PCs ignore call for judges to have final say in removing elected officials

The PC government has been hearing it through multiple advocates, elected officials and municipal law experts—bill 9 as currently drafted is ineffective and must be strengthened. 

It does not appear Premier Doug Ford or his Cabinet are listening. 

The Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Culture held hearings across Ontario this summer to gather feedback on the controversial bill 9, marketed as the PC government’s attempt to enhance the tools cities and towns have for dealing with the harmful behaviour of local elected officials. 

A key pillar of the legislation would create a mechanism to remove council members from office if they are found to have committed "egregious" acts, contrary to the municipality’s code of conduct. A definition of that word has yet to be provided by the PCs, but it likely refers to behavior such as harassment, assault and abuse of colleagues or municipal staff. 

Despite numerous meetings across the province and testimony from advocates, elected officials and key stakeholders—many demanded the legislation be strengthened—no changes are being made. 

During a meeting at the end of August, the PC majority that sits on the committee voted down all major proposed amendments, including the creation of a mechanism to have a judge make the final decision for removing a councillor from office. The failed amendment was introduced by NDP MPP Jeff Burch (Niagara Centre). 

As it stands, the bill will leave the final decision for removing an elected official up to the local council, and require a unanimous vote. 

“They were told time and time again during committee hearings—by those who work in this space and by survivors of harassment and violence in the municipal workplace that two things will happen: if Council is made the decision-making body, the legislation will be moot and ineffective. The way it is written leaves far too much room for abuse and harassment to escalate and continue unchecked,” Niagara Region Councillor Haley Bateman wrote in a press release following the PC decision to leave bill 9 effectively untouched. 

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Rob Flack previously said he hopes bill 9 will pass this fall. MPPs return to Queen’s Park next month.

(Government of Ontario)

Many of the speakers during the summer committee hearings for feedback were elected women, or municipal staff who spoke about the harassment, bullying and misogyny they encountered from council members.

Bill 9 was drafted following the sexual harassment scandal involving City of Ottawa councillor Rick Chiarelli who was found by the City’s integrity commissioner, in three separate reports starting in 2020, to have sexually harassed several female City staff. He has denied all the allegations against him. 

One of the speakers at the hearing in Ottawa was Stephanie Dobbs, one of the women the integrity commissioner concluded Chiarelli harassed. Dobbs told the standing committee that the bill, as written, would not have protected her.

“As this legislation currently stands—which, again, I am very grateful for—I am doubtful of its ability to provide meaningful change. Having the final decision return to be voted on at a council is, frankly, ludicrous. Councillors were not elected to be judge and jury for their peers—especially not when it can involve sensitive and serious subject matter,” Dobbs told the committee in July. “Putting this decision back within council creates the opportunity to turn serious and sensitive subject matter into a political spectacle and will likely force victims to be retraumatized in the process. Victims like myself could continue to feel the pressure to go public in order to lend legitimacy to their cases, to appeal to the public by putting their own trauma on display in the hopes that it increases public visibility and puts pressure on council to act with integrity. This puts a horrendous onus on victims that they may not be equipped to handle.”

Advocates are not alone in their concern that the bill falls short of meaningful change. 

Welland Mayor Frank Campion wrote a letter to the provincial government at the end of August sharing his views on leaving the decision in council's hands.

 “A single dissenting vote would be sufficient to block action, leaving the matter unresolved and potentially embolden the councillor in question.”

Legal experts agree. John Mascarin, a partner at Aird and Berlis and one of Ontario’s most widely respected municipal lawyers, said: “Leaving the final decision in the hands of politicians will ensure the law is never used. Leaving the final call to the courts would de-politicize the process and ensure fairness. I think this bill is incredibly and fatally flawed.”

For other elected officials who have been targets of political attacks from fellow council members, the requirement for a unanimous vote is actually a comfort. 

Kathryn DeRosiers, Councillor for Aylmer and a participant in the government’s hearing in London, said the decision to require a unanimous vote of council to remove a sitting member might not prevent the system from being weaponized against them.

“I’m surprised by the government’s decision, especially after the feedback at the committee hearings. From my own experience, the current wording wouldn’t allow the council to remove me even if targeted by a small group,” she said. DeRosiers was the subject of an integrity commissioner complaint last year that the Law Society of Ontario later found was handled improperly. 

Even with the protection a unanimous requirement might offer, she is supportive of leaving the final decision up to an independent body. 

“Hearing the different situations shared at the hearings reinforced support for an independent judicial review process—it removes politicization and limits the risk of this power being weaponized.”

The PC government heard stakeholders lobby for the use of an independent decision-making body during the recent Association of Municipality of Ontario (AMO) conference. DeRosiers, along with a group of other current and former female elected officials, made a presentation to the Parliamentary Assistant to the  Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Laura Smith, to present their concerns about bill 9.

The women felt they had been targeted by their councils with repeated code of conduct complaints. The group included: Veronica Charrois, Councillor Ward 3 – Town of Grimsby, Sherry Bondy, Councillor for the Municipality of Central Elgin, Morgaine Griffin, Mayor for the Town of Essex, Sherri Bell, Ward 5 Councillor Township of Ramara and Karen Ras, former councillor City of Mississauga.

The key concerns they presented included: the disproportionate targeting of women in elected office, particularly those who are new and challenge authority; the chilling effect the integrity commissioner process can have on democratic participation, as these investigations are often perceived as punitive rather than accountability-driven; the financial and emotional burden placed on part-time elected officials, especially where municipalities restrict access to legal support; and the lack of transparency and consistency in complaint handling, reporting and oversight.

The Women of Ontario Say No (WOSN) has been lobbying for stricter accountability of municipal councils to ensure any elected official be removed from their seat if they are found to have committed an egregious act. They define egregious as sexual assault, violence and harrassment. The group has been a key player in the push to enhance the proposed bill 9.

Attempts to get their message out have not been easy. The City of Niagara Falls has rejected their request to speak twice. Mayor Jim Diodati had the police called and four supporters of WOSN, including Councillor Bateman, were arrested because they refused to put down the small signs on their laps that simply read: Women of Ontario Say NO. 

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is now taking legal action against the City of Niagara Falls for that decision.

Currently, the only punishment allowed if a member of council violates the rules that govern their conduct is a reprimand or suspension of pay up to 90 days. (Conflict of Interest legislation does allow removal of office.) 

Bill 9 would allow an integrity commissioner to investigate a complaint and send findings of a violation to a provincial IC, and if there is agreement, council would then have 30 days to remove the offender from office, but only with a unanimous vote.

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