Part 2: PEC Heritage Committee Signals Structural Changes Ahead - 04/08/2026

After working through the broader discussions, the meeting shifted into the details of who said what, where members landed on key decisions, and how those decisions move things forward.

© PEC Council/ YouTube

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap>

Committee Structure and Terms of Reference

The strongest viewpoints came during the discussion on the committee’s structure. The deputation from the PEC Heritage Conservancy calls for a more focused mandate under the Ontario Heritage Act and suggesting that museums and cemeteries be removed from the committee’s scope.

Councillor John Hirsch responded by grounding the discussion in legislative responsibility, emphasizing that designation work and permit review are core duties that should be clearly built into the committee’s structure. He also raised the idea of formally embedding a working group focused on these tasks.

Bob Waldon supported the need for a deeper conversation, pointing out that there is “dynamic tension” within the committee and across the broader heritage community. Rather than resolving this quickly, he pushed for a dedicated session that would allow for more open discussion and collaboration.

Sandy Latchford, as Chair, added important context. She explained that the current structure was created to bring previously separate groups together, including museums, cemeteries, and built heritage. The goal was shared learning and better coordination, even if it has proven challenging in practice.

By the end of the discussion, the committee agreed on a clear next step. A motion was brought forward by Waldon and seconded by Hirsch to hold a special working session focused entirely on the terms of reference. The motion carried unanimously.

This decision sets up a broader public conversation and signals that changes to the committee structure are likely being seriously considered.

Museum Strategy and Participation

When the museum strategy was presented, the tone shifted to collaboration. Chris Palmer outlined the phased approach and asked for one or two committee members to participate in the strategy process. The committee responded positively, with multiple members volunteering to be involved.

Hirsch supported the direction of the strategy, particularly the continued use of a donation model instead of paid admission. He noted that the County’s multiple museum sites make a traditional admission model less practical.

Latchford raised a practical question about digital donations, pointing out that fewer visitors carry cash. Palmer confirmed that improvements like tap or online donation tools are being considered as part of the strategy.

The committee ultimately voted to receive the museum strategy update, signaling general agreement with the direction and confirming their role in supporting the next phase.

Cultural Heritage Master Plan Work

The update on the Cultural Heritage Master Plan was more procedural but still important.

Edwin Rowse explained that members are currently reviewing the plan’s top recommendations and preparing feedback for staff. The goal is to provide informed input that can shape how the plan is implemented.

The committee formally voted to receive this update, with no opposition, showing alignment on continuing this work.

Heritage Permit Decisions

The committee also dealt with active heritage permit files.

For HP-12-25, related to work on Wapus Island, Rowse raised concerns about process. He noted that while the project itself was well supported, the committee had not yet produced a formal written comment, which is normally required before endorsement.

After discussion with staff and the applicant, the committee agreed to receive the submission rather than fully endorse it at this stage. This allows time to formalize documentation without stopping the project timeline.

For HP-03-26, a signage application in Wellington, the committee had fewer concerns. Rowse explained that recommendations had already been provided, and no major issues were raised. The committee voted to endorse the application.

These decisions reflect a balance between supporting heritage work and maintaining proper process.

Working Groups and Ongoing Projects

Updates from working groups showed mixed progress.

The Heritage Designation Working Group has been slow to move forward, largely due to delays in outreach. Hirsch confirmed that new, more personalized letters are being prepared to engage property owners and encourage designation discussions.

The Cemetery Task Team, led in part by Latchford, continues to deal with incoming cemetery transfers and is working toward a standardized checklist process.

The Heritage Conservation District Signage project drew the most frustration. Waldon described the project as stalled, citing delays in procurement and lack of progress despite earlier Council direction. He suggested that, if progress cannot be made internally, the work may need to be handed off to an external group.

Despite this, staff indicated there may still be a path forward, and discussions will continue.

What This Means for Locals

For residents, this meeting signals that heritage in the County is at a turning point.

There is a real possibility that the committee overseeing heritage could change in structure, which may affect how decisions are made about buildings, museums, and cemeteries. That could mean clearer focus in some areas, but also new ways of coordinating across different parts of the community.

Museum visitors can expect continued improvements, especially around programming and accessibility. The move toward better data and digital tools could make visits more engaging and easier to support.

For property owners, especially those in heritage areas, the committee is still actively reviewing permits and designations, but is also trying to improve how it communicates and works with the public.

Most importantly, there will be a chance for locals and heritage groups to weigh in directly at the upcoming working session. That input will help shape how heritage is managed in the next Council term, making this an important moment for anyone who cares about preserving the County’s history.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:33:01. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.