We The People’s Voice in Danger – Pickering Council’s Attempt to Override Democracy

We The People’s Voice in Danger – Pickering Council’s Attempt to Override Democracy By Lisa Robinson As an elected representative, I am profoundly, no I am disgustingly disturbed by the recent push by all of my fellow council members, including the Mayor, to secure the power to remove an elected official based solely on a City-Paid Integrity Commissioner’s recommendation - one they can request themselves and then vote on internally. This draconian maneuver represents a fundamental attack on democracy, granting council members unprecedented authority to silence dissenting voices under the pretense of enforcing “accountability.” One of the biggest concerns here is that these changes would give unelected officials, such as the City-Paid Integrity Commissioners, the power to remove elected officials from office. Right now, it’s the voters who hold elected officials accountable, as mandated by Section 224 of the Municipal Act, which ensures that council members represent the public. Handing over the power to remove elected officials to unelected officials undermines the core democratic principle that it’s the voters who should decide if their representatives stay in office. This doesn’t just affect Pickering; it sets a dangerous precedent for the entire province. If these measures pass, elected officials could be removed in any Ontario municipality without the public’s say. Integrity Commissioners, originally intended to investigate and recommend penalties like fines or temporary suspensions under Section 223.3 of the Municipal Act, would instead wield the authority to expel officials from office entirely, a power that could easily be abused. The democratic process could then be easily sidestepped based on subjective decisions rather than the will of the voters. If you’ve been following my updates on YouTube (Lisa Robinson) or reading my weekly column here in The Central, you’ll have seen how the Act is already being used as a tool to repeatedly suspend a member’s pay for up to 90 days at a time. With no cap on how often these penalties can be imposed, the threat of financial punishment is wielded continuously against those who dare to challenge the prevailing narrative. Adding to this, council’s proposal includes provisions to bar any council member removed from office from running in the next election. This is a clear act of political suppression and election tampering, preventing officials from re-seeking office without giving the public any voice in that decision. According to Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every citizen has the right to run for office and choose their representatives. Blocking someone from running again without allowing the voters to weigh in is an affront to basic democratic rights and an attempt to manipulate election outcomes. This push comes amid existing council-imposed restrictions that already limit what Pickering residents can address in public meetings. We’re witnessing an alarming attempt to stifle public voices, dictating what residents can and cannot speak about, effectively filtering out any opposition. As if vetoing the community’s agenda wasn’t enough, now these members are trying to dictate who can even sit in office, directly undermining the democratic process. And let’s be clear: if council members were genuinely concerned about “safety,” they would address misconduct evenly, regardless of political alignment. When Councillor Brenner publicly threatened to “sharpen his sword” to “decapitate the Mayor” or made a disturbing comment about “sticking a knife in my back, slowly twisting it, and I’d never know until he was pulling it out,” council took no action. These comments would have raised alarm if safety were truly the priority. But since these remarks came from within council’s circle of influence, no repercussions followed. Meanwhile, I, the only council member to raise concerns about corruption, collusion, perceived blackmail, and manipulation of city records, am singled out. Council’s message is loud and clear: they will protect their own at all costs, wielding Integrity Commissioner reports as tools to silence those who challenge their actions. Their proposed changes, masquerading under Bill 207, the Municipal Accountability and Integrity Act, 2024, disguise authoritarian controls as “measures for inclusion and safety.” This legislation would allow council members to engineer Integrity Commissioner reviews and remove dissenting officials, fostering an environment in which public servants can be ousted for standing up against the status quo. This isn’t about democracy - it’s about suppression. The hypocrisy is undeniable. The same council members who claim these measures promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” are pushing changes that would strip away democratic protections for minority voices. True diversity should allow for a range of ideas, especially those that challenge the status quo. By imposing authoritarian controls, council is advancing only its own narrow narrative and silencing any countering perspectives. It’s also alarming how they manipulate communication with the public to advance their agenda. Council meetings are increasingly shrouded in secrecy: restrictions prevent residents from recording meetings, and public press media, are censored or quietly buried, ensuring critical statements and events never reach the community. This stranglehold on information allows council to present only its version of events, shielding themselves from accountability. Pickering Council’s actions reveal a government more focused on consolidating power than on serving the people. These council members have abandoned their duty to represent, choosing instead to suppress, control, and tamper with the very democratic process they were elected to uphold. They show little respect for the voices of the people who entrusted them with power, and if they cannot honor that responsibility, they should step down. Elected officials should represent, not purge, silence, or manipulate those they disagree with.