Category: municipal election

Background

With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

Candidates received Invitation 5 on September 20, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 26, 2022.

Responses were received from 20 candidates (69.6%), including 2 candidates for Mayor (50.0%) and 18 candidates for Ward Councilor (62.1%) (see RSVPs at a glance).

Truth and Reconciliation

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action include calls to municipal governments that apply to County Council:

• to adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation (CTA 43)
• to repudiate concepts used to justify European sovereignty over Indigenous peoples and lands, such as the Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, and to reform those laws, government policies, and litigation strategies that continue to rely on such concepts (CTA 47)
• to provide education to public servants on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal-Crown relations (CTA 57)

Against this background, candidates largely agreed with the proposition that “Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57.”

Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:

Table 1. Candidates’ agreement with adopting a Strategic Initiative to respond to the Truth and Reconcilation Commission’s Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57 (N=20).

Proposition	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree
Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57.	0	0	3	11	6
	0%	0%	15%	55%	30%

Table 2 categorizes candidates’ ratings as Not in favour, Neither, and In favour of the proposal:

Table 2. Candidates’ agreement with adopting a Strategic Initiative to respond to the Truth and Reconcilation Commission’s Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57 (N=20).

Proposal	Not in favour	Neither	In favour
Council should adopt a Strategic Initiative to respond to Calls to Action 43, 47 and 57.	0	3	17
	0%	15%	85%

No candidate disagreed with the proposition; the three candidates who neither disagreed or agreed explained:

• “… I do not have an opinion on the initiatives as I find it hard to believe that they are not already in place or at least have the information available.”
• “I feel our Indigenous People should set the framework for reconciliation as it pertains to the municipality, not the United Nations.”
• “I have been out campaigning and have not researched the various calls of action fully in order to respond knowledgeably. …”

Transparency and Privacy

The Municipal Act requires Council “to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality.” To this end, Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act gives everyone the right to access County records – with certain exemptions that are meant to protect privacy.

The County Clerk has advised that there’s no public register of requests for County records, such as other municipalities (e.g. Oshawa and Newmarket) provide, and that the County may consider developing a policy for routine disclosure and/or active dissemination of County records in the future.

Candidates were asked to rate their agreement with assessments of the likely cost-benefit of three initiatives related to requests for County records. Table 3 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:

Table 3. Candidates’ agreement with assessments of the likely cost-benefit of three initiatives related to requests for County records (N=20).

Cost-benefit assessment	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree
The cost of maintaining a public register of requests for County records would likely outweigh its benefit.	3	5	10	2	0
	15%	25%	50%	10%	0%
The cost of the routine disclosure of County records would likely outweigh its benefit.	3	8	8	1	0
	15%	40%	40%	5%	0%
The cost of the active dissemination of County records would likely outweigh its benefit.	3	7	9	1	0
	15%	35%	45%	5%	0%

Table 4 collapses candidates’ ratings into Disagreement, Neither, and Agreement categories:

Table 4. Candidates’ agreement with assessments of the likely cost-benefit of three initiatives related to requests for County records (N=20).

Cost-benefit assessment	Disagreement	Neither	Agreement
The cost of maintaining a public register of requests for County records would likely outweigh its benefit.	8	10	2
	40%	50%	10%
The cost of the routine disclosure of County records would likely outweigh its benefit.	11	8	1
	55%	40%	5%
The cost of the active dissemination of County records would likely outweigh its benefit.	10	9	1
	50%	45%	5%

Levels of disagreement or agreement were pretty uniform across the three initiatives. A few candidates agreed that the cost of these initiatives in general would likely outweigh its benefit. The remaining candidates were split nearly evenly between those who disagreed and those who neither disagreed or agreed that the cost of these initiatives in general would likely outweigh its benefit.

Candidates were asked to describe their analysis of the different costs and benefits that lead to any one of their ratings (max. 500 words). Most candidates shared their perspectives on the likely cost and benefit of these initiatives taken together.

As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 5.

Background

With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

The County’s official list of certified candidates includes 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor (13 offices in 9 Wards). Eight incumbents are seeking re-election, including the Mayor and 7 Councilors.

Responses to Invitation 4 were received from 21 candidates (63.6%), including 2 candidates for Mayor (50.0%) and 19 candidates for Ward Councilor (65.5%) (see RSVPs at a glance).

Candidates received Invitation 4 on September 14, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 19, 2022. Candidates’ responses were published here and on Facebook on September 21, 2022.

Pecuniary conflicts of interest

Against the background provided in Invitation 4, candidates were asked to identify any pecuniary conflicts of interest that they might need to declare. Twelves candidates (57.1%) anticipated having no pecuniary conflicts of interest. Five candidates identified potentail pecuniary conflicts of interest relating to their own or a family member’s business; three of these businesses involved STAs.

Amending Council’s Code of Conduct

Candidates were asked to rate their agreement with two amendments to Council’s Code of Conduct to address other conflicts of interest. Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:

Table 1. Candidates’ agreement with amending Council’s Code of Conduct to address other conflicts of interest (N=21).

Amendment	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree
The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.	0	3	3	7	8
	0%	14.3%	14.3%	33.3%	38.1%
The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.	1	3	3	7	7
	4.8%	14.3%	14.3%	33.3%	33.3%

Table 2 categorizes candidates’ ratings as Not in favour, Neither, and In favour of the amendments:

Table 2. Candidates’ agreement with amending Council’s Code of Conduct to address other conflicts of interest (N=21).

Amendment	Disagreement	Neither	Agreement
The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses non-pecuniary conflicts of interests.	3	3	15
	14.3%	14.3%	71.4%
The County should adopt a Council Code of Conduct that addresses the pecuniary conflicts of interests of a family member who is not a parent, spouse or child.	4	3	14
	19.1%	14.3%	66.7%

Difficult-to-answer questions from voters

Candidates were asked to identify the most difficult-to-answer question that they’ve been asked in their campaign and to explain why the question was the most difficult-to-answer. Eight candidates identified no such question. Other candidates identified questions covering a wide range of voters’ concerns. Only two questions related to the same issue: water rates.

Picton Terminals

As promised, we posed one other voter’s question to the candidates:

“On October 21, 2020, Council voted unanimously to deny a rezoning application from Picton Terminals to bring in container and cruise ships. If presented with a similar vote today, who would you vote (deny or approve)? Why?”

Fourteen candidates indicated that they would vote to deny the rezoning application, one candidate would vote to approve, and six candidates would need to deliberate with more information.

As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 4.

Summaries

With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County are being invited to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues once a week.

Summaries of candidates’ responses are here:

• Summary of responses to Invitation 2
• Summary of responses to Invitation 1

Check back for updates.

Summary of Responses to Invitation 2

Respondents

The County’s official list of certified candidates in the upcoming municipal election include 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor. Responses were received from 18 candidates (54.5%), including 2 candidates for Mayor and 16 candidates for Ward Councilor (see RSVPs at a glance).

Skills and interests in areas of municipal responsibility

Candidates were asked three questions related to their skills and interests in municipal government:

1. Please identify two internal and one external committee or board listed above whose areas of municipal responsibility would showcase your skills and interests in municipal government.
2. For these three committees or boards, please highlight your skills and experience (work, volunteer, life) in those areas of municipal responsibility.
3. For these three committees or boards, please describe the impact you’d hope to make in those areas of municipal responsibility.

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarize the candidates’ identification of internal and external committees, respectively.

Table 1. Candidates’ identification of two internal committees to showcase their skills and interests in areas of municipal responsibility (N=18).

Internal Committee	%
Community & Economic Development Commission	19.4%
Agricultural Advisory Committee	13.9%
Heritage Advisory Committee	13.9%
Planning Committee	13.9%
Audit Committee	11.1%
Environmental Advisory Committee	8.3%
Public Library Board	8.3%
Accessibility Advisory Committee	5.6%
Police Services Board	2.8%
Traffic Advisory Committee	2.8%
Total	100.0%

 

Table 2.2. Candidates’ identification of one external committee to showcase their skills and interests in municipal government (N=18).

External Committee	%
Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation	38.9%
Quinte Conservation Executive Board	22.2%
Hastings and Prince Edward Board of Health	11.1%
Quinte Waste Solutions	11.1%
Hastings/Quinte Emergency Services Committee	5.6%
Prince Edward Lennox & Addington Housing Advisory Committee	5.6%
Prince Edward Lennox & Addington Social Services Committee	5.6%
Quinte Region Source Protection Committee	0.0%
Total	100.0%

---

Back to top

Summary of Responses to Invitation 1

Respondents

The County’s official list of certified candidates in the upcoming municipal election include 4 candidates for Mayor and 29 candidates for Ward Councilor. Responses were received from 18 candidates (54.5%), including 2 candidates for Mayor and 16 candidates for Ward Councilor.

County residency

Candidates were asked, “For how many years have you resided in the County?” Their responses are summarized in Table 1.1:

Table 1.1. Candidates’ residency in the County (N=18).

County residency	%
Under 10 yrs	16.7%
10 to 19 yrs	16.7%
20 to 29 yrs	22.2%
30+ yrs	44.4%
Total	100.0%

Membership on municipal bodies

Candidates were asked to identify their memberships on any body associated with the municipal government in the County during the previous and current terms of Council. We have grouped memberships into related areas of responsibility and collapsed across previous and current terms of Council. Candidates’ memberships in these groups over this period are summarized in Table 1.2:

Table 1.2. Membership on municipal bodies (Fall 2014 to present) (N=18).
¹ “Environment” reflects membership on the Environmental Advisory Committee, Quinte Waste Solutions, and/or Quinte Conservation Executive Board. ² “Heritage” reflects membership on the Heritage Advisory Committee, the Museum Advisory Committee, and/or the Cemetery Advisory Committee. ³ “Community & economic development” reflects membership on the Community & Economic Development Commmission and/or the Visit the County Destination Marketing and Management Board.

Membership on municipal bodies	%
Environment 1	27.8%
Heritage 2	27.8%
Agriculture	22.2%
Audit	22.2%
Community & economic development 3	22.2%
Recreation	22.2%
Nominating	11.1%
Traffic	11.1%
Accessibility	5.6%
Police	5.6%
Social services	5.6%

Volunteering in the County

Candidates were asked to identify their memberships in not-for-profit, non-governmental organizations associated with the County during the current term of Council. Areas of volunteering most frequently identified by candidates are summarized in Table 1.3:

Table 1.3. Candidates’ volunteering in the County (N=18).

Areas of volunteering	%
None	55.6%
Children & families	22.2%
Agriculture	16.7%
Food insecurity	16.7%
Arts	11.1%
Women	11.1%

Tension between “old” and “new” residents

Candidates were asked “How do you understand talk of tension between ‘old’ and ‘new’ residents in the County?” Four candidates (22.2%) found the question to be potentially divisive, a mere distraction, or had no comment. Four candidates (22.2%) hadn’t experienced this sort of tension in the County. Ten candidates (55.5%) shared their experiences and thoughts about it.

Regardless of their responses to this question, candidates expressed nearly no concern that tension between ‘old’ and ‘new’ residents in the County influences Council’s agenda or decisions (Table 1.4):

Table 1.4. Candidates’ view of tension’s influence on Council’s agenda and decisions (N=18).

Tension influences Council’s agenda	%
Strongly disagree/disagree	38.9%
Neither disagree or agree	44.4%
Agree/strongly agree	5.6%
NA	11.1%
Tension influences Council’s decisions	%
Strongly disagree/disagree	44.4%
Neither disagree or agree	38.9%
Agree/strongly agree	5.6%
NA	11.1%

---

Back to top