Toronto councillors need real consequences, not more phony apologies

Last week, Toronto city council spent almost a full day on an entirely irrelevant debate. On the public dime, councillors talked for hour after hour about something of no concern to the average Toronto resident.

The topic? Whether they should ask Mayor Rob Ford to say, “Sorry.”

Ford’s been down this coerced apology road a bunch of times over his career at city hall. His offence this time was robocalling residents in Coun. Paul Ainslie’s Scarborough ward last fall. Ford’s automated call told Ainslie’s constituents that their councillor hadn’t listened to them when he voted against the Scarborough subway extension.

I won’t deny that what Ford did was wrong. Integrity commissioner Janet Leiper did a good job in her report laying out exactly why Ford’s actions contravened council’s code of conduct. In her words, Ford’s call “crossed that line by saying that the councillor had not listened to his constituents. It alleges disrespect.”

That makes sense. I take no issue with the details of the offence. But I do take issue with the prescribed penalty.

Leiper’s recommendation that council ask Ford to apologize was fundamentally useless. By definition, a coerced or forced apology isn’t an apology at all. An apology has to come with some sincerity — it has to mean something.

In the debate last week, Ford did ultimately apologize, but only after hours of debate and only after he spoke with legal staff. Did he learn anything? Will he refrain from contravening the code of conduct in the future? I can’t say for certain, but based on Ford’s track record of responding to mistakes by making even bigger mistakes, I think there’s good reason to be really skeptical.

And that’s the problem. The toothless apology request is by far the most common penalty levied to elected officials at city hall. A mumbled “sorry” on the council floor is effectively a get-out-of-jail-free card. Only after councillors are accused of improperly raising thousands of dollars — as Coun. Giorgio Mammoliti was recently — are harsher penalties considered.

That’s not good enough. That’s not real accountability.

The council code of conduct is not an especially difficult document to follow. It’s just 10 pages long. Asking councillors to read it and abide is not an unreasonable demand.

And so, if they’re found in contravention, the penalty should always be severe. No phony apologies. Instead, hit them where it hurts — right in the wallet. The real possibility of suspended pay would cause every member of council, immediately, to take a closer look at the rules.

Does that seem harsh? Good. The demands of public office should be harsh. And if the possibility of real penalties leads to better informed and better behaved politicians, I won’t be sorry.