Township of Amaranth Integrity Commissioner, Guy Giorno
Citation: Gerrits v. Currie, 2020 ONMIC 6 Date: May 27, 2020
Report on Complaints
Notice: Municipal Integrity Commissioners provide investigation reports to their respective municipal council and, in most cases, make recommendations for imposition of penalty or other remedial action to the municipal Council. Therefore, reference should be made to the minutes of each particular municipal council to obtain information about the particular council's consideration of each report. When possible, a link to the relevant municipal council minutes is provided.
Please find below the link to the corresponding council decision. http://calendar.amaranth.ca/council/Detail/2020-06-17-1900-June-17-2020-Council-Meeting/8a0fdd56-c2ba-41dc-a94b-abd801090107
(see item 17.2 at page 8 of June 3, 2020, minutes, page 12 of package)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Complaints. 3 Summary. 3 Background. 3 Process Followed. 5 Findings of Fact 6 Issue and Analysis. 6 Content 9 Appendices. 9
The Complaints
This report concludes a brief inquiry into four complaints arising from the May 1 and May 6 Council meetings.
In two complaints, Deputy Mayor Chris Gerrits asks for an investigation into whether he contravened the Code of Conduct for Members of Council, By-law 21-2016, in delivering a prepared statement at the May 1 special Council meeting.
In two subsequent complaints, Deputy Mayor Chris Gerrits alleges that Mayor Bob Currie and Councillor Mark Tijssen, respectively, contravened the Code of Conduct, in prepared statements they made at the May 6 regular Council meeting.
I decided to combine all four complaints in one investigation.
Summary
I find nothing in the May 1 prepared remarks of Deputy Mayor Chris Gerrits that contravene the Code of Conduct.
I find nothing in the May 6 prepared remarks of Mayor Bob Currie that contravene the Code of Conduct.
I find nothing in the May 6 prepared remarks of Councillor Mark Tijssen that contravene the Code of Conduct.
The Code of Conduct must be interpreted in light of the fact that Amaranth is a democracy.
The Code of Conduct does not prevent one politician from criticizing the record of another politician. To mistake substantive criticism of a record in office with a personal attack is to misunderstand how democracy works. Everyone, elected officials included, is free to look back on what has occurred and to oppose, to argue that better was possible, to make the case for a different result.
It is not the place of an Integrity Commissioner to interfere in political debate of this nature.
The Code of Conduct is not intended to silence political speech among Council Members over who said what to whom.
Background
A special Council meeting was called May 1 to consider the termination of the Clerk’s employment. In this report, I do not address that substantive issue.
At the commencement of the special meeting, Councillor Gail Little and Deputy Mayor Gerrits delivered prepared statements in which they voiced several criticisms of the circumstances surrounding the special meeting and other matters related to the functioning of Council. Both of them alleged that Mayor Currie had engaged in bullying. Councillor Little’s statement is not a subject of this report. The statement of Deputy Mayor Gerrits was incorporated into the May 1 minutes and is attached to this report.
At the next meeting, May 6, the Mayor and Councillor Tijssen delivered their own prepared statements in response. The statement of Councillor Tijssen was incorporated into the May 6 minutes and is attached to this report. The Mayor’s written statement was not incorporated into the minutes, but the online recording of the May 6 meeting includes the Mayor’s remarks between approximately the 46:50 minute and the 50:00 minute marks.
Most of the Mayor’s remarks involved a listing of former Amaranth and Dufferin officials, as part of an explanation that he is not bully and, in fact, enjoyed excellent staff relations during 15 years’ previous experience in the Township and the County. Mayor Currie also said there was a loss of talented and motivated employees after he left Council.
The remaining 35 seconds of the Mayor’s remarks were as follows:
“Leadership is what this Township has totally been lacking in the last 12 years. That’s what I heard all over this Township in the last election.
“And listen very closely, Gerrits and Little. OK? I demand an apology now, or you will face a charge of defamation of character, in my opinion. And this action will start tomorrow, not today. That’s May 7, 2020.
“And I will win. And if you think for a second that I am giving idle talk, you’re wrong. I’m going to war on this one.”
At the end of his May 1 remarks, Deputy Mayor Gerrits moved, seconded by Councillor Little, that Council “request the resignation of the Mayor of the Township of Amaranth effective at 12:00 pm on May 1st.” The motion was defeated on a 2-2 vote, with the Mayor abstaining.
Taken together, the three statements covered most of the major political and Council issues that have dominated Amaranth politics since the start of the current term. These issues include: the $800,000 budget error, including its impact on taxpayers, and the delay in bringing it to light; Council-staff relations, staff retention, staff morale, and staff accountability to Council; the financial terms of East Garafraxa’s tenancy and of the separation agreement; accountability for how Township funds were spent, including responsibility for results or lack thereof; the styles of various Council Members, including their styles in conducting and participating in meetings; information sharing among Council members; and transparency or lack thereof.
I have tried to summarize the issues in a neutral manner because for purposes of this report it is not necessary to explore their substance. The only present issue is whether the manner in which Council Members spoke about these issues, and about one another, contravened the Code
As his motion suggests, the remarks of Deputy Mayor Gerrits directed criticism toward the decisions and actions of Mayor Currie. His remarks were also critical of the decisions and actions of a Council Member who was unnamed but obviously was Councillor Tijssen.
Councillor Tijssen’s May 6 response was directly critical of the record of Deputy Mayor Gerrits during current and the past Council terms.1
Councillor Tijssen alleged in his statement that the May 1 statement of Deputy Mayor Gerrits constituted bullying of Councillor Tijssen and Mayor Currie.
Mayor Currie alleged in his statement that the May 1 statement of Deputy Mayor Gerrits (in addition to the statement of Councillor Little) was defamatory of the Mayor. The Mayor announced he would sue.
Deputy Mayor Gerrits alleges that the May 6 statements of Councillor Tijssen and Mayor Currie constituted bullying of Deputy Mayor Gerrits.
Process Followed
As the Integrity Commissioner in approximately 30 Ontario municipalities, my experience is that by far the largest category of code of conduct complaints consists of complaints by elected officials against other elected officials.
In operating under the Code, I follow a process that ensures fairness to both the individual bringing a Complaint and the Council Member responding to the Complaint.
At the same time, I am mindful of the fact that the financial impact of code of conduct complaints and integrity commissioner investigations falls entirely on the municipal tax base. Integrity commissioners and codes of conduct have been mandated by the Province without any corresponding provincial funding.
Consequently, I conduct a full and fair process that at the same time is efficient and reasonable taking into account the circumstances of each case.
This proceeding is based entirely on statements elected officials made about one another at Council meetings.
Their statements are recorded on tape and, in two of three cases, reprinted in the minutes.
Each Council Members has had, and used, the opportunity to speak extensively on the record.
There is absolutely no need for a long, expensive investigation. The Complaint protocol permits me to terminate the investigation now and move directly to a report to Council. I am doing so.
Findings of Fact
Many of the relevant facts are set out under the heading “Background” at the beginning of his report.
Based on my experience as a staff member in a position to observe closely the proceedings of both bodies, I find as a fact that nothing contained in any of the three prepared statements would have been unusual or out of place in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario or in the House of Commons.
I also find as a fact that the critical comments made by Councillor Tijssen, Deputy Mayor Gerrits and Mayor Currie about one another related to their records as elected representatives. The comments were definitely related to one another as individuals, but always in the context of their individual records, including their actions and decisions, as politicians and Council Members. This is particularly true of the comments made by Councillor Tijssen and Deputy Mayor Gerrits. The comments of Mayor Currie were briefer, and mostly concerned staff relations, but still can be characterized the same way.
Issue and Analysis
I have considered the following issue: Did any of the Council Members contravene the Code of Conduct?
In each case, no.
Each of the three officials, in the individual’s own style and manner, was passionate in expressing a view point. However, each alleges that the other went so far as to exert pressure -- specifically, so far as to “bully” -- other Council Members.
Using the spoken word to create political pressure, on an elected official, to adopt a particular viewpoint, is the essence of political advocacy and debate. As was noted in Linton v. Kitras, 2020 ONMIC 1, at para. 76, trying to motivate people to support one’s viewpoint (or trying to motivate people to oppose a contrary viewpoint) is part of the democratic process.
Other Integrity Commissioners have held that they have no jurisdiction over political speech as long as it complies with the Code. As former Brampton Integrity Commissioner Donald Cameron noted in 2012:
I cannot and will not be a referee of free speech in a political arena provided it stays within the bounds … of the Code.2
- Subsequently, Mr. Randy Pepper, the delegate of Integrity Commissioner Cameron, expanded on the same principle in Investigation Report No. BIC-33-1112:3
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Canada so the Code must be interpreted in a manner consistent with this fundamental right. Based on the law set out below, I cannot find that the Code should be interpreted to appoint the Integrity Commissioner as a speech referee in the political arena.
I agree with Integrity Commissioner Cameron’s and Delegate Pepper’s statements concerning the role of the Integrity Commissioner in relation to political speech and adopt them for purposes of this complaint.
I also note that Councillor Tijssen and Mayor Currie used their voices and their platforms as elected officials to respond to the criticisms against them. Deputy Mayor Gerrits also used his voice and platform to speak about against that which troubled him. This is how politicians typically handle criticism from other politicians: by using the same political tools to respond.
The observations in Kitras v. Linton, at paras. 86-87, apply equally here:
With great respect, I note that this – responding to what the other side says – is how politicians traditionally handle criticism. If an unfair or inaccurate criticism is made in the course of political debate, then political debate offers its own remedies to address those inaccurate or misleading comments. Specifically, the other side has the ability to correct the record, to provide context, to counter attack, and to defend the conduct.
In my view, utilizing the tools of political debate to respond to unfairness and inaccuracy in political debate is far more appropriate than having Integrity Commissioners police the truth and fairness of political speech: Re Maika, 2018 ONMIC 11, at para. 139.
While there is some support for the argument that personal attacks, unconnected to conduct in office, are out of bounds (McGillis v. Hart, 2013 ONMIC 7), I have found as a fact that in this case the politicians were primarily criticizing one another’s records.
The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the “interdependence” between democratic governance and freedom of political speech -- in particular the freedom to criticize a governing record:
such institutions derive their efficacy from the free public discussion of affairs, from criticism and answer and counter-criticism, from attack upon policy and administration and defence and counter-attack, from the freest and fullest analysis and examination from every point of view of political proposals.4
The Code of Conduct does not prevent one politician from criticizing the record of another politician. To mistake substantive criticism of a record in office with a personal attack is to misunderstand how democracy works. Everyone, elected officials included, is free to look back on what has occurred, and to oppose, to argue that better was possible, to make the case for a different result.
I do not believe it is the place of an Integrity Commissioner to interfere in political debate of this nature.
Finally, I repeat my factual finding that nothing that was said by Mayor Currie, Deputy Mayor Gerrits, or Councillor Tijssen, would have been out of place in the Legislative Assembly or the House of Commons. I do not believe that the Legislature, in enacting sections 223.2, 223.3 and 223.4 of the Municipal Act, intended that the result would be to silence municipal political debate equivalent to debate heard at Queen’s Park. I do not believe that Amaranth’s Township Council, in enacting By-law 21-2016, intended to silence political speech or to have the Integrity Commissioner police disputes between Council Members over who said what about whom.
Content
- Subsection 223.6(2) of the Municipal Act states that I may disclose in this report such matters as in my opinion are necessary for the purposes of the report. All the content of this report is, in my opinion, necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
Guy Giorno Integrity Commissioner May 27, 2020
Appendices
May 1 statement of Deputy Mayor Gerrits as recorded in the minutes:
First off, I would like the minutes of this meeting to show that I am attending this meeting under protest and duress. To have an in person meeting during an emergency order related to a pandemic when ALL levels of government from municipal to provincial to federal as well as the majority of businesses are conducting business virtually put the staff of the Township of Amaranth at risk as well as compromises the safety of my family.
Next I would like to apologize to all the staff of Amaranth and East Garafraxa and the rate payers of the township of Amaranth. Council is here to serve the best interests of the township as a whole, not the special interests of a few. Council, as an employer, also has the duty to protect the workers and ensure a safe work environment free of harassment, bullying and intimidation. I regret to say that I personally have failed in this regard.
During this term of council, I have witnessed a steady erosion of decorum on behalf of the council in relation to their handling of staff. One only needs to point to the fact that within the office we have ONE staff member that remains from the start of this term, the remaining having left for other positions. The majority of staff within the office have been on the job less than three months but are working hard to serve the needs of the Township.
Since our last council meeting on April 15th, 2020 just over two weeks ago the Mayor has called two special meetings of council to go into closed session to address matters that he felt were too important to wait until the May 6th meeting of council, while at the same time publicly lamenting the fact that council goes into closed meetings too frequently. In both situations the mayor has held previous discussions with some but not all members of council on what will be discussed during the meeting, including myself, leaving some on council prepared to discuss the topic and others not prepared. The is an affront to the transparency by which council is supposed to operate.
I would like to make the public aware of only the most recent and egregious transgressions on behalf of council. On April 29th, 2020 at approximately 4:15 pm two members of council attended the Township of Amaranth Offices to speak to the Clerk. At this time, they notified the Clerk that she had until the morning of April 30th, 2020 to resign her position or she would be terminated by council at a special meeting of council on May 1st, 2020 at 10 am. This meeting.
To be extremely clear, the matter of the performance and employment of the Clerk has not been discussed during a session of council in the less than 2 months she has been employed by the township of Amaranth. This was NOT a decision of council. The members indicated to the Clerk that this was the will of a majority of council. I have consulted with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) who have indicated that, if the majority of members discussed this and conducted business of the township outside of a council meeting, they are in contravention of Municipal Act.
The examples of harassment and bullying by council are too numerous to list during this time. I have consulted with legal counsel and three (3) HR professionals, all at my own cost, at no cost to the taxpayers, as well as MMAH and other agencies. They all came to the same conclusion which was that if council decides today to follow through with what she has been told, the Clerk has grounds for lawsuit by no less than three (3) avenues, the most serious one being a human rights violation which will cost the taxpayers of this township a significant amount of money.
As a council, we are both employees of the Corporation as well as employers and we have a duty to protect employees from harassment, bullying, intimidation and a toxic work environment. Members of council need to realize that the Employment Standards Act has been updated numerous times since the 1980’s and that a public organization cannot be run in the same manner as the Canadian military.
I have also been the target of bullying and intimidation by a member of council who routinely contacts me outside of council meetings by phone call, email and text message to discuss council matters and then threatens to launch an investigation into my conduct. To this member of council I will say that if he thinks that I have not shared ALL of our discussions with the members of council he has sought to exclude and that I have not documented each and every phone call,text and in person meeting in great detail then he is not as smart as he has repeatedly told me he is and he has greatly underestimated me. And he does so at his peril.
Having been a resident of this Township for nearly all of my 42 years I am beyond ashamed to be associated with this council and the tyrannical, illegal and undemocratic way by which they choose to conduct business. Over the past couple of days, I have had many discussions with friends, family, and people that have held public office that I hold in high regard. More than one has suggested that I resign out of protest of this disgusting behaviour and I must admit that is tempting. It is also the easy way out and does not serve the Township of Amaranth.
Instead I vow to take a proactive approach to opposing this behaviour and the systemic harassment and dysfunction at the council level so that the Township can once again operate effectively.
In the efforts to increase transparency it is imperative that today’s meeting with respect to the employment and performance of the clerk be held in open session so that the public is fully aware of the actions and transgressions of some members of council. These members cannot and should not be allowed to hide behind a closed session meeting.
Further to that I would like the public and staff know that I am in constant contact with MMAH who are eagerly anticipating the outcome of this meeting. I have also filed a number of complaints with the integrity commissioner against certain members of council.
As mentioned previously council, as employers, have a duty to protect employees against a toxic work environment, harassment, bullying and intimidation. Despite repeated discussions at the council level some members refuse to improve their behavior and continue to engage in these actions. As an employer each and every one of us has the duty to protect and are personally liable for the safety of staff. As such I have taken it upon myself to initiate complaints with the Ministry of Labour against two members of council that continue to engage in harassing, intimidating and bullying behavior towards the employees of the Township of Amaranth.
Going forward I vow to staff and taxpayers that I will be more active and diligent in ensuring that the Township is operating effectively, and democracy is not derailed by the tyrannical actions of a number of members.
In summary I hereby move the following motion and I will be looking for a seconder and will request a recorded vote.
Whereas the actions of the council of the Township of Amaranth have been detrimental to the Township employees and taxpayers, and;
Whereas Council, as employers, have failed in their duty to protect employees from certain behaviours that have created a toxic work environment, and;
Whereas the Head of Council is ultimately responsible for the actions and behaviour of council and the effective operation of the Township of Amaranth;
Resolved that, the council of the Township of Amaranth hereby request the resignation of the Mayor of the Township of Amaranth effective at 12:00 pm on May 1st, 2020.
May 6 statement of Councillor Tijssen as recorded in the minutes:
Mr Mayor, thank you for the floor.
At our Special Council Meeting held here on May 1, 2020, Deputy Mayor Gerrits spoke passionately about what he sees as problems with Amaranth Township Council, and two members in were clearly identified. In the course of his speech, he referred to both dysfunction and bullying.
Mr Mayor, in so far as this Council continues to meet as required, for the most part in civil tone and has yet to fail to arrive at democratic conclusion in debate, we are not by my interpretation “dysfunctional”. To be truly clear, dissatisfaction with an outcome by a minority of members does not constitute “undemocratic” nor provide an example of “dysfunction”.
The bullying charge is far more troubling, and those who witnessed or listened to Deputy Mayor Gerrits on 1 May are welcome to draw their own conclusions as to what constitutes “bullying”. For my part, I can clearly state that I felt bullied by Deputy Mayor Gerrits threats to bring in the Ethics Commissioner, the Department of Labour, Lawyers and to release communications that I believed to be private. He is welcome to do all of those things, but to threaten to do so in a public forum felt to me like humiliation, extortion, and intimidation.
My interpretation of bullying extends Mr. Mayor to the display of humiliation to which you were also subjected. Deputy Mayor Gerrits repeatedly paused his speech for sufficient time to allow you to re-take the floor before protesting violently that you were infringing on his right to speak. This along with an attempt to unseat a duly and democratically elected mayor, directly elected by the ratepayer of this township fell within my personal definitions of bullying.
Deputy Mayor Gerrits went further, by indicating to members of the public, that if they are “friends” of mine, they are somehow ineligible for employment by the Township of Amaranth. This was offensive to me, and while I am curious as to the definition of friends, I am also curious as to whether any resident of Amaranth is now eligible for employment in this small township where most residents are known or “friends” with at least one member of Council.
As painful as bullying is Mr. Mayor, I believe that the people of Amaranth elected us to Council in order to do some valuable work. This has been challenging for both of us, as very few of the major issues facing this township were presented to either of us when we were inaugurated, and we have repeatedly been forced to suffer the humiliation of being uninformed on key files. To be extremely clear with Deputy Mayor Gerrits – I do have a military mindset that he may not appreciate, and one possible reason for that may be my belief that as the positionally senior incumbent member of this council, he bore more responsibility for ensuring continuity and transparency than his fellow incumbents.
The $800,000 budget error of 2018 will not go away – it cannot and it should not! Deputy Mayor Gerrits displayed a tremendous grasp of Robert’s Rules of Order during our last meeting; however, he has yet to explain to Mayor Currie, myself or the ratepayers of Amaranth why he sat silent for five full months and allowed Council to flounder through three budget meetings (paid for by the taxpayers) without exposing a known 25% shortfall in the budget. Deputy Mayor Gerrits was informed about the $800,000 inappropriately in closed session in November of 2018. Mayor Currie and I were inaugurated and in-briefed on Dec 4, 2018 and wasted our time completely working on draft budgets until April 3, 2019 when Councillor Foster finally forced our CAO to come clean with the problem. For clarity here, the Amaranth Township Code of Conduct lists “withholding information required to do one’s job” as an example of bullying. That may be true, but it was also disrespectful and unfair to the ratepayers of Amaranth who shortly thereafter suffered a significant tax hike with no warning or time to adjust their household budgets. The consequences of withholding this information caused harm to everyone in Amaranth, and yes, to me, rank comes with responsibility.
Sadly, the $800,000 fiasco is not the only debacle that Mayor Currie and I inherited. Many ratepayers will be aware that there is no bridge over the 7th Line between 15 and 20 Sideroads. I asked for an after-action report and in summary, the contract written by staff and allowed to be executed by Council cost the taxpayers of Amaranth the better part of $600,000 for the current gap in the road. Legal advice to Council was that the contract was so badly written, that there was no point pursuing the contractor for either damages or to complete the job. We have a hole in the road, and absolutely no one has taken responsibility for the waste of $600,000 (and this was real money, not an accounting error). No personnel files have had reprimands attached to them (or at least not that I have been informed) and there were no consequences other than yet another tax hit to the people of Amaranth.
Is that it? Sadly, no. Residents of Amaranth should have their attention drawn to the 2018 Asset Management Plan that resides on our website. I requested a bridge report shortly after taking office and after some obfuscation, was directed to the Asset Management Plan. According to the specialists at Burnside Engineering, we have no less than 7 bridges in Amaranth that are at “zero life” (which to me means shot), the estimated replacement cost of which is in excess of $5.3 million dollars. Deputy Mayor Gerrits has informed me in private conversation that he disputes the “zero-life” description of these bridges; however, he was part of the Council that accepted the Asset Management Plan and in fact paid Burnside Engineering rather handsomely for preparing it. My extensive experience with contracting is that if you don’t agree with a deliverable, you reject it and most certainly don’t pay until it is correct. So, truly at zero life or not, we have a substantial infrastructure burden bearing down on us, and our reserves were pretty much tapped out in 2019, trying to insulate our ratepayers from the $800,000 error of 2018.
With tax revenues of just over $3 million annually, the ratepayers of Amaranth are welcome to do the math and calculate the magnitude of the challenges that are now faced by this Township.
The ratepayers of Amaranth should be asking questions about the dissolution of our shared staff and office space with East Garafraxa. My opinion, and I am quite certain it is a shared opinion with at least two other members of Council, it was high time that this highly inequitable and cumbersome arrangement was terminated. Amaranth carried 60% of the operating costs of this arrangement and bore nearly 100% of capital expenditures. I am in utter disbelief, that East Garafraxa was allowed to use our facility for 22 years rent-free! New roof, Amaranth, septic, Amaranth. Yes, they contributed to the handicap access and front counter, but this pales when you consider that commercial rent for their share of our facilities had us forego an estimated $1.2 million in rent. Deputy Mayor Gerrits and Councillor Little were entrusted by council with drafting the separation agreement with East Garafraxa. To the horror of Mayor Currie, Councillor Foster and myself, we were presented with an agreement that was going to cost Amaranth in excess of $17,000 plus to be determined IT disconnection fees to part ways with a tenant who had foregone an estimated $1.2 million in rent over 22 years.
Under some circumstances, continued generosity to our neighbours could be lauded, but not with depleted strategic reserves and another significant tax hike for our own ratepayers in 2020. Needless to say, the agreement underwent significant amendments and cost plummeted, but without the input of Mayor Currie, Councillor Foster and myself, Deputy Mayor Gerrits and Councillor Little would have saddled the ratepayers of Amaranth with an additional $17,000 and beyond in tax burden. In my opinion, we were taken for a colossal ride by our neighbour, and Deputy Mayor Gerrits had four years of his previous term of office to draw the same conclusion and to do something about it. If he did, I can find no record of his having done so.
I must also address head-on that Councillor Little has made it truly clear to council on multiple occasions, that positive staff relations mean placing trust in the intentions and abilities of staff. Sadly, I disagree, and while I believe in being fair and supportive, trust must be earned. $800,000 errors not only made, but concealed, $600,000 bridge fiascos, crumbling bridge infrastructure in excess of $5.3 million and depleted reserves do not earn my trust. It is my contention, that the we have many strong indicators that Amaranth has not been well served by its staff, or staff actions effectively overseen by the previous Councils of which Councillor Little has been part. I passionately believe that the taxpayers of Amaranth deserve nothing less than a council that takes an active role in overseeing the intentions and abilities of staff and takes decisive action in response to their observations. Sadly, some of that action was turned into a public spectacle last Friday, but that was not by my choice or doing – neither I believe, was it the desire of Mayor Currie or Councillor Foster.
The taxpayers of Amaranth deserve a measure of blame for the current state of affairs within this Township. Council holds two meetings per month, one daytime, one evening, and the same three of residents out of 4,000 regularly attend meetings. Barely half of Amaranth’s voters cast a ballot in 2018 and less than a fraction of one percent have ever attended a council meeting. That is a shameful disregard for democratic rights and responsibilities and has facilitated the sorry state of affairs that we now face.
Chirping on the internet does not in my mind constitute civic duty, and failure to respond to those who do is highly demoralizing for those of us trying to put your house in order. I must conclude Mr. Mayor, by stating that whether or not it was his intent, I interpreted Deputy Mayor Gerrits’ use of the term military last week as a slur and I have been informed that I am not alone in this interpretation. He cast this perceived aspersion at the same time as highly skilled members of our Force are serving in old folks homes attempting to bring care and comfort to seniors, and only one day after six brave members lost their lives in the Ionic Sea while serving their nation. I stood with Deputy Mayor Gerrits at the at the Cenotaph in Grand Valley on November 11, 2019 to remember those who served and gave their lives in service to their country. Shame on you if it was your intent to use the term military in a demeaning manner, and if not, shame on you for saying anything in a way that could be interpreted as such!
Thank you Mr Mayor
Footnotes
- His remarks were also critical of the record of Councillor Little, though she does not figure in any of the four complaints.
- City of Brampton, Report No. BIC-030-192 (December 4, 2012), Integrity Commissioner Donald Cameron, at p. 3.
- City of Brampton, Report No. BIC-32-1112 (December 18, 2012), Randy Pepper, Delegate of the Integrity Commissioner, at pp. 2.
- Reference re Alberta Statutes, 1938 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1938] S.C.R. 100, at 133, per Duff C.J., cited by Ref re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I. 1997 CanLII 317 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 3, at para. 102, per Lamer C.J.C.