Integrity / Public Trust
If elected Mayor, I will be Mayor for EVERYONE in Bradford West Gwillimbury. My commitment will be to responsible government, meaningful public consultation and rebuilding public trust through openness, accountability and respectful leadership.
Integrity and Public Trust
Public trust is not created by promises. It is earned through actions.
In all my years in Bradford West Gwillimbury, I cannot recall hearing this much discussion about transparency, accountability and integrity at Town Hall. As I have been knocking on doors and speaking with residents across our community, I continue to hear the same concern: people want to know what is happening at Town Hall, why decisions are being made, and whether their voices are truly being heard.
Those concerns did not appear overnight. Since 2022, this Council has faced two confirmed Integrity Commissioner findings. More recently, two significant issues — the proposed approximately $100-million Town Hall and the Temporary Reception Centre — have caused me to ask even more questions about transparency and the responsibility elected officials have to keep the public informed.
The Town Hall and the People's Right to Be Heard
The Town Hall project is perhaps the clearest example of why public trust has become such an important issue in this election.
In October 2025, Council agreed to move the proposed Town Hall project forward to tender. Mayor James Leduc also publicly indicated that the issue would be taken to the municipal election. To me, that meant residents would have an opportunity to consider one of the largest proposed expenditures in our Town's history and make their voices heard through their vote.
But that opportunity changed on July 28, 2026.
Less than 90 days before the municipal election, a contract was signed. Once a contract of this magnitude is signed, changing direction can become considerably more difficult and potentially more costly. That raises a simple question: if residents had been led to believe this issue would be part of the election, why not allow them to have that say?
For me, this is about much more than whether Council had the legal authority to sign the contract. It is about public trust.
What troubles me further is that Council members were invited to attend six days before the July 28 public announcement. Yet I did not see any of them publicly object to moving forward before residents had their opportunity to vote.
On a project of this size, involving approximately $100 million of public money, I believe residents deserved to be heard before the decision became more difficult and potentially more expensive to reverse.
Then Came the Temporary Reception Centre
Only days later, another issue emerged.
During the August 4, 2026 Council meeting, the Temporary Reception Centre became a matter of significant public discussion. Residents learned that the building had changed hands in August 2025, from LOFT to Social Services.
During that meeting, one member of Council indicated that even Council had not received a heads-up. It was subsequently disclosed, however, that Council had been informed on October 28, 2025.
Aug 4 Harper.mp4
Aug 4 Scott.mp4
Council members then explained that they were subject to confidentiality requirements and therefore could not discuss the matter publicly.
I understand that governments sometimes have legitimate reasons for maintaining confidentiality. Property negotiations, legal advice, personnel matters, funding applications and other sensitive matters may properly need to be discussed behind closed doors. I respect that.
But I believe there is an important distinction between information that must legally remain confidential and information that can be shared with the people we represent.
The ownership of a building and the proposed future use of that building are not necessarily the same issue. There may have been legitimate confidentiality surrounding funding, negotiations or plans for the property. But that does not automatically mean every piece of information connected to the property had to remain confidential indefinitely.
That is why I believe residents deserved a clearer explanation of what Council knew, when Council knew it, what information could legally be disclosed and why other information could not.
That, to me, is what transparency looks like.
Transparency Is More Than Following the Rules
These two events occurred within days of each other, but they point to a much larger issue.
Transparency should not simply mean providing information when government is required to provide it. It should mean elected representatives actively looking for ways to keep residents informed.
There will always be information an elected official cannot disclose. But the first question should not be, "Why can't I tell the public?" The question should be:
"What can I tell the people I represent?"
That difference matters.
The public should not have to constantly search for information, attend every Council meeting or submit requests simply to understand what their government is doing. Elected officials have a responsibility to communicate with the people who placed them in office.
Integrity Must Mean Something
That brings me to another concern: the role of the Integrity Commissioner.
I am concerned about an Integrity Commissioner system that appears to place significant emphasis on education and training while providing considerable discretion over whether complaints proceed to investigation.
Education is important. Prevention is important. Helping elected officials understand their ethical responsibilities is important.
But accountability is also important.
An integrity system cannot inspire confidence if residents believe legitimate complaints can be dismissed without sufficient examination or explanation. The Town's own Clerk has confirmed in correspondence that allegations concerning a Council member's compliance with the Code of Conduct fall within the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner.
If that is where residents are directed when they have concerns about the conduct of their elected representatives, then residents must have confidence in that process.
They deserve to know that their complaint will be taken seriously. They deserve clear procedures. They deserve consistency. And when a complaint does not proceed, they deserve to understand why.
What I Would Do as Mayor
If elected Mayor, restoring public confidence in municipal government will be one of my priorities.
That begins with communication. Residents should receive clear and understandable information about major decisions, major expenditures and issues affecting their neighbourhoods as early as legally possible. When Council must discuss something behind closed doors, confidentiality must be respected — but when the legitimate reason for confidentiality ends, I believe Council should make every reasonable effort to bring information into the public domain.
I will also seek a stronger and clearer Integrity Commissioner process. Complaints should receive appropriate examination under consistent criteria, and residents should understand how decisions are reached. Subject to the law and legitimate privacy requirements, investigative findings and the reasoning behind them should be made available to the public.
I would also seek a review of the Town's current Integrity Commissioner arrangement. If I conclude that the existing system cannot command public confidence, I will advocate through the appropriate Council process for change, including the appointment of a new Integrity Commissioner if necessary.
A Code of Conduct should not simply be a document sitting on a municipal website. Integrity and ethical behaviour have to mean something.
Ultimately, the Decision Belongs to You
Ethics in government are not enforced only by Integrity Commissioners, policies, committees or Council chambers.
Ultimately, they are enforced by the public.
And that is why I believe this election presents residents with an important question.
The question is not simply, "Was it technically allowed?"
The bigger question is: What level of ethical behaviour do you expect from the people who govern you?
Is meeting the minimum legal requirement enough? Or should integrity require something more — openness, accountability, good judgment, keeping your word and respecting the people whose money is being spent and whose community is being shaped?
Your vote gives you the opportunity to answer that question.
When you decide whom to support, ask yourself whether you are comfortable putting your name, your vote and your trust behind the way they have governed.
One Word I Keep Hearing
As I have knocked on doors and spoken with thousands of people, I have heard the frustration firsthand. Some residents have gone beyond words such as secrecy or lack of transparency. They have used the word "corruption" to describe what they feel or believe may be happening within our current system.
Corruption is a serious allegation. It should never be assumed, and it should never be alleged without evidence.
But when residents have lost enough confidence in their municipal government that they are using that word, elected leaders should not simply dismiss them. They should ask themselves how public confidence reached that point — and what must be done to restore it.
My professional background matters here. I have experience investigating corruption and serious misconduct, and I believe that investigative experience distinguishes me from the other candidates for Mayor. I understand the importance of following evidence, asking difficult questions, separating suspicion from fact and allowing the facts to determine where an investigation leads.
If elected Mayor, I will bring that same approach to Town Hall.
I will not call something corruption simply because I disagree with a decision. I will not make accusations without evidence. But if credible evidence of corruption, misconduct or wrongdoing exists, I will not look the other way.
I will ask the questions. I will follow the facts. I will seek appropriate independent investigation where warranted, and I will push for accountability wherever the evidence leads.
If wrongdoing exists, residents deserve to know about it and it must be addressed. If wrongdoing does not exist, transparency and a proper examination of the facts can help establish that as well.
Either way, the people of Bradford West Gwillimbury deserve the truth.
Public trust must be earned. Integrity must be demonstrated. Transparency must be practised, not simply promised.
And your voice must matter — not only on election day, but every day that your elected representatives have the privilege of serving you.
If you believe there is corruption or serious wrongdoing within our municipal government, I make you this commitment: I will follow the evidence wherever it leads, I will work to root out wrongdoing where it is proven, and I will work every day to restore your trust in Town Hall.
