By Sam Hersh
W
hen Horizon Ottawa was put through a years-long election audit process sparked by former Taggart executive Ted Phillips, it was less an exercise in accountability and more a weaponization of bureaucracy. Although the case itself has now been dropped (as have the cases of Councillor Menard and former councillor Doug Thompson), the experience showed how easily powerful interests can exploit city processes to silence community groups, bleed them of resources, and shut down opposition. It was a disappointing, expensive, and emotionally exhausting process that no small volunteer-based group should have to endure simply for participating in civic life.
Make no mistake: Horizon Ottawa, a municipal-focused grassroots organization, supports transparency and accountability. We believe in fair rules, oversight, and an Election Compliance Audit Committee (ECAC) that holds everyone; candidates, third parties, and donors to the same standard. Our experience demonstrated that the system was not designed with the protections needed to ensure it would not be abused. When the players in power have the ability to turn the system against grassroots movements, the end is not accountability, it’s lawfare. The system that’s meant to protect democracy is instead being turned into a tool to undermine it.
When developers cross the line, the system looks the other way; when residents challenge the power of developers, the system comes down on them with both feet.
The Horizon Ottawa case also shines a light on the enduring influence of developers in Ottawa politics. The same Ted Phillips who triggered our audit was found in 2014 to have exceeded the legal donation limit by nearly $2,000. As Joanne Chianello of the Ottawa Citizen reported, Phillips and several others connected to the development industry were caught making over-contributions to multiple campaigns. Yet at that time, the ECAC decided it was not “in the public interest” to even look into these cases let alone suggest prosecution.
Editor’s Note: Phillips continued to be involved in elections financing in 2018. As The Leveller reported in 2021 Phillips, then Senior Vice-President of Development at Taggart Realty Management, helped organize fundraisers for both Jim Watson’s and Jan Harder’s campaigns. Councillor Harder would later go on to “[taint] the City’s planning and development process” with her relationship to developers, as The Leveller also reported in 2021.
Fast forward to today, and every single one of the recent audit requests, many of them targeting community or progressive campaigns, was allowed to proceed. The contrast could not be clearer: when developers cross the line, the system looks the other way; when residents challenge the power of developers, the system comes down on them with both feet.
This double standard isn’t just unfair, it’s a waste of public money. While Ottawa faces a housing crisis, a public transit crisis, and a cost-of-living emergency, the city spent close to $500,000 on legal expenses and audits that eventually led nowhere. Every hour and dollar spent chasing down unsubstantiated complaints are hours and dollars not spent fixing the buses, building affordable housing, or supporting communities. Taxpayers should be outraged.
If the city is serious about protecting democracy, it needs to advocate for a reform of the Committee. The ECAC must be restructured to ensure transparency, consistency, and impartiality. Clear thresholds should be created to ensure that complaints that are pursued are in the public interest.
Beyond the ECAC, Ottawa must also call on the Province to strengthen municipal campaign finance rules. The system still works in favor of deep pockets — generally developers and their friends — and prefers to establish ambiguity for small neighbourhood groups who work in good faith. Reducing contribution limits would increase election competitiveness and access, and prohibition on developer and corporate-hosted fundraisers would eliminate the most glaring conflicts of interest. Ottawa should also push for clear, timely disclosure of all donations over $100 during campaigns, rather than months after election day, so residents can see who is backing whom before they cast their votes.
Finally, the city should consider public financing mechanisms that empower small donors and non-incumbent candidates and reduce dependence on corporate and developer money. Matching small donations, as done in cities like New York, encourages broader civic participation and ensures campaigns reflect the diversity of the communities they seek to represent.
Democracy cannot depend on who has the deepest pockets. It should depend on rules that are fair, transparent, and equal. Ontario’s election oversight system must be reformed so that no grassroots organization, candidate, or resident can be subjected to these types of bad faith attacks. Residents deserve a system that protects public integrity, not one that allows it to be exploited by those already holding the most power.
Editor’s Note: Sam Hersh is a board member of Horizon Ottawa.
