Part 2: Inside the Council Debate on Governance Connectivity and Environmental Policy - 05/27/2025

The second half of the May 27, 2025 Council meeting was shaped by strong individual perspectives, with councillors and residents clearly articulating their positions on major issues like Strong Mayor Powers, cell connectivity, and Bill 5. The discussion revealed not just what decisions were made, but how different voices contributed to the direction Council ultimately took.

Debate on Strong Mayor Powers

The most intense discussion of the evening centered on Strong Mayor Powers, and several councillors spoke at length about their concerns.

Steve Ferguson acknowledged that the legislation was introduced without warning and emphasized that it cannot be refused, only delegated. He reassured Council that his approach would remain collaborative. He stated that staff would continue preparing budgets, Council would still debate decisions, and committees would remain council led. His comments were aimed at maintaining stability and trust despite the structural changes.

Photo: PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Phil St Jean took a much firmer stance. He argued that the legislation fundamentally alters the balance of local democracy, especially since it was introduced mid term. He warned that councillors risk becoming irrelevant under such a system. He framed his concern as one of principle, stressing that while current leadership may act responsibly, future mayors may not.

Roy Pennell echoed concerns about the concentration of power. He described the legislation as approaching authoritarian governance and emphasized the importance of accountability. He requested a recorded vote so residents could clearly see how each councillor voted on the issue.

Other councillors, including Kate MacNaughton, Janice Maynard, David Harrison, Sam Grosso, and John Hirsch, also contributed to the discussion. They raised concerns about the erosion of democratic processes, the importance of maintaining staff neutrality, and the potential impact on public trust. While several expressed confidence in the current mayor, they made it clear that their concerns were about the system itself, not the individual holding the role.

In the end, the vote was unanimous. All councillors supported the motion to ask the Province to rescind Strong Mayor Powers, reinforcing a shared commitment to collaborative governance and transparency.

Cell Coverage Discussion and Concerns

During the deputation from the Eastern Ontario Regional Network, councillors shifted focus to the practical issue of cell service improvements.

Phil St Jean, Sam Grosso, and Roy Pennell pressed representatives on the reality that most upgrades currently benefit Rogers customers. They raised concerns about fairness, particularly for residents using other providers who may not see immediate improvements.

EORN representatives responded by explaining that funding limitations made multi carrier infrastructure impossible at this stage. However, they noted that new towers are built to allow future co location by other providers such as Bell. They also acknowledged that coverage gaps remain, especially in more remote areas where devices may connect to United States towers.

This exchange highlighted a key issue for residents. While infrastructure is improving, access remains uneven, and councillors made it clear that this is an ongoing concern that still needs to be addressed.

Public Voices on Bill 5

Public delegations brought a strong community perspective to the discussion on Bill 5.

Penny Morris, Annette McIntosh, and Ian Beverage spoke about the potential impacts of the legislation. They raised concerns about environmental protection, the lack of meaningful Indigenous consultation, and the risks associated with special economic zones. They also connected these concerns to local issues, including development pressures and sensitive environmental areas in the County.

Their input helped ground the discussion in real world implications, emphasizing that provincial policy decisions could directly affect the local community.

Council Response to Bill 5

Following public input, councillors debated a motion opposing Bill 5.

Kate MacNaughton introduced the motion and outlined its key concerns. She argued that the bill prioritizes certain developers over communities, weakens environmental protections, and puts water systems and natural habitats at risk. She also emphasized that the motion was informed by input from the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, ensuring that Indigenous perspectives were included.

John Hirsch focused specifically on the issue of special economic zones. He warned that these zones could allow the Province to override local bylaws and zoning regulations entirely, effectively removing local control over land use decisions.

Chris Roberts supported the motion but added an important perspective. He cautioned against speaking over Indigenous voices and emphasized the importance of respecting their leadership on issues affecting their lands. In response, MacNaughton clarified that the motion was based on direct input from the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, reinforcing that their voices were central to the discussion.

The motion passed with strong support, confirming Council’s opposition to the bill and its potential impacts.

Looking Ahead to Social and Economic Issues

Toward the end of the discussion, Chris Roberts also flagged an upcoming motion focused on affordability and the challenges faced by people with disabilities. He raised concerns that new federal disability benefits could be reduced through provincial clawbacks, limiting their effectiveness.

Although this topic was not debated in detail during this meeting, it signals a growing focus on social equity and cost of living issues that will likely play a larger role in future Council discussions.

A Clear Message from Council

Throughout the meeting, individual voices played a key role in shaping the outcome. Councillors consistently returned to themes of accountability, fairness, and the protection of local decision making.

By the end of the session, Council had taken clear positions on major issues. Through both discussion and formal votes, members signaled their commitment to maintaining democratic processes, addressing infrastructure gaps, and advocating for environmental protection and Indigenous rights.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:05:03. 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.