B.C. is following the national trend this year and introducing a mandatory code of conduct with set standards for all municipal councils and regional districts.
While many local government officials say, “About time,” some are wary, and concerns about fairness remain.
Housing and Municipal Affairs Minister Christine Boyle introduced the legislation to create the mandatory code on April 2. Although this bill has not yet completed second or third readings, it seems to have broad support across party lines.
The legislation would establish a single code for all municipalities and regional districts, enforced through independent investigations, with penalties ranging from a letter of reprimand to a 90-day suspension without pay.
It stops short of creating a mechanism to remove officials from office, and does not allow members of the public to submit complaints.
These steps are advocated for by some, but Boyle says the public gets its chance on election day.
“Ultimately, the public gets a say every four years, and there are municipal elections coming up this October, so that the public can have their say then about who they want to represent them,” she said.
The actual behavioural code itself is not included in the bill, but would instead be created and enacted later by regulation — something Opposition MLAs and some local officials are not keen on, and say it is part of a pattern during David Eby’s premiership.
Conservative Municipal Affairs Critic Tony Luck says Eby is attempting to keep decision-making authority in his office and in cabinet.
“We’re not happy with that,” Luck said. “That should be back in the legislature. That’s where laws are made, not in premier’s offices.”
Some also question why the bill does not allow complaints from members of the public, or whether penalties go far enough.
Others worry about the costs of these inquiries. Or if those investigations will always result in repercussions for a guilty official who is a member of a majority party.
To ensure neutrality at the investigative stage, an independent, third-party investigator must be hired to look into complaints. But while councils and regional districts are required to consider all investigative reports that include sanctions, nothing forces them to impose the penalties — they must simply provide the investigator with reasons for their decision.
The province would set standards for these probes and qualification requirements for investigators, but local governments would bear the costs. To ease cost pressures on smaller municipalities, the system is being designed to allow for regional cost-sharing, although it appears this would be optional and require cooperation.
Despite these potential shortcomings, many local officials and even members of the Official Opposition seem inclined to allow the government some leeway to see how this works in practice.
Luck sat on two councils himself: Merritt and Mission, both of which had incidents during his tenure that would likely warrant a code-of-conduct investigation. But there was “nothing to fall back on,” at the time he said — not even a voluntary, council-created code.
All other provinces, at the very least, require councils to create a code, while several already have a provincially mandated standard.
And some of those with council-created codes are moving to provincially standardized versions, similar to the one proposed by the B.C. government. Alberta and Ontario, for example, are introducing mandatory, set codes this year. Both are expected to include a mechanism to remove councillors for the most serious violations.
While many B.C. municipalities already have voluntary codes, a sizeable portion don’t have any enforcement mechanism, and most don’t have the same teeth as the proposed mandatory one.
According to the latest statistics, approximately 68 per cent of the province’s municipalities and 81 per cent of regional districts have adopted a voluntary code. Of those, 29 per cent do not include an enforcement mechanism.
The Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) and the B.C. ombudsperson have been vocal proponents for a mandatory code for years now. UBCM has passed six resolutions calling for a code, going back to 2016.
“We view this as a win for everyone,” UBCM President Cori Ramsay said. “It’s going to really bring greater clarity and send a clear message about how we interact with each other, setting levels of expectations for behaviour.”
If this new law passes, the mandatory code of conduct rules would take effect immediately following the general local elections on Oct. 17.
A good example of bad behaviour
There is one B.C. city that many local officials cite as an example of why a code of conduct is needed.
With a litany of high-profile, tense disputes between the mayor, council and staff in recent years, Kamloops stands out.
Many of these disputes and incidents have run afoul of the city’s voluntary code, resulting in investigations. The latest found that Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson breached the privacy rules by revealing sensitive personal information about a city staffer, and that he sent messages intended to bully, intimidate or harass.
Upon recieving the investigation report in March, the council directed that Hamer-Jackson must be reprimanded, deliver an apology letter and undergo personalized training. If he fails to comply, the council will dock his pay by five per cent.
This investigation cost the city $52,360.63. It is one of 29 complaints involving the mayor and council going back to 2023. One investigation cost the city more than $66,000. Several others cost more than $60,000.
Local leaders look at this with a sense of nervousness about what the costs for their local community could be should a dispute escalate to a Kamloops level.
Salmon Arm Coun. Tim Lavery, who was instrumental in creating his own municipality’s voluntary code, warns that the costs involved could bankrupt a small government. This includes legal fees, lost time for the council, and the cost of the investigation itself.
The legislation does have a provision that could allow the investigator to force a someone bringing a compaint to pay for the investigation should it be dismissed. But the municipality pays otherwise.
“It becomes a tsunami of costs for a small, rural local government,” Lavery said.
Vancouver has also had some tension between the mayor and councillors over behaviour, including a finding from Integrity Commissioner Lisa Southern that members of Mayor Ken Sim’s ABC party violated the Vancouver Charter by using group chats to coordinate votes. This broke the rules that require open meetings when a majority of councillors gather to talk.
But any punishment for this violation is up to the council, and ABC holds a majority.
“We don’t have any teeth to our code of conduct when it comes to dealing with a majority party in control,” said Vancouver Coun. Pete Fry, a Green Party member. “Because ultimately, sanctions and the like are really at the behest of the majority.”
But while Fry reckons the new provincial version would provide more “appropriate remedies” for code violations than Vancouver’s, he is not all-in on the provincially mandated code — saying locally crafted mandates can prevent provincial overreach.
He also thinks the public ought to be able to bring complaints.
“I think that’s an important function of our democratic process — to allow the public to complain if they feel that we have not met our duties,” he said.
Nanaimo Mayor Leonard Krog is just pleased to see the province stepping up to create a standard code across jurisdictions.
“Individual municipalities should not be determining what constitutes fair and reasonable conduct, or the process by which that’s determined, or any sanctions that may be levied,” he said.
Like Luck and others, Krog acknowledges the government might not get everything perfect right away, but says it ought to get a shot and some space to fine-tune.
“This is the government’s first stab at setting up a code of conduct in a process,” he said. “Let’s see how it goes.”