By Staff
December 12th, 2024
BURLINGTON, ON
The Toronto Star reported today that “Municipal politicians could be fired for serious misconduct — and barred from running for four years — under new legislation introduced by the province.
The move comes in light of efforts by non-partisan advocacy group The Women of Ontario Say No, which brought more than 200 municipalities on board in asking for help to deal with code of conduct violations.
“We had to make sure we got this right, which is why we worked with Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner to find the best path forward to create a standardized code of conduct process across the province,” Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Paul Calandra said in a written statement on introducing the new bill.
“This process will support consistent accountability across our municipalities.”
Can this lot be considered the “usual suspects”? The legislation will give them reason to at least pause.
Those found in “serious violation” of the code of conduct could be fired if the municipal integrity commissioner has investigated, and both the local and the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario recommend the move, along with a unanimous vote of all other Councilors.
The act will apply when local politicians’ conduct “that is the subject of the inquiry has resulted in harm to the health, safety or well-being of persons … and the existing penalties are insufficient to address the contravention or ensure that the contravention is not repeated,” the ministry said in a news release.
The Municipal Accountability Act will help set out code of conduct rules, how to handle Integrity Commissioner inquiries and require Councillors and other local elected officials to undergo training.
Last January, the province promised “airtight” legislation to address an issue that municipalities have struggled to deal with, after Progressive Conservative MPPs previously voted down a private member’s bill from Liberal MPP Stephen Blais (Orléans) last year.
Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Paul Calandra
At the time, Calandra had said he needed to “ensure that it’s constitutional, that it does what it’s supposed to do.”
“I don’t want to do something or bring something forward that can, in any way, make it harder for somebody to get the justice that they are seeking, ” he said.
As it now stands, local politicians can be removed from office for campaign finance violations but not for harassing staff, leaving municipalities with no options to address egregious behaviour.
Blais introduced his bill after serving on Ottawa council with Rick Chiarelli, who former staffers said made inappropriate comments, urged them to go braless and shared sexually explicit stories. In the end, Chiarelli was docked pay, but could not be ousted.
Emily McIntosh of The Women of Ontario Say No had said “this is really about workplace safety,” noting that staff in any other sector who harass others can be fired. “We’re talking about people that have the most power in communities held to a lower standard than any other workers in Ontario,” she said.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Ontario Big City Mayors and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association had all asked for help on code of conduct compliance.
Leaders of all opposition parties had also said such legislation is needed
Other than the vague description of the ‘city’ hires the municipal integrity commissioner, who actually hires them. If the city, which I assume means the CAO, hires the municipal integrity commissioner, and if the mayor hires the CAO, then who is the municipal integrity commissioner independent of
Provincial judges are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor on the “recommendation” of the Province’d Attorney General.
Federal judges are appointed by the Governor General on the “recommendation” of the Prime Minister.
Do you question the ability of either provincially or federally appointed judges to be unbiased when adjudicating a matter involving the government that recommended them?
I wonder why you have so little faith in the ability of those professionals (integrity commissioners) appointed to be adjudicators to be unbiased in their work.
If you were a juror at a trial could you be unbiased and adjudicate based upon evidence presented?
The city’s Integrity Commissioner is the firm of Principles Integrity. Here are brief resumes of its two founders.
Mr. Abrams was Clerk of the City of Vaughan, and prior to that he worked in a similar capacity for the Regional Municipality of York and the amalgamated City of Toronto. He began his career as a solicitor in the pre-amalgamation Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.
Ms Atwood most recently was City Solicitor for the City of Hamilton and prior to that was City Solicitor in Vaughan. Her municipal career spans engagements with the legal departments of the Cities of Mississauga and Brampton, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and a term as an elected official on the Peel District School Board. Both have abundant training and experience in law, municipal government, governance, ethical behaviours, investigations, coaching and legislative drafting.
Sure, let the fox run the hen house. The only accountability happens every four years. This is a joke.
Who controls the municipal integrity commissioner
The city is required to hire an Integrity Commissioner. They are in place to accept complains from the public and to investigate.
Use the Search engine in the upper right corner of the Home page and type in Galbraith + Integrity Commissioner and you will see an example of their work.
Theoretically they are independent. There was an occasion during a Council meeting that the Integrity Commissioner advised the Mayor that she had a Conflict of Interest and had to remove herself from the Chair.
The integrity commissioner is appointed by council to act independently and investigate complaints made to it. The same firm that acts for the City also acts for quite a number of other Ontario towns and cities. The firm is just like a judgeb- appointed by a level of government to act impartially. So the City appoints the commissioner but does not control it. Many people suggest the integrity commissioner to be biased. That seems to happen when a decision of the integrity commissioner goes against them or their opinion. That’s the sort of reaction we see all too often down in the States; particularly from the Republican party. You mentioned the Galbraith conflict of interest matter that was referred to the commissioner. The commissioner’s report quite clearly said the councilor was not in conflict as had been suggested; and that was because his properties were not within the distance radius used to determine whether a property holding created a conflict. You mentioned also that the commissioner advised the Mayor during a council meeting that she was in conflict. Are you really suggesting the commissioner was there in person watching over the proceedings and stepped in to say there was a conflict? I’m not sure that happened. Perhaps you can cite the exact instance.
Editor’s note: Mr. Leigh – you could search the Gazette and find the story for yourself you know. The incident took place during an occasion when the Integrity was reporting to Council. I will try to find time on the weekend to do your homework for you.
This from a government rife with its own misconduct !!