With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election (43.3% in 2018), we invited candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor to share their thoughts on a wide range of issues with voters in the County.
Summaries of candidates’ responses were published weekly:
Also check out the candidates’ unredacted responses.
With the aim of increasing voter turnout in the upcoming municipal election, candidates for Mayor and Ward Councilor in Prince Edward County were 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 8 on October 5, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 17, 2022.
Responses were received from 19 candidates (57.6%).
Low voter turnout in municipal elections partly reflects voters’ sense of disconnection from their local government. Council has been trying recently to engage better with the public. Online resources, like the Have Your Say platform, have helped residents to stay informed and to share their thoughts about new and on-going municipal projects. Some Members have regularly reached out to constituents over social media or have occasionally attended town hall meetings.
Candidates were asked how they would enhance Council’s approach to public engagement.
Candidates were asked to share why they were running and why voters should support for them in the municipal election (max. 500 words).
As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 8.
Table 1 summarizes candidates’ overall response to the 8 Invitations:
| Office | Candidates | Total Responses |
Rate of Response |
Median Response |
| Mayor | 4 | 11 | 34.4% | 2.0 |
| Picton | 5 | 5 | 12.5% | 0.0 |
| Bloomfield/Hallowell | 3 | 19 | 79.2% | 7.0 |
| Wellington | 3 | 22 | 91.7% | 7.0 |
| Ameliasburgh | 5 | 13 | 32.5% | 0.0 |
| Athol | 4 | 31 | 96.9% | 7.5 |
| Sophiasburgh | 2 | 7 | 43.8% | 3.5 |
| Hillier | 3 | 7 | 43.8% | 3.5 |
| North Marysburgh | 2 | 15 | 93.8% | 7.5 |
| South Marysburgh | 2 | 16 | 100.0% | 8.0 |
For candidate-level response data, see RSVPs at a glance.
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 7 on October 3, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 11, 2022.
Responses were received from 18 candidates (54.5%) (see RSVPs at a glance).
On September 22, 2022, The County Foundation released the 2022 Vital Signs Report for Prince Edward County. VitalSigns is a national program, led by community foundations, and coordinated by Community Foundations of Canada, to leverage local knowledge, measure the vitality of our communities, and support action towards improving our collective quality of life. The VitalSigns Report and VitalSigns Data Bank are organized around nine themes.
Against this background, for of these themes, candidates were asked to choose any one of these themes and outline a course of action that Council should consider to reinforce successes and/or address challenges identified in the VitalSigns Report.
Table 1 identifies the themes chosen by 17 candidates:
| Theme | N | % |
| Sustainable community | 6 | 35.3% |
| Environment | 4 | 23.5% |
| Good health & well-being | 3 | 17.7% |
| Inclusive economy | 2 | 11.8% |
| Quality education | 1 | 5.8% |
| Transportation & mobility | 1 | 5.8% |
| Safety & justice | 0 | 0.0% |
| Food security | 0 | 0.0% |
| COVID-19 impact | 0 | 0.0% |
The Municipal Act requires Council “to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality.” s. 224(d.1) The Act provides “If a member present at a meeting at the time of a vote requests immediately before or after the taking of the vote that the vote be recorded, each member present…shall announce his or her vote openly and the clerk shall record each vote.” s.246(1)
As part of a Strategic Initiative to review all of its policies and by-laws, Council recently reviewed the Procedure By-law for conducting its meetings. In the course of that review, Council adopted a Transparency and Accountability Policy in June 2022. While the Policy does not require recorded votes, there has been a noticeable increase in members’ requests that votes be recorded.
Against this background, candidates were asked to rate their level of agreement (Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither disagree or agree | Agree | Strongly agree) with the proposal that “Council should adopt a Procedure By-law that requires that all members’ votes on motions be recorded.” Candidates were also asked to explain their level of agreement with the proposal.
Table 2 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:
| Proposal | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither | Agree | Strongly agree |
| Council should require that all members’ votes on motions be recorded. | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| 5.6% | 16.7% | 22.2% | 27.8% | 27.8% |
Table 3 categorizes candidates’ ratings as Not in favour, Neither, and In favour of the proposal:
| Proposal | Not in favour | Neither | In favour |
| Council should require that all members’ votes on motions be recorded. | 4 | 4 | 10 |
| 22.2% | 22.2% | 55.6% |
I’d promised other voters to pass along some of their questions. So, candidates were asked to share examples of how they’ve been trying to learn more about diversity, equity and inclusion. What have been the biggest changes in their thinking? How are they applying what they’ve learned in their work in the County?
All candidates provided some sort of response.
As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 7.
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 6 on September 23, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by October 3, 2022. Candidates were allowed 10 days (instead of the usual 5) to respond.
Responses were received from 12 candidates (36.4%) – compared to about 20 candidates (60.6%) who had been responding recently (see RSVPs at a glance).
User fees & service charges help fund a range of County services, including water supply, solid waste collection and disposal, protection, transportation, health, recreation, planning, etc. In general, the design of these fees & charges is based on the “benefits-received” principle, sometimes modified using “ability-to-pay” criteria. Decisions about pricing structures and the proportion of costs recovered from user fees & service charges generally depend on considerations such as local tradition, the type of service, the preferences of residents, and the willingness of local officials to substitute prices for local taxes.
The province requires that the County submit a Financial Information Report (FIR) to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing annually. The County’s annual FIR includes statements of expenses and user fees & service charges associated with nine functional categories of service that are defined by the province. The County’s annual Consolidated Financial Statements also include a “Schedule of Segment Disclosure” for the same functional categories. Finally, for the past three years, the County’s annual Audit Findings Reports, prepared by an independent auditor, have identified two single-tier municipal comparators: Norfolk County and West Nipissing Municipality.
Invitation 6 referred candidates to two sets of financial statements (described below):
Against this background, candidates were asked to rate their satisfaction with the user fees & service charges associated with the nine functional categories (segments) of service in the County.
Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings:
| Service category | Very dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Neither dissatisfied or satisfied | Satisfied | Very satisfied |
| General government | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
| 16.7% | 16.7% | 25.0% | 41.7% | 0.0% | |
| Protection services | 0 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
| 0.0% | 16.7% | 25.0% | 50.0% | 8.3% | |
| Transportation services | 0 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| 0.0% | 50.0% | 33.3% | 16.7% | 0.0% | |
| Environmental services | 1 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
| 8.3% | 25.0% | 50.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% | |
| Health services | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
| 8.3% | 16.7% | 33.3% | 33.3% | 8.3% | |
| Social and family services | 0 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 0 |
| 0.0% | 16.7% | 50.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | |
| Social housing | 0 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| 0.0% | 33.3% | 41.7% | 25.0% | 0.0% | |
| Recreation and cultural services | 0 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| 0.0% | 41.7% | 33.3% | 25.0% | 0.0% | |
| Planning and development services | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
| 25.0% | 25.0% | 16.7% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
Table 2 categorizes candidates’ ratings as Dissatisfied, Neither, and Satisfied with user fees & service charges:
| Service category | Dissatisfied | Neither | Satisfied |
| General government | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| 33.3% | 25.0% | 41.7% | |
| Protection services | 2 | 3 | 7 |
| 16.7% | 25.0% | 58.3% | |
| Transportation services | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| 50.0% | 33.3% | 16.7% | |
| Environmental services | 4 | 6 | 2 |
| 33.3% | 50.0% | 16.7% | |
| Health services | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 25.0% | 33.3% | 41.7% | |
| Social and family services | 2 | 6 | 4 |
| 16.7% | 50.0% | 33.3% | |
| Social housing | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| 33.3% | 41.7% | 25.0% | |
| Recreation and cultural services | 05 | 4 | 3 |
| 41.7% | 33.3% | 25.0% | |
| Planning and development services | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| 50.0% | 16.7% | 33.3% |
Candidates were asked to explain their ratings of satisfaction with the user fees & service charges associated with two of these service categories in the County. A total of 19 explanations were provided by 10 candidates.
Table 3 presents number and percentage of candidates who explained their ratings for a given service category.
| Service category | N | % |
| General government | 4 | 21.1% |
| Protection services | 1 | 5.3% |
| Transporation services | 3 | 15.8% |
| Environmental services | 4 | 21.1% |
| Health services | 1 | 5.3% |
| Social and family services | 1 | 5.3% |
| Social housing | 0 | 0.0% |
| Recreation and cultural services | 0 | 0.0% |
| Planning and development services | 5 | 26.3% |
Candidates were strongly inclined to explain their dissatisfaction (15 or 78.9% of explanations) with specific user fees or service charges. None of the candidates’ explained their satisfaction with specific user fees or service charges.
As usual, everyone is encouraged to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 6.
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).
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action include calls to municipal governments that apply to County Council:
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:
| 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:
| 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:
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:
| 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:
| 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.
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.
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.
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:
| 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:
| 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% |
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.
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.
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 1, 2 and/or 3 have been received from 22 candidates (66.7%), including 3 candidates for Mayor (75.0%) and 19 candidates for Ward Councilor (65.5%). Responses have been received from 5 incumbents (62.5%), including the Mayor and 4 Councilors (57.1%). The 20 candidates who responded to Invitation 3 included 1 first-time respondent (see RSVPs at a glance).
Candidates received Invitation 3 on September 7, 2022 and were asked to forward their responses by September 12, 2022. Candidate responses were published here and on Facebook on September 14, 2022.
Against the background provided in Invitation 3, candidates were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the County’s Strategic Initiatives.
Table 1 presents the numbers and percentages of candidates’ ratings of satisfaction with each Strategic Initiative.
| Strategic Initiative | Very dissatisfied | Dissatisfied | Neither | Satisfied | Very satisfied |
| By-law and policy review | 0 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 3 |
| 0% | 25% | 35% | 25% | 15% | |
| Downtown revitalization | 0 | 2 | 8 | 10 | 0 |
| 0% | 10% | 40% | 50% | 0% | |
| Healthcare initiatives | 1 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 0 |
| 5% | 40% | 20% | 35% | 0% | |
| Municipal Accommodation Tax | 0 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 2 |
| 0% | 10% | 30% | 50% | 10% | |
| PEC Affordable Housing Corp. | 1 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 3 |
| 5% | 20% | 20% | 40% | 15% | |
| Short-term accommodations | 2 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 0 |
| 10% | 35% | 20% | 35% | 0% | |
| Tourism management | 0 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| 0% | 50% | 25% | 20% | 5% | |
| Growth and water/wastewater | 0 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 0 |
| 0% | 40% | 35% | 25% | 0% |
Table 2 collapses both “Very dissatisfied” and “Dissatisfied” ratings into a single “Negative” rating and both “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied” ratings into a single “Positive” rating. A “Neither dissatisfied or satisfied” rating is regarded as a “Neutral” rating.
We hesitate to go much beyond simply reporting the numbers and percentages of candidates’ negative, neutral, and positive ratings of satisfaction with each Strategic Initiative. For a moment, however, let’s disregard candidates’ neutral ratings and consider only ratings with a positive or negative valence.
The column headed “R = Pos/Neg” presents the relative frequency of candidates’ positive vs negative ratings of satisfaction with each Strategic Initiative. For instance, candidates gave a positive rating to the Municipal Accommodation Tax 6.0 times more frequently than a negative rating. By contrast, candidates gave a positive rating to Tourism management only half as frequently as a negative rating.
| Strategic Initiative | Negative | Neutral | Positive | R = Pos/Neg |
| By-law and policy review | 5 | 7 | 8 | 1.6 |
| 25% | 35% | 40% | ||
| Downtown revitalization | 2 | 8 | 10 | 5.0 |
| 10% | 40% | 50% | ||
| Healthcare initiatives | 9 | 4 | 7 | .78 |
| 45% | 20% | 35% | ||
| Municipal Accommodation Tax | 2 | 6 | 12 | 6.0 |
| 10% | 30% | 60% | ||
| PEC Affordable Housing Corp. | 5 | 4 | 11 | 2.2 |
| 25% | 20% | 55% | ||
| Short-term accommodations | 9 | 4 | 7 | .78 |
| 45% | 20% | 35% | ||
| Tourism management | 10 | 5 | 5 | .50 |
| 50% | 25% | 25% | ||
| Growth and water/wastewater | 8 | 7 | 5 | .63 |
| 40% | 35% | 25% |
Table 3 presents these data for incumbents (n=4) and non-incumbents (n=16) separately.
Incumbents offered no negative ratings for 4 Strategic Initiatives (so R is undefined). Incumbents gave a positive rating to 3 other Strategic Initiatives 3.0 times more frequently than a negative rating.
Overall, Non-incumbents offered more of a mix of positive and negative ratings of the Strategic Initatives than Incumbents.
Incumbents and Non-incumbents were generally aligned in their giving a positive rating more frequently than a negative rating to 3 Strategic Initiatives:
However, Non-incumbents gave a positive rating less frequently than Incumbents to 4 Strategic Initiatives:
| Strategic Initiative | Respondents | Negative | Neutral | Positive | R= Pos/Neg |
| By-law and policy review | Incumbents | 0% | 0% | 100% | und |
| Non-incumbents | 31% | 44% | 25% | 0.80 | |
| Downtown revitalization | Incumbents | 25% | 50% | 25% | 1.00 |
| Non-incumbents | 6% | 38% | 56% | 9.00 | |
| Healthcare initiatives | Incumbents | 25% | 0% | 75% | 3.00 |
| Non-incumbents | 50% | 25% | 25% | 0.50 | |
| Municipal Accommodation Tax | Incumbents | 0% | 0% | 100% | und |
| Non-incumbents | 13% | 38% | 50% | 4.00 | |
| PEC Affordable Housing Corp. | Incumbents | 0% | 25% | 75% | und |
| Non-incumbents | 31% | 19% | 50% | 1.60 | |
| Short-term accommodations | Incumbents | 0% | 25% | 75% | und |
| Non-incumbents | 56% | 19% | 25% | 0.44 | |
| Tourism management | Incumbents | 25% | 0% | 75% | 3.00 |
| Non-incumbents | 56% | 31% | 13% | 0.22 | |
| Growth and water/wastewater | IncumbentsIncumbents | 25% | 0% | 75% | 3.00 |
| Non-incumbents | 44% | 44% | 13% | 0.29 |
Candidates were asked to explain their ratings of satisfaction with two Strategic Initiatives. A total of 36 explanations were provided by 18 candidates. Table 4 presents number and percentage of these candidates who chose to explain their rating for a specific Strategic Initiative.
| Strategic Initiative | N | % |
| By-law and policy review | 1 | 2.8% |
| Downtown revitalization | 2 | 5.6% |
| Healthcare initiatives | 7 | 19.4% |
| Municipal Accommodation Tax | 2 | 5.6% |
| PEC Affordable Housing Corp. | 11 | 30.6% |
| Short-term accommodations | 5 | 13.9% |
| Tourism management | 4 | 11.1% |
| Growth and water/wastewater | 4 | 11.1% |
Candidates were asked to outline one County-wide strategic initiative that was missing in the County and should be adopted by Council. Candidates suggested a wide-range of initiatives and their arguments were thoughtful; the most common themes seemed to be:
As usual, I encourage everyone to read the candidates’ unredacted responses to Invitation 3.
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:
Check back for updates.
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).
Candidates were asked three questions related to their skills and interests in municipal government:
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarize the candidates’ identification of internal and external committees, respectively.
| 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% |
| 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% |
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.
Candidates were asked, “For how many years have you resided in the County?” Their responses are summarized in Table 1.1:
| 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% |
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:
| 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% |
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:
| Areas of volunteering | % |
| None | 55.6% |
| Children & families | 22.2% |
| Agriculture | 16.7% |
| Food insecurity | 16.7% |
| Arts | 11.1% |
| Women | 11.1% |
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):
| 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% |