Before You Vote Look at the Record

Before You Vote Look at the Record Leadership is more than campaign promises. Ask who showed up, who spoke up — and who stayed silent before there was an election to win. Election campaigns are full of promises. Candidates tell you what they will do, what they believe and what kind of leader they hope to be. But when someone is asking to lead an entire city, I believe voters deserve to ask a much more important question: What have you already done? Before the signs went up, before the campaign literature was printed and before anyone started asking for your vote, were you paying attention? Were you attending council meetings? Were you watching them? Were you reading the reports? Were you speaking up when major developments were proposed that could permanently change our communities? Were you asking questions about taxes, debt, infrastructure and spending? Were you engaged when there was no election to win and no political reward for being there? Those questions matter even more when someone is asking to become Mayor. Pickering has spent the past four years making decisions that will affect this city for decades, so voters should ask every candidate a very simple question: Where were you? Were you attending council meetings over the past four years? Were you delegating, writing to Council, challenging decisions or speaking publicly about development, taxes, debt, infrastructure and accountability? And when something happened that you knew was wrong, did you speak up — or did you stay silent? Leadership is not only about what you say when you want the job. It is also about whether you were willing to speak when there was nothing politically convenient to gain from it. If you now want to lead this city, show residents where you were, what you contributed, what you stood for and when you were willing to speak up before you became a candidate. Because silence is also part of a record. For nearly four years, the residents of Pickering have been able to see my record in real time. My votes are recorded. My motions are recorded. My questions are recorded. My opposition is recorded. So are the occasions when I stood alone. People do not have to agree with every position I have taken. That is democracy, and I would be surprised if any voter agreed with any politician on absolutely everything. There may be an issue on which you and I strongly disagree. You may disagree, for example, with my position that women and girls should have access to sex-based private spaces. I respect your right to hold a different view. But disagreement on one issue should not erase an entire record of work, and a political label should never replace an honest examination of what somebody actually believes. Too often today, difficult arguments are answered not with facts but with labels. Words such as “racist,” “homophobic,” “transphobic” or “conspiracy theorist” can become shortcuts for dismissing a person without ever addressing the substance of what they said. I do not believe maintaining privacy and sex-based spaces for women and girls means harbouring hatred toward anyone. Others are free to disagree with me. That is precisely why democratic debate matters. The same principle should apply to what voters read and hear during an election. A headline is not evidence. A social-media post is not evidence. A rumour repeated a hundred times does not suddenly become a fact. Even a newspaper column — including this one — should not be accepted unquestioningly. Go to the original source. Watch the meeting. Read the report. Look at the motion. Look at the recorded vote. Examine what was actually said rather than relying solely on somebody else’s characterization of it. That standard should apply to me just as much as it applies to every other candidate. And when I say look at the record, I mean exactly that. Look at who supported tax increases and who pushed back. Look at who supported opening Northeast Pickering to further development and who argued that Seaton should be completed first. Look at who supported plans that could open portions of our federal lands to development and who argued those lands should remain protected. Look at who repeatedly supported more growth, intensification and high-density development, and who kept asking whether our roads, infrastructure, services and taxpayers could actually carry it. Look at who supported major spending and who questioned whether taxpayers could afford it. Look at who challenged the growing use of consultants and who consistently voted to approve the spending placed before Council. And just as importantly, look at what happened to public debate. Look at who supported restricting opportunities for residents to speak at City Hall and who fought to preserve them. Look at who supported reducing delegations, limiting public questions, restricting debate and making it harder for residents to directly challenge decisions — and look at who opposed those changes. Transparency is not something you promise during an election. It is something you defend when you already hold power. Those are not campaign slogans. Those are decisions. For much of this term, I have been the opposition voice on many of the biggest issues facing Pickering. Sometimes that meant being the lone vote. Sometimes it meant putting forward motions that never received a seconder. Sometimes it meant asking questions nobody else wanted to ask. People are free to disagree with those votes, but nobody has to guess where I stood. My own record is there to examine. I have questioned major spending and the use of consultants. I have pushed for greater transparency over where taxpayers’ money goes. I have opposed opening Northeast Pickering for development while Seaton remains under construction. I have raised concerns about debt, development, infrastructure capacity and decisions that could shape Pickering for generations. I have fought for greater public participation and for residents to have a meaningful opportunity to question decisions being made with their money and in their name. Some of my positions have been popular. Others certainly have not. But they were my positions before an election was around the corner. That matters. It is easy during an election campaign to discover what residents are worried about and build a campaign around those concerns. It is considerably harder to show up year after year, read hundreds of pages of reports, take a position publicly and accept the consequences of that position. It is also easy to promise transparency after spending years silent while public participation was being restricted. It is easy to promise fiscal responsibility after tax increases and major spending decisions have already been approved. It is easy to suddenly become concerned about development after years of remaining absent from the debate. That is why I believe this election should be about record before rhetoric. Look beyond the slogans and polished campaign literature. Look beyond the rumours, labels and personal attacks. Ask every candidate — including me — to show you the record. Where were they while Pickering was making some of the largest financial and development decisions in its history? What did they say? What did they fight for? What did they oppose? Did they participate in the conversation before deciding they wanted to lead it? And when it mattered, did they speak up or stay silent? When choosing a Mayor, look at the whole picture. Ask whether that person will protect your tax dollars. Ask whether they will challenge unnecessary spending. Ask whether they understand development, infrastructure, municipal debt and the financial pressures facing residents. Ask whether they will protect your right to participate at City Hall. Ask whether they will tell you something you may not want to hear when they believe it is in the city’s best interest. Most importantly, ask whether they have demonstrated the courage to take a position before knowing whether that position would earn or cost them votes. Pickering’s next Mayor will face enormous responsibilities. Our city is dealing with affordability pressures, rapid growth, infrastructure demands, debt and difficult decisions about how much more taxpayers can reasonably be expected to carry. This is not a job that should be awarded on the strength of a slogan, a campaign photograph or a promise made weeks before Election Day. So over the coming weeks, as claims and counterclaims begin flying, I have one request of Pickering voters: do your own homework. Read the minutes. Watch the meetings. Examine the votes. Read beyond the headline. Look for the evidence. Find out who showed up, who spoke up, who challenged decisions — and who stayed silent. You may not agree with everything you find. You do not have to. But make your decision based on the whole record, not one issue, one headline, one label or one rumour. Campaigns last a few months. A record lasts much longer. Before you vote, look at the record.