Ontario politicians who’ve long advocated for a way to fire councillors who harass their staff or egregiously violate their code of conduct are feeling a mix of relief and frustration at the last-minute tabling of a government bill.
Orléans MPP Stephen Blais tried twice to pass a private member’s bill to address this issue. Both attempts failed.
Now, years later, he believes the PC government’s Municipal Accountability Act newly tabled bill is “too little, too late” and unlikely to pass.
“This bill, I think, is for public relations,” he said. “They’ve come up with the right ultimate conclusion or ultimate penalty, [but it] opens the door to a lot of politics, opens the door to a lot of abuse.”
Years of public pressure to amend the Municipal Act began soon after CBC Ottawa broke a series of stories about a former councillor accused of harassing female staffers, including several who say they were pressured to wear revealing clothing and subjected to unwanted sexual comments.
Multiple integrity commissioner reports found Rick Chiarelli committed “incomprehensible incidents of harassment,” but councillors had little power to punish the behaviour beyond suspending his pay and calling on him to resign.
Years of advocacy
Blais was on Ottawa city council when women came forward with details of Chiarelli’s inappropriate and sexually charged behaviour. But it wasn’t until Blais moved to Queen’s Park that he understood this sort of misconduct is far from a “one-off.”
After his two failed attempts to bring forward new rules, NDP MPP Jeff Birch introduced his own private member’s bill.
“This is so far overdue that I think the lack of an action was bordering on gross negligence,” said Emily McIntosh, founder of the non-partisan advocacy group Women of Ontario Say No.
“If this was a new issue, that would be different. But the government has known about this for years. For years! And the lack of action has been so problematic.”
She said the issue of harassment is pervasive and “everywhere in this province,” but victims tell her they don’t come forward because there’s no incentive to.
“Because no matter how egregious, no matter how appalling, no matter if the person is actually found to have egregiously violated the code by their local integrity commissioner, there is no power to remove that person,” she explained, saying that underscores the courage of women who’ve come forward anyway.
Politics could get in the way
While McIntosh and Blais applaud the overall intent of the bill, they both worry it has become too politicized to yield results.
On top of recommendations from both a municipality’s integrity commissioner and their provincial counterpart, expelling a councillor and barring them from running for four years would require a unanimous vote.
While Municipal Affairs Minister Paul Calandra argues the province needs to set a high standard, Blais argues the requirement sets the bar in “outer space.”
Only councillors with “explained absences” would be exempt from the vote, making Blais concerned that if even one councillor is away from the table when the vote is called it would scuttle the chances of appropriate punishment.
Somerset ward Coun. Ariel Troster, who’s supported the previous bills, worries this could “reignite the old boys’ club.”
“We have 24 councillors, plus a mayor, and I can entirely imagine a situation in any community where somebody might be friends with someone, they may not want to vote yes, they might feel weird about voting to remove a colleague,” she said.
“It seems to me that if an [integrity commissioner] makes a recommendation that should be considered impartial and should be acted upon.”
One code of conduct
Jeffrey Abrams, partner at Principles Integrity, which serves as integrity commissioner for more than 60 Ontario municipalities, said the system — while not quite the Wild West — certainly needs improvement.
But he feels the changes could result in “a complex, lengthy and uncertain outcome.”
Councillors, are not “skilled adjudicators” and find it challenging to make decisions related to their colleagues, he said.
Abrams said he and his partner have learned it’s necessary to properly set the stage at a time when the council chamber is “set on fire.”
“We now take time to explain to our councils that they’re sitting in a disciplinary mode, and that they ultimately have a responsibility to hear our recommendations, not to conduct the investigation,” he said. “We’ve done all that.”
Another aspect he believes will be important is to address the process at the beginning and help those impacted by the complaint while the months-long investigations are underway.
That could mean taking a page from the Education Act, which allows a trustee to be barred from attending meetings — something the Municipal Act does not allow for councillors.
Establishing a provincewide code
The new bill also addresses calls to reform the integrity commissioner system itself.
CBC Ottawa has reported on the desire for a standardized, provincewide code of conduct, which the minister said is a key part of this proposed legislation. The bill lays out new rules for mandatory training.
Calandra also told reporters on Thursday the province is aiming to bar integrity commissioners from holding another job that creates a conflict of interest.
“That is something that we are not going to see go forward,” he said.
Abrams said he appreciates the province’s commitment to consultation, saying it will be important for working integrity commissioners to weigh in on the style of code and investigative processes.
He said it’s important to avoid a litigious approach to the work, which is done under a “cloak of confidentiality” but must be transparent and fair.
Dying days of government?
Looming over these discussions is the implication of an early election.
On the same day the bill was tabled, the parliamentary session ended. It won’t resume until March.
Calandra said the bill will move directly to the committee stage, with plans for an immediate launch of consultations.
“If there is something that we didn’t address within the legislation, it allows for the maximum amount of input in the process,” the minister told reporters.
Blais remains unconvinced.
“The likelihood that this gets passed before an election is very, very low,” he said, arguing the bill is more likely to be a political show for voters.
“It’s always frustrating to see the sort of dying days of a government put out a Hail Mary bill and then letting it die on the order paper,” echoed Troster. “I hope it doesn’t die, but I also hope that if it does, it’s brought back and brought back immediately.”