Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

News Release

Federal Conservatives’ Accountability and Democratic Reform Record Gets An “F” For Breaking Many Promises and Practising Politics As Usual

Five Years After Federal Accountability Act Became Law, Dishonesty, Conflicts of Interest, Excessive Secrecy, Unlimited Donations and Patronage All Still Legal

Another, Stronger Accountability Act Needed To Close 100 Remaining Loopholes and Flaws

Monday, December 12, 2011

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch marked the fifth anniversary of the passage of the federal Conservatives’ so-called “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) by issuing its Fifth Good Government Report Card on the FAA and related democratic reform decisions by the Conservatives (To see Democracy Watch’s Report Card on the 2011 Good Government Election Platforms for the main federal political parties, click here).

The Report Card gives the Conservatives an overall “F” grade because they have only partially increased accountability in the federal government while taking key steps backwards.  If the Conservatives had kept all of their 2006 election promises, they would have received an overall “B-” grade (as their promises covered about two-thirds of the loopholes and undemocratic flaws in the government’s accountability and decision-making system).

“The many federal Conservative dishonesty, secret unethical lobbying, excessive secrecy and donations scandals in 2011, and the broken promises and inaction detailed in the Report Card, make it clear that another Accountability Act is needed to close dozens of loopholes and clean up the federal government,” said Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

“The federal government’s accountability enforcement system is the scandal because, among many other highly questionable activities, it is still effectively legal for a lobbyist to do what Karlheinz Schreiber did — to fundraise for and make secret donations to nomination race and party leadership candidates, to lobby in secret, to make secret, fixed deals with Cabinet ministers, their staff, handpicked Cabinet patronage appointees and government employees, and for everyone involved to be dishonest about their secret, unethical relationships,” said Sommers. (To see details about how lobbyists are effectively allowed to work for, and to fundraise for, federal politicians and parties, click here (archive website))

“Incredibly, it is much more likely Canadians will be caught and punished for parking illegally than a politician will be caught and punished taking money from a lobbyist,” said Duff Conacher, Board member.  “Hopefully, all federal political parties will soon make the changes needed to closing dozens of the loopholes that allow for unethical, secretive and undemocratic federal political activities.”

The federal Lobbying Act (archive website), Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (archive website), and Conflict of Interest Act and related MP and Senate ethics rules (archive website), are all required to be reviewed by Parliament in the next six months and Democracy Watch and its coalitions have been pushing for key changes for years to end secret, unethical lobbying, prohibit conflicts of interest, and to make whistleblower protection effective.  Opposition MPs and the Information Commissioner and Democracy Watch’s Open Government Coalition have been pushing to strengthen the Access to Information Act (archive website) for several years.  The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (archive website) must also be strengthened to comply with the 2004 United Nations Convention Against Corruption.  The Canada Elections Act must be strengthened to close loopholes that allow for secret, unlimited donations and loans, and to restore the per-vote public financing (archive website) of parties which is being phased out over the next four years.  The Financial Administration Act must be strengthened to tighten up rules on sole-source contracting.  And related Treasury Board codes, policies and rules in all of the above areas must also be strengthened  (To see more details, click here (archive website)).

The question is, will the Conservatives finally keep the 38 election promises from 2006 that they broke, and also make more than 60 other changes needed to clean up and democratize the federal government?

Highly questionable activities that are still effectively legal include the following (To see a summary of many of the highly questionable activities in Canadian federal politics in the past 15 years, click here (archive website)):

• governments are still not required to consult with the public in a meaningful way even when making important, society-changing decisions;
• there are still no effective checks on the power of Cabinet ministers to appoint (archive website) party supporters to law enforcement positions such as judges and the heads of watchdog agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals;
• Cabinet ministers, their staff, and senior government employees are still allowed (archive website) to be involved in policy-making processes that affect their own personal financial interests;
• large gifts worth up to $10,000 to politicians are still effectively legal because of lack of auditing of politicians’ financial statements (and scientific studies have shown that even small gifts have influence (For more details about gifts and the science of influence, click here (archive website));
• many politicians, their staff, and senior government employees are still allowed to become lobbyists too soon after they leave their government positions;
• many people who blow-the-whistle on government wrongdoing are still not effectively protected (archive website) from retaliation;
• MPs can switch parties between elections in return for a promotion;
• the voting system does not ensure that each candidate has the overall support of a majority of voters in their riding to be elected, and;
• the federal Senate is still unaccountable in every way.

Among many other highly questionable activities by the Conservatives in 2011 are the following: the overall decrease in government integrity and democracy under the Conservatives, as detailed in the 2010 Global Integrity Report and the OECD’s Better Life Initiative Report (archive website); ongoing excessive secrecy about Afghan Detainee documents (archive website); the guilty plea on the Conservatives’ in-and-out election ad spending scheme (archive website); the G8 spending scandal (archive website) involving Cabinet minister Tony Clement; the $500,000 Cabinet payoff scandal after three years of negligence by Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (archive website) Christianne Ouimet; interference (archive website) in Access to Information Act requests by Cabinet Minister Christian Paradis’ staff person Sebastien Togneri, and violation by the Cabinet of its international Open Government Partnership commitments (archive website); the Bruce Carson lobbying affair; the Port of Montreal board scandal involving PMO communications director Dimitri Soudas; the dishonesty scandals of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (archive website), and Cabinet ministers Bev Oda (archive website), Tony Clement (archive website), Peter MacKay and John Duncan; very weak enforcement of key laws by the federal Ethics Commissioner (archive website) and Commissioner of Lobbying (archive website), and; a very questionable Cabinet appointment of a new Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (archive website).

As well, the federal Conservatives have failed to respond to the recommendations in the May 2010 Oliphant Commission report on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, and have failed to empower (archive website) MPs as promised.

Background on the Report Card

Overall, the Conservatives’ FAA and other decisions have increased government accountability or attempted to increase accountability in 29 ways since 2006 (with the possibility that Cabinet could implement one final FAA measure by establishing the Public Appointments Commission to help ensure an end to patronage and cronyism in Cabinet appointments — NOTE: the Conservatives promised for the fourth time in spring 2011 to establish the Commission) — To see a summary of the measures in the FAA, click here.

However, the Conservatives have also weakened government accountability in eight ways, and failed to keep 29 promises (To see an October 2007 summary of 24 of the 29 broken promises, click here (archive website) — the five other broken promises are the fixed-election-date promise (archive website), the failure to hold free votes on most issues as promised, the appointment by Prime Minister Harper of Conservative election candidates, and the appointment of Senators through 2008 to 2010, and a Supreme Court Justice in 2008 (To see details, click here (archive website))).

In 2006, when the FAA was being reviewed by Parliament, the Conservatives rejected 25 changes that would have strengthened the laws covered by the FAA that were proposed by the House committee (archive website) and by the Liberal-controlled Senate (archive website).

As well, the Conservatives have ignored in total 100 loopholes and flaws in the federal government’s accountability system (To see a summary of the 100 loopholes, click here — To see an op-ed about how these loopholes would allow Karlheinz Schreiber and former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to do today all the wrongdoing they are alleged to have done in the past, click here (archive website) — To see a news release listing the key ethics loopholes, click here (archive website)).

The Report Card grades the Conservatives’ FAA and related decisions and actions in 14 areas divided into five categories, as follows (with grades for each category):

1. Honest, Ethical Government Measures – E- (because the Conservatives removed (archive website) the rule requiring Cabinet ministers, their staff and senior government officials to “act with honesty” and have used dishonest “spin” in many of their communications, and because the FAA did not close huge loopholes (archive website) that allow the same people to take part in decisions in which they have a private interest, and did not significantly strengthen enforcement or penalties for unethical activities);
2. Open Government Measures – E- (because the Conservatives broke (archive website) almost all of their promises to strengthen the Access to Information Act,  have used the Privacy Act to hide the identity of public servants who have done wrong, only partially implemented their promised changes to federal lobbying disclosure rules, and have ignored other secret lobbying loopholes (archive website));
3. Efficient Government Measures – B (because the Conservatives have kept most of their spending accountability promises, but have still left some key loopholes open (include failing (archive website) to ensure the independence and full budget of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and Procurement Ombudsman));
4. Representative, Citizen-Driven Government Measures – E- (because the Conservatives have not consulted meaningfully or held free votes on many issues, have broken their promise to establish a Public Appointments Commission to ensure merit-based Cabinet appointments, broke (archive website) their own fix-election-date law by calling a snap election in September 2008, have introduced Senate reform measures but resisted reasonable changes proposed by premiers and opposition parties, appointed 18 Senators, appointed a Supreme Court Justice before the promised parliamentary review, and have not kept all of their promises to ensure fair nomination races and elections);
5. General Government Accountability Measures – E (because the Conservatives have cut funding to citizen advocacy groups, broke (archive website) some of their whistleblower protection promises, have attacked several officers of Parliament and government agencies without justification, and while they have created the more independent Director of Public Prosecutions, they have launched only some long-overdue inquiries into past wrongdoing)

“By making only half their promised government accountability changes, calling an election in violation of fixed-election-date rules, cutting key ethics rules, increasing government secrecy, and ignoring dozens of huge loopholes, the federal Conservatives have failed to live up to their pledge to clean up the federal government,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “All federal parties must work together to pass another, stronger Accountability Act as soon as possible to give Canadians the honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing government they deserve.”

Democracy Watch and its Government Ethics Coalition, Money in Politics Coalition and Open Government Coalition, which involve more than 50 citizen groups from across Canada with a total membership of 3.5 million Canadians, will continue pushing for these key, democratizing changes.

– 30 –

For more information, contact:
Tyler Sommers, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Duff Conacher, Board member of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition and the Money in Politics Coalition
Tel: 613-241-5179

 Fifth Report Card on the Loophole-Filled “Federal Accountability Act”

 December 4, 2007 article about Federal Accountability Act (archive website)

Democracy Watch’s Clean Up the System webpage

To see an article about these and other Conservatives’ other broken 2006 election promises, click here

 top

Fifth Good Government Report Card on the Loophole-Filled “Federal Accountability Act”

On December 12, 2006, the federal Conservatives’ so-called “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) became law containing 30 of the Conservatives’ 52 promised measures.  At the time, 15 of the 30 measures in the FAA still needed Cabinet approval before they would be in force and, as of December 16, 2009, one of the 30 measures has still not been implemented (the establishment of the Public Appointments Commission to help end patronage and cronyism in Cabinet appointments).

In addition, the Conservatives made 5 other democratic reform promises, for a total of 57 government accountability and democratic reform promises.

To see Democracy Watch’s First Report Card, issued in December 2007, click here (archive website).  To see Democracy Watch’s Second Report Card, issued December 2008, click here (archive website).  To see the Third Report Card, click here (archive website).  To see the Fourth Report Card, click here.

Set out below are the details about: what the Conservatives promised to included in the FAA and other promised measures; what they included or failed to include; what FAA measures have been implemented; what FAA measures are still not in force, and; what loopholes and flaws still exist in the federal government’s accountability system.  Grades are given in each area, based on the following grading scale:

GRADING SYSTEM
A – Implemented promised measure(s) fully closing loophole(s)
B – Implemented most of promised measure(s) closing most of loophole(s)
C – Implemented half of promised measure(s) closing half of loophole(s)
D – Implemented part of promised measure(s) closing part of loophole(s)
E – Has taken steps toward implementing promised measure(s) but broken many promises
F – Failed to include promised measure in FAA
I – Failed to include measure in FAA

Summary of Categories and Areas Graded and Grades

Overall Conservatives’ rhetoric:
“People who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules want accountability from their political leaders. We don’t expect politicians to be perfect. But we do want to know that our tax dollars — money we’ve worked for — are being spent properly and wisely. Above all, we want and expect our dollars to be spent legally.  We’ve been let down.  The Liberal Party’s 12 years in power have featured one scandal after another.  And despite Paul Martin’s promises to clean up Ottawa, the scandals just keep happening.  Justice Gomery was right when he talked about the “culture of entitlement” within the Liberal Party.  This culture of waste, mismanagement, and corruption cannot reform itself.  The first piece of legislation to be introduced by a Conservative government will be the Federal Accountability Act, a sweeping plan to clean up government.”
(p. 8 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)

“the results are clear . . . the government is clean . . .”
Conservative government’s Speech from the Throne (October 16, 2007)
NOTE: In his November 4, 2005 speech, then-Opposition Party Leader Stephen Harper stated that an “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) containing the 52 measures he listed that day was needed to “begin the process of fixing the system . . . to clean up government.”  However, the FAA introduced by the Conservatives in April 2006 only contained 30 measures (six of which have still not yet been implemented) and weakened ethics rules for Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government officials (see below for details).  As a result, by the Conservatives’ own standard, it is impossible for the government to be clean.

I. Honest, Ethical Government Measures

SECTION I OVERALL GRADE
E-

1. Requiring honesty-in-politics – F

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law.” (p. 12 of 2006 Conservative election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: The FAA enshrined Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s February 2006 version of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders into a new law called the Conflict of Interest Act (which became law July 9, 2007)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: The Conflict of Interest Act  does not include the former Code’s subsection 3(1) rule that requires the Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government officials to “act with honesty” ••• and the Conservatives have used dishonest “spin” in their party communications several times
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Still need to pass a law that requires all federal Cabinet ministers, MPs, Senators, political staff, Cabinet appointees and government employees (including at Crown corporations, agencies, boards, commissions, courts and tribunals) nomination race and election candidates to tell the truth, with an easily accessible complaint process to a fully independent watchdog agency that is fully empowered to investigate and penalize anyone who lies ••• and require resignation and a by-election in most cases of an MP switching parties between elections. (Go to Honesty in Politics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

2. Strengthening ethics standards for politicians, political staff, Cabinet appointees and government employees, and ethics enforcement – E

Conservatives’ rhetoric: “In 1993, Paul Martin and the Liberals promised the appointment of an independent Ethics Commissioner. For over ten years, Paul Martin and the Liberals failed to fulfill that promise, and Martin voted against his own Red Book words in the House of Commons.  Finally, under the pressure of the sponsorship scandal, the Liberals partially fulfilled their promise. But many problems remain with the role of the Ethics Commissioner, including the special exemptions Paul Martin created for his own business dealings.”
Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise kept to “Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons” ••• Promise partially kept to “Give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators” (maximum fine is a ridiculously low $500, and only applies to some violations) ••• Promise partially kept to “Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law” (the FAA enshrined Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s February 2006 version of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders into a new law called the Conflict of Interest Act (which became law July 9, 2007)) but the Act does not contain the key Code rules that require upholding “the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced” (subsection 3(1) of the Code); avoiding “apparent conflicts of interest” (subsection 3(1) of the Code); including avoiding “being placed or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization that might profit from special consideration on the part of the public office holder” (subsection 22(1) of the Code) ••• Promise partially kept to “End ‘venetian blind’ trusts that allow ministers to remain informed about their business interests, and require all ministerial assets to be placed in truly blind trusts” (under the FAA, some ministerial assets are not required to be placed in truly blind trusts)

• Promised measures not included in FAA: Promise broken to “Close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests” not included in FAA (ministers are still allowed to vote on any matter that is of general application or that affects a broad class of people), even if they have a private interest in it (including a financial or business interest), because of the definitions of “private interest” and “conflict of interest” in the Conflict of Interest Act (which became law July 9, 2007)) ••• Promise broken to “Allow members of the public – not just politicians – to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner” (the FAA requires the Ethics Commissioner to investigate complaints filed by politicians, but still gives the Commissioner the right to refuse to investigate complaints filed by the public) ••• Promise broken to “Make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the Ethics Code” (the FAA increases the number of part-timers and unpaid advisers not covered by most of the ethics rules)
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Close the loopholes in the existing ethics rules set out in the above two sections (and apply them and the following measures to all government institutions (including all Crown corporations) ••• selling major assets that are in any way likely to cause conflicts of interest (a process known as “divestment”) must be required by all public officials when they enter office ••• Cabinet ministers, their staff, senior public servants and MPs can easily hide large gifts they receive from lobbyists or others trying to influence them because they only have to disclose assets worth $10,000 or more every 4 months to the Ethics Commissioner (disclosure should be required for assets worth $1,000 or more, with updates on changes required within 30 days) ••• gifts of any kind worth more than $200 combined total annually to anyone in the federal government from anyone except relatives must be banned (and gifts of any kind worth more than $200 combined total annually from relatives must be disclosed to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner — NOTE: the proposed new Conflict of Interest Act allows unlimited gifts from “friends”) ••• as proposed by the federal Department of Finance (For details, click here (archive website)), and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, place anyone with decision-making power on the anti-corruption watch list of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (Fintrac) so deposits to their bank accounts can be tracked ••• strengthen the independence and effectiveness of all the newly created politician and government employee ethics watchdog positions (the Ethics Commissioner for Cabinet and MPs, the Senate Ethics Officer for senators, the Public Service Integrity Officer for government employees, the Registrar of Lobbyists for lobbyists) by giving opposition party leaders a veto over appointees, and having Parliament (as opposed to Cabinet) approve their annual budgets (as is currently the process for the Ethics Commissioner) ••• prohibit the watchdogs from giving secret advice ••• require them to investigate all complaints (including anonymous complaints) ••• fully empower them to penalize rule-breakers with high financial penalties ••• change all the codes they enforce into laws ••• ensure that all their decisions can be reviewed by the courts.  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

3. Making the political donations system democratic – D-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Under the Liberals, money and influence have played far too large a role in Canadian politics.  During the sponsorship inquiry, Canadians learned of envelopes full of cash being used to fund Liberal Party campaigns, and of money from government contracts being funnelled back to the Liberals. The “pay to play” years in Liberal Ottawa must come to an end.” (p. 8 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promises partially kept to “Limit individual donations to parties or candidates to a maximum of $1,000” and to “Ban cash donations to political parties or candidates of more than $20” (the FAA requires donations of money, property or services worth more than $200 to parties (more than $500 to election candidates) to be disclosed, and limits donations to parties or candidates to $1,100 annually, but secret, unlimited donations to nomination race and party leadership race candidates are still legal (as long as the donations are not used for their campaign)) ••• Promise mostly kept to “Prohibit all corporate, union, and organization donations to political parties, ridings, and candidates” (donations of hours of services by volunteers on leave from working at corporations, unions and other organizations are not limited, and are not required to be tracked and disclosed, making it very easy to give employees paid time off to “volunteer” for parties or candidates ••• Promise fully kept kept to “Extend to ten years the period for which Elections Act violations can be investigated and prosecuted.”
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require disclosure of all donations as noted in the above section (including the identity of the donor’s employer (as in the U.S.) and/ or major affiliations) and loans quarterly and before any election day (to close the loophole that currently allows secret, unlimited donations of money, property and services to nomination race and election candidates) ••• limit loans to the same levels as donations ••• limit spending on campaigns for the leadership of political parties ••• lower the public funding of political parties from $1.75 per vote received to $0.75 per vote received (to ensure that in order to prosper parties need to have active, ongoing support of a broad base of individuals) ••• and ensure riding associations receive a fair share of this funding ••• give the Commissioner of Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer more investigative powers, especially the power to audit the finances and assets of political parties, riding associations, and candidates in nomination races and elections, and require them to conduct annual audits  (Go to Money in Politics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

4. Closing down the revolving door – D-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “If there are MPs in this room who want to use public office for their own benefit, or if there are Hill staffers who dream of making it rich by trying to lobby a future Conservative government — if that’s true of any of you, then you better make other plans or leave.” Stephen Harper, introducing the “Federal Accountability Act” pledge (November 4, 2005)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: – Promise partially kept to “Extend to five years the period during which former ministers, ministerial staffers, and senior public servants cannot lobby government” (p.8) — NOTE: the measures in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s February 2006 version of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (which are still in effect) allowed Ministers to exempt any of their staff from the five-year ban until July 2, 2008, when the new Lobbying Act was finally implemented — under the new Act, ministerial staff are allowed to apply to the proposed new Commissioner of Lobbying for an exemption from the five-year ban
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Prohibit lobbyists from working for government departments or serving in senior positions for political parties or candidates for public office (as in New Mexico and Maryland), and from having business connections with anyone who does ••• ban MPs, their staff, and government employees for one to three years (depending on their decision-making power in government) from becoming a lobbyist or working with corporations or organizations with which they had direct dealings while in government ••• anyone participating in the “employment exchange program” (who are mainly people from large corporations) is exempt under the FAA from the 5-year ban on senior public office holders becoming lobbyists — this huge loophole in the ban must be eliminated ••• lobbyists must be banned from becoming members of Cabinet for at least four years after they are elected as a federal politician  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

top
Top of Report Card

II. Open Government Measures

SECTION II OVERALL GRADE
E-

5. Strengthening access-to-information system – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “The Liberal government has consistently rejected attempts to provide Canadians with better access to government information. The present Information Commissioner has gone to court several times to force the government to open its windows.” (p. 12 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise fully kept to “Ensure that all Officers of Parliament [including the Information Commissioner] are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons and confirmed through a secret ballot of all Members of Parliament, not just named by the Prime Minister” ••• Promise fully kept to “Ensure that all government public opinion research is automatically published within six months of the completion of the project, and prohibit verbal-only reports” ••• Promise partially kept to “Expand the coverage of the [Access to Information Act] to all Crown corporations, Officers of Parliament, foundations, and organizations that spend taxpayers’ money or perform public functions” (the FAA added only 50 new federal government institutions to the list of institutions covered by  the Act, and also changed the Act to allow draft reports to be kept secret until finalized (delaying access significantly)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: Promises broken to: “Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.” ••• to “Give the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of information.” ••• to “Subject the exclusion of Cabinet confidences to review by the Information Commissioner.” •••  to “Oblige public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions.” ••• to “Provide a general public interest override for all exemptions, so that the public interest is put before the secrecy of the government. ••• to “Ensure that all exemptions from the disclosure of government information are justified only on the basis of the harm or injury that would result from disclosure, not blanket exemption rules.” ••• and to “Ensure that the disclosure requirements of the Access to Information Act cannot be circumvented by secrecy provisions in other federal acts, while respecting the confidentiality of national security and the privacy of personal information.”
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Strengthen the federal Access to Information Act and government information management system in the ways set out in the above section and by: applying the law to all government/publicly funded institutions ••• creating a public interest override of all access exemptions ••• having Parliament (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Information Commissioner’s annual budgets (as is currently the process for the federal Ethics Commissioner) ••• giving the federal Information Commissioner the power to order the release of documents (as in Ontario, Alberta and B.C.), to order changes to government institutions’ information systems, and to penalize violators of access laws, regulations, policies and rules ••• eliminating the $5 fee for filing a request for a record (given that it is an unnecessary and unjustifiable barrier to access to information, and that processing the payment of the fee results in administrative costs for the federal government that exceed the fee) ••• increasing the current five-hour free records search time to 10 hours (given the lack of efficient, accessible information management systems in many government institutions) ••• and; setting one fee for copying records for all government institutions at a level no higher than the actual copying costs, and to require institutions to waive the copying costs if they will cause financial hardship to the requester ••• change the Privacy Act to require disclosure of the identity of public servants who have done wrong (Go to Open Government Campaign and Stop Muzzling Scientists Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

6. Exposing all behind-closed-door communications – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: n/a
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise partially kept to require disclosure of communications between lobbyists and ministers or senior government officials (NOTE: the new Lobbying Act requires only those people who are required to register as lobbyists to disclose some of their communications with ministers and senior government officials (as defined by regulations)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: “Require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists.” (p.8)
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require that Ministers and senior public officials to disclose their contacts with all lobbyists, whether paid or volunteer lobbyists.  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

7. Strengthening lobbying disclosure and ethics, and the enforcement system – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Under the Liberals, lobbying government — often by friends and associates of Paul Martin and other Liberal ministers — has become a multi-million dollar industry.  Senior Liberals move freely back and forth between elected and non-elected government posts and the world of lobbying.  Liberal lobbyists have accepted success or contingency fee arrangements where they don’t get paid unless they deliver the policy change their clients want.” (p. 8 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promises kept (finally in July 2008 with proclamation of new Lobbying Act) to “Ban success or contingency fee arrangements” ••• “Make the Registrar of Lobbyists an independent Officer of Parliament” ••• to “Give the Registrar of Lobbyists the mandate and resources to investigate violations” ••• and to “Extend to ten years the period during which violations can be investigated and prosecuted.”
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Strengthen the Lobbyists Registration Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct disclosure and regulation system by: closing the loophole that currently allows corporations to hide the number of people involved in lobbying activities ••• by requiring lobbyists to disclose their past work with any Canadian or foreign government, political party or candidate ••• and to disclose all their government relations activities (whether paid or volunteer) involving gathering inside information or trying to influence policy-makers (as in the U.S.) ••• and to disclose the amount they spend on lobbying campaigns (as in 33 U.S. states) ••• strengthen the ethics and enforcement system by adding specific rules and closing loopholes in the Lobbyists’ Code and making it part of the Act ••• giving opposition party leaders a veto over the appointment of the Commissioner of Lobbying ••• by having Parliament (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Commissioner’s annual budget (as is currently the process for the Ethics Commissioner) ••• by prohibiting the Commissioner from giving secret advice ••• by ensuring that the Commissioner must investigate all complaints (including anonymous complaints) ••• by fully empowering the Commissioner to penalize rule-breakers ••• and by ensuring all Commissioner decisions can be reviewed by the courts.  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

top
Top of Report Card

III. Efficient Government Measures

SECTION III OVERALL GRADE
B

8. Strengthening spending rules, and powers of Auditor General/other enforcement bodies – B

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “The Liberal government commissions some $25 million per year in polling and public opinion research. Much of this polling is conducted by Liberal-connected polling firms. The Auditor General revealed that Paul Martin’s Finance department commissioned polling for which there were “only verbal reports” ? nothing was written down so there was no paper trail. Yet the Martin government prevented the Gomery Commission from investigating this part of the Auditor General’s report.” ••• “Under the Liberal government, abuse of the government contracting process has become commonplace. Former Liberal cabinet minister Art Eggleton, for example, awarded an untendered contract to a former girlfriend. He was later appointed to the Senate by Paul Martin.” ••• “In the spring of 2004, the Liberal government told Canadians that the 2003-04 surplus would only be $1.9 billion. In fact, it was $9.1 billion.  In 2004-05, the Liberals spent about $9 billion at the end of the year to reduce their surplus to only $1.6 billion.  Just this year, the 2005 Budget estimated the 2005-06 surplus at $4 billion, a number no reputable economic forecaster accepted.  In the economic update only nine months later, this estimate had ballooned to $13.4 billion.  Governments cannot be held to account if Parliament does not know the accurate state of public finances.” ••• “Over the past decade, the Auditor General has repeatedly blown the whistle on Liberal corruption. From the $250 million sponsorship program, to the scandalous waste and mismanagement of the $1 billion HRDC grants boondoggle, to the ineffective $2 billion gun registry, nearly every audit turns up more examples of Liberal mismanagement.” (all from pages 10-11 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document) ••• “The sponsorship scandal first came to light in an internal audit — an audit which the Liberals initially tried to cover up. Under the Liberals, the lines between ministers and non-partisan civil servants have been blurred, and clear lines of accountability need to be re-established.” (p. 9 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise fully kept to “Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons” ••• Promise half-way kept to “Ensure that an independent review is conducted of government public opinion research practices discussed in Chapter 5 of the Auditor General’s November 2003 report to determine whether further action, such as a judicial inquiry, is required” (the review was completed by a handpicked person who did not have full independence, and it recommended that no inquiry be held) ••• Promises mostly kept to: “Open up the bidding process for government advertising and public opinion contracts to prevent insider firms from monopolizing government business” ••• to “Review and amend all contracting rules to make the government’s procurement process free from political interference” (a new Code of Conduct for Procurement came into force September 19, 2007) ••• to “Appoint a Procurement Auditor to ensure that all procurements are fair and transparent, and to address complaints from vendors” (the new Procurement Ombudsman was established September 19, 2007 to review complaints about violations of the Code of Conduct for Procurement) ••• and to “Permit smaller vendors and vendors outside of the National Capital Region to receive due consideration for government contracts” ••• Promises mostly kept to: “Create an independent Parliamentary Budget Authority to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy” (the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is a staff person of the Library of Parliament, and can be fired at any time for any reason, and the PBO has not received its promised full budget) ••• to “Require government departments and agencies to provide accurate, timely information to the Parliamentary Budget Authority to ensure it has the information it needs to provide accurate analyses to Parliament” ••• and to “Ensure that government fiscal forecasts are updated quarterly and that they provide complete data for both revenue and spending forecasts” ••• Promises mostly kept to: “Ask the Auditor General to conduct, on an expedited basis, an audit of all federal grant, contribution, and contracting policies, and will commit to following her recommendations ••• to “Increase funding for the Office of the Auditor General to ensure she has the necessary resources to conduct a complete audit of grant and contribution programs and of any such departments, agencies, and Crown corporations as she deems necessary” ••• to “Allow the Auditor General to “follow the money” to end recipients by providing her with the statutory authority to conduct audits of the records, documents, and accounts of any individual, institution, or company that receives grants, contributions, or transfers under an agreement with the Government of Canada” ••• to “Ensure that all granting programs are reviewed every five years” ••• Promises mostly kept to: “Strengthen enforcement of government financial guidelines, and introduce new Criminal Code penalties for fraud involving the misuse of taxpayers’ money” ••• Promises kept to: “Give the Comptroller General the overall authority for the internal audit function in each government department” to “Designate the deputy minister of each government department or agency as the Accounting Officer for that department. The deputy will be responsible to Parliament for the departmental spending and administrative practices of his or her department ••• and to “Require that, in the event of a disagreement between a minister and deputy minister on a matter of administration, the minister must provide written instruction to the deputy minister and notify the Auditor General and Comptroller General of the disagreement” ••• Promise partially kept to “”Protect the integrity of the CPP investment fund to stop politicians from raiding it to balance the budget or pay for other political projects.” ••• Promise partially kept to “Increase the power of Parliament and parliamentary committees to review the spending estimates of departments and hold ministers to account.” ••• the federal Conservatives have also handed out billions in sole-source contracts for military hardware (which the Auditor General is currently auditing)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: as Justice Gomery recommended, any “special reserve” funds must be required to be under the control of Treasury Board and covered by an annual, public report ••• The exemptions in the the Financial Administration Act and its regulations that essentially allow for sole-source contracts whenever the government wants must be closed ••• Everyone in the government must be required to submit the actual, detailed receipt (showing the number of people at the event, what was purchased, by whom, and at what price) for all expenses claimed to help prevent unjustified expense claims ••• Increase the independence of the Auditor General by: requiring approval of appointment from opposition party leaders ••• increase auditing resources of the Auditor General and having Parliament (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Auditor General’s annual budget (as is currently the process for the federal Ethics Commissioner) ••• and; empower the Auditor General to audit all government institutions ••• to preview and prohibit government advertising that promotes the ruling party, especially leading up to an election (similar to the restrictions in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) ••• to audit the expense reports of everyone in the government to help prevent dishonest expense claims ••• to make orders for changes to government institutions’ spending systems ••• and to penalize violators of federal Treasury Board spending rules or Auditor General orders ••• Crown corporations must be required in the Financial Administration Act to apply to court to have the court void any contract signed with a director of the corporation or an entity in which a director has an interest if it is discovered that the director did not disclose their interest to the corporation’s board of directors (NOTE: currently, section 118 only allows the corporation to apply to court, but does not require the corporation to apply to court)  (Go to Stop Politician Fraud Spending Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

top
Top of Report Card

IV. Representative, Citizen-Driven Government Measures

SECTION IV OVERALL GRADE
E+

9. Increasing meaningful public consultation – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: According to all reports, the federal Conservatives have completely ignored the Canadian Federal Government’s Accord with Citizen Groups (the so-called “Voluntary Sector”) and Codes of Good Practice in Policy Dialogue and Funding.  Also, the Conservatives launched a highly questionable public consultation on democratic reforms in March 2007 — To see a Democracy Watch news release analyzing the consultation, click here (archive website) — To see an article about the consultation results, click here
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise kept to “Appoint a Seniors Council comprised of seniors and representatives of seniors’ organizations to advise the minister responsible for seniors on issues of national importance” ••• Promise not kept to “Hold a truly free vote on the definition of marriage in the next session of Parliament.  If the resolution is passed, the government will introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage while respecting existing same-sex marriages” ••• Promise partially kept to “Make all votes in Parliament, except the budget and main estimates, “free votes” for ordinary Members of Parliament” ••• Promise partially kept to “Increase the power of Parliament and parliamentary committees to review the spending estimates of departments and hold ministers to account.” ••• Promise not kept to “Place international treaties before Parliament for ratification.”
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Pass a law requiring all government departments and institutions to use consultation processes that provide meaningful opportunities for citizen participation, especially concerning decisions that affect the lives of all Canadians.  (Go to Democratic Voting Systems Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

10. Restricting power of Cabinet to make appointments – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “The Liberals have repeatedly appointed insiders, in some cases completely unqualified, to important public offices. Liberal candidates and MPs have received appointments as heads of Crown corporations, board members, and ambassadors.  Liberal staffers, including some of those responsible for the sponsorship program, have worked their way into key positions in thepublic service.” (p. 9 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise fully kept to “Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons” ••• Promise mostly kept to “Prevent ministerial aides and other political appointees receiving favoured treatment when applying for public service positions” ••• Promise broken so far to “Establish a Public Appointments Commission to set merit-based requirements for appointments to government boards, commissions, and agencies, to ensure that competitions for posts are widely publicized and fairly conducted” (the FAA states that the federal Cabinet “may” establish the Commission, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has taken no steps to establish the Commission since a parliamentary committee rejected his handpicked patronage nominee for Chair of the Commission in April 2006, and the federal Cabinet has appointed many Conservatives to key positions — NOTE: in its October 2008 election platform, the Conservatives again promised to establish the Commission) ••• Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made key decisions, and continues to be involved, in setting the terms of reference for a public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, and in choosing the inquiry commissioner
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require approval by opposition party leaders for the approximately 3,000 judicial, agency, board, commission and tribunal appointments currently made by the Prime Minister (including the board and President of the CBC), especially for appointees to senior and law enforcement positions, after a merit-based nomination process ••• and Change the federal Inquiries Act to allow a majority of party leaders to launch an inquiry and to require approval by a majority of party leaders for setting the terms of reference for an inquiry, and for the selection of an inquiry commissioner or commission, and also to allow citizens to initiate an inquiry through a petition containing signatures from at least 10% of Canadians  (Go to Democratic Voting Systems Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

11. Making the Senate democratic or abolishing it – D

Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Canada is a democracy, yet our democratic system has not kept pace with the needs of a changing society. Paul Martin used to talk about a democratic deficit, but his actions as Prime Minister have deepened it. A new Conservative government will be committed to significant democratic reform of our Parliamentary and electoral institutions.” (p. 44 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)

• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promises kept half-way to “Begin reform of the Senate by creating a national process for choosing elected Senators from each province and territory” ••• and to “Propose further reforms to make the Senate an effective, independent, and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions.” (the Conservatives have introduced bills, which have not passed, to set term limits for senators and to elect senators, and continue their efforts (which continue to face legitimate barriers (ie. questions about the constitutionality of the bills) and illegitimate bariers (ie. undue delays in responses by provincial governments and senators)) ••• appointed senators in violation of promise not to do so until reforms were implemented ••• appointed Supreme Court Justice before promised parliamentary review was completed
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Attempt to reach an agreement with provincial governments (as required by the Constitution) to either abolish the Senate or reform the Senate (with a safeguard that Senate powers will not be increased unless senators are elected and their overall accountability increased).  (Go to Democratic Voting Systems Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

12. Ensuring free, fair and representative elections – D

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Canada is a democracy, yet our democratic system has not kept pace with the needs of a changing society. Paul Martin used to talk about a democratic deficit, but his actions as Prime Minister have deepened it. A new Conservative government will be committed to significant democratic reform of our Parliamentary and electoral institutions.” (p. 44 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise fully kept to give Electoral Officer the power to select returning officers for elections ••• Promise partially kept (because the Prime Minister called an election in September 2008 before a non-confidence vote had occurred in the House of Commons) to “Introduce legislation modeled on the BC and Ontario laws requiring fixed election dates every four years, except when a government loses the confidence of the House (in which case an election would be held immediately, and the subsequent election would follow four years later)” ••• Promise partially kept to “Restore representation by population for Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta in the House of Commons while protecting the seat counts of smaller provinces” (the bill introduced by the Conservatives restores representation by population for B.C. and Alberta, but not Ontario)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: Promises broken to “Ensure that party nomination and leadership races are conducted in a fair, transparent, and democratic manner” ••• and to “Prevent party leaders from appointing candidates without the democratic consent of local electoral district associations.”
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Change the current voting law and system in the ways promised by the Conservatives set out in the above section, and also as follows: so that nomination and party leadership races are regulated by Elections Canada (including limiting spending on campaigns for party leadership) ••• so that Elections Canada determines which parties can participate in election debates based upon merit criteria ••• so that voters are allowed to refuse their ballot (ie. vote for “none of the above”, as in Ontario) ••• to provide a more equal number of voters in every riding ••• and to provide a more accurate representation in Parliament of the actual voter support for each political party while ensuring that all elected officials are supported by, and are accountable to, a majority of voters in a specific constituency (and with a safeguard to ensure that a party with low-level, narrow-base support does not have a disproportionately high level of power in Parliament) ••• require the media to give equal prominence to all numbers in survey result reports, to end the misleading hype of polls seen in the past few federal elections  (Go to Democratic Voting Systems Campaign and Stop Muzzling MPs Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

top
Top of Report Card

V. General Government Accountability Measures

SECTION V OVERALL GRADE
E+

13. Facilitating citizen watchdog groups over government – I

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: n/a
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: n/a
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require federal government institutions to enclose one-page pamphlets periodically in their mailings to citizens inviting citizens to join citizen-funded and directed groups to represent citizen interests in policy-making and enforcement processes of key government departments (for example, on ethics, spending, and health care) as has been proposed in the U.S. and recommended for Canadian banks and other financial institutions in 1998 by a federal task force, a House of Commons Committee, and a Senate Committee.  (Go to Citizen Association Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

14. Ensuring effective whistleblower protection – D

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “There have been many examples over the years of reprisals against government whistleblowers, including public servants who helped reveal the sponsorship scandal, and others who exposed waste and abuse in the Department of Foreign Affairs.  After pressure from the opposition and whistleblowers themselves, the Liberals brought forward weak legislation to deal with the issue.  Much more still needs to be done.” (p. 10 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise mostly kept to “Give the Public Service Integrity Commissioner the power to enforce compliance with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act” (in fact, the FAA gives a new Tribunal the power to enforce the Act) ••• Promise partially kept to “Ensure that all Canadians who report government wrongdoing are protected, not just public servants” (in fact, not even all public servants are protected) ••• Promise partially kept to “Remove the government’s ability to exempt Crown corporations and other bodies from the Act” (in fact, the government has chosen not to have some bodies (e.g. CSIS) covered by the Act) ••• Promise partially kept to “Require the prompt public disclosure of information revealed by whistleblowers, except where national security or the security of individuals is affected” (in fact, some information will likely never be disclosed) ••• Promise partially kept to “Ensure that whistleblowers have access to the courts and that they are provided with adequate legal counsel” (in fact, whistleblowers have to first go to a new Tribunal, and in most cases will only be provided with $1,500 maximum for legal counsel costs)
• Promised measures not included in FAA:  Promise broken to “Establish monetary rewards for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing or save taxpayers dollars”
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require everyone to report any violation of any law, regulation, policy, code, guideline or rule ••• and give all watchdog agencies over government (for example: Auditor General, Information Commissioner, Privacy Commissioner, Public Service Commission, the four ethics watchdogs, Security and Intelligence Review Committee, the National Health Council) full powers to investigate allegations of violations, to penalize violators, to protect anyone who reports a violation (so-called “whistleblowers”) from retaliation, to reward whistleblowers whose allegations are proven to be true, and to ensure a right to appeal to the courts.  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

15. Ensuring loophole free laws and strong penalties for wrongdoers – C

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “To ensure prosecutorial independence, a Conservative government will follow the path of several provinces, including Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and other parliamentary democracies such as the United Kingdom and Australia and establish an independent Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.” (p. 13 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promises mostly kept to “Create the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the responsibility to conduct prosecutions under federal jurisdiction” ••• to “Give the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to make binding and final decisions to prosecute or not unless the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General instructs the Director to do otherwise by means of public written notice” ••• to “Appoint the Director of Public Prosecutions from among qualified candidates recommended by a committee which will include representatives of the opposition parties in Parliament” ••• “Give the Director of Public Prosecutions the mandate to review recent decisions on prosecutions in the sponsorship scandal and other matters which have been the subject of investigation by the Auditor General and the Ethics Counsellor or Commissioner” ••• and to “Structure the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in accordance with best practices in other jurisdictions such as British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Australia, and the United Kingdom” ••• Promise kept to “Establish, at the earliest possible time, a comprehensive, independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air India bombing of June 23, 1985.”
• Promised measures not included in FAA: Promise broken to “”Ensure that regional development agencies are depoliticized and fully accountable to Parliament and Canadians.”
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Close any technical and other loopholes that have been identified in laws, regulations, policies, codes, guidelines and rules (especially those regulating government institutions and large corporations) to help ensure strong enforcement, and increase financial penalties for violations to a level that significantly effects the annual revenues/budget of the institution or corporation.  (Go to Open Government Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

Top
Top of Report Card

Report Card on the 2011 Good Government
Election Platforms of the Ontario Political Parties
(Set out below are quotations from the Ontario parties’ platform documents upon which the Report Card grades were based for each of the 16 sub-categories graded in the five issue areas categories)

GRADING SYSTEM
A – Platform makes clear promise to implement proposal
B – Platform makes vague or partial promise to implement proposal
C – Platform makes clear promise to explore proposal
D – Platform makes vague or partial promise to explore proposal
E – Platform mentions proposal
F – Platform mentions theme of proposal
I – Platform does not mention proposal

Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario platform webpage
Green Party of Ontario platform webpage
Liberal Party of Ontario platform webpage
NDP of Ontario platform webpage

OVERALL REPORT CARD GRADES
best to worst

* Dishonesty Downgrade applied because past performance of all parties shows that they usually break half their promises, and the lack of an honesty-in-politics law means they can’t be held accountable.

 Top

Top of Report Card

News Release

Group hopes media will ask party leaders in election campaigns “If you break promises, will you resign?” and “Will you support passage of honesty-in-politics law?“

“Promises make politicians all warm and fuzzy, but don’t make one homeless person warm.”
Dry, former homeless person, on CBC Radio (December 27, 2005)

“When all is said and done, more is said than done.”
(Anonymous)

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

OTTAWA – Today, with dozens of election promises being pitched by political parties in election campaigns in Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Ontario (link to archive website), Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and the Yukon (and elections likely soon in Alberta, Québec), Democracy Watch called on media across the country to ask party leaders and candidates whether they will resign if they are elected and then break their promises to voters, and whether they will support the passage of an “honesty-in-politics” law.

Election debates are the perfect time for the media to pose these two key voter-rights-protecting questions.

No matter how much they study election platforms, voters simply cannot make an informed choice in an election if they do not know which of each party’s promises are false, and this is why honesty in politics is a fundamental voter rights issue.  In addition, voter rights are violated when politicians or government officials mislead voters, or politicians switch parties, in-between elections.  For all these reasons an honesty-in-politics law and enforcement system with strong penalties is clearly needed in every jurisdiction in Canada to ensure voters have meaningful rights.

“If they want voters’ trust, all party leaders must pledge to resign if they break their promises, and pledge to pass a law making it easy for voters to challenge dishonesty by politicians and other public officials,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.  “Hopefully the media will challenge party leaders on these key pledges, to help ensure the leaders can’t mislead voters and escape effective accountability for promise-breaking and day-to-day dishonesty in politics.”

Democracy Watch called on all parties in these provinces and the NWT to promise they will pass a law making it illegal for all politicians, political staff, Cabinet appointees and all other public officials to mislead the public or be dishonest, and making it illegal except in specific circumstances for politicians to switch parties in-between elections.  The law must give citizens an easy way to file a complaint with the ethics commissioner or auditor general for the jurisdiction, and giving the commissioner the power to impose very high fines for dishonesty of any type (The federal Conservatives actually used their so-called “Accountability Act” in 2006 to cut the one federal rule that required federal Cabinet ministers to be honest).

“Voters are sick of politicians baiting voters with promises, and then switching direction when they win power,” said Conacher. “The cynicism-breeding habit of politicians and public officials misleading the public will only be stopped if voters have an easy way to challenge dishonesty, and have the misleader punished, similar to the relatively easy way that exists to challenge corporations and corporate executives that are dishonest.”

If any Canadian corporation lies in its advertising, only six Canadians need to sign and send a letter to the Competition Bureau and the Bureau must investigate and determine whether the corporation lied, and what corrective measures are required.  If any corporation or corporate executive misleads their shareholders, the shareholders have the right to go to court and seek compensation.

Immigrants, welfare applicants, taxpayers and other Canadians are also required by law to be honest when filing statements with the government, and face high penalties if they are dishonest.

During federal election campaigns, and during elections in every province and territory except Quebec and New Brunswick, it is illegal for anyone to lie about a candidate, but it is only illegal in B.C. for a candidate to make false statements about what they promise to do or what they have done.  However, the B.C. system for challenging election lies is too costly and inaccessible to citizens, and does not include effective penalties.

According to the Elections Canada-commissioned poll of almost 1,000 non-voters from the 2000 federal election, the highest-ranked reason for decreased interest in politics by non-voters was “false promises / dishonesty / lack of confidence in politicians” while the second-highest ranked change that would make non-voters more interested in politics was “more honesty, responsibility, accountability” in government (Post-2000 Federal Election Survey by Elections Canada).  An Elections Canada survey in 2006 found that 60% of non-voters were turned off politics because of dishonesty and other reasons.

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Founding Director of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179

Op-ed on the clear and pressing need for an honesty-in-politics law

Democracy Watch’s Honesty in Politics Campaign

News Release

Democracy Watch plans court challenge of Elections Ontario’s failure to inform voters of their right to decline their ballot

Information and ads during election campaign missing key messages to encourage voter turnout

Thursday, September 22, 2011

OTTAWA –  Today, Democracy Watch announced that it is exploring a court challenge of Elections Ontario’s continuing negligence in failing to correct its provincial election website, advertising and voter information cards to let Ontario voters know they have the legal right to decline their ballot.

Democracy Watch also called on Elections Ontario to produce new advertising with key messages to encourage voters to turn out at the polls.

On the main pages of its “We Make Voting Easy” website, Elections Ontario does not mention that Ontario voters have the right under section 53 of the Elections Act to decline their ballot and have it counted separately from a vote for a candidate or a spoiled ballot.  The sub-pages on the website, including the page entitled “Voting in Person”, also fail to inform voters of this right.

Elections Ontario’s civics education program “Voting Rules Fact Sheet” is likely also incorrect, and as a result is misleading young voters on their voting rights.

In addition to the incomplete information on its website, Elections Ontario’s newspaper advertisements and voter information cards mailed to voters also fail to mention the right to decline your ballot, even though both have lots of blank space in which this information could have been provided.

As a result, Elections Canada is failing to properly use its legal powers to educate voters about their voting rights (set out in sections 114.1 and 114.2 of the Ontario Elections Act).

Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa’s message on the Elections Ontario website says “We are on a mission to make voting easy, and that means putting the needs of the elector first.”

“Elections Ontario claims to put the needs of voters first, but continues to fail to respond to media coverage and calls to inform voters with its website, advertising and voter information mailings that they have the legal right to decline their ballot,” said Duff Conacher, Founding Director of Democracy Watch.  “As a result, Democracy Watch is exploring a court challenge against Elections Ontario to try to stop its negligent and undemocratic failure to inform voters of their full voting rights.”  (To see Democracy Watch’s August 24, 2011 news release, click here, and to see some of the related media coverage, click here and click here)

“Some voters may not support any party that has a candidate in their riding, or may not support any of the parties’ platforms, and they have the right to be informed by Elections Ontario that they have the right to vote for ‘none of the above’ by declining their ballot,” said Conacher.

Section 53 of Ontario’s Election Act states as follows:
“Declined ballot
53.  An elector who has received a ballot and returns it to the deputy returning officer declining to vote, forfeits the right to vote and the deputy returning officer shall immediately write the word “declined” upon the back of the ballot and preserve it to be returned to the returning officer and shall cause an entry to be made in the poll record that the elector declined to vote.
R.S.O. 1990, c. E.6, s. 53.”

Elections Ontario has failed to inform voters for the past 20 years of their right to decline their ballot in the printed material sent to voters, and print, billboard, TV and radio advertisements about voting.

Democracy Watch was consulted by Elections Ontario in the spring about its planned voter information and advertising campaign, and suggested very strongly that the information and the ads must mention the right to decline your ballot.  As well, it strongly suggested that if the ads hope to encourage higher voter turnout, they must also contain the following key messages:

• “You never know when your vote may count” — with examples from past provincial elections such as 1985 and 1990, and from specific ridings in various elections, all  of which show clearly that local and provincial election results cannot be predicted in advance, and;
• “If you don’t vote, you don’t count” — making it clear that politicians don’t really care about you if you don’t vote because non-voters do not help them get elected, or defeated.

“As it has in past elections, Elections Ontario is again spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ad campaign that has the wrong messages, and again negligently failing to inform voters of their right to decline their ballot, so no one should expect voter turnout to increase significantly in the October provincial election,” said Conacher.

The federal government, and every provincial and territorial government, should add the right to vote “none of the above” and to give a reason, to their election laws (include the election laws for municipal elections in each jurisdiction).

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Board member of Democracy Watch

Tel: (613) 241-5179

Democracy Watch’s Ontario Election 2011 (archive website) page

News Release

Global Integrity Report lowers Canadian federal government’s score from 80 to 75 — Weak enforcement of Accountability Act‘s loophole-filled rules the main reason for drop in democracy rating

Canada drops from 11th to 19th out of 100 countries assessed since 2007 — A “Real Accountability Act” needed to end secret donations, gifts and lobbying; excessive secrecy overall; patronage appointments; conflicts of interest; arbitrary election calls; lack of PM, judicial and Senate accountability and; to strengthen whistleblower protection and good government enforcement agencies

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

OTTAWA – Today, Global Integrity released its 2010 Global Integrity Report which dropped Canada from 11th to 19th out of the almost 100 countries evaluated since 2007.  The Report is the world’s most comprehensive, detailed assessment (using more than 300 indicators) of national government accountability, integrity and democratic process, and measures the strength of key laws and enforcement records up to the end of 2010.

“As the Global Integrity Report makes clear, Canada’s federal government has significant loopholes in its democratic process and government accountability systems when compared to other countries, and weak enforcement in many areas, and so has a lot of work to do to become the world’s leading democracy,” said Duff Conacher, Lead Researcher for the Canada report, and Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Assistant Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network.  “Government integrity continues to be undermined by loopholes that allow for dishonesty, secret donations to some candidates and to political party trust funds, conflicts of interest by policy-makers, excessive government secrecy, secret, unethical lobbying, and is also undermined by Cabinet patronage appointments, arbitrary election calls and a flawed voting system, and lack of Prime Minister, judicial and Senate accountability and weak whistleblower protection and government accountability lapdog agencies.”

“Democracy Watch and the good government coalitions it coordinates call on all federal parties in the new Parliament to pass a Real Accountability Act to close the dozens of undemocratic and accountability loopholes in the federal government,” said Conacher.

Each national government is assessed by Global Integrity’s in-country experts by providing answers to Global Integrity’s more than 300 questions in its Integrity Indicators Scorecard.  The Scorecard is divided into six categories (with 23 sub-categories in total), as follows: I. Non-Governmental Organizations, Public Information and Media; II. Elections; III. Government Conflicts of Interest Safeguards and Checks and Balances; IV. Public Administration and Professionalism; V. Government Oversight and Controls; VI. Anti-Corruption Legal Framework, Judicial Impartiality, and Law Enforcement Professionalism.

None of the national governments that have been assessed since 2007 have received a “Very Strong” above 90 rating.  In Canada, increasing problems with government secrecy and weak enforcement of key ethics and government accountability laws, as well as the 2008 arbitrary election call and the arbitrary 2008 and 2009 shutdowns of Parliament, have lowered Canada’s federal government from the high-“Moderate” score of 80 in 2008 to the mid-Moderate rating of 75 in 2010.

Overall, the main problem with Canada’s federal government is that while it has enacted almost all the laws needed for an effective government integrity system (and so receives a Strong overall score of 90 for its Legal Framework), loopholes and flaws in the laws, and weak enforcement, undermine the system (so that Canada received Weak overall score of 61 for its implementation of the laws).

Canada has its worst scores in the following categories and sub-categories:

• III. Government Conflicts of Interest Safeguards (Weak at 64 overall because of loopholes in rules and weak enforcement by Ethics Commissioner, and especially bad in sub-category III-3: Judicial Accountability with a Very Weak Score of 32 because of patronage appointments to federal agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals, and lack of effective conflict of interest enforcement for all types of judges and commissioners);
• IV. Public Administration and Professionalism safeguards (Very low Moderate at 71 overall, with a Weak score of 62 in sub-category IV-1: Civil Service Conflict of Interest and Political Independence safeguards because of lack of independence and effective conflict of interest enforcement, and a Weak score of 63 in sub-category IV-2: Whistle-blowing Protections because of flaws in the law and weak enforcement by Integrity Commissioner), and;
• sub-category VI.-2 Anti-Corruption Agency enforcement record with a Weak score of 59 because of weak enforcement records by the Ethics Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying, Integrity Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer, and lack of key powers for Information Commissioner, Auditor General and Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Canada has its best scores in the following categories and sub-categories:

• II. Elections with a overall Strong score of 83;
• V. Government Oversight and Controls of finances with an overall Strong score of 82, and;
• Sub-category I-2 Media’s Ability to Report on Corruption with an Strong score of 88.

See for more details on Democracy Watch’s website:

• about dishonesty in politics, Democracy Watch’s Honesty in Politics Campaign;
• about secret donations, Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign;
• about government secrecy, Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign;
• about loopholes and lack of enforcement of conflict of interest rules, click here (archive website);
• about unethical lobbying and lack of enforcement, click here (archive website);
• about whistleblower protection flaws and lack of enforcement, click here (archive website);
• about arbitrary election calls, click here (archive website) and Canada’s flawed voting system, click here;
• about Cabinet patronage appointments, section 10 of Democracy Watch’s 2010 Report Card on the Federal Conservatives’ Accountability and Democratic Reform Record;
• about lack of Senate accountability, click here (archive website);
• about weak government accountability lapdog agencies, click here (archive website), and;
• about lack of judicial accountability, see section III-3 of Global Integrity’s 2010 Integrity Indicators Scorecard for Canada.

[NOTE: See also Democracy Watch’s 2010 Report Card on the Federal Conservatives’ Accountability and Democratic Reform Record which details the federal Conservatives’ 39 broken promises in the loophole-filled, so-called “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) and other measures which, along with the inaction of past Liberal and Conservative federal governments, have left 100 undemocratic and accountability loopholes and flaws in the federal government’s accountability and decision-making systems (To see a summary of the 100 loopholes, click here)].

[NOTE: See also Democracy Watch’s news release about the May 2010 report (archive website) of the Oliphant Inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, to which the Conservative government has still not responded.]

– 30 –

For more information, contact:
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Assistant Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network
Tel: 613-241-5179

Democracy Watch’s Clean Up the System webpage

OVERALL REPORT CARD GRADES
best to worst

* Dishonesty Downgrade applied because past performance of all parties shows that they usually break half their promises, and the lack of an honesty-in-politics law means they can’t be held accountable.

Top
Top of Report Card

OVERALL REPORT CARD GRADES
best to worst

* Dishonesty Downgrade applied because past performance of all parties shows that they usually break half their promises, and the lack of an honesty-in-politics law means they can’t be held accountable.

 Top

Top of Report Card

Top of Report Card Background Details

Honesty in politics is the best policy, and so it should be required by law

Set out below is an op-ed by Democracy Watch Coordinator Duff Conacher which was published in shorter, edited form in the February 24, 2011 issue of the TheMarkNews.com, Guelph Mercury and the Kitchener Waterloo Record

The scandal involving Conservative Cabinet minister Bev Oda is yet another example showing the clear need for an honesty-in-federal-politics law that applies to everyone and allows for complaints by anyone to an independent, non-partisan watchdog agency such as the federal Ethics Commissioner.

If the Conservatives had a majority of seats in the House of Commons, they would have stopped the current parliamentary process aimed at penalizing Minister Oda for her misleading statements.  During past majority governments, many Cabinet ministers made false statements but no committee held hearings because ruling party MPs controlled the committees and blocked motions by opposition party members for accountability measures.

In the current minority government situation, the process is tainted by partisanship because a Liberal Speaker of the House will decide if Oda is guilty, and opposition MPs will decide whether she will be penalized.

If Minister Oda made her false statements outside of Parliament, the current process would also not be happening because MPs can only penalize misleading statements made before committees or in the House.

Industry Minister Tony Clement made clearly misleading statements about the Conservatives’ decision to scrap the long-form census by Statistics Canada, but he did so outside Parliament, and so no process exists to hold him accountable.

Many ministers and MPs from all political parties, as well as their staff and government officials and lobbyists, have in the past escaped being penalized for false statements because of where they made their statements.  In fact, many have been awarded when they have gained voter support by making false election promises.

Some people (such as columnist Chantal Hébert) say dishonesty is just a normal part of politics that must be accepted, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Given the number of people hurt in various ways by this dishonesty, and how damaging lying is to reasonable, democratic debate, you would think that passing a law requiring honesty in politics would be a top priority of politicians across the country (in an Elections Canada survey in 2000, the highest-ranked reason for decreased interest in politics by non-voters was “false promises / dishonesty / lack of confidence in politicians” while the second-highest ranked change that would make non-voters more interested in politics was “more honesty, responsibility, accountability” in government; in an Elections Canada survey in 2006 found that 60% of non-voters were turned off politics because of dishonesty and other reasons).

After all, politicians have passed many laws in the past requiring many Canadians to be honest in many ways.  From welfare applicants to taxpayers to corporate executives, it is illegal for Canadians to lie, and high penalties are in place to discourage dishonesty.

To become a citizen, to receive welfare, to receive tax deductions — you better tell the truth.  If corporate executives lie in the corporation’s financial statements, shareholders can sue.  If a corporation’s advertisement is false, and six Canadians file a written complaint, the Competition Bureau must investigate and has the power to fine and require the corporation to cancel or correct the ad.

It’s even illegal for anyone anywhere in Canada to make a false claim about election candidates.

But when it comes to candidates lying to voters, and politicians and government officials misleading the public, almost anything goes.  In fact, most election laws across Canada make it illegal for candidates to make a written pledge to do something specific if elected.

Some politicians, such as in B.C., have passed laws making election fraud illegal.  And the preamble to the ethics rules for federal MPs and government officials say that they are expected to do their jobs with “honesty”.  But these laws and rules are vague, don’t involve definite penalties, and are not effectively enforced (To see details about former federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro’s refusal to enforce the honesty rule, click here).

Judges have ruled in lawsuits filed against promise-breaking politicians that voters are naive to believe election promises, and and so they have refused to punish misleaders (To see a 2000 B.C. court decision about the Glen Clark NDP government making a false claim during an election, click here — To see a 2004 Ontario court decision about the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government breaking an election promise, click here).

And believe it or not, the federal Conservative government’s so-called “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) actually decreases accountability significantly by deleting the honesty rule from the rules that apply to the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, ministerial staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government officials (and the Conservatives failed to include 22 other promised measures in the FAA and may not fully implement the FAA — To see details, click here).

A few ridiculous reasons are usually given for not requiring honesty in politics and not penalizing misleaders.

Some say that when candidates make promises, they don’t know what changes might occur if they win the election, and therefore shouldn’t be penalized if they break promises.  The simple solution is for candidates to make promises that honestly set out the circumstances under which they would change direction (instead of the usually dishonest iron-clad promises they currently make).

If honesty was required, some candidates and parties may try to get away with making only vague promises — but they would likely, over time, lose to those willing to set out a well-defined, contract-like platform that tells voters exactly what they will receive.

Under such a law, politicians could be allowed to cite truly unforeseeable changes as a justifiable reason for breaking a promise.

Some say that politicians do face a penalty for breaking promises or being dishonest — the penalty of losing public support and the next election.  However, promise-breaking politicians often don’t lose the next election, especially when their broken promise only affects a minority of the population.

Some say that there would be a flood of lawsuits if dishonesty in politics was made illegal.  While it may be that, as in war, the first casualty of politics currently is truth, very likely fewer politicians and government officials would be dishonest if they faced significant penalties, which would greatly reduce the number of cases.  As well, fear of many court cases didn’t stopped politicians from making dishonesty illegal for 500,000 Canadian corporations and millions of Canadians.

In addition, if honesty-in-politics laws gave the public the right to complain to ethics watchdog agencies, and the agencies the power to dismiss frivolous complaints, and to penalize misleaders only with high personal fines, even if complaints were numerous they could be dealt with fairly quickly, easily and inexpensively.

Finally, some make the highly speculative, and patronizing, claim that politicians and government officials can’t always be honest, because the public couldn’t handle the truth.  This incredibly undemocratic viewpoint assumes that politicians and officials have (for some unstated reason) some special mental capacity that allows them to be exposed to reality, while for everyone else to survive they must live in a fantasy bubble created by governments.

Those defending politicians switching parties in between elections give similarly dubious reasons why this type of dishonesty should be allowed (To see an op-ed on the subject of party-switching by politicians, click here).

If those giving these highly questionable reasons were thinking at all about voter rights, they would realize that it is impossible to vote as long as candidates can lie.  No matter how closely voters study and compare candidate or party platforms and statements, if they are untrue voters cannot make a choice.

So while the fundamental right to vote is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is violated across the country on a regular basis.  No wonder the number one reason non-voters give for failing to cast a ballot is lack of honesty in politics, and dishonesty is the top government accountability concern for voters.

An honesty-in-politics law would give voters a good reason to trust politicians again.

So, tell your municipal, provincial and federal politicians that you want them to pass a law giving the public an easy, low-cost way to file complaints about broken promises, party-switching, and false claims, with high penalties for violations, and do the same with candidates in every election.

To be honest, you may not like the answer you receive.  But you will find out which of them want to make politics an honest living, and which are leaders as opposed to misleaders.

And, if we’re all lucky, that will eventually lead to a critical mass of politicians across Canada finally respecting voters wishes and rights, and passing the strong, strict honesty-in-politics laws all Canadians deserve.

Honesty is the best policy, but politicians and others involved in politics will never be able to make an honest living until honesty is required by law.

For more details, go to Democracy Watch’s Honesty in Politics Campaign page

News Release

Federal Conservatives’ Accountability and Democratic Reform Record Gets An “F” For Breaking Many Promises and Practising Politics As Usual

Four Years After Federal Accountability Act Became Law, Dishonesty, Conflicts of Interest, Excessive Secrecy, Unlimited Donations and Patronage All Still Legal

Another, Stronger Accountability Act Needed To Close 100 Remaining Loopholes and Flaws

Friday, December 17, 2010

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch marked the fourth anniversary of the passage of the federal Conservatives’ so-called “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) by issuing its Fourth Good Government Report Card on the FAA and related democratic reform decisions by the Conservatives (To see Democracy Watch’s Report Card on the 2008 Good Government Election Platforms for the main federal political parties, click here (archive website)).

“The many government scandals in 2010, and the broken promises and inaction detailed in the Report Card, make it clear that another Accountability Act is needed to close dozens of loopholes and clean up the federal government,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

Among many other highly questionable activities, the scandals include: excessive secrecy about Afghan Detainee documents (archive website); the unjustifiable shutting down of Parliament (archive website); Cabinet ministers and MPs handing out government cheques with Conservative Party logos on them; the Helena Guergis / Rahim Jaffer / Patrick Glemaud affair (archive website); the West Block contracting affair; very weak enforcement of key laws by the federal Ethics Commissioner (archive website), Commissioner of Lobbying (archive website) and Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (archive website); interference (archive website) in Access to Information Act requests; leak of pre-budget report by Conservative MP’s staffer; auditing (archive website) of MPs’ expenses affair, and senators’ expenses,  and; frequent dishonesty (archive website) by people involved in federal politics.

As well, the federal Conservatives have failed to respond to the recommendations in the May 2010 Oliphant Commission report (archive website) on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, and have failed to empower (archive website) MPs as promised.

Overall, the Conservatives’ FAA and other decisions have increased government accountability or attempted to increase accountability in 29 ways (with the possibility that Cabinet could implement one final FAA measure by establishing the Public Appointments Commission to help ensure an end to patronage and cronyism in Cabinet appointments — NOTE: the Conservatives promised for the third time in spring 2009 to establish the Commission) — To see a summary of the measures in the FAA, click here.

However, the Conservatives have also weakened government accountability in eight ways, and failed to keep 29 promises (To see an October 2007 summary of 24 of the 29 broken promises, click here (archive website) — the five other broken promises are the fixed-election-date promise (archive website), the failure to hold free votes on most issues as promised, the appointment by Prime Minister Harper of Conservative election candidates, and the appointment of Senators and the most recent Supreme Court Justice (To see details, click here (archive website))).

In 2006, when the FAA was being reviewed by Parliament, the Conservatives rejected 25 changes that would have strengthened the laws covered by the FAA that were proposed by the House committee (archive website) and by the Liberal-controlled Senate (archive website).

As well, the Conservatives have ignored in total 100 loopholes and flaws in the federal government’s accountability system (To see a summary of the 100 loopholes, click here — To see an op-ed about how these loopholes would allow Karlheinz Schreiber and former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to do today all the wrongdoing they are alleged to have done in the past, click here (archive website) — To see a news release listing the key ethics loopholes, click here (archive website)).

As a result, the Report Card gives the Conservatives an overall “F” grade because they have only partially increased accountability in the federal government while taking steps backwards.  If the Conservatives had kept all of their 2006 election promises, they would have received an overall “B-” grade (as their promises covered about two-thirds of the loopholes and undemocratic flaws in the government’s accountability and decision-making system).

“The federal government’s accountability enforcement system is the scandal because, among many other highly questionable activities, it is still effectively legal for a person like Karlheinz Schreiber to fundraise for and make secret donations to nomination race and party leadership candidates, to lobby in secret, to make secret, fixed deals with Cabinet ministers, their staff, handpicked Cabinet patronage appointees and government employees, and for everyone involved to be dishonest about their secret, unethical relationships,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. (To see details about how lobbyists are effectively allowed to work for, and to fundraise for, federal politicians and parties, click here (archive website))

“Incredibly, it is much more likely Canadians will be caught and punished for parking illegally than a politician will be caught and punished taking money from a lobbyist,” said Conacher.  “Hopefully, all federal political parties will soon make the changes needed to closing dozens of the loopholes that allow for unethical, secretive and undemocratic federal political activities.”

Other highly questionable activities that are still effectively legal include the following (To see a summary of many of the highly questionable activities in Canadian federal politics in the past 15 years, click here (archive website)):

• governments are still not required to consult with the public in a meaningful way even when making important, society-changing decisions;
• there are still no effective checks on the power of Cabinet ministers to appoint party supporters to law enforcement positions such as judges and the heads of watchdog agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals;
• Cabinet ministers, their staff, and senior government employees are still allowed (archive website) to be involved in policy-making processes that affect their own personal financial interests;
• large gifts worth up to $10,000 to politicians are still effectively legal because of lack of auditing of politicians’ financial statements (and scientific studies have shown that even small gifts have influence (For more details about gifts and the science of influence, click here (archive website));
• many politicians, their staff, and senior government employees are still allowed (archive website) to become lobbyists too soon after they leave their government positions;
• many people who blow-the-whistle on government wrongdoing are still not effectively protected (archive website) from retaliation;
• MPs can switch parties between elections in return for a promotion;
• the voting system does not ensure that each candidate has the overall support of a majority of voters in their riding to be elected, and;
• the federal Senate is still unaccountable in every way.

The Report Card grades the Conservatives’ FAA and related decisions and actions in 14 areas divided into five categories, as follows (with grades for each category):

1. Honest, Ethical Government Measures – E- (because the Conservatives removed (archive website) the rule requiring Cabinet ministers, their staff and senior government officials to “act with honesty” and have used dishonest “spin” in many of their communications, and because the FAA did not close huge loopholes (archive website) that allow the same people to take part in decisions in which they have a private interest, and did not significantly strengthen enforcement or penalties for unethical activities);
2. Open Government Measures – E- (because the Conservatives broke (archive website) almost all of their promises to strengthen the Access to Information Act,  have used the Privacy Act to hide the identity of public servants who have done wrong, only partially implemented their promised changes to federal lobbying disclosure rules, and have ignored other secret lobbying loopholes (archive website));
3. Efficient Government Measures – B (because the Conservatives have kept most of their spending accountability promises, but have still left some key loopholes open (include failing (archive website) to ensure the independence and full budget of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and Procurement Ombudsman));
4. Representative, Citizen-Driven Government Measures – E- (because the Conservatives have not consulted meaningfully or held free votes on many issues, have broken their promise to establish a Public Appointments Commission to ensure merit-based Cabinet appointments, broke (archive website) their own fix-election-date law by calling a snap election in September 2008, have introduced Senate reform measures but resisted reasonable changes proposed by premiers and opposition parties, appointed 18 Senators, appointed a Supreme Court Justice before the promised parliamentary review, and have not kept all of their promises to ensure fair nomination races and elections);
5. General Government Accountability Measures – E (because the Conservatives have cut funding to citizen advocacy groups, broke (archive website) some of their whistleblower protection promises, have attacked several officers of Parliament and government agencies without justification, and while they have created the more independent Director of Public Prosecutions, they have launched only some long-overdue inquiries into past wrongdoing)

“By making only half their promised government accountability changes, calling an election in violation of fixed-election-date rules, cutting key ethics rules, increasing government secrecy, and ignoring dozens of huge loopholes, the federal Conservatives have failed to live up to their pledge to clean up the federal government,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “All federal parties must work together to pass another, stronger Accountability Act as soon as possible to give Canadians the honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing government they deserve.”

Democracy Watch and its Government Ethics Coalition, Money in Politics Coalition and Open Government Coalition, which involve more than 50 citizen groups from across Canada with a total membership of 3.5 million Canadians, will continue pushing for these key, democratizing changes.

– 30 –

For more information, contact:
Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: 613-241-5179

 Fourth Report Card on the Loophole-Filled “Federal Accountability Act”

 December 4, 2007 article about Federal Accountability Act (archive website)

Democracy Watch’s Clean Up the System webpage

To see an article about these and other Conservatives’ other broken 2006 election promises, click here

 top

Fourth Good Government Report Card on the Loophole-Filled “Federal Accountability Act”

On December 12, 2006, the federal Conservatives’ so-called “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) became law containing 30 of the Conservatives’ 52 promised measures.  At the time, 15 of the 30 measures in the FAA still needed Cabinet approval before they would be in force and, as of December 16, 2009, one of the 30 measures has still not been implemented (the establishment of the Public Appointments Commission to help end patronage and cronyism in Cabinet appointments).

In addition, the Conservatives made 5 other democratic reform promises, for a total of 57 government accountability and democratic reform promises.

To see Democracy Watch’s First Report Card, issued in December 2007, click here (archive website).  To see Democracy Watch’s Second Report Card, issued December 2008, click here (archive website).  To see the Third Report Card, click here (archive website).

Set out below are the details about: what the Conservatives promised to included in the FAA and other promised measures; what they included or failed to include; what FAA measures have been implemented; what FAA measures are still not in force, and; what loopholes and flaws still exist in the federal government’s accountability system.  Grades are given in each area, based on the following grading scale:

GRADING SYSTEM
A – Implemented promised measure(s) fully closing loophole(s)
B – Implemented most of promised measure(s) closing most of loophole(s)
C – Implemented half of promised measure(s) closing half of loophole(s)
D – Implemented part of promised measure(s) closing part of loophole(s)
E – Has taken steps toward implementing promised measure(s) but broken many promises
F – Failed to include promised measure in FAA
I – Failed to include measure in FAA

Summary of Categories and Areas Graded and Grades

Overall Conservatives’ rhetoric:
“People who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules want accountability from their political leaders. We don’t expect politicians to be perfect. But we do want to know that our tax dollars — money we’ve worked for — are being spent properly and wisely. Above all, we want and expect our dollars to be spent legally.  We’ve been let down.  The Liberal Party’s 12 years in power have featured one scandal after another.  And despite Paul Martin’s promises to clean up Ottawa, the scandals just keep happening.  Justice Gomery was right when he talked about the “culture of entitlement” within the Liberal Party.  This culture of waste, mismanagement, and corruption cannot reform itself.  The first piece of legislation to be introduced by a Conservative government will be the Federal Accountability Act, a sweeping plan to clean up government.”
(p. 8 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)

“the results are clear . . . the government is clean . . .”
Conservative government’s Speech from the Throne (October 16, 2007)
NOTE: In his November 4, 2005 speech, then-Opposition Party Leader Stephen Harper stated that an “Federal Accountability Act” (FAA) containing the 52 measures he listed that day was needed to “begin the process of fixing the system . . . to clean up government.”  However, the FAA introduced by the Conservatives in April 2006 only contained 30 measures (six of which have still not yet been implemented) and weakened ethics rules for Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government officials (see below for details).  As a result, by the Conservatives’ own standard, it is impossible for the government to be clean.

I. Honest, Ethical Government Measures

SECTION I OVERALL GRADE
E-

1. Requiring honesty-in-politics – F

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law.” (p. 12 of 2006 Conservative election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: The FAA enshrined Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s February 2006 version of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders into a new law called the Conflict of Interest Act (which became law July 9, 2007)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: The Conflict of Interest Act  does not include the former Code’s subsection 3(1) rule that requires the Cabinet ministers, their staff, Cabinet appointees and senior government officials to “act with honesty” ••• and the Conservatives have used dishonest “spin” in their party communications several times
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Still need to pass a law that requires all federal Cabinet ministers, MPs, Senators, political staff, Cabinet appointees and government employees (including at Crown corporations, agencies, boards, commissions, courts and tribunals) nomination race and election candidates to tell the truth, with an easily accessible complaint process to a fully independent watchdog agency that is fully empowered to investigate and penalize anyone who lies ••• and require resignation and a by-election in most cases of an MP switching parties between elections. (Go to Honesty in Politics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

2. Strengthening ethics standards for politicians, political staff, Cabinet appointees and government employees, and ethics enforcement – E

Conservatives’ rhetoric: “In 1993, Paul Martin and the Liberals promised the appointment of an independent Ethics Commissioner. For over ten years, Paul Martin and the Liberals failed to fulfill that promise, and Martin voted against his own Red Book words in the House of Commons.  Finally, under the pressure of the sponsorship scandal, the Liberals partially fulfilled their promise. But many problems remain with the role of the Ethics Commissioner, including the special exemptions Paul Martin created for his own business dealings.”
Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise kept to “Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons” ••• Promise partially kept to “Give the Ethics Commissioner the power to fine violators” (maximum fine is a ridiculously low $500, and only applies to some violations) ••• Promise partially kept to “Enshrine the Conflict of Interest Code into law” (the FAA enshrined Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s February 2006 version of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders into a new law called the Conflict of Interest Act (which became law July 9, 2007)) but the Act does not contain the key Code rules that require upholding “the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced” (subsection 3(1) of the Code); avoiding “apparent conflicts of interest” (subsection 3(1) of the Code); including avoiding “being placed or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization that might profit from special consideration on the part of the public office holder” (subsection 22(1) of the Code) ••• Promise partially kept to “End ‘venetian blind’ trusts that allow ministers to remain informed about their business interests, and require all ministerial assets to be placed in truly blind trusts” (under the FAA, some ministerial assets are not required to be placed in truly blind trusts)

• Promised measures not included in FAA: Promise broken to “Close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests” not included in FAA (ministers are still allowed to vote on any matter that is of general application or that affects a broad class of people), even if they have a private interest in it (including a financial or business interest), because of the definitions of “private interest” and “conflict of interest” in the Conflict of Interest Act (which became law July 9, 2007)) ••• Promise broken to “Allow members of the public – not just politicians – to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner” (the FAA requires the Ethics Commissioner to investigate complaints filed by politicians, but still gives the Commissioner the right to refuse to investigate complaints filed by the public) ••• Promise broken to “Make part-time or non-remunerated ministerial advisers subject to the Ethics Code” (the FAA increases the number of part-timers and unpaid advisers not covered by most of the ethics rules)
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Close the loopholes in the existing ethics rules set out in the above two sections (and apply them and the following measures to all government institutions (including all Crown corporations) ••• selling major assets that are in any way likely to cause conflicts of interest (a process known as “divestment”) must be required by all public officials when they enter office ••• Cabinet ministers, their staff, senior public servants and MPs can easily hide large gifts they receive from lobbyists or others trying to influence them because they only have to disclose assets worth $10,000 or more every 4 months to the Ethics Commissioner (disclosure should be required for assets worth $1,000 or more, with updates on changes required within 30 days) ••• gifts of any kind worth more than $200 combined total annually to anyone in the federal government from anyone except relatives must be banned (and gifts of any kind worth more than $200 combined total annually from relatives must be disclosed to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner — NOTE: the proposed new Conflict of Interest Act allows unlimited gifts from “friends”) ••• as proposed by the federal Department of Finance (For details, click here (archive website)), and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, place anyone with decision-making power on the anti-corruption watch list of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (Fintrac) so deposits to their bank accounts can be tracked ••• strengthen the independence and effectiveness of all the newly created politician and government employee ethics watchdog positions (the Ethics Commissioner for Cabinet and MPs, the Senate Ethics Officer for senators, the Public Service Integrity Officer for government employees, the Registrar of Lobbyists for lobbyists) by giving opposition party leaders a veto over appointees, and having Parliament (as opposed to Cabinet) approve their annual budgets (as is currently the process for the Ethics Commissioner) ••• prohibit the watchdogs from giving secret advice ••• require them to investigate all complaints (including anonymous complaints) ••• fully empower them to penalize rule-breakers with high financial penalties ••• change all the codes they enforce into laws ••• ensure that all their decisions can be reviewed by the courts.  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

3. Making the political donations system democratic – D-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Under the Liberals, money and influence have played far too large a role in Canadian politics.  During the sponsorship inquiry, Canadians learned of envelopes full of cash being used to fund Liberal Party campaigns, and of money from government contracts being funnelled back to the Liberals. The “pay to play” years in Liberal Ottawa must come to an end.” (p. 8 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promises partially kept to “Limit individual donations to parties or candidates to a maximum of $1,000” and to “Ban cash donations to political parties or candidates of more than $20” (the FAA requires donations of money, property or services worth more than $200 to parties (more than $500 to election candidates) to be disclosed, and limits donations to parties or candidates to $1,100 annually, but secret, unlimited donations to nomination race and party leadership race candidates are still legal (as long as the donations are not used for their campaign)) ••• Promise mostly kept to “Prohibit all corporate, union, and organization donations to political parties, ridings, and candidates” (donations of hours of services by volunteers on leave from working at corporations, unions and other organizations are not limited, and are not required to be tracked and disclosed, making it very easy to give employees paid time off to “volunteer” for parties or candidates ••• Promise fully kept kept to “Extend to ten years the period for which Elections Act violations can be investigated and prosecuted.”
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require disclosure of all donations as noted in the above section (including the identity of the donor’s employer (as in the U.S.) and/ or major affiliations) and loans quarterly and before any election day (to close the loophole that currently allows secret, unlimited donations of money, property and services to nomination race and election candidates) ••• limit loans to the same levels as donations ••• limit spending on campaigns for the leadership of political parties ••• lower the public funding of political parties from $1.75 per vote received to $0.75 per vote received (to ensure that in order to prosper parties need to have active, ongoing support of a broad base of individuals) ••• and ensure riding associations receive a fair share of this funding ••• give the Commissioner of Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer more investigative powers, especially the power to audit the finances and assets of political parties, riding associations, and candidates in nomination races and elections, and require them to conduct annual audits  (Go to Money in Politics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

4. Closing down the revolving door – D-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “If there are MPs in this room who want to use public office for their own benefit, or if there are Hill staffers who dream of making it rich by trying to lobby a future Conservative government — if that’s true of any of you, then you better make other plans or leave.” Stephen Harper, introducing the “Federal Accountability Act” pledge (November 4, 2005)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: – Promise partially kept to “Extend to five years the period during which former ministers, ministerial staffers, and senior public servants cannot lobby government” (p.8) — NOTE: the measures in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s February 2006 version of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders (which are still in effect) allowed Ministers to exempt any of their staff from the five-year ban until July 2, 2008, when the new Lobbying Act was finally implemented — under the new Act, ministerial staff are allowed to apply to the proposed new Commissioner of Lobbying for an exemption from the five-year ban
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Prohibit lobbyists from working for government departments or serving in senior positions for political parties or candidates for public office (as in New Mexico and Maryland), and from having business connections with anyone who does ••• ban MPs, their staff, and government employees for one to three years (depending on their decision-making power in government) from becoming a lobbyist or working with corporations or organizations with which they had direct dealings while in government ••• anyone participating in the “employment exchange program” (who are mainly people from large corporations) is exempt under the FAA from the 5-year ban on senior public office holders becoming lobbyists — this huge loophole in the ban must be eliminated ••• lobbyists must be banned from becoming members of Cabinet for at least four years after they are elected as a federal politician  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

top
Top of Report Card

II. Open Government Measures

SECTION II OVERALL GRADE
E-

5. Strengthening access-to-information system – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “The Liberal government has consistently rejected attempts to provide Canadians with better access to government information. The present Information Commissioner has gone to court several times to force the government to open its windows.” (p. 12 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise fully kept to “Ensure that all Officers of Parliament [including the Information Commissioner] are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons and confirmed through a secret ballot of all Members of Parliament, not just named by the Prime Minister” ••• Promise fully kept to “Ensure that all government public opinion research is automatically published within six months of the completion of the project, and prohibit verbal-only reports” ••• Promise partially kept to “Expand the coverage of the [Access to Information Act] to all Crown corporations, Officers of Parliament, foundations, and organizations that spend taxpayers’ money or perform public functions” (the FAA added only 50 new federal government institutions to the list of institutions covered by  the Act, and also changed the Act to allow draft reports to be kept secret until finalized (delaying access significantly)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: Promises broken to: “Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.” ••• to “Give the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of information.” ••• to “Subject the exclusion of Cabinet confidences to review by the Information Commissioner.” •••  to “Oblige public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions.” ••• to “Provide a general public interest override for all exemptions, so that the public interest is put before the secrecy of the government. ••• to “Ensure that all exemptions from the disclosure of government information are justified only on the basis of the harm or injury that would result from disclosure, not blanket exemption rules.” ••• and to “Ensure that the disclosure requirements of the Access to Information Act cannot be circumvented by secrecy provisions in other federal acts, while respecting the confidentiality of national security and the privacy of personal information.”
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Strengthen the federal Access to Information Act and government information management system in the ways set out in the above section and by: applying the law to all government/publicly funded institutions ••• creating a public interest override of all access exemptions ••• having Parliament (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Information Commissioner’s annual budgets (as is currently the process for the federal Ethics Commissioner) ••• giving the federal Information Commissioner the power to order the release of documents (as in Ontario, Alberta and B.C.), to order changes to government institutions’ information systems, and to penalize violators of access laws, regulations, policies and rules ••• eliminating the $5 fee for filing a request for a record (given that it is an unnecessary and unjustifiable barrier to access to information, and that processing the payment of the fee results in administrative costs for the federal government that exceed the fee) ••• increasing the current five-hour free records search time to 10 hours (given the lack of efficient, accessible information management systems in many government institutions) ••• and; setting one fee for copying records for all government institutions at a level no higher than the actual copying costs, and to require institutions to waive the copying costs if they will cause financial hardship to the requester ••• change the Privacy Act to require disclosure of the identity of public servants who have done wrong (Go to Open Government Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

6. Exposing all behind-closed-door communications – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: n/a
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise partially kept to require disclosure of communications between lobbyists and ministers or senior government officials (NOTE: the new Lobbying Act requires only those people who are required to register as lobbyists to disclose some of their communications with ministers and senior government officials (as defined by regulations)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: “Require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists.” (p.8)
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require that Ministers and senior public officials to disclose their contacts with all lobbyists, whether paid or volunteer lobbyists.  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

7. Strengthening lobbying disclosure and ethics, and the enforcement system – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Under the Liberals, lobbying government — often by friends and associates of Paul Martin and other Liberal ministers — has become a multi-million dollar industry.  Senior Liberals move freely back and forth between elected and non-elected government posts and the world of lobbying.  Liberal lobbyists have accepted success or contingency fee arrangements where they don’t get paid unless they deliver the policy change their clients want.” (p. 8 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promises kept (finally in July 2008 with proclamation of new Lobbying Act) to “Ban success or contingency fee arrangements” ••• “Make the Registrar of Lobbyists an independent Officer of Parliament” ••• to “Give the Registrar of Lobbyists the mandate and resources to investigate violations” ••• and to “Extend to ten years the period during which violations can be investigated and prosecuted.”
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Strengthen the Lobbyists Registration Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct disclosure and regulation system by: closing the loophole that currently allows corporations to hide the number of people involved in lobbying activities ••• by requiring lobbyists to disclose their past work with any Canadian or foreign government, political party or candidate ••• and to disclose all their government relations activities (whether paid or volunteer) involving gathering inside information or trying to influence policy-makers (as in the U.S.) ••• and to disclose the amount they spend on lobbying campaigns (as in 33 U.S. states) ••• strengthen the ethics and enforcement system by adding specific rules and closing loopholes in the Lobbyists’ Code and making it part of the Act ••• giving opposition party leaders a veto over the appointment of the Commissioner of Lobbying ••• by having Parliament (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Commissioner’s annual budget (as is currently the process for the Ethics Commissioner) ••• by prohibiting the Commissioner from giving secret advice ••• by ensuring that the Commissioner must investigate all complaints (including anonymous complaints) ••• by fully empowering the Commissioner to penalize rule-breakers ••• and by ensuring all Commissioner decisions can be reviewed by the courts.  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

top
Top of Report Card

III. Efficient Government Measures

SECTION III OVERALL GRADE
B

8. Strengthening spending rules, and powers of Auditor General/other enforcement bodies – B

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “The Liberal government commissions some $25 million per year in polling and public opinion research. Much of this polling is conducted by Liberal-connected polling firms. The Auditor General revealed that Paul Martin’s Finance department commissioned polling for which there were “only verbal reports” ? nothing was written down so there was no paper trail. Yet the Martin government prevented the Gomery Commission from investigating this part of the Auditor General’s report.” ••• “Under the Liberal government, abuse of the government contracting process has become commonplace. Former Liberal cabinet minister Art Eggleton, for example, awarded an untendered contract to a former girlfriend. He was later appointed to the Senate by Paul Martin.” ••• “In the spring of 2004, the Liberal government told Canadians that the 2003-04 surplus would only be $1.9 billion. In fact, it was $9.1 billion.  In 2004-05, the Liberals spent about $9 billion at the end of the year to reduce their surplus to only $1.6 billion.  Just this year, the 2005 Budget estimated the 2005-06 surplus at $4 billion, a number no reputable economic forecaster accepted.  In the economic update only nine months later, this estimate had ballooned to $13.4 billion.  Governments cannot be held to account if Parliament does not know the accurate state of public finances.” ••• “Over the past decade, the Auditor General has repeatedly blown the whistle on Liberal corruption. From the $250 million sponsorship program, to the scandalous waste and mismanagement of the $1 billion HRDC grants boondoggle, to the ineffective $2 billion gun registry, nearly every audit turns up more examples of Liberal mismanagement.” (all from pages 10-11 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document) ••• “The sponsorship scandal first came to light in an internal audit — an audit which the Liberals initially tried to cover up. Under the Liberals, the lines between ministers and non-partisan civil servants have been blurred, and clear lines of accountability need to be re-established.” (p. 9 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise fully kept to “Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons” ••• Promise half-way kept to “Ensure that an independent review is conducted of government public opinion research practices discussed in Chapter 5 of the Auditor General’s November 2003 report to determine whether further action, such as a judicial inquiry, is required” (the review was completed by a handpicked person who did not have full independence, and it recommended that no inquiry be held) ••• Promises mostly kept to: “Open up the bidding process for government advertising and public opinion contracts to prevent insider firms from monopolizing government business” ••• to “Review and amend all contracting rules to make the government’s procurement process free from political interference” (a new Code of Conduct for Procurement came into force September 19, 2007) ••• to “Appoint a Procurement Auditor to ensure that all procurements are fair and transparent, and to address complaints from vendors” (the new Procurement Ombudsman was established September 19, 2007 to review complaints about violations of the Code of Conduct for Procurement) ••• and to “Permit smaller vendors and vendors outside of the National Capital Region to receive due consideration for government contracts” ••• Promises mostly kept to: “Create an independent Parliamentary Budget Authority to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy” (the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is a staff person of the Library of Parliament, and can be fired at any time for any reason, and the PBO has not received its promised full budget) ••• to “Require government departments and agencies to provide accurate, timely information to the Parliamentary Budget Authority to ensure it has the information it needs to provide accurate analyses to Parliament” ••• and to “Ensure that government fiscal forecasts are updated quarterly and that they provide complete data for both revenue and spending forecasts” ••• Promises mostly kept to: “Ask the Auditor General to conduct, on an expedited basis, an audit of all federal grant, contribution, and contracting policies, and will commit to following her recommendations ••• to “Increase funding for the Office of the Auditor General to ensure she has the necessary resources to conduct a complete audit of grant and contribution programs and of any such departments, agencies, and Crown corporations as she deems necessary” ••• to “Allow the Auditor General to “follow the money” to end recipients by providing her with the statutory authority to conduct audits of the records, documents, and accounts of any individual, institution, or company that receives grants, contributions, or transfers under an agreement with the Government of Canada” ••• to “Ensure that all granting programs are reviewed every five years” ••• Promises mostly kept to: “Strengthen enforcement of government financial guidelines, and introduce new Criminal Code penalties for fraud involving the misuse of taxpayers’ money” ••• Promises kept to: “Give the Comptroller General the overall authority for the internal audit function in each government department” to “Designate the deputy minister of each government department or agency as the Accounting Officer for that department. The deputy will be responsible to Parliament for the departmental spending and administrative practices of his or her department ••• and to “Require that, in the event of a disagreement between a minister and deputy minister on a matter of administration, the minister must provide written instruction to the deputy minister and notify the Auditor General and Comptroller General of the disagreement” ••• Promise partially kept to “”Protect the integrity of the CPP investment fund to stop politicians from raiding it to balance the budget or pay for other political projects.” ••• Promise partially kept to “Increase the power of Parliament and parliamentary committees to review the spending estimates of departments and hold ministers to account.” ••• the federal Conservatives have also handed out billions in sole-source contracts for military hardware (which the Auditor General is currently auditing)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: as Justice Gomery recommended, any “special reserve” funds must be required to be under the control of Treasury Board and covered by an annual, public report ••• The exemptions in the the Financial Administration Act and its regulations that essentially allow for sole-source contracts whenever the government wants must be closed ••• Everyone in the government must be required to submit the actual, detailed receipt (showing the number of people at the event, what was purchased, by whom, and at what price) for all expenses claimed to help prevent unjustified expense claims ••• Increase the independence of the Auditor General by: requiring approval of appointment from opposition party leaders ••• increase auditing resources of the Auditor General and having Parliament (as opposed to Cabinet) approve the Auditor General’s annual budget (as is currently the process for the federal Ethics Commissioner) ••• and; empower the Auditor General to audit all government institutions ••• to preview and prohibit government advertising that promotes the ruling party, especially leading up to an election (similar to the restrictions in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) ••• to audit the expense reports of everyone in the government to help prevent dishonest expense claims ••• to make orders for changes to government institutions’ spending systems ••• and to penalize violators of federal Treasury Board spending rules or Auditor General orders ••• Crown corporations must be required in the Financial Administration Act to apply to court to have the court void any contract signed with a director of the corporation or an entity in which a director has an interest if it is discovered that the director did not disclose their interest to the corporation’s board of directors (NOTE: currently, section 118 only allows the corporation to apply to court, but does not require the corporation to apply to court)  (Go to Voter Rights Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

top
Top of Report Card

IV. Representative, Citizen-Driven Government Measures

SECTION IV OVERALL GRADE
E+

9. Increasing meaningful public consultation – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: According to all reports, the federal Conservatives have completely ignored the Canadian Federal Government’s Accord with Citizen Groups (the so-called “Voluntary Sector”) and Codes of Good Practice in Policy Dialogue and Funding.  Also, the Conservatives launched a highly questionable public consultation on democratic reforms in March 2007 — To see a Democracy Watch news release analyzing the consultation, click here (archive website) — To see an article about the consultation results, click here
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise kept to “Appoint a Seniors Council comprised of seniors and representatives of seniors’ organizations to advise the minister responsible for seniors on issues of national importance” ••• Promise not kept to “Hold a truly free vote on the definition of marriage in the next session of Parliament.  If the resolution is passed, the government will introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage while respecting existing same-sex marriages” ••• Promise partially kept to “Make all votes in Parliament, except the budget and main estimates, “free votes” for ordinary Members of Parliament” ••• Promise partially kept to “Increase the power of Parliament and parliamentary committees to review the spending estimates of departments and hold ministers to account.” ••• Promise not kept to “Place international treaties before Parliament for ratification.”
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Pass a law requiring all government departments and institutions to use consultation processes that provide meaningful opportunities for citizen participation, especially concerning decisions that affect the lives of all Canadians.  (Go to Voter Rights Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

10. Restricting power of Cabinet to make appointments – E-

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “The Liberals have repeatedly appointed insiders, in some cases completely unqualified, to important public offices. Liberal candidates and MPs have received appointments as heads of Crown corporations, board members, and ambassadors.  Liberal staffers, including some of those responsible for the sponsorship program, have worked their way into key positions in thepublic service.” (p. 9 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise fully kept to “Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons” ••• Promise mostly kept to “Prevent ministerial aides and other political appointees receiving favoured treatment when applying for public service positions” ••• Promise broken so far to “Establish a Public Appointments Commission to set merit-based requirements for appointments to government boards, commissions, and agencies, to ensure that competitions for posts are widely publicized and fairly conducted” (the FAA states that the federal Cabinet “may” establish the Commission, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has taken no steps to establish the Commission since a parliamentary committee rejected his handpicked patronage nominee for Chair of the Commission in April 2006, and the federal Cabinet has appointed many Conservatives to key positions — NOTE: in its October 2008 election platform, the Conservatives again promised to establish the Commission) ••• Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made key decisions, and continues to be involved, in setting the terms of reference for a public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, and in choosing the inquiry commissioner
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require approval by opposition party leaders for the approximately 3,000 judicial, agency, board, commission and tribunal appointments currently made by the Prime Minister (including the board and President of the CBC), especially for appointees to senior and law enforcement positions, after a merit-based nomination process ••• and Change the federal Inquiries Act to allow a majority of party leaders to launch an inquiry and to require approval by a majority of party leaders for setting the terms of reference for an inquiry, and for the selection of an inquiry commissioner or commission, and also to allow citizens to initiate an inquiry through a petition containing signatures from at least 10% of Canadians  (Go to Voter Rights Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

11. Making the Senate democratic or abolishing it – D

Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Canada is a democracy, yet our democratic system has not kept pace with the needs of a changing society. Paul Martin used to talk about a democratic deficit, but his actions as Prime Minister have deepened it. A new Conservative government will be committed to significant democratic reform of our Parliamentary and electoral institutions.” (p. 44 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)

• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promises kept half-way to “Begin reform of the Senate by creating a national process for choosing elected Senators from each province and territory” ••• and to “Propose further reforms to make the Senate an effective, independent, and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions.” (the Conservatives have introduced bills, which have not passed, to set term limits for senators and to elect senators, and continue their efforts (which continue to face legitimate barriers (ie. questions about the constitutionality of the bills) and illegitimate bariers (ie. undue delays in responses by provincial governments and senators)) ••• appointed senators in violation of promise not to do so until reforms were implemented ••• appointed Supreme Court Justice before promised parliamentary review was completed
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Attempt to reach an agreement with provincial governments (as required by the Constitution) to either abolish the Senate or reform the Senate (with a safeguard that Senate powers will not be increased unless senators are elected and their overall accountability increased).  (Go to Voter Rights Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

12. Ensuring free, fair and representative elections – D

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “Canada is a democracy, yet our democratic system has not kept pace with the needs of a changing society. Paul Martin used to talk about a democratic deficit, but his actions as Prime Minister have deepened it. A new Conservative government will be committed to significant democratic reform of our Parliamentary and electoral institutions.” (p. 44 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise fully kept to give Electoral Officer the power to select returning officers for elections ••• Promise partially kept (because the Prime Minister called an election in September 2008 before a non-confidence vote had occurred in the House of Commons) to “Introduce legislation modeled on the BC and Ontario laws requiring fixed election dates every four years, except when a government loses the confidence of the House (in which case an election would be held immediately, and the subsequent election would follow four years later)” ••• Promise partially kept to “Restore representation by population for Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta in the House of Commons while protecting the seat counts of smaller provinces” (the bill introduced by the Conservatives restores representation by population for B.C. and Alberta, but not Ontario)
• Promised measures not included in FAA: Promises broken to “Ensure that party nomination and leadership races are conducted in a fair, transparent, and democratic manner” ••• and to “Prevent party leaders from appointing candidates without the democratic consent of local electoral district associations.”
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Change the current voting law and system in the ways promised by the Conservatives set out in the above section, and also as follows: so that nomination and party leadership races are regulated by Elections Canada (including limiting spending on campaigns for party leadership) ••• so that Elections Canada determines which parties can participate in election debates based upon merit criteria ••• so that voters are allowed to refuse their ballot (ie. vote for “none of the above”, as in Ontario) ••• to provide a more equal number of voters in every riding ••• and to provide a more accurate representation in Parliament of the actual voter support for each political party while ensuring that all elected officials are supported by, and are accountable to, a majority of voters in a specific constituency (and with a safeguard to ensure that a party with low-level, narrow-base support does not have a disproportionately high level of power in Parliament) ••• require the media to give equal prominence to all numbers in survey result reports, to end the misleading hype of polls seen in the past few federal elections  (Go to Voter Rights Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

top
Top of Report Card

V. General Government Accountability Measures

SECTION V OVERALL GRADE
E+

13. Facilitating citizen watchdog groups over government – I

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: n/a
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: n/a
• Promised measures not included in FAA: n/a
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require federal government institutions to enclose one-page pamphlets periodically in their mailings to citizens inviting citizens to join citizen-funded and directed groups to represent citizen interests in policy-making and enforcement processes of key government departments (for example, on ethics, spending, and health care) as has been proposed in the U.S. and recommended for Canadian banks and other financial institutions in 1998 by a federal task force, a House of Commons Committee, and a Senate Committee.  (Go to Citizen Association Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

14. Ensuring effective whistleblower protection – D

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “There have been many examples over the years of reprisals against government whistleblowers, including public servants who helped reveal the sponsorship scandal, and others who exposed waste and abuse in the Department of Foreign Affairs.  After pressure from the opposition and whistleblowers themselves, the Liberals brought forward weak legislation to deal with the issue.  Much more still needs to be done.” (p. 10 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promise mostly kept to “Give the Public Service Integrity Commissioner the power to enforce compliance with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act” (in fact, the FAA gives a new Tribunal the power to enforce the Act) ••• Promise partially kept to “Ensure that all Canadians who report government wrongdoing are protected, not just public servants” (in fact, not even all public servants are protected) ••• Promise partially kept to “Remove the government’s ability to exempt Crown corporations and other bodies from the Act” (in fact, the government has chosen not to have some bodies (e.g. CSIS) covered by the Act) ••• Promise partially kept to “Require the prompt public disclosure of information revealed by whistleblowers, except where national security or the security of individuals is affected” (in fact, some information will likely never be disclosed) ••• Promise partially kept to “Ensure that whistleblowers have access to the courts and that they are provided with adequate legal counsel” (in fact, whistleblowers have to first go to a new Tribunal, and in most cases will only be provided with $1,500 maximum for legal counsel costs)
• Promised measures not included in FAA:  Promise broken to “Establish monetary rewards for whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing or save taxpayers dollars”
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Require everyone to report any violation of any law, regulation, policy, code, guideline or rule ••• and give all watchdog agencies over government (for example: Auditor General, Information Commissioner, Privacy Commissioner, Public Service Commission, the four ethics watchdogs, Security and Intelligence Review Committee, the National Health Council) full powers to investigate allegations of violations, to penalize violators, to protect anyone who reports a violation (so-called “whistleblowers”) from retaliation, to reward whistleblowers whose allegations are proven to be true, and to ensure a right to appeal to the courts.  (Go to Government Ethics Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

15. Ensuring loophole free laws and strong penalties for wrongdoers – C

• Conservatives’ rhetoric: “To ensure prosecutorial independence, a Conservative government will follow the path of several provinces, including Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and other parliamentary democracies such as the United Kingdom and Australia and establish an independent Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.” (p. 13 of the Conservatives’ 2006 election platform document)
• Promised measures implemented fully or partially: Promises mostly kept to “Create the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the responsibility to conduct prosecutions under federal jurisdiction” ••• to “Give the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to make binding and final decisions to prosecute or not unless the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General instructs the Director to do otherwise by means of public written notice” ••• to “Appoint the Director of Public Prosecutions from among qualified candidates recommended by a committee which will include representatives of the opposition parties in Parliament” ••• “Give the Director of Public Prosecutions the mandate to review recent decisions on prosecutions in the sponsorship scandal and other matters which have been the subject of investigation by the Auditor General and the Ethics Counsellor or Commissioner” ••• and to “Structure the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in accordance with best practices in other jurisdictions such as British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Australia, and the United Kingdom” ••• Promise kept to “Establish, at the earliest possible time, a comprehensive, independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air India bombing of June 23, 1985.”
• Promised measures not included in FAA: Promise broken to “”Ensure that regional development agencies are depoliticized and fully accountable to Parliament and Canadians.”
• Loopholes/flaws still in federal government’s accountability system: Close any technical and other loopholes that have been identified in laws, regulations, policies, codes, guidelines and rules (especially those regulating government institutions and large corporations) to help ensure strong enforcement, and increase financial penalties for violations to a level that significantly effects the annual revenues/budget of the institution or corporation.  (Go to Voter Rights Campaign for details about Democracy Watch’s proposals)

top
Top of Report Card