An advertisement paid for through Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe’s office budget has drawn criticism from municipal governance experts, who say it has the appearance of election campaign material — something city policy explicitly prohibits. The ad was placed in The Oscar community newspaper on May 5, days after the election period opened. It resembled the mayor’s 2022 campaign materials, omitted his city email address for the first time, and used language mirroring “Moving Ottawa Forward” — the campaign slogan of his 2022 opponent, Bob Chiarelli. Ottawa’s Election-Related Resources Policy (EERP) prohibits the use of city resources to produce materials that promote a candidate for elected office or serve any election-related purpose. Such policies are required by provincial law. City Clerk Caitlin Salter-MacDonald confirmed the City of Ottawa’s policy and its “underlying principles are engaged at all times” and not only during a formal campaign window. Last December, Salter-MacDonald sent a memo to the mayor and councillors that reminded them of the rules, emphasizing in bold, “public funds and resources are not to be used for any election-related purposes, including the promotion of or opposition to the candidacy of a person for elected office.” Sutcliffe officially filed his nomination papers to run for re-election on Monday. Ad ‘should not have gone out’: Municipal governance expert Andrew Sancton, a leading expert on municipal governance and professor emeritus at Western University, said the ad bears the hallmarks of campaigning and appears to violate the rules. “That just raised all kinds of red flags for me…a city-financed ad like that simply should not have gone out,” he said. “It could have been unintentional, but nevertheless it’s violating rules about using city resources for electioneering. Somebody should have said, wait a minute, we shouldn’t be putting out election-style ads using taxpayer money.” He said the removal of the city email address was significant — routine mayoral communications would normally include it — and that the use of Chiarelli’s slogan “adds to the suspicion that this is about electioneering rather than communicating city business.” Mayor’s Office: ‘Routine communication’ The mayor’s office described the ad as a routine communication “consistent with advertising by elected officials at all levels of government while they are in office.” In a statement, it called it “a legitimate expense allowed under the Council Expense Policy.” The mayor’s office did not address the similarities to campaign materials, the absent city email address or the campaign-style language. It would not answer directly whether the ad was compliant with city policy. It also pushed back on the framing of May 1 as the opening of the election period and argued the rules do not meaningfully engage until the 60-day “blackout period as defined in the Municipal Elections Act, which begins on August 27.” When informed the clerk confirmed the underlying principle of the policy applies at all times, regardless of that date, the mayor’s office said it was “seeking clarification.” A similar statement was released a day later about the August 27 rules, but it did not explain the seeming contradiction with the clerk’s interpretation. Follow-up questions have gone unanswered. Oversight and consequences Any breach of the EERP would potentially require personal repayment of costs. The Clerk’s memo last December reminded members the issue is also covered by Section 14 of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council, alongside Section 9, which bars the use of city resources for purposes unconnected to official council duties. That policy is overseen by Integrity Commissioner Karen Shepherd. When asked for comment on the May 5 ad, Shepherd said her office cannot make findings without a formal complaint. “I do not make a determination as to whether the Code of Conduct has been breached without properly investigating a matter and assessing the relevant facts,” her statement said. She did not say a breach had occurred. On Monday, Horizon Ottawa announced it was submitting a complaint to the integrity commissioner over Sutcliffe’s advertisements in community newspapers since the May 1 opening of the nomination period. It remains unclear if that includes the ad referred to in this story. Election-related activity? ‘What else would it be?’ Robert Williams, a retired political scientist at the University of Waterloo and former municipal integrity commissioner, said the ad’s purpose is difficult to characterize as anything other than electoral. “What else would it be? Is he trying to get invited to dinner parties or something?” Williams drew a clear distinction between a candidate budget and the mayor’s office budget. “And that’s a crucial part here…the candidate is paying for things to promote the candidate, and that money needs to be accounted for. And I would think that public funds are not consistent with that kind of spending,” Williams said. Incumbents bear a particular responsibility once the election period begins, according to Williams, regardless of whether they have formally filed to run. “Once we’ve crossed that May 1 deadline, it strikes me that any incumbent needs to be very, very careful about what is said or communicated. Is it the elected official speaking on official business or is it the candidate speaking?” Ian Stedman, an associate professor of public law and governance at York University and former adviser in Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner’s Office, said the omitted email and language were notable, but the ad likely falls within the rules as currently written. “He’s definitely being cheeky, but I don’t think he has done enough to break the rules as they are currently written,” he said in an email. Stedman characterized the rules as too “permissive as written” and said updates should be considered that address the potential of an unfair playing field, one that’s already naturally tilted in an incumbent’s favour. Many Ontario cities and municipalities have strengthened their language over the past several years to address ambiguity. In March, Cambridge and Burlington both clarified expectations for incumbent council members to ensure a clear separation between duties and campaign activities. Questions raised about how city responded to inquiries City Clerks hold a legally independent role under Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act. Although the province’s Strong Mayor powers allow Ontario mayors to hire or fire many city staff, City Clerks are explicitly excluded from those powers — meaning the clerk answers to provincial law. That context matters, experts say, because the sudden shift in how the city engaged with questions about the ad raises its own concerns. Before the ad was raised, the clerk’s office provided detailed responses and answered follow-up questions regarding the rules through city media relations staff. After questions about the ad, staff said the clerk could not comment on a perception of the rules. They did not explain what had changed from the previous inquiry when the clerk provided full comment on a perception of the rules. A brief statement attributed to the clerk was eventually released late on a Friday. Sancton said the change in approach is hard to ignore. “If they were open before and they’re not open after you raise the question of the ad, then you have to wonder why the big change?” he said. “And I suspect it is because they think there’s some problem here.” He added that in general, communications staff should not be standing between a journalist and the clerk on questions of election compliance. “The communications people should not be interfering with the clerk doing the job that they’re assigned to do, either by provincial statute or by City of Ottawa established policies.” Williams said the clerk’s independence is “critical” and that they “must be able to operate without any interference or pressure…from any member of the public, any member of staff, any of the elected officials.” He believes a public explanation is necessary because “the community needs to know that the rules have been followed.” “And if there was a glitch, then let’s fix it.”
