So-called “blind” trust is a sham as Premier Ford still knows he owns the companies, and he tried to help clients of his family company when he was a Toronto city councilor – strong fairness monitor and regular audits needed

DWatch also calls on Commissioner to issue public guidelines for key ethics rules, and to recommend strongly that key, unethical loopholes be closed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, November 27, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it sent to Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake calling on him to update Premier Ford’s financial interests disclosure statement immediately, and also impose further conditions on his trust for his family business, and call for key changes to close huge loopholes in the province government’s ethics law.

According to a recent article in the Globe and Mail, Premier Ford’s family company changed its name to Deco Flexible Packaging Ltd. on August 9, 2019. As well, Premier Ford’s June 7, 2018 Public Disclosure Statement says that he was earning a salary from Deco Adhesive Products (1985) Limited, and from Deco Labels & Tags Ltd.

The Premier is required by subsection 20(4) of the Members’ Integrity Act to update the Integrity Commissioner within 30 days after a change in his and his spouse’s and dependants’ financial interests, and the Integrity Commissioner is responsible for preparing and posting MPPs’ statements in the Public Registry. Accurate statements are key for government officials, the public and the media to be able to monitor for conflicts of interests.

“Premier Ford’s financial interests statement says he is receiving a salary from family businesses under their old company names, and if he failed to update the Integrity Commissioner about the name and any salary changes he should be found guilty of violating the provincial government’s ethics law,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “If Premier Ford did update the Integrity Commissioner about the name change and any salary changes, then the Integrity Commissioner should have updated Premier Ford’s statement immediately.”

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Commissioner Wake to use his powers under the Members’ Integrity Act (“Act”) to require Premier Ford to do much more than set up a so-called “blind” trust for his family companies in order to prevent conflicts of interest. Under subsection 12(2) of the Act (referring to clause 11(3)(1)), Commissioner Wake must approve the provisions of any trust to ensure it will actually prevent conflicts of interest.

“A so-called blind trust for Premier Ford doesn’t do anything to prevent him from helping his family companies because he knows that he owns the companies, and he receives updates from his family and trustee about the companies, and so the Integrity Commissioner must impose other strong enforcement measures to ensure Premier Ford and his family’s companies and their clients don’t profit from his or his Cabinet’s decisions,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch called on Commissioner Wake to require a fairness monitor as part of the provisions of Premier Ford’s trust for all government policy-making processes and transactions that directly or indirectly affect Premier Ford’s family companies and/or clients of the companies. Democracy Watch also called on Commissioner Wake, or the fairness monitor, to conduct regular audits of all communications of Premier Ford and staff in his office, to ensure they don’t try to influence decisions to favour his companies or their clients.

These measures are needed not only because Premier Ford’s conflicts of interest won’t be prevented without them, but also because Premier Ford was found guilty of violating Toronto’s ethics code for trying to help his company’s clients when he was a councilor.

“Premier Ford’s past record of violating government ethics rules makes it clear that strict and strong extra measures are needed to ensure he doesn’t try to profit from his decisions as premier,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Commissioner Wake to confirm with a clear, strong, public statements that key rules set out in the Preamble of the Act are enforceable. The rules require all MPPs to perform their duties and arrange their private affairs “in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of each member” and to “to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny.”

Finally, Democracy Watch’s letter calls on Commissioner Wake to issue a clear, strong, public statement calling on the Ontario legislature to change the Act to ban so-called blind trusts because they are a charade (as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987), and to close a huge loophole that means the Act doesn’t apply to 99% of the decisions of MPPs and allows them, the Premier and Cabinet ministers to take part in decisions even when they will profit from the decision.

“Ontario’s ethics law for politicians has huge loopholes that must be closed or it will continue to be almost impossible to be in a conflict of interest that violates the law,” 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 Government Ethics Campaign

So-called “blind” trust is a sham as Premier Ford still knows he owns the companies, and he tried to help clients of his family company when he was a Toronto city councilor – strong fairness monitor and regular audits needed

DWatch also calls on Commissioner to issue public guidelines for key ethics rules, and to recommend strongly that key, unethical loopholes be closed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, November 27, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it sent to Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake calling on him to update Premier Ford’s financial interests disclosure statement immediately, and also impose further conditions on his trust for his family business, and call for key changes to close huge loopholes in the province government’s ethics law.

According to a recent article in the Globe and Mail, Premier Ford’s family company changed its name to Deco Flexible Packaging Ltd. on August 9, 2019. As well, Premier Ford’s June 7, 2018 Public Disclosure Statement says that he was earning a salary from Deco Adhesive Products (1985) Limited, and from Deco Labels & Tags Ltd.

The Premier is required by subsection 20(4) of the Members’ Integrity Act to update the Integrity Commissioner within 30 days after a change in his and his spouse’s and dependants’ financial interests, and the Integrity Commissioner is responsible for preparing and posting MPPs’ statements in the Public Registry. Accurate statements are key for government officials, the public and the media to be able to monitor for conflicts of interests.

“Premier Ford’s financial interests statement says he is receiving a salary from family businesses under their old company names, and if he failed to update the Integrity Commissioner about the name and any salary changes he should be found guilty of violating the provincial government’s ethics law,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “If Premier Ford did update the Integrity Commissioner about the name change and any salary changes, then the Integrity Commissioner should have updated Premier Ford’s statement immediately.”

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Commissioner Wake to use his powers under the Members’ Integrity Act (“Act”) to require Premier Ford to do much more than set up a so-called “blind” trust for his family companies in order to prevent conflicts of interest. Under subsection 12(2) of the Act (referring to clause 11(3)(1)), Commissioner Wake must approve the provisions of any trust to ensure it will actually prevent conflicts of interest.

“A so-called blind trust for Premier Ford doesn’t do anything to prevent him from helping his family companies because he knows that he owns the companies, and he receives updates from his family and trustee about the companies, and so the Integrity Commissioner must impose other strong enforcement measures to ensure Premier Ford and his family’s companies and their clients don’t profit from his or his Cabinet’s decisions,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch called on Commissioner Wake to require a fairness monitor as part of the provisions of Premier Ford’s trust for all government policy-making processes and transactions that directly or indirectly affect Premier Ford’s family companies and/or clients of the companies. Democracy Watch also called on Commissioner Wake, or the fairness monitor, to conduct regular audits of all communications of Premier Ford and staff in his office, to ensure they don’t try to influence decisions to favour his companies or their clients.

These measures are needed not only because Premier Ford’s conflicts of interest won’t be prevented without them, but also because Premier Ford was found guilty of violating Toronto’s ethics code for trying to help his company’s clients when he was a councilor.

“Premier Ford’s past record of violating government ethics rules makes it clear that strict and strong extra measures are needed to ensure he doesn’t try to profit from his decisions as premier,” said Conacher.

Democracy Watch’s letter also calls on Commissioner Wake to confirm with a clear, strong, public statements that key rules set out in the Preamble of the Act are enforceable. The rules require all MPPs to perform their duties and arrange their private affairs “in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of each member” and to “to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny.”

Finally, Democracy Watch’s letter calls on Commissioner Wake to issue a clear, strong, public statement calling on the Ontario legislature to change the Act to ban so-called blind trusts because they are a charade (as the Parker Commission recommended in 1987), and to close a huge loophole that means the Act doesn’t apply to 99% of the decisions of MPPs and allows them, the Premier and Cabinet ministers to take part in decisions even when they will profit from the decision.

“Ontario’s ethics law for politicians has huge loopholes that must be closed or it will continue to be almost impossible to be in a conflict of interest that violates the law,” 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 Government Ethics Campaign

Three years after rules changed, Integrity Commissioner has finally issued a guideline on the rule prohibiting lobbyists from lobbying after political activities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, November 14, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake to issue public rulings on lobbyists who worked in senior roles on Doug Ford’s and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario’s (PC Party) election campaign and/or fundraised for or advised Ford and the PCs since the election, and are now lobbying Ford and/or his Cabinet ministers.

It has been illegal under Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (LR Act) since July 1, 2016 (when a new rule was enacted) for an Ontario lobbyist to do anything for a politician or government official that caused them to be in a real or potential conflict of interest or make it improper for them to further the interests of the lobbyist or their clients.

Sometime since last July when Democracy Watch publicly criticized his negligence in failing to issue a guideline on this rule for the past three years, and since Michelle Renaud, a spokesperson for the Integrity Commissioner was quoted in a Globe and Mail article claiming that the rule does “not lend itself to a generalized interpretation bulletin,” Integrity Commissioner Wake finally issued a Guidance for Lobbyists on Political Activity document.

However, the Guidance document is vague, especially concerning the time period lobbyists must stop lobbying after assisting an election candidate or politician. In contrast, the federal Commissioner of Lobbying’s Guidance document on lobbyist political activities states clearly that if a lobbyist does anything significant for a politician then they can’t lobby for four years – a “full election cycle.”

The only clue to Integrity Commissioner Wake’s standard for a cooling-off period for a lobbyist who assists a politician are that Chris Froggatt, who was vice-chair of Ford’s and the PC Party’s election campaign, told the Globe last July that he was advised by the Integrity Commissioner to refrain from lobbying for one year after the Ford government took power. And in that same Globe article Kory Teneycke, who also played a senior role in the PC’s election campaign, was paraphrased as saying the Integrity Commissioner had advised him not to lobby the Premier, his office or the Cabinet office. Both Froggatt and Teneycke also continue to serve as senior advisers to Premier Ford and the PC Party.

The Integrity Commissioner claimed in his 2018-2019 Annual Report (p. 47) that the advisory opinions he gives to lobbyists under section 15 of the LR Act are confidential, but there is nothing in that section or any other section of the LR Act that requires them to be kept secret. They are actually rulings by the Integrity Commissioner, and the public has a right to know how the Commissioner has ruled on lobbyists’ actions. The 2018-2019 Annual Report states that the Commissioner issued 16 advisory opinions to lobbyists who had been politically active before the election (see p. 46).

Based on what the LR Act (section 3.4) and the Members’ Integrity Act (sections 2, 3, 4 and 6(1)) say, and the unanimous Federal Court of Appeal ruling Democracy Watch won in 2009 (paras. 52-53), and a similar federal lobbying rule, and past rulings concerning what are improper actions are by politicians, Democracy Watch’s position is that the conflict of interest created by playing a senior role in a politician’s or party’s election campaign or serving as an advisor afterwards does not magically disappear after one year – it lasts at least four years after the lobbyist has helped the politician or party, past the next election if the politician remains in power.

If the politician is the Premier, Democracy Watch’s position is that the conflict of interest lasts even longer because it is a very significant favour to help someone become Premier with all the power, pay and perks that position entails. Democracy Watch’s position is also that assisting a party leader with their election campaign, or providing ongoing assistance after the election, creates a conflict of interest that applies to the entire Cabinet, as the Premier chooses each Cabinet minister and they all serve at the pleasure of the Premier, so they all share the Premier’s conflict of interest.

As a result, Democracy Watch’s position is that anyone who worked on the PC Party campaign, or is serving in a senior position or advising the Premier or the PC Party now, is prohibited by the rule in the LR Act from lobbying the Premier and any of his Cabinet ministers.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint last June with Integrity Commissioner Wake about lobbyists Chris Benedetti, Paul Pellegrini and Matthew Gibson of Sussex Strategy Group violating the rule by being on the organizing committee for Premier Ford’s February “2019 Toronto Leader’s Dinner” fundraising event. And Democracy Watch also filed a complaint last July about lobbyist Melissa Lantsman, who is lobbying the Ford government after advising Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party (PC Party) during the spring 2018 provincial election campaign, serving on Ford’s transition team, and serving currently as Regional Vice President for Toronto for the PC Party.

Democracy Watch plans to file complaints with the Integrity Commissioner about Chris Froggatt and Kory Teneycke and the lobbyists they employ at their firms.

“Given the clear evidence set out in Democracy Watch’s complaints, hopefully Integrity Commissioner Wake will do the right thing and issue public rulings very soon finding that everyone who worked for Doug Ford or PC Party headquarters during the spring 2018 election campaign or continues to serve the party or Premier Ford as an adviser, fundraiser or representative, violates the conflict of interest rule in the lobbying law if they lobby Premier Ford or any of his Cabinet ministers,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The public has a clear right to know whether its watchdog has found lobbyists guilty of violating the rules when lobbying the public’s politicians, and government watchdogs must also issue public rulings so the public can be sure they are enforcing the law fairly and properly.”

– 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

Three years after rules changed, Integrity Commissioner has finally issued a guideline on the rule prohibiting lobbyists from lobbying after political activities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, November 14, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake to issue public rulings on lobbyists who worked in senior roles on Doug Ford’s and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario’s (PC Party) election campaign and/or fundraised for or advised Ford and the PCs since the election, and are now lobbying Ford and/or his Cabinet ministers.

It has been illegal under Ontario’s Lobbyists Registration Act (LR Act) since July 1, 2016 (when a new rule was enacted) for an Ontario lobbyist to do anything for a politician or government official that caused them to be in a real or potential conflict of interest or make it improper for them to further the interests of the lobbyist or their clients.

Sometime since last July when Democracy Watch publicly criticized his negligence in failing to issue a guideline on this rule for the past three years, and since Michelle Renaud, a spokesperson for the Integrity Commissioner was quoted in a Globe and Mail article claiming that the rule does “not lend itself to a generalized interpretation bulletin,” Integrity Commissioner Wake finally issued a Guidance for Lobbyists on Political Activity document.

However, the Guidance document is vague, especially concerning the time period lobbyists must stop lobbying after assisting an election candidate or politician. In contrast, the federal Commissioner of Lobbying’s Guidance document on lobbyist political activities states clearly that if a lobbyist does anything significant for a politician then they can’t lobby for four years – a “full election cycle.”

The only clue to Integrity Commissioner Wake’s standard for a cooling-off period for a lobbyist who assists a politician are that Chris Froggatt, who was vice-chair of Ford’s and the PC Party’s election campaign, told the Globe last July that he was advised by the Integrity Commissioner to refrain from lobbying for one year after the Ford government took power. And in that same Globe article Kory Teneycke, who also played a senior role in the PC’s election campaign, was paraphrased as saying the Integrity Commissioner had advised him not to lobby the Premier, his office or the Cabinet office. Both Froggatt and Teneycke also continue to serve as senior advisers to Premier Ford and the PC Party.

The Integrity Commissioner claimed in his 2018-2019 Annual Report (p. 47) that the advisory opinions he gives to lobbyists under section 15 of the LR Act are confidential, but there is nothing in that section or any other section of the LR Act that requires them to be kept secret. They are actually rulings by the Integrity Commissioner, and the public has a right to know how the Commissioner has ruled on lobbyists’ actions. The 2018-2019 Annual Report states that the Commissioner issued 16 advisory opinions to lobbyists who had been politically active before the election (see p. 46).

Based on what the LR Act (section 3.4) and the Members’ Integrity Act (sections 2, 3, 4 and 6(1)) say, and the unanimous Federal Court of Appeal ruling Democracy Watch won in 2009 (paras. 52-53), and a similar federal lobbying rule, and past rulings concerning what are improper actions are by politicians, Democracy Watch’s position is that the conflict of interest created by playing a senior role in a politician’s or party’s election campaign or serving as an advisor afterwards does not magically disappear after one year – it lasts at least four years after the lobbyist has helped the politician or party, past the next election if the politician remains in power.

If the politician is the Premier, Democracy Watch’s position is that the conflict of interest lasts even longer because it is a very significant favour to help someone become Premier with all the power, pay and perks that position entails. Democracy Watch’s position is also that assisting a party leader with their election campaign, or providing ongoing assistance after the election, creates a conflict of interest that applies to the entire Cabinet, as the Premier chooses each Cabinet minister and they all serve at the pleasure of the Premier, so they all share the Premier’s conflict of interest.

As a result, Democracy Watch’s position is that anyone who worked on the PC Party campaign, or is serving in a senior position or advising the Premier or the PC Party now, is prohibited by the rule in the LR Act from lobbying the Premier and any of his Cabinet ministers.

Democracy Watch filed a complaint last June with Integrity Commissioner Wake about lobbyists Chris Benedetti, Paul Pellegrini and Matthew Gibson of Sussex Strategy Group violating the rule by being on the organizing committee for Premier Ford’s February “2019 Toronto Leader’s Dinner” fundraising event. And Democracy Watch also filed a complaint last July about lobbyist Melissa Lantsman, who is lobbying the Ford government after advising Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservative Party (PC Party) during the spring 2018 provincial election campaign, serving on Ford’s transition team, and serving currently as Regional Vice President for Toronto for the PC Party.

Democracy Watch plans to file complaints with the Integrity Commissioner about Chris Froggatt and Kory Teneycke and the lobbyists they employ at their firms.

“Given the clear evidence set out in Democracy Watch’s complaints, hopefully Integrity Commissioner Wake will do the right thing and issue public rulings very soon finding that everyone who worked for Doug Ford or PC Party headquarters during the spring 2018 election campaign or continues to serve the party or Premier Ford as an adviser, fundraiser or representative, violates the conflict of interest rule in the lobbying law if they lobby Premier Ford or any of his Cabinet ministers,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The public has a clear right to know whether its watchdog has found lobbyists guilty of violating the rules when lobbying the public’s politicians, and government watchdogs must also issue public rulings so the public can be sure they are enforcing the law fairly and properly.”

– 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

Integrity Commissioner’s ruling last March on OPP Commissioner appointment contained clear evidence Ford’s former Chief of Staff, deputy minister and possibly others gave preferential treatment to Ron Taverner and others

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 29, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the application it has filed in Ontario Divisional Court challenging Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake’s refusal to issue a public ruling on Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff Dean French (and possibly other Ford staff) providing preferential treatment to Ford’s friend Ron Taverner, and also to Mario Di Tommaso and Chris Froggatt, which Democracy Watch believes constitutes a violation of the provincial government’s ethics laws. Democracy Watch is represented by Rebecca Shoom of the law firm Lerners LLP.

On March 25, 2019, Democracy Watch sent a letter to Integrity Commissioner Wake and also then-Conflict of Interest Commissioner Sidney Linden calling on them to issue a public ruling on Ford’s staff, and also former Secretary to the Cabinet Steve Orsini, providing preferential treatment in violation of Public Service of Ontario Act (PSOA) ethics regulations.

Both commissioners refused to issue public rulings — then-Commissioner Linden in late March, and Commissioner Wake in early April. Commissioner Linden retired on May 1, 2019 when his office was merged into Integrity Commissioner Wake’s office.

On September 30, 2019, Democracy Watch sent another letter to Commissioner Wake requesting a public ruling. Commissioner Wake responded with the same position he had expressed in early April.

There is nothing in the PSOA that prohibits Commissioner Wake from issuing a public ruling, and the public has a clear right to know if these public servants violated the law.

“There is clear evidence in Integrity Commissioner Wake’s ruling on the OPP Commissioner appointment process that Premier Ford’s former Chief of Staff Dean French and his former deputy minister violated Ontario government ethics rules by giving preferential treatment to Ron Taverner more than once, and also to Mario Di Tommaso, and that French also gave preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt, and that other Ford staff may have violated the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully Integrity Commissioner Wake will do the right thing and issue a public ruling finding Premier Ford’s staff guilty of violating provincial ethics rules.”

“The public has a clear right to know whether its watchdog has found its government employees guilty of wrongdoing, and government watchdogs must also issue public rulings so the public can be sure they are enforcing the law fairly and properly,” said Conacher.

Commissioner Wake’s March 20, 2019 ruling on Premier Ford’s actions concerning Ron Taverner’s proposed appointment contained clear evidence that Mr. French and Mr. Orsini provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner in the offer of an executive job with the government’s Ontario Cannabis store, and to him and Mario di Tommaso also throughout the OPP Commissioner appointment process.

The ruling also contained clear evidence that Mr. French also provided preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt by connecting him (and him only) to give communications advice to Mr. Taverner. There was also some evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Derek O’Toole, then-Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, then-Policy Advisor to Mr. French, also provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner.

See the Evidence from the Integrity Commissioner’s Ruling on Premier Ford that, in Democracy Watch’s view, details the extent of this preferential treatment.

All public servants in the Ontario government, including ministers’ staff and the Secretary to the Cabinet, are prohibited by regulations under the Public Service of Ontario Act from giving preferential treatment to any person or entity, and are required to “endeavour to avoid creating the appearance that preferential treatment is being given to a person or entity…” See the Summary of the Ontario Government Ethics Law and Regulations for details.

– 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 Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Integrity Commissioner’s ruling last March on OPP Commissioner appointment contained clear evidence Ford’s former Chief of Staff, deputy minister and possibly others gave preferential treatment to Ron Taverner and others

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 29, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the application it has filed in Ontario Divisional Court challenging Ontario Integrity Commissioner David Wake’s refusal to issue a public ruling on Premier Ford’s Chief of Staff Dean French (and possibly other Ford staff) providing preferential treatment to Ford’s friend Ron Taverner, and also to Mario Di Tommaso and Chris Froggatt, which Democracy Watch believes constitutes a violation of the provincial government’s ethics laws. Democracy Watch is represented by Rebecca Shoom of the law firm Lerners LLP.

On March 25, 2019, Democracy Watch sent a letter to Integrity Commissioner Wake and also then-Conflict of Interest Commissioner Sidney Linden calling on them to issue a public ruling on Ford’s staff, and also former Secretary to the Cabinet Steve Orsini, providing preferential treatment in violation of Public Service of Ontario Act (PSOA) ethics regulations.

Both commissioners refused to issue public rulings — then-Commissioner Linden in late March, and Commissioner Wake in early April. Commissioner Linden retired on May 1, 2019 when his office was merged into Integrity Commissioner Wake’s office.

On September 30, 2019, Democracy Watch sent another letter to Commissioner Wake requesting a public ruling. Commissioner Wake responded with the same position he had expressed in early April.

There is nothing in the PSOA that prohibits Commissioner Wake from issuing a public ruling, and the public has a clear right to know if these public servants violated the law.

“There is clear evidence in Integrity Commissioner Wake’s ruling on the OPP Commissioner appointment process that Premier Ford’s former Chief of Staff Dean French and his former deputy minister violated Ontario government ethics rules by giving preferential treatment to Ron Taverner more than once, and also to Mario Di Tommaso, and that French also gave preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt, and that other Ford staff may have violated the rules,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “Hopefully Integrity Commissioner Wake will do the right thing and issue a public ruling finding Premier Ford’s staff guilty of violating provincial ethics rules.”

“The public has a clear right to know whether its watchdog has found its government employees guilty of wrongdoing, and government watchdogs must also issue public rulings so the public can be sure they are enforcing the law fairly and properly,” said Conacher.

Commissioner Wake’s March 20, 2019 ruling on Premier Ford’s actions concerning Ron Taverner’s proposed appointment contained clear evidence that Mr. French and Mr. Orsini provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner in the offer of an executive job with the government’s Ontario Cannabis store, and to him and Mario di Tommaso also throughout the OPP Commissioner appointment process.

The ruling also contained clear evidence that Mr. French also provided preferential treatment to Chris Froggatt by connecting him (and him only) to give communications advice to Mr. Taverner. There was also some evidence in Commissioner Wake’s ruling that Derek O’Toole, then-Senior Policy Advisor in Premier Ford’s office, and Greg Harrington, then-Policy Advisor to Mr. French, also provided preferential treatment to Mr. Taverner.

See the Evidence from the Integrity Commissioner’s Ruling on Premier Ford that, in Democracy Watch’s view, details the extent of this preferential treatment.

All public servants in the Ontario government, including ministers’ staff and the Secretary to the Cabinet, are prohibited by regulations under the Public Service of Ontario Act from giving preferential treatment to any person or entity, and are required to “endeavour to avoid creating the appearance that preferential treatment is being given to a person or entity…” See the Summary of the Ontario Government Ethics Law and Regulations for details.

– 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 Stop Bad Government Appointments Campaign

Liberals ignored experts, House Committee, Chief Electoral Officer, Commissioner of Canada Elections, and tens of thousands of Canadians, who all called for changes to stop false claims

New bill needed as soon as possible to make these key changes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 28, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch highlighted key problems with the changes made by the Trudeau Liberals’ Bill C-76, and the federal government’s initiatives announced in January and last May, that ignored the call by all experts, a House Committee, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and tens of thousands of Canadians, for more effective changes to the Canada Elections Act to actually stop fake online election posts and ads, false claims about candidates, and big money interest group ad campaigns, and to protect voters’ privacy.

Incredibly, Bill C-76 actually gutted the rule in the Act prohibiting on false claims about candidates, even though the CEO and Commissioner warned that the Bill would have that bad effect. The Bill also failed to strengthen the general rule in the law that prohibits false claims. The rule needs to be strengthened because the Commissioner negligently refuses to enforce it in some cases (For details of one of those cases, click here and click here).

Bill C-76 also increased the advertising spending limit for wealthy, big money third party interest groups by 250% (from about $200,000 to $511,700) — a really bad move in the wrong direction given social media advertising costs are only 10-20% of what traditional TV, radio and print media ads cost. In other words, the new limit multiplies the ad spending power of wealthy interests by 12-25 times, giving them much greater power to dominate election debates than they had in elections from 2006 to 2015.

Almost 90,000 Canadians have supported Democracy Watch’s campaign to stop big money in Canadian politics, and more than 17,000 Canadians have either signed Democracy Watch’s online petition on Change.org or its letter-writing campaign calling for changes to stop secret, false online election ads or signed its online petition calling for political parties to be covered by the federal privacy law, and other key privacy protection changes.

“Bill C-76 severely weakened the rule that prohibits false claims about candidates, more than doubled the spending limit for wealthy interest groups, and didn’t do enough to stop false, online election ads, false election promises or big money donations,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “As a result, the fall 2019 federal election was much like the 2016 U.S. presidential election – dishonest, unfair and driven by false claims of wealthy interest groups, party leaders and parties.”

“If the Trudeau Liberals actually want to ensure that the next election is fair and democratic, they should introduce a short, simple bill as soon as possible to reverse the bad, weak changes made by Bill C-76 and to strengthen other key rules,” said Conacher. “The bill should prohibit all false claims and false promises, lower donation limits, reverse the increase in interest group ad spending, require all media and social media companies to disclose to the Commissioner of Canada Elections all election-related ads, empower the Commissioner to delete any false post or ad from social media, and extend the privacy law to political parties with penalties high enough to actually discourage violations by social media companies that have tens of billions in annual profits.”

“All parties should support the introduction and quick passage of this bill as soon as possible to ensure the next election is fair and democratic, and to ensure the privacy of Canadians is protected,” said Conacher.

Instead of protecting the integrity of Canada’s elections, the Trudeau Liberals’ actions protected their friends at social media companies, and their own data mining of voters’ private information.

As CTV detailed in March 2017, the Liberal Party uses Data Sciences Inc., run by Prime Minister Trudeau’s friend Tom Pitfield, for its data management of the private, personal information it gathered on Canadian voters. And as CTV also detailed in that article, and also Maclean’s magazine detailed in October 2017, Mr. Pitfield also heads up the think tank Canada 2020, which has Facebook and Google as partners (see logos at bottom of page) and executives from Facebook Canada and Google Canada as advisers.

As the Ottawa Citizen detailed in May 2018, Liberal Party-connected lobbyists and executives work for Facebook, Google, Microsoft, while their friends and/or former colleagues worked for Trudeau Cabinet ministers.

See Backgrounder for details about the key changes needed to:

1. Stop secret, false, online election ads;
2. Require honesty during pre-election and election periods;
3. Stop wealthy interests from dominating pre-election and election periods, and;
4. Protect the privacy of voters’ and all Canadians.

– 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 Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign, and Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

Liberals ignored experts, House Committee, Chief Electoral Officer, Commissioner of Canada Elections, and tens of thousands of Canadians, who all called for changes to stop false claims

New bill needed as soon as possible to make these key changes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 28, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch highlighted key problems with the changes made by the Trudeau Liberals’ Bill C-76, and the federal government’s initiatives announced in January and last May, that ignored the call by all experts, a House Committee, the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and tens of thousands of Canadians, for more effective changes to the Canada Elections Act to actually stop fake online election posts and ads, false claims about candidates, and big money interest group ad campaigns, and to protect voters’ privacy.

Incredibly, Bill C-76 actually gutted the rule in the Act prohibiting on false claims about candidates, even though the CEO and Commissioner warned that the Bill would have that bad effect. The Bill also failed to strengthen the general rule in the law that prohibits false claims. The rule needs to be strengthened because the Commissioner negligently refuses to enforce it in some cases (For details of one of those cases, click here and click here).

Bill C-76 also increased the advertising spending limit for wealthy, big money third party interest groups by 250% (from about $200,000 to $511,700) — a really bad move in the wrong direction given social media advertising costs are only 10-20% of what traditional TV, radio and print media ads cost. In other words, the new limit multiplies the ad spending power of wealthy interests by 12-25 times, giving them much greater power to dominate election debates than they had in elections from 2006 to 2015.

Almost 90,000 Canadians have supported Democracy Watch’s campaign to stop big money in Canadian politics, and more than 17,000 Canadians have either signed Democracy Watch’s online petition on Change.org or its letter-writing campaign calling for changes to stop secret, false online election ads or signed its online petition calling for political parties to be covered by the federal privacy law, and other key privacy protection changes.

“Bill C-76 severely weakened the rule that prohibits false claims about candidates, more than doubled the spending limit for wealthy interest groups, and didn’t do enough to stop false, online election ads, false election promises or big money donations,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “As a result, the fall 2019 federal election was much like the 2016 U.S. presidential election – dishonest, unfair and driven by false claims of wealthy interest groups, party leaders and parties.”

“If the Trudeau Liberals actually want to ensure that the next election is fair and democratic, they should introduce a short, simple bill as soon as possible to reverse the bad, weak changes made by Bill C-76 and to strengthen other key rules,” said Conacher. “The bill should prohibit all false claims and false promises, lower donation limits, reverse the increase in interest group ad spending, require all media and social media companies to disclose to the Commissioner of Canada Elections all election-related ads, empower the Commissioner to delete any false post or ad from social media, and extend the privacy law to political parties with penalties high enough to actually discourage violations by social media companies that have tens of billions in annual profits.”

“All parties should support the introduction and quick passage of this bill as soon as possible to ensure the next election is fair and democratic, and to ensure the privacy of Canadians is protected,” said Conacher.

Instead of protecting the integrity of Canada’s elections, the Trudeau Liberals’ actions protected their friends at social media companies, and their own data mining of voters’ private information.

As CTV detailed in March 2017, the Liberal Party uses Data Sciences Inc., run by Prime Minister Trudeau’s friend Tom Pitfield, for its data management of the private, personal information it gathered on Canadian voters. And as CTV also detailed in that article, and also Maclean’s magazine detailed in October 2017, Mr. Pitfield also heads up the think tank Canada 2020, which has Facebook and Google as partners (see logos at bottom of page) and executives from Facebook Canada and Google Canada as advisers.

As the Ottawa Citizen detailed in May 2018, Liberal Party-connected lobbyists and executives work for Facebook, Google, Microsoft, while their friends and/or former colleagues worked for Trudeau Cabinet ministers.

See Backgrounder for details about the key changes needed to:

1. Stop secret, false, online election ads;
2. Require honesty during pre-election and election periods;
3. Stop wealthy interests from dominating pre-election and election periods, and;
4. Protect the privacy of voters’ and all Canadians.

– 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 Honesty in Politics Campaign, Money in Politics Campaign, Stop Fake Online Election Ads Campaign, and Democratic Voting Systems Campaign

80%+ of Canadians, 78% of constitutional scholars surveyed, and former Governor General all say write down the rules, as the UK, Australia and New Zealand have done

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 the rules, and then first bill passed by legislature should make the rules a law (as many other countries have)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 23, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on federal political party leaders to learn the lesson of the minority governments from 2004-2011 and agree this week 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. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

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; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date and; which party will get to try governing first after the next election.

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 (See pp. 111-112). 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 (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 in August 2016 in 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 Canada’s political party leaders and the Governor General 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 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 protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

---

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

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 Parliament with a Speech from the Throne;
4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the House of Commons 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 Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the House of Commons;
5. If a majority of members in the House of Commons 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 agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister’s to call an election;
6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in House of Commons that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The House of Commons 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 the legislature before the motion is voted on by the House of Commons, and;
8. If a majority in the House of Commons 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.

80%+ of Canadians, 78% of constitutional scholars surveyed, and former Governor General all say write down the rules, as the UK, Australia and New Zealand have done

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 the rules, and then first bill passed by legislature should make the rules a law (as many other countries have)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Wednesday, October 23, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on federal political party leaders to learn the lesson of the minority governments from 2004-2011 and agree this week 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. (See Backgrounder below for the eight rules)

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; when and how the next election can be called before the fixed election date and; which party will get to try governing first after the next election.

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 (See pp. 111-112). 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 (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 in August 2016 in 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 Canada’s political party leaders and the Governor General 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 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 protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

---

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

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 Parliament with a Speech from the Throne;
4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the House of Commons 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 Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the House of Commons;
5. If a majority of members in the House of Commons 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 agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister’s to call an election;
6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in House of Commons that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The House of Commons 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 the legislature before the motion is voted on by the House of Commons, and;
8. If a majority in the House of Commons 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.

Given lack of honesty-in-politics law, and past pattern of ruling party breaking half of democratic reform promises, voters should be skeptical of all parties’ promises

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, October 18, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its Report Card on the Federal Parties’ 2019 Democratic Reform Platforms (See the full Report Card chart below, and click here to see the Report Card Backgrounder).

Voters should be very skeptical of all the parties’ promises given the 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, and the fact that no party promised an honesty law covering promises in their platforms.

The Green Party received the best grade B- as it promised 25 key, systemic democratic reforms and had good grades in four of the five areas graded in the Report Card.

“Given only the Green Party has a strong democracy platform, hopefully all the parties will get serious after the election and work together to finally make the key changes needed to give Canadians the fully democratic and accountable federal government that many surveys over the past 15 years have shown a large majority of voters want,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Liberals and the Conservatives especially made a big mistake in this election thinking they could ignore key democracy reforms and still have voters hand them power – voters have clearly been disappointed too many times by past Liberal and Conservative governments abusing their power.”

“Unfortunately, even if the Green Party is able to push through all the changes it promised, everyone in federal politics would still be allowed to lie to voters, politicians would still be allowed to make money from their decisions, secret lobbying would still be legal, wealthy individuals would still be allowed to use money to have unethical influence, and enforcement and penalties would still be too weak to stop wrongdoing,” said Conacher.

Hundreds of thousands of messages have been sent to federal party leaders and politicians through Democracy Watch’s campaigns calling for the 100 key changes needed to ensure fully honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing federal politics, and accountability for everyone who violates any rule.

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

The NDP received the next best grade of D+ because it had only a dozen vague promises in its platform, and no promises in the area of open government.

The Conservatives failed to make any promises in three of the five categories measured by the Report Card, and ended up with a D- grade. This is a big change from their 2006 election platform – in that platform the Conservatives promised 60 democratic reform and government accountability changes in their so-called “Federal Accountability Act”, which earned them a B grade.

The Liberals failed to make any promises in two of the five categories measured by the Report Card, and also ended up with a D- grade. This is a big change from their 2015 election platform – in that platform the Liberals promised about 75 democratic reform and government accountability changes, which earned them a B grade.

The Liberals’ 2019 platform is as weak as their democratic reform record since 2015:

1. they 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 weakened a key honest election rule;
6. Prime Minister Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet ministers have been involved in many secrecy and ethics scandals.

The Bloc received an F as it had no promises in four of the five categories of the Report Card, and the People’s Party of Canada received an Incomplete as it had no democratic reform promises in its platform.

– 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 Campaigns page

---

---

Democracy Watch’s
Report Card on the Federal Parties’
2019 Democratic Reform Platforms

Sources:

Bloc Québécois platform webpage
(NOTE: nothing in platform, just these Oct. 16^th proposals)

Conservative Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 54-55, 71, and 75-76 of platform PDF, and Oct. 16th news release)

Green Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 31-32, 47, 73-79 of platform PDF, and many other pages containing proposals to strengthen law enforcement and penalties in many areas of platform)

Liberal Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 39-41, 44, 47, 53-55 of platform PDF, and some other pages containing proposals to strengthen law enforcement in some areas)

NDP platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 21-22, 24, 32, 54, 94-97, 99-103 of platform PDF

People’s Party of Canada platform webpage

Given lack of honesty-in-politics law, and past pattern of ruling party breaking half of democratic reform promises, voters should be skeptical of all parties’ promises

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, October 18, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released its Report Card on the Federal Parties’ 2019 Democratic Reform Platforms (See the full Report Card chart below, and click here to see the Report Card Backgrounder).

Voters should be very skeptical of all the parties’ promises given the 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, and the fact that no party promised an honesty law covering promises in their platforms.

The Green Party received the best grade B- as it promised 25 key, systemic democratic reforms and had good grades in four of the five areas graded in the Report Card.

“Given only the Green Party has a strong democracy platform, hopefully all the parties will get serious after the election and work together to finally make the key changes needed to give Canadians the fully democratic and accountable federal government that many surveys over the past 15 years have shown a large majority of voters want,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Liberals and the Conservatives especially made a big mistake in this election thinking they could ignore key democracy reforms and still have voters hand them power – voters have clearly been disappointed too many times by past Liberal and Conservative governments abusing their power.”

“Unfortunately, even if the Green Party is able to push through all the changes it promised, everyone in federal politics would still be allowed to lie to voters, politicians would still be allowed to make money from their decisions, secret lobbying would still be legal, wealthy individuals would still be allowed to use money to have unethical influence, and enforcement and penalties would still be too weak to stop wrongdoing,” said Conacher.

Hundreds of thousands of messages have been sent to federal party leaders and politicians through Democracy Watch’s campaigns calling for the 100 key changes needed to ensure fully honest, ethical, open, representative and waste-preventing federal politics, and accountability for everyone who violates any rule.

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

The NDP received the next best grade of D+ because it had only a dozen vague promises in its platform, and no promises in the area of open government.

The Conservatives failed to make any promises in three of the five categories measured by the Report Card, and ended up with a D- grade. This is a big change from their 2006 election platform – in that platform the Conservatives promised 60 democratic reform and government accountability changes in their so-called “Federal Accountability Act”, which earned them a B grade.

The Liberals failed to make any promises in two of the five categories measured by the Report Card, and also ended up with a D- grade. This is a big change from their 2015 election platform – in that platform the Liberals promised about 75 democratic reform and government accountability changes, which earned them a B grade.

The Liberals’ 2019 platform is as weak as their democratic reform record since 2015:

1. they 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 weakened a key honest election rule;
6. Prime Minister Trudeau and Liberal Cabinet ministers have been involved in many secrecy and ethics scandals.

The Bloc received an F as it had no promises in four of the five categories of the Report Card, and the People’s Party of Canada received an Incomplete as it had no democratic reform promises in its platform.

– 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 Campaigns page

---

---

Democracy Watch’s
Report Card on the Federal Parties’
2019 Democratic Reform Platforms

Sources:

Bloc Québécois platform webpage
(NOTE: nothing in platform, just these Oct. 16^th proposals)

Conservative Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 54-55, 71, and 75-76 of platform PDF, and Oct. 16th news release)

Green Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 31-32, 47, 73-79 of platform PDF, and many other pages containing proposals to strengthen law enforcement and penalties in many areas of platform)

Liberal Party of Canada platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 39-41, 44, 47, 53-55 of platform PDF, and some other pages containing proposals to strengthen law enforcement in some areas)

NDP platform webpage
(NOTE: See pages 21-22, 24, 32, 54, 94-97, 99-103 of platform PDF

People’s Party of Canada platform webpage

Given election law, and past court rulings, DWatch believes either Manning Centre or the groups are required to disclose the donors who funded the groups’ election ads

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 17, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté calling for an investigation into possible disclosure and election collusion violations by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy and five “Proud” groups it has funded to do election advertising this election.

According to this Globe and Mail article published yesterday, and this earlier Canadian Press article, the Manning Centre raised funds from donors for election advertising spending during the election, then transferred the funds (along with general revenues, more than $300,000 in total) to the five groups who have used it to pay for advertising.

The Manning Centre didn’t register as a third party even though the groups are really a front for its advertising spending, and the groups haven’t disclosed the identities of the Manning Centre’s donors, making the Manning Centre essentially a front group for the donors.

The Canada Elections Act (CEA) requires individuals, businesses, unions and other organizations to register as a third party if they spending more than $500 on partisan activities, election advertising or surveys during the election campaign period and, if they spending more than $10,000, to disclose (21 days and 7 days before election day), the identities of contributors who donate to pay for activities, ads or surveys.

The arrangement between the Manning Centre and the five “Proud” groups also raises the questions of whether any of the funds that the Manning Centre transferred to the groups was donated by foreign entities (which is prohibited under the CEA), and whether the six organizations are attempting to exceed the third party spending limit of $511,700 for this election by colluding together (which is also prohibited by the CEA).

The Supreme Court ruled in the 2004 Harper v. Canada case that the third party registration and donation disclosure requirements are intended to ensure voters and enforcement agencies are fully informed of who is actually bankrolling each third party, and so the law can be effectively enforced (See paragraphs 140 to 145 of the ruling).

“Given the rules in the federal election law, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in a past case, the Commissioner should investigate and rule that either the Manning Centre or the five Proud groups are required to disclose the identities of the donors who funded the election advertising they have done,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Supreme Court also ruled in the Harper case that the third party spending limit, and the anti-collusion rule, are needed to ensure fair, democratic election debates that are not dominated by wealthy interest groups, and so the Commissioner should also investigate whether the Manning Centre and the five Proud groups colluded in an attempt to violate that spending limit.”

No matter how the Commissioner rules on its complaint, Democracy Watch called on federal parties to cooperate to strengthen the rules, and the penalties which are much too low to discourage violations, before the next federal by-election or election.

– 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

Given election law, and past court rulings, DWatch believes either Manning Centre or the groups are required to disclose the donors who funded the groups’ election ads

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 17, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté calling for an investigation into possible disclosure and election collusion violations by the Manning Centre for Building Democracy and five “Proud” groups it has funded to do election advertising this election.

According to this Globe and Mail article published yesterday, and this earlier Canadian Press article, the Manning Centre raised funds from donors for election advertising spending during the election, then transferred the funds (along with general revenues, more than $300,000 in total) to the five groups who have used it to pay for advertising.

The Manning Centre didn’t register as a third party even though the groups are really a front for its advertising spending, and the groups haven’t disclosed the identities of the Manning Centre’s donors, making the Manning Centre essentially a front group for the donors.

The Canada Elections Act (CEA) requires individuals, businesses, unions and other organizations to register as a third party if they spending more than $500 on partisan activities, election advertising or surveys during the election campaign period and, if they spending more than $10,000, to disclose (21 days and 7 days before election day), the identities of contributors who donate to pay for activities, ads or surveys.

The arrangement between the Manning Centre and the five “Proud” groups also raises the questions of whether any of the funds that the Manning Centre transferred to the groups was donated by foreign entities (which is prohibited under the CEA), and whether the six organizations are attempting to exceed the third party spending limit of $511,700 for this election by colluding together (which is also prohibited by the CEA).

The Supreme Court ruled in the 2004 Harper v. Canada case that the third party registration and donation disclosure requirements are intended to ensure voters and enforcement agencies are fully informed of who is actually bankrolling each third party, and so the law can be effectively enforced (See paragraphs 140 to 145 of the ruling).

“Given the rules in the federal election law, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in a past case, the Commissioner should investigate and rule that either the Manning Centre or the five Proud groups are required to disclose the identities of the donors who funded the election advertising they have done,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The Supreme Court also ruled in the Harper case that the third party spending limit, and the anti-collusion rule, are needed to ensure fair, democratic election debates that are not dominated by wealthy interest groups, and so the Commissioner should also investigate whether the Manning Centre and the five Proud groups colluded in an attempt to violate that spending limit.”

No matter how the Commissioner rules on its complaint, Democracy Watch called on federal parties to cooperate to strengthen the rules, and the penalties which are much too low to discourage violations, before the next federal by-election or election.

– 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

Rules should make clear which party will try governing first, 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 the rules, and then first bill passed by legislature should make the rules a law (as many other countries have)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 15, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on federal political party leaders to learn the lesson of the post-Sept. 2018 election chaos in New Brunswick and agree this week on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Even if Canada does not have a minority government after next week’s election, agreeing on the rules now 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; 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. 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 (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 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 Canada’s political party leaders and the Governor General 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 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 protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

---

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

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 Parliament with a Speech from the Throne;
4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the House of Commons 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 Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the House of Commons;
5. If a majority of members in the House of Commons 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 agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister’s to call an election;
6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in House of Commons that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The House of Commons 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 the legislature before the motion is voted on by the House of Commons, and;
8. If a majority in the House of Commons 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.

Rules should make clear which party will try governing first, 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 the rules, and then first bill passed by legislature should make the rules a law (as many other countries have)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, October 15, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch called on federal political party leaders to learn the lesson of the post-Sept. 2018 election chaos in New Brunswick and agree this week on eight public, written rules for a minority government, as more than 80% of Canadians want. Even if Canada does not have a minority government after next week’s election, agreeing on the rules now 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; 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. 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 (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 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 Canada’s political party leaders and the Governor General 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 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 protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop PM/Premier Power Abuses Campaign

---

BACKGROUNDER

8 Key Rules for Minority Government

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 Parliament with a Speech from the Throne;
4. Even if the leaders of parties that represent a majority of members of the House of Commons 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 Governor General will not allow the Prime Minister-designate to prorogue the legislature before the Speech from the Throne is voted on by members of the House of Commons;
5. If a majority of members in the House of Commons 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 agreeing to any request by the Prime Minister’s to call an election;
6. After the vote on the Speech from the Throne, the only vote in House of Commons that shall be a vote of non-confidence is a vote on a motion that states: “The House of Commons 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 the legislature before the motion is voted on by the House of Commons, and;
8. If a majority in the House of Commons 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.

Conservatives and CAPP sharing same ad firm, and party leader shared events with CAPP members in spring

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 10, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté calling for an investigation into possible illegal election collusion between the Conservative Party and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

Set out in the letter to Commissioner Côté is the evidence that raises the question of whether the Conservatives and CAPP have violated the new rule in the Canada Elections Act (subsection 351.01(1)) that prohibits a party and a third party from colluding, including by sharing information, in order to influence the third party’s partisan activities, advertising or surveys during the election campaign period.

According to an article in the Globe and Mail, the advertising firm One Persuasion Inc., co-founded by Hamish Marshall who has been on leave since last June to be the Conservatives campaign manager, is providing services to both the Conservatives and CAPP.

This is the latest in a series of situations that raise questions about collaboration and support between the Conservatives and CAPP. According to another Globe and Mail article, last April CPC Leader Andrew Scheer and Mr. Marshall attended a private meeting with oil-industry executives that included Mr. Marshall speaking on a panel about using third-party interest groups to rally support for the party. Some of the executives at the meeting are members of the Board of Governors of CAPP.

According to a National Observer article, Imperial Oil sponsored a gala dinner event that was held on May 15th in Ottawa and then, due to a “last minute” seating change, Imperial Oil’s CEO Rich Kruger, who is a member of the Board of Governors of CAPP, sat beside Andrew Scheer and lobbied him. And according to another Globe and Mail article, a June 4th fundraising event for the CPC attended by Andrew Scheer was organized by several energy company executives.

“The anti-collusion rules are aimed at ensuring fair and democratic elections, and preventing lobby groups from unethically helping political parties and leaders get elected, and the relationship between the Conservatives and oil and gas companies warrants investigation by the elections commissioner to ensure the rules have not been violated,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch’s position is that, to find a violation of the anti-collusion rule, the Commissioner is not required to find proof that CAPP undertook an activity, advertisement or survey because of the sharing of information with the Conservatives. Instead, all the Commissioner needs to find is evidence that information was shared “in order to influence” CAPP’s activities, ads or surveys.

– 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

Conservatives and CAPP sharing same ad firm, and party leader shared events with CAPP members in spring

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, October 10, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch released the letter it has sent to Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté calling for an investigation into possible illegal election collusion between the Conservative Party and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

Set out in the letter to Commissioner Côté is the evidence that raises the question of whether the Conservatives and CAPP have violated the new rule in the Canada Elections Act (subsection 351.01(1)) that prohibits a party and a third party from colluding, including by sharing information, in order to influence the third party’s partisan activities, advertising or surveys during the election campaign period.

According to an article in the Globe and Mail, the advertising firm One Persuasion Inc., co-founded by Hamish Marshall who has been on leave since last June to be the Conservatives campaign manager, is providing services to both the Conservatives and CAPP.

This is the latest in a series of situations that raise questions about collaboration and support between the Conservatives and CAPP. According to another Globe and Mail article, last April CPC Leader Andrew Scheer and Mr. Marshall attended a private meeting with oil-industry executives that included Mr. Marshall speaking on a panel about using third-party interest groups to rally support for the party. Some of the executives at the meeting are members of the Board of Governors of CAPP.

According to a National Observer article, Imperial Oil sponsored a gala dinner event that was held on May 15th in Ottawa and then, due to a “last minute” seating change, Imperial Oil’s CEO Rich Kruger, who is a member of the Board of Governors of CAPP, sat beside Andrew Scheer and lobbied him. And according to another Globe and Mail article, a June 4th fundraising event for the CPC attended by Andrew Scheer was organized by several energy company executives.

“The anti-collusion rules are aimed at ensuring fair and democratic elections, and preventing lobby groups from unethically helping political parties and leaders get elected, and the relationship between the Conservatives and oil and gas companies warrants investigation by the elections commissioner to ensure the rules have not been violated,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.

Democracy Watch’s position is that, to find a violation of the anti-collusion rule, the Commissioner is not required to find proof that CAPP undertook an activity, advertisement or survey because of the sharing of information with the Conservatives. Instead, all the Commissioner needs to find is evidence that information was shared “in order to influence” CAPP’s activities, ads or surveys.

– 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