nomination races which are known to usually involve dirty tricks.

Democracy Watch will continue pushing for all of these changes to ensure, finally, that federal elections are honest, ethical, fair and democratic.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 613-241-5179

---

Democracy Watch’s Money in Political Campaign

An open-government watchdog is calling the Newfoundland and Labrador government’s stance when it comes to official cabinet orders “dangerously undemocratic.”