Please support democracy

Without your support, Democracy Watch can't win key changes to stop governments and big businesses from abusing their power and hurting you and your family. Please click here to support democracy now

Surveys Showing Large Majority of Canadians Want Democratizing Changes to Canada’s Political System

Large Majority Supports Changes to Require Everyone in Politics to be Honest, Ethical and Transparent, and to Make Representative Decisions and Prevent Waste

Click here now to support Democracy Watch’s campaigns to win these key changes


If you think Democracy Watch is exaggerating how much Canada’s government accountability and corporate responsibility systems are the scandal, and how much Canadians want democratizing changes, consider the following survey results and reports:

  • Several national surveys and public consultations have shown that a large majority of Canadians want laws enacted requiring honesty in politics with measures to prevent, prohibit and penalize disinformation, misinformation and AI deepfakes to stop them undermining elections and other political processes.
  • A national survey in January 2026 of 1,611 adult Canadians found that only 20% think that politicians should be allowed to switch parties without restriction, while 38% believe the politician should be required to run in a byelection under their new party banner, 26% say the politician should sit as an independent until the next general election, and 87% believe the politician should be legally required to disclose whether they were offered anything in exchange for switching parties.
  • According to a national survey of 1,515 adult Canadians conducted from January 9 to 18, 2025, only 17% of Canadians trust politicians in general.
  • A national survey of 1,077 adult Canadians conducted between January 31 and February 3, 2025 found that more than 80% are concerned about the corrupting effects of secret, unethical lobbying on politicians’ policy-making decisions, and want to know about all lobbying activities.
  • A national survey of 1,615 adult Canadians conducted from November 14-19, 2024 found that 86% believe corrupt backroom political deals happen regularly; 91% believe business corruption is a common occurrence; 88% believe people involved in corruption get away with it; 65% have no trust and 28% little trust that politicians follow rules; 70-80% lack confidence in any level of government tackling corruption, and; 77% lack confidence in business self-regulating to prevent illegal activities in their business.
  • According to a national survey of 1,502 adult Canadians conducted between January 5-12, 2023, only 22% of Canadians trust in politicians in general.
  • An October-November 2022 national survey of 1,084 adult Canadians rated Canada’s democracy as a 5.7 out of 10, equivalent to a D+ grade.
  • A survey conducted in August 2022 of 2,000 adult Canadians, 66% are concerned or surprised that Canada ranks 59th in the world in representation of women in Parliament (down from 27th place in 2002), 77% agree that women face greater criticism than men when running for public office, and 84-86% agree that having gender parity in the legislature is good for communities, the economy and effective representation.
  • A December 2021 national survey of 1,750 Canadians age 16 to 24 found that 63% don’t feel welcome to participate in civic engagement activities including involvement in politics.
  • A national survey in 2021 found 71% of Canadian voters want government regulation of social media companies and sites to reducing the amount of hate speech, harassment and false information (especially false information concerning politics) online.
  • A national CBC-commissioned survey of 4,500 adult Canadians in May-June 2019 finds 88% feel that politicians care more about staying in power than doing what’s right, and 78% say they believe that the country is divided between “ordinary people” and “elites.”
  • A February 2019 online national survey of 1,511 English- and French-speaking adult Canadians found that 86% agree that politicians have lost touch and 73% agree that politicians don’t care (with both percentages increasing by 11% since the same questions were asked in 2006), and; 77% agree that we could solve most of our problems if decisions were brought back to the grassroots (an increase of 16% since 2006).
  • A September-October 2018 hybrid phone and online national survey of 1,000 adult Canadians found that more than 80% were not comfortable or somewhat not comfortable when parties allow registered lobbyists to attend fundraising events featuring the party leader that are only open to top donors. Click here to see an article about the survey.
  • A December 2014 survey of 1,000 adult Canadians by Nanos Research found that 61% of those surveyed supported the position that the views of local party constituent members “should be supreme in determining who represents the party locally” and only 24% supported the party leader having the power “to prevent someone from becoming a party candidate in a riding.” The survey also found that 73% of those surveyed said that a majority vote of MPs in a party caucus should be needed to expel an MP from the caucus, while only 17% supported allowing a party leader to make a unilateral decision to expel an MP (10% were unsure).
  • An international survey conducted in spring 2017 by the Pew Research Centre (that included Canada) found that only 20% of voters have lot of trust in the federal government
  • A national survey released in June 2017 found that only 27% of Canadians have a lot of trust in the justice system, only 26% in the Prime Minister, 22% in municipal government, 19% in Parliament, and 10% in political parties.
  • A national survey released in November 2015 found that: more than 60% of voters believe that Canadian politics is a corrupt game; 50% said that they would vote for a party that they didn’t really support if the politician or party they support acted unethically, and; 20% said that political corruption had led them to stop voting;
  • An October 2014 survey by the Gandalf Group for Ryerson University found only 13% of adult Canadians trust politicians (and only 9% trust lobbyists);
  • A summer 2014 survey by the Environics Institute found that almost 70% of Canadians are concerned the political parties may try to illegally rig election results;
  • The October-December 2013 Ekos Research polls found that only 24% of Canadians think government does the right thing most of the time (the lowest percentage in the past 20 years); 59% of Canadians think our democracy is unhealthy and 54% see this as their greatest concern;
  • A national survey released in July 2013 found that: 53% of Canadians believed the level of corruption in Canada had increased in the previous two years; 54% believed the government is either “entirely” or “to a large extent” run by a few big entities acting in their own best interests, and; 62% of Canadians thought political parties are affected by corruption;
  • The May 2013 Environics poll found that 71% of Canadians want legal restrictions on the powers of political party leaders to control politicians in their party;
  • The May 2013 Ekos Research poll found that 90% of Canadians do not trust politicians;
  • The December 2012 Harris-Decima poll found that 84% of Canadians want legal restrictions to stop abuses of power by the Prime Minister and premiers;
  • The June 2012 Ipsos Reid poll found that 95% of Canadians believe politicians have little or nothing in common with voters;
  • The 2010 Global Integrity Report which ranked Canada 19th overall out of more than 100 countries assessed since 2006, with an overall score of only 75;
  • Democracy Watch’s List of much-needed federal government inquiries (archive website);
  • The Fall 2011 Nanos Research survey (PDF) showing that a majority of Canadians do not trust federal and provincial governments;
  • The Fall 2007 Ipsos Reid poll found that more than 70% of Canadians believe large companies have too much influence on the decisions of their government and they want a more aggressive crack down on the activities and influence of national and multinational corporations. To see a PDF of the survey results, click here;
  • a 2007 Ekos Research survey found that only 18% of Canadian voters thought the federal government was doing a good job of consulting them about decisions;
  • The 2006 Nanos Research survey (PDF) that found that 62%-76% of Canadians felt that the federal Conservatives’ so-called Federal Accountability Act represented positive change (NOTE: the survey did not describe the Act‘s promised measures accurately — the measures are full of loopholes because the Conservatives broke their 2006 election promises); and
  • The 2005 SES Research survey (PDF) that found 61% of Canadians want more input into Canadian government decision-making.

Governor General must be an independent, impartial guardian of Canada’s democracy – Prime Minister should not be choosing alone

Choice of next Governor General should be democratized and Canadianized to celebrate 150th anniversary of Canada’s federal government

All federal parties should agree on key rules of Parliament before next election to prevent confused situation that B.C. is going through now, as 80% of voters and the current Governor General want

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, July 5, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, as part of its Democratic Head Campaign, Democracy Watch called on Prime Minister Trudeau to democratize and Canadianize the choice of the next Governor General. Like the Officers of Parliament, the Governor General (GG) must be independent of the Prime Minister because s/he makes many key decisions about the operations of Parliament and the government, and so the Prime Minister should not be choosing the GG alone as that taints the position with partisanship.

To democratize the selection of the Governor General, Democracy Watch has proposed that an independent committee (whose members are approved by all federal party leaders in the House of Commons) conduct a public, merit-based search for a shortlist of three nominees for GG, and then at least all federal party leaders should approve the choice of GG or, even better given that the GG appoints the Lieutenant Governors of each province, Prime Minister Trudeau should send the shortlist of nominees to the party leaders of each legislature and have them rank the nominees. The GG would be the person who receives the most votes from this ranked ballot vote.

To Canadianize the selection of the Governor General, Democracy Watch proposes that the Prime Minister should not request that Queen Elizabeth approve of the person chosen through the above process. The Queen does have to approve the person formally, but if the Prime Minister does not request the approval, and the Queen accepts being told, then a new constitutional convention will be established that Canada chooses its own Head of State. This will be a small but significant step toward full independence for Canada.

“Prime Minister Harper appointed his own advisory committee for choosing the Governor General but it was a charade as he could ignore the committee’s nominees and he controlled the final choice. Given how important it is for the Governor General to be independent of the Prime Minister and impartial, Prime Minister Trudeau must involve opposition parties in choosing the Governor General, and it would be even better to involve party leaders from across Canada given that the Governor General appoints the Lieutenant Governors in each province,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Prime Minister Trudeau should also tell the Queen who Canada has chosen as Governor General, and not ask her approval, and if she accepts that as the new protocol it will become clear that Canada chooses its own head of state.”

As well, Democracy Watch called on federal party leaders in the House of Commons to agree on public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want and as Britain’s Parliament did seven years ago with its 110-page Cabinet manual. Agreeing on and writing down the rules now (and making them law as soon as possible) will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election.

The rules should make clear: which party will get to try governing first after the next election; when the legislature will open; when it can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern and; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

In England, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public rules so what happens after an election is fair for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public post-election rules.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said last August in an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

“Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public know the rules for its minority government because its rules are written but B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public don’t because its rules are unwritten,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “As in B.C., if federal party leaders don’t agree to written rules before the next election, several constitutional crises will very likely happen with politicians, lawyers and academics having ridiculous arguments, and the unelected, unaccountable Governor General forced to make decisions, based on conflicting opinions about unwritten rules. Meanwhile, in Britain everyone will be following clear, written rules.”

“Nobody knows for sure what an unwritten rule says, and that’s why Britain, Australia, New Zealand and most other countries have written down their key constitutional rules,” said Conacher. “It’s clearly in the public interest that the federal rules be written down to stop unfair abuses of power by the ruling parties that will violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters right through the next election.”

For example, Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public all know that the only way an election can occur before the next fixed election date under Britain’s Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is if at least two-thirds of MPs vote in favour of a motion to call an early election or if a resolution is passed that states the legislature has no confidence in the government and that resolution is not reversed within 14 days. Many commentators claimed Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May called a “snap” election but she didn’t – she proposed an early election and more than two-thirds of MPs approved her proposal.

In contrast, B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public do not know how the next election could happen – which gives the unelected B.C. Lieutenant Governor enormous, unaccountable power (and the situation is the same at the federal level. The current rules in Canada are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw (and, as a result, a large majority of scholars agree they should be written down). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the Prime Minister and premiers and their ruling parties to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Governor General and Lieutenant Governors to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Prime Minister or Premier from doing what they want.

The Governor General has almost never stopped a Prime Minister from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for Canada’s political party leaders to fail to approve at least eight key rules for Parliament,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It is clearly in the public interest that the rules be approved to stop unfair abuses of power by the ruling party that violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, Parliament should, as the legislatures in England, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen, and; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

“As long as the rules for Parliament are unwritten and unclear, the Prime Minister and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and Parliament’s ability to hold the government accountable will be undemocratically restricted,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

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


Background

8 Key Rules for a Fair and Democratic Parliament

  1. Until the Governor General has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Governor General will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in Parliament);
  2. The party that wins the most seats in the election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Governor General that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda;
  3. Within 30 days after the Governor General decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Governor General and the governing party/parties will open the legislature with a Speech from the Throne;
  4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the legislature do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Prime Minister-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of Parliament;
  5. If a majority of members in Parliament vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Governor General will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before calling an election;
  6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in Parliament that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The legislature does not have confidence in the government.”
  7. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament before the motion is voted on by Parliament, and;
  8. If a majority in Parliament votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Governor General will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister that the Governor General call an election.

Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public know rules for its minority government because they are written – B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public don’t because rules are unwritten

B.C. Party leaders should agree to written rules – as British MPs did in 2010 – making it clear when the legislature can be closed, what a vote of non-confidence is, when and how opposition parties will get a chance to govern, what will trigger next election etc.

As showdown over Speaker of the B.C. legislature continues, DWatch’s proposal to change to non-partisan, non-MLA Speaker is still the best solution (would be similar to B.C.’s non-MLA ethics and information commissioners, and AG and CEO)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, June 20, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, with B.C.’s legislature finally opening in two days, Democracy Watch called on the B.C. party leaders and the Lieutenant Governor to agree on public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want and as Britain’s Parliament did seven years ago with its 110-page Cabinet manual. Agreeing on and writing down the rules now (and making them law as soon as possible) will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election.

The rules should make clear: when the legislature can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern, and; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date (See Backgrounder below for the rules).

“Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public know the rules for its minority government because its rules are written but B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public don’t because its rules are unwritten,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “If B.C.’s politicians don’t agree to written rules for the minority government, several constitutional crises will very likely happen with politicians, lawyers and academics having ridiculous arguments, and the unelected, unaccountable Lieutenant Governor forced to make decisions, based on conflicting opinions about unwritten rules. Meanwhile, in Britain everyone will be following clear, written rules.”

“Nobody knows for sure what an unwritten rule says, and that’s why Britain, Australia, New Zealand and most other countries have written down their key constitutional rules,” said Conacher. “It’s clearly in the public interest that the rules be written down to stop unfair abuses of power by the ruling parties that will violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters right through to the next election.”

For example, Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politicians and public all know that the only way an election can occur before the next fixed election date under Britain’s Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is if at least two-thirds of MPs vote in favour of a motion to call an early election or if a resolution is passed that states the legislature has no confidence in the government and that resolution is not reversed within 14 days. Many commentators claimed Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May called a “snap” election – she didn’t she proposed an early election and more than two-thirds of MPs approved her proposal.

In contrast, B.C.’s Lieutenant Governor, politicians and public do not know how the next election could happen – which gives the unelected Lieutenant Governor enormous, unaccounable power. The current rules in B.C., are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw (and, as a result, a large majority of scholars agree they should be written down). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Premier and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Lieutenant Governor to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Premier from doing what they want.

Lieutenant governors in B.C. other provinces have almost never stopped a premier from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

In Britain, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public constitutional rules to ensure the legislature runs fairly (especially during a minority government) for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public rules written down in laws or their constitution concerning how the legislature runs and how elections happen.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said last August in an an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

After initial rules are enacted into law, the B.C. legislature should, as the legislatures in Britain, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: when the legislature is required to open after an election; which party has the right to attempt to govern first after an election; what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

As the showdown over the Speaker of the B.C. legislature continues, Democracy Watch again called on B.C. party leaders to change the province’s Constitution Act (section 37) so that the legislature has a non-partisan, non-MLA as Speaker. The change would take at most a month, as the Standing Orders of the Legislature (PDF) state in section 81: “On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.”

Establishing a non-MLA Speaker would be similar to the non-MLA B.C.’s legislature has already established for its other Officers of the Legislature – the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Information Commissioner, Auditor General and Chief Electoral Officer.

In the interim any MLA could serve as Speaker, even an MLA from the likely NDP-Green partnership government, as they could vote to break any ties in favour of the government without violating any constitutional convention given that conventions are vague, unwritten standards (which is why they should be written down as clear rules – see details above).

Some commentators have claimed that the legislature must also have a Deputy Speaker – in fact, section 37(3) of the Constitution Act says that the legislature “may” choose a Deputy Speaker so there is no requirement.

“Politicians shouldn’t ever be in a position like the speaker of a legislature where they judge other politicians because they are in a conflict of interest when doing so, and can easily make decisions for partisan, political reasons,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To prevent bad political decisions by the speaker of the B.C. legislature, and because of the current seat-split, it is a great time to change to a non-partisan, non-MLA speaker for the legislature.”

At the federal level, former Speaker of the House of Commons Andrew Scheer was a great example in 2014 of why you don’t want a partisan politician as Speaker when he let fellow Conservative MP Paul Calandra off the hook for clearly violating the rules concerning answering questions during Question Period.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign


BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

  1. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the legislature do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the legislature;
  2. If a majority of members in the legislature vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before calling an election;
  3. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in the legislature that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The legislature does not have confidence in the government.”
  4. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier to prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the legislature;
  5. If a majority in the legislature votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Premier that the Lieutenant Governor call an election;
  6. After the next election, until the Lieutenant Governor has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Lieutenant Governor will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in the legislature);
  7. The party that wins the most seats in the next election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Lieutenant Governor that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda, and;
  8. Within 30 days after the Lieutenant Governor decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Lieutenant Governor and the governing party/parties will open the legislature with a Speech from the Throne.

B.C. legislature should change to non-partisan, non-MLA Speaker – B.C.’s Constitution Act allows any MLA to preside over legislature until Act is changed

Party leaders should also agree to written rules making it clear when legislature will open, what a vote of non-confidence is, what will trigger next election etc., and should pass bill making the rules law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, June 5, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on B.C. party leaders to change the province’s Constitution Act (section 37) so that the legislature has a non-partisan, non-MLA as Speaker. The change would take at most a month, as the Standing Orders of the Legislature (PDF) state in section 81: “On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.”

In the interim any MLA could serve as Speaker, even an MLA from the likely NDP-Green partnership government, as they could vote to break any ties in favour of the government without violating any constitutional convention given that conventions are vague, unwritten standards (which is why they should be written down as clear rules – see details below).

Some commentators have claimed that the legislature must also have a Deputy Speaker – in fact, section 37(3) of the Constitution Act says that the legislature “may” choose a Deputy Speaker so there is no requirement.

“Politicians shouldn’t ever be in a position like the speaker of a legislature where they judge other politicians because they are in a conflict of interest when doing so, and can easily make decisions for partisan, political reasons,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “To prevent bad political decisions by the speaker of the B.C. legislature, and because of the current seat-split, it is a great time to change to a non-partisan, non-MLA speaker for the legislature.”

At the federal level, former Speaker of the House of Commons Andrew Scheer was a great example in 2014 of why you don’t want a partisan politician as Speaker when he let fellow Conservative MP Paul Calandra off the hook for clearly violating the rules concerning answering questions during Question Period.

Democracy Watch also called on the B.C. party leaders and the Lieutenant Governor to agree on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Agreeing on the rules now will help ensure the legislature runs fairly and democratically through to the next election.

The rules should make clear: when the legislature will open; when it can be closed; what a vote of non-confidence is; when and how the opposition parties may get a chance to govern and; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

The current rules are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw (and, as a result, a large majority of scholars agree they should be written down). The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Premier and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Lieutenant Governor to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Premier from doing what they want.

Lieutenant governors in B.C. other provinces have almost never stopped a premier from doing whatever they want, and have allowed premiers to abuse their powers by not opening the legislature after an election, shutting it down arbitrarily for months, and calling snap elections in violation of fixed-election-date laws. The Governor General allowed Prime Minister Harper to call a snap election in 2008 in violation of the (too vague) fixed-election-date law, to prorogue Parliament in a very questionable minority government situation, and to declare many votes in Parliament as confidence votes even though they were clearly not confidence votes.

In England, Australia and New Zealand, political party leaders and MPs agreed years ago to clear, public rules so what happens after an election is fair for all the parties, and for voters. Most countries in the world also have clear, public post-election rules.

As well, a survey of more than 2,000 Canadians by Harris-Decima in November-December 2012 showed that 84% of adult Canadians want enforceable rules to restrict key powers of the Prime Minister and provincial premiers.

The Governor General also said last August in an an interview with the Hill Times that he thought these unwritten constitutional conventions should be written down.

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for B.C.’s political party leaders and Lieutenant Governor to fail to approve eight key rules for a minority government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “It is clearly in the public interest that the rules be approved to stop unfair abuses of power by the ruling party that violate the rights of the legislature and the democratic will of the majority of voters.”

After the eight rules are enacted into law, the B.C. legislature should, as the legislatures in England, Australia and New Zealand have, examine and enact other fairness rules to ensure the legislature and MLAs can hold the government accountable. The rules should cover the following key areas: what can be included in omnibus bills; the freedom and powers of individual politicians to vote how they want on resolutions and bills; how members of legislature committees are chosen, and; what a Cabinet can do during an election campaign period until the next Cabinet is chosen.

“As long as the rules for the legislature are unwritten and unclear in B.C., the premier and ruling party will be able to abuse their powers and the legislature’s ability to hold the government accountable will be undemocratically restricted,” said Conacher.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign


BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

  1. Until the Lieutenant Governor has communicated directly with all the party leaders, the Lieutenant Governor will not make a decision about which party or parties (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) will be given the opportunity to govern first (i.e. to appoint a Cabinet and introduce a Speech from the Throne in the legislature);
  2. The party that wins the most seats in the election will be given the first opportunity to govern, including in partnership or coalition with another party, unless the leaders of other parties representing a majority of members of the legislature indicate clearly to the Lieutenant Governor that they will not support that party and that they have agreed to form a coalition government or have agreed on a common legislative agenda;
  3. Within 30 days after the Lieutenant Governor decides which party or parties will be given the first opportunity to govern, the Lieutenant Governor and the governing party/parties will open the legislature with a Speech from the Throne;
  4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the legislature do not indicate lack of support for the party that wins the most seats before that party’s Speech from the Throne, if they subsequently indicate lack of support for the Speech, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the legislature;
  5. If a majority of members in the legislature vote against the Speech from the Throne, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agreement) before calling an election;
  6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in the legislature that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The legislature does not have confidence in the government.”
  7. If opposition parties introduce a motion of non-confidence in the governing party at any time after election day, the Lieutenant Governor will not allow the Premier to prorogue the legislature before the motion is voted on by the legislature, and;
  8. If a majority in the legislature votes to approve a motion of non-confidence in the governing party before the next fixed-election date, the Lieutenant Governor will give the opposition parties an opportunity to govern (through either a formal coalition or legislative agenda agreement) before agreeing to any request by the Premier that the Lieutenant Governor call an election.

Democracy Watch calls on Elections BC to request a prosecution within 30 days of everyone who illegally concealed political donations, and to issue a public report within 60 days on all likely concealed donations

Special prosecutor needed for all cases to prevent political interference – Saturday’s Globe and Mail article shows Elections B.C. has been negligent in enforcing law

B.C. political parties should also democratize province’s political finance system to match Quebec’s $100 annual donation limit and other world-leading measures

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, March 6, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Elections B.C. to end its negligent enforcement of the provincial political donation rules by, within 30 days, investigating and recommending prosecution of everyone revealed by Saturday’s Globe and Mail article to be involved in schemes where lobbyists made donations to the B.C. Liberals and then were reimbursed by their clients.

Democracy Watch also called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to handle all the cases to help prevent political interference in the prosecutions by the B.C. Liberal Cabinet. Under B.C.’s provincial Elections Act section 252, the CEO must approve all prosecutions and, especially because so few such cases have been in the courts in the past, the policy of the CEO for these cases should be to request prosecution of all of the individuals involved and let the courts decide whether they have violated the law.

“The fact that the media is discovering violations of political donation rules that Elections B.C. hasn’t even looked for shows that Elections B.C. has been negligent in enforcing the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Elections B.C. has to start enforcing the law properly by requesting prosecution within 30 days of everyone who has been involved in illegal donation concealed schemes in the past year, and by immediately auditing donation lists to find all illegally concealed donations since the last election and issuing a report within 60 days.”

“It would not only be negligent for Elections B.C. to let anyone who has violated the rules off the hook with just a warning, instead of requesting that they be prosecuted, it will also encourage more violations in the future,” said Conacher. “A special prosecutor is needed for all these cases to prevent interference by the B.C. Liberal Cabinet.”

Democracy Watch called on the CEO to issue a special public report within 60 days on all large individual donations that were likely funneled from businesses or unions through their executives (or their family members), employees or lobbyists since the last election. This report can easily be done, and should have been done every year in the past by Elections B.C., by comparing the donation database with the lobbyists registry database, and with the business registry database, and with the list of executives of B.C.’s unions.

Elections B.C. should then follow up on that report by investigating and requesting prosecution of everyone who has been involved in an illegally concealed donation scheme in the past four years.

Democracy Watch and the PIPE UP Network are currently challenging in court the B.C. Liberal Cabinet’s approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline because of the appearance of conflict of interest caused by more than $550,000 in donations to the B.C. Liberals from pipeline related companies in the past few years.

Democracy Watch is also challenging in court the B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s ruling that no conflicts of interest were caused by B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s high-priced, exclusive fundraising events.

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition also called on the B.C. government to make the same world-leading changes to the province’s political donation system (including at the municipal level) as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Democracy Watch detailed in a January 31st news release the key changes needed stop cash for access or the unethical influence of big money donations. More than 6,000 B.C. voters have called for these changes to B.C.’s provincial donation rules through Democracy Watch’s Change.org petition.

“The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations,” said Conacher. “Any political party that refuses to support key changes to the B.C. political finance system changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Democracy Watch appeals ruling that Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s decision on B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s $50,000 salary and “cash-for-access” events can’t be challenged in court

Ruling means complaints to Conflicts Commissioner by members of the public about the Premier or Cabinet Ministers are effectively a meaningless dead end

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, February 24, 2017

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch appealed B.C. Supreme Court Justice Affleck’s ruling in January that no court challenges are allowed of B.C. Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser’s decisions because they are unreviewable opinions with no direct legal effect limiting the Premier’s conflicts of interest. The notice of appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal can be seen here.

The decision under appeal means that members of the public who make a complaint to the Commissioner about the Premier’s conflicts of interest are not entitled to a remedy, and are not even entitled to any assurance that the Commissioner himself has not been compromised by his own conflict of interest.

The ruling also stopped Democracy Watch’s court case filed last October challenging the Commissioner’s decisions last May and August that Premier Christy Clark’s high-priced, exclusive fundraising events don’t create conflicts of interest for her, and that the donations made at the events do not benefit her personally. Democracy Watch also challenged the Commissioner’s own conflict of interest in ruling on the situation given his son works for Premier Clark’s Cabinet.

“The court unfortunately decided that no one can challenge Commissioner Fraser’s unethical decision that it is legal and ethical for Premier Clark and Liberal Cabinet ministers to sell access to themselves at high-priced, invite-only secretive fundraising events, and that the events don’t create any conflicts of interest,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time, and the court did not even consider this issue. For all these reasons, Democracy Watch is appealing the ruling.”

Jason Gratl of the law firm Gratl and Company, who is Democracy Watch’s counsel for the case, said: “We say simply that it is an error to find that conflicts of members of the Executive Council, including the Premier, are not always and not in this case protected by legislative privilege”.

According to media reports, Premier Clark has hosted or attended several, invitation-only fundraising events for the B.C. Liberals with he was in a conflict of interest, and also attended an event in her riding association sponsored for $2,500 each by four sponsors. Premier Clark received an annual salary from the B.C. Liberals for, in part, fundraising activities over the past few years, and that is part of the reason she is in a conflict of interest.

The B.C. Members’ Conflict of Interest Act prohibits the Premier and all MLAs from exercising their official powers or performing any official duties or functions if they have an opportunity to further their private interest or if there is a reasonable perception that their private interest affects their actions or decisions (sections 2 and 3). It also prohibits them from receiving any gift or personal benefit directly or indirectly connected to their position (section 7).

Democracy Watch, which filed a complaint with Commissioner Fraser about the Premier’s fundraising events last March, takes the position that Premier Clark benefited personally and was in a conflict of interest when attending the events because she receives some of the money raised as her salary from the B.C. Liberal Party. Democracy Watch’s position is also that the events created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark that prohibit her from making decisions that affect any company or organization that had a representative at any of the events.

Commissioner Fraser ruled on May 4 and August 9, 2016 that the donations made at the events did not benefit Premier Clark personally, and did not amount to a private interest that put her in a conflict of interest. He essentially refused to rule on whether the donations created ongoing conflicts of interest for Premier Clark when she is making policy decisions that affect the donors – he didn’t even investigate to find out who attended the events.

Democracy Watch’s case also asked the court to rule that Commissioner Fraser should not have ruled on the complaints filed about the events because he was in a conflict of interest given that his son works as a deputy minister for the B.C. Liberal Cabinet. In 2012, Commissioner Fraser stepped aside and didn’t rule on a complaint filed about Premier Clark because of his son’s connection to the B.C. Liberals. Democracy Watch wanted the court to order a reexamination of the complaints by another person who is fully independent of all B.C. political parties. Justice Affleck did not consider this issue in his ruling.

“Democracy Watch’s position is that big donations made at private fundraising events where the politician is essentially selling access to themselves are a clear violation of the conflict-of-interest law, and we hope the B.C. Court of Appeal will agree and overrule Commissioner Fraser’s decision that the donations didn’t benefit Premier Clark or put her in a conflict of interest,” said Conacher. “Commissioner Fraser stepped aside from ruling on a situation involving Premier Clark in 2012 because of his son’s work with the B.C. Liberals, and he should have stepped aside again this time. Commissioner Fraser’s apparent conflict of interest and the legal errors in his ruling give the appeal court many reasons to reject his ruling on Premier Clark’s fundraising events.”

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition also called on B.C.’s political parties to change the provincial Conflict of Interest Act to make the Commissioner’s rulings clearly binding on politicians, and also to allow anyone to appeal to the courts for a review of any decision by the Commissioner, including about the Commissioner’s conflicts of interest.

“It is dangerously undemocratic for B.C. to have an ethics law that politicians can ignore, and an ethics commissioner who is an unaccountable czar, and so B.C.’s political ethics law must be changed to ensure the commissioner’s rulings are binding and that court challenges of the commissioner’s rulings and the commissioner’s conflicts of interest are allowed,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch and the nation-wide Money in Politics Coalition also called on the B.C. government to make the same world-leading changes to the province’s political donation system (including at the municipal level) as Quebec made in 2013 when it lowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party, with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate, and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates.

Democracy Watch detailed in a January 31st news release the key changes needed stop cash for access or the unethical influence of big money donations.

“The only way to stop the unethical and undemocratic influence of big money in B.C. politics is to stop big money donations,” said Conacher. “Any political party that refuses to support key changes to the B.C. political finance system changes is essentially admitting they are up for sale and that they approve of the unethical and undemocratic best-government-money-can-buy approach to politics.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Money in Politics Campaign

Thank you for donating!

Thank you very much for your donation to support Democracy Watch’s campaigns to stop abuses of power by governments and big businesses across Canada, and to make Canada the world’s leading democracy.

Your transaction has been completed, and a receipt for your donation should have been emailed to you. If you donated using PayPal, you may log into your account at www.paypal.com to view details of your transaction.

If you donated using your credit card, your next monthly statement will show details of your donation to Democracy Watch.

Thank you again – we couldn’t win key democracy changes for you and all Canadians without your support!

Cheers,
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
and the whole Democracy Watch team

As Quebec’s experience shows clearly, Ontario Liberals proposed annual political donation limit of $7,750 to each party won’t do anything to stop unethical influence of wealthy interests

Should be lowered to Quebec limit of $100, and annual per-vote public funding amount also much too high — ban on corporate, union etc. donations, and limits on party and third-party ad spending, are good

Changes should be made at same time to municipal system across province

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, May 6, 2016

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch and the 50-member group Money in Politics Coalition applauded some of the Ontario Liberals’ proposed political finance reforms, but called on them to lower their proposed annual political donation limit, and annual per-vote funding amount, because both are much too high. The Liberals should also make their proposals available to the public – they were only provided to opposition parties and the media yesterday and are not on any Ontario government website.

According to media reports, the Liberals are proposing the following good changes: a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations; limits on political party and third party advertising leading up to an election, and during an election campaign period, and; limits on donations to party leadership race candidates.

However, instead of matching Quebec’s world-leading political finance system of a $100 annual individual donation limit to each party, and annual public per-vote and matching funding, the Liberals are instead proposing that individuals be allowed to donate up to $7,750 annually to each party, as follows: $1,550 annually to a political party; $1,550 annually to an individual candidate (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s candidates); and $1,550 to a constituency association (with a maximum of $3,100 to all of a party’s constituency associations). And the Liberals are not proposing to limit loans at all.

“The Ontario Liberals’ proposed annual individual political donation limit of $7,750 to each party is clearly undemocratic because it is almost 80 times higher than an average voter can afford,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Chairperson of the Money in Politics Coalition. “As Quebec’s corruption scandal shows clearly, such a high donation limit will allow wealthy individuals to continue to use money as an unethical way to influence politicians, and will also allow corporations, unions and other organizations to continue to donate large amounts by having their executives and their family members all make the maximum donation each year.”

“The Ontario Liberals’ proposed high donation limit will only hide the corrupting influence of donations from wealthy interests, not stop it,” said Conacher.

Even if funneling donations is made illegal (as it was in Quebec), the donors will just claim they were not forced by their company or union to make the donation, and no one will be able to prove otherwise.

Few have been charged in Quebec’s corruption scandal even though an Elections Quebec audit found $12.8 million in likely illegally funneled donations from 2006-2011. To stop the corruption, in 2013 Quebec llowered its individual donation limit to $100 annually to each party , with an additional $100 allowed to be donated to an independent candidate), and required donations to be verified by Elections Quebec before being transferred to parties and candidates. Ontario should make the same democratic changes.

The Ontario Liberals should also lower the proposed annual per-vote public funding subsidy from $2.26 per vote to no more than $1 per vote, and implement the same annual public funding matching system as Quebec ($2.50 for the first $20,000 raised annually by each party, and $1 for the first $200,000 raised annually). Elections Quebec has analyzed the results of Quebec’s changes and found that the parties are still adequately funded.

“To match Quebec’s world-leading democratic system, Ontario must limit individual donations to about $100 annually and use per-vote and matching public funding to give parties and candidates funding based on their actual level of voter support,” said Conacher. “Similar changes should be made to Ontario’s municipal law, taking into account that there are no parties at the municipal level, so that every municipality in the province has the same democratic rules.”

The key changes Ontario must make to actually democratize its provincial political finance system are as follows (and similar changes should be made province-wide to the municipal political finance system, taking into account that there are no political parties at the municipal level):

  • a ban on donations by corporations, unions and other organizations (Quebec enacted such a ban in the late 1970s);
  • a limit on annual donations by individuals to each party of $100-200 annually (Quebec’s limit is $100) with donations routed through the election watchdog agency (as in Quebec);
  • a prohibition on loans to political parties, riding associations and candidates, except from a public fund (with loans limited to the average annual amount of donations received during the previous two years);
  • a limit on spending during leading up to, and during election campaigns by parties, nomination race and election candidates, third party interest groups, and candidates in party leadership races;
  • disclosure of all donations and gifts of money, property, services and volunteer labour given to any party, riding association, politician, nomination race, election or party leadership candidate, including the identity of the donor’s employer, and board and executive affiliations (and the identity of organizers of any fundraising event);
  • a base amount of annual public funding for parties based on each vote received during the last election (which Quebec has — no more than $1 per vote, with a portion required to be shared with riding associations);
  • annual public funding for parties matching the first $100,000-$200,000 raised (as in Quebec);
  • public funding for candidates matching the first $20,000 raised (as in Quebec), and;
  • a requirement that election, donation and ethics watchdogs conduct annual random audits to ensure all the rules are being followed by everyone.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Money in Politics Campaign