LAURIE WEIR
SMITHS FALLS — Councillors in Smiths Falls say they support the intent behind proposed provincial legislation that would allow the removal of elected officials for serious misconduct, but they’re urging Queen’s Park to clarify key terms, ease voting requirements, and address enforcement mechanisms.
At the July 14 committee of the whole meeting, council discussed Bill 9, the Municipal Accountability Act, 2025, which is now in second reading at the Ontario Legislature. The bill would create a province-wide code of conduct and grant Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner new powers to investigate and recommend the removal of municipal politicians for serious violations, particularly those that cause harm to a person’s health, safety or well-being.
That recommendation would then be subject to a unanimous vote by the member’s local council to take effect, a threshold most Smiths Falls councillors say is too high.
“I think it’s a real stretch to expect a unanimous vote,” said Coun. Jay Brennan. “Especially in a contentious issue like that.”
Brennan said he favoured a simple majority vote, provided there’s a formal recommendation from the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario. Others, including Mayor Shawn Pankow, said a two-thirds majority would strike a better balance.
“There was a time when people would step aside with shame and embarrassment,” said Coun. Peter McKenna. “It’s unfortunate we have to go down this road.”
Clerk Kerry Costello presented the staff report, noting that Bill 9 would override all existing municipal codes of conduct, including Smiths Falls’, which predates the 2018 provincial mandate.
“This would standardize not just the code, but the process,” Costello said. “It includes mandatory training for all councillors and board members, which we already do, but it would now be prescribed by regulation.”
The proposed legislation would also limit the authority of municipal integrity commissioners. Under Bill 9, local commissioners could no longer recommend removal directly, but instead would refer cases to the provincial commissioner for further investigation. That second opinion would then go to council for a final vote.
Chief Administrative Officer Malcolm Morris cautioned that the legislation lacks clarity in a key area.
“The definition of ‘serious’ has to be addressed,” Morris said. “That needs to be clear, regardless of who makes the decision.”
Several councillors referenced real-life situations in other municipalities where officials accused of harassment or misconduct refused to resign, leaving local governments paralyzed.
“There was a situation in a neighbouring municipality that was allowed to fester,” said Coun. Jennifer Miller. “It put other councillors in a difficult position. I support the ability for the Integrity Commissioner to remove a councillor in serious situations.”
Coun. Chris McGuire said he supports an independent provincial body stepping in if local remedies fail.
Council directed staff to prepare a submission to the province by the Aug. 18 deadline.
Their draft feedback is expected to include support for a two-thirds council vote to remove a member upon recommendation, a call for the definition of “serious” to be clearly outlined, and endorsement of a provincial code of conduct as a minimum standard. Council also asked that mandatory training be provided and funded by the province, and that any provincial code explicitly embed workplace violence and harassment provisions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
“We’re pleased to see this legislation making its way through the process,” McKenna said. “It fills a long-standing gap.”
