Part 2: Statue Vote, Road Concerns, and County Road 3 Approval – 04/21/2026
- PECConnect
- Apr 21
- 4 min read
After a long night of presentations and public input, the meeting moved into the part that often matters most for residents: who on Council supported what, and what direction things actually took.
Road Concerns and Infrastructure Direction
On the road maintenance deputation, there was no direct vote tied to Sam Mitchell’s presentation, but several councillors responded clearly to the concerns.
Councillor Sam Grosso agreed with the core issue, saying he supported the idea of fixing roads properly instead of continuing short-term repairs. At the same time, he pushed back on concerns raised about contractor relationships, defending the current bidding process.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Councillor Janice Maynard acknowledged the frustration around road conditions but pointed out the financial reality, noting that the County has limited funds spread across a large rural road network. She also referenced how road classifications and traffic volumes influence where upgrades happen.
Councillor Phil St.-Jean focused on the broader challenge, highlighting that Council is often caught between knowing what needs to be done and what can realistically be afforded.
In the end, Council voted to receive the deputation, meaning the concerns are officially on record but no immediate action was taken.
The Macdonald Statue Motion and Vote
The most decisive moment of the night came during the discussion around the “Holding Court” Sir John A. Macdonald statue. After the deputation, Councillor Phil St-Jean brought forward a motion to have staff engage with stakeholders and explore the feasibility of bringing the statue back to public viewing.
Supporters of the motion framed it as reopening a conversation, not making a final decision.
Councillor David Harrison supported the motion, emphasizing that it was about exploring options, not committing to reinstalling the statue.
Councillor Janice Maynard also supported moving forward, saying the issue needed to be revisited and properly concluded after several years of being unresolved.
On the other side, several councillors pushed back.
Councillor Sam Grosso raised concerns about the timing and the lack of consultation with Indigenous communities, pointing out that those conversations had not yet happened.
Councillor Chris Braney and others echoed similar concerns about reopening a divisive issue.
Councillor Bill Roberts spoke at length about the importance of understanding history in full, but that did not translate into unanimous support for the motion itself.
Before the final vote, Councillor McNaughton attempted to amend the motion to make it more neutral by changing the focus from bringing the statue back to simply determining its future. That amendment failed after a recorded vote.
Then came the main vote. The motion failed 6 to 8, with councillors split. Voting in favour were: Councillors St-Jean, Maynard, Pennell, Roberts, and Harrison
Voting against were: Mayor Steve Ferguson, Councillors Grosso, Braney, McNaughton, Hirsch, Prinsen, Branderhorst, Engelsdorfer
With the motion defeated, there is no new direction to revisit the statue at this time, and an earlier Council direction related to the statue remains in place.
Other Decisions That Passed
While the statue discussion took most of the attention, Council still moved through key decisions. The contract for the County Road 3 rehabilitation was approved, with Council voting in favour of awarding the project to Earth-Crete Ontario Inc. This project will move forward with resurfacing, drainage upgrades, and infrastructure improvements.
Council also supported an Environmental Advisory Committee request to send a letter to the province about issues with Ontario’s tire recycling system.
These votes passed without major opposition, showing alignment on day-to-day municipal operations even during a divided meeting.
What This Means for Locals
For residents, this meeting highlighted two very different realities happening at once.
On one hand, the roads conversation is not going away. Residents in rural areas are clearly feeling the impact of deteriorating infrastructure, and while Council understands the issue, funding and prioritization remain major hurdles. That means improvements will likely continue to happen slowly and in phases, rather than through large-scale fixes.
On the other hand, the Macdonald statue debate remains unresolved emotionally, even if it is settled procedurally for now. Council chose not to reopen the issue, but the volume of public input showed that opinions in the community are still deeply divided. That tension is not likely to disappear anytime soon.
Finally, this meeting showed how local decisions can carry wider meaning. Something like a road repair affects daily life in a direct way, while something like a statue affects how people feel about living in the community. Council is balancing both, often in the same meeting, with limited time and resources.
For now, roads will move forward incrementally, the statue will stay as is, and the broader conversations around growth, identity, and infrastructure in the County will continue.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 04:28:07. 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.
Comments