‘A kangaroo court’: Welcome to the ‘wild west’ world of municipal government under Doug Ford

“Accountability is not optional; it’s essential…it’s the cornerstone of public trust and the foundation for safe, respectful and effective workplaces, wherever we may work. It is important we get it right…This is really not a partisan issue or piece of legislation—this is something that the province and municipalities have been looking for a long, long time.”

Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, offered these words of encouragement during a hearing of the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy in London on July 3. 

The committee was beginning public hearings on bill 9, a piece of legislation known as the Municipal Accountability Act, amending rules that govern Ontario’s 444 municipalities. 

Municipal councillors, advocates and citizens have long complained the mechanisms for holding local elected officials accountable for their bad behaviour are ineffective. 

Investigations are carried out by integrity commissioners hired by the very council members they are supposed to hold accountable. There are no standards for them to follow; no legal or municipal experience is required and there are numerous examples across Ontario of investigators submitting reports with glaring holes in them. 

In Brampton, integrity commissioner Muneeza Sheikh, who had zero experience in municipal law or as an integrity commissioner, ignored obvious facts when deciding Mayor Patrick Brown did not violate any rules while secretly opening up a taxpayer-funded City arena to play pick-up hockey with his friends during the COVID-19 shutdown when such activities were strictly prohibited. Sheikh took the job in Brampton despite past connections to Brown that present a clear conflict of interest. She charged more than seven times what previous integrity commissioners had billed taxpayers and was eventually fired by a majority group of councillors during the previous term. Then, when Brown retook control of council after the 2022 municipal election, he promptly had her rehired.

Sheikh had previously conducted an investigation into sexual assault allegations levelled by a Brampton businesswoman against now-former councillor Gurpreet Dhillon, declaring his guilt according to her probe. Dhillon denied the accusations all along, and when the woman, who had first gone to Brown with her story, withdrew her allegations, it was too late for his political career. Brown had relentlessly gone after Dhillon, who regularly opposed the mayor on council, publicly claiming the councillor was guilty of sexual misconduct (Brown still faces allegations of rape and attempted rape; he denies them). 

Despite Sheikh’s findings, police never brought any charges against Dhillon, who said he was never even interviewed by law enforcement authorities.

Dhillon’s lawyers sent a draft lawsuit to the City of Brampton last year threatening a claim for $5 million and demanding all of Sheikh’s investigation reports be expunged from the City website. Brampton’s head lawyer told council members the matter was between Dhillon and Sheikh. 

Brown, The City and Sheikh have since refused to answer The Pointer’s questions about the case and the withdrawn allegations against Dhillon, who was stripped of pay and suspended by Brown and other council members after the integrity commissioner’s investigation.

If the twisted saga seems difficult to comprehend, welcome to the world of municipal politics in Ontario under the hands off, wild west-style of the Doug Ford PC government.   

More recently in St. Catharines, integrity commissioner Michael Maynard ignored key evidence uncovered by The Pointer showing Mayor Mat Siscoe used City resources to attend an event to endorse Ford as premier ahead of the February provincial election. Maynard made contradictory statements in his report that acknowledged Siscoe violated council’s code of conduct, but refused to recommend any penalty. Maynard revealed that he routinely violated the Municipal Act by not publishing his investigation reports, preventing the taxpayers who pay for them from seeing the work. The Act explicitly requires completed investigation reports to be made available to the public. Maynard, who serves as the integrity commissioner for 23 municipalities, was either unaware of this, or was knowingly breaking the rules.

Ontario Ombudsman Paul Dubé reported that between March of 2019 and April of 2024 he received 300 “complaints and inquiries related to codes of conduct and integrity commissioners”. 

Now, the legislative amendments being proposed as part of bill 9 are meant to enhance municipal codes of conduct and create an additional level of accountability through a review process by the provincial integrity commissioner—particularly as it relates to “egregious” conduct like harassment or assault. The provincial IC would then make a recommendation to the local council, determining whether or not a member’s behaviour warrants removal from office. Under the current proposal, a unanimous vote of council would then be required to remove the member, which critics say renders the legislation, as it is currently worded, effectively unworkable.  

The proposed language of the legislation and its ability to improve accountability in Ontario’s municipal government sector was a subject of intense debate throughout the summer. 

Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Rob Flack has ignored calls to enhance the proposed bill 9 which advocates say does not create the necessary mechanisms for dealing with the broken system of accountability in Ontario’s municipal government sector.

(Government of Ontario) 

Municipal accountability and transparency measures were first introduced in the wake of a 2005 judicial inquiry into allegations of bribery and conflicts of interest in the City of Toronto computer leasing scandal. 

On March 1, 2019, it became mandatory for all Ontario municipalities to develop a Code of Conduct to govern the behaviour of council and local board members. Municipalities were also required to appoint an integrity commissioner to apply the rules set out in the code of conduct, provide advice and educate members on the rules. Upon receipt of a complaint, the IC determines whether an investigation is warranted, and if one moves forward, whether the municipality’s code of conduct was contravened.

The municipal integrity commissioner process has come under criticism for perceived conflicts, inconsistencies in the application of rules, abuse of the process by residents and members of council and excessive costs to local taxpayers. 

Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, a leading democratic reform organization and advocacy group, is candid in his criticism of the system that allows municipal councils “full control” of the accountability process.

“Councils writing their own ethics rules, choosing their own ethics lap dog and then deciding whether or not to penalize any of their colleagues. That’s a kangaroo court, by definition! It's what people are complaining that Trump is doing in the U.S., writing his own rules, choosing his own watchdogs and deciding whether he himself is guilty, the way authoritarians do.”

Conacher contends that the system was broken from the start following a flawed introduction by the Liberal government under Dalton McGuinty. He believes the government of the day knew it had to increase ethical standards, but did not want to upset municipal council members and have them campaign against the Liberal government going into an election. The result was what he calls a “layer cake of conflicts.”

“You need to prevent apparent conflict of interest, prohibit dishonesty and have full disclosure of assets and liabilities. You also need an independent enforcement system, someone that the public perceives to be independent and impartial,” Conacher argues.

Guy Giorno, a current integrity commissioner for several Ontario municipalities and former chief of staff to prime minister Stephen Harper, described the conflict issue as a “real problem” at his testimony before the Standing Committee hearing in Ottawa on July 17. 

“An integrity commissioner is supposed to be independent, yet a significant number of code of conduct complaints come from administration and staff. How can someone hired by management one day investigate management’s complaint against a councillor the next day?” Giorno asked. 

In addition to the independence issue, he criticized the lack of quality control in the selection of integrity commissioners. 

“Most municipalities, Toronto and Ottawa excepted, choose integrity commissioners by RFP, the same way they pick a contractor to fix a road,” Giorno said. 

In an interview with The Pointer, Niagara Centre MPP Jeff Burch echoed the concerns, saying “there’s just no rules”. 

“It's the wild west out there when it comes to selecting and employing (municipal integrity commissioners),” Burch said. 

Bill 9 attempts to address the inconsistency in experience and background of those who are hired as local integrity commissioners. The legislation contemplates the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario (ICO) overseeing education and training to municipal integrity commissioners. The ICO would also advise municipalities, upon request only, about the independence of a person being considered for appointment as the integrity commissioner, including whether the person has a conflict of interest and the status of their training. 

Mr. Giorno said this type of education should be the absolute minimum requirement, recommending better background checks on potential integrity commissioners and the ICO publishing and updating a regular list of qualified experts.

In August, Niagara Centre MPP Jeff Burch proposed a number of amendments to the proposed bill 9 in an attempt to strengthen the changes recommended to Ontario’s municipal accountability system. The PC majority that sits on the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy that was reviewing the proposed legislation voted them all down.

(Ontario NDP)

For some who attended the Standing Committee hearings, the answer to the issue of independence could be easily solved by ending the hiring of integrity commissioners by municipal councils and allowing the ICO to either oversee the hirings or conduct the actual investigations under its own jurisdiction, a process akin to what occurs under municipal freedom of information and privacy legislation. 

“The law was passed with the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, taking complaints, reviewing them, mediating complaints and issuing binding orders,” Conacher said. 

Another suggestion heard at the hearings was for the government to establish a provincial integrity commissioner panel of qualified professionals who could oversee the most serious cases.

Bill 9 is also proposing to standardize municipal codes of conduct across Ontario.  

According to Minister Flack, a lack of standardization of municipal codes of conduct has meant 444 iterations, limited access to best practices, and “undermined public confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of accountability mechanisms.” 

Generally, municipal codes of conduct mandate such things as how councillors handle gifts, benefits, hospitality; respectful conduct toward municipal employees and officers; handling of confidential information; and the use of municipal property. Codes of conduct may also address such matters as decorum during meetings, social media use, when and if members can communicate on behalf of the municipality and workplace harassment.

The variation between the codes in Ontario’s 444 municipalities is difficult to determine.

As the Minister noted at the London hearing, “some of our municipal friends like to operate on their own island, so to speak”. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Niagara Falls where the municipality has instituted a $500 fee to file a complaint with the integrity commissioner, which is only open to residents of the municipality, instead of any member of the public, which is the wording in the Municipal Act. These practices have prompted Ontario’s Ombudsman Paul Dubé to twice write to Niagara Falls City Council asking that the price be either dropped or reduced to a small cost (many cities charge nothing or $10 to $20), and the residency requirement be removed. Council has ignored the direction.

Minister Flack has promised a standardized code of conduct, arguing it will mean “clearer obligations, stronger ethical alignment and better governance.” He has not given any indication if practices, such as those in Niagara Falls, will be forbidden in the future.

Conacher agrees with such standardization, writing in a submission to the Standing Committee that “best-practice democratic good government standards have been well-established for decades and do not differ for governments in Windsor, Ottawa, North Bay or anywhere else in the province or the world.”

The submission from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner Toronto, however, warns that a “universal” code of conduct may “water down” the codes of conduct in experienced municipalities. As a result of the 2005 judicial inquiry into the computer leasing scandal, Toronto has had an integrity commissioner’s office for approximately 20 years, and a framework widely considered the most independent and professional in the province.

Despite the Minister’s promise of one standard code of conduct, the language in bill 9 is less definitive, indicating that the cabinet “may” make regulations prescribing a code of conduct for members of councils of municipalities and of local boards.” Such regulations have yet to be released and without the legislation stating that cabinet “shall” prescribe a code of conduct, there is no guarantee that a standardized code will happen, Conacher told The Pointer. 

Currently, an integrity commissioner who finds a member of council has contravened the code of conduct can only recommend a reprimand or a suspension without pay up to 90 days. If council members do not agree, they can vote to reject all or some of the recommendations.

The options for punishment have been viewed as woefully inadequate considering the number of harassment cases and other serious allegations of wrongdoing involving municipal councillors in Ontario. 

At the Standing Committee hearing in Ottawa a number of the delegates were municipal staff that had been employed by former Ottawa councillor, Rick Chiarelli.

Since 2019, more than a dozen women have come forward alleging lewd and inappropriate behaviour by the Ottawa councillor. Three formal complaints were made to the municipality’s integrity commissioner, who found that Chiarelli had violated the code of conduct. The integrity commissioner recommended the maximum three-month suspension of pay for each of the complaints. 

But a judicial review triggered by Chiarelli found council members acted with bias and quashed the punishment, then the court itself ordered the exact same punishment because it found Chiarelli had indeed violated the code. Just because council members did not behave neutrally, did not mean the councillor deserved to be let off the hook. The case illustrated many of the problems with the current system, especially in cases of serious wrongdoing. 

“I went through the process to file a complaint. I spent hours recounting details of awful events in writing and again in several interviews,” Stephanie Dobbs, one of the main complainants against Chiarelli, told the Standing Committee in Ottawa. “I did everything asked of me, including avoiding discussing the investigation until it concluded over a year later. When all was said and done, my former employer received a 90-day pay cut but kept his job.”

Nancy Cairns, who worked as an assistant to Councillor Chiarelli, also recounted her experience. 

“The process took a year and a half. It was retraumatizing and left me completely broken. The person who caused the harm remained in the workplace the entire time, and when the findings were finally released, nothing changed. My abuser stayed in the office for years, still in a position of power over me at work, still representing me in the community, and still showing up in the media. That’s not accountability. That’s abandonment.” 

The sentiment was echoed at the Ottawa hearing by Joanne Chianello, the local reporter who broke the Chiarelli story.

“Every time I reported a new story outlining harassment and wildly inappropriate behaviour that Chiarelli had always denied, I’d get the same question from readers, from listeners, over and over again: ‘How is this guy still in office?’” 

The Ottawa case is not isolated. There are numerous examples of municipal council members who have allegedly abused their staff and others. Recent mayors of South Glengarry and Woodstock were charged during the 2018 to 2022 municipal council term. 

In South Glengarry, mayor Frank Prevost resigned his seat in 2021 after being charged with sexual assault and child luring. He was convicted in 2023 and appealed the decision. Prevost passed away in 2024. 

Despite charges for sexual assault pending against him in 2022, Woodstock mayor Trevor Birtch ran for re-election in that year’s municipal election. He came in a distant fourth place with a mere 3.27 percent of the vote. Birtch was convicted earlier this year.

Unlike Birtch, Toronto City Councillor Michael Thompson was re-elected in 2022 to his seat despite a sexual assault charge, which had been laid the month before the municipal election. He was acquitted last month.

Currently, Niagara Falls City Councillor Mike Strange is facing a charge of assault for an alleged criminal domestic violence offence. Strange has pleaded not guilty, with a two-day trial set for April. The next municipal election is in October 2026.  

Integrity commissioners have also found cases of bullying and harassment of municipal staff by politicians in Sudbury (2023), Brighton (2022) and Cochrane (2024). In Mississauga, during the previous council term former councillor Ron Starr allegedly keyed the car of former councillor Karen Ras, who would eventually resign due to the alleged harassment she endured, claiming City officials failed to protect her.

In Barrie, resident Emily McIntosh was galvanized to act when she learned of a sexual harassment incident involving a sitting municipal councillor.

“Somebody that I knew was affected. As the information was shared, I knew that I would be doing something to change that,” she said. “The councillor was also in civil litigation for sexual harassment of a city employee. This demonstrated that there was a major problem here. That we could have multiple people in the community, multiple women in the community affected. And this is just unacceptable. So, at the time that this person had decided to run for mayor (in 2022), I had a visceral reaction, and I just decided this cannot be the reality…It is not acceptable for any other person working in Ontario, so how is it possible that we could grant more leniency to people in positions of power who are elected representatives?”

McIntosh started her advocacy efforts locally, dubbing the initiative as the Woman of Simcoe County Say No. Learning of the concurrent situation in Ottawa and in Niagara where Strange faces a criminal charge, the grassroots initiative eventually became the Women of Ontario Say No. 

McIntosh describes the initiative not as a formal organization but more as a loose, non-partisan group  advocating for government legislation to hold municipally elected politicians accountable for violence and harassment. She has appeared before more than 200 municipal councils and given presentations to various municipal organizations such as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Big City Mayors caucus, advocating for improved legislation. 

The Women of Ontario Say No’s website articulates the current gap in the law in Ontario:

“The Ontario government introduced legislation to mandate that employers have a Workplace Violence and Harassment policy. This legislation underscored the rights of all persons to be safe at work. Yet, municipally elected representatives have essentially experienced immunity, by virtue of public election.”

Dubé, Ontario’s Ombudsman, has outlined the limitations of a municipal integrity commissioner: “The courts have explained that the level of procedural fairness owed by an integrity commissioner is low because their function is investigative, not adjudicative – they can only make findings and recommendations, and their reports cannot cause councillors to be removed from office.” 

The penalties for a code of conduct violation under bill 9 remain a reprimand and a suspension of pay up to a maximum of 90 days. 

Currently, it is difficult and incredibly onerous for the public to have a member of council removed from office. Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act allows for the removal of office under its accountability rules, but this can only be done by a judge, and only after a member of the public brings a complaint to the court which can then possibly trigger a costly trial that has to be paid for by the plaintiff, with the risk of losing all their money if the decision in the case goes in favour of the council member.

Even in examples of municipal corruption such as the circumstances surrounding Dubé’s ‘Inside Job’ investigation into the Regional Municipality of Niagara’s hiring process for a chief administrative officer, any council member involved could not have faced removal from office through an integrity commissioner complaint.

Under the proposed bill 9 the decision to remove a council member would ultimately be up to the municipal elected officials at the table, with a unanimous vote from them required. 

This has been met with widespread criticism. 

The submission from Toronto’s integrity commissioner articulates how difficult this requirement would be, describing a unanimous council vote as “an almost insurmountable threshold, undermining the Bill’s purpose”. 

“In practice, achieving unanimity on any issue before Council, even relatively routine matters, is exceedingly difficult. At least one member might presumably object to the idea of removal on principle, believing that only the electorate should have the power to remove an elected official, regardless of the severity of the misconduct. This makes the removal provision in Bill 9 effectively unworkable, even in cases of egregious behaviour.”

Dobbs, the former City of Ottawa employee, described the unanimity requirement as “ludicrous” at the Standing Committee hearing in Ottawa.

“Councillors were not elected to be judge and jury for their peers—especially not when it can involve sensitive and serious subject matter.”

MPP Burch echoed the criticism when speaking to The Pointer.

“The bar is just set too high with the unanimous votes and going back to council and asking council to make a judgement on a colleague means that a councillor will never be removed, regardless of how egregious their acts of sexual harassment or intimidation are. That’s not reasonable.”

The unanimous vote required under the proposed bill 9 is not just based on the council members present at the meeting where the removal is being considered, but must include all members on council, except for anyone off on parental or pregnancy leave or who has been authorized to be absent by a resolution of council.  

“If someone calls in sick or slinks out to the washroom, the vote fails,” explained an incredulous Joanne Chianello at the Standing Committee hearing in Ottawa.  

Bill 9, as written, would also likely add even more time to the process.

After a complaint has been received, a contravention of the code has been determined and the municipality’s integrity commissioner has recommended the seat be declared vacant, the matter would then be forwarded to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario, who would also make a recommendation. If the ICO recommends the seat be vacated, it must be dealt with by the municipality within 30 days, and removal would only occur with a unanimous vote by the other council members. 

Minister Flack, at the initial Standing Committee hearing, noted that, “it’s the unanimous consent at the end of the day that has people debating this issue. I can argue both sides.” 

He said that “removing someone from elected office is a pretty serious consequence”, implying that unanimity is appropriate. The Minister also seemed to have more faith in the decision making of council members than the critics of the bill. 

“By the time you get to a vote (of council), there should be little doubt that removal and disqualification, if it’s being recommended, be done.” 

Whether Ontario’s integrity commissioner would conduct a new investigation, entertain witness testimony and rule on any evidence gathered independently; or just review the local integrity commissioner’s report for proper application of the law and procedural fairness, has not been detailed. In addition to adding time to the process, Toronto’s integrity commissioner has other concerns. 

“In cases of harassment, discrimination and other misconduct that has harmed someone, re-investigation can re-traumatize the person targeted by that treatment. The Province should take a trauma-informed approach and not subject the survivor to further questioning,” the submission to the province by Toronto’s IC recommends. “Through an administrative review of the municipal integrity commissioner’s report, the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario can ensure the findings and recommendations were properly reasoned without reopening the investigation or re-interviewing those involved, thereby minimizing the risk of further harm to the survivor. 

PC members on the Standing Committee provided little in the way of justification as to why the decision on vacating a seat should be left to council members and not rendered by a judge or independent third party. MPP Matthew Rae (Perth–Wellington) declared at the final Standing Committee hearing that “we do not believe it is the purview of a judge to rule on an elected official’s seat to vacate that seat.”

Rae’s position failed to recognize that judges have the authority under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to declare a council seat vacant and that such a vacancy could occur because of a complaint from a member of the public under the existing code of conduct process.

Since 2021, there have been several attempts to introduce municipal accountability legislation. The PC government initially seemed interested in dealing with the issue earlier in its first term under Ford, according to Niagara Centre NDP MPP Jeff Burch.

“The government, under (former) minister of municipal affairs and housing Steve Clark, consulted with the opposition parties and I was part of that consultation being a municipal affairs critic since 2018. The bill was well consulted. It was very different from (the current) bill 9,” he said. “I think it would have been something that folks could have supported but it got killed in 2021. We don't know for sure why that was, but clearly instructions came from the top of the government and the party just sidelined that piece of legislation. So, after quite a bit of consultation, it just died.”

Subsequent efforts occurred with the introduction of private member bills by Ottawa area Liberal MPP Stephen Blais (Orléans) and by Burch.

“Mr. Blais came up with one to address specifically the removal of councillors. Then I did a very substantial private members bill that addressed the integrity commissioner issues, as well as the removal of councillors.” 

The proposed bills were either voted down or timed out with the end of legislative sessions, as was the case with the government’s proposed bill 241, the Municipal Accountability Act, 2024, introduced in December, ahead of the February election.

McIntosh provided The Pointer with a number of other improvements she would like to see in bill 9, including whistleblower protection; a duty to report by witnesses that see harassment in the municipal workspace; workplace discrimination as a violation in all codes of conduct; a prioritization of egregious acts of violence and harassment that pose a risk to others; a two-term ban from council, if previously removed; and a range of penalties, if removal does not occur. 

At the final hearing of the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy on August 26, the members engaged in what is known as a clause-by-clause consideration of bill 9.

MPPs Burch and Blais put forward a series of amendments, which included: reducing the threshold to declare a seat vacant to a two-thirds majority, a position supported by AMO and Toronto’s integrity commissioner; allowing the local integrity commissioner to apply to a judge to have a council seat declared vacant; increasing the time a disqualified member would be precluded from running for council again from four years to seven years; and that no fee be charged for filing a code of conduct complaint. None of the amendments were successful, with the majority PC members of the committee voting them down.

At the first Standing Committee meeting, Minister Flack encouraged members to make recommendations to make the legislation better. In retrospect, he may have signalled the government’s lack of interest in any changes to what they had proposed in bill 9.

“In my humble opinion, we’ve consulted. We’ve listened. We’ve learned, and I think we’re on the right track.”

MPP Blais candidly offered a motive for the government’s rejection of any substantive amendments. 

“The reason the Premier wants a unanimous vote of council is because he knows that, 20 years ago, his brother (Rob Ford) would not have been kicked off of council with a unanimous vote, because they had one in the bag. It was him,” Blais suggested at the final Standing Committee hearing. “The Premier was his brother’s vote in the bag to avoid his brother getting kicked off of Toronto city council. And he knows that there would always be a good old boy available to save someone from the vote, and that’s why he wants a unanimous vote of council and that’s why he doesn’t want to send this to a judicial process.”

At the same hearing, NDP MPP Catherine McKenny (Ottawa Centre), who was an Ottawa councillor at the time of the Rick Chiarelli matter, said those who have participated in the consultation process for bill 9 have been left feeling completely ignored.

“I’ve been texting back and forth with Joanne Chianello, who is the reporter who worked for months breaking this story in Ottawa; worked with the victims of this councillor for months. This is what she said when we went back and forth. She said, ‘A giant waste of time and money. I feel like an idiot participating in this process. I really gave the PC government the benefit of the doubt and applauded the fact that they travelled the bill, but apparently that was just for show.’”

Emily McIntosh, the founder of Women of Ontario Say No, has been advocating for stronger municipal accountability mechanisms for years. While happy that new rules are being proposed, she believes the PC government’s bill 9 needs to be strengthened.

(Jerry Manco for The Pointer)

Duff Conacher surmises that the decision to hold committee hearings over the summer was to bury criticism of the bill and that the timing during the summer meant less scrutiny and public input. Conacher also pointed out that no further amendments to bill 9 are possible after the clause-by-clause consideration and that it can be passed, as is, when the legislature resumes on October 20.

Burch told The Pointer he approached the Standing Committee hearings with a positive mindset, as he always does. He felt that unlike other bills that the PCs rushed through before summer break, the decision to have hearings was a sign the government was open to listening to the public and making changes to bill 9. 

“The bill does go a long way toward making sure that we have qualified educated integrity commissioners and that councils have some kind of standard to which they can meet codes of conduct and dealing with instances of harassment. If we even got one change, which was a reasonable way to remove councillors that needed to be removed, then we could have come to an all-party consensus on the bill,” Burch said, adding he was not surprised by the result. 

“I think that there are well meaning people within the government, but it always seems to hit a brick wall when we're about to discuss the things that really matter.”

He vows to continue to introduce private legislation and force the government to debate it and vote on it.

 McIntosh is also not conceding the fight just yet.

“I can share that there is overwhelming support from the Caucus to change the unanimous requirement to a two-thirds majority. I have been directing people to contact their MPP, to raise their concerns because we know again that the numbers speak. If the Conservative Caucus is hearing directly from the public, hopefully certain changes will be advanced. And if changes don’t happen then we need to be asking why. So right now, we're having conversations with members of the conservative government asking for them to advance these efforts internally, because they see merit in it.” 

Conacher said the government doesn’t want truly enhanced accountability mechanisms for local council members because it may then place scrutiny on their own rules, which are also viewed as incredibly weak. 

Members of Provincial Parliament are governed by the Member’s Integrity Act 1994. The Act has provisions on conflict of interest, insider information, gifts, holding of investments, and financial disclosures. The Act was amended in 2021 to include a section on social media. 

The legislation, however, is vague on issues of conduct. The preamble states that “members are expected to perform their duties of office and arrange their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of each member.” Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner does have authority under the Act to recommend to the legislative assembly that a member be reprimanded, suspended or their seat be vacated. While there is only one historical instance of a member’s seat being vacated, if a vote was to go to the assembly, it would be a simple majority vote. 

This seems like a double standard.

The efficacy of the Member’s Integrity Act could be tested soon. On September 22, news broke that the PC MPP representing Sault Ste. Marie, Chris Scott, was removed from the Progressive Conservative caucus and would be sitting as an Independent in the legislature. Mr. Scott has been charged with assault with a weapon. Media reports indicate the victim of the alleged assault was Scott’s wife, with court reports indicating that the weapon, in question, was a highchair.

For McIntosh, it is another example of why accountability measures must be strengthened and extended to all levels of government, with appropriate suspension provisions.

“The member has been kicked out of caucus but how safe are those colleagues? They have no choice. They have no choice on how to interact with that person, as that person still retains their position of power,” she said. 

“We're not advocating that that person be removed from the legislature, but that they would be placed on a leave. And I think what this shows is that this effort around accountability is not just applicable to elected representatives at the municipal level but really needs to be expanded to all levels of government.”

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