Revised Code of Conduct for Council and Local Boards, included as Attachment-1 to report 2025-196 dated May 6, 2025, be approved.

1:33:18And then we'll swing back around to the shelter addressing gaps and daytime sheltering options.

1:33:34Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of city council.

1:33:38You will recall that in March there was a revised version of the code of conduct presented by the integrity commissioner.

1:33:44At that meeting, the committee referred the code back to staff for changes based on council's feedback.

1:33:49I'm just going to walk through the changes before you today so you get a sense of what is different in this version of the code versus what was presented in March.

1:33:57There are two provisions of the code which had been removed entirely.

1:34:00There is no longer a prohibition included on any sort of political endorsements at any level of government.

1:34:05And there is no prohibition, no prohibition, sorry, on the promotion of any third party interests included in the code before you today.

1:34:13Rules regarding the use of social media during election campaigns and the need to clearly distinguish between communication from a sitting member of council and communication as a candidate in an election do remain in code.

1:34:25However, there are some slight changes to how titles may be used on social media during campaigns.

1:34:31As originally presented titles may not be used during election campaigns in social media account handles, user names or profile descriptions if that account is being used as an election related account.

1:34:43However, titles can be used on those accounts to say things like reelect councillor Smith in Ward 2 or as the councillor for Ward 6.

1:34:51I've supported following types of policies.

1:34:54So there is a little bit more clarity in the code in that regard.

1:34:57We do think these rules are important.

1:34:58We want to ensure that members of the public can discern when they're viewing communications from a sitting member of council communicating in that role versus when they're looking at election or campaign related materials.

1:35:11Generally speaking, all other provisions in the code remain the same as presented in March.

1:35:16That includes clarification that the code applies regardless of whether a member considers a social media account to be public, professional or private.

1:35:25The code applies to councillor behavior regardless of the medium you are communicating in.

1:35:30There is no distinction between different types of accounts or different communication channels.

1:35:33The code applies to online electronic communication.

1:35:36It applies to internal communication.

1:35:38There's no distinction in that regard in what's before you today.

1:35:42The proposed code also indicates that councillors should exercise restraint when blocking members of the public or users on social media to ensure that the user's right to freedom of expression is not infringed.

1:35:53But that blocking is absolutely permitted when required to protect a member or other users from harassment or abuse to preserve the utility of the social media account from things like spam or bots and to prevent the dissemination of abusive, hateful or insightful communication.

1:36:10If members of council have concerns about a specific social media user, they may choose to contact the integrity commissioner to seek advice before blocking them, but that is not a requirement.

1:36:21Obvious cases of abuse, bots, inappropriate content, spam, that can always be blocked at a member's discretion.

1:36:30At committee of the whole, there was also questions about the applicability of the code to members of advisory committees.

1:36:36The code before you today does apply to all advisory committee members, chairs and vice chairs.

1:36:42We don't believe that the proposed code creates an undue level of restriction or hardship for those members.

1:36:48And we believe it's important to recognize that they do occupy positions of significant privilege within Guelph's system of governance.

1:36:55These privileges come with the expectation that all advisory committee members will conduct themselves to the same ethical standards as members of city council.

1:37:02Other transparency programs like the lobbyist registry also apply equally to members of council and advisory committees.

1:37:10Finally, since publishing this report, the provinces reintroduced the municipal accountability act.

1:37:18That act gives the provincial government the ability to impose a code of conduct, a single code of conduct for all municipalities in Ontario following the 2026 election.

1:37:27So it's a reasonable expectation that any changes we make here today will be in place from now until the end of this term of council.

1:37:33For the new term of council, we're very likely to have a code that's been mandated by the provincial government.

1:37:38Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.

1:37:42Thank you. Is there anyone that I would at least be willing to move the code? Okay, caller and Richardson. Okay. Thank you.

1:37:50And then is there any questions at all at this time?

1:37:54All right, we'll start with, uh, Kate and then alt.

1:38:00Through you, Mr. Mayor.

1:38:02I'm a bit confused why the blocking provision would be included for ACOC members.

1:38:10Why, why would the public have a reasonable expectation to view any post made by an ACOC member?

1:38:21Through you, Mr. Mayor. So I can, I can think about a situation where a chair of an advisory committee is using X for example,

1:38:27and regularly communicating about things that happened at the recent committee meetings.

1:38:31So, you know, the committee today, the committee gave the following advice to council or we approve the following motion, whatever it may be.

1:38:37Maybe next month we're considering bringing this type of item forward.

1:38:41We believe that by posting that as the chair, you are creating a public forum for discussion and then to say,

1:38:48oh, you disagree with my content. I'm going to block you would be an inappropriate use

1:38:53and an inappropriate block to a member of the public as far as their access to that public forum.

1:39:00Through the mayor, but this information is all available elsewhere, right?

1:39:05So that's not actually stopping them from having access to the information. We have the meeting minutes online. We have the whole meeting

1:39:12videotaped each time. So

1:39:15if it was the only source of information about that meeting, I could imagine that. But

1:39:23my concern is that a lot of these groups, and what we're trying to do with our

1:39:30services is to increase the amount of diversity that we have in membership. That's one of our active components of the policy that we just

1:39:39redid. And I feel that this may

1:39:43prevent people from who are marginalized from wanting to do this because it creates an undue burden

1:39:49when you block someone to have to prove it should someone go to the integrity commissioner.

1:39:55How

1:39:57would we make that

1:39:59not an onerous process for those volunteers?

1:40:07Through you, Mr. Mayor to Councillor Caden,

1:40:10I think members of advisory committees and chairs especially

1:40:15need to

1:40:16think carefully before blocking a member of the public because that is reducing their access to content that

1:40:23is being put out publicly by a local board member appointed by city council.

1:40:28I think there is privilege in that in that position and that means that they've got to be wary of

1:40:33preventing members of the public from accessing that. You're certainly right that we post agendas,

1:40:39minutes, reports, video content,

1:40:42but that is different than hearing directly from a chair or directly from a member on social media in the same way I

1:40:47believe it is for a member of council where likewise we post agendas and minutes and reports and that kind of thing. So if there is a question about

1:40:56whether a block is is reasonable if it is in a bit of a gray area,

1:41:01it's not maybe clearly abusive or it's not clearly spam,

1:41:04then certainly the integrity commissioner is in a position to support and the clerk's office is always happy to work with all of our advisory committee members

1:41:10to connect them with the integrity commissioner to help them make those types of decisions.

1:41:15Through the mayor, so this is just basically provided that someone is is posting that content,

1:41:20but otherwise someone who's posting pictures of their kid and their dog and their garden

1:41:25is also subject to blocking and someone can go to the integrity commissioner

1:41:30and make a complaint that they've been blocked even though they're not posting anything that is of use. And this is the same thing with

1:41:36personal accounts even though we're not

1:41:38breaking out personal versus private for counselors.

1:41:42Through you, Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure that's that's exactly right. So there is a distinction in the code when it comes to the creation of a public forum.

1:41:50So I'm a big Blue Jays fan. If I was a member of city council and I had a Facebook group devoted to, you know, Guelph Blue Jays supporters

1:41:57and we just talked sports and Blue Jays,

1:42:00it's reasonable that I could restrict public access to that to that group. So

1:42:05there is a distinction to be made about is that a public forum in my official role as a as a counselor?

1:42:11That that's an easy cut and dry case. No, it isn't. So if you're just talking about

1:42:15your your family and kids and sharing photos of pets or whatever, that's that's never going to apply.

1:42:20But I think that line can be blurred very quickly if you have an account where you are doing some sharing of, you know,

1:42:27gifts or pets or whatever. But then you also add in a little bit of political commentary

1:42:31maybe related to your role on council. If you're a counselor or related to something going on at an advisory committee, if you're an advisory committee member

1:42:38and you've got comments

1:42:40enabled and that's an open account. Then what you're doing is telling the public,

1:42:43this is a way I'm going to communicate about some of the official duties I have in this role. And then they have a right to access.

1:42:49And we believe that

1:42:51unwarranted attempts to limit that access

1:42:54may in some cases represent an infringement upon that other individual's right to express themselves freely.

1:43:02Through the mirror. So I'm a bit confused now because before it seemed like every account if it was public

1:43:07would be subject to this. But now you're saying that the content within the count is

1:43:12matters. So I'm a bit confused because anything can be public and have comments open on it.

1:43:18Right? Like I've got pictures of my wedding and such.

1:43:23So

1:43:25that doesn't seem to be broken out in the code currently.

1:43:29That there are those distinctions between posts and accounts that are posting things

1:43:33that could be considered public forum versus other. It just says any of your accounts are subject to all of this.

1:43:40And I am,

1:43:41uh,

1:43:42I think that some of the political endorsement

1:43:45things and the third party interests that we had in there prior were very valid if we're talking about

1:43:51uh council specific accounts versus accounts that

1:43:55because people own businesses and because they have their own personal

1:44:00kind of endorsements and things like that. So it seems like we are making a difference

1:44:05between them, but it's not very clear to me right now.

1:44:12Through you, Mr. Mayor. So the code of conduct applies

1:44:16regardless of how or where you're communicating. So for example,

1:44:20abusive communication, whether it's in person, whether it's online, whether it's done in a public venue or perhaps in a private venue,

1:44:28that type of abusive content or behavior could always be investigated.

1:44:33So when we say the code applies everywhere, we mean regardless of the environment, regardless of how you're communicating. It applies

1:44:39when we're talking about specifically blocking members of the public, for example on social media,

1:44:45we have to think about whether we have created a public forum. That's the language that the code uses.

1:44:50So if we are posting publicly on matters related to your role as a member of city council or an advisory committee member,

1:44:57then we are creating a public forum and that's where those

1:45:00limitations or considerations related to blocking would apply.

1:45:05So there is context here that matters, but I think broadly speaking the code applies everywhere and that's an important principle that

1:45:14behavior is not just limited in this room or on official social media accounts. It is limited everywhere through all channels and all means.

1:45:22Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem with most of it, right?

1:45:25It's just with the blocking that I find it creates more of an issue with marginalization.

1:45:29And I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that that's reflected necessarily in the language in

1:45:35the code right now. So

1:45:38I'll be working on some amendments to

1:45:41create that clarity so that it's kind of more known,

1:45:47that it's specific to

1:45:49creating the forum for posts related to the council rather than necessarily for the blocking specifically,

1:45:57rather than the whole account.

1:46:00Thank you very much.

1:46:02Thank you, Councillor.

1:46:04I think Alt was my last one.

1:46:07Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

1:46:09Through you to Mr. McMahon and Clerks. First of all, thank you very much for taking into consideration some of the concerns.

1:46:18I think it is

1:46:20significantly better than what we had presented in front of us before.

1:46:24I do agree with you about the higher standard of ethical behavior. There are many

1:46:28careers where that is an absolute expectation. And so consequently,

1:46:33I think for all intents and purposes at this point, I will be supporting this,

1:46:38but I have one very naive question for you.

1:46:42And that is if there's a provincial municipal accountability act that is forthcoming in

1:46:492026, and this is only for one year, arguably,

1:46:57why we're not even necessarily going to be getting out of the the dock

1:47:04on this before it becomes

1:47:06essentially a moot point.

1:47:13Through you, Mr. Mayor, to Councillor Eld,

1:47:16I think there's two reasons. The first is that staff, the integrity commissioner and hopefully council believes these are the best rules to have in place

1:47:25to govern

1:47:26the behavior of elected officials, especially going into an election campaign where we know social media is going to be a feature.

1:47:33So we believe in it. That is part of it.

1:47:35The second part, quite frankly, is that we largely had this work done when we found out that the provincial government was going to be

1:47:41implementing these changes and we think they're worthwhile. So we brought them forward.

1:47:45Yeah, okay. That makes complete sense.

1:47:47Both parts of it, actually. I do appreciate the work on that. And I think it is incumbent that for us to recognize that we might not have got this

1:47:57perfect. But I think the concept of a code that does establish that there are

1:48:04expectations of a higher standard of ethical behavior does matter to the public. And we should be very mindful of that.

1:48:11I do look forward to Councillor Kate and bring possibly back some

1:48:15amendments that might improve what you've done. But thank you very much. I think it's been a good effort.

1:48:21And who knows, it might be better than what the province brings in anyway.

1:48:27Thank you. I was going to call the vote, but Gibson, did you have your hand up?

1:48:32I'll just comment on this file too. Thank you to Council and thank you to staff for working through this

1:48:39file. I guess I'm getting half a sum of longevity on Council. Four years ago, three years ago, I guess just before the last term of

1:48:48Council ended, I did try to move a motion to bring some more accountability through our Code of Conduct to local boards and

1:48:56outside boards. And Council wasn't ready for that decision or wasn't ready for that conversation at the time.

1:49:03I'm very appreciative that we are able to get this finished and get this achieved

1:49:09because I do believe that there's privilege and I do believe that there is a responsibility

1:49:14when members of the public are put in charge of governance, governance decisions,

1:49:20taxpayer money, where they are allowed to bring forward recommendations to Council and in some cases make decisions on

1:49:27behalf of Council. I do believe that there is a level of ethical conduct that we should expect

1:49:33and we should be willing to enforce. Sometimes we can all go on social media and see a lot of ugly things,

1:49:41but it's a really disappointing and really sinking feeling when you see an appointed member that you have

1:49:49supported joining an outside board or joining a local board or joining a committee,

1:49:54running down our police, running down our civil servants, running down our municipal employees.

1:50:00Those are people that we are in charge of protecting when it comes to public discourse to a certain extent

1:50:08and I believe that when we put people into these positions, they should be held to a same ethical

1:50:14conduct that we are and we welcome that scrutiny, we welcome those challenges.

1:50:19I've always said that I appreciate the integrity commissioner because I think in many ways it

1:50:23protects us when complaints come forward. The integrity commissioner is that arbiter that comes

1:50:27in and says no, they did behave fine or they didn't, but I do appreciate Council, maybe it just didn't

1:50:35need my name associated with it for it to pass, but I won't take that personally. I appreciate

1:50:41Council engaging in this conversation. I appreciate staff working through it because

1:50:47quite frankly, everything I wanted achieved has been achieved. I'll take that as a moral victory,

1:50:53even if Council didn't want to have this conversation four years ago. Thank you.

1:50:59All right, thank you. With that, I will call the vote on the update of the code for Council and

1:51:06outside board. Sorry, am I saying that right? Yeah, code of for Council and local boards.

1:51:18I'll call the vote. Is anyone against? Okay, just Kate is against at this time. So that passes.

1:51:27Thank you. Okay, we're circling back to the last thing under governance, which was the addressing