Niagara councillors fear weaponization of Bill 9; could be abused to remove political enemies

The PC government claims it wants to strengthen local governance, and enhance the mechanisms in place for holding municipal elected officials accountable for egregious misconduct. 

The solution proposed by the PCs is bill 9, the Municipal Accountability Act, introduced at Queen’s Park on May 1 and currently set to be reviewed by a standing committee after its second reading a month ago. The same legislation was brought forward last term, but died before it could be passed after Premier Doug Ford called an early election.

The proposed bill has received praise from municipal advocates and some councillors. If passed, it would see the standardization of Codes of Conduct—the rules elected officials at the municipal level are meant to follow—across Ontario, and the creation of an “investigation process” for municipal integrity commissioners. The bill is meant to address some of the main criticisms about existing accountability mechanisms. Currently, integrity commissioners are hired and fired by the very council members they are supposed to hold accountable and critics have pointed gaping holes in the IC process: it is not standardized; there is no established criteria governing who can and cannot serve as an IC; many IC reports across Ontario have displayed a lack of understanding of relevant legislation; and there have been examples of alarmingly biased work by ICs in favour of those who control their employment, as pointed out by Ontario’s Ombudsman. Critics have also alleged the  white-washing of complaints to ICs and collusion with those facing accusations.

The Pointer recently covered a story about a questionable decision by St. Catharines’ Integrity Commissioner Michael Maynard of ADR Chambers.  

Currently, Ontario municipalities are responsible for creating their own code of conduct for council members to follow. These rules govern their behaviour inside council chambers, when interacting with members of the public and all other times when conducting the business of the municipality or while representing their public office.

“Our caucus has been calling on the province to do this for several years now, including passing several resolutions on this matter,” the members of Ontario’s Big City Mayors Caucus wrote in a recent release. “Municipalities and municipal integrity commissioners currently lack the tools to enforce current codes of conduct as there have unfortunately been numerous examples of repeated contraventions, bullying and harassment across the municipal sector. Municipal staff and elected members of council deserve a safe and respectful workplace free from harassment and bullying.”

The legislation is not without its detractors.

Critics point to significant flaws in the proposed changes, which would create a mechanism for elected officials to be removed from office for “serious contraventions” of the Code of Conduct. The decision on any eventual removal would be made by the municipal councils they sit on.

While the definition of “serious contravention” has not been clearly defined by the PC government, some elected officials fear this new system could make it easier for a bloc of aligned councillors to remove a member they disagree with, for political reasons.

Niagara Regional Councillor Haley Bateman has raised concerns about potential abuse. She is a vocal advocate of The Women of Ontario say No, an organization that has been pushing for a stronger municipal accountability system for years. Councillor Bateman was arrested along with two others last week at Niagara Falls council following a demonstration that was sparked by the City’s decision to block a Women of Ontario Say No (WOSN) member from speaking about the proposed changes in bill 9.

The Pointer reached out to Bateman.

“Under bill 9, as currently written, the decision to remove a member of Council would ultimately be a decision of Council, following an inquiry and recommendations for removal of both the local and Provincial Integrity Commissioner. We know bringing it back to Council is problematic because Council cannot remain impartial. The decision to remove a member of Council should be made by an impartial body.”
 

Three women were arrested at a Niagara Falls council meeting last week for holding signs supporting Women of Ontario Say No, which has been pushing for stronger accountability mechanisms for local elected officials.

(Ed Smith/The Pointer files) 

While WOSN has been advocating for mechanisms to remove councillors for egregious violations of the Code of Conduct—especially in cases of violence or harassment—the organization’s advocacy has urged the government to take the final decision for removal out of council’s hands.  

“A recommendation for removal that comes back to council for the final ‘say’- to either accept or reject- runs the large risk of not protecting people from abuse by municipal-elected officials,” Bateman says. “A significantly improved process would involve a panel of Integrity Commissioners at the provincial level to prevent power being concentrated in the hands of a few, while also keeping the process at arm's length. This is our best route for making the process fair and impartial.”

When the provincial government mandated Ontario’s 444 municipalities to hire an Integrity Commissioner in March 2019, the purpose was to ensure the ethical conduct, transparency and accountability of local elected officials. But in the last six years, gaps in the current system have become obvious. 

Municipalities are facing the challenge of what to do with councillors who commit serious violations of bullying or harassment, whether of a fellow elected official, member of the public or municipal employee. The maximum penalty that can be recommended by an integrity commissioner through the existing system is a suspension of 90 days pay, and only with a majority vote of council can this be done. Presently there is no mechanism to remove those councillors from office.

Some council members have clearly weaponized the Code of Conduct complaint process to shut down those on council they don’t agree with. This can cost taxpayers large sums for frivolous investigations to simply drive a political agenda.

Veronica Charrois, a councillor in the Town of Grimsby, who has faced six complaints from fellow elected officials she characterizes as frivolous and politically-motivated, fears her political opponents could use the proposed new process under bill 9 to get her removed from office.  

“As a Grimsby municipal councillor who has been the subject of six IC complaints which most would describe as petty, I fear new legislation meant to remove a councillor who’s committed egregious acts (ie sexual harassment) will be used to remove councillors who may question provincial matters,” Charrois wrote in an email to The Pointer. “I believe this is a very real possibility for myself, a non-conservative in a very conservative riding. Do numerous IC findings (brought forward by the mayor and his closest councillor friend) equal an egregious act?”

Veronica Charrois, a councillor in the Town of Grimsby, believes changes proposed in bill 9 could create a “loophole” to remove councillors from office unfairly.

(Veronica Charrois/LinkedIn)

The complaints filed against Councillor Charrois, one by Mayor Jeff Jordan, four by Ward 1 Councillor Reg Freake and one by two anonymous citizen representatives of the Grimsby Economic Advisory Committee (GEDAC), cost Grimsby taxpayers $58,000 last year, paid to ADR Chambers for the Integrity Commissioner (IC) services of Michael Maynard, the same person criticized for his questionable work in St. Catharines. Maynard represents 23 municipalities in the role of integrity commissioner.

Many of the complaints, on the surface, appear frivolous. There were 4 completed investigation reports into six complaints.

The first dealt with a question asked by Councillor Charrois related to a potential conflict of interest on behalf of Mayor Jordan. 

The second and third, both filed by Councillor Freake, were dealt with in the same report. One related to a poll posted on Facebook in regard to a decision already made by council. Freake did not believe the post properly communicated the decision made by council. The other related to questions asked by Charrois about a GEDAC roundtable that only certain councillors and the development community were invited to. Freake felt Charrois' comments exaggerated the truth.

The fourth report also dealt with two complaints. One by Councillor Freake accusing Charrois of disrupting a GEDAC meeting she attended by being late, and video taping the meeting. The second was filed by two anonymous citizen representatives on the Grimsby Economic Development Committee accusing Charrois of video taping a private conversation between the two of them.

The Integrity Commissioner determined she had breached Grimsby’s Code of Conduct in all 6 complaints filed against her. The Pointer will be publishing an in-depth investigation into the complaints filed against Councillor Charrois. 

“Getting three IC complaints at the same time, a couple days before Christmas was just so overwhelming and I felt as if that’s what it was designed to do,” Charrois told The Pointer.

“I spent the holidays stressed and worried on how I could juggle three responses within the timeline given and focus on my children and the holidays. As a single mom my focus should have been on my family during that time yet it was impossible not to have the complaints constantly in my thoughts.

“The complaints could have been sent after the holidays. I felt the timing was politically motivated to make it very difficult to give a timely response and ruin our Christmas.”

Jordan was at the centre of another controversy around an IC complaint in Grimsby during the previous term of council. In 2020 a majority group of councillors disagreed with an IC decision to let Jordan off the hook for what the IC described as “trivial” violations of the Code when Jordan appeared to have disclosed details of an in camera meeting with a resident, which is an egregious violation of the Code and the Municipal Act. The Mayor was eventually ordered to pay back $1,300 for the share of the IC investigation that involved the Code breach deemed “trivial” by the integrity commissioner. 

The changes proposed in bill 9 are intended to strengthen the rules guiding the conduct of municipal councillors by creating new standardized municipal codes of conduct. Instead of creating their own, if passed, bill 9 will repeal those codes of conduct and shift all municipalities and locally appointed boards to one, provincially mandated, set of rules.

The bill would also change the integrity commissioner inquiry process, and would require all municipalities to conduct mandatory code of conduct training, which is something most municipalities already do at the start of a new term of council following an election.

Under the proposed bill 9, once a code of conduct investigation is complete, the Integrity Commissioner would have the ability to recommend that the offending member of council be removed from their elected seat. To do that, the IC would have to determine that:

1. he member had violated the code of conduct.
2. That the violation is serious.
3. That the members conduct has harmed the health and safety and well being of any persons.
4. That the existing penalties are not sufficient to address the seriousness of the contravention.

There is currently no explanation for what constitutes a “serious” violation. 

The Women of Ontario say No are calling for enhanced measures to strengthen bill 9 as it moves through the committee process at Queen’s Park. These include: whistleblower protection; a duty to report; the inclusion of workplace discrimination as a violation of the Code of Conduct; the prioritization of egregious acts of violence and harassment for adjudication as it is a risk to others; and for application of a variety of penalties (if removal is not warranted, there should be other penalties that can be implemented).

Bateman said the group has submitted these suggestions to the province.

Charrois fears if enhanced mechanisms are not put in place, the mistreatment she has experienced could have widespread implications for other local elected officials who stand for issues that the majority of councillors disagree with.

“Please have a look and question what could happen with this code of conduct loophole—the death of democracy.”

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you