Someone should get Ottawa city Councillor Tim Tierney some smelling salts. After reading his tirade against legions of special interests storming the barricades of democracy, I was afraid the poor man might be at risk of hyperventilating. Here is the good news, for the councillor and for democracy: people actively advocating during an election campaign is not a siege, Tim, it’s just democracy doing its thing.
For those of you who missed the newly (and comfortably) re-elected councillor’s screed, let’s just say it was nothing unusual for Mr. Tierney. It was his usual rag rug of words, woven from the shredded remains of partial truths. It seems Mr. Tierney felt threatened by groups of organized citizens, advocating against his return to office. It also seems he thinks the provincial government should step in and prevent those groups from buying advertising, effectively muzzling organized opposition to candidates for office. And he’s not just asking for his opponents to be silenced. He wants all third party involvement cancelled, across the board.
Tierney’s insistence on the full muzzle approach is particularly curious given that he and a bully squad of conservative-minded councillors banded together with a rogues gallery of local conservatives in a partisan effort to push out Ward 9 Councillor Sean Devine, a councillor with views that were a tad too progressive for the bully coalition (they were not successful. Devine won with just shy of 60 per cent of the vote. Full disclosure: I am a friend and adviser to Mr. Devine). Outside intervention doesn’t seem to bother Councillor Tierney (or his squad partners, Councillors David Brown and David Hill) as long as it’s him doing the intervening. It’s only when citizens organize against him that democracy suddenly finds itself under siege.
Even so, Tierney also appears to believe that municipal politics should somehow be free of ideology because councillors deal with practical matters like roads, transit, and sewage… as though decisions about whose roads get built, which transit services get funded, and who pays for all of it don’t involve competing interests. Municipal politics isn’t non-political. It simply operates without formal political parties. Those are very different things.
For those who don’t follow the intricacies of electoral law, third party advertising is already subject to limits. It’s not open season. Third Party Advertisers (TPAs) must register and adhere to the guidelines. The regulations allow for financially restricted and time-limited involvement in the electoral conversation. The regulations are there to ensure that wealthy individuals and organizations can’t dominate the conversation. And that is a worthwhile goal. The rules are there to ensure that they are one voice among many.
Mr. Tierney is either ignorant of the history of the legislation or deliberately bending it into unrecognizability to suit his rhetorical needs. The Municipal Elections Modernization Act (2016) was not put in place to allow third parties to “fund advertising campaigns to support or oppose candidates.” It was put in place to regulate those activities. The government’s own communication about the Act made it clear that it was closing off the ability of corporations and unions to directly fund campaigns and was introducing restrictions on advertising from third parties. And the Ford government went even further in its own efforts to restrict third-party advertising in provincial elections, even going so far as to invoke the notwithstanding clause in 2021 to protect the heavier restrictions from a constitutional challenge. Tierney has somehow managed to describe legislation intended to constrain and regulate political spending as though its purpose was to unleash it. That’s a concerning approach from the incoming President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Let me just say this plainly: Mr. Tierney’s demand that all third party advertising be cancelled is misplaced and ill-advised. For many, many reasons. And it’s not just me who thinks so. No less than the Supreme Court of Canada weighed in on this issue in March of 2025 after Ford’s attempts to severely curtail the advertising rights of third parties during provincial elections. The court ruled that the government’s Bill 307 violated Charter-protected democratic rights. That’s a big deal. While Ford attempted to use the notwithstanding clause to nullify a lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that attempt out of bounds.
The court did that for one simple and clear reason: you cannot use the notwithstanding clause to limit democratic rights.
And of course that makes sense. If sitting governments are permitted to put tape across the mouths of their critics, it will limit political speech in a way that effectively curtails informed debate on all manner of things in the public interest. That cannot happen. The whole point of democratic institutions is to provide a way for us to air our differences and work out solutions when unanimity isn’t possible. We disagree, we argue, and then we vote. The winners get their way and the rest live to argue another day and cast another vote on the next issue. And so on.
Of course, not everyone loves this dance. It’s often messy, frequently contentious. But it’s also dreadfully necessary. So, Tim, don’t be a sore winner. If the debate is wilting your hair and giving you palpitations, take a seat. Let someone else into the game. Because this is how it’s played. And, if what you want is a safe and robust way to navigate our unavoidable differences about how things should be done, this is how it must be played.
Tim Abray has worked in public policy communication for 30 years. He has a PhD in Political Studies, specializing in Canadian politics and political theory. He is a friend and adviser to Ottawa Councillor Sean Devine.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.
