This Was Never Just About a Statue on Main Street
- PECConnect
- Apr 17
- 3 min read
The real issue in Prince Edward County council this week was not just a bronze statue that goes back on Main Street. It was the feeling that a fight many residents thought had already been dealt with. After years of public discussion, conflict and reflection - this topic was suddenly reopened.
The immediate spark came fom a deputation from Mark Johnson of Save Our History, who urged the council to explore bringing Sir John A. Macdonald’s "Holding Court" sculpture back into public view. That request was enough to reopen a wound that has never fully healed in Picton. For some residents the proposal and the idea is offensive on its face as Macdonald remains tied to policies that harmed Indigenous people and helped shape the residential school system. For others, the concern is just as much about process, time, and money. Residents want to know why the council is revisiting a monument question after the statue was removed in 2021 and after the County already moved ahead with a different response through the "A Path Forward" exhibit.
The frustration comes through clearly shared a reaction after the meeting. Supporters of the statue’s return described the push as ill-conceived and praised the local speakers who showed up to oppose it on short notice. In the comment thread, some people simply called the result good news. Others asked more practical questions: if there is already direction to return the statue to the donor, what is the hold-up? What is the County paying for storage, handling, or liability while the matter drags on? And why did so much council time go to the statue when residents are also staring at road and infrastructure problems that feel far more urgent in daily life?
Some of those concerns rest on solid ground. Records in the County showed the statue was donated in 2015 at no cost to the municipality as public art for Picton Main Street. In June 2021, the council voted to remove it and place it in secure temporary storage while its future was being discussed. A year later, the staff recommended a formal return of the sculpture to the donor.
At the same time, the County partnered with Tsi Tyónnheht Onkwawén:na, and the Gord Downie & Chanie Wenjack Fund to create "A Path Forward," a permanent exhibit built to tell a fuller story about truth, reconciliation, and local history. That means residents are not imagining the larger arc here. There really was a shift away from keeping the statue in a place of straightforward public honour.
At the same time, not every claim made around this latest meeting is equally weighted. Issues and allegations about who coordinated which speakers, or what individual councillors intended behind the scenes, are still allegations unless backed by meeting records or other verified evidence. That distinction matters as the strongest version of this story does not rely on speculation or assumptions about motive. It is the one that shows why people are so tired of seeing this issue return.
That feeling from residents helps explain why the debate resists simple framing or easy slogans. The question in Prince Edward County is no longer just John A. Macdonald mattered in Canadian history. Of course he did. The question is what it means, when it gives him renewed pride of place in public space after years of reckoning over colonial history, residential schools, and the ongoing impacts of those policies.
If the council chooses to revisit the statue again, it will need to do more than talk about heritage. It will have to clearly explain how that strategy aligns to its previous decisions, need to answer the public’s practical questions, explain how that move fits with its earlier decisions, address residents' concern and the community.
They see it as a statement about whose history is centred, whose pain is discounted, and whether the County has actually learned anything from the debate the statue already set off.
That is the core of the backlash. People are not simply reacting to the issue of the sculpture. They are reacting to the sense that the community was pushed back into an argument it had already spent years trying to handle with more context, more care, and a fuller understanding of what this history means.
At this point, the question facing residents is a simple one even if the answer is not: do you think this issue was settled already or should the council have reopened it?
Comments