Making Leadership Explicit: It’s time to talk about Bill 9

What is Bill 9, and What Does it Mean for Local Democracy?

In May 2025, the Ontario government introduced Bill 9: the Municipal Accountability Act. This new legislation aims to improve standards of conduct and accountability for municipal councils across the province. The bill would standardize the municipal code of conduct and introduce a radical update: a new mechanism allowing integrity commissioners to recommend the removal of a councillor for egregious violations of the code.

Bill 9 addresses what municipalities have long known: without consistent rules and enforceable consequences, codes of conduct aren’t much more than symbolic. The proposed changes would give Integrity Commissioners more teeth for ensuring elected officials uphold the standards of public service. But precisely how that power should be applied is still the subject of public and political debate.

Who Gets to Decide?

A central controversy in Bill 9 is who makes the final call when an integrity commissioner recommends removal. As currently written, the bill would leave the decision to a vote of council. Critics argue this opens the door to politicization. Aylmer’s Kathryn Desrosiers voiced a serious concern during the hearings: if only a simple majority—or even a two-thirds supermajority—is required, entrenched voting blocs could use the process to expel dissenting voices.

Desrosiers and others have proposed that such a decision should either require unanimity or be made by an independent board altogether. Their concerns echo findings published by The Pointer following the July 3rd London hearing, which reported that many female councillors across Ontario already feel that integrity complaints are sometimes weaponized to penalize non-conformity. Against that backdrop, assigning removal decisions to an impartial review board seems the fairest and most responsible approach.

Mayor Sloan offered a more equivocal perspective, seeming to suggest that a unanimity requirement might allow genuinely problematic behaviour to go unaddressed. It’s important to clarify that his testimony was not reflective of any official position of Central Elgin Council. No discussion or vote on Bill 9 has occurred at our table. Although the CAO was present at the hearing alongside Mayor Sloan, any opinions or recommendations shared were personal to him—just as the ones in this piece are my own.

Following the hearing, I contacted Mayor Sloan to ask what feedback or discussions had shaped his remarks, and on whose behalf he believed he was speaking. As of this writing, I have received no response.

Cost, Training, and Accountability

Mayor Sloan also raised questions about whether the bill’s enhanced training and enforcement measures would increase costs for municipalities—and whether the province would help cover those expenses. These are valid concerns, especially at a time when municipal budgets are stretched.

But if we’re truly concerned about the cost of integrity-related processes, it’s worth looking inward as well. In November 2024, Central Elgin Council voted to financially indemnify its members in integrity cases—covering legal expenses for councillors under investigation. This isn’t required under legislation; it’s a choice. If cost containment is a priority, this is a discretionary expense that may warrant reconsideration.

Where Does Central Elgin Stand?

Officially, we don’t. At least, not yet.

In 2023, I brought forward a motion in support of Bill 5: the Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act, which aimed to establish consequences for misconduct in local office. At that time, council voted not to endorse the bill. With Bill 9 now on the table, Central Elgin has another opportunity to demonstrate leadership—or to remain silent.

Given our refusal to support Bill 5, it would be easy for outside observers to assume that Central Elgin is similarly opposed to Bill 9. And given that Mayor Sloan spoke at the hearing and suggested he was representing our municipality, it would be easy to misinterpret his personal concerns as the collective view of council.

But two years into this term, we’ve all seen much more of what code of conduct processes actually look like—what works, what doesn’t, and what burdens or protections exist within the system. I suspect that some members may hold different views now than they did in 2023.

That’s why I believe it is not only appropriate, but essential, for us to come together as a council, engage in a full and thoughtful discussion, and arrive at a clear, official position on Bill 9. The province is listening—and our community deserves to know where we stand.