
Bill 9 'nearly impossible' to implement, Rick Chiarelli's accuser tells committee
A provincial bill drafted in response to a sexual harassment scandal in Ottawa would not have protected the victims involved, one of former city councillor Rick Chiarelli's accusers has told a committee.
The Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy held consultations over Bill 9 on Thursday in Ottawa, where a series of investigations in 2020 found that Chiarelli sexually harassed multiple female staffers over several years.
Stephanie Dobbs, who made public sexual harassment complaints against Chiarelli, told the committee that the bill in its current form would not have protected her.
"I am doubtful of its ability to provide meaningful change," she said.
'Another broken process cloaked in good intentions'
Bill 9 aims to standardize codes of conduct across Ontario municipalities, giving them the power to remove and disqualify from office members who are found to be in serious violation.
Under the proposed rules, removal could only occur following a recommendation from a municipal integrity commissioner, an approval from an Ontario integrity commissioner, and a unanimous vote by the rest of council.
Requiring a unanimous vote would be too onerous, Dobbs said.
"My former employer had a fascination with obtaining leverage over his fellow council colleagues," she said. "At a threshold of 100 per cent, all it would have taken is one compromised colleague out of 23 to not vote by stepping away, and he would have walked away with zero consequences.
"Having the final decision return to be voted on at a council is frankly ludicrous."
Nancy Cairns, who also worked for Chiarelli, agreed, arguing that the bill "risks becoming another broken process cloaked in good intentions."
The proposed process for removing councillors would be "nearly impossible to use," she said.
"The very council members who work alongside the person accused of misconduct, who may be political allies or fear retaliation, must all vote to remove them," she told the committee.
Instead of a unanimous vote, she proposed a "non-political legal path to removal."
"Many of these cases end up at judicial review anyway," Cairns said. "What's written in this bill is redundant, exhausting, and tells survivors the road ahead just isn't worth it."
'A procedural shield'
Joanne Chianello, a former journalist who broke stories of Chiarelli's misconduct for CBC, argued that "council is not the right body to make this kind of decision."
She continued: "What's proposed here isn't a path to justice, it's a procedural shield, one that risks protecting even the worst offenders so long as they have a single ally on council."
Other speakers including Lisa Deacon, a member of Leadership féminin Prescott-Russell, proposed that a two-thirds majority of council ought to be sufficient for dismissal.
Robin Jones, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, submitted that her organization would prefer that the power of removal rests with an independent judge.
'Preserving democratic accountability'
As sponsor of the bill, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Rob Flack previously defended the requirement for a unanimous vote.
"The process outlined balances the need for external influence while preserving democratic accountability at the local level," he said on July 3, noting that only members of council not subject to complaint, not on approved absences and not in conflict of interest would be permitted to vote.
Not all of the speakers supported the aim of the bill.
"We have elections to decide who represents us and it's been like that for a very long time, said Ryan Linkletter, who opposed the bill's mechanism to remove officials.
"If a politician is unpopular and the constituents think they are not serving them, they won't be elected back in."
Chiarelli, who was never criminally charged, denied accusations against him. His pay was docked for 540 days, the maximum penalty, following three damning integrity commissioner reports against him.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Vancouver Sun
7 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Trump's tariff threats against Canada face legal hurdles ahead of August deadline
Donald Trump's plan to realign global trade faces its latest legal barrier this week in a federal appeals court — and Canada is bracing for the U.S. president to follow through on his threat to impose higher tariffs. While Trump set an Aug. 1 deadline for countries to make trade deals with the United States, the president's ultimatum has so far resulted in only a handful of frameworks for trade agreements. Deals have been announced for Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Kingdom — but Trump indicated last week that an agreement with Canada is far from complete. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'We don't have a deal with Canada, we haven't been focused on it,' Trump told reporters Friday. Trump sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs if Canada doesn't make a trade deal by the deadline. The White House has said those duties would not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Canadian officials have also downplayed expectations of a new economic and security agreement materializing by Friday. 'We'll use all the time that's necessary,' Carney said last week. Countries around the world will also be watching as Trump's use of a national security statute to hit nations with tariffs faces scrutiny in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to wield tariffs on nearly every country through the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. The act, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. No previous president had ever used it for tariffs and the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. The Trump administration quickly appealed the lower court's ruling on the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs and arguments are set to be heard in the appeal court on Thursday. The hearing combines two different cases that were pushing against Trump's tariffs. One involves five American small businesses arguing specifically against Trump's worldwide tariffs, and the other came from 12 states pushing back on both the 'Liberation Day' duties and the fentanyl-related tariffs George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called Trump's tariff actions a 'massive power grab.' Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, is representing the American small businesses. 'We are hopeful — we can't know for sure obviously — we are hopeful that we will continue to prevail in court,' Somin said. Somin said they are arguing that IEEPA does not 'give the president the power to impose any tariff he wants, on any nation, for any reason, for as long as he wants, whenever he feels like it.' He added that 'the law also says there must be an emergency and an unusual and extraordinary threat to American security or the economy' — and neither the flow of fentanyl from Canada nor a trade deficit meet that definition. U.S. government data shows a minuscule volume of fentanyl is seized at the northern border. The White House has said the Trump administration is legally using powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address America's 'national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking.' There have been 18 amicus briefs — a legal submission from a group that's not party to the action — filed in support of the small businesses and states pushing against Trump's tariffs. Two were filed in support of the Trump administration's actions. Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Washington-based Cato Institute, said the Trump administration is taking a vague statute and claiming powers never deployed by a president before. The Cato Institute submitted a brief that argued 'the Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to set tariffs and duties.' Skorup said there are serious issues with the Trump administration's interpretation of IEEPA. 'We don't want power consolidated into a single king or president,' he said. It's expected the appeals court will expedite its ruling. Even if it rules against the duties, however, they may not be immediately lifted. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said the Supreme Court should 'put an end to this.' There are at least eight lawsuits challenging the tariffs. Canada is also being hit with tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Trump used different powers under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact those duties. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .


National Post
7 minutes ago
- National Post
Trump's tariff threats against Canada face legal hurdles ahead of August deadline
Donald Trump's plan to realign global trade faces its latest legal barrier this week in a federal appeals court — and Canada is bracing for the U.S. president to follow through on his threat to impose higher tariffs. Article content While Trump set an Aug. 1 deadline for countries to make trade deals with the United States, the president's ultimatum has so far resulted in only a handful of frameworks for trade agreements. Article content Article content Article content Deals have been announced for Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Kingdom — but Trump indicated last week that an agreement with Canada is far from complete. Article content Trump sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs if Canada doesn't make a trade deal by the deadline. The White House has said those duties would not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Article content Article content Countries around the world will also be watching as Trump's use of a national security statute to hit nations with tariffs faces scrutiny in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Article content The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to wield tariffs on nearly every country through the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. Article content The act, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. No previous president had ever used it for tariffs and the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. Article content Article content The Trump administration quickly appealed the lower court's ruling on the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs and arguments are set to be heard in the appeal court on Thursday. Article content George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called Trump's tariff actions a 'massive power grab.' Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, is representing the American small businesses.


Edmonton Journal
37 minutes ago
- Edmonton Journal
Trump's tariff threats against Canada face legal hurdles ahead of August deadline
Article content Donald Trump's plan to realign global trade faces its latest legal barrier this week in a federal appeals court — and Canada is bracing for the U.S. president to follow through on his threat to impose higher tariffs. Article content While Trump set an Aug. 1 deadline for countries to make trade deals with the United States, the president's ultimatum has so far resulted in only a handful of frameworks for trade agreements. Article content Article content Article content Deals have been announced for Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Kingdom — but Trump indicated last week that an agreement with Canada is far from complete. Article content Trump sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs if Canada doesn't make a trade deal by the deadline. The White House has said those duties would not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Article content 'We'll use all the time that's necessary,' Carney said last week. Article content Article content Countries around the world will also be watching as Trump's use of a national security statute to hit nations with tariffs faces scrutiny in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Article content Article content The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to wield tariffs on nearly every country through the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. Article content Article content The act, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. No previous president had ever used it for tariffs and the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. Article content The Trump administration quickly appealed the lower court's ruling on the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs and arguments are set to be heard in the appeal court on Thursday. Article content The hearing combines two different cases that were pushing against Trump's tariffs. One involves five American small businesses arguing specifically against Trump's worldwide tariffs, and the other came from 12 states pushing back on both the 'Liberation Day' duties and the fentanyl-related tariffs