Commissioner’s proposed new Code would allow lobbyists to secretly fundraise and campaign for politicians while lobbying them

New Code will also allow secret support similar to secret funding allegedly given by China-sponsored organizations to candidates in 2019 election

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 14, 2023

OTTAWA – This afternoon, Democracy Watch will testify on behalf of more than 25 citizen groups with a total membership of 1.5 million Canadians at a hearing of the House Ethics Committee, and will call on the Committee to reject key changes to the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct proposed by Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger because the changes will gut ethical lobbying rules in ways that will allow secret, corrupt favour-trading between lobbyists and federal politicians.

Commissioner Bélanger appeared before the Committee on February 3rd about her proposed new Lobbyists’ Code. DWatch sent the Committee members 10 key questions to ask the Commissioner in advance, and afterwards sent the Committee a response to misleading, very questionable statements the Commissioner made when testifying to the Committee (Click here to see the response in English; Cliquez ici pour voir la soumission en français).

As well, Commissioner Bélanger misleadingly claimed on her website that she received only 206 letters from voters opposing her proposed Code changes – in fact, more than 20,000 voters signed on to Democracy Watch’s petition on Change.org or its letter-writing campaign and sent emails to the Commissioner calling on her to stop gutting the Code, and also calling on federal party leaders and the House Ethics Committee to reject the Commissioner’s proposed Code changes, and to make other key changes to stop all secret, unethical lobbying.

Commissioner Bélanger is proposing to gut the federal Lobbyists’ Code and allow corrupt favour-trading by changing key ethics rules in ways that will allow lobbyists:

1. To secretly campaign for and fundraise for politicians and parties up to nearly full-time while lobbying them (currently if a lobbyist campaigned or fundraised for a politician or party up to nearly full-time, they would be prohibited from lobbying them for 4 years);
2. To secretly be a second-level, full-time campaign staff person for a politician and/or party and then only be prohibited from lobbying them for 1 year (the current lobbying prohibition time period is 4 years);
3. To secretly be a top-level, full-time campaign staff person for a politician and/or party and then only be prohibited from lobbying them for 2 years (the current prohibition time period is 4 years);

and not only can all of this campaigning and fundraising be done in secret, but also the Commissioner is proposing to give herself the power to secretly reduce a lobbyist’s 1-2 year lobbying prohibition down to an even shorter time period.

See Backgrounder for details.

In complete contrast, the Commissioner’s new Code proposes to limit lobbyists to giving (directly or indirectly) no more than $80 annually in gifts or hospitality to politicians, political staff or government officials they are lobbying.

If a lobbyist giving gifts or hospitality to a politician worth more than $80 annually is unethical, so is a lobbyist raising thousands of dollars, campaigning or doing other valuable favours for a politician or their political party.

The Commissioner has also made the very questionable claim that the current 4-year cooling-off period violates the Charter right to freedom of expression, based on one opinion that the Commissioner paid law firm Goldblatt Partners for in a sole-source contract that was extended twice, increasing from $11,300 to $45,200 and then up to $90,400. Given several Supreme Court of Canada and other court rulings have clearly stated that Charter rights must be restricted to protect government integrity, Democracy Watch is asking the Committee to force the Commissioner to make the Goldblatt opinion public.

The Commissioner posted her proposed new unethical Code on her website on a Friday afternoon in November without issuing a news release about it, and tried to shove it into force by January. Thankfully, the Ethics Committee stopped the Commissioner from doing that in early December.

“Groups supported by more than one-and-a-half million Canadians oppose the Commissioner of Lobbying’s attempt to gut key lobbying ethics rules in ways that will allow for secret, corrupt favour-trading between lobbyists and Cabinet ministers and MPs, and the House Ethics Committee should join in loudly and clearly rejecting the Commissioner’s unethical proposals,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Lobbying Commissioner is contradicting herself by proposing new rules to ban lobbyists from giving gifts and hospitality worth more than $80 a year, while gutting other rules to allow lobbyists to secretly campaign and raise unlimited amounts of money for politicians and parties while lobbying them.”

“The Commissioner of Lobbying’s proposed changes to the Lobbyists’ Code are perverse and deeply unethical and will allow lobbyists to give secret campaign and fundraising support to politicians they are lobbying, including support similar to the secret funding allegedly given by China-sponsored organizations to candidates in the 2019 federal election,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch and the other citizen groups call for the following reasonable Code changes that the House Ethics Committee should order the Commissioner to make, changes that will prevent unethical lobbying while allowing for low-level political activity by lobbyists:

1. Keep in the Code the current loophole-free Rule 6 that prohibits lobbying anytime there is an appearance of a conflict of interest;
2. Increase the cooling-off period under proposed new Rule 6 from 5 years up to 10 years during which a lobbyist is prohibited from lobbying after significant fundraising or campaigning for a politician or party (instead of lowering it to 1-2 years);
3. Create a new category of lower-level political activity (including doing any fundraising) with a 5-year cooling-off period prohibition on lobbying;
4. Allow lobbying right away after political activity only if the lobbyist only canvasses or volunteers no more than a couple of times during a campaign, and;
5. Don’t allow reductions of any of the cooling-off periods.

In total, 25+ citizen groups with supporters totaling more than 1.5 million Canadians oppose the Commissioner’s proposed changes. Democracy Watch and 20 other citizen organizations, and also David Suzuki and Alan Broadbent, call jointly on the House Ethics Committee to stop Commissioner Bélanger from gutting the Lobbyists’ Code and instead to make reasonable changes that prevent unethical lobbying. Another 5 organizations essentially joined the call by withdrawing their support for the Commissioner’s proposed changes last July. Click here to see the list of the 25+ groups and other details.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Commissioner’s proposed new Code would allow lobbyists to secretly fundraise and campaign for politicians while lobbying them

New Code will also allow secret support similar to secret funding allegedly given by China-sponsored organizations to candidates in 2019 election

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, February 14, 2023

OTTAWA – This afternoon, Democracy Watch will testify on behalf of more than 25 citizen groups with a total membership of 1.5 million Canadians at a hearing of the House Ethics Committee, and will call on the Committee to reject key changes to the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct proposed by Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger because the changes will gut ethical lobbying rules in ways that will allow secret, corrupt favour-trading between lobbyists and federal politicians.

Commissioner Bélanger appeared before the Committee on February 3rd about her proposed new Lobbyists’ Code. DWatch sent the Committee members 10 key questions to ask the Commissioner in advance, and afterwards sent the Committee a response to misleading, very questionable statements the Commissioner made when testifying to the Committee (Click here to see the response in English; Cliquez ici pour voir la soumission en français).

As well, Commissioner Bélanger misleadingly claimed on her website that she received only 206 letters from voters opposing her proposed Code changes – in fact, more than 20,000 voters signed on to Democracy Watch’s petition on Change.org or its letter-writing campaign and sent emails to the Commissioner calling on her to stop gutting the Code, and also calling on federal party leaders and the House Ethics Committee to reject the Commissioner’s proposed Code changes, and to make other key changes to stop all secret, unethical lobbying.

Commissioner Bélanger is proposing to gut the federal Lobbyists’ Code and allow corrupt favour-trading by changing key ethics rules in ways that will allow lobbyists:

1. To secretly campaign for and fundraise for politicians and parties up to nearly full-time while lobbying them (currently if a lobbyist campaigned or fundraised for a politician or party up to nearly full-time, they would be prohibited from lobbying them for 4 years);
2. To secretly be a second-level, full-time campaign staff person for a politician and/or party and then only be prohibited from lobbying them for 1 year (the current lobbying prohibition time period is 4 years);
3. To secretly be a top-level, full-time campaign staff person for a politician and/or party and then only be prohibited from lobbying them for 2 years (the current prohibition time period is 4 years);

and not only can all of this campaigning and fundraising be done in secret, but also the Commissioner is proposing to give herself the power to secretly reduce a lobbyist’s 1-2 year lobbying prohibition down to an even shorter time period.

See Backgrounder for details.

In complete contrast, the Commissioner’s new Code proposes to limit lobbyists to giving (directly or indirectly) no more than $80 annually in gifts or hospitality to politicians, political staff or government officials they are lobbying.

If a lobbyist giving gifts or hospitality to a politician worth more than $80 annually is unethical, so is a lobbyist raising thousands of dollars, campaigning or doing other valuable favours for a politician or their political party.

The Commissioner has also made the very questionable claim that the current 4-year cooling-off period violates the Charter right to freedom of expression, based on one opinion that the Commissioner paid law firm Goldblatt Partners for in a sole-source contract that was extended twice, increasing from $11,300 to $45,200 and then up to $90,400. Given several Supreme Court of Canada and other court rulings have clearly stated that Charter rights must be restricted to protect government integrity, Democracy Watch is asking the Committee to force the Commissioner to make the Goldblatt opinion public.

The Commissioner posted her proposed new unethical Code on her website on a Friday afternoon in November without issuing a news release about it, and tried to shove it into force by January. Thankfully, the Ethics Committee stopped the Commissioner from doing that in early December.

“Groups supported by more than one-and-a-half million Canadians oppose the Commissioner of Lobbying’s attempt to gut key lobbying ethics rules in ways that will allow for secret, corrupt favour-trading between lobbyists and Cabinet ministers and MPs, and the House Ethics Committee should join in loudly and clearly rejecting the Commissioner’s unethical proposals,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Lobbying Commissioner is contradicting herself by proposing new rules to ban lobbyists from giving gifts and hospitality worth more than $80 a year, while gutting other rules to allow lobbyists to secretly campaign and raise unlimited amounts of money for politicians and parties while lobbying them.”

“The Commissioner of Lobbying’s proposed changes to the Lobbyists’ Code are perverse and deeply unethical and will allow lobbyists to give secret campaign and fundraising support to politicians they are lobbying, including support similar to the secret funding allegedly given by China-sponsored organizations to candidates in the 2019 federal election,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch and the other citizen groups call for the following reasonable Code changes that the House Ethics Committee should order the Commissioner to make, changes that will prevent unethical lobbying while allowing for low-level political activity by lobbyists:

1. Keep in the Code the current loophole-free Rule 6 that prohibits lobbying anytime there is an appearance of a conflict of interest;
2. Increase the cooling-off period under proposed new Rule 6 from 5 years up to 10 years during which a lobbyist is prohibited from lobbying after significant fundraising or campaigning for a politician or party (instead of lowering it to 1-2 years);
3. Create a new category of lower-level political activity (including doing any fundraising) with a 5-year cooling-off period prohibition on lobbying;
4. Allow lobbying right away after political activity only if the lobbyist only canvasses or volunteers no more than a couple of times during a campaign, and;
5. Don’t allow reductions of any of the cooling-off periods.

In total, 25+ citizen groups with supporters totaling more than 1.5 million Canadians oppose the Commissioner’s proposed changes. Democracy Watch and 20 other citizen organizations, and also David Suzuki and Alan Broadbent, call jointly on the House Ethics Committee to stop Commissioner Bélanger from gutting the Lobbyists’ Code and instead to make reasonable changes that prevent unethical lobbying. Another 5 organizations essentially joined the call by withdrawing their support for the Commissioner’s proposed changes last July. Click here to see the list of the 25+ groups and other details.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Federal Court judge ignored fact that Parliament voted 327-1 not to have election, that opposition leaders all supported Parliament continuing to operate, and that U.K. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that PM can’t shut down Parliament for political reasons

New Brunswick Court of Appeal recently ruled NB fixed election law means Premier can’t call snap election for political reasons like Trudeau did

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, February 13, 2023

OTTAWA – This afternoon, the appeal of the case (PDF of application) that Democracy Watch and Integrity B.C. founder Wayne Crookes filed challenging Prime Minister Trudeau’s request in August 2021 that the Governor General call a snap federal election 2021 snap election call will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Ottawa, and online via Zoom.

The case will be heard at Federal Court Building, 90 Sparks St., 4th floor in Ottawa from 2 pm to 4 pm. Anyone can also register to watch the hearing online by contacting the FCA at email: information@fca-caf.gc.ca and asking to be sent the Zoom invitation for the hearing of Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes v. Prime Minister, FCA File No. A-54-22.

The case is aimed at winning a ruling that the Prime Minister violated the fixed election date measure in Canada’s election law, and that the PM is only allowed to ask the Governor General to call an election every four years on the fixed election date, with the only exception being if a vote of non-confidence in the government occurs before that date. Nicolas Rouleau and Daniel Santoro are the lawyers for the case.

Democracy Watch filed a similar case against then-Prime Minister Harper’s snap election call in September 2008. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal both ruled that a constitutional convention had not been created when Parliament added section 56.1 to the Canada Elections Act in 2007, and that the measure was not specific enough to prohibit the Prime Minister from calling an early election.

The Federal Court judge who granted the Trudeau government’s motion to stop the case ruled that the case is the same as the 2008 case, ignoring the fact that the case is very different because the situation when Trudeau called a snap election in August 2021 was very different from Harper’s snap election call in September 2008 in several key ways (click here to see DWatch’s legal arguments):

1. On May 25, 2021, MPs (including Trudeau) voted 327-1 against holding an election, and all opposition party leaders clearly and publicly expressed their opposition in July-August to holding an election;
2. As opposition parties made clear with public letters and statements before Trudeau’s election call, a majority of MPs voted in favour of everything the Trudeau Liberals have proposed since the last election, including the 2021 Liberal budget, or were in the process of reviewing proposed measures on the usual legislative timeline. Opposition parties clearly supported the Liberals continuing to govern, and the Trudeau government had the confidence of Parliament, when Trudeau called the election.

(Click here to see Backgrounder for details).

In addition, the British Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that PM Boris Johnson’s decision to advise the Queen to shut down Parliament was unlawful as it “ha[d] the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive” (para. 50 of the ruling). The same principle applies to Trudeau’s snap election call, which shut down Parliament for no good reason.

As well, the fixed election date rule in Canada’s election law, and the Prime Minister following the law for the past three elections, have created a constitutional convention rule that the PM is required to follow. In 2011, the Conservative government led by PM Harper called an election only after losing a vote of confidence in Parliament. In 2015, PM Harper called an election on the fixed date, as did PM Trudeau in 2019.

The newest development that makes the case different from the 2008 case is that the New Brunswick Court of Appeal recently ruled unanimously in Democracy Watch’s case challenging Conservative Premier Blaine Higgs’ August 2020 snap election call that New Brunswick’s fixed election date law, which is essentially the same as the federal law, prohibits the Premier from calling a snap election for purely political reasons, which is what PM Trudeau did in August 2021.

“Prime Minister Trudeau’s snap election call was illegal because Canada’s election law fixes election dates for every four years unless there is a vote of non-confidence in the government, which did not happen before his election call in August, and because MPs from all parties, including Prime Minister Trudeau, voted against holding an election, all opposition party leaders were against it, and the Liberal government had the clear confidence of Parliament in every way except for calling an election,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“In the same way the British Supreme Court rejected the British PM’s shutting down of Parliament as an illegal abuse of power that went against the will of Parliament, the courts should rule that Trudeau’s snap election was illegal because it violated the fixed election date law and convention, and the democratic will and constitutionally protected role of Parliament,” said Conacher.

“Two of the most important things Canadians want from their politicians is to obey the law and to tell the truth – Mr. Trudeau did neither,” said Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C. “To call an election during the Covid-19 health emergency at an unneeded expense of about $600 million reflects very poorly on Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party. He put self-interest before his duty to Canadians.”

As well, a survey at the end of July 2021 showed only 26% of Canadians wanted an election, and in mid-July 2021 the PM also denied that he was going to call an election, and a survey at the end of August 2021 showed that 75% of Canadians didn’t see the election as necessary.

More than 20,000 voters signed Democracy Watch’s petition on Change.org calling on Governor General Mary Simon to say no to any snap election call by Prime Minister Trudeau before the next fixed election date. Snap elections are unfair to voters, people who want to run as candidates, and most parties. That’s why Parliament decided to fix the federal election date in Canada’s election law.

Because they are illegal, dishonest and unfair, Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes also went to court to challenge the snap election call in September 2020 by the B.C. NDP Premier John Horgan which also violated B.C.’s fixed election date law. Democracy Watch is currently appealing a B.C. lower court ruling that rejected the case for similar reasons as the federal courts used in the 2008 case.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign and Stop PM/Premier Abuses Campaign

Federal Court judge ignored fact that Parliament voted 327-1 not to have election, that opposition leaders all supported Parliament continuing to operate, and that U.K. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that PM can’t shut down Parliament for political reasons

New Brunswick Court of Appeal recently ruled NB fixed election law means Premier can’t call snap election for political reasons like Trudeau did

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, February 13, 2023

OTTAWA – This afternoon, the appeal of the case (PDF of application) that Democracy Watch and Integrity B.C. founder Wayne Crookes filed challenging Prime Minister Trudeau’s request in August 2021 that the Governor General call a snap federal election 2021 snap election call will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Ottawa, and online via Zoom.

The case will be heard at Federal Court Building, 90 Sparks St., 4th floor in Ottawa from 2 pm to 4 pm. Anyone can also register to watch the hearing online by contacting the FCA at email: information@fca-caf.gc.ca and asking to be sent the Zoom invitation for the hearing of Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes v. Prime Minister, FCA File No. A-54-22.

The case is aimed at winning a ruling that the Prime Minister violated the fixed election date measure in Canada’s election law, and that the PM is only allowed to ask the Governor General to call an election every four years on the fixed election date, with the only exception being if a vote of non-confidence in the government occurs before that date. Nicolas Rouleau and Daniel Santoro are the lawyers for the case.

Democracy Watch filed a similar case against then-Prime Minister Harper’s snap election call in September 2008. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal both ruled that a constitutional convention had not been created when Parliament added section 56.1 to the Canada Elections Act in 2007, and that the measure was not specific enough to prohibit the Prime Minister from calling an early election.

The Federal Court judge who granted the Trudeau government’s motion to stop the case ruled that the case is the same as the 2008 case, ignoring the fact that the case is very different because the situation when Trudeau called a snap election in August 2021 was very different from Harper’s snap election call in September 2008 in several key ways (click here to see DWatch’s legal arguments):

1. On May 25, 2021, MPs (including Trudeau) voted 327-1 against holding an election, and all opposition party leaders clearly and publicly expressed their opposition in July-August to holding an election;
2. As opposition parties made clear with public letters and statements before Trudeau’s election call, a majority of MPs voted in favour of everything the Trudeau Liberals have proposed since the last election, including the 2021 Liberal budget, or were in the process of reviewing proposed measures on the usual legislative timeline. Opposition parties clearly supported the Liberals continuing to govern, and the Trudeau government had the confidence of Parliament, when Trudeau called the election.

(Click here to see Backgrounder for details).

In addition, the British Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that PM Boris Johnson’s decision to advise the Queen to shut down Parliament was unlawful as it “ha[d] the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive” (para. 50 of the ruling). The same principle applies to Trudeau’s snap election call, which shut down Parliament for no good reason.

As well, the fixed election date rule in Canada’s election law, and the Prime Minister following the law for the past three elections, have created a constitutional convention rule that the PM is required to follow. In 2011, the Conservative government led by PM Harper called an election only after losing a vote of confidence in Parliament. In 2015, PM Harper called an election on the fixed date, as did PM Trudeau in 2019.

The newest development that makes the case different from the 2008 case is that the New Brunswick Court of Appeal recently ruled unanimously in Democracy Watch’s case challenging Conservative Premier Blaine Higgs’ August 2020 snap election call that New Brunswick’s fixed election date law, which is essentially the same as the federal law, prohibits the Premier from calling a snap election for purely political reasons, which is what PM Trudeau did in August 2021.

“Prime Minister Trudeau’s snap election call was illegal because Canada’s election law fixes election dates for every four years unless there is a vote of non-confidence in the government, which did not happen before his election call in August, and because MPs from all parties, including Prime Minister Trudeau, voted against holding an election, all opposition party leaders were against it, and the Liberal government had the clear confidence of Parliament in every way except for calling an election,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“In the same way the British Supreme Court rejected the British PM’s shutting down of Parliament as an illegal abuse of power that went against the will of Parliament, the courts should rule that Trudeau’s snap election was illegal because it violated the fixed election date law and convention, and the democratic will and constitutionally protected role of Parliament,” said Conacher.

“Two of the most important things Canadians want from their politicians is to obey the law and to tell the truth – Mr. Trudeau did neither,” said Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C. “To call an election during the Covid-19 health emergency at an unneeded expense of about $600 million reflects very poorly on Mr. Trudeau and the Liberal Party. He put self-interest before his duty to Canadians.”

As well, a survey at the end of July 2021 showed only 26% of Canadians wanted an election, and in mid-July 2021 the PM also denied that he was going to call an election, and a survey at the end of August 2021 showed that 75% of Canadians didn’t see the election as necessary.

More than 20,000 voters signed Democracy Watch’s petition on Change.org calling on Governor General Mary Simon to say no to any snap election call by Prime Minister Trudeau before the next fixed election date. Snap elections are unfair to voters, people who want to run as candidates, and most parties. That’s why Parliament decided to fix the federal election date in Canada’s election law.

Because they are illegal, dishonest and unfair, Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes also went to court to challenge the snap election call in September 2020 by the B.C. NDP Premier John Horgan which also violated B.C.’s fixed election date law. Democracy Watch is currently appealing a B.C. lower court ruling that rejected the case for similar reasons as the federal courts used in the 2008 case.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign and Stop PM/Premier Abuses Campaign

Strengthening rules, enforcement and competition won’t stop gouging and abuse by telecom companies – empowering consumers with their own watchdog group will

Government would pass law to establish group and require telecom companies to send notices to customers inviting them to join group – likely 1 million would join

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 8, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the federal government, whether or not the Rogers-Shaw deal is approved, to create a broad-based, well-resourced, consumer-run Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) using an innovative, low-cost, effective method that has worked in the U.S.

During CRTC hearings in October 2018 about hundreds of stories about abusive sales practices and gouging by Canada’s large telecom companies, Democracy Watch and more than 30 citizen and consumer groups called for the creation of the TCO. The CRTC recommended the creation of the TCO in its February 2019 report (p. 37).

The TCO could easily be created by the federal government at no cost, and no cost to telecom companies. Creating the TCO is the most low-cost, effective way to protect consumers and ensure companies serve everyone fairly and well at fair prices.

“Whether the Rogers-Shaw deal is approved, or competition increased, to really stop ongoing gouging and abuse by Canada’s big telecom companies the federal government must create a national, consumer-run telecom watchdog group that will empower and provide free help to consumers with shopping around, complaining and suing to get good, fairly priced service from the companies,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and the Corporate Responsibility Coalition, which has 31 member groups from across Canada that all endorse the call for the creation of a TCO. “States in the U.S. have successfully used a low-cost, effective method to create consumer-run industry watchdog groups, and the federal government should use this method to create a telecom watchdog group for Canadians.”

“If the Trudeau Liberals don’t require telecom companies to send out email and other notices inviting their customers to join a national, consumer-run telecom industry watchdog group, they will make it clear they don’t really care about protecting consumers from gouging and abuse,” said Conacher. “Telecom consumers pay all the costs for telecom companies’ ads, lawyers, lobbyists and other advocacy efforts, and requiring the companies to help create a consumer-run telecom watchdog group is most low-cost, effective thing to do to empower and educate consumers, give them a place to call that will give them free, effective help when they are gouged or abused, and ensure telecom companies serve everyone fairly and well at fair prices.”

In October 2018, in addition to the more than 30 citizen groups in the Corporate Responsibility Coalition (see its submission to the CRTC here), the four groups in the ad hoc Fair Communications Sales Coalition (FCSC) also called for the creation of the TCO. The FCSC was made up of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), ACORN Canada, the National Pensioners Federation, and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP). To see the FCSC’s submission calling for the creation of the TCO, click here and download the second Intervention document.

How can the TCO be created and what will it do?

The Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) can be created by the federal government passing a law establishing the organization (at no cost, with an interim board appointed by the government) and requiring telecom companies to send out notices by email and mail to their customers. Sending out the emails would not cost anything, and the TCO would pay for the printing costs for the pamphlet the telecom companies would mail 1-2 times each year to customers who still receive bills and notices by mail.

The notices about the TCO would describe the group and invite customers to join, with a nominal annual membership fee of $30 average. Such groups have been created in some U.S. states to watch over state utilities, with usually about 5% of consumers joining, which would create a group with 1 million members and a $30 million annual budget. To see more details about the TCO, click here.

The TCO would be consumer-directed, with a board elected from among its members.

The TCO would provide telecom customers across Canada with free help shopping around, filing complaints, free lawyers for lawsuits to stop gouging and abuse, and would represent telecom customers in all government policy-making and regulatory processes.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Questions and Answers about the Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) and Democracy Watch’s Citizen Association Campaign

Strengthening rules, enforcement and competition won’t stop gouging and abuse by telecom companies – empowering consumers with their own watchdog group will

Government would pass law to establish group and require telecom companies to send notices to customers inviting them to join group – likely 1 million would join

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, February 8, 2023

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the federal government, whether or not the Rogers-Shaw deal is approved, to create a broad-based, well-resourced, consumer-run Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) using an innovative, low-cost, effective method that has worked in the U.S.

During CRTC hearings in October 2018 about hundreds of stories about abusive sales practices and gouging by Canada’s large telecom companies, Democracy Watch and more than 30 citizen and consumer groups called for the creation of the TCO. The CRTC recommended the creation of the TCO in its February 2019 report (p. 37).

The TCO could easily be created by the federal government at no cost, and no cost to telecom companies. Creating the TCO is the most low-cost, effective way to protect consumers and ensure companies serve everyone fairly and well at fair prices.

“Whether the Rogers-Shaw deal is approved, or competition increased, to really stop ongoing gouging and abuse by Canada’s big telecom companies the federal government must create a national, consumer-run telecom watchdog group that will empower and provide free help to consumers with shopping around, complaining and suing to get good, fairly priced service from the companies,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and the Corporate Responsibility Coalition, which has 31 member groups from across Canada that all endorse the call for the creation of a TCO. “States in the U.S. have successfully used a low-cost, effective method to create consumer-run industry watchdog groups, and the federal government should use this method to create a telecom watchdog group for Canadians.”

“If the Trudeau Liberals don’t require telecom companies to send out email and other notices inviting their customers to join a national, consumer-run telecom industry watchdog group, they will make it clear they don’t really care about protecting consumers from gouging and abuse,” said Conacher. “Telecom consumers pay all the costs for telecom companies’ ads, lawyers, lobbyists and other advocacy efforts, and requiring the companies to help create a consumer-run telecom watchdog group is most low-cost, effective thing to do to empower and educate consumers, give them a place to call that will give them free, effective help when they are gouged or abused, and ensure telecom companies serve everyone fairly and well at fair prices.”

In October 2018, in addition to the more than 30 citizen groups in the Corporate Responsibility Coalition (see its submission to the CRTC here), the four groups in the ad hoc Fair Communications Sales Coalition (FCSC) also called for the creation of the TCO. The FCSC was made up of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), ACORN Canada, the National Pensioners Federation, and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP). To see the FCSC’s submission calling for the creation of the TCO, click here and download the second Intervention document.

How can the TCO be created and what will it do?

The Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) can be created by the federal government passing a law establishing the organization (at no cost, with an interim board appointed by the government) and requiring telecom companies to send out notices by email and mail to their customers. Sending out the emails would not cost anything, and the TCO would pay for the printing costs for the pamphlet the telecom companies would mail 1-2 times each year to customers who still receive bills and notices by mail.

The notices about the TCO would describe the group and invite customers to join, with a nominal annual membership fee of $30 average. Such groups have been created in some U.S. states to watch over state utilities, with usually about 5% of consumers joining, which would create a group with 1 million members and a $30 million annual budget. To see more details about the TCO, click here.

The TCO would be consumer-directed, with a board elected from among its members.

The TCO would provide telecom customers across Canada with free help shopping around, filing complaints, free lawyers for lawsuits to stop gouging and abuse, and would represent telecom customers in all government policy-making and regulatory processes.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Questions and Answers about the Telecom Consumer Organization (TCO) and Democracy Watch’s Citizen Association Campaign

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, December 14, 2022

TORONTO – Today Environmental Defence and Democracy Watch called on the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate whether the provincial government’s apparent leak of secret plans to allow residential development on 15 specific areas within the Greenbelt amounted to a criminal breach of trust by a public officer. It seems very likely that before any authorized public disclosure of the province’s plans to remove these specific lands from the Greenbelt, some government official, government MPP or employee leaked that information privately.

Recent investigative reporting by the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, The Narwhal, CBC (and CBC again), has revealed multiple transactions to purchase Greenbelt land conducted prior to the November 4th announcement of the plan to remove 15 parcels of land from the protected Greenbelt. These transactions would seem to have been irrational if all the parties were unaware that these Greenbelt lands would be proposed for removal.

Prior to November 4th – and continuing right up to that day – publicly-available information regarding the present and future status of these Greenbelt lands offered no rational basis for prospective purchasers to expect that significant residential, commercial or industrial development of these lands would be permitted at any time in the foreseeable future. On the contrary:

• the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing made repeated and unambiguous public statements that the government would “maintain the Greenbelt in its entirety” and would not “touch the Greenbelt”, “build on the Greenbelt” or even “entertain any conversations about a land swap”
• There was no shortage of existing “designated greenfield area” or of “whitebelt” farmland and natural areas outside the Greenbelt, and that would reasonably have led an investor to expect that the government would not breach its express commitments to never remove any land from the Greenbelt.
• There was certainly no public process, or public set of criteria released prior to November 4th to suggest that these specific areas would be the ones selected for removal. On the contrary, all public consultations soliciting input on Greenbelt Area Boundaries (see ERO 019-4485, ERO 019-4483 and ERO 019-4803) were strictly limited to proposals for adding land to the Greenbelt, and were framed assiduously to preclude any implication that the government would entertain or consider proposals to remove any land from the Greenbelt.

Given that the integrity of the Ontario government’s policy making process is essential and fundamental to ensure the public interest is upheld and protected, and the significant potential negative financial, social and economic consequences of the decisions in question for other landowners and the Ontario public, it is imperative that the OPP investigate whether this apparent leak of the government’s secret plans to break its Greenbelt pledge constituted a criminal Breach of Trust by Public Officer, contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

• A breach of trust by public officer occurs when a public official departs markedly from the standards of confidentiality or other conduct demanded of an individual in their position, for the purpose other than the public good.
• Pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of the Member’s Integrity Act, and sections 5 and 6 and Reg 381/07 and O.Reg. 382/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act (PSOA), it seems clear that providing confidential information concerning a pending government decision, and/or giving anyone or any company preferential treatment, such as through early access to information, would breach the standards Ontario politicians, Cabinet ministers and their staff, and government employees are required to meet.
• Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark has denied that he authorized any advance leak of the government’s secret plans to pave the Greenbelt.
• There can be little doubt that the government’s public announcement of its intention to strip these lands of Greenbelt protection – and thus to open them for property development – has considerably increased their market value.

The questions that should be addressed in the OPP’s investigation include:

• When did government official(s) first discuss the possibility of removing these specific clusters of lots from the Greenbelt.
• Who initiated and oversaw this process within government?
• Did any of the landowners in the area or who have bought land affected by the Greenbelt decision apply or in other ways seek to initiate this process?
• Given the absence of a publicly transparent process concerning the potential removal of Greenbelt lands, how was the decision arrived at to proceed and how were lands to be removed from the Greenbelt selected? Were there other sites considered, where were they and who conducted this analyses?
• Which government official(s), or PC MPP leaked internal government information about the government’s secret plans to remove certain lands from the Greenbelt, and about which lands – in particular – would be affected, to individuals or corporate entities outside of the government?
• When and how was this confidential information provided, in any way directly or indirectly, to the land owners, their agents or lobbyists whose lands were selected? And, with regard to the communication of that information:
• WHO was present/involved?
• WHAT was discussed?
• WHERE are the notes of those meetings/communications?
• Were municipalities consulted or informed and was any information provided or promises made to the owners via municipal staff or elected officials?

“Removal of thousands of acres of legally protected farmland, forests and wetlands from the Greenbelt threatens us all. A government doing so in a manner shrouded in secrecy that appears to benefit a select group of property owners including recent purchasers needs to be thoroughly investigated by the OPP,” said Tim Gray, Executive Director, Environmental Defence.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that it damages our democracy if a situation even appears to raise questions about the integrity of a government policy-making process, and that law enforcement must be strict and strong to prevent this damage, so given the Greenbelt policy change smells badly, the OPP must investigate”, said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Allen Braude, Environmental Defence
Email: abraude@environmentaldefence.ca
Tel: 416-356-2587

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, December 14, 2022

TORONTO – Today Environmental Defence and Democracy Watch called on the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate whether the provincial government’s apparent leak of secret plans to allow residential development on 15 specific areas within the Greenbelt amounted to a criminal breach of trust by a public officer. It seems very likely that before any authorized public disclosure of the province’s plans to remove these specific lands from the Greenbelt, some government official, government MPP or employee leaked that information privately.

Recent investigative reporting by the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, The Narwhal, CBC (and CBC again), has revealed multiple transactions to purchase Greenbelt land conducted prior to the November 4th announcement of the plan to remove 15 parcels of land from the protected Greenbelt. These transactions would seem to have been irrational if all the parties were unaware that these Greenbelt lands would be proposed for removal.

Prior to November 4th – and continuing right up to that day – publicly-available information regarding the present and future status of these Greenbelt lands offered no rational basis for prospective purchasers to expect that significant residential, commercial or industrial development of these lands would be permitted at any time in the foreseeable future. On the contrary:

• the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing made repeated and unambiguous public statements that the government would “maintain the Greenbelt in its entirety” and would not “touch the Greenbelt”, “build on the Greenbelt” or even “entertain any conversations about a land swap”
• There was no shortage of existing “designated greenfield area” or of “whitebelt” farmland and natural areas outside the Greenbelt, and that would reasonably have led an investor to expect that the government would not breach its express commitments to never remove any land from the Greenbelt.
• There was certainly no public process, or public set of criteria released prior to November 4th to suggest that these specific areas would be the ones selected for removal. On the contrary, all public consultations soliciting input on Greenbelt Area Boundaries (see ERO 019-4485, ERO 019-4483 and ERO 019-4803) were strictly limited to proposals for adding land to the Greenbelt, and were framed assiduously to preclude any implication that the government would entertain or consider proposals to remove any land from the Greenbelt.

Given that the integrity of the Ontario government’s policy making process is essential and fundamental to ensure the public interest is upheld and protected, and the significant potential negative financial, social and economic consequences of the decisions in question for other landowners and the Ontario public, it is imperative that the OPP investigate whether this apparent leak of the government’s secret plans to break its Greenbelt pledge constituted a criminal Breach of Trust by Public Officer, contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

• A breach of trust by public officer occurs when a public official departs markedly from the standards of confidentiality or other conduct demanded of an individual in their position, for the purpose other than the public good.
• Pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of the Member’s Integrity Act, and sections 5 and 6 and Reg 381/07 and O.Reg. 382/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act (PSOA), it seems clear that providing confidential information concerning a pending government decision, and/or giving anyone or any company preferential treatment, such as through early access to information, would breach the standards Ontario politicians, Cabinet ministers and their staff, and government employees are required to meet.
• Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark has denied that he authorized any advance leak of the government’s secret plans to pave the Greenbelt.
• There can be little doubt that the government’s public announcement of its intention to strip these lands of Greenbelt protection – and thus to open them for property development – has considerably increased their market value.

The questions that should be addressed in the OPP’s investigation include:

• When did government official(s) first discuss the possibility of removing these specific clusters of lots from the Greenbelt.
• Who initiated and oversaw this process within government?
• Did any of the landowners in the area or who have bought land affected by the Greenbelt decision apply or in other ways seek to initiate this process?
• Given the absence of a publicly transparent process concerning the potential removal of Greenbelt lands, how was the decision arrived at to proceed and how were lands to be removed from the Greenbelt selected? Were there other sites considered, where were they and who conducted this analyses?
• Which government official(s), or PC MPP leaked internal government information about the government’s secret plans to remove certain lands from the Greenbelt, and about which lands – in particular – would be affected, to individuals or corporate entities outside of the government?
• When and how was this confidential information provided, in any way directly or indirectly, to the land owners, their agents or lobbyists whose lands were selected? And, with regard to the communication of that information:
• WHO was present/involved?
• WHAT was discussed?
• WHERE are the notes of those meetings/communications?
• Were municipalities consulted or informed and was any information provided or promises made to the owners via municipal staff or elected officials?

“Removal of thousands of acres of legally protected farmland, forests and wetlands from the Greenbelt threatens us all. A government doing so in a manner shrouded in secrecy that appears to benefit a select group of property owners including recent purchasers needs to be thoroughly investigated by the OPP,” said Tim Gray, Executive Director, Environmental Defence.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that it damages our democracy if a situation even appears to raise questions about the integrity of a government policy-making process, and that law enforcement must be strict and strong to prevent this damage, so given the Greenbelt policy change smells badly, the OPP must investigate”, said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Allen Braude, Environmental Defence
Email: abraude@environmentaldefence.ca
Tel: 416-356-2587

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Appeal court rejects almost every part of lower court’s ruling, finds “most of Democracy Watch’s grounds of appeal are well-founded”

Case was not aimed at overturning election results – just sought ruling that future snap election calls will be illegal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, December 9, 2022

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick released a precedent-setting unanimous ruling yesterday that prohibits the Premier from calling a snap election in-between the every-four-year fixed election dates for “purely partisan electoral advantage.” The ruling came in the lawsuit Democracy Watch filed challenging Premier Blaine Higgs’ advice in August 2020 to the Lieutenant Governor to call a provincial snap election. Jamie Simpson provided legal counsel to Democracy Watch for the court case.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Court of Queen’s Bench Justice E. Thomas Christie’s ruling (which the appeal court forced Justice Christie to make) that Democracy Watch had standing as a public interest advocacy group to pursue the case in New Brunswick (paras. 42-48). However, the appeal court rejected every other part of Justice Christie’s decision, and ruled that he had made several errors, as follows:

1. The Court of Appeal ruled that the courts can rule on whether the Premier’s advice to the Lieutenant Governor is legal (paras. 49-56 and 77) – Justice Christie had ruled that the courts can’t rule on such a case.
2. As mentioned above, the Court of Appeal ruled that the fixed date election law prohibits the Premier from calling a snap election only to favour the ruling party’s re-election chances (paras. 57-66 and 78-79) – Justice Christie had ruled that the Premier could call an election anytime.
3. The Court of Appeal ruled that if the evidence clearly shows the Premier called a snap election purely to advantage the ruling party (which it didn’t either way in this case), the courts can rule that the election call was illegal (para. 71) – Justice Christie had ruled the courts couldn’t rule on such a situation.
4. The Court of Appeal ruled that Justice Christie’s ruling was “erroneous and unreasonable” – especially when he called Democracy Watch’s case frivolous – and that “most of Democracy Watch’s grounds of appeal are well-founded.” (para. 75).
5. As a result, the Court of Appeal rejected Justice Christie’s order that Democracy Watch pay the legal costs of the New Brunswick government (para. 75).

Justice Christie’s ruling against Democracy Watch in October 2021 also made a false claim about what DWatch’s lawyer argued in the case and made a false claim about what the Federal Court ruled in DWatch’s case vs. Prime Minister Harper’s 2008 snap election call.

“The court of appeal has set a strong precedent by ruling that it is illegal for the Premier to call a snap election in between the fixed election dates only to favour the ruling party’s election chances, and by ruling that a Premier’s election call can be challenged in court, and that it was in the public interest for the courts to rule on our case,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch believes there was enough evidence for the court of appeal to rule that Premier Higgs violated New Brunswick’s fixed elected date law by calling the 2020 snap election at a time that favoured his party’s election chances, but the court concluded there was not enough evidence to prove that he did, or didn’t, call the election to favour the PC Party.”

The case was not aimed at overturning the 2020 election results. Instead, Democracy Watch argued the court should declare that Premier Higgs’ action:

1. violated the fixed election date measure in the Legislative Assembly Act (ss. 3(4));
2. violated the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and responsible government (for this reason, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of the British Parliament was illegal), and;
3. violated the constitutional convention that has been created by premiers calling elections only on the fixed date in 2010, 2014 and 2018.

New Brunswick’s legislature enacted its fixed election date measures with Bill 75 in 2007. Then-House Leader Stuart Jamieson said at the time that: “It was thought by both parties in the legislature and by other provinces that it would be better to remove the political nuances and give everybody a fair and even playing field.” Bill 62 in 2017 changed the fixed date from September to October. The fixed date for the next election was set for the third Monday in October 2022.

Calling a snap election in violation of the law is bad – calling a snap election during a pandemic was even worse. Premier Higgs also used the completely invalid excuse that the three opposition parties refused to agree support the government in every vote until October 2022, or at least until after the pandemic. In a parliamentary system of democratic government, opposition parties are not required to agree to support the government. In the 2020 election, Premier Higgs’ Progressive Conservative Party won 55% of the seats in the legislature with the support of only 39% of voters.

Snap elections are unfair not only to opposition parties (as they are usually called when having an election favours the ruling party), but also to people who want to run as a candidate but can’t afford to suddenly drop everything and run. That’s why the federal Parliament, and every province and territory, have enacted fixed election date measures.

Because they are illegal, dishonest and unfair, Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes also went to court to challenge the snap election calls by B.C. NDP Premier John Horgan in September 2020 and by Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau in August 2021, both of which violated fixed election date laws. Both those cases are currently being considered by appeal courts.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign and the Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

Appeal court rejects almost every part of lower court’s ruling, finds “most of Democracy Watch’s grounds of appeal are well-founded”

Case was not aimed at overturning election results – just sought ruling that future snap election calls will be illegal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, December 9, 2022

OTTAWA – Democracy Watch announced that the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick released a precedent-setting unanimous ruling yesterday that prohibits the Premier from calling a snap election in-between the every-four-year fixed election dates for “purely partisan electoral advantage.” The ruling came in the lawsuit Democracy Watch filed challenging Premier Blaine Higgs’ advice in August 2020 to the Lieutenant Governor to call a provincial snap election. Jamie Simpson provided legal counsel to Democracy Watch for the court case.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Court of Queen’s Bench Justice E. Thomas Christie’s ruling (which the appeal court forced Justice Christie to make) that Democracy Watch had standing as a public interest advocacy group to pursue the case in New Brunswick (paras. 42-48). However, the appeal court rejected every other part of Justice Christie’s decision, and ruled that he had made several errors, as follows:

1. The Court of Appeal ruled that the courts can rule on whether the Premier’s advice to the Lieutenant Governor is legal (paras. 49-56 and 77) – Justice Christie had ruled that the courts can’t rule on such a case.
2. As mentioned above, the Court of Appeal ruled that the fixed date election law prohibits the Premier from calling a snap election only to favour the ruling party’s re-election chances (paras. 57-66 and 78-79) – Justice Christie had ruled that the Premier could call an election anytime.
3. The Court of Appeal ruled that if the evidence clearly shows the Premier called a snap election purely to advantage the ruling party (which it didn’t either way in this case), the courts can rule that the election call was illegal (para. 71) – Justice Christie had ruled the courts couldn’t rule on such a situation.
4. The Court of Appeal ruled that Justice Christie’s ruling was “erroneous and unreasonable” – especially when he called Democracy Watch’s case frivolous – and that “most of Democracy Watch’s grounds of appeal are well-founded.” (para. 75).
5. As a result, the Court of Appeal rejected Justice Christie’s order that Democracy Watch pay the legal costs of the New Brunswick government (para. 75).

Justice Christie’s ruling against Democracy Watch in October 2021 also made a false claim about what DWatch’s lawyer argued in the case and made a false claim about what the Federal Court ruled in DWatch’s case vs. Prime Minister Harper’s 2008 snap election call.

“The court of appeal has set a strong precedent by ruling that it is illegal for the Premier to call a snap election in between the fixed election dates only to favour the ruling party’s election chances, and by ruling that a Premier’s election call can be challenged in court, and that it was in the public interest for the courts to rule on our case,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch believes there was enough evidence for the court of appeal to rule that Premier Higgs violated New Brunswick’s fixed elected date law by calling the 2020 snap election at a time that favoured his party’s election chances, but the court concluded there was not enough evidence to prove that he did, or didn’t, call the election to favour the PC Party.”

The case was not aimed at overturning the 2020 election results. Instead, Democracy Watch argued the court should declare that Premier Higgs’ action:

1. violated the fixed election date measure in the Legislative Assembly Act (ss. 3(4));
2. violated the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and responsible government (for this reason, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2019 that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of the British Parliament was illegal), and;
3. violated the constitutional convention that has been created by premiers calling elections only on the fixed date in 2010, 2014 and 2018.

New Brunswick’s legislature enacted its fixed election date measures with Bill 75 in 2007. Then-House Leader Stuart Jamieson said at the time that: “It was thought by both parties in the legislature and by other provinces that it would be better to remove the political nuances and give everybody a fair and even playing field.” Bill 62 in 2017 changed the fixed date from September to October. The fixed date for the next election was set for the third Monday in October 2022.

Calling a snap election in violation of the law is bad – calling a snap election during a pandemic was even worse. Premier Higgs also used the completely invalid excuse that the three opposition parties refused to agree support the government in every vote until October 2022, or at least until after the pandemic. In a parliamentary system of democratic government, opposition parties are not required to agree to support the government. In the 2020 election, Premier Higgs’ Progressive Conservative Party won 55% of the seats in the legislature with the support of only 39% of voters.

Snap elections are unfair not only to opposition parties (as they are usually called when having an election favours the ruling party), but also to people who want to run as a candidate but can’t afford to suddenly drop everything and run. That’s why the federal Parliament, and every province and territory, have enacted fixed election date measures.

Because they are illegal, dishonest and unfair, Democracy Watch and Wayne Crookes also went to court to challenge the snap election calls by B.C. NDP Premier John Horgan in September 2020 and by Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau in August 2021, both of which violated fixed election date laws. Both those cases are currently being considered by appeal courts.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign and the Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

Lobbying Commissioner ignored clear rules that prohibit putting a politician in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, or lobbying their department or staff, for years after campaigning and/or fundraising for them

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, December 6, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is at the Federal Court in Ottawa for the much-delayed hearing of the case it filed in August 2020 challenging federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger’s rulings that let lobbyists Ben Bergen and Dana O’Born of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) off the hook even though they lobbied Liberal Cabinet minister Chrystia Freeland’s department and staff soon after co-managing her election campaign and serving on her riding association executive.

Democracy Watch’s two cases are being heard together given they are about the same situation, and DWatch argues that Bergen and O’Born’s lobbying violated the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct Rule 6 which, according to the Commissioner’s own website, prohibits lobbyists from putting a politician in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, and Rule 9 which prohibits lobbying a politician or their staff for four years after campaign or fundraising for them or assisting them in any other significant way.

In a related development, Commissioner Bélanger is trying to rush into force a new Lobbyists’ Code that guts Rule 6 and Rule 9 in ways that will allow lobbyists to campaign and fundraise unlimited amounts of money for politicians while lobbying them. Thankfully, the House Ethics Committee is, so far, slowing the Commissioner down, and will hopefully reject the proposed new unethical rules.

The hearing of the cases is at Federal Court Building, 90 Sparks St., 4^th floor, Ottawa, and also online on Zoom (contact the Federal Court to register to watch the hearing on Zoom at: Tel: 613-992-4238; Email: <hearings-audiences@fct-cf.ca>). The cases are Federal Court File Nos. T-915-20 and T-916-20. Democracy Watch is represented by Andrew Montague-Reinholdt and Rhian Foley of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP.

“The federal lobbying ethics code prohibits anyone from lobbying a Cabinet minister or their officials for four years after helping them get elected or assisting them in a significant way, and so hopefully the Federal Court will overrule the Commissioner of Lobbying and find Minister Freeland’s former election campaign and riding association managers guilty of violating the code given they lobbied many senior officials in Minister Freeland’s former department before four years had passed,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“By letting the CCI lobbyists off the hook, issuing other similarly weak rulings in recent years letting off other unethical lobbyists, and by trying to get key ethical lobbying rules, Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger is continuing the negligent enforcement record of her predecessor Karen Shepherd who let off 84% of the lobbyists who violated the law during her decade as commissioner,” said Conacher.

Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger finally issued two rulings in March 2020 (a completely unjustifiable delay of almost three years after Democracy Watch filed its complaint) that Mr. Bergen and Ms. O’Born did not violate Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct rules 6, 8, 9 or 10 which prohibit assisting a politician in any significant way and then lobbying their office or officials afterwards.

The cases have been delayed multiple times. First in fall 2020 waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) to decide whether to allow DWatch to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling on its case challenging former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd’s decision not to investigate the Aga Khan for giving Justin Trudeau’s family and friends a trip to his private Bahamas island. Incredibly, the FCA ruled that the public has no right to have a complaint ruled on by the Commissioner, and therefore no right to challenge a decision not to investigate a complaint. The SCC decided not to hear DWatch’s appeal.

Then, the Trudeau Cabinet filed a motion to have Democracy Watch’s cases thrown out, but the Federal Court rejected the motion because in the Bergen and O’Born cases DWatch is challenging the Commissioner’s final rulings under section 10.5 of the Lobbying Act after completing her investigations. In contrast, in the Aga Khan case, the Commissioner refused to investigate under subsection 10.4(1) of the Act.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Lobbying Commissioner ignored clear rules that prohibit putting a politician in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, or lobbying their department or staff, for years after campaigning and/or fundraising for them

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, December 6, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is at the Federal Court in Ottawa for the much-delayed hearing of the case it filed in August 2020 challenging federal Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger’s rulings that let lobbyists Ben Bergen and Dana O’Born of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) off the hook even though they lobbied Liberal Cabinet minister Chrystia Freeland’s department and staff soon after co-managing her election campaign and serving on her riding association executive.

Democracy Watch’s two cases are being heard together given they are about the same situation, and DWatch argues that Bergen and O’Born’s lobbying violated the federal Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct Rule 6 which, according to the Commissioner’s own website, prohibits lobbyists from putting a politician in even an appearance of a conflict of interest, and Rule 9 which prohibits lobbying a politician or their staff for four years after campaign or fundraising for them or assisting them in any other significant way.

In a related development, Commissioner Bélanger is trying to rush into force a new Lobbyists’ Code that guts Rule 6 and Rule 9 in ways that will allow lobbyists to campaign and fundraise unlimited amounts of money for politicians while lobbying them. Thankfully, the House Ethics Committee is, so far, slowing the Commissioner down, and will hopefully reject the proposed new unethical rules.

The hearing of the cases is at Federal Court Building, 90 Sparks St., 4^th floor, Ottawa, and also online on Zoom (contact the Federal Court to register to watch the hearing on Zoom at: Tel: 613-992-4238; Email: <hearings-audiences@fct-cf.ca>). The cases are Federal Court File Nos. T-915-20 and T-916-20. Democracy Watch is represented by Andrew Montague-Reinholdt and Rhian Foley of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP.

“The federal lobbying ethics code prohibits anyone from lobbying a Cabinet minister or their officials for four years after helping them get elected or assisting them in a significant way, and so hopefully the Federal Court will overrule the Commissioner of Lobbying and find Minister Freeland’s former election campaign and riding association managers guilty of violating the code given they lobbied many senior officials in Minister Freeland’s former department before four years had passed,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

“By letting the CCI lobbyists off the hook, issuing other similarly weak rulings in recent years letting off other unethical lobbyists, and by trying to get key ethical lobbying rules, Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger is continuing the negligent enforcement record of her predecessor Karen Shepherd who let off 84% of the lobbyists who violated the law during her decade as commissioner,” said Conacher.

Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger finally issued two rulings in March 2020 (a completely unjustifiable delay of almost three years after Democracy Watch filed its complaint) that Mr. Bergen and Ms. O’Born did not violate Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct rules 6, 8, 9 or 10 which prohibit assisting a politician in any significant way and then lobbying their office or officials afterwards.

The cases have been delayed multiple times. First in fall 2020 waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) to decide whether to allow DWatch to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling on its case challenging former Lobbying Commissioner Karen Shepherd’s decision not to investigate the Aga Khan for giving Justin Trudeau’s family and friends a trip to his private Bahamas island. Incredibly, the FCA ruled that the public has no right to have a complaint ruled on by the Commissioner, and therefore no right to challenge a decision not to investigate a complaint. The SCC decided not to hear DWatch’s appeal.

Then, the Trudeau Cabinet filed a motion to have Democracy Watch’s cases thrown out, but the Federal Court rejected the motion because in the Bergen and O’Born cases DWatch is challenging the Commissioner’s final rulings under section 10.5 of the Lobbying Act after completing her investigations. In contrast, in the Aga Khan case, the Commissioner refused to investigate under subsection 10.4(1) of the Act.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Commissioner’s proposed new Code would allow lobbyists to secretly fundraise and campaign for politicians while lobbying them

New Code will allow secret support similar to secret funding allegedly given by China-sponsored organizations to 11 candidates in 2019 federal election

House Ethics Committee must hold emergency hearings to reject the Code

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, November 29, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the House Ethics Committee to hold emergency public hearings to review and reject key changes to the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct proposed by Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger because they gut ethical lobbying rules in ways that will allow for corrupt favour-trading between lobbyists and politicians.

Four MPs on the House Ethics Committee can force the Committee to hold a hearing on the proposed Code, and the Committee must approve the Commissioner’s proposed Code before it can come into force. The Commissioner posted her proposed new unethical Code on her website last Friday afternoon without issuing a news release about it, and she wants it to come into force in January 2023.

“Groups with more than one-and-a-half million supporters oppose the Commissioner of Lobbying’s attempt to gut key lobbying ethics rules in ways that will allow for corrupt favour-trading, and the House Ethics Committee should hold emergency public hearings and reject the Commissioner’s unethical proposals,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Lobbying Commissioner is contradicting herself by proposing new rules to ban lobbyists from giving gifts and hospitality worth more than $80 a year, while gutting other rules to allow lobbyists to secretly campaign and raise unlimited amounts of money for politicians and parties while lobbying them.”

“The Commissioner of Lobbying’s proposed changes to the Lobbyists’ Code are perverse and deeply unethical and will allow lobbyists to give secret campaign and fundraising support to politicians they are lobbying, including support similar to the secret funding allegedly given by China-sponsored organizations to 11 candidates in the 2019 federal election,” said Conacher.

In total, 21 citizen groups with supporters totaling more than 1.5 million Canadians oppose the Commissioner’s proposed changes. Democracy and 13 other citizen organizations, and also David Suzuki and Alan Broadbent, called in June in a joint public letter for Commissioner Bélanger to stop trying to gut the Lobbyists’ Code, and another 7 organizations joined the call by withdrawing their support for the Commissioner’s proposed changes in July (See the World Wildlife Fund submission on behalf of 6 other organizations on this page – Commissioner Bélanger has refused to publish the letter withdrawing that submission that WWF sent to her on July 25).

As well, Commissioner Bélanger has misleadingly claimed on this page that she received only 206 letters from voters – in fact, more than 20,000 voters signed on to Democracy Watch’s petition on Change.org or its letter-writing campaign that sent emails to the Commissioner calling on her to stop gutting the Code, and also calling on federal party leaders and the House Ethics Committee to make key changes to stop all secret, unethical lobbying.

Commissioner Bélanger is proposing to gut the federal Lobbyists’ Code and allow corrupt favour-trading by changing key ethics rules to allow lobbyists:

1. To secretly campaign for and fundraise for politicians and parties up to nearly full-time while lobbying them (currently if a lobbyist campaigned or fundraised for a politician or party up to nearly full-time, they would be prohibited from lobbying them for 4 years);
2. To secretly be a second-level, full-time campaign staff person for a politician and/or party and then only be prohibited from lobbying them for 1 year (the current lobbying prohibition time period is 4 years);
3. To secretly be a top-level, full-time campaign staff person for a politician and/or party and then only be prohibited from lobbying them for 2 years (the current prohibition time period is 4 years);

and not only can all of this campaigning and fundraising be done in secret, but also the Commissioner is proposing to give herself the power to secretly reduce a lobbyist’s 1-2 year lobbying prohibition down to an even shorter time period.

The joint letter from Democracy Watch and the 13 organizations calls for the following Code changes, changes the House Ethics Committee should make:

1. Keep in the Code the current loophole-free rule that prohibits lobbying anytime there is an appearance of a conflict of interest;
2. Increase the cooling-off period from 5 years up to 10 years during which a lobbyist is prohibited from lobbying after significant fundraising or campaigning for a politician or party (instead of lowering it to 1-2 years);
3. Create a new category of lower-level political activity with a 5-year cooling-off period;
4. Allow lobbying right away only if the lobbyist only canvasses or volunteers no more than a couple of times during a campaign, and;
5. Don’t allow any reductions of any of the cooling-off periods.

See Backgrounder for more details.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Commissioner’s proposed new Code would allow lobbyists to secretly fundraise and campaign for politicians while lobbying them

New Code will allow secret support similar to secret funding allegedly given by China-sponsored organizations to 11 candidates in 2019 federal election

House Ethics Committee must hold emergency hearings to reject the Code

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, November 29, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the House Ethics Committee to hold emergency public hearings to review and reject key changes to the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct proposed by Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger because they gut ethical lobbying rules in ways that will allow for corrupt favour-trading between lobbyists and politicians.

Four MPs on the House Ethics Committee can force the Committee to hold a hearing on the proposed Code, and the Committee must approve the Commissioner’s proposed Code before it can come into force. The Commissioner posted her proposed new unethical Code on her website last Friday afternoon without issuing a news release about it, and she wants it to come into force in January 2023.

“Groups with more than one-and-a-half million supporters oppose the Commissioner of Lobbying’s attempt to gut key lobbying ethics rules in ways that will allow for corrupt favour-trading, and the House Ethics Committee should hold emergency public hearings and reject the Commissioner’s unethical proposals,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Lobbying Commissioner is contradicting herself by proposing new rules to ban lobbyists from giving gifts and hospitality worth more than $80 a year, while gutting other rules to allow lobbyists to secretly campaign and raise unlimited amounts of money for politicians and parties while lobbying them.”

“The Commissioner of Lobbying’s proposed changes to the Lobbyists’ Code are perverse and deeply unethical and will allow lobbyists to give secret campaign and fundraising support to politicians they are lobbying, including support similar to the secret funding allegedly given by China-sponsored organizations to 11 candidates in the 2019 federal election,” said Conacher.

In total, 21 citizen groups with supporters totaling more than 1.5 million Canadians oppose the Commissioner’s proposed changes. Democracy and 13 other citizen organizations, and also David Suzuki and Alan Broadbent, called in June in a joint public letter for Commissioner Bélanger to stop trying to gut the Lobbyists’ Code, and another 7 organizations joined the call by withdrawing their support for the Commissioner’s proposed changes in July (See the World Wildlife Fund submission on behalf of 6 other organizations on this page – Commissioner Bélanger has refused to publish the letter withdrawing that submission that WWF sent to her on July 25).

As well, Commissioner Bélanger has misleadingly claimed on this page that she received only 206 letters from voters – in fact, more than 20,000 voters signed on to Democracy Watch’s petition on Change.org or its letter-writing campaign that sent emails to the Commissioner calling on her to stop gutting the Code, and also calling on federal party leaders and the House Ethics Committee to make key changes to stop all secret, unethical lobbying.

Commissioner Bélanger is proposing to gut the federal Lobbyists’ Code and allow corrupt favour-trading by changing key ethics rules to allow lobbyists:

1. To secretly campaign for and fundraise for politicians and parties up to nearly full-time while lobbying them (currently if a lobbyist campaigned or fundraised for a politician or party up to nearly full-time, they would be prohibited from lobbying them for 4 years);
2. To secretly be a second-level, full-time campaign staff person for a politician and/or party and then only be prohibited from lobbying them for 1 year (the current lobbying prohibition time period is 4 years);
3. To secretly be a top-level, full-time campaign staff person for a politician and/or party and then only be prohibited from lobbying them for 2 years (the current prohibition time period is 4 years);

and not only can all of this campaigning and fundraising be done in secret, but also the Commissioner is proposing to give herself the power to secretly reduce a lobbyist’s 1-2 year lobbying prohibition down to an even shorter time period.

The joint letter from Democracy Watch and the 13 organizations calls for the following Code changes, changes the House Ethics Committee should make:

1. Keep in the Code the current loophole-free rule that prohibits lobbying anytime there is an appearance of a conflict of interest;
2. Increase the cooling-off period from 5 years up to 10 years during which a lobbyist is prohibited from lobbying after significant fundraising or campaigning for a politician or party (instead of lowering it to 1-2 years);
3. Create a new category of lower-level political activity with a 5-year cooling-off period;
4. Allow lobbying right away only if the lobbyist only canvasses or volunteers no more than a couple of times during a campaign, and;
5. Don’t allow any reductions of any of the cooling-off periods.

See Backgrounder for more details.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign

Trudeau Cabinet still trying to stop court from seeing government emails reported on in La Presse, and evidence that lawyer associations, law professors, experts and media all think the Liberals’ appointment process is too political

Case alleges Trudeau Liberal’s consultation with only Liberals across Canada taints appointments with partisan bias that violates independence of courts and public’s Charter right to courts that appear, and are, impartial

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, November 7, 2022

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch is in Federal Court in Toronto challenging the federal government’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to the federal courts and all provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, and promoting judges within those courts. Ross & McBride LLP is representing Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case – click here to see DWatch’s arguments. The case is being heard in Courtroom 4C at the Federal Court at 180 Queen St. W., Toronto, and can be watched on Zoom by contacting the Clerk at: 416-976-3356.

Details about how the Minister of Justice only secretly consults with officials from Liberal Party not other parties, and only checks the Liberal Party donor database, when reviewing the long lists of candidates for judicial appointments submitted by advisory committees made up of people chosen mostly by the Minister have been confirmed by whistleblowers disclosing internal government emails to the Globe and Mail and CBC and Radio-Canada and La Presse. In addition, the appointments system has been shown to favour Liberal donors.

Democracy Watch has also submitted to the court public letters and articles that lawyer associations (including the Canadian Bar Association), law professors, lawyers, experts and media have produced in the last few years expressing their concerns about how political the federal judicial appointment is, and how that undermines the public’s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. As well, in April 2020, the Canadian Judicial Council found that Justice Colleen Suche, spouse of then-federal Natural Resources Cabinet Minister Jim Carr, had violated the judiciary’s ethics code by providing suggestions about who the federal Cabinet should appoint as judges.

There are also concerns that the partisan nature of the appointment process may be inhibiting the appointment of judges that reflect Canada’s diversity. In June 2020, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed the need for “our courts, including our highest court, to reflect the diversity of Canadians.” In September 2020, 36 lawyers associations, legal clinics and advocacy groups called for changes to the appointment process, as did the Canadian Bar Association, to increase the appointment of more Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) judges.

All this evidence shows clearly that the federal appointments system for judges is too open to political interference that violates the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts, and the public’s Charter right to impartial courts.

In December 2021, the Federal Court rejected (PDF) the Trudeau Cabinet’s first attempt to have almost all this key evidence thrown out in its case. Department of Justice lawyers are still asking the Federal Court to ignore almost all of the evidence that Democracy Watch filed in a December 2020 affidavit (PDF) and in a second affidavit (PDF) about internal government emails reported on in La Presse on October 31, 2020 (redacted parts of the second affidavit will be considered confidentially by the Federal Court under an order of the court (PDF).

“The current federal judicial appointment system is open to too much political interference by the ruling party, which violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the courts that is need to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully this case will lead to key changes, changes that have already been made in the UK and Quebec, that will help ensure the appointment process for judges across Canada is truly independent and merit-based.”

The constitutional guarantee of the independence of the courts has been upheld in several court rulings on the measures in Part VII of the Constitution and the unwritten constitutional principle of judicial independence. And sections 7, 11(d) (and, indirectly, 24(1)) of the Charter have been applied in rulings to ensure impartial court hearings.

The appointment process for the federal and provincial superior and appeal courts matters a lot because the Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear 90% of appeals from these courts, and many appeals are also refused by provincial appeal courts, so in many cases the provincial superior courts are the public’s actual court of last resort.

The problems are longstanding, and have been raised in the past: unlike in the UK and Quebec, the federal Minister of Justice has too much political control of the process from start to finish, from choosing the majority of the members of the judicial appointment advisory committees in each province and territory (who serve renewable two-year terms), to receiving long lists of candidates from those committees, to circulating those lists secretly to MPs, Cabinet ministers and ruling party officials before making the final choice. The Minister also makes the decision, without any advisory committee involved making recommendations, to promote a sitting judge by appointing them to a court of appeal. (See Backgrounder for details).

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

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

Trudeau Cabinet still trying to stop court from seeing government emails reported on in La Presse, and evidence that lawyer associations, law professors, experts and media all think the Liberals’ appointment process is too political

Case alleges Trudeau Liberal’s consultation with only Liberals across Canada taints appointments with partisan bias that violates independence of courts and public’s Charter right to courts that appear, and are, impartial

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, November 7, 2022

TORONTO – Today, Democracy Watch is in Federal Court in Toronto challenging the federal government’s too-political, unconstitutional system for appointing judges to the federal courts and all provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, and promoting judges within those courts. Ross & McBride LLP is representing Democracy Watch and its co-founder Duff Conacher in the case – click here to see DWatch’s arguments. The case is being heard in Courtroom 4C at the Federal Court at 180 Queen St. W., Toronto, and can be watched on Zoom by contacting the Clerk at: 416-976-3356.

Details about how the Minister of Justice only secretly consults with officials from Liberal Party not other parties, and only checks the Liberal Party donor database, when reviewing the long lists of candidates for judicial appointments submitted by advisory committees made up of people chosen mostly by the Minister have been confirmed by whistleblowers disclosing internal government emails to the Globe and Mail and CBC and Radio-Canada and La Presse. In addition, the appointments system has been shown to favour Liberal donors.

Democracy Watch has also submitted to the court public letters and articles that lawyer associations (including the Canadian Bar Association), law professors, lawyers, experts and media have produced in the last few years expressing their concerns about how political the federal judicial appointment is, and how that undermines the public’s confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. As well, in April 2020, the Canadian Judicial Council found that Justice Colleen Suche, spouse of then-federal Natural Resources Cabinet Minister Jim Carr, had violated the judiciary’s ethics code by providing suggestions about who the federal Cabinet should appoint as judges.

There are also concerns that the partisan nature of the appointment process may be inhibiting the appointment of judges that reflect Canada’s diversity. In June 2020, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed the need for “our courts, including our highest court, to reflect the diversity of Canadians.” In September 2020, 36 lawyers associations, legal clinics and advocacy groups called for changes to the appointment process, as did the Canadian Bar Association, to increase the appointment of more Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) judges.

All this evidence shows clearly that the federal appointments system for judges is too open to political interference that violates the constitutional principle that guarantees the independence of courts, and the public’s Charter right to impartial courts.

In December 2021, the Federal Court rejected (PDF) the Trudeau Cabinet’s first attempt to have almost all this key evidence thrown out in its case. Department of Justice lawyers are still asking the Federal Court to ignore almost all of the evidence that Democracy Watch filed in a December 2020 affidavit (PDF) and in a second affidavit (PDF) about internal government emails reported on in La Presse on October 31, 2020 (redacted parts of the second affidavit will be considered confidentially by the Federal Court under an order of the court (PDF).

“The current federal judicial appointment system is open to too much political interference by the ruling party, which violates the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the courts that is need to ensure democratic good government and fair law enforcement for all,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully this case will lead to key changes, changes that have already been made in the UK and Quebec, that will help ensure the appointment process for judges across Canada is truly independent and merit-based.”

The constitutional guarantee of the independence of the courts has been upheld in several court rulings on the measures in Part VII of the Constitution and the unwritten constitutional principle of judicial independence. And sections 7, 11(d) (and, indirectly, 24(1)) of the Charter have been applied in rulings to ensure impartial court hearings.

The appointment process for the federal and provincial superior and appeal courts matters a lot because the Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear 90% of appeals from these courts, and many appeals are also refused by provincial appeal courts, so in many cases the provincial superior courts are the public’s actual court of last resort.

The problems are longstanding, and have been raised in the past: unlike in the UK and Quebec, the federal Minister of Justice has too much political control of the process from start to finish, from choosing the majority of the members of the judicial appointment advisory committees in each province and territory (who serve renewable two-year terms), to receiving long lists of candidates from those committees, to circulating those lists secretly to MPs, Cabinet ministers and ruling party officials before making the final choice. The Minister also makes the decision, without any advisory committee involved making recommendations, to promote a sitting judge by appointing them to a court of appeal. (See Backgrounder for details).

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

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

Other key open government changes also needed to end secret lobbying, end secret investments by politicians, their staff and Cabinet appointees, and strengthen whistleblower protection

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 26, 2022

OTTAWA – In its testimony this afternoon, Democracy Watch will call on the House of Commons Ethics Committee reviewing the federal Access to Information Act (ATIA) to recommend 18 key changes that have been called for by most stakeholders for years to make the ATIA an actual open government law, and to make enforcement more independent, fully resourced, timely and effective, including by penalizing violations with high fines.

The 18 changes (click here to see PDF of Democracy Watch’s submission) are based mainly upon the Ethics Committee’s unanimous June 2016 report that called for many key changes, the former Information Commissioner’s March 2015 report and the current Commissioner’s January 2021 report that both called for key changes, and the December 2021 report on the Trudeau government’s own public consultation which made it clear that all stakeholders supported 10 key ATIA rule changes.

“Citizen groups and experts have loudly and clearly called for decades for key changes to close loopholes in the federal access to information law, and strengthen enforcement,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The House Committee must call on the Trudeau Liberals, and all federal party leaders, to stop their spin, lame excuses and unjustifiable delays and introduce a bill as soon as possible to make the key changes that voters want to ensure all federal government and government-funded institutions are transparent and accountable.”

“The federal access to information law is so full of loopholes that it really is just a guide to keeping information secret that the public has a right to know, and the key changes that stakeholders are calling for will, if the Trudeau government implements them, make the law more effective at ensuring transparency,” said Conacher.

Despite committing to make government information “open by default” in their 2015 federal election platform, the Trudeau Liberals have broken almost all of their open government promises, and have shown little interest in strengthening the ATIA. The Liberals made no ATIA promises in their 2021 election platform, and made no commitments in their new National Action Plan for the international Open Government Partnership process. Also, Treasury Board Minister Mona Fortier’s statement on the release of the government’s consultation report last December committed only to a “review of access to information” – not to making changes.

The Trudeau Cabinet’s Bill C-58 in 2017 changing the federal ATIA ignored many of the recommendations made in the unanimous June 2016 report of the House of Commons Access, Privacy and Ethics Committee, and was actually a step backwards in some ways.

Democracy Watch through its Open Government Campaign has been pushing to strengthen the ATIA for more than 20 years, including through a global coalition open letter in 2017, as have opposition MPs and the Information Commissioner. Democracy Watch’s coalitions have also been pushing for years for key transparency and integrity changes to the federal Lobbying Act, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and Conflict of Interest Act and related MP and Senate and government-wide ethics rules.

“The Trudeau Liberals broke most of their promises to close loopholes in Canada’s open government law, and strengthen transparency rules for government spending, and they have done nothing to strengthen protections for whistleblowers who report government wrongdoing nor to close loopholes that allow secret lobbying and secret investments by politicians, staff and Cabinet appointees,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign, Protect Whistleblowers Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Other key open government changes also needed to end secret lobbying, end secret investments by politicians, their staff and Cabinet appointees, and strengthen whistleblower protection

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 26, 2022

OTTAWA – In its testimony this afternoon, Democracy Watch will call on the House of Commons Ethics Committee reviewing the federal Access to Information Act (ATIA) to recommend 18 key changes that have been called for by most stakeholders for years to make the ATIA an actual open government law, and to make enforcement more independent, fully resourced, timely and effective, including by penalizing violations with high fines.

The 18 changes (click here to see PDF of Democracy Watch’s submission) are based mainly upon the Ethics Committee’s unanimous June 2016 report that called for many key changes, the former Information Commissioner’s March 2015 report and the current Commissioner’s January 2021 report that both called for key changes, and the December 2021 report on the Trudeau government’s own public consultation which made it clear that all stakeholders supported 10 key ATIA rule changes.

“Citizen groups and experts have loudly and clearly called for decades for key changes to close loopholes in the federal access to information law, and strengthen enforcement,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The House Committee must call on the Trudeau Liberals, and all federal party leaders, to stop their spin, lame excuses and unjustifiable delays and introduce a bill as soon as possible to make the key changes that voters want to ensure all federal government and government-funded institutions are transparent and accountable.”

“The federal access to information law is so full of loopholes that it really is just a guide to keeping information secret that the public has a right to know, and the key changes that stakeholders are calling for will, if the Trudeau government implements them, make the law more effective at ensuring transparency,” said Conacher.

Despite committing to make government information “open by default” in their 2015 federal election platform, the Trudeau Liberals have broken almost all of their open government promises, and have shown little interest in strengthening the ATIA. The Liberals made no ATIA promises in their 2021 election platform, and made no commitments in their new National Action Plan for the international Open Government Partnership process. Also, Treasury Board Minister Mona Fortier’s statement on the release of the government’s consultation report last December committed only to a “review of access to information” – not to making changes.

The Trudeau Cabinet’s Bill C-58 in 2017 changing the federal ATIA ignored many of the recommendations made in the unanimous June 2016 report of the House of Commons Access, Privacy and Ethics Committee, and was actually a step backwards in some ways.

Democracy Watch through its Open Government Campaign has been pushing to strengthen the ATIA for more than 20 years, including through a global coalition open letter in 2017, as have opposition MPs and the Information Commissioner. Democracy Watch’s coalitions have also been pushing for years for key transparency and integrity changes to the federal Lobbying Act, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and Conflict of Interest Act and related MP and Senate and government-wide ethics rules.

“The Trudeau Liberals broke most of their promises to close loopholes in Canada’s open government law, and strengthen transparency rules for government spending, and they have done nothing to strengthen protections for whistleblowers who report government wrongdoing nor to close loopholes that allow secret lobbying and secret investments by politicians, staff and Cabinet appointees,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign, Protect Whistleblowers Campaign, Government Ethics Campaign and Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign

Nine court cases challenge Commissioner’s first three public rulings on lobbying ethics rule since July 2016, and failure to penalize six lobbyists who violated law

Seven other cases DWatch has filed challenging Commissioner’s rulings in 2021 and 2022 on hold while courts decide the first nine cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 15, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is appealing a November 2021 ruling by an Ontario Divisional Court judge that unjustifiably blocked nine court cases Democracy Watch filed in December 2020 challenging nine rulings by Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner J. David Wake that let lobbyists off even though they clearly violated Ontario’s lobbying law. DWatch is asking the court to allow it to appeal the ruling that unjustifiably blocked the nine cases. Nick Papageorge and Wade Poziomka of Ross McBride LLP are representing DWatch for the cases.

See below, and in the attached Backgrounder, details about the nine cases, and about an additional seven cases DWatch filed in 2021 and 2022 challenging seven other Commissioner rulings that let lobbyists off even though they clearly violated the law.

To register to watch the appeal hearing on Zoom at 12:30 today, email the Divisional Court registry office at: scj-csj.divcourtmail@ontario.ca.

Three of the nine cases challenge the first three public rulings of the Integrity Commissioner’s unknown number of decisions in the past few years that have let dozens of people (and maybe more) violate enforcing section 3.4 of Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (LR Act) by lobbying Doug Ford and his Cabinet ministers soon after they campaigned, fundraised or worked for Ford and/or Ontario’s PC Party in the 2018 leadership race and election, and/or worked for Ford or one or more of his ministers since the election.

Section 3.4 was added to the LR Act on July 1, 2016, and it prohibits lobbying any politician or other public office holder if it will create a real or potential conflict of interest or make it improper for them to further the interests of the lobbyist or their clients.

Many of these people are still advising Ford and/or in senior PC Party positions while they continue to lobby Ford’s Cabinet on long-term care, property development, COVID-19 relief, mining, and other big issues. Click here to see a fairly complete list of lobbyists who are lobbying unethically, and click here to see Toronto Star articles about even more lobbyists lobbying the Ford Cabinet unethically.

Even one of Ford’s MPPs has expressed concern, as Thornhill MPP Gila Martow issued a statement via Twitter and a docs webpage in December 2020 that said in part:
“Big box retailers should not be permitted to enrich themselves on the backs of small businesses simply because they can afford to hire well-connected lobbyists like Melissa Lantsman to get them preferential treatment.” (link in original)

Commissioner Wake’s rulings are based on a very weak Interpretation Bulletin he finally issued in June 2020 that claims when a lobbyist assists a politician with fundraising or campaigning or gives them a gift, the conflict of interest created by the assistance or gift disappears soon afterwards, so the lobbyist can then lobby the politician and their staff.

All other commissioners in Canada have ruled that the conflict of interest created by assisting a politician in any significant way lasts for several years. For example, the federal Commissioner of Lobbying’s ruling says the conflict lasts four years. The federal lobbying law also prohibits Cabinet staff from lobbying for five years after leaving their position (s. 10.11 – though it has loopholes). Click here to see Backgrounder on Conflict of Interest Rule in Ontario’s Lobbying Law.

The other six cases challenge Commissioner Wake’s arbitrary failure to penalize six lobbyists who violated Ontario’s lobbying law in serious ways, mainly by failing to register and disclose their lobbying for a year or more. The Commissioner has failed to penalize 23 of 27 lobbyists (85%) who have violated the law since 2018.

During the 2019-2020 fiscal year, Commissioner Wake only penalized one lobbyist, Lawrence Gold, for violating LR Act by failing to register and disclose his lobbying for a long period of time. The Commissioner only imposed the minimum penalty of naming Mr. Gold publicly. Four of the other six lobbyists who were not penalized by the Commissioner did exactly the same thing as Mr. Gold. The other two lobbyists violated the law by lobbying politicians after campaigning for them or giving them gifts, in violation of section 3.4 of the LR Act.

All nine cases also ask the courts to rule that Commissioner Wake was biased when he issued the six rulings, given he knew that he would need the unanimous approval of Ford’s Cabinet and all MPPs to be re-appointed for a second five-year term, which happened on December 1st (although many MPPs were not present for that snap vote).

Democracy Watch also filed an additional six cases in 2021 challenging six rulings by the Integrity Commissioner published in his 2020-2021 annual report in which he also let off lobbyists for clear violations. And in July, Democracy Watch filed another case challenging one of the rulings by the Integrity Commissioner published in his 2021-2022 annual report – again he let the lobbyist off even though the lobbyist violated the law in several ways. These seven cases are hold until the rulings are issued in the nine cases filed in 2020. In total, Democracy Watch is challenging 15 rulings made by the Integrity Commissioner over the past three years.

“Dozens of people who have helped or worked for Doug Ford or his Cabinet ministers or the PC Party have set themselves up in lobbying firms and, even though many of them have never lobbied before, big businesses are hiring them because they know it will get them inside access to Ford and his ministers,” Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch is challenging the first three very weak decisions that Ontario’s so-called Integrity Commissioner has made public that have allowed lobbyists to corrupt Ontario government policy-making as they cash in on their so-called public service. Hopefully the courts will stop this unethical lobbying of Ford’s Cabinet.”

“Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner has also failed to penalize almost all the lobbyists he has found in violation of the lobbying law since 2018, and so Democracy Watch is taking the commissioner to court to challenge the worst of his many bad rulings,” said Conacher. “Hopefully the courts will issue rulings that require the Commissioner to start enforcing the lobbying rules strictly by penalizing all lobbyists who violate the law.”

Huge loopholes in the LR Act allow countless other lobbyists to lobby in secret and unethically. None of the following lobbying activities are required to be disclosed: unpaid lobbying, business lobbying or non-profit organization lobbying of less than 50 hours a year, lobbying about the enforcement of a law, or in response to a request for feedback from a Minister, official or MPP. As a result, anyone lobbying in these ways is also allowed to lobby unethically.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Nine court cases challenge Commissioner’s first three public rulings on lobbying ethics rule since July 2016, and failure to penalize six lobbyists who violated law

Seven other cases DWatch has filed challenging Commissioner’s rulings in 2021 and 2022 on hold while courts decide the first nine cases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, August 15, 2022

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is appealing a November 2021 ruling by an Ontario Divisional Court judge that unjustifiably blocked nine court cases Democracy Watch filed in December 2020 challenging nine rulings by Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner J. David Wake that let lobbyists off even though they clearly violated Ontario’s lobbying law. DWatch is asking the court to allow it to appeal the ruling that unjustifiably blocked the nine cases. Nick Papageorge and Wade Poziomka of Ross McBride LLP are representing DWatch for the cases.

See below, and in the attached Backgrounder, details about the nine cases, and about an additional seven cases DWatch filed in 2021 and 2022 challenging seven other Commissioner rulings that let lobbyists off even though they clearly violated the law.

To register to watch the appeal hearing on Zoom at 12:30 today, email the Divisional Court registry office at: scj-csj.divcourtmail@ontario.ca.

Three of the nine cases challenge the first three public rulings of the Integrity Commissioner’s unknown number of decisions in the past few years that have let dozens of people (and maybe more) violate enforcing section 3.4 of Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (LR Act) by lobbying Doug Ford and his Cabinet ministers soon after they campaigned, fundraised or worked for Ford and/or Ontario’s PC Party in the 2018 leadership race and election, and/or worked for Ford or one or more of his ministers since the election.

Section 3.4 was added to the LR Act on July 1, 2016, and it prohibits lobbying any politician or other public office holder if it will create a real or potential conflict of interest or make it improper for them to further the interests of the lobbyist or their clients.

Many of these people are still advising Ford and/or in senior PC Party positions while they continue to lobby Ford’s Cabinet on long-term care, property development, COVID-19 relief, mining, and other big issues. Click here to see a fairly complete list of lobbyists who are lobbying unethically, and click here to see Toronto Star articles about even more lobbyists lobbying the Ford Cabinet unethically.

Even one of Ford’s MPPs has expressed concern, as Thornhill MPP Gila Martow issued a statement via Twitter and a docs webpage in December 2020 that said in part:
“Big box retailers should not be permitted to enrich themselves on the backs of small businesses simply because they can afford to hire well-connected lobbyists like Melissa Lantsman to get them preferential treatment.” (link in original)

Commissioner Wake’s rulings are based on a very weak Interpretation Bulletin he finally issued in June 2020 that claims when a lobbyist assists a politician with fundraising or campaigning or gives them a gift, the conflict of interest created by the assistance or gift disappears soon afterwards, so the lobbyist can then lobby the politician and their staff.

All other commissioners in Canada have ruled that the conflict of interest created by assisting a politician in any significant way lasts for several years. For example, the federal Commissioner of Lobbying’s ruling says the conflict lasts four years. The federal lobbying law also prohibits Cabinet staff from lobbying for five years after leaving their position (s. 10.11 – though it has loopholes). Click here to see Backgrounder on Conflict of Interest Rule in Ontario’s Lobbying Law.

The other six cases challenge Commissioner Wake’s arbitrary failure to penalize six lobbyists who violated Ontario’s lobbying law in serious ways, mainly by failing to register and disclose their lobbying for a year or more. The Commissioner has failed to penalize 23 of 27 lobbyists (85%) who have violated the law since 2018.

During the 2019-2020 fiscal year, Commissioner Wake only penalized one lobbyist, Lawrence Gold, for violating LR Act by failing to register and disclose his lobbying for a long period of time. The Commissioner only imposed the minimum penalty of naming Mr. Gold publicly. Four of the other six lobbyists who were not penalized by the Commissioner did exactly the same thing as Mr. Gold. The other two lobbyists violated the law by lobbying politicians after campaigning for them or giving them gifts, in violation of section 3.4 of the LR Act.

All nine cases also ask the courts to rule that Commissioner Wake was biased when he issued the six rulings, given he knew that he would need the unanimous approval of Ford’s Cabinet and all MPPs to be re-appointed for a second five-year term, which happened on December 1st (although many MPPs were not present for that snap vote).

Democracy Watch also filed an additional six cases in 2021 challenging six rulings by the Integrity Commissioner published in his 2020-2021 annual report in which he also let off lobbyists for clear violations. And in July, Democracy Watch filed another case challenging one of the rulings by the Integrity Commissioner published in his 2021-2022 annual report – again he let the lobbyist off even though the lobbyist violated the law in several ways. These seven cases are hold until the rulings are issued in the nine cases filed in 2020. In total, Democracy Watch is challenging 15 rulings made by the Integrity Commissioner over the past three years.

“Dozens of people who have helped or worked for Doug Ford or his Cabinet ministers or the PC Party have set themselves up in lobbying firms and, even though many of them have never lobbied before, big businesses are hiring them because they know it will get them inside access to Ford and his ministers,” Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Democracy Watch is challenging the first three very weak decisions that Ontario’s so-called Integrity Commissioner has made public that have allowed lobbyists to corrupt Ontario government policy-making as they cash in on their so-called public service. Hopefully the courts will stop this unethical lobbying of Ford’s Cabinet.”

“Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner has also failed to penalize almost all the lobbyists he has found in violation of the lobbying law since 2018, and so Democracy Watch is taking the commissioner to court to challenge the worst of his many bad rulings,” said Conacher. “Hopefully the courts will issue rulings that require the Commissioner to start enforcing the lobbying rules strictly by penalizing all lobbyists who violate the law.”

Huge loopholes in the LR Act allow countless other lobbyists to lobby in secret and unethically. None of the following lobbying activities are required to be disclosed: unpaid lobbying, business lobbying or non-profit organization lobbying of less than 50 hours a year, lobbying about the enforcement of a law, or in response to a request for feedback from a Minister, official or MPP. As a result, anyone lobbying in these ways is also allowed to lobby unethically.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: info@democracywatch.ca

Democracy Watch’s Stop Secret, Unethical Lobbying Campaign and Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign