Pickering Council In a 6 to 1 vote On Board For a Way To Expel Members

By Lisa Robinson - Pickering City Councillor Lately, there has been considerable talk surrounding municipal governments endorsing recommendations of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), to call on the Provincial Government to amend the Municipal Act to have the power to remove a sitting elected official from Municipal office, prioritizing the interests of municipal elites over those of ordinary citizens. This is a blatant disregard for democratic principles and the rights of elected officials to represent the diverse views and interests of their constituents. This proposal by way of a motion has been circulating from municipality to municipality with the hope of granting Integrity Commissioners and City Councillors the power to remove a fellow sitting council member based on their subjected interpretations of their conduct, rather than objective criteria. This development should raise serious concerns not only among municipal elected officials who resist conforming to the status quo or willing to engage in political posturing, but also among the electorate who voted for them. It presents a worrisome scenario wherein council members could potentially abuse their power and manipulate the system to target colleagues with differing views or whom they perceive as threats. Granting municipalities the authority to apply to a member of the judiciary to remove a sitting member, based on the recommendation of a “CITY PAID Integrity Commissioner”, lacks transparency and accountability. It also 100 percent creates a system where the removal of elected officials could be influenced by political motivations by either municipal staff, council, or a biased Integrity commissioner rather than genuine concerns about misconduct. If that wasn’t enough, the proposal also includes a clause to prohibit a member if removed from office, from sitting for election in the subsequent term which further raises a huge red flag for me, making me suspicious of ulterior motives. By effectively disqualifying individuals from seeking re-election, this provision could be used as a tool to silence dissenting voices and maintain the status quo within municipal councils. This is a direct threat to the democratic principles of fair competition and equal opportunity in elections. This loophole opens a whole new breading ground to enable incumbents to wield their positions of power to safeguard their own political interests, thereby distorting the democratic playing field and diminishing the rights of potential challengers to participate in the electoral process. AMO’s recommendation cannot persistently define and establish clear and objective criteria for determining what constitutes misconduct or disrespectful behavior warranting removal from office. Without such criteria, there is a risk that the process may be manipulated to target councillors who hold opposing views or challenge the status quo. If the AMO and all those supporting these recommendations genuinely prioritized the well-being and accountability of its municipal members, would it not also encompass provisions for the removal of councillors and/or mayors in cases of dishonesty, or lying? In my opinion, this too raises concerns about the consistency and fairness of the proposed measures. Lying or dishonesty by elected officials can be equally be damaging to public trust and the integrity of municipal governance as other forms of misconduct, if not more so, and failing to address this as a form of misconduct creates a selective approach to enforcement that may serve to protect certain council members while targeting others. Furthermore, this lack of seriousness in addressing these types of unethical behavior, sends a strong message that certain forms of misconduct may be tolerated or overlooked. By neglecting to address lying or dishonesty as a form of misconduct, the motion misses an opportunity to strengthen public confidence in municipal governance and ensure that elected officials are held to the highest ethical standards. There is also a lack of consultation with the electorate, which further undermines the legitimacy of the proposed legislative changes. It suggests a top-down approach to governance that prioritizes centralized control by a few and undermines the role of the electorate by diminishing their voice in the democratic process. This would erode the trust and confidence of voters who elected the representative to advocate for their interests, only to see that representative removed without their consent. By providing municipalities with these expanded powers to remove elected officials based on subjective interpretations of their conduct, the motion risks undermining the fundamental rights to free speech and expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This would have a chilling effect on elected officials' willingness to express dissenting opinions or challenge the status quo, for fear of facing punitive action or removal from office. Overall, this recommendation appears to be driven by political obedience rather than genuine concern for workplace safety and respectful discourse. It raises serious questions about the motives behind the proposed changes and the potential consequences for democracy and accountability within Ontario's municipal governments. In my humble opinion, any municipal members of councils who vote in favour of sending such a motion to be heard by the Provincial Government hold a blatant disregard for the democratic process, confirming the undeniable truth that the voices of the electorates do not matter. We are currently witnessing a worrisome demonstration of potential abuse of power through this authoritarian attempt at governance. This is not a democracy. "Strength Does Not Lie In The Absence Of Fear, But In The Courage To Face It Head-On And Rise Above It"