IF YOU ARE PROMISING CHANGE, TELL US WHAT YOU ARE CHANGING

There is one word we are going to hear repeatedly throughout this municipal election: change. Candidates will talk about taxes, condos, development, infrastructure, farmland, spending and accountability. But before accepting anyone’s newly stated positions, I believe voters should ask a simple question: Where were you before you wanted the job? Pickering has made decisions over the last four years that will shape this city for generations — from Northeast Pickering and agricultural lands to the rapid expansion of high-density condominium development, major spending, infrastructure, the federal lands and Elexicon. These issues didn’t suddenly appear when nominations opened. Some candidates seeking office today had little or no visible involvement in these debates during most of this term. A couple have since appeared before Council and made delegations, but those appearances came after their names were already on the ballot. There is nothing wrong with becoming involved after deciding to run. But chronology matters when someone presents themselves as a voice for change. Can you show residents where you stood before your name was on the ballot? You didn’t have to sit in Council Chambers every week. Did you write Council, make a delegation, organize residents, attend public meetings or speak publicly? Were you engaged when the decisions were actually being made? A campaign tells us what someone wants us to know about them today. A record tells us what they were prepared to stand for when there was no election to win. That brings me to the bigger question: What does “change” actually mean? Over the last four years, the direction of Pickering was not set by the Mayor alone. Council members cast their own votes. But the Mayor is the head of Council, and on

many major issues where I challenged the direction being taken, I repeatedly found myself on the losing end of 6–1 votes. There was very little willingness around that Council table to challenge the direction being led from the Mayor’s chair. On many of the major issues facing Pickering, the current Mayor and I have represented fundamentally different directions. That makes the word “change” particularly important in this election. So let’s make it simple. If you believe the direction Council has taken over the past four years is the direction Pickering should continue, say so. If you support the current leadership and its direction, explain why. But if you are campaigning because you believe Pickering needs a fundamentally different direction, then you cannot avoid the obvious question: Does the leadership at the head of Council need to change too? If your answer is no, explain how maintaining the same leadership produces the fundamentally different direction you are promising. You cannot have it both ways without explaining the contradiction. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with every individual vote. It is about the overall direction of our city. And this is where independence matters. I understand the political calculation at the doorstep. One resident may want change while the next supports the current Mayor. Giving a straight answer could cost you a vote. A candidate may also be thinking, “What if the current Mayor is re-elected and I have to work with him? Maybe I should play nice now.” Perhaps that is politically safer. But leadership isn’t supposed to be an exercise in political safety. If you believe something, tell residents. If they disagree, respect that. But don’t change the answer depending on whose doorstep you’re standing on. If you are already afraid to rock the boat before you have even been elected, why should residents believe you will suddenly become courageous once you are sitting in the boat? You don’t demonstrate independence by waiting until it is politically safe to have an opinion. There is a difference between working together and going along to get along. Working together should mean seven independent people bringing their own judgment to the table, asking difficult questions, debating issues and then working professionally with one another regardless of how they voted. It should also mean that no member of Council is penalized simply for being the dissenting vote. Disagreement should never be treated as disloyalty. If elected Mayor, that is not how I would lead. I may strongly disagree with a councillor’s position, but I would respect their right — and responsibility — to exercise independent judgment. No councillor should fear consequences simply because they challenged the Mayor or stood alone on a vote. The same scrutiny should apply across the ballot. Incumbents should defend what they did with the four years residents already gave them. Challengers should explain where they were during those four years and what they stood for before becoming candidates. A new name alone doesn’t guarantee a new direction, just as holding office doesn’t automatically justify another term. So when someone tells you they represent change, ask what they mean. Where were they before their name appeared on the ballot? What would they actually change? And if they say Pickering needs a fundamentally different direction, ask the question that matters: Does your definition of change include changing the leadership at the head of Council? Because changing the names around the Council table while preserving the same leadership and direction isn’t necessarily change. Working together should never mean going along to get along. Unity should never require conformity. And if you’re promising a different destination, voters deserve to know whether you believe Pickering needs someone different steering the ship.