The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act needs to be upgraded
To the Expositor:
Re: Kathleen Wynne government gives wider powers to Ontario Ombudsman.
Some qualified kudos to Premier Wynne for this move, although I have to say not necessarily the best solution to troubling problems with some municipal politicians across the province.
Since the time the now-premier held the Municipal Affairs portfolio, I have been in dialogue with her about the findings of the Mississauga Inquiry, which looked at serious complaints against long time Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion. Some $7 million was spent on that inquiry—presided over by Ontario Superior Justice Cunningham. Key to his findings were that morally Mayor McCallion was indeed guilty (“The mayor’s actions amounted to both a real and apparent conflict of interest” and another “Given Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest in the transaction, it was improper for the mayor to repeatedly use her office on behalf of WCD”) Justice Cunningham went on to say “I also believe that the scope of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) should be changed so that the rules regulating conduct apply to any meeting attended by a member of council in his or her official capacity.”
I pause there to say that the mayor held the view that provided she declared a conflict of interest in her legislative capacity and refrained from voting at council or taking part in discussion, she was on safe ground. Certainly, she was correct in her view that the MCIA did not apply to her actions in advocating privately for her son’s company. I have found that her actions were nevertheless improper under the application of common law principles. These principles should be codified. The Act should be amended to make it clear that mayors and members of council are subject to the conflict of interest provisions both in the legislative and executive functions of their office.”
He even went so far as to provide the minister with recommended changes to ensure that municipal politicians—whether principled or otherwise—knew where the line was drawn and without ambiguity what they must do to stay on the lawful side of it. Premier McGuinty and his then minister on the file declined to act! Now Premier Wynne has repeated that lack of action! Municipal politicians are offered training on the existing laws governing their work in their elected capacity. Obviously some have not forgotten that training (a perfect example was reported here recently when an Island mayor commented on an issue which impacted a family member and then recused himself from discussion and voting when this matter came before his council). Quite proper (although maybe even the comment could be construed as inappropriate in the circumstances). However, it could be argued that this was a “selective” action in that other major initiatives coming before council where pretty much the same circumstances apply have never found the mayor recusing himself. Which is why I conclude that the premier made a political blunder here. If a law is ambiguous and the ambiguity is being interpreted one way one day and another the next, it clearly needs cleaning up if the general public is to trust elected officials. I do wish the Ombudsman good luck in his broader mandate—though I think he is up to the job—if one of his Tweets on Twitter is to be believed “Ontario Ombudsman @Ont_Ombudsman The MUS (municipalities, universities + school boards) receives over $30 billion from provincial coffers. The 39 yr free ride soon ending.” Sounds like the man whom Sudbury councillors stiff-armed under his current mandate last year welcomes the additional powers being delegated to him.
Paul Darlaston
Kagawong
