Reporting a hate or bias incident in the community could help Peterborough become a safer and kinder place for all.

That’s one of the messages of the revamped N0H8 (pronounced “No Hate) public education and awareness campaign launched by the Peterborough Police Service in January.

Supported by a three-year Proceeds of Crime Grant from the Ontario government, the campaign is intended to raise awareness about what hate looks like, provide educational resources, encourage people to report hate or bias incidents, and reinforce that hate will not be tolerated in the community.

“From our analysis, Peterborough is a community that is willing to report these incidents and we want to see this continue, because then we will have a true picture of the impact these incidents have in our community,” says Chelsea Russelle, Community Development and Engagement Coordinator for the Peterborough Police Service.

“Hate has no place here. Name it. Report it. It is a strong call to action, but we also hope people see it as an opportunity to be kind or even start conversations.”

Over the past five years, an average of 46 hate/bias incidents were reported to the Peterborough Police Service each year, with more than half resulting in charges. Whether police lay charges depends on whether the incident involves a criminal offence.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, there are four offences specific to hate: advocating genocide, public incitement of hatred, wilful promotion of hatred, and wilful promotion of antisemitism. While police must consult with the Crown Attorney before any of these specific charges can be laid under the Criminal Code, they will record any crime that involves hate as a hate crime.

“If a criminal offence has been committed and there is evidence that it was motivated by race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, age, or mental or physical disability, it will be recorded as a hate crime and addressed through the court process which could result in a higher penalty at sentencing,” says Russelle.

A hate or bias incident can also involve actions or behaviours that are motivated by bias or prejudice but do not involve a criminal act. For example, if a neighbour makes an remark about a person’s race during an argument, but no criminal offence occurs, it is a hate incident. These incidents can and should be reported to police, Russelle says, as they can “reveal a pattern of behaviour.”

While reimagining the N0H8 public education and awareness campaign, the Peterborough Police Service connected with community partners to better understand the issues involving hate and bias in the Peterborough community. These partners included the City of Peterborough, New Canadians Centre, Race Relations Committee, and Peterborough Youth Services.

“We learned that each individual community has different views of hate and bias, and our partners are a great resource for making sure information is shared both ways — from the Peterborough Police Service to these communities, and from the communities back to the Peterborough Police Service,” says Russelle.

The N0H8 public education and awareness campaign is just one of the commitments made by the Peterborough Police Service to address hate locally. Training has been made available to members of the service, and there will soon be an online visual tool available to the public, which will provide a better understanding of how and where hate is manifesting in the community through maps and other graphing tools that depict stories about the incidents, as well as how they have affected the community.

“We are trying to show instances of hate and bias in our community through a lens of storytelling, while keeping the intimate details of each incident anonymous,” Russelle says. “We want to provide data from the past five years and shift the narrative from opinion-based comments to fact-based comments.”

Russelle notes that many hate or bias incidents either go unreported, or are posted on social media instead of being reported to the Peterborough Police Service. Without a report, police cannot investigate these incidents.

“There is a tendency to want to share these incidents on social media,” Russelle explains. “However, the police will not launch any investigation just because it is trending online — we don’t have people searching for crimes. There needs to be a reported crime.”

Reports can be made 24/7 through the online portal at www.peterboroughpolice.com/n0h8 or by calling 705-876-1122 ext. 225 (for emergencies, call 9-1-1).

The Peterborough Police Service does not accept reports made through social media platforms like Facebook.

If you witness or are the victim of a hate crime, the Peterborough Police Service suggests gathering as much information about the incident and perpetrator as possible. This could include what happened, where it happened, and what the perpetrator looked like, what they were wearing, and what vehicle they were driving.

Since launching the revamped N0H8 public education and awareness campaign, the Peterborough Police Service has received both positive and negative feedback about the campaign.

“The campaign is not about silencing people or telling people what they can and cannot say,” Russelle points out. “The laws have been the same around hate and hate bias since the 1970s. The purpose of this campaign is to bring awareness to what a hate crime or incident is, how you can report it to police, and how it is handled through our justice system.”

To support the N0H8 public education and awareness campaign, businesses and residents can display the N0H8 sticker in their window, share a message online with a link to the N0H8 resource page, or invite the Peterborough Police Service to community events by emailing Russelle at 935@peterboroughpolice.ca.

Schools are also encouraged to consider having a conversation about the campaign, inviting the Peterborough Police Service’s Community Services Officers to a class and learning how to report hate and bias incidents.

“We encourage everyone to start conversations, and if you hear something concerning, say something,” says Russelle. “Hate has no place here in our community.”

For more information about the N0H8 public education and awareness campaign, visit www.peterboroughpolice.com/n0h8.

This branded editorial was created in partnership with the Peterborough Police Service. If your organization or business is interested in a branded editorial, contact us.

In a packed room at the Peterborough Lions Community Centre earlier this week, Ontario NDP MPP Chandra Pasma admitted, “I am going to depress you.”

She quickly delivered on her promise by detailing the current state of the Ontario public school system. From professional shortages to derelict buildings, the picture she paints is bleak.

As part of a series of “education emergency townhall” events, the Ottawa West-Nepean MPP visited Peterborough on Monday evening (February 23) to host a community conversation on education funding and democratic local oversight.

Bill 33 seen as government takeover of public school system

The townhall events are a continuation of the Ontario NDP’s critiques of Bill 33, Supporting Children and Students Act (2025), which the Ford government passed last November.

The legislation purports to take Ontario “back to basics” for the benefit of students, parents, and teachers. Most notably, it grants education minister Paul Calandra the power to place school boards under provincial supervision.

In introducing Bill 33 last June, Calandra spoke about accountability, efficiency, and transparency and walked the Legislature through a series of amendments to provincial legislation primarily concerning children and students.

Pasma, who is the education critic for the official opposition, has criticized Bill 33 as an attempt to “take over” the public school system, and opened Question Period last June with the question, “Why is the minister grabbing more power to himself?”

Monday’s townhall in Peterborough featured a number of notable leaders in the education sector in the region, including moderator David Berger, who is president of the Kawartha Pine Ridge Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (EFTO) Teachers Local.

The panel explored the experience of engaging with the education system through a variety of perspectives. By including lived experiences of teachers, parents, and students, the event gave voice to those who feel disempowered by legislation and government practices.

Concerns over provincial supervision of school boards

Pasma and Berger opened the event with a clear message: Bill 33 is an attack on Ontario’s schools and an attack on Ontario’s democracy, especially at the local level.

The legislation enables the education minister to place a school board under investigation and subsequently under the supervision of a ministry appointee. To date, seven school boards have been placed under supervision, with another placed on notice.

This is not the first time the Ford government has used this technique, as seen with the appointment of a supervisor at the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society in 2024 amid ongoing reviews of the child welfare sector.

Berger highlighted this first as he criticized the ministry’s circumvention of the democratic process. School board trustees are elected by voters in their jurisdiction, whereas supervisors are appointed by the minister. Many school boards also have representatives from First Nations, francophone, or Catholic communities.

Throughout the townhall, Pasma spoke about the significance of removing trustees who act as the voice of the community as well as advocates for families.

Bill 33 allows the education minister to take supervisory action on the basis of “concerns about a matter of public interest.” Calandra has suggested some examples of this may be financial mismanagement, issues dividing students, and “issues where schools and trustees think that they’re in charge of geopolitical events.”

So far, the Ford government has appointed most of the provincial supervisors for concerns related to alleged financial mismanagement, including Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board trustees travelling to Italy to purchase art and the Toronto District School Board’s plans to rename three schools “whose historical legacies no longer represent the values and perspectives of our students and communities,” according to the school board’s website.

Underfunding means fewer extracurricular activities and arts programs

While Calandra has claimed that such endeavours take money “directly out of the classroom,” opponents of Bill 33 have criticized the legislation is a further step in the defunding of the public education system.

The EFTO has cited a 2025 report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that found the Ontario government has underfunded schools by $6.3 billion since 2018 given inflation and enrolment growth.

A common theme from the panellists at the Peterborough townhall was that, when there is a funding shortfall, the programs and resources that are cut tend to be extracurricular activities and arts programs.

Jeff Bird, a co-op teacher at Crestwood Secondary School in Peterborough, described the importance of the social interaction students get through clubs, trips, and recreational activities. Although he reiterated that academia is the “bedrock” of school, he credits the moments outside of the classroom with leaving long-lasting memories.

“That’s what kids remember,” Bird said.

Sarah Whalen, a teacher at Duke of Cambridge Public School in Bowmanville, spoke about how “teachers feel shame and guilt” when they can no longer run extracurricular programs for students due to a lack of funding, resources, or capacity. She said that when teachers choose not to do these programs, it is a last resort.

Underfunding means less support for students with special needs

Another area identified as being significantly impacted by both chronic underfunding and Bill 33 is special education and support for students with disabilities.

Local parent Heather shared her son’s story of navigating the school system with a disability, and their difficulties in receiving support. Evident in her story was the lack of resources such as educational assistants or dedicated safe spaces at school. Due to being denied resources and support, Heather said she was forced to remove her son from school.

Jen Deck, president of the Kawartha Pine Ridge EFTO Occasional Teachers Local, highlighted the impacts of staffing cuts, especially for students with additional needs.

She explained that teachers are responsible for increasingly large classes that often include multiple children with additional needs. She said educational assistant support for individual children is often not possible due to a lack of staff, and that “schools need more adults in the building” to provide care and build interpersonal relationships with students to best identify and support their needs.

Whalen expressed that teachers know when the budget is tight and are “afraid” of being placed under supervision. All of the education professionals on the panel spoke about the increase in the number of people leaving teaching and the sector, further exacerbating existing staffing issues.

It is not just professionals among whom this is controversial, but also students. Cameron, a university student, described his life as a student under Doug Ford since 2018. Ultimately, his experiences have left him asking “Why should we trust a two-faced government?”, especially with the recent reduction in OSAP funding.

As the session came to a close, the audience was fired up and Pasma took the chance to urge them to take action.

She emphasized the importance of organizing and collaborating outside of the education sector, and said Bill 33 is representative of the Ford government’s political strategy and similar legislation can be seen in the healthcare, child welfare, and social services sectors.

NDP urges public action to repeal Bill 33

“Everyone should care about education,” Pasma told kawarthaNOW, adding that even people without children or young people in their lives are impacted by the public school system.

She said her primary goal is to “build solidarity among communities,” and reiterated the importance of organizing across sectors. She also indicated that other NDP opposition critics — including London West MPP Peggy Sattler, who is the shadow minister for Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security — will be hosting similar events on different issues central to the NDP platform.

Pasma said the NDP’s focus through the townhalls is on encouraging constituents to make direct contact with their local MPP to express their concerns with Bill 33 and to share their experiences.

Pasma pointed to the NDP’s past success in helping to overturn undemocratic bills through sustained pressure, such as 2019’s Bill 124, which limited wage increases for most employees of a large range of public sector employers for three years. The Ontario government repealed the legislation in 2024 after the Ontario Superior Court ruled it was unconstitutional for infringing on unionized employees’ collective bargaining protections.

Fundamentally, the stories of the panellists and the comments from audience members at Monday’s townhall showed a stark contrast between what education professionals, parents, and students are asking for and what the Ontario government is willing to provide.

Calandra has consistently described Bill 33 as returning power to its rightful owners: parents and teachers. But for Pasma and fellow panellists, the legislation is an overreach of governmental powers that removes the power of local communities to have a voice in their schools.

Pasma will be hosting her next “education emergency townhall” in Sarnia on Wednesday, March 4.

Peterborough city council has voted against asking GE Vernova to provide a demolition plan for 25 buildings in the historic General Electric (GE) factory complex at 107 Park Street North in downtown Peterborough, and has also voted against asking city staff to obtain more information about the contaminants on the site.

Both decisions were made despite several councillors acknowledging the health and safety risks to the community from the potential demolition.

At its regular meeting on Monday night (February 23), council considered two amending motions put forth by councillors Alex Bierk and Joy Lachica — the two councillors in whose ward the factory complex is located — at last Monday’s general committee meeting in response to a report from municipal operations commissioner Ilmar Simanovskis that provides a high-level outline of a health and safety approach for the demolition of buildings at the GE Vernova site.

Proposed amendments to city staff’s health and safety report

Last October, based on a motion from councillor Bierk, council had directed city staff to develop the report in response to community concerns about the demolition given the long history of toxic substances used at the factory complex.

The report outlines which agencies could be involved in the demolition and describes their regulatory authority, and includes a guideline document for a community health and safety approach, proposing a “joint oversight table” that would include the city, the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), Lakelands Public Health, GE Vernova, the demolition contractor, and an independent environment monitor hired by the city and funded by GE Vernova.

At last week’s general committee meeting, councillor Bierk said the report did not reflect what he had asked for in his original motion.

“My concern for this report is simple,” he said. “It explains jurisdiction, but it does not provide the city’s plan that council requested for this site. I am moving to not defer this, but to refer this back to staff so that council can actually receive that plan with clear deliverables, roles and timelines, and I have a motion which I will submit to the clerk.”

Councillor Bierk’s motion requested that staff report back with a “city health and safety plan” for the GE Vernova site that is not limited to the demolition plan itself, referring to the original discussion on the item in October that led to the staff report.

After the motion lost in a 5-5 vote, councillor Joy Lachica put forward a detailed amendment to the main motion that council request that GE Vernova disclose its full demolition plan under the Ontario Building Code through the city’s chief building official and to all members of municipal council as part of its application for demolition.

Due to the length and detail of councillor Lachica’s motion, councillor Gary Baldwin put forward a motion to defer consideration of the motion to give councillors time to review the motion before voting on it at the regular city council. His motion carried 8-2, with councillors Lachica and Bierk voting against the deferral.

The debate at last week’s general committee consumed almost two hours and, at Monday night’s council meeting, councillors spent almost another two hours debating the item.

Neighbourhood resident urges council to “take power back”

Council only heard from a single public delegation at the meeting: Nicholas Lato, who lives on Frederick Avenue near the GE factory complex and whose child attends Prince of Wales Public School on Monaghan Road northwest of the complex.

“You gave away the power from this council to determine how the demolition proceeded and you gave a large chunk of the power to General Electric, presumably for nothing in return,” Lato said, referring to a previous decision by council to only proceed with heritage designation of a few of the buildings at the site and permitting GE Vernova to demolish the rest.

“It’s up to you to figure out to take enough power back that we determine how the demolition proceeds, not General Electric. I imagine everybody here doesn’t trust General Electric to do what’s best for the community.”

Councillor Keith Riel asked Lato if he would have bought his home knowing what he knows now, and whether he intends to sell it.

“I would not have bought it, and we are wondering if we should sell,” Lato replied.

In response to councillor Lesley Parnell, who told Lato that council has already decided on the heritage designation, he said, “That’s what I’m saying — you screwed up and you need to fix it. You need to figure out what levers you still do have after you gave it away.”

Legal limits debated as demolition plan motion fails

Later in the meeting, after council voted to approve general committee’s decision from the previous week to reverse its earlier decision and exclude from heritage designation all four buildings at the GE site leased by BWXT Nuclear Energy Canada Inc., councillors debated the amending motion from councillor Joy Lachica that would require the city’s chief building official to request a demolition plan from GE Vernova.

“We need to be proactive, to use this window to take charge of the narrative,” councillor Lachica said. “This is our city, this is our Prince of Wales community, this is our Town Ward. It is our city and region that could be impacted by the scale of something like this.”

While he said he supported the intent of the motion and the need to ensure the safety of the community, councillor Matt Crowley echoed concerns raised by the city’s legal staff at general committee that the motion would direct “a chief building official that is free from political (and) bureaucratic influence to do a thing from the municipality, which we are not allowed to do.”

In response to a question from councillor Crowley, the city’s legal services director Alan Barber confirmed the independence of the city’s building official and outlined the responsibilities of those involved in any demolition.

“There is comfort to be had for members of council and for members of the public that anything that happens on that site will be watched by the (provincial) ministries with oversight, will happen in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Building Code Act, and under the professional obligations of the owner’s engineer of record,” Barber said.”

“One final thing I’d like to say about what the city can’t do, is it would be improper to try and add a condition onto the owner, through a council resolution or otherwise, that would change what the owner is required to submit under the building code to get a permit,” Barber added. “That is improper and should not be done.”

Councillor Crowley said that, “while every single one of us around this table have dire concerns,” he didn’t want to be in a position where he’s putting the city at risk for a lawsuit. He suggested instead that, when city staff receive a demolition plan from GE Vernova through the proper process, they could come to council to provide an overview of the plan.

For his part, councillor Keith Riel said GE Vernova “will do the bare minimum” to protect the community.

“They’ll tear the buildings down, they’ll fence it off, they’ll seed it and plant a couple of trees, and you’re left with a 43-acre brownfield in the City of Peterborough,” he said. “The problem with the site is underneath the ground.”

“I can tell you they know exactly what contaminants are there, exactly what it’s going to cost them to remediate the property complete(ly). They already know that — they’ve drilled enough holes, they’ve done enough sampling … they know what their liability is. They’re trying to get off scot-free. I have dealt with this company for 38-and-a-half years. I’m not trying to sit here and fear monger — I’m telling you how they operate.”

Councillor Bierk said he’s “not buying” the argument about what the city can’t do — “all that we’re doing here is asking for something.”

“The worst that can happen is they can say no,” he added, noting that the chief building official could bring information to council in closed session and advise council if they are overstepping their authority.

In response to questions from councillor Baldwin, city CAO Jasbir Raina said that GE Vernova has not yet applied for a demolition permit and that it was under no obligation to do so, but would otherwise be required to maintain the buildings, noting that the company is spending around $5 million a year for such maintenance.

Although he said he understood the “spirit and intent” of the motion, councillor Kevin Duguay said he found it “unnecessary and somewhat superfluous” given the existing process for demolition.

“For the city at this point to introduce any language that would suggest we expect more from our chief building official, or more of the process above and beyond the prescribed regulatory framework would be inappropriate,” he said. “I’m satisfied there’s a process that will follow, that will protect the interests of our community.”

Council then voted on councillor Lachica’s amending motion, which lost 3-8, with councillors Bierk, Lachica, and Riel voting in favour.

Council rejects asking city staff to obtain contimination information

Following the defeat of councillor Lachica’s amending motion, councillor Bierk reintroduced his original motion with changes, asking city staff to report back to council with any available information about the extent of contamination on or around the site, and that the city request GE Vernova to provide any available information about contamination on or around the site.

Councillor Baldwin said he couldn’t support the motion, after the city’s infrastructure commissioner Blair Nelson told him “I’m not certain that we have any of the information” about contamination and the city would have to hire an outside consultant if testing is required.

After councillors Riel and Lachica spoke in support of his motion, councillor Bierk said “I feel like we’re in the Olympics right now, with all the mental gymnastics and the twisting and turning that’s going on with the logic around this.”

“I did not mention a consultant. I did not mention doing core sampling of bricks at General Electric. I’m not an idiot, I understand that we don’t have the capacity or the funding to do that. That’s not what I’m asking. It says very clearly in the preamble (of the motion) ‘to the city’s best available knowledge.'”

“I’m not asking for us to do anything beyond our capacity,” he said. “We need the subject matter experts in our city to review the documents that they can get their hands on — the documents through the ministry (of environment), the documents through these many meetings, and give the public a sense of what the contamination is, because we have not heard a clear and definitive answer through any of this discussions as to what that is.”

“We own sidewalks and roads and sewers, and we own portions (of the rocks that keep Little Lake around there. We own all that, and I see them (GE Vernova) testing around there, and the public sees them testing around there. We don’t know what they’re testing for. We don’t know how frequently.”

“What’s the list of contaminants? There’s a lot of conjecture going on in the community. ‘Can you set the record straight? Can you tell us what’s going on at that site and how it’s happening?’ This is what the ask is, and I don’t understand the resistance to this.”

In her comments, councillor Parnell said GE Vernova is a private company that holds all the liability and that the motion could place the city in “legal jeopardy.” She asked Barber if councillor Bierk’s motion could be considered as interfering with the authority of the chief building official prior to a demolition permit application.

Barber replied that, while the debate and the motion itself is not “definitive evidence that council is interfering” with the chief building official, somebody could conclude that council is seeking to influence the chief building official.

To avoid that perception, he suggested that council could reconsider the motion at a later date after GE Vernova has made its application for a demolition permit and the chief building official has issued their decision to either approve or deny the permit.

“That may be the safest course of action, to both limit the city’s potential liability and to best protect the city’s reputation so that no one outside of this room could think that council is trying to influence the (chief building official),” Barber said.

After some further debate, council voted on councillor Bierk’s motion, which lost 4-7, with councillors Lachica, Bierk, Crowley, and Riel voting in favour.

Councillor Crowley proposed an amendment to the main motion to request city staff obtain a copy of GE Vernova’s demolition plan when it is available, but Mayor Jeff Leal ruled it out of order as it was too similar to councillor Lachica’s motion that council had already voted against.

Council then voted on the main motion to receive the report from commissioner Simanovskis, which carried 9-2, with councillors Lachica and Duguay voting against, although Duguay subsequently said he voted incorrectly.