Voluntary, vague disclosure and investment plans announced today by alliance of banks and other financial institutions too weak to stop polluting investments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, November 3, 2021

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch, backed by thousands of Canadians that have sent a letter through its Stop Fossil Fuel Financing Campaign and/or signed its Change.org petition, called on Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Ontario Premier Doug Ford to work together with all parties and make three key changes that will expose, and end, fossil fuel financing by Canada’s Big Banks and other key financial institutions, and empower financial consumers and retail investors to have a much greater say in what financial institutions are doing with their money.

Democracy Watch is one of 231 organizations in 38 countries calling for key changes to disclose and stop bank financing of fossil fuels and other major polluting industries that are causing the climate crisis.

According to research by the Rainforest Action Network and other organizations, 3 of Canada’s Big 5 Banks are among the top 12 banks worldwide financing the fossil-fuel industry, and the other 2 are in the top 25 banks. Click here to see their report.

It was difficult for the organizations to find out this information, and Canada’s Big Banks are denying it is accurate. The information also doesn’t include other Canadian financial institutions, such as insurance companies, that support the industry, nor does it cover other major industries that create the pollution that is causing the climate crisis.

At the ongoing international meeting addressing the climate crisis (COP26), an international alliance of banks and other financial institutions (GFANZ) led by former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney announced today a voluntary plan that will let them continue to hide their actual investments in fossil fuels and other polluting industries, and do little to stop those investments, for at least another decade.

Democracy Watch supports Reclaim Finance’s critical analysis of the weak and flawed plan proposed by GFANZ.

In April’s federal government budget, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland didn’t include any measures to require the Big Banks or other financial institutions to disclose their climate-related investments. The government only committed to talk to provincial and territorial governments about disclosure (p. 175).

The international Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) has recommended requiring disclosure, as did an Ontario government task force in January 2021 (Recommendation 41, pp. 68-71). Canada’s Big Banks and other financial institutions are also not required to lend and invest in actually sustainable businesses that will create long-term jobs that don’t pollute or harm Canadians and their communities.

“Canada’s big banks and other financial institutions wouldn’t be able to operate without our money, and so they shouldn’t be allowed to keep details of their fossil fuel industry loans, investments and insurance secret from us or be allowed to make up their own voluntary disclosure and investment standards,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch, which has led the bank accountability movement in Canada in the past 25 years. “The federal and Ontario governments must require all financial institutions to disclose their fossil fuel financing, to finance only actually sustainable big businesses, and establish two citizen groups that will empower financial consumers and retail investors to have more say over how financial institutions are using their money.”

Democracy Watch Stop Fossil Fuel Financing Campaign calls for 3 key changes which either the federal government (through federal laws) or the Ontario government (through securities laws) can make. The changes that would require disclosure of fossil-fuel investments by banks and other key financial institutions; require them to finance only actually sustainable big businesses, and empower financial consumers and investors to ensure their money is used to support sustainable, job-creating businesses:

1. Require banks, insurance, trust and mutual fund companies, and other financial institutions, to disclose their lending, investments and insurance for the fossil fuel industry, and all other major carbon-producing industries (coal, heavy manufacturing), by company as recommended by the international Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD);
2. Add the Equator Principles and other real sustainability rules to Canada’s and Ontario’s laws to require banks and other financial institutions to lend, invest and provide insurance only to actually sustainable big businesses, and;
3. Establish a Financial Consumer Organization (FCO) using this innovative method that has been proven effective in the U.S., and an Individual Investor Organization (IIO) using the same method. Together these groups will exponentially increase the information available to financial institution customers and individual investors about how financial institutions use and invest their money, and will also exponentially increase the power of financial consumers and individual investors to have a say in the use of their money, and to push for actually responsible, sustainable investing.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Stop Fossil Fuel Financing Campaign and Bank Accountability Campaign and Corporate Responsibility Campaign

Lobbying Commissioner trying to hide details of her investigation and ruling – judge will decide what Commissioner has to disclose

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch announced that the Federal Court rejected the Trudeau government’s motion requesting that the court stop the cases Democracy Watch filed in August 2020 challenging the federal Commissioner of Lobbying’s rulings about lobbyists Ben Bergen and Dana O’Born of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI).

The cases are continuing, and the next step is that the Commissioner is trying to stop the court and Democracy Watch from seeing the details of her investigation and findings that led to her ruling. Under the Lobbying Act, investigations are conducted in private, but under Federal Court rules the Commissioner is required to disclose the record of her investigation so that the court can fully review whether it was conducted properly, and whether the rulings were also proper.

The Commissioner and Democracy Watch will file their submissions on the investigation disclosure issue over the next month, and then the court will issue its ruling sometime after that. Democracy Watch is represented by Andrew Montague-Reinholdt and Rhian Foley of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP. The cases are Federal Court file nos. T-915-20 and T-916-20.

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

1. co-managed Chrystia Freeland’s 2015 election campaign;
2. continued to work in senior roles with her riding association post-election, and;
3. then were hired for the top positions at CCI and lobbied in 2017 Freeland’s then-Parliamentary Secretary David Lametti, her office staff, and senior officials in her then-International Trade department, including deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and special assistants.

Democracy Watch’s case argues that Bergen and O’Born’s lobbying violated Lobbyists’ Code rules.

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

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

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

The SCC decided not to hear DWatch’s appeal. However, the Bergen and O’Born cases are different because the Commissioner issued final rulings under section 10.5 of the Lobbying Act after investigating. In contrast, in the Aga Khan case, the Commissioner refused to investigate under subsection 10.4(1) of the Act.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign

Senate Ethics Officer has ignored how several senators’ business board and employee positions and investments violate key ethics code rules

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 18, 2021

OTTAWA –Democracy Watch criticized the so-called “Independent Senators Group” (ISG) for planning to hold a secretive, closed-door hearing today to decide whether to expel Senator Marilou McPhedran for questioning weak, loophole-filled Senate ethics and anti-harassment rules and enforcement.

“If they want to claim to be independent, senators in the so-called Independent Senators Group should have rejected the attempt to use a secretive, kangaroo court process to punish a senator for questioning the Senate’s weak, loophole-filled ethics and anti-harassment measures,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Senators in the ISG should be ashamed for trying to expel Senator McPhedran, and it shows yet again why the Senate should be abolished as senators continue to refuse to reform it in any meaningful ways to make it democratic, ethical and accountable.”

The Senate’s anti-harassment measures, like the measures across the federal government, are far from a best-practice system to protect complainants who blow the whistle on wrongdoing.

In terms of ethics, the Senate’s Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators is full of loopholes, and Senate Ethics Officer Pierre Legault continues to fail to issue guidelines for key (but vague) rules in the Code. In fact, in July 2021, the Ethics Officer finally issued the first guidelines ever issued since the office was created in 2005, but only for two of the many rules in the Code.

Specifically, the Senate Ethics Officer continues to fail to explain how more than 60 senators (To see list, click here) can be paid to be board members of businesses or organizations and/or have stock market or mutual fund investments (but not disclose which companies they are invested in) and/or other paid work, and yet not be in violation of:

1. subsection 2(1) of the Code which requires senators to give precedence to their parliamentary duties and functions over any other duty or activity;
2. subsection 2(2) which sets out principles senators are expected to uphold, including avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest,
3. section 7.1 that requires senators to “uphold the highest standards of dignity” and prohibits acting in a way that “could reflect adversely” on the position of Senator or the Senate overall, and;
4. section 7.2 requires senators to perform their parliamentary functions and duties with “dignity, honour and integrity.”

“No senator can claim to be independent or provide sober second thought on any issue when they are on the board of or working for a private business or firm or have secret financial investments in the stock market,” said Conacher. “Senators should be required to work only as senators, and should only be allowed to invest in term deposits and government bonds, to prevent conflicts with their duty to act in the public interest.”

Democracy Watch sent a letter in September 2018 to Ethics Officer Legault calling on him to issue a ruling that Senator Larry Campbell’s then-position as a board member with Great Canadian Gaming Corporation (with stock options in the company), a position he retired from only in June 2021, violated the purpose and rules 2(1), 2(2) and 7.2 of the Senate ethics code.

In the letter, Democracy Watch also called on the Ethics Officer Legault to review the board positions and investments of all senators, and to issue the same ruling for any senator who holds a position as a board member, executive or employee, or who has investments, in any corporation that has interests in the province they represent or interests affected by federal laws duties because their board and financial interests conflict with the overall public interest that senators have a duty to represent and uphold under their ethics code.

“The Senate ethics rules require senators to dedicate themselves to their duties as a senator over all other activities, and to always act with integrity and avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, and no senator can comply with those rules when they are a board member, executive or investor in a corporation that is regulated by federal laws or operates in the province they are supposed to represent,” said Conacher. “Senators can unethically help their company’s interests not only by taking part in discussions, debates and votes that affect the company’s interests but also by not doing anything such as not making any public statements or proposals that would hurt the company’s interests.”

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Government Ethics Campaign and Shut Down the Senate Campaign

Snap election call during August holiday period, party misleaders, voting system, weak political ethics laws and platforms, and pandemic combine to lower voter turnout to about 62 percent

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, September 24, 2021

OTTAWA – Today, in response to low voter turnout in Prime Minister Trudeau’s selfish and unnecessary summer snap election, Democracy Watch called for democratic changes to the federal political system to increase voter turnout. Initial results show that the Trudeau Liberals have won 47% (159 out of 338) of the seats in the House of Commons with the support of only 20% of eligible voters, which raises serious questions about their mandate to govern, let alone implement any specific law or policy.

Only about 62% of eligible voters cast a ballot, which puts the election among the five federal elections with the lowest turnout in Canadian history (2011, 2008, 2004, 2000 and 1896). A total of about 32.5% of the ballots cast were for the Liberals.

Voter turnout likely decreased in part because of Trudeau’s summer snap election call which led to the cancellation of on-campus polling stations and the reduction in polling stations in many ridings that caused long lineups on election day, as well as problems with the mail-in ballot system. However, even the 67-68% turnout in the 2015 and 2019 elections is still significantly below the turnout levels of 75% or more in many elections in the 1970s and 1980s.

“With only about 62 percent of voters casting ballots in the federal election, the fifth lowest turnout ever, and only 20 percent of eligible voters supporting the winning party, alarm bells should be going off and questions raised about the legitimacy of the federal government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Voter turnout will go up significantly only if honesty is required in politics, the voting system is changed to a proportional system with the right to vote none-of-the-above, and political ethics and government accountability laws are strengthened.”

Federal parties must ensure make the following changes if they want to increase voter turnout to the past level of about 75% in many elections in the 1970s and 1980s, or even higher:

1. Pass an honesty-in-politics law that gives voters an easy, low-cost way to file complaints to the Ethics Commissioner, and requires the Commissioner to penalize misleaders (and requires MPs who switch parties in-between elections to resign and run in a by-election), and also enact effective measures to stop false claims during elections, especially online;
2. Add the right to vote “none of the above” and to give a reason on election and by-election ballots;
3. Move the fixed election date to the last Monday in October to make it easier for people with kids, and students, to follow and participate in the election campaign and have the identification needed to vote. Democracy Watch has filed a court case challenging Trudeau’s snap election call as a violation of the fixed election date measures in Canada’s election law,
4. Change the voting system to provide a more accurate representation of the popular vote results in each election in the seats held by each party in the legislature (as in many other countries) while ensuring that all elected officials are supported by, and are accountable to, voters in each riding/constituency (with a safeguard to ensure that a party with a low-level, narrow-base of support does not have a disproportionately high level of power in the legislature), and;
5. Strengthen federal political ethics, political finance, lobbying, open government, and whistleblower protection laws (the Green Party received the best grade of C- in overall bad grades in DWatch’s Report Card on the parties’ election platforms);
6. Mandate Elections Canada to spend the $5 million or so it spends each election on voter education advertising on ads that include the following two key messages in their voter education advertising and communications – the real reasons to vote – which its partner organization Democracy Education Network includes in its VoteParty.ca and VotePromise.ca voter turnout initiatives:
   1. “You never know when your vote may count” — with examples from past elections, and from specific ridings in various elections, which show clearly that election results cannot be predicted in advance, and;
   2. “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.

These changes will make it easy and give voters many more compelling reasons to vote as they will know that voting for a specific party will mean their vote will count and the party’s promises will be kept, and they will be more assured of democratic, accountable good government overall no matter which party wins.

“More and more voters know from their experience of the past few decades of elections that they are not going to get what they vote for, and are likely to get dishonest, secretive, unethical, unrepresentative and wasteful government no matter which party they vote for, and as a result no one should be surprised to see voter turnout at such a low level,” said Conacher.

These problems exist in all the provinces and territories across Canada. All of these changes should be made by the federal and provincial and territorial governments, and for their municipalities, before mandatory voting is even considered because forcing voters to vote creates false legitimacy for political parties and politicians (and mandatory voting must never be implemented unless “none of the above” is one of the options on the ballot). Internet voting should also not even be considered currently given it would dangerously undermine the integrity of the voting system.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Democratic Voting System Campaign

NDP and Conservatives tie with D- while Liberals, Bloc and PPC all receive an F

Great to see Green Party promise to enact an honesty-in-politics law but, given lack of law and past pattern of ruling party breaking half of democratic reform promises, voters should be very skeptical of every promise made by every party

8 key, written rules needed to have a fair post-election, and fair minority government

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Saturday, September 18, 2021

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its Report Card on the Federal Parties’ 2021 Democratic Reform Platforms (See the summary Report Card below, and click here to see the full Report Card).

The Green Party received a C- as the best grade of overall bad grades for all the parties, as their platform was weaker than their 2011 election platform when they received a B- grade.

The NDP and Conservatives tied with D- while the Liberals, Bloc and Conservatives received an F.

One breakthrough is that the Green Party promised to enact an honesty-in-politics law to ensure parties tell the truth during election and referendum campaigns – the first federal party to make such a promise – and the Green Party and NDP also both promised measures to address misinformation and disinformation, especially online.

However, given the current lack of an honesty-in-politics law, and the fact that Prime Minister Chrétien, Prime Minister Harper, and Prime Minister Trudeau all failed to keep half of their democratic reform promises (Prime Minister Martin didn’t make any), voters should be very skeptical of every promise made by every party.

The Liberals’ platform is a failure compared to their 2015 election platform that received a B grade, and is as weak as their democratic reform record since 2015:

1. the Liberals broke most of their open government promises;
2. Prime Minister Trudeau broke his electoral reform promise;
3. they failed to make the political finance system more democratic;
4. they ignored recommendations to strengthen whistleblower protection in a unanimous House Committee report;
5. they ignored recommendations to stop secret, fake online election ads in a unanimous House Committee report, and;
6. Prime Minister Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet ministers have been involved in many secrecy and ethics scandals.

The Conservatives platform was very weak compared to their 2006 election platform when they were elected into power – in that platform the Conservatives promised 60 democratic reform and government accountability changes in their so-called “Federal Accountability Act”, and earned them a B grade.

The NDP’s platform was also very weak compared to their 2015 election platform when they earned a B grade.

Many surveys over the past 15 years have shown that a large majority of voters do not trust politicians, and want honesty, ethics, lobbying, open government and other reforms to stop politicians from abusing their power. Hundreds of thousands of messages have been sent to federal party leaders and politicians through Democracy Watch’s campaigns calling for the 100 changes needed to ensure fully democratic and accountable federal government and politics.

“All the federal parties have unfortunately failed to respond to high voter concern about democracy and trust issues,” said Duff Conacher, Founding Director of Democracy Watch and chairperson of its four nation-wide coalitions. “The party leaders should not be surprised by the lack of support they will receive from voters on election day. One can only hope that the parties will actually address these concerns when Parliament opens again so that everyone in federal politics will, finally after 154 years, be effectively required to act honestly, ethically, openly, representatively and to prevent waste.”

“While it is notable that the Green Party has promised an honesty-in-politics law, given the current lack of such a law, voters should be wary of trusting any political promises,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch and the coalitions it leads will continue to push for all 100 key changes.

– 30 –

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

Democracy Watch’s Campaigns page

Sources

Bloc Québécois platform webpage
(NOTE: See part 16 “Éthique” on page 16 of platform)

Conservative Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 68-70 of platform PDF)

Green Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 87-89 of platform PDF)

Liberal Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 164-167 of platform PDF)

NDP platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 116-119 of platform PDF)

People’s Party of Canada platform webpage

Rules should make it clear when the legislature will open, what a vote of non-confidence is, what will trigger next election etc.

Should issue public statement of agreement on rules before Monday, and then first bill passed by Parliament should make the rules law (as many other countries have)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, September 16, 2021

OTTAWA – Today, with all surveys pointing to another minority government, Democracy Watch called on federal party leaders to learn the lessons of past minority governments and reach an agreement this week on eight public, written rules for a fair, democratic minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want, and as the former Governor General called for in August 2016 in an interview with the Hill Times. Agreeing on the rules now will help ensure everything runs fairly, democratically and transparently in the days after the election, and 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; which party will get to try governing first after the next election. (Click here to see Background listing the 8 rules)

The current rules are unclear because they are unwritten constitutional conventions – even constitutional scholars disagree what lines they draw. A large majority (78%) of constitutional scholars surveyed in fall 2012 supported writing down the conventions. The vagueness in the rules effectively allows the elected Prime Minister and ruling party to abuse their powers and violate the rules, as the only way to stop violations is for the unelected, unaccountable Governor General to decide that a violation has occurred and to try to stop the elected Prime Minister from doing what they want.

The Governor General, and lieutenant governors in several provinces, have almost never stopped a Prime Minister or 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 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. The Governor General also allowed Prime Minister Trudeau to call a snap election in August in violation of the fixed-election-date law.

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.

“There are no legal or other justifiable reasons for Canada’s political party leaders and the Governor General to fail to approve eight key rules for a fair, democratic 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 Prime Minister and ruling party that violate the rights of Parliament 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 federal 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: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign