‘If a woman asked me now if they should run for council I would tell them, no’: hearings for new municipal accountability law draw disturbing criticism of a badly broken system

Threats from council members; toxic work environments; accountability an afterthought. 

During two days of hearings last week, the provincial Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy heard how Ontario’s existing system to hold local elected officials accountable is completely failing.

It has led to staff and council members feeling unsafe at work, the committee heard. 

The second of six planned public hearings across the province to collect public comments on the proposed bill 9 was held Friday, July 4th at the Doubletree Fallsview Hotel and Spa in Niagara Falls. The committee held its first set of hearings a day prior in London. Originally introduced as Bill 241 but not passed before the last election, the legislation has been reintroduced in the current session as bill 9, the Municipal Accountability Act. 

While members of the public are welcome to speak to the proposed legislation by registering ahead of time, the hearings are designed to allow local elected officials across the province to weigh in on a bill that, if passed, would strengthen the existing accountability regime and allow for the removal of a municipal councillor who commits “egregious” acts contrary to the municipality's code of conduct.

At the present time, municipalities across Ontario are required to have a code of conduct in place and it is left up to each municipality to create its own. The purpose of having a code of conduct is to have a basic set of rules that would hold elected officials accountable for bad behaviour. Those that were investigated and found to be in breach of the code faced either a reprimand or the suspension of pay for up to 90 days. For years, the system has been heavily criticized for being ineffective and rife with opportunities for abuse, mainly because the integrity commissioners who investigate contraventions of the code are hired and paid by the councils they are meant to hold accountable. For example, in St. Catharines recently, following an FOI investigation by The Pointer, Mayor Mat Siscoe appeared to have clearly violated council’s code of conduct by using City resources for an event to endorse Doug Ford as the next premier during the recent provincial election. Despite obvious evidence of a contravention, and an acknowledgement that the rules were broken, IC Michael Maynard—hired by council—refused to recommend any penalty or reprimand for the mayor and determined his breaking of the rules did not rise to the level of a code violation. 

Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Rob Flack has said he hopes Bill 9, the Municipal Accountability Act, will pass this fall.

(Ontario Government) 

Over two days last week, municipal staff, elected officials and members of the public offered other disturbing examples of the deeply flawed accountability system currently in place across Ontario. About 20 speakers appeared before the panel on Thursday and Friday representing a range of stakeholders including local electors. There were mayors and councillors of area municipalities, spokespeople for the Association of Ontario Roads Supervisors, Ontario Big City Mayors and the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO).        

At times the panel members expressed disbelief at what they were hearing.

Many delegates who spoke said they feel the two existing options for punishment are not adequate and that stronger mechanisms are needed to deal with the most serious offences like violence or harassment.

“Our only request is that elected officials be held responsible for workplace violence and harassment just like every other working Ontarian. This is not a controversial request. All people need to feel safe at work and municipal workers, elected officials and residents need protection within the Municipal Act,” Regional Councillor for St. Catharines, Haley Bateman, who spoke at the hearing Friday on behalf of The Woman of Ontario Say No (WOSN), said. The group has been pushing for stronger accountability mechanisms for elected officials since 2022. “There is a gap in the municipal health and safety legislation that excludes municipally elected politicians and it is time to close that gap.”

On Thursday in London, Danielle Manton, City Clerk for Cambridge and President of the AMTCO Board of Directors presented to the committee, explaining the bleak situation faced by some municipal employees.

“Threats from council members create an unsafe environment and toxic culture. Bill 9 allows for code of conduct training that will include the needed proper improvements. Right now, senior staff have nowhere to turn except to council. There needs to be strong ties between this act, workplace violence and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.”

Andrew Sloane, the mayor of Port Elgin, spoke about the financial costs and resources that will be needed if the bill is passed and said “the training piece of the bill was critical and what will the government do to help?”

During the two days of delegations, the committee heard almost unanimous support for the ability of the provincial integrity commissioner to make a recommendation to a local council that a member be removed following an egregious violation. Most presenters do not like the current system, which leaves the final decision with the majority of council. There was an overwhelming consensus by those addressing the committee that the final decision to remove a member of council should be made by an independent third party or by a judicial process. 

All speakers were in favour of a standardized code of conduct for all municipalities in Ontario with the same fee to file a complaint. Some municipalities currently charge an exorbitant fee to file an integrity commissioner complaint against council members, creating a significant barrier to accountability for members of the public. For example, in Niagara Falls, the city council has repeatedly ignored recommendations from the Ontario Ombudsman to remove the $500 complaint fee it currently has in place. 

Niagara Falls Regional Councillor Bob Gale, one of the few male speakers at Friday’s hearing, told the committee that there was a need for a fair and transparent process and that complaints were often used as a weapon to shut down politicians. 

Jeff Burch, NDP MPP for Niagara Centre, noted the $500 fee was cost prohibitive for a lot of residents who may want to file an integrity commissioner complaint but can’t do so because of the cost.

Gale agreed. “$500 is a steep cost. Everyone should go to mediation.”

In Niagara, unlike in places like Peel Region, regional councillors do not sit at both the local and upper tier council tables, meaning Gale was not involved in the vote last year by Niagara Falls city council to maintain the $500 fee, despite recommendations from the Ombudsman. 

Using the option of mediation to handle complaints before sending them to an investigator, which can be much more cost effective, was raised by a number of speakers as something they would like implemented. 

Bateman was strongly opposed to any type of mediation related to egregious violations such as violence and harassment, pointing out that forcing a victim of either of those situations into a mediation process with the alleged perpetrator would simply retraumatize them. 

“That is not what this bill is about. Mediation is already available for routine code of conduct complaints and can be used now,” Bateman told The Pointer. “This bill is dealing with the ability to remove a councillor from their seat because of egregious conduct such as violence and harassment. I worry that the discussion of mediation, which is already available, convolutes the importance of what the bill is trying to achieve. A complaint on an egregious act should never be mediated.”

A number of speakers in both sessions spoke about their concern with the current system which sees a local council make the final decision to remove a fellow member; there can be abuse of that power to get rid of council members who do not toe the majority line or are deemed by the majority or mayor to be problematic.

They told the committee of their own experiences with integrity commissioners and code of conduct investigations.

Councillor Kathryn Derosiers of the Town of Aylmer spoke to the committee about her concerns with the current version of the proposed bill.

“While designed to promote accountability, the bill risks creating new vulnerabilities. The bill proposes that a member of council may be removed if their conduct has resulted in harm to the health, safety or well-being of another person.  While this may appear reasonable, this phrasing is far too vague and open to interpretation,” she said. “The integrity of this tool hinges on its clarity…Currently, there is no effective mechanism for oversight, appeal, or review of an Integrity Commissioner’s conduct or decisions. This is particularly problematic in cases where Commissioners themselves are subject to bias, conflict, or complaints.”

Derosiers told the committee how in November of last year she was the subject of an IC complaint that the Law Society of Ontario later found to be improperly handled. 

“The resulting report reflected a distorted version of events and omitted all counterevidence and was based on hearsay alone. This was not an investigation—it was a form of political persecution,” she said. “Had bill 9 been in place at that time, I am confident it would have been used to unjustly remove me from office. I support the removal of elected officials who engage in criminal misconduct. That process must be clear, fair, and protected from political abuse.”

The Integrity Commissioner in question was Robert Swayze who has a history of questionable decisions as an IC, as previously covered by The Pointer.

Grimsby Town Councillor Jennifer Korstanje, spoke about the need for the bill to provide a clear definition of what constitutes “egregious” conduct. She echoed other presenters who said that integrity commissioners need to be accountable to some governing body and should all be lawyers with independence from council. She commended the bill on the focus of standardized training for all ICs as the bill will also address the need for stronger oversight, qualifications and training for integrity commissioners.

When asked by a member of the panel if she had confidence that her local IC could be unbiased, Korstanje responded emphatically: “No, ICs are not independent.  They are hired and paid by the municipality. And if I knew then what I know now, I would not have run for council, and if a woman asked me now if they should run for council I would tell them no. If my daughter asked me when she was older if she should run for council, I would tell her, ‘no’ also.”

More and more IC complaints are being filed by a member of council against a fellow council member to politically silence and embarrass them, many of the women who spoke Thursday and Friday alleged. More often than not, the complaint is filed against a woman, they said, describing municipal councils as an old boys club.

These members are referred to as the complainers and trouble makers; the ones that, if kicked off a council, would allow mayors and their allies to pass anything they want with very few questions and little debate.

Every woman interviewed for this article referenced the “old boys club”, and laughed at the notion that it no longer exists.

Derosiers summed up the message from many of the speakers: “If we are to empower Integrity Commissioners with greater influence in the removal process, then we must also ensure greater transparency and accountability within that office.”

The hearings on Bill 9 continue throughout July. Those unable to attend one of the scheduled public sessions can send written submissions to the province before August 18. The PC government plans to have the legislation approved prior to the 2026 municipal elections.  

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