The Candidate Platforms 2026 page has been updated, including 2022 information, whether they showed favouritism towards bloggers’ questions to the candidates (they did), and Open Air position if known (it’s obvious).
I knew they couldn’t do it. They couldn’t get through the meeting without personal anecdotes, posturing, and not so subtle campaign plugs: I coached baseball (Courtney), when I first got elected, I advocated for baseball (Courtney), I heard when I was knocking on doors last election (Crain), and I played ball as a kid (McArthur). Campaign points deducted for Prue’s mansplaining to Pouget and Allaire’s offhand comments about Kingsbridge traffic – just distracted, there’s accidents everywhere. The hot topic was the concerted effort to avoid public disclosure of the number of lawsuits pending against the town and the associated legal fees.
These are council meetings to discuss council business, but they appear to be meetings between council and admin, who are welcome to participate. Admin whispers into the mayor’s ear and he announces they have something to say.
The perception in the community is that admin directs council – not the other way around.
Shawn Wilkie certainly gave the impression that admin deserves to be recognized, even before members of council. Delegates are there to address council, but Wilkie, a Royal Canadian Legion Fort Malden Branch 157 delegate, greeted, “honourable mayor, deputy mayor, CAO, town of Amherstburg administration and esteemed councillors for the residents of Amherstburg.” (Only serving MPPs are honourable).
Admin are not elected officials – they can’t ask delegates questions, they can’t grant or deny a delegate’s request. Civil servants serve the public by implementing council’s decisions.
Wilkie requested perpetuity for the annual Legion Week parade event permit requirement and all fees associated with the annual event.
Councillor Pouget did not ask if waiving the fees in perpetuity meant forever, as was erroneously written elsewhere.
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT:
Councillor Pouget: just one question – the Legion is requesting it to be waived in perpetuity, forever; is that correct?
Prue: I believe that’s what’s been requested, yes.
Pouget: okay, thank you.
Prue waited almost five seconds and then mansplained: What that means is it never has to come back again. It doesn’t mean that council, 30 years from now might say, no, we don’t want to do this anymore. That’s still within that realm of possibility, but up until then, it just keeps going. Okay, all right.
Listen to the audio.
I don’t recall Prue doing this to his male colleagues. Same for when he tells Pouget, “I don’t know if that was a question or simply a statement.”
Borrowing By-law and Delegation of Authority By-law
Prue invited Deputy CAO Melissa Osborne to make a presentation that might’ve been meant to reassure everyone that all is well with town finances. Confusion followed.
Councillor Crain was the first to raise his hand. Of course he offered kudos to “Deputy CAO Melissa: very helpful report, very positive report. I think online, we see a lot of misinformation. I have lately a lot of AI driven, and it’s very helpful to see the stats on screen. I think this council, past councils, have been making great strides,” said Crain.
There will always be misinformation; I’ve seen it from admin too. For example, when the town erroneously advertised for appointments to the accessibility committee, which I repeatedly pointed out to admin and council, including Crain; he never responded.
Artificial Turf Fields, Premier Baseball Diamond issue. As he usually does, Prue asks if there are any questions of staff before members of council debate the issue. (I’ve watched other municipal council meetings and they are so much more efficient and professional).
Crain said I’m not sure I can make a decision, which seems inconsistent given that Crain, along with the majority of council, approved almost $500,000.00 for pickleball. In fact, council waived rules of order to hear the plea for pickleball in June 2023 when it wasn’t on the radar. Prue even asked the audience what their preferred location was. And then, “the motion has passed; now the thorny issue of how do we pay for it?” said Prue.
Almost a half hour later, after all the ‘what if’ questions, the motion to approve staff recommendation carried.
Kingsbridge Traffic Calming Review
Prue once again asks if there are any questions of staff before members of council debate the issue.
Councillor Allaire said she had a follow up, although there was no initial question.
“It was an old report, so we didn’t have new numbers. We did look at the numbers and asked how many new accidents have happened near and around this intersection? And it was quite high. We have received nine since like 2025 however, I want to back that up with eight of the nine were people just either distracted driving or just hitting cars, parked cars, one backed into a boat; I mean a parked boat, I might add. So I think when you look at things as a whole and as an intersection, it didn’t meet any of these policy standards. …great now that we have a policy, we can see where we should increase the speed and decrease it. So now that we have a baseline, this is great to see, but there’s accidents everywhere, and people are distracted everywhere. So I think enforcement is a huge thing that we could step up on and hopefully work on. But I’m going to move the staff recommendation,” said Allaire.
“Just distracted driving. Just hitting cars.” Sounds dismissive.
A pedestrian was hit; several people were taken to hospital.
According to data from Transport Canada’s National Collision Database, distracted driving contributed to an estimated 22.5% of fatal collisions and 25.5% of serious injury collisions in 2021. These statistics are part of an upward trend of distracted driving-related collisions, up from 21.3% of fatal collisions and 23.8% of serious injury collisions a decade earlier(2011).
“There’s accidents everywhere. People are distracted everywhere.“
Exactly. Reason enough to take action. Distracted driving is a leading cause of traffic collisions in Ontario, with one person injured in a related collision every 30 minutes. In 2022, 105 deaths were recorded in the province due to distracted driving, and about 25% of all fatal collisions in Canada involve distracted drivers.
But Allaire moved admin’s recommendation to receive the report from the Director of Infrastructure Services regarding the 2025 Kingsbridge Traffic Calming Review.
Of course, Crain offered kudos to staff. “Appreciate staff sharing the report. We definitely face traffic issues across town, not just in Kingsbridge. And I understand that the based on the study Kingsbridge Drive, McClellan, Lavers, Whalen did not meet the 35 point threshold. However, what I am hearing from residents, and I know there’s no recommendations to come out of this inside of Kingsbridge, but what I’ve heard when I was knocking on doors last election, I’m hearing it now is a three way stop at Texas, and I believe it’s not maybe Knobb Hill if I’m not mistaken; that intersection is, is there, is it possible on the south end for a three way stop to be there? Is it warranted?”
Admin’s answer was that three or four way stops fall under provincial regulations and a different warrant system, but it’s council’s prerogative.
Crain asked about a third exit out of Kingsbridge and admin said they’ve looked at that a few times with previous councils. It is a very costly endeavor. I don’t recall the number, but it was in the millions of dollars. And those traffic studies did not warrant a third exit. And so when that was presented to previous councils, it was determined that we would not move forward with that expenditure. Once again, council’s prerogative to take a look at it again, but I know that in my time here, we’ve looked at it at least twice, and just the cost and the warrants that didn’t dictate that we required it. Councils decided not to go forward with it.
Pouget responded. I believe one of the objections, or when we did try to get another exit from Kingsbridge was an objection from the Canada Railway Company, because they said it was either we were going to have to have them cross over to exit out of the second concession, or when we are trying to have another exit off Texas. I believe the railway interfered with that also, so I think that was why we couldn’t get the second exit on that. My other concern is that Amherstburg Police is well aware of all the problems within this community and the speeding and the distracted driving, there is nothing here that stops us from requesting them to do more surveillance in those areas, to try and get people to be more knowledgeable about how they should be driving and more aware of the safety factors in that community.
“I don’t know if that was a question or simply a statement,” said Prue. (It would be so refreshing, and fair, if he would do that to McArthur, Gibb and Courtney).
Pouget asked if a letter could be sent to Amherstburg Police, asking them to be more aware of the situation and to periodically send out more patrol cars. Appropriate action taken, as opposed to the usual ‘support the recommendation of administration.’ Motion amended and carried.
Unfinished Business
Pouget wondered when the illegal driveway on Dalhousie Street was going to come before council. She said they dealt with that in planning, it’s got to be a couple months ago,
Osborne very concisely said, it’s coming back on May 25.
Pouget then asked about the 208 St. Arnaud Street issue (the warehouse turned arena).
Osborne very briefly said, as per the question at the last meeting, we advised Council in an email of what the status update is and that an application is to be received from the property owner for a minor variance.
(Council received an email, but the public is not privy to it).
Pouget asked but when will that be held? Because committee of adjustment just had their meeting.
Osborne said administration has to review the application to make sure it’s a complete application, and then they will schedule it for the meeting. Once they do, the proper notices will go out.
Allaire said she “received like three or four emails this past week with regards to the closing of Murray Street. Is there an update coming back on that anytime soon?”
Osborne’s answer was a little bit more forthcoming than her answer to Pouget:
“No, there is not. This matter came up at the Economic Development Committee meeting as well, and what we clarified is with the new unexpected project associated with closing Richmond, that’s going to be a substantial one. We’re focusing first on the businesses associated with that required closure. It will also help to inform how we approach the businesses on Murray at some point in the future when we have that discussion,” said Osborne.
Prue asked if there were any notices of motion but then realized he skipped new business.
New Business
Crain mentioned an email to all Council and staff but wanted to ask publicly for feedback. With regards to incentives for ADUs, permit fee rebates, development charge exemptions, reductions, forgivable loan programs, community improvement incentives and streamlined approvals for compliant units; have they considered any incentives for ADUs?
Osborne answered; again, a little more forthcoming than her very brief answers to Pouget:
“So if Council will recall, there was housing accelerator funding which had come to council in that particular incentive program, those funds were allotted to municipalities that were willing to make adjustments in their zoning by laws unilaterally to allow for buildings as of right and other provisions. So this council in advance of the official plan amendment that was going to happen, as well as the zoning elected to allow those to happen, rather than making a decision on those matters at that meeting in order to apply for those funding sources. So we’ve not put forward any new incentive programs. And the email you’re referring to, the municipalities that they’re talking about did make those changes in their communities. They’re not funded directly only from the municipality. They’re part of the housing accelerator funding.”
So, no.
Courtney gave a speech about supporting Amherstburg Minor Baseball Association and said he had a question, but he continued his speech. Then he said he had a question, continued speaking and finally asked, what does staff need to let them know, to put this back on the radar? And, more speech.
(Prue didn’t announce it was a statement like he did for Pouget).
Osborne answered: the current capital budget does have identified in future years funding under the parks master plan so that council can determine which next set of amenities as approved in the parks master plan should move forward. It is a place holder values, so I would suggest that there is opportunity in the next capital budget cycle for those directions to be provided.
Courtney asked for help in wording a motion, which Osborne supplied: if I may assist in that – that council direct administration to identify for the 2027-28 year capital budget, funding currently in the parks master plan, placeholder values which would address washroom and canteen facility at that park.
Pouget read a prepared motion: to direct administration to provide council with a full report at our next public council meeting, the status of a motion that was passed unanimously in May of 2016 for the town of Amherstburg to fund and erect a plaque in front of the former Senator Eugene Whelan and his wife Mrs. Elizabeth Whelan’s home on Front Road North for their role in hosting the former Soviet Ambassador Alexander Yakovlev and Mikhail Gorbachev while visiting our historic town, marking the location of the historic, historically known as ‘the walk that changed the world.’
Pouget mentioned this motion was passed in May of 2016 and it was unanimous. And somehow or other, this motion got lost. It was never reconsidered, and I’m asking for a full report to come back to council regarding the status of this motion, I do have all the documentation that was presented at that time, all the newspaper reports, the actual pictures of them with Senator Whelan, and what brought it to light is that Kirk Walstedt, who used to work for Senator Whelan and is Deputy Mayor of Lakeshore, asked county council to provide that information. I went back and received it all, contacted the Whelen family, and also Paul Hertel’s wife for her permission to forward it, because he did all the research, and I’m prepared to present it so that you, the clerk, may look it up and see why we haven’t acted on that thing from 10 years. It’s only been 10 years and it was passed; it was unanimous.
Also see: In 1983, Gorbachev took a stroll in small-town Ontario that helped shape the future of the Soviet Union – TVO.
Admin said they could bring back that information and mentioned there was a plaque installed in the Navy Yard Park.
Pouget said they only recognized Senator Whelan that day with a rock, and the rock remains in the park. But this was to be put up at the beginning of the driveway of his house, because he actually took the two Soviet Union leaders at a time that there were a lot of problems in that area, and that’s when they claimed that it was the ‘walk that changed the world.’ I think that’s really, really important, that we acknowledge that historical function in the town of Amherstburg.
Prue said it was a fairly simple request, just bring back something that’s 10 years old and find out what happened to it. Motion carried.
And then the mood changed.
Pouget said she had a motion to direct administration to provide council with a complete report of any pending lawsuits against the town of Amherstburg, the estimated cost to date to defend our town and how we will pay for these possible expenses.
Allaire seconded the motion.
Alarms sounded, security doors closed, and window bars were activated. No, not really, but that’s how the scene played out.
Pouget explained in the past few weeks, she’s been getting the same question over and over again – how many lawsuits do we have? And they are specifically referring to the lawsuit that is being brought before us in the Superior Court Toronto on May 15, filed October 2025. It currently says the town of Amherstburg is unrepresented, and I think it’s very unfair that the public knows about this, and yet I as a councillor, have to say I know nothing about it, and that’s why I’m asking for this report to come back to council. I think we are entitled to know when we have major lawsuits against us.
(Of course council is entitled to know; so is the public).
Prue’s dissuasion seemed obvious.
“I mean, I don’t know whether this, we live in the litigious society, and I’m not sure whether the staff can report on every person or group of persons who wants to sue us. Very often, they just end up being there for years, and there’s nothing to them, and they’re not defended, and they’re eventually thrown out…but I’ll let staff answer this question. I think Mr. Clerk has something to say, and I think Madam Deputy CEO also has something to say on this,” said Prue.
Clerk: “I have heard from a resident about, you know, claims that exist, that they say are before the courts, for which the town has no notice and no record previously, when we received that months ago, you know, we investigated that. We sent somebody down to the courts. We looked into it. There was no validity to the claims. So certainly, you know, happy to look into this again and pursue it, but sometimes, you know, there’s some mistakes that are made in terms of what people believe might be before the courts. We are required by law to receive formal notice that does come to me as the clerk. So if something were to be filed with the courts, they would have to duly serve notice and prove that they had served that notice upon me. So if that notice hasn’t been provided, then you know they wouldn’t have met the requirements in law.”
Pouget said she had the case in front of her and will send it to him, and it says it was filed the 29th day of October, 2025; the file is active. And it it goes on to say, well, who the parties are and it says the town of Amherstburg is currently not being represented at this time, and it’s before the courts on the 15th in Toronto, Superior Court.
Prue asked, is it just the one case?
Pouget said she only had the one case be in front of her.
Prue: “Well, I mean, the motion is asking for a staff report on all the cases, so it’s just one case. I think the clerk can clear it up whether we’ve actually been served, and sometimes in these court cases, if it’s a damage claim, they will sue everything from the King down to the school board and everybody in between, you know. And if that’s what it is, I don’t know. I just don’t know what this one is. But is it all right just for the clerk to answer your question?”
Pouget thought it should come back to the public, to council; “if it’s a public document and we have to pay fees for representation, I think public business is public business”, said Pouget.
Prue: “okay, but we wouldn’t pay a fee. I’m just trying to understand this. We would not pay a fee if we have not been served. So first of all, I need to find out from the clerk whether we’ve been served, and if we’ve been served, who our solicitor is and how much it’s going to cost. That would have to come back in camera as well.”
(Pouget asked for a report, so admin would’ve obtained all the information requested. In-camera would maintain confidentially; however, public disclosure of the number of lawsuits and associated legal fees would be allowed and would be transparent).
Pouget said no.
Prue asked, should that be the report?
Pouget said no.
Prue said, “I’m not trying to stop it. I’m just trying to tell you. But you have to finesse it a little bit. You ask the clerk to find out. You look at it if we have, if we have been served, he will, he will tell you. And so, and then, and then, then we’ll have to determine if we’re hiring a solicitor to defend us, and then Council will be informed in camera of the cost and the likelihood of success, as we do other in camera.”
Clerk: rather than the motion that’s before us tonight, you know, happy to provide a confidential email to council on the status of the particular one that is of concern. The motion before us is rather vast and would take a lot of time to gather all the potential lawsuits. As you know, anybody can sue anybody for anything. It doesn’t mean it has merit. And I think probably in this case, you have a more pointed answer, happy to provide those details to council.
(If anyone is to determine if a motion is appropriate, it’s the chair, in this case Prue – it’ s not admin’s role. If a duly moved and seconded motion is vast, then it is what it is and it gets voted on).
Prue asked, is that sufficient?
“I guess it has to be,” said Pouget.
“Well, it doesn’t have to be. I mean, if you and the seconder wanted to proceed to a vote, it can; you risk it not being passed, but, but you also risk, but you also have the potential of Council, all of Council, wanting this, or you can just get the information you want with no risk at all. So it’s your choice,” said Prue.
(Yes, Pouget, consider your options with an emphasis on the risk).
“No, I would like this to be made public,” said Pouget.
“All right, then we have a motion moved and seconded. Any other discussion? All those in favour? Opposed; the motion is lost,” said Prue.
(I can imagine the sigh of relief).
McArthur thought “it would it be in order to make a motion that the clerk respond to Councillor Pouget’s specific email about a specific case, because that’s something that can assuage concerns without wasting a significant amount of resources. If that’s proper, considering the vote just failed, I’ll make that motion. That’s what I offered.”
(I wonder what significant amount of resources would be required, given a computer search should return results within minutes).
(Pouget’s motion was in order; it just lacked the political will to commit to transparency).
Prue didn’t think he could do that again today on the same issue. (Why not? New motion).
Pouget appreciated McArthur’s effort but said if the clerk provides her with his legal opinion about this, she can’t share it with anybody.
McArthur told Pouget she could share the public document with anyone. (technically, copyright of court documents belongs to the Queen’s Printer so you need permission to publish).
Gibb chimed in with, “we could have talked about it tonight. It’s a public document. You know, I don’t know why there’s any secrecy to it. We could have just discussed what was in that document. So I’m not sure why it’s gone this far, but I guess we’ll wait to hear back from the clerk.”
(If Gibb doesn’t know why there’s any secrecy to it, why didn’t he vote in favour of Pouget’s motion to get a report back on ALL lawsuits against the town?)
Meeting adjourned at 7:52 pm.
We need action, not more rhetoric.
From the Essex County News update about the Essex County Accessibility Advisory Committee’s ‘Fest-for-all’.
“Amherstburg is honoured to host this event and there’s no better place to host it than the Libro Centre – an accessible facility and the home of Canada’s first ever Miracle League,” said Amherstburg Mayor Michael Prue. “There will be something for everyone at this amazing festival and it is my hope people come to Amherstburg from far and wide to learn more about accessibility issues and the importance of building inclusive, barrier-free communities.”
Mayor Michael Prue
Well I have been advocating for over 3 decades for accessibility by delegating, emailing, blogging, and writing letters to the editor. I resorted to a human rights complaint against the town to gain equal access to the library following my 10-year campaign.
Both staff and members of council, other than Councillor Pouget, have dismissed the existence of Open Air barriers. The number one complaint in the residents’ Open Air survey is accessibility but council did not take any meaningful action about it.
Councillor Crain
Councillor McArthur
Deputy Mayor Gibb
Mayor Prue
To ensure that anyone interested would like to read an accurate blog post about my April 14 delegation to Amherstburg council I’m sharing this document, which is what I actually stated. I reminded council that consultation with persons with disabilities was mandatory and I requested council to create a process to ensure compliance with the AODA Regulation, embrace the spirit of the AODA and to create an engagement policy, a topic that wasn’t discussed much and one which was not granted.
Jack Purdie Park Trail
In response to Councillor Pouget’s questions, the clerk outlined a four step consultation process that included consulting the accessibility committee and the public, which is what I pointed out. The AODA Regulation clearly states that, aside from the public and accessibility committee, it is mandatory to consult people with disabilities. Council’s lengthy discussion about the Jack Purdie Park trail then focused on the approximate $100,000. over-expenditure and procurement processes.
McArthur spoke about the condition of the trail and said they need to fix the trails in that park. It’ll benefit the people in the monopoly subdivision, will benefit the entire community, it will benefit the 6300 people with accessibility issues in town (people don’t have accessibility issues, they have disabilities and I bet he didn’t know about the 6300 people until I mentioned it that night) because it is going to make a wider path from a narrow one. It’s going to fix a patchwork of alligator cracks, and it’s going to be AODA compliant. (He actually mentioned AODA complaint).
Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb thought it was time to deliver for the people who live in that area. He believed it was the parks master plan, one of the top amenities that people wanted were walking trails so it checks that box for him. It’s unfortunate that it’s over budget, but costs are rising faster than anybody can account for them, which is certainly no fun. But we got to do what we got to do. I like the idea of having this in the park so that kids learning to ride bikes or roller blade or whatever can do it in the park rather than on the streets or on the sidewalks.
Councillor Crain parroted the master plan and he likes how they’re incorporating a number of trees and they’re now going to be making this pathway accessible; it went to the accessibility committee as well. (I don’t think he watched the accessibility committee meeting because the committee just sat there without any comments or questions, other than one member who asked how much over budget they were, $100,000. and the clerk interjected to say financials really are not in the realm of the advisory committees). About the high cost, well it’s very difficult for staff to catch up to that point when it is put out to tender.
Councillor Pouget said she would be voting against this; she cannot in good conscience vote for this. In a perfect world, maybe back in 2022 things were so different. Now in 2025 our residents fear for their livelihood. They’ve heard over and over again the food bank cannot keep up; they have over 27% increase with the needs of our municipality, and the mission is the same way. People are fearing for their jobs and their livelihood; they don’t know how they’re going to put food on the table and provide the necessities of life for their family. She believed it was unreasonable and unfair to approve a large, $100,000 over-expenditure for an eighth trail and the third large sliding hill in these tough economic times. This council cannot justify spending this large amount of money on a want instead of a need when Council must approve $191,303 for a boiler replacement tonight, and take $91,000 from reserves at the Libro, pay $3 million for a fire truck and another $91,000 taken from reserves. These are necessary needs. The track and hill are not a need; they are a want. This money for this expenditure, for this already beautiful park, would be better used to pay for the unforeseen costs of the expansion of our water treatment plant, the new policing replacement and contract, the town hall, the former Duffy’s property, and the upgrades and necessary repairs to all municipal buildings, crumbling infrastructure and replacement of dwindling reserves. It’s unfair to pour additional money to one park while other parks have been neglected, and it’s unreasonable to approve this over expenditure on a $30,000 grant from Enbridge that is currently unknown. It is ridiculous to approve this expenditure on these wants instead of these needs, when washrooms and shade cover are more important for this park. Just this past week, we were told that they couldn’t afford to repair the window sills at the library unless it went to the heritage committee and to the 2026 budget. Today, they were told they can’t fix six concession north, even though it’s in deplorable condition to the 2031 budget. For these reasons, I think that what we should be doing is taking a pause on this park and until our economy improves.
Mayor Prue passed the gavel to reminisce and praise Councillor Allaire. Prue mentioned sitting there in 2021 and talking about this park and an administration motion to sell a portion of the park off in order to get enough money to build what we’re building today. Well, ‘God bless Councillor Allaire, because she wasn’t a councillor then, but she went around that whole area putting up signs and organized the community. The community wanted no part of that park being sold off.’ (Generalized statements about survey results are often made, including claims that everyone wants it. As someone in the Jack Purdie Park survey commented, “Only approx. 369 people out of a town of 22,000 completed the survey. Why was some affordable housing options dismissed completely based on a survey completed by 369 persons out of 22,000 persons population?? A lot of power given to 369 opinions.”
Prue continued with his speech. What they wanted, and what they’re getting, is that park to be developed and we have fought for this for the last four and a half years for this to be a jewel, and I’m disappointed that it cost me more money than we thought it was going to cost but I will tell you that the council has to think long term. We have to listen to the residents. The community organized itself and said exactly what they wanted in this park. They’ve gone to all the meetings. They’ve told the staff what they want. They’ve gone to the meetings with the Parks and Recreation Committee. They’ve gone to the meetings with the accessibility committee. They’ve gone and explained every single aspect that’s necessary. I wish it was less money. Yes, I do. But remember, there are 12 people, 12 separate companies bid on this, 12 of them, and this was the lowest. So I don’t think we’re getting bamboozled here. I think that’s just the cost. So you either believe in those things that we said four and a half years ago or five years ago, and you believe in what the community wants and it’s the right thing to do, or you don’t, yes, can we save the money? Yes. Can we do something else? Yes, but I will tell you, there will be a lot of disappointed people in the monopoly area, all those kids (there’s about 2600 children ages 0-14 in town), all those parents, all those people have spent four and a half years fighting for this to see it go down the tubes. And I won’t let that happen.
In the end, the project was approved with only Councillor Pouget opposing the project.
Following the 2022 election, I asked Crain the following questions. He answered. Then at some point he blocked me. I asked him why but didn’t get an answer. Actions do speak louder than words because he hasn’t always remained ‘available to address concerns any resident faces in the Town of Amherstburg.’
of the accessibility information the town provided to you for your campaign, which did you read?
I read all election material provided by the Town throughout my campaign, including any information pertaining to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.
what trainings have you participated in for accessibility legislation, for example, as an employee, volunteer, etc.?
Both the Town of Amherstburg and the County of Essex members of Council have received training on accessibility. I have also been advised that Administration will be doing a special session on accessibility in the first quarter of 2023.
how will you fulfill the obligation to remove barriers?
The Open Air Report is on tonight’s meeting agenda and I predict another majority vote in favour, not necessarily a 4-3 vote.
Everyone on council knows about the accessibility issues because everyone is aware of the number of times I complained, despite the rebuttals; but now the survey results indicate more people have noted the accessibility and parking concerns.
Councillor Crain: I’ll start with the sole opposition to this survey. In August, Crain said he can’t grasp why Open Air specifically; they’ve done an Open Air survey for residents and businesses so he felt a survey just on Open Air seems to be wasting staff time.
CAO Critchley confirmed in an email that they have surveyed visitors and the businesses inside and outside the footprint but not a resident wide survey.
On February 22, Crain asked staff, hasn’t the past Council already looked at ways to refine open air and that’s why some of the barricades were moved in closer? This feels a bit redundant to me if this has already been looked at by council. And from last night and from what we’ve been hearing, it’s pretty clear that the format is great. But based on my understanding, council’s already looked at this.
Crain was part of the team that created the THRIVE Open Air white paper; from the THRIVE website, ‘We believe that it should be a permanent summer feature.’
On March 13, Crain said he didn’t even think Open Air should have been a topic of discussion. He also thought they shouldn’t even be discussing this every year because eventually it’s going to be nothing.
On September 16, I asked Crain if he considered declaring a conflict of interest for Open Air discussions involving the event itself and the survey? No response.
As a candidate, in answer to one of the burg watch 2022 campaign questions to the candidates asking if they will remove barriers during Open Air weekends, Crain said yes. He voted in favour.
Councillor McArthur: has happily and consistently championed Open Air. As council’s rep to the Accessibility Advisory Committee, I expected he would advocate to remove barriers. He spewed out the statistics from an admin report on the number of parking spaces within a six-minute walking radius. ‘If there are persisting issues with accessibility, let’s work collaboratively to address them in consultation with the Town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee.’ But he’s on the committee. He voted in favour.
Deputy Mayor Gibb: wears a few hats: business owner, chamber of commerce member, family member, elected official but he publicly admitted he’s a huge fan. While he emailed, as Deputy Mayor, that he was ‘proud to say that I did complete the ADOA training that was offered to all members of council and I hope to put what I learned into practice not only in my “municipal life” but also in my personal life. And then he said, Open Air makes the downtown more accessible for people with in at least in wheelchairs because his mother-in-law and father-in-law both live at Richmond Terrace and he’s personally pushed a wheelchair from Richmond Terrace downtown. He voted in favour.
Mayor Prue: has given a few speeches at council meetings about being in the legislature when the AODA was introduced decades ago. He stated he has never seen any problem with access and cited his wife as Chair of the Accessibility Committee. I have discussed it with her, she has never once said that there was any accessibility problem brought to that committee or anyone on the committee. He acknowledged one complainant, but he doesn’t necessarily agree with what’s being said; so it is accessible.
Prue asked council to find it in their hearts to compromise with the other side; he broke the tie vote in favour.
Councillor Pouget: has consistently acknowledged the town’s obligation to remove barriers that prevent people with disabilities from equally participating in the community.
Councillor Courtney: has also acknowledged the importance of accessibility, removing barriers and considering the interests of the whole community.
Councillor Allaire: considered pros and cons and seemed to want to compromise in favour of a shorter time frame.
Considering that Councillor Crain Didn’t Correct Errors regarding his motion at the council or committee meeting, I thought Crain was hypocritical at the October 23 council meeting for objecting to Councillor Pouget’s notice of motion for being worded differently than noted in the minutes.
I also thought Crain was hypercritical of Pouget’s motion because his objection was based on his perception that the motion wording undermines the work of staff. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard such staunch cheerleading of staff but he was elected to represent the public interest, including tree canopy issues that are within the duties of council.
On October 10, 2023 Councillor Pouget believed a notice of motion was in order to direct administration to provide the parks committee and environmental committee a complete report regarding the 2017 tree study on town property.
On October 23, 2023, Pouget read the notice of motion and looked for a seconder.
Councillor Crain said something inaudible and Mayor Prue stated he had an objection that it’s not the same; he asked Crain to explain the nature of the objection.
Crain said it’s not the same notice of motion that’s included in the agenda.
Prue asked Pouget to withdraw the first motion and read the second one and see if there’s a seconder; Councillor Allaire seconded.
Crain then stated, just to seek clarification to staff; is it true that we do not have a maintenance policy for the planting of new trees?
Staff answered that the town has a tree bylaw that speaks to tree trimming and maintaining. Crain then stated so the new trees are added into our total tree inventory and then based on this bylaw that we already have are continually maintained already so it’s not that there’s no policy, it’s that new trees are now considered old once they’re planted and then maintained over time.
After staff spoke again, Crain made his position known: I won’t be supporting the motion. I find that the way this motion is worded is implying that our arborist and staff are taking down fair to good condition trees, which in my opinion, I do not believe is happening. I’m not sure where this assumption is coming from and especially with reducing Norway maples. We have this maintenance program already and just the way it’s worded I find that it undermines the work of staff so I won’t be supporting it.
Pouget stated she brought this before to council and that they go and look at these trees; no one apparently has, but when she’s talking about maintenance, they do not water these trees that need watering in the first two years.
Councillor Allaire asked about Windsor’s practice and shared a personal anecdote about growing up on a farm.
Councillor McArthur chimed in and asked if they were removing trees in fairly good condition and why would they be doing that.
More back and forth and more time wasted spent on staff participation and then Allaire stated it seems like our staff is doing a good job and following all the rules that they have implemented over the years. She appreciates the idea of providing the parks and rec committee and the environmental committee with the tree study and she thinks that’s a good portion of Pouget’s notice of motion and if she were willing to take a friendly amendment, she would support that.
As if staff hadn’t taken up enough time, Prue then invited the clerk to speak.
Pouget stated she couldn’t agree to the friendly amendment – she asked that the committees be given all the pertinent information. Pouget also wanted to go on record that she resents Councillor Linden Crain making a statement like he did against her, that he made a face, and made a statement against her that she was trying to undermine the arborist or public works and that was never her intent.
Prue stated her point was well taken and let’s not degenerate here into name calling or argument.
WAIT, WHAT? I didn’t hear any name calling! I’ve written several posts about the lack of decorum and incivility. Prue really needs to step up and act in the first instance, consistently, and not leave it up to individual councillors to defend themselves.
Pouget stated that shouldn’t have happened and Prue should have stopped it from the beginning and she asked Pure to speak on the Bellevue issue regarding what he witnessed.
During the October 12 Heritage Committee meeting, Frank DiPasquale made comments about Brittany Bolger that, to me, were offensive.
The heritage committee was discussing the street naming policy when the town’s heritage planner mentioned other municipalities implement an asset naming policy and Councillor Crain was working on a motion wording.
Listen to the audio.
DiPasquale mentioned generally they use those who served in our military and those who gave up their lives and he agrees with that. He mentioned when Mr. Bolger came and wanted to name his subdivision after his daughter, Brittany, and I believe Council followed through with that, the concern was that he had she is an individual with special needs and disabilities, she soldiers on every day with a positive attitude. He didn’t think there’s not anyone in uniform alive or not that would not tip their hat and be honoured to have their street named after this young lady. He suggested there’ll be other examples of that coming in the future where there’s people that may have special needs or special challenges and he thought they should keep that in mind too.
DiPasquale was a 2022 municipal candidate that, like all other candidates, should have received accessibility materials from the town.
Once again, I emailed council members that this clearly indicates the need for more training, although he should have received it by now. I also shared:
COMMON MYTHS ABOUT DISABILITIES:
Pity
People feel sorry for the person with a disability, which tends to lead to patronizing attitudes. Persons with disabilities generally don’t want pity and charity, just equal opportunity to make their own way and live independently.
Hero Worship
People consider someone with a disability who lives independently or pursues studies to be brave or “special” for overcoming a disability. Most persons with disabilities do not want accolades for performing day-to-day tasks.
Worth repeating: the late disability activist Stella Young says it all so well; one of my favourite videos.
On October 3, I emailed council members: the august 10 heritage committee meeting minutes are listed on the october 12 heritage committee meeting agenda for approval, although council approved the august 10 heritage committee minutes at the september 25 council meeting. councillor crain mentioned he was on the heritage committee and he did move a motion at the august 10 committee meeting, but the minutes do not reflect that his motion carried. i believe councillor pouget is correct in stating that public minutes should be corrected at public meetings, as per rules of order, so i trust this will be given consistent attention.
Wrong.
At the October 10 council meeting, Councillor Pouget was the only one to note the motion wasn’t marked as being carried.
The clerk said yes, there was a typo. That was more than a typo – it was an omission. Meeting chairs ask if there are any errors or omissions, not if there are any typos.
Even though Pouget noted the error, the same erroneous August 10 Heritage Committee minutes were on the October 12 Heritage Committee agenda.
While Councillor Crain was present at the October 12 Heritage Committee meeting, he didn’t mention the error of the missing ‘motion carried’ or his misquoted motion.
These are typos: the October 12 Heritage Committee agenda states:
and
8.2 River Town Tiles Article – River Canard Bridge Plaque
AUGUST 10 HERITAGE COMMITTEE MEETING: Crain is on the heritage committee and was present for the agenda that included three documents for item 8.2 Brittany’s Gate – Street Naming Request:
Crain took part in the August 10 committee discussion about the street naming policy and also moved a recommendation to council that the heritage committee reviews the updated street name and street naming policy and inventory list once completed by administration before the final amendments are adopted at a regular council meeting.
Heritage committee chair Simon Chamely thought it would be brought back for the September 21 meeting, although that meeting was in-camera to deal with expressions of interest.
When Shirley Curson-Prue asked if it would be an October issue, clerk answered that it would depend on how far along the policy is in its review; most likely it would be more like October than the next meeting.
Chamely asked if they were able to do that; is that not writing policy?
Crain answered and referenced the recommendation; it’s not that they write the policy its that they review and if there are certain aspects of the policy that they don’t believe should be there, then they can provide a recommendation to council saying, hey, maybe we should be taking out this line because it creates this restriction. So not that they’re writing anything at all; that’s what the clerk’s office and Adam will be working on. It’s more of just review, similar to any policy that’s reviewed by council. You’re providing an outside perspective on where amendments could be made.
The motion was read aloud again: recommendation to council that the heritage committee reviews the updated street name and street naming policy and inventory list once completed by administration, before the final amendments are adopted at a regular council meeting.
August 10 minutes state the motion: That the Heritage Committee REVIEW the updated Street Naming Policy and inventory before final adoption by Council which, as mentioned in this post, More Erroneous Minutes, did not indicate that the motion carried.
SEPTEMBER 25 COUNCIL MEETING: Crain was present where the agenda included three documents for item 13.2: Street Naming – Brittany Crescent and Stone Street:
During the September 25 discussion of Brittany’s Gate, Crain asked staff if the current street naming policy that they have in place, he couldn’t recall, looking for clarification, is that policy out of date and currently being reviewed.
By this time, Crain would have heard the word ‘review‘ six times, including using it in his August 10 motion and he would have read it once in the August 10 minutes on the September 25 council agenda.
The clerk answered: there is a review ongoing for the policy. It’s not currently out of conformance with existing policies. but there has been some discussion around ways to streamline some of the processes involved.
Deputy CAO Osbourne jumped in to add that there will be a report coming forward to council she believed October 10 or the second meeting in October.
And the item is on the October 10 agenda after all. Crain’s August 10 motion for the heritage committee review the updated policy and list before adoption by council seems redundant since the committee meets October 12 to once again discuss the same issue.
The October 10 council meeting agenda includes:
Agenda item 14.2 Municipal Street Naming Policy Update 2023
The October 12 Heritage Committee meeting agenda also includes:
Agenda item 7.2 Municipal Street Naming Policy Update
the burg watch 