THERESA KELLAWAY circa 1994
Bill 163, Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994
The Chair: Ms Theresa Kellaway. Welcome, Ms Kellaway.
Ms Theresa Kellaway: How do you do? Mr Chairman, members of committee, ladies and gentlemen, I have been observing municipal politics for several years and have on many occasions been appalled at the abuse and, in some instances, the total disregard of the conflict-of-interest act. The present act indeed puts a politician above the law. The financial burden that it puts on the citizen is such that only a very few can afford to see justice done.
In 1988, I got a legal opinion from an expert on municipal law, Mr John Judson of London, Ontario, regarding the sale of city-owned property in the core of our city. Three members of council owned property in the same area, but no disclosures of conflict were made. Mr Judson stated in his letter: "I have no hesitation in giving my opinion that the persons in these circumstances have a conflict of interest pursuant to the act, which they should be disclosing." There was no way that I could fulfil my civic duty, because the costs would have been astronomical.
I am pleased to have the privilege of addressing this committee on this issue, which hopefully will remove this heavy financial burden that has been placed on the citizens.
In this bill, Bill 163, under section 6 of schedule B, I fully agree that full, written disclosures should be filed with the clerk, including any and all connections with numbered companies, and certainly if the politician is the "in trust" which appears on so many deeds and documents.
In section 7 of schedule B, I would strongly suggest that the commissioner's position be advertised and hired through an interview process by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and that the provincial member of the area is not consulted in any way, thereby eliminating any perception of favouritism or nepotism. The hiring process should be done at arm's length or we will end up with patronage appointments such as we have on police services boards. The last one appointed in our city did not even know what time the meetings were held. The commissioner must be unbiased, understand the act explicitly and not be a political puppet.
I disagree with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's position as stated on pages 4 and 5 of the April 15, 1994, bulletin, Municipal Alert: "It is the association's position that if municipalities are going to pay for policing their own members, then they should have control over the body delegated to perform this duty. Once the commissioner has completed his or her report, the association believes that a tribunal of municipal members of council and local boards should be created to deal with it."
The municipalities are paying, they say. Well, that is the citizens, not just members of council. It is the citizens who foot all the bills, not the municipal council. If this committee follows AMO's position, you are indeed putting the fox in with the chickens.
At a city council committee meeting on July 20, 1994, a councillor made a motion regarding an official plan and zoning bylaw amendment. The motion was seconded and passed. Immediately following, the committee then went into a planning advisory committee meeting where the councillor disclosed a conflict regarding the issue he had made the motion on. At this meeting he seconded a motion on the issue, and not one word was said by anyone. The councillor is in his third term on council, so inexperience could not be an excuse. I would have to question the viability of a tribunal of municipal council members in judging one of their own.
In part IV of Bill 163 regarding section 55 of the Municipal Act, which deals with open meetings, I would like to inform you that in our city there is a closed meeting before every biweekly council meeting, and on several occasions they return to a closed-door meeting after the public meeting adjourns.
In December 1991, the council met behind closed doors to appoint members to committees and boards by secret ballot. After doing so, they declared it a public meeting at approximately 11:30 pm, nearly midnight, and they passed the resolutions confirming these appointments. The city hall doors were locked to the public. So much for public meetings.
When questioned by a citizen regarding the validity of the resolution, the council got an opinion from the city's solicitor. He stated: "Council may wish to consider refraining from taking a secret ballot in the in-camera sessions on the basis they are prohibited by the Municipal Act and may give rise to the appearance of fettering council's decision, even if not actually binding on council." It sounds like a Scotch verdict: "Not guilty, but don't go out and do it again."
Citizens are sick and tired of the excessive secrecy of governments, and hopefully Bill 163 will curb some of it on the municipal level. Patrick Henry, an 18th century American statesman, said it all in his statement: "Public business is the public's business, and to cover with a veil of secrecy the common routine of business is an abomination in the eyes of every intelligent man."
In closing, I would like to say I do not agree with delegating approval authorities to municipal levels and would like to congratulate the people involved with drafting Bill 163 and not giving too much control to municipal councils.
To add something to my deputation, I would also like to include a letter to the editor in this morning's Toronto Star. It's very short.
"Paradise lost while folks asleep: There is a disheartening postscript to my September 6 Opinion page article, `Eden Mills: There's trouble in paradise.' In the early hours of that very morning, even while the copies of the Star containing my piece were being printed and distributed, at 2:15 am to be exact, the council of the township of Eramosa passed a motion to demolish the old bowstring bridge in Eden Mills and to effectively widen the road through the village.
"It would have been less difficult to understand if the decision was taken with full disclosure to and input from the public. Instead, it was done in the following circumstances:
"The matter was not on the agenda;
"The motion was brought to the fore under the guise of `unfinished business';
"The reeve had announced several days earlier that no representations would be entertained from the residents of Eden Mills if and when the issue was revived;
"No formal notice was given to any of the interested parties that this motion would be revived on this day;
"The motion was delayed until 2:15 am, a time of the morning when members of the public tend to be in bed and unaware of what their elected politicians are up to.
"What is there to hide? Why under cover of darkness, metaphorically and otherwise? I can think of only three possible reasons. Shame. Vested interests. Lack of due process."
This is from a Mr Singh in Guelph, and I think it says it all. Thank you very much.
The Chair: It's time for a few questions.
Ms Haeck: I very much appreciate your comments. You echo those of many people in my own area, and I know these kinds of concerns are definitely part of a larger community, as you've just read there. I personally want to thank you for your presentation. I think, Mrs Kellaway, you've been extremely explicit. There's not an awful lot more I think I personally could add to it.
Mr Curling: Mrs Kellaway, I also want to thank you for your presentation. Your concern should be well noted. I think that politicians must be accountable, and of course revealing exactly, as you said --
Mr Perruzza: How about bureaucrats?
Mr Curling: Also, people who are responsible for public funds and public investment should be accountable. I agree with that, and specifically, as you say, about politicians being accountable, we're dealing with that part of it.
However, the question was asked earlier on today, and I just want to put it to you too, that when someone declares an intention to run for political office and they say that more than the immediate person involved should declare their interests, do you feel that aunts and uncles or brothers and sisters should also declare their interests if they are relatives of the intended politician who is going to run?
Ms Kellaway: No. I don't think that people that far out should have to declare. I think the candidates themselves, their spouses and children should have to declare. They should have to declare, as I stated in my presentation, if they are involved with numbered companies, and I've put enclosures in with my deputation where you will see one transaction where it is "in trust." Those are two words that are hated by anyone who is trying to get some justice in this municipal business.
I think if I were a politician on the municipal level, I would declare what I had and what my spouse and my children had, but if I were at a meeting where I thought something was going to be discussed that an aunt or an uncle or someone was going to benefit from, I think I would declare. I would make a disclosure of conflict because there could be a possible chance that people would think -- and we must have it so that there is no doubt, that there are no backroom deals being made.
Therefore I think it would be up to the individual politician, that if they felt that some member of their family outside of the immediate family was going to benefit or lose from it, they should decline from voting or discussing it.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much for a great presentation. You did an excellent job and a great presentation. As a matter of fact, as I was sitting here I was thinking, "Here's probably somebody" -- you were talking with such passion -- "who would be great to run for council." I don't know -- it's coming up -- if you've decided whether you're going to run or not, but --
Ms Kellaway: Well, I will tell you from my own personal experience, to run for council, when you sit behind that panel, you have one voice. I can go to the podium on the far side of the railing and I can say many things. I probably might say them if I was on the other side, but I'm sure I'd be squashed by everybody else who's there.
They refer to me in the local paper as an activist. The saddest part of it all is that you have to take the brunt of all the remarks from most newspapers because they feel you are nothing but a disturber and all you do is find problems. And when they ask me if I would I run for council, I say I haven't been pleased with my church for the past 10 years but I'm not running for Pope.
Mr Carr: I get the feeling you're not going to squashed by anybody, so I don't think you need to worry about that.
Mr Carr: One quick question -- I think I have time -- on the particular case you talked about on the front there with the three council members: Were you involved in that decision personally or is it just that you've been watching and following?
Ms Kellaway: No, I was not involved in any of the properties or anything.
Mr Carr: You just followed the reports then.
Ms Kellaway: Yes. At an in camera meeting, a behind-closed-doors meeting, we had almost lost our prime piece of waterfront to developers that wanted to put two 21-storey apartments there, and we formed a committee and saved our waterfront. In doing so, I discovered that there certainly was a conflict-of-interest act that was being abused dreadfully, and when I discovered that, I thought someone had better keep their eye on things.
Mr Carr: Good for you. Good luck and keep up the good work.
The Chair: This committee would like to congratulate you on your activism and we all hope that it will continue for a long time.
