Thursday, July 31, 2025

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Good morning, committee and Chair. Thank you for having me today. My name is Lindsay Koch. I’m a councillor in the city of Kenora. Thanks also for travelling up to the great northwest of our province for this work. I’m truly sorry I’m not able to be there in person today. I’m here as a growing movement of Ontarians and the Women of Ontario Say No who are deeply concerned about misconduct in municipal government and the urgent need to address gaps in accountability, transparency and safety. Bill 9 is a promising and necessary step forward. Thank you to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and others for hearing our calls for action on this issue. It touches on two essential areas: municipal codes of conduct and occupational health and safety. These are not abstract issues; these are matters that shape the integrity of our local democracies and the well-being of our municipal employees, many of whom are women and who have experienced harm or who have been silenced under threat of retaliation. We have seen too many recent examples of councillor misconduct across Ontario just in my term of council: from Norfolk, where a councillor made inappropriate comments to a staff member; to Brant county, where staff endured a toxic work environment stemming from council disfunction. The situation became so unmanageable that the CAO and several senior staff left the municipality, citing a complete breakdown in governance and personal harassment. In Brampton, we’ve seen investigations, lawsuits and accusations of retaliation tied to allegations of harassment, abuse and power. These issues weren’t just about personality conflicts; they created a workplace culture where professional staff feared speaking up. And we can’t forget the years-long saga in Ottawa where all allegations faced by former councillor Rick Chiarelli of sexual harassment from staff and job applicants were substantiated. Despite damning findings by the integrity commissioner with only brief suspensions in pay, he was able to remain in office until the end of his term. These are not isolated bad apples; they are warning signs that current mechanisms are not working. And further, I want to emphasize that this is not about dissenting opinions. Healthy debate is a recognized part of the job. I want to speak directly to the section of the act what would allow a council to remove a sitting member found in breach of their code of conduct by a unanimous vote. While well-intentioned, we must ask, is a unanimous vote realistic or fair? In many cases, misconduct is not addressed because personal alliances, political debts or social pressures get in the way. A councillor may not be a lone wolf; their actions may be known, tolerated or even supported by others. Expecting a unanimous vote in such a climate creates a high bar that may never be met, no matter how serious the misconduct. With this in mind, I urge the committee to amend Bill 9 to require a super majority—two thirds of council—rather than a unanimous vote. This maintains democratic oversight but reduces the risk of gridlock due to internal relationships or retaliation fears. Better yet, an independent panel of provincial Integrity Commissioners should be tasked with determining the most severe sanctions. Removing that decision from council altogether eliminates the internal politics that often shield offenders. Second, Bill 9 must ensure that any member of council who is charged with assault, harassment or other egregious criminal acts is placed on automatic leave, pending resolution in the courts. Just as other professionals such as teachers, police officers and health workers face automatic leaves in such situations, so too should elected officials whose actions carry serious public consequences, and if convicted, automatic removal from office should apply. No more passing the buck. No more waiting for victims to go public before action is taken. We need clear, legislated consequences, which leads to my third point. I will urge the committee—and I think maybe that you are considering consequences for substantiated breaches of conduct that fall short of removal. Not every offence warrants ousting a councillor, but every offence warrants consequences on some level, with options including: —mandatory integrity commissioner training or other remedial action; —public apologies with an accountability plan; —temporary suspension of committee appointments or voting privileges; and —what is currently in place: financial penalties or salary withholding. These measures, when applied transparently, will reinforce that misconduct has consequences without relying only on the extreme of removal. Let’s also remember that these breaches occur not just among council members but often involve municipal staff, particularly women, younger workers and racialized employees, who must feel safe bringing forward concerns without fear of reprisal. This bill must ensure whistle-blower protections for staff, confidential reporting pathways and safeguards for their employment and mental health, because ultimately this is about safety—emotional, psychological and professional safety in the workplace. Council chambers are workplaces, and they must be held to the same occupational health and safety standards as any other. Staff should not have to choose between silence and survival. Council members should not operate in a consequence-free zone whether they are working in chambers, while appointed to local boards and committees or attending community events in their capacity as council members. Women of Ontario Say No has gathered thousands of signatures and hundreds of resolutions passed by municipal councils calling for greater municipal accountability, and their voices must be reflected in this legislation. Their central message is clear: Public office is not a right; it’s a responsibility. In closing, I thank the committee again for considering Bill 9. I urge you to strengthen it to reflect the real challenges facing our communities. Let’s ensure the tools that we provide to municipalities are not just symbolic but practical, enforceable and just—and opportunities to restore public confidence in our local democratic institutions. Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Thank you. This round of questioning will start with the official opposition. Then, we’ll go to the third party and then to the government. Madame Vaugeois, s’il vous plaît.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Thank you very much, Chair. We’ve heard from three very interesting perspectives; distinct perspectives, I think. But what I’m seeing in common is the desire for consistency, the removal of political interference in how decisions are made, very clear standards of conduct and having a high standard of conduct, a high bar for elected officials. I hope I am hearing that correctly. Some are saying things should lie with the electorate, but that often leaves problems unaddressed, and it leaves people who are being affected by bad behaviour from council members hanging for a very long period of time. I think I will ask each person in turn. I’ll start with Jessica. You made some very specific recommendations, but I think what you’re looking for is very clear definitions of what constitutes appropriate behaviour, acceptable behaviour, and you’re also looking for the public’s right to speak to these issues. We’re hearing different levels because sometimes a complaint is brought forward that shouldn’t necessarily be made public at the time until it’s really been thoroughly investigated. Would you agree, first of all, that integrity commissioners would best be appointed by the Ontario Integrity Commissioner or somebody with some independent body so that we don’t have built-in conflicts of interest? Also, I would suggest that the local integrity commissioners be paid by the province and not by a local council, again to eliminate that potential conflict of interest. Maybe I could ask Jessica first and then go—do we have two Jessicas?

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

Yes.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

We do, okay. So Jessica Street first, if you could respond to that, and then I will ask the other two people.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Street

Certainly. As I stated in my delegation, what we believe would be most fair would be, yes, assigned by the Ontario Integrity Commissioner, but to do it in a lottery system so that there is less chance of a bias being built up. In regard to your comment about being able to speak about an integrity commissioner report, this is after the report has concluded, after it’s been presented publicly. We have noticed that there are some integrity commissioners who are going to different open council meetings and requesting that a motion be put forward that delegates can no longer question or speak up on their findings.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Thank you very much. I think those are really important points, and I’m glad to have them on the record. Jessica Wilkins?

Official source

Ms. Jessica Wilkins

Sorry, what was the question?

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

The question is, would you agree that the Ontario Integrity Commissioner should have the role of appointing local commissioners and that that role be paid for by the province to try to eliminate undue influence and bias within local communities?

Official source

Ms. Jessica Wilkins

I actually don’t believe it should be the role of a municipal integrity commissioner at all to—I don’t believe that a municipal integrity commissioner should be appointed by anybody.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

You believe that issue is a—

Official source

Ms. Jessica Wilkins

It should have to go through the courts.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Okay. All right, noted. And Lindsay?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Thank you for your question. I do agree that the Ontario Integrity Commissioner should appoint local integrity commissioners. Certainly, as a councillor, I would be pleased for the province to pay that bill.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Thank you. Do I have a little bit more time?

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

You have one minute, 41 seconds.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Okay, right. The other thing is, I think that there’s been general concern about politicizing the process of judging one’s peers. I’ll start with Lindsay this time. Do you agree that, as much as possible, appropriate standards and behaviours are spelled out with the consequences so that when you come to office, you know what is expected and the consequences have been spelled out so that it’s not arbitrary, it’s not left to individual councilmembers to be pushing against each other or voting on each other?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Yes, I do agree with that. When we know better, we do better. When we know there’s a line, we know better not to cross it. Certainly, I don’t feel comfortable voting one of my colleagues out. I that think that just gets ethically icky.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Thank you very much. And Jessica Wilkins?

Official source

Ms. Jessica Wilkins

Yes, I also do not agree that councillors should be able to vote each other out.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Thank you. And Jessica Street?

Official source

Ms. Jessica Street

Yes, I believe that if a member of council especially has put a complaint forward, they shouldn’t be able to then vote on that. I also believe that if it should be something that is already within the Criminal Code or the Municipal Act that it should be handled as we currently have the rules for it in place today.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Thank you very much.

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Thank you. Now we’ll go to the third party. MPP Collard.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

I want to just make my first question to Ms. Jessica Street. I could hardly find any information about the Emberlight Project and you’re appearing today representing this project. I would like to hear more about what’s your mandate and mission. Who do you represent? I would just like to understand where the views are coming from.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Street

Thank you very much for the question. The Emberlight Project is fairly new. We noticed a need in our community where people were trying to voice their advocacy or disdain for things and they weren’t being heard. They were being ignored by their government officials and by the government systems. We realized that a lot of Canadians and Ontarians are not aware of how to effectively communicate with their government systems in that they aren’t aware of what appeal processes there are. A lot of these systems are difficult for many people to navigate, and as a result, we found a lot of people had started to lose faith in our government systems and our elected officials. We started to put together to help show them how they can find transparency and accountability within their government systems so that they could see the integrity once again.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Okay, thank you very much. Then I will add a follow-up question to you again: You’ve mentioned some changes you would like to see in the bill. I would like to know if, generally, you agree with the intent of this legislation in terms of providing more accountability and transparency in some unbiased system to hold elected officials accountable. Are you in agreement with the bill, or are those changes you talked about actually something you see as essential?

Official source

Ms. Jessica Street

The changes that I put forward—the amendments—I do believe that those are quite essential in order to safeguard some of the systematic issues that we have witnessed. Again, I will be providing the committee with further documentation to support that. We believe that there’s a need for a centralized code of conduct so that there’s less room for misinterpretation. Again, I don’t believe it should be up to political opponents to have the ability to potentially remove a political opponent not just from the current council but from the next election. Whether they get re-elected should be to the power of the voter. It’s their decision if they wish to have that person represent them. We already have laws in place in Canada that if someone—

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Thank you. We have to go to the government side now for questioning. Interjection.

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Seeing no questions from the government—no, just giving you a hard time. A Chair has to have fun sometimes though. MPP Racinsky.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Thank you very much, Chair. Through you: Thank you to the presenters for your deputations. I wanted to follow up on a comment Ms. Street just said about the centralized, standardized code of conduct—thank you for that support. I wanted to hear from the other two delegations. We will start with Jessica Wilkins. What are your thoughts on having a standardized code of conduct across the province where it’s the same in every municipality?

Official source

Ms. Jessica Wilkins

Well, it would stop councillors from being able to put in bylaws that—we’ve seen some bylaws being passed in some of our local councils in regard to code-of-conduct changes that are not happening in other municipalities. In my opinion, it doesn’t make sense not to have it the same across the board.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Great. Thank you. Councillor Koch?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

I agree that maybe a base standardized code of conduct could be effective. Perhaps if a council was seeking to have it stronger, or a different language mechanism where they can work with an integrity commissioner or maybe the Ontario Integrity Commissioner to adjust if there are things that they would seek to change—just a process for it to look different, noting that I live all the way up here and things in northern Ontario don’t always look the same as they look in the south of our province. I can’t think of an instance where that might be necessary but the ability to do so might be useful.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Thank you. Another question I wanted to pose to all three presenters was about the mandatory training for integrity commissioners that’s going to be introduced in the proposed legislation. What are your thoughts on that? We’ll start with Jessica Street, please—standardized training for integrity commissioners across the province.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Street

I think it’s important that integrity commissioners get updated training on whatever the code of conduct is. As I said, I would like to see a centralized code of conduct put in place and I do believe that it would be important for both the integrity commissioners to be updated on that as well as council members, but perhaps not from the same person who’s doing their investigations.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Great. Thank you. Ms. Wilkins?

Official source

Ms. Jessica Wilkins

Yes, I also agree.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Thank you. Councillor Koch?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Absolutely. Standardized training for integrity commissioners would be important. Also, ongoing training would be useful, as there is case law or things that might influence how they interpret legislation or advise on decisions.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Thank you very much. Chair, I’ll cede the rest of my time to MPP Ciriello.

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

MPP Ciriello.

Official source

MPP Monica Ciriello

I appreciate everyone taking the time here this morning to provide their comments on the bill that we are bringing forward. I have a couple of questions for Councillor Lindsay Koch, if you don’t mind. I really appreciate the practical experience that you bring to this conversation, so my questions are really going to centralize on your role as a councillor. What do you think are the important considerations for an effective code of conduct that balances the needs—recognizing that there are variations—in municipalities? I think you alluded to it in your last answer to my friend here, that you may be up north and there may not be consistency in other municipalities. So, what do you think are the important considerations we should take into account?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

I think—and maybe this isn’t just limited to northern communities but small and rural communities—small-town things impact local politics differently than in larger city centres. A way to consider those types of relationships, both inside council chambers and how we relate with staff—often it’s family members who are also municipal employees. Things like that, to build in—it’s not a pecuniary interest necessarily but where there might be conflict or where somebody might be impacted by familial relationships in the workplace or in the work that we do together—I think that would be important. Also noting that members of council participate in the community both where they’re appointed to boards as part of their work but also largely—and I would say, across Ontario, we’re doing this work on council because we believe in our community, or we care about our community. So we’re also giving up our time and skills and our personal time. You don’t get to turn off being a councillor. And so, something that might consider—maybe you’re not doing this work with your council hat on, but you are still that person so how you show up and how you participate outside of this job also matters. I don’t know that there could necessarily be consequences for what you do in your personal time, outside of criminal charges and things like that, but something that at least mentions it, I think, would be important.

Official source

MPP Monica Ciriello

I appreciate that. Thank you. Just changing gears a little bit: I’ve also had the experience of working in the municipal field, and what I’ve seen first-hand is, when there are different integrity commissioners that get brought on, either during the same term of council or in the next term of council, the same factors may result in a different decision. And I think you mentioned something along the lines of, it shows that our current system, our rules, are currently not working. So what in this bill here would prevent something like that from happening?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

I think you’ve all kind of touched on it. I think it comes with a standardized code of conduct as a baseline, at least. I think it comes with consistent training for integrity commissioners and the same ongoing learning opportunities for those integrity commissioners based on the things that are actually happening in real time or, like I said, case law. I think somebody earlier spoke about the cost of integrity commissioner investigations and the ability to have—

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Thank you, Councillor Koch. We’re going to go back to the official opposition. MPP Vaugeois.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Actually, I was very interested in your answer, so continue, please.

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Just having it really clear—if you do this then this is the potential consequence to limit frivolous and vexatious complaints that do come in. So I think we get so mired in all of the little things that the ability to focus on the real complaints that need proper attention and funding and support through whatever mechanism is built in through this legislation and others would strengthen the system.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Thank you. I want to go down that road a little bit further because—well, a few things. You talked about a toxic work environment and people being afraid to speak up, but you also talked about, because it’s a small town, also, you’ve got lots of family relations within staff, within council and so on. I’m also wondering if there are other systemic corrections that you would like to bring forward that might again—will a standardized code of conduct address those kinds of challenges? Are you worried? I don’t know whether Kenora has strong-mayor powers at this point, but I know that other communities are not necessarily happy about the effect of those strong-mayor powers and how that has altered relationships on councils. I’ve probably included too many things in one question.

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Kenora does have strong-mayor powers. I actually think it maybe provides for an opportunity for the mayor to—it just adds a level of leadership, maybe. I’m not generally in favour of strong-mayor powers, but it gives him a little more leverage to say, “Hey, Councillor X. You are very close to overstepping.” I don’t honestly know why I feel that way, but I think just the idea that they have a little bit more opportunity to take a unilateral role when others might be afraid to. I’m not necessarily saying, “Hey, Councillor Whoever, I’m not going to warn you about where I think your behaviour is going, but I think the mayor already should be,” (a) and (b) despite having that additional—I don’t know; I don’t quite know where I’m going with this.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Do I still have a little bit of time?

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Yes, you have three minutes and 35 seconds.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

All right. Because I know that you are part of the group the Women of Ontario Say No—and I know about this group—a lot of the impetus for this legislation has come because there have been no consequences for council members really known to have perpetrated harassment of council members and staff and so on, and there were no consequences. So I’m just wondering how you see the legislation addressing that in particular—what you would like to see, what kind of guardrails you can imagine putting in place—because I’m sure you’ve thought about that aspect of it quite a bit.

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

I think certainly, if there are criminal charges as part of that, and that needs to be considered as a reason for somebody to be currently removed from their seat while the court plays out, and then if there’s—I think as I said, if there’s a guilty finding, then they’re removed from their seat. Somebody who is making decisions to perpetrate sexual violence or any kind of really egregious things, whether it’s in their time on council or in their personal time—it really calls into question their judgment and their ability to make good decisions. I think there need to be whistle-blower protections for the people who bring it forward. There’s a gap between council and municipal staff where, really, we’re only talking to the CAO, who’s our only employee, so when things are happening in the staff underneath the CAO and the organizational structure, we don’t necessarily know about it. We don’t hear about it or it’s very uncomfortable for them to bring it forward because they might be identified or there are risks, or perceived risks—so, something to protect people when they want to bring things forward.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

So, as I understand you, you would like to see whistle-blower protection built into this act and into a code of conduct.

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Yes.

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

We will go to the third party. MPP Collard.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

I’ll do a general question to each of the presenters so you can speak on that. There’s a general agreement, I think, that a strong unified code of conduct would be something good in terms of accountability. I think that a lot of the strength of this legislation will rely on that code of conduct. So what would you like to see included? I know, Ms. Koch, you just talked about it a little bit, but which are the points that you would like to see included in the code of conduct? I’ll start with Ms. Street, and then Ms. Wilkins and Ms. Koch.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Street

Could you rephrase your question? I do apologize.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

This legislation will create the ability for the minister to build a code of conduct. What would you like to see in that unified code of conduct?

Official source

Ms. Jessica Street

Some of the things that I would like to see is that they’re there to treat each other and their constituency with respect, follow the laws, the lay of the land, that we already have in place, and that they are held to, at minimal, those accounts; and that should they, in their private—for example, on Facebook, a lot of elected officials have multiple accounts. If they’re acting in an official capacity in their private account—that they be held to the same account in the code, and that there are levels of discipline put in place so that we are not just going to the potential of just automatically removing a councillor.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Ms. Wilkins?

Official source

Ms. Jessica Wilkins

Somebody mentioned bad behaviour. There should be a clear definition. Bad behaviour to one person may not be bad behaviour to another. I don’t believe that bad behaviour should be a part of a code of conduct. Maybe that’s something more that could be said to training and making sure that elected officials know what is expected versus what is not. Sorry, I’m having a hard time finding my words. Basically, the code of conduct needs to be very specific, in my opinion, and I’ll just speak to that.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Okay. Thank you. Ms. Koch?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

There are points I’ve mentioned already, but clearly identified repercussions for breaches of varying levels; whistle-blower protections; required training for municipal councils, perhaps at the beginning and in the middle of the term, on their codes—so, like a refresher midway, I think, would be useful. I can’t think of anything fresh that I haven’t already articulated in my comments.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Sure. Yes, that’s fair. Thank you. We are being a bit repetitive here. I want to ask another question, and I know, Ms. Wilkins, you may not agree with it because I think that altogether you think that the voters should make the decision on whatever is appropriate behaviour through election cycles. I’m just wondering, and I’ll ask each of you, instead of having council get the ultimate power to vote on the removal of a colleague, it’s been suggested that maybe having a Superior Court judge make that ultimate decision instead would be more unbiased. Would you agree with that? I’ll start in reverse; I’ll go with Ms. Koch first.

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

I think the Superior Court probably depends on the seriousness of the breach. I think that seems a bit extreme in some cases, but certainly I don’t agree with it living at the council table, so either the Ontario Integrity Commissioner or, if warranted, then through the courts.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

So, Ms. Koch, just to follow up, because you had recommended that maybe having a super majority instead of a unanimous vote at council would be appropriate: Do you think that, actually, we should not have council vote on such a decision?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

If the will of the people passing the legislation was that it needs to live at the council table, then I would ask for it to not be by unanimous vote; I would seek a super majority. But I would prefer it not live within the council role at all.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Okay. Ms. Wilkins, would you like to comment on maybe having a judge of the Superior Court be involved? In a serious case, where—this bill was inspired by some sexual harassment cases that we’ve seen in the province, so that’s quite serious and it kind of destroys lives—

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Thank you, Madame Collard. We have to go to the government side.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Very good. Thank you.

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

MPP Saunderson.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

Thank you very much, Chair. You sound disappointed that it gets to come to government.

Official source

Laughter.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

We’ve been waiting for this. I want to thank each of our presenters this morning for coming in and sharing your input on this important legislation. I think what I’m hearing from all the presenters is that this is an important topic and one that needs to be addressed. I’m going to direct my questions to Councillor Koch because I appreciate your direct front-line experience in the municipal sector as a council member, and I too served municipally in the town of Collingwood, which is similar in size, I think, and scope to your beautiful municipality of Kenora. And I was there for the opening of your justice centre a while ago. You mentioned cost, so I wanted to drill down on that a bit, because it is obviously a very big concern. I know, in my time—I was eight years involved with the town of Collingwood—when municipal integrity commissioners were just coming into being, really, and one of the things we found is that (a), we had to invest a lot of money in creating a code of conduct and then (b), that every time there was a code-of-conduct complaint, it seemed like the integrity commissioner was creating it from the ground up—recreating the wheel, almost. And so, one of the benefits that I think lies in the standardized code of conduct across the province is that you’re going to have integrity commissioners interpreting the same provisions in all 444 municipalities, and there won’t be 444-some-odd different codes, so wording won’t be an issue there. The way I see that is it will help to reduce cost for the local municipalities—and I’d ask you to comment on that observation first. Do you think that’s the case?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Yes, I think you’re right. We’re paying for people’s time to do this work and so if it’s a little bit more clear, that saves.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

And just to get a scope: I know it’s not the same, but in my municipality, we would get an annual report from our integrity commissioner about the number of complaints and the total cost. Do you get that at your council?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

We get a report with each one that outlines, obviously, the investigation and the results and the costs. I don’t know that I’ve seen an annual one; we get them as they come.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

Okay. And in the integrity commissioner’s complaints you’ve heard to date at council, what was the average cost per complaint? Do you have an idea?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Oh, I don’t have an idea. They range from at least $500 to what could be $3,000, depending on the time that’s needed for the investigation.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

Okay, and I can think of a number of circumstances in my municipalities when the costs exceeded $8,000. It’s not an insignificant cost, especially for a municipality the size of yours and Collingwood. The other corollary to that is as we get a number of decisions made, interpreting a uniform code of conduct across the province—you’re going to see decisions being made, and while often the circumstances are different, the complaints are pretty similar in terms of undue influence or conflict of interest and that sort of thing. What you are going to find is that complaints are similar; there’s a bank of decisions, and so integrity commissioners can access previous decisions, so they’re not having to recreate the wheel. They can look back and say, “Well, here’s a similar circumstance and this was the ruling. I think it may be applicable”—or not; it would be up to them. Do you think that would be helpful?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Yes, I think so. Applying nuance in any sort of situation that comes forward—if they had something to draw from, I think that’s useful.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

And I know that you’re a member of The Women of Ontario Say No. Thank you for your work in that area. It’s important work. You, I think, would agree with me that there are certain circumstances where a councillor may need to be removed. Would you agree with that?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Yes, definitely.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

In my past life, I was a litigation lawyer, and one of my first cases was a similar case of employment law, where a CEO of a not-for-profit corporation was, in my opinion, harassing his staff. A number had quit. That litigation was—I’m aging myself here—about 20 years ago. That court case, I think, took two years to get to trial, during which time the individual continued to be the CEO of the corporation, and then two years to get to the Court of Appeal, because the initial Superior Court justice didn’t agree with my client that there was cause for dismissal. That took four years, and I’m embarrassed to tell you how much money it cost all the parties. But it goes back to costs. Do you agree that we should be looking for the most cost-effective, immediate way to address the situation, to protect employees or staff who may be victims of harassment?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

I think it’s important to consider cost-effectiveness, but I don’t think it’s the number one factor. I think people feeling safe to go to work, day in and day out, is the most important factor. If it comes with a little bit of an increased cost because the process factors that in, then I think that’s okay.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

How about timing, then? Because it took four years in my case. Do you think four years is an appropriate time to have somebody who has been accused of harassment working alongside those who have accused him or her?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Absolutely not. I think in my points I suggested that they be removed pending the court result.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

So you think speed of resolution is important in this process?

Official source

Ms. Lindsay Koch

Yes.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

Okay. I appreciate that. I did a little bit of research coming into today’s hearing. Under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, a judge has the ability to declare a seat vacant, and I can think of a number of contexts which have led to judicial inquiries. There was one in my municipality in Collingwood, there have been two in the city of Toronto and there was one in Mississauga. Two of those cases led to individuals bringing complaints under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act that were large matters of record, and unfortunately, in neither case was the councillor at issue—one of them was the mayor—removed from office—

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Thank you, MPP Saunderson. This is all the time we have. Thank you to all the presenters.

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

I know we have a motion. MPP Vaugeois.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Yes, I have a motion that I’d like to read. I move that, pursuant to standing order 1(3), the committee conduct a study regarding the testing of Ontario commercial truck drivers by Ministry of Transportation-certified examiners; and That the committee meet for public hearings as soon as possible; and That the Minister of Transportation be invited to appear before the committee; and That the minister shall have one hour to make an opening statement, followed by three hours of questions and answers, divided into three rounds of 20 minutes for the government members, three rounds of 20 minutes for the official opposition members and three rounds of 20 minutes for the third-party member of the committee; and That legislative research provide the committee members with a summary of the hearings as soon as possible; and That the committee meet for report-writing as soon as possible following the hearings; and That the subcommittee on committee business be authorized to schedule meeting dates and deadlines.

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Thank you. Any questions? MPP Saunderson.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

I question the relevance of this motion at this particular hearing on Bill 9, and I would look to the Clerk, through the Chair, to rule whether this is part of the scope of this hearing or this would be necessary to come before committee through the subcommittee.

Official source

The First Vice-Chair (Mr. Guy Bourgouin)

Okay, it’s not part of Bill 9, but the committee is authorized to look at this. It’s in order to bring a motion and it’s up to the committee to decide what they want to do with it. MPP Saunderson.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

I would ask that MPP—I’m going to not get this right—

Official source