Democracy — or the lack of it — came up again and again during a heated and sometimes confrontational five-hour Peterborough city council meeting on Monday (February 24), when three councillors voted to support Mayor Jeff Leal’s strong mayor motion to expedite Brock Mission’s proposed transitional housing project by amending the city’s zoning by-law and exempting the project from the city’s site plan requirements.

Brock Mission is proposing a 52-unit, six-storey co-ed transitional housing apartment building to be constructed at 738 Chemong Road, where the organization already operates Cameron House, a 12-bed emergency shelter for women with drug addictions and mental health issues, along with eight transitional housing units for women transitioning from homelessness. Brock Mission has already received $250,000 in funding from the city to develop the proposal.

Three councillors — Gary Baldwin, Kevin Duguay, and Lesley Parnell — joined Mayor Leal to vote in favour of the motion and the two accompanying by-laws, despite community opposition to the proposed development, including its location and both the process and speed at which the proposed development is proceeding.

Because Mayor Leal had invoked his strong mayor powers for the motion, the support of only one third of council (four councillors) was needed for the motion to pass — such an exceptional case that votes had to be recorded outside of the city’s normal vote-tracking technology.

Council met as general committee at 4:30 p.m. on Monday afternoon, with the mayor attending remotely as he is recovering at home from surgery. Since the general committee meeting served as a public meeting under the Planning Act, it was chaired by councillor Lesley Parnell, who is the presiding officer for public matters related to the Planning Act.

The meeting was scheduled to take 90 minutes, with a regular city council meeting to follow at 6 p.m. However, it soon became apparent that the meeting was going to take much longer.

As soon as the public meeting began, councillor Joy Lachica raised a point of order to declare the meeting and the mayor’s motion as being out of order.

“We have just, minutes ago, received an amendment via the clerk to by-law 052,” Lachica said, referring to the proposed zoning by-law amendment for 738 Chemong Road. “So it is not the same by-law that was presented at the public meeting on Thursday night, nor is it the same by-law that councillors have reviewed in preparation for this meeting tonight.”

Last Thursday night (February 20), Brock Mission held an open house community meeting at St. Peter Catholic Secondary School, to present the proposed development to local residents, with representatives from engineering and land planning firm D.M. Wills Associates and Aside Architects Inc. also attending.

At that meeting, residents expressed concern about the impact of a six-storey building on surrounding homes in the residential neighbourhood and the safety and security of the women using Cameron House.

As for councillor Lachica’s point of order, chair Parnell declined to consider it.

“Thank you for your opinion, but we will be proceeding with the meeting because it’s actually under provincial legislation more than municipal legislation,” she told Lachica, who then made another point of order asking to challenge the chair.

“Sorry, you can’t,” Parnell said. “This is under provincial legislation and we will be proceeding … this supersedes municipal (procedures), so please stand down.”

As Lachica continued to speak, Parnell refused to recognize her and again asked her “to please stand down.”

On another point of order, Lachica then asked the clerk to declare the chair in breach of the city’s procedural by-law, as Parnell was not recognizing her point of order. Parnell again said the meeting would proceed under the strong mayor powers of the provincial government.

In 2023, the province provided strong mayor powers to 45 municipalities, including Peterborough, in which heads of council can propose municipal by-laws under provincial legislation — including the Municipal Act and the Planning Act — if they believe the proposed by-laws could potentially advance the provincial priority of housing.

“This is new for all of us — this is the first time in Peterborough (that strong mayor powers have been used),” Parnell said. “This is under provincial legislation. If you have a concern about it, please contact your Premier. The meeting will proceed.”

As Lachica continued to object, Parnell twice told her to “be quiet.”

“She needs to have some manners or will be removed,” Parnell threatened. “I am the chair, and we are proceeding with the meeting.”

Lachica again asked to challenge the chair as per the municipal procedure by-law, and Parnell again refused to allow it. She also refused to recognize a point of order subsequently raised by councillor Alex Bierk, but allowed him a point of information.

“So you’re saying that, because this is a strong mayor motion, that aspects of our procedural by-law are not in effect?” Bierk asked. “Can you just clarify how the meeting is going to be governed then?”

Parnell then deferred the question to legislative services commissioner David Potts, who confirmed that the provincial legislation for strong mayor powers supersedes the city’s procedural by-law.

Although Potts did not reference the specific regulation, the strong mayor powers provision under section 284.11.1 of the Municipal Act states that “despite any procedure by-law passed by the municipality,” a mayor can propose a by-law to council “and require the council to consider and vote on the proposed by-law at a meeting.”

“In any respect, the procedure by-law does not apply,” Potts said.

On a point of order, councillor Keith Riel then asked “What rules are we going to play by tonight, because I don’t have a set of rules in front of me that supersedes our procedural by-law for the city?”

Parnell refused to recognize Riel’s point of order and returned to the agenda for the meeting, at which time Lachica raised another point on order to defer the motion. She said there is no language in the provincial legislation that suspends the procedural by-law.

“A deferral is out of order for this,” Parnell said. “It’s under strong mayor powers. As has already been stated about five times now, the provincial legislation supersedes our municipal procedural by-law, so deferral is not in order.”

“I will accept no more interruptions,” added Parnell, who then asked Mayor Leal to make his remarks.

The mayor explained that he decided to use his strong mayor powers “at Brock Mission’s request” to expedite the Brock Mission development, saying it is consistent with the city’s “Housing First” strategy.

He explained his rationale for doing so by noting that Brock Mission owns the land on which the development would be built, that the organization has successfully operated Cameron House on the property for years “without incident,” that Brock Mission does not permit drug use and encourages treatment, and that the proposed site is on a high-capacity arterial road with access to public transit and within walking distance of shopping and services.

Mayor Leal added that the proposed Brock Mission development is “very similar” to the Peterborough Housing Corporation’s six-storey 53-unit affordable housing project at 681 Monaghan Road, which is expected to open in April.

The mayor described the proposed building, pointing out that two of the units would be reserved for palliative care for people experiencing homelessness “who are at the end of life.”

“I’ve been clear that when there are opportunities to address our critical need for housing, particularly supportive housing, I will do whatever is within my authority as mayor to support these projects moving forward for the benefit of our community,” said Mayor Leal said.

He noted that councillors Riel and Bierk, supported by councillor Lachica, had asked him to use strong mayor powers earlier this year to establish a temporary homelessness shelter — a request he denied because he believes the province intended strong mayor powers to only be used for the building of permanent housing.

The mayor then invited Brock Mission board member Alan Wilson to address council and answer questions.

Although a public meeting under the Planning Act would normally be restricted to a rezoning discussion, councillor Parnell indicated that she would allow “some leeway” to Wilson to address operational questions and site plan issues in recognition of community concerns about the proposed development.

After councillor Bierk attempted to raise a point of order about meeting procedure, Parnell told him there was no debate on strong mayor powers and asked the clerk to mute his microphone.

“I’m not debating — I have a question about things that you are shutting down that are part of our procedure, part of the democracy that we have around this table, and you are in one stroke saying that ‘No, this doesn’t apply in this case’,” said Bierk, adding that he believes strong mayor powers do not give a mayor the power to change a procedural by-law.

Parnell said the meeting would proceed, and Wilson addressed the councillors.

“Men, women, teenagers, children (are) freezing out there tonight, and it seems the only thing that matters is points of order,” Wilson said. “Can we please focus on what we need in the City of Peterborough? And that’s transitional housing.”

“I’ve worked (on this project) this for the last 14 months — it’s accelerated in recent months — and I personally asked Mayor Leal if he would consider using his strong mayor powers.”

After describing the existing “rules-based” Cameron House on the proposed site, Wilson noted that there would be no drug use or illegal behaviour allowed at the new transitional housing facility. He said that, while Cameron House would remain on the site, “its use might change.”

Councillor Andrew Beamer — who, as Northcrest Ward councillor, represents the neighbourhood around the proposed site — asked Wilson to assure council that the proposed development would be different from Trinity Community Centre and the Wolfe Street bridge housing project, where community safety concerns have been raised, and what the plan would be to deal with any issues that arise.

“We’re not another Trinity. At Trinity, you can use drugs, sell drugs, buy drugs. At Wolfe Street, you can do the same,” said Wilson, adding that he contacted Peterborough police chief Stuart Betts to confirm there have been no calls for services related to drug use or disorderly behaviour at Cameron House or in the surrounding area, although there were 30 calls related to mental health issues.

After councillor Riel questioned Wilson about the safety of the women using the Cameron House shelter if a new 52-unit building is built beside it, Wilson said Brock Mission is discussing moving the shelter portion of Cameron House to another site and using Cameron House only for transitional housing.

In response to a question from councillor Lachica, Wilson said Brock Mission’s original proposal for a 10-storey building at Murray Street did not proceed because of the lack of 11 parking spots for staff, and said the decision to change the proposed site from Murray Street to Chemong Road was made only by himself and Brock Mission executive director Bill McNabb. Wilson later said that three other potential sites had been considered, but they were taken off the list because the owners already had plans for private development.

After Lachica asked about capital funding for the $16-million building, Wilson said Brock Mission would be applying to the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) for the funding after the two by-laws before council are approved. He added that, even if the decision to approve the by-laws was delayed even by a week, it would affect the timelines to get the building operational “by this time next year.”

After saying he was supportive of the project but not of the process, councillor Bierk asked Wilson about the operational budget for the project and where Brock Mission would get the operational funding.

“The operational plan for the budget has been costed at $2 million, and the MPP (Dave Smith) has said he will make sure we get that money,” said Wilson, adding in response to another question from Bierk that Brock Mission would not approach the city for funding if provincial funding was not supplied.

After Bierk asked Wilson whether Brock Mission would be integrating into the project the feedback it has received from the community, Wilson said he would give a “personal commitment” that he has been making notes on the feedback and “everything that we need to take action on, will be taken action on,” with regular updates to the community.

In response to a question from councillor Gary Baldwin about community safety, Wilson said the proposed development would have fencing around it, with the only access via the existing Chemong Road entrance, and lighting and security cameras would be installed on the building.

Councillor Bierk asked Wilson whether Brock Mission would provide on-site addictions treatment services. Wilson said that Brock Mission engages with professional services agencies to run in-house programs or at the agencies’ premises.

Following Wilson’s presentation, council heard from 15 delegations, with councillor Parnell prefacing the delegations by noting “the strong mayor power ruling is not up for debate” and that comments should be limited to the rezoning item.

For the first delegation, Sarah McNeilly raised concerns about the use of strong mayor powers.

“I care about the homeless, but I have to ask a fundamental question: do we still care about democracy? Because that’s what at stake here, not transitional housing. This is about whether we, as a city, as a council, as a people, still believe in the bedrocks of democracy.”

Councillor Parnell then interrupted McNeilly, indicating that she was speaking to strong mayor powers.

“Madam chair, please, this is my right as a citizen in a democracy,” McNeilly said with her voice raised, before agreeing to limit her comments.

McNeilly noted the requirements of the Planning Act require an open house to be held seven days prior to a public meeting, and a public notice must be sent to neighbours 20 days before the public meeting. In response to a question from councillor Lachica, McNeilly shared her expertise with fundraising and noted that Brock Mission does not appear to be following best practices.

After a question from councillor Bierk about the community meeting held on February 20, McNeilly said there was an error in the shadow study and that it did not show the complete shadow of the building. McNeilly also said that, had stakeholders been consulted at the beginning of the project 14 months ago, “not only would there have been buy-in, I imagine there could even have been excitement.”

During the remaining delegations, other speakers expressed similar concerns about the lack of consultation about the project, the speed with which the project is moving forward, as well as the suitability of the location, the shadows cast by the building, negative impact on property values, and privacy, safety, and security concerns.

Larry Stinson, who lives on Aberdeen Avenue directly adjacent to the proposed development, noted the impact of the building on his property but said he was at council to speak to the process.

“I think that the process that has been undertaken to arrive at this proposal has lacked an appropriate and reasonable consultation process, and I think the proposal itself is flawed and does not serve the best interests of the overall community in the long term,” he said, adding that he recognized the pressure the city has towards meeting housing targets. “But the balance between urgency and good decision-making has been skewed too much toward urgency in this case.”

He noted that, while the property has a Chemong Road address, it is located in a neighbourhood of single family homes. He pointed out that, while Cameron House has been integrated into the neighbourhood, this would not be the case for a dominating six-storey building. He said the decision to choose the site seems only to be based on the fact that Brock Mission owns the property.

Michelle Adams, speaking on behalf of her 88-year-old mother Jill who lives within two blocks of the proposed development, objected to the lack of consultation and said excluding the development from the site planning process “is both unsafe and undemocratic.”

“It does not make any sense to put 50 people, each with potentially multiple challenges, in the same building close to a women’s shelter in a residential neighbourhood,” Adams said, noting the increase in crime that accompanies the creation of a shelter and saying her responsibility was her mother and her safety.

Adams read a statement from her mother, wife of the late Peterborough-Kawartha MP and MPP Peter Adams, who objected to Mayor Leal’s use of strong mayor powers to move the project forward.

Referencing her late father, Adams said, “I believe he would be appalled at the lack of transparency, communication, and consultation associated with this project, and also the undemocratic use of the strong mayoral powers by Jeff Leal.”

Tanna Edwards, who lives on Bethune Street directly behind Cameron House, expressed her concerns about the impact of the new building on the women and staff at Cameron House, as well as the lack of consultation, noting that the community open house happened only four days ago for a project that began 14 months ago.

The final delegation was Diana Keay of D.M. Wills Associates, the firm contracted by Brock Mission for land planning, who spoke to some of the concerns raised during the meeting. She noted that the last-minute change to the proposed zoning by-law amendment was to include an inadvertently omitted item, which was the minimum size of a dwelling unit (28 square metres) in the existing plan.

After councillor Bierk asked Keay about the size of the units and whether they have kitchens, Aside Architects principal Neil Campbell addressed council.

He said the minimum size of the units is 28.6 square metres. He also described the common areas in the proposed building, including a rear courtyard and a front terraced area outside the building.

Inside the building, there are two common floors (ground floor and basement) that include two program rooms and a large west-to-east central stair between the floors, with a large dual-purpose common area for “some dining” served by a hospitality kitchen. A reception desk will be located behind a fully glazed entrance way, where staff can see anyone coming and going outside in the front or back and inside up or down the central stair. Campbell also said that each unit comes with kitchen facilities.

In terms of privacy for neighbours, Campbell said there were deliberate design decisions to not include any balconies for the units, and that the stairs are located in the north and south side of the building, so there are no unit windows that overlook neighbours.

Councillor Lachica, who is co-chair of the city’s infrastructure, planning and growth management portfolio, said she found it “mind boggling” that she saw documents such as the project’s shadow study for the first time at the February 20 community meeting. She asked Keay why the documents were not provided to city staff, councillors, and the public.

“This is not a typical process,” Keay replied. “We have not submitted an application. We have not gone through the zoning by-law process as prescribed under the Planning Act. We were not required to host an open house either; however, the Brock Mission deemed in necessary to do so.”

“It was through that open house that we made sure that we had as much available information as possible to share with the community, so city staff was provided with information about the project — not through an application because there is no application.” She later added that city staff were provided all the information that was presented at the open house.

“Any information to council through the city is the responsibility of the city, so I can’t speak to why you didn’t get it in your agenda package, but I can speak to the fact that we did not provide information to the city in a typical matter, because there’s no application. We provided it through our open house.”

Lachica asked Keay if this was a “best practice, best approach” for a project like this. Keay replied that the mayor was asked to use his strong powers, he accepted, and it is not for her to say whether that request was appropriate.

After Lachica attempted a follow-up question asking Keay to provide her professional opinion, councillor Parnell interrupted to indicate that the mayor’s decision to use strong mayor powers was not up for debate.

Later, councillor Kevin Duguay asked Keay whether, in her professional capacity as a planner, she believed the proposed development “represents good planning.”

“I do believe it represents good planning,” she said. “There’s a critical need in the community for this type of development. It is being put in a location that it can be supported. It meets the official plan policies. It meets the provincial policies.”

Councillor Lachica asked Wilson whether Brock Mission had any discussions about using 13.3 acres of city-owned property at Calvary Church on Lansdowne Street West.

“It has never been discussed with me,” he said.

After a brief recess at the end of the public delegations, council reconvened to debate Mayor Leal’s motion.

Councillor Dave Haacke asked Brad Appleby, the city’s director of infrastructure, planning and growth management, if the city had followed the proper notice provisions of the Planning Act.

Appleby confirmed the city met its obligations under the legislation by providing notice 20 days in advance of the public meeting, with a notice published in the Peterborough Examiner on February 4 and a mailing to property owners within 120 metres of the proposed development on February 4.

Councillor Joy Lachica asked Mayor Leal if, after having heard the discussion and comments at the meeting, he would be willing to defer his strong mayor motion until the end of the next council meeting cycle, which the clerk said would be March 10.

After initially replying that he would consider it, the mayor asked Wilson to comment on what Lachica was requesting. Wilson said that if a property had been offered six months ago, “I would have jumped at it.” He also said that, while the building could be built at another location, the $250,000 in city funding provided to Brock Mission has already been spent on the architects, engineers, and planners for the current proposed location.

“So I would need another $250,000 to transfer to another site,” he said. “I’m not asking the mayor to change his generous response to me a number of weeks ago.”

After Wilson’s remarks, Mayor Leal told council “We’re going to continue on the track we’re on this evening.”

Councillor Riel, who is co-chair of the city’s community services (homelessness) portfolio, said he objected to the process and was personally against the mayor using strong mayor powers. He added that capital funding would not be not available to Brock Mission as part of the $6.2 million Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) Hub.

“I’m not going to vote for this,” Riel said.

“Fine,” councillor Parnell replied. “Well, as (you are) co-chair of homelessness, I can see that.”

Responding to Parnell’s comment, councillor Lachica called for a point of order.

“That is disparaging, and the chair should be removed,” Lachica said.

“I demand an apology right now from you,” Riel added

“No sir, you’re not getting one,” Parnell replied.

“I’ve been courteous to you, I will not accept that,” Riel said.

“No, I’m sorry sir, you’ve been nothing but rude,” Parnell replied, before ceding the floor to councillor Bierk.

“Can I just get three seconds to just contain my composure?” Bierk said to Parnell.

“I really don’t feel this meeting is being run in a way that follows our procedural by-law. You didn’t have the floor to make that little tidbit comment to the speaker. So now I’m having to gain my composure, worried if you’re going to cut in while I’m speaking and interrupt me and be out of order.”

Parnell interrupted Bierk and said that Riel’s comments were “going way beyond rezoning.”

“It sets us up for a really tough position when we have comments like that, and we’re being told that we can’t challenge the chair and we can’t call a point of order, so this is a very confusing meeting,” Bierk said, adding that he is supportive of the Brock Mission project but not the process.

Bierk said that it puts councillors in an “unfair position” to be told that, if they don’t support the mayor’s motion, the project cannot proceed.

After councillor Duguay noted he was a practising professional planner, he said he “was not convinced there would be a differing result” if the project were deferred to allow for additional public consultation, and that he would support the mayor’s motion.

Councillor Lachica asked Duguay, who is her co-chair of the city’s infrastructure, planning and growth management portfolio, whether he had been meeting with city planning staff to facilitate the project.

After Duguay replied he had not met with planning staff outside of the normal portfolio meetings, Lachica said she had been told he had done so, at which point Parnell said “You are crossing the line.”

Duguay reiterated he has not been having separate meetings with planning staff on the Brock Mission project, adding “I do take some exception to the inference” before confirming again “There have been no clandestine meetings, or separate meetings, with staff.”

Following some further discussion, councillors voted on the mayor’s motion. Mayor Leal and councillors Baldwin, Duguay, and Parnell voted in favour, and councillors Lachica, Riel, Bierk, Crowley, Haacke, Vassiliadis, and Beamer voted against. With only four votes required for a strong mayor motion to pass, the motion was carried.

After the general committee meeting adjourned and a brief recess, councillors returned to chambers to meet as city council. During the 20-minute meeting, Mayor Leal’s motion and by-laws were confirmed by city council by the same vote as in general committee.

Some minor edits have been made to the original version of this story to correct typos and for clarity.

Giving back to your community through your estate plans can be a deeply meaningful experience. After taking care of your loved ones, donating a portion of your estate to Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC) Foundation through a will or a life insurance policy can ensure your assets support world-class patient care at your hospital for generations to come.

One of many ways to support the PRHC Foundation, legacy giving — creating gifts during your lifetime to be made through your estate — may help reduce your estate tax burden and allow you to pass on your values, ideals and a sense of purpose, creating lasting change, while not impacting your income today.

“For some donors, gifts made through their will or through life insurance allow them to make a gift of a lifetime, having a transformational impact on the future of healthcare,” says PRHC Foundation President and CEO Lesley Heighway. “There are a number of ways to make a legacy gift, and each one supports world-class care in the community.”

Financial advisor Joe Curry, a father of two young children and a Peterborough business owner, decided to make a significant impact on healthcare in his community by donating a life insurance policy to the PRHC Foundation.

Having grown up in Havelock, Joe has spent his lifetime seeing the regional hospital as an “important fixture in the community” and recognizes the impact it has had on the growing population of 600,000 people it serves. Since 2013, his wife Ashley has been a labour and delivery nurse at the hospital, where their two young sons have since been born. Since then, Joe has repeatedly gone back when his sons have needed emergency care, for his own surgeries, stitches and broken limbs, and to visit countless friends and family.

“It’s important to have the regional health centre where we can get different types of treatments without having to go far from home,” he says. “Obviously there have been happy moments there, like the birth of my kids and my nieces and nephews, but also the serious ones.”

He recalls a particularly scary time when a friend in his 40s had a sudden heart attack while they were playing hockey together in Norwood.

“The cardiac team was ready by the time he got to the hospital in the ambulance, and they were able to make sure there was no serious damage and now he’s in good shape,” Joe recalls. “The fact he didn’t have to go all the way to Durham or the GTA to get that care makes a huge difference. It’s really important because it could be the difference between life or death in some instances.”

Given the important role the hospital has played in their lives, Joe and Ashley knew they wanted to include a donation to the PRHC Foundation when making their estate plans. After considering the many different options, they decided to make a gift of life insurance. After purchasing a policy, they immediately donated it to the PRHC Foundation.

The couple pays the regular policy premium but, since it’s a donation, they receive a tax-deductible charitable donation receipt for the annual premium they pay. Over the course of 20 years, they will pay approximately $100,000 in premiums but, when the policy is paid out after they pass on, the PRHC Foundation will receive $1 million.

“Giving through life insurance is a much more affordable way for us today to have a meaningful impact in the future,” Joe says, adding that being able to deduct the policy premiums from their taxes “comes close to cutting the cost of the policy in half,” down to less than $60,000.

Policies that donors may have taken out during their lifetimes to protect their family and their business interests may be eligible for donation, or the individual may wish to assign the PRHC Foundation as the beneficiary of their policy and to retain ownership to allow for flexibility should their circumstances change.

“Donations of every type and size make an impact and we’re grateful for every single one,” says Heighway. “We know that what’s right for one donor may be different from what’s a good fit for someone else.”

“One of our goals for the Foundation’s current Campaign for PRHC is to help our family, friends and neighbours think about how they give. Joe is helping us do that and inspiring others. For those who can, a gift of life insurance is an easy and economical way to make a lasting and significant legacy gift. Although it won’t be received by the Foundation soon, it will provide sustainable funds to be invested in patient care in the future.”

As president of Matthews & Associates, a Peterborough financial planning firm that specializes in retirement planning, Joe understands the importance of evaluating a client’s financial circumstances when thinking about how to make their giving more meaningful.

“There are many different ways to give, but legacy giving allows people to make more significant gifts even if they don’t have the money right now,” he says. “It’s good to just give funds today if you can, but with a little bit of planning, you might be able to give even more in future.”

A volunteer for the PRHC Foundation, Joe is also chair of the PRHC Foundation Allied Professional Advisory Council where he and a group of other planning professionals — including lawyers, accountants, and financial advisors — promote strategic philanthropy and have conversations with clients about charitable giving through estate planning.

“When people are thinking about giving to charity, it’s because they’re passionate about an organization that has touched their lives, or they had a positive experience or a reason to do so,” he says. “We tell people we want you to give for those reasons, but you should still incorporate charitable giving into your financial and estate planning because, if you give intentionally, it will allow you to make a bigger gift and have a greater impact at the end of the day.”

“We really appreciate the commitment Joe and Ashley have made to PRHC and the PRHC Foundation,” says Heighway. “They’re making an impact in so many ways — through their work, their volunteer efforts, their donations, and their willingness to share their donor story. Not only is that wonderful generosity helping support care for the people they know and love now, but they’ve planned to make a difference in the care provided to the next generation of their loved ones.”

Life insurance gifts are one of many ways donors can choose to support the PRHC Foundation. Those who are in the process of estate planning might alternatively choose to name the PRHC Foundation as the beneficiary of their RRSP or RRIF, leave a gift in their will, or create or contribute to an endowment fund for the PRHC Foundation. In all cases, leaving a legacy gift helps ensure PRHC can continue to provide world-class care close to home.

“I don’t think a lot of people know that PRHC is not just a local community hospital anymore,” Joe says. “A lot of fundraising has been done to make sure we can get care close to home for a lot of areas that never would have been possible in the past. That’s just going to continue to expand. We are so lucky to live in a community that has a regional acute care hospital like PRHC.”

For more information on how to create a charitable gift through life insurance or through your estate plans, visit prhcfoundation.ca/ways-to-give/create-a-lasting-impact/ or call 705-876-5000.

This branded editorial was created in partnership with the Peterborough Regional Health Centre Foundation. If your organization or business is interested in a branded editorial, contact us.

For Our Grandchildren (4RG), a non-profit environmental organization that encourages action against climate change on the local level, has released the responses to questions on four environmental topics that the organization has received from three of the six candidates for Peterborough-Kawartha in the provincial election on Thursday (February 27).

4RG provided the candidates with the opportunity to respond to questions about adding more parks and protected areas, improving land use planning, addressing the climate crisis, and consulting with Indigenous communities and the general public. According to 4GR, the questions and accompanying background information were developed by several people active in Peterborough-area environmental organizations.

Jen Deck of the Ontario New Democratic Party, Lucas Graham of the Green Party of Ontario, and Adam Hopkins of the Liberal Party of Ontario all provided responses to the questions.

Although 4RG initiated contacts at least twice with all candidates after providing the questions, they did not receive responses from incumbent MPP Dave Smith of the PC Party of Ontario, Andrew Roundny of the New Blue Party, or Brian Martindale of the Ontario Party.

Below are the responses received from the NDP, Green, and Liberal candidates on each of the four topics (in some cases, the original responses have been formatted for easier reading).

1. What would you and your party do to add more parks and protected areas?

Would you provide incentives/funds and streamline additions to more parks, protected areas, and Indigenous areas, on both public and private lands? Would you commit to the wider goal of protecting 30% of Ontario’s lands and waters by 2030?

Jen Deck, Ontario New Democratic Party

The Ontario NDP supports the goal of protecting 30% of our lands and waters by 2030. This includes expanding provincial parks and conservation areas, and supporting Indigenous-led conservation efforts in Northern Ontario

Lucas Graham, Green Party of Ontario

Yes, I fully support the goal of protecting 30% of Ontario’s lands and waters by 2030, and the Green Party is committed to making this a reality. We believe in expanding and properly funding parks, protected areas, and conservation lands to preserve Ontario’s natural heritage, safeguard biodiversity, and strengthen climate resilience.

To achieve this, we would:

1. Increase funding for land trusts, conservation authorities, and Indigenous-led protection efforts to accelerate the creation of new protected areas, ensuring communities have the resources to conserve ecologically significant lands.
2. Streamline the process for designating new protected areas by eliminating bureaucratic barriers and working collaboratively with municipalities, conservation groups, and Indigenous nations.
3. Strengthen protections for existing natural areas, including wetlands, forests, and waterways, to prevent further environmental destruction from unchecked development.
4. Support Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), ensuring that Indigenous leadership and traditional ecological knowledge guide conservation efforts, in line with reconciliation and UNDRIP commitments.
5. Provide financial incentives for private landowners to conserve lands through tax benefits, conservation easements, and stewardship funding.

The Ford government has actively weakened environmental protections, cut funding to conservation authorities, and prioritized short-term corporate interests over long-term sustainability. We will reverse these harmful policies and put nature first.

Ontario is rich in natural beauty, and protecting it should be a priority — not an afterthought. By committing to 30×30, investing in conservation, and partnering with local communities and Indigenous nations, we can ensure that future generations inherit a healthier, more sustainable province.

Adam Hopkins, Liberal Party of Ontario

The Ontario Liberals emphasize the importance of preserving Ontario’s natural landscapes and agricultural resources. This includes a strong commitment to protecting prime farmland, including the Greenbelt, as a way to maintain food security, safeguard the environment, and support the economic well-being of farmers and rural communities.

Recognizing the value of these lands for both current and future generations, we advocate for policies that promote sustainable land use while balancing the needs of development, conservation, and economic growth.

Additionally, we acknowledge the role of a thriving agri-food sector in contributing to Ontario’s economy and ensuring long-term environmental stewardship. We commit to continuing to explore ways to enhance sustainability, address emerging challenges, and collaborate with communities, experts, and stakeholders to uphold responsible land management practices.

2. What would you and your party do to strengthen provincial land use planning policies and community input?

How would you better: protect the Greenbelt, wetlands, and other natural and farmland areas; avoid flooding and forest fire impacts and sprawl; and ensure deeply affordable housing, sustainable and cost-efficient infrastructure, and good building design?

Jen Deck, Ontario New Democratic Party

An Ontario NDP government will update planning rules and policies to make it cheaper and easier to build more types of homes for more types of people, more quickly, in more neighbourhoods. This includes legalizing more affordable “missing middle” housing options like semis, townhomes and four-storey multiplexes in all neighbourhoods, and legalizing midrises along transit corridors transit as-of-right.

We’ll also keep housing infrastructure costs down and protect farmland by focusing growth efficiently and cost-effectively within the pre-2022 municipal urban boundaries. We will also restore the powers of conservation authorities, so they can once again protect people and property from floods and other natural hazards.

The NDP also understands that not everyone can afford what the private market can profitably deliver, which is why the NDP has proposed a new public agency, Homes Ontario, that will provide grants, low-cost financing, public land and other support to enable the construction or acquisition of at least 300,000 new permanently affordable public, non-profit and co-op homes within ten years.

Lucas Graham, Green Party of Ontario

Ontario’s land use planning should prioritize people and the environment — not developers’ profits. The Ford government’s reckless planning decisions have weakened public input, encouraged urban sprawl, and put farmland, wetlands, and the Greenbelt at risk. The Green Party would reverse these harmful policies and implement responsible, sustainable land use planning that balances conservation, housing, and climate resilience.

Here’s how we would do it:

• Protect the Greenbelt, wetlands, and farmland permanently by strengthening land use laws to prevent future attacks on these vital ecosystems. We will also expand protected areas to preserve more agricultural and natural lands.
• End costly urban sprawl by ensuring new development happens within existing urban boundaries, focusing on gentle density, missing middle housing, and transit-oriented communities that reduce car dependency.
• Ensure deeply affordable housing in every community by prioritizing non-profit, co-op, and mixed-income housing developments, and requiring a portion of all new developments to be truly affordable.
• Support flood and wildfire resilience by protecting natural buffers like wetlands, forests, and green spaces, implementing stricter zoning laws to prevent building in high-risk areas, and strengthening climate adaptation measures.
• Invest in sustainable, cost-efficient infrastructure by prioritizing mass transit, energy-efficient buildings, and walkable communities that reduce congestion and emissions while lowering costs for municipalities.
• Restore public input in planning decisions by reinstating local and community decision-making powers, strengthening environmental assessment processes, and eliminating the overuse of Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) that bypass community consultation.

Good land use planning isn’t just about where we build — it’s about how we build sustainable, affordable, and livable communities that protect nature and improve people’s quality of life. The Green Party is committed to smart, forward-thinking planning that serves people and the planet, not just developers.

Adam Hopkins, Liberal Party of Ontario

In addition to our commitment to protecting prime farmland, including the Greenbelt, and supporting a sustainable agri-food sector, our platform highlights the importance of smart, strategic investments in infrastructure to support growing communities.

Recognizing the need to reduce gridlock and improve mobility, we emphasize the value of expanding and enhancing public transit options, as well as maintaining and upgrading road networks to ensure efficiency and safety.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that strong, well-planned communities require essential infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and other public services that contribute to a high quality of life. By prioritizing responsible investment, we aim to foster sustainable growth that balances economic development with environmental stewardship.

Our approach reflects an ongoing commitment to working collaboratively with municipalities, stakeholders, and experts to ensure that Ontario’s infrastructure meets the needs of today while preparing for the future.

3. What are your views on the climate crisis and your and your party’s plans to reduce our growing carbon footprint?

How would you accelerate implementation of nature-based solutions (e.g. protecting trees and wetlands), cycling and transit infrastructure, low carbon electrification, and other technologies? What and when would you add such items in to the Building Code and to energy, funding, and planning policies?

Jen Deck, Ontario New Democratic Party

The NDP has proposed an ambitious plan to help people reduce their energy bills as well as their carbon footprints, while also creating good jobs.

An Ontario NDP government will provide rebates depending on household income, to help households install electric heat pumps, with access to easy interest-free financing. An additional rebate will be available for households that heat with fuels like propane or heating oil. This program would not only help reduce greenhouse gases and help people save money, it would create good jobs for installers, renovators and heat pump manufacturers.

An NDP government will also help Ontario drivers make the switch to an electric vehicle, with income-tested rebates towards the purchase of an eligible new or used battery-electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid. We’ll also ensure that new homes are future-proofed for the energy transition with low-cost EV-ready infrastructure, so homeowners with garages can install electric vehicle chargers cheaply when they choose to make the switch, instead of paying thousands of dollars in retrofitting costs.

We will also enhance Ontario’s SaveONEnergy Energy Affordability program to provide retrofit support to renters and low-income households, ensuring fair access to Ontario’s energy savings programs

Lucas Graham, Green Party of Ontario

The climate crisis is the greatest challenge of our time, and we need bold, urgent action to tackle it. Ontario’s emissions are rising under the Ford government, and its continued expansion of highways, urban sprawl, and fossil fuel use is making things worse. The Green Party has a real plan to cut emissions, transition to a clean economy, and protect our communities from climate disasters.

How we’ll reduce Ontario’s carbon footprint:

• Phase out fossil fuels and electrify Ontario’s energy grid by banning new gas plants, expanding wind, solar, and hydro power, and investing in energy storage to create a reliable, low-cost, 100% clean electricity system.
• Modernize Ontario’s Building Code to require net-zero-ready homes and commercial buildings by 2030. We will also remove outdated rules that block solar panels, electric heat pumps, and energy-efficient retrofits in new and existing buildings.
• Implement a ‘Green Infrastructure First’ policy that prioritizes trees, wetlands, and natural flood prevention in all new developments to prevent extreme heat, wildfires, and flooding.
• Expand public transit and active transportation by increasing funding for buses, cycling infrastructure, and commuter rail while ending costly highway expansion projects that drive up emissions.
• Retrofit 40% of Ontario’s homes and buildings by 2035 to be energy-efficient, cutting emissions and saving people money on heating and cooling bills.
• Invest in low-carbon industries and jobs by supporting Ontario-made clean technology, battery production, green manufacturing, and sustainable farming practices.

The Green Party will accelerate these changes immediately, starting in 2025, to ensure Ontario meets its emissions targets and builds a resilient, low-carbon economy. The time for half-measures is over — we need real leadership on climate action, and that’s what Greens will deliver.

Adam Hopkins, Liberal Party of Ontario

The Ontario Liberals recognize the importance of environmental stewardship and the need for a comprehensive, forward-thinking approach to protecting the province’s natural resources.

As part of this commitment, we will develop a Made in Ontario environmental action plan that will be shaped through collaboration with the federal government, other provinces, and key stakeholders. This plan will focus on safeguarding Ontario’s land, water, air, biodiversity, and communities while ensuring that economic and environmental priorities are balanced in a responsible and sustainable manner.

By working in partnership with experts, Indigenous communities, environmental organizations, and industry leaders, we aim to explore innovative solutions and best practices that support long-term ecological health.

Our approach reflects an ongoing effort to address environmental challenges, promote resilience, and adapt to evolving needs while maintaining a strong commitment to transparency, consultation, and evidence-based decision-making.

What is your party’s approach to consultation with Indigenous communities and enhanced citizen input and appeal processes?

Would you enhance these in land use planning, environmental assessments, the Environmental Bill of Rights, conflict of interest laws, and by reforming Ontario’s open access mining system?

Jen Deck, Ontario New Democratic Party

The Ontario NDP supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which includes the right of Indigenous people to free, prior and informed consent with respect to land use activities impacting their traditional territories.

In 2019, NDP MPP Sol Mamakwa tabled Bill 76 to formally enshrine UNDRIP in provincial law. An NDP government will also end the abuse and overuse of Minister’s Zoning Orders that have created a corrupt, two-tier planning system that unfairly allows certain favoured developers to bypass public consultation and the planning rules that apply to everyone else.

The Ontario NDP also supported First Nation calls for a moratorium on the use of electronic mining claims, begun under the Liberals, that has grown out-of-control under Doug Ford.

Lucas Graham, Green Party of Ontario

The Green Party believes that meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities and public engagement in decision-making are essential for a just and sustainable Ontario. The Ford government has weakened Indigenous consultation, environmental assessments, and public input processes — favouring corporate interests over the rights of communities and the environment. We will reverse these changes and ensure true transparency and accountability.

Here’s what we’ll do:

• Respect Indigenous sovereignty and rights by ensuring full, prior, and informed consent in all land use planning, resource extraction, and environmental decisions. We will align Ontario’s laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
• End Ontario’s outdated open-access mining system, which allows companies to stake claims on Indigenous lands without consultation. Instead, we will create a respectful, transparent consultation process that prioritizes Indigenous leadership and environmental protections.
• Strengthen public input in land use planning and environmental decisions by reinstating strong environmental assessments, meaningful community consultation, and fair appeal processes. We will end the overuse of Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) that bypass public input and favour developers.
• Restore and expand the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) to give communities a real voice in environmental decisions and ensure that environmental protections are legally enforceable.
• Strengthen conflict of interest laws to prevent backroom deals between the government and private developers, ensuring transparency and accountability in decision-making.

Democracy is more than just voting every four years. The Green Party believes in ongoing public engagement, respect for Indigenous leadership, and policies that put people — not corporations — at the centre of decision-making. We are committed to a fair, transparent, and just Ontario for all.

Adam Hopkins, Liberal Party of Ontario

I strongly believe that Indigenous communities must be consulted and meaningfully involved in matters affecting their lands, resources, and rights. Meaningful engagement is essential to fostering respectful relationships, recognizing Indigenous leadership in environmental stewardship, and ensuring that decisions reflect the interests and knowledge of Indigenous communities.

Collaboration and dialogue play a critical role in addressing shared priorities, supporting economic and environmental sustainability, and working toward solutions that respect Indigenous rights and self-determination. By listening to Indigenous voices and incorporating their perspectives, we can promote more inclusive and informed decision-making processes that acknowledge historical and contemporary realities.

I remain committed to engaging in discussions that strengthen partnerships and advance reconciliation in a way that respects Indigenous governance and traditions.

A 76-year-old Lakefield man was seriously injured in a collision on Highway 7 just east of Peterborough on Friday afternoon (February 21) that closed the highway for almost nine hours.

Peterborough County Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and emergency crews responded to a two-vehicle collision on Highway 7 between Keene Road and Burnham Line that happened at around 2:30 p.m. on Friday.

According to police, a sport utility vehicle (SUV) turned out from a business on the south side of Highway 7, attempting to cross over to the westbound lanes as an eastbound tractor trailer approached.

The tractor trailer was unable to stop in time and collided with the driver’s side of the SUV, ejecting the driver from the vehicle.

Witnesses came to the aid of the driver until emergency crews arrived on scene.

The driver of the SUV, a 76-year-old man from Lakefield, was transported to Peterborough Regional Health Centre before being transported by air ambulance to a trauma centre in Toronto due to the severity of his injuries.

Highway 7 was closed in both directions between Keene Road and Drummond Line for almost nine hours while police investigated and documented the scene.

Anyone who may have witnessed the incident, or has surveillance or dash camera footage of the collision, and has not spoken with police is asked to contact the Peterborough County OPP at 1-888-310-1122.