to conservation authorities. These two— this
ERO posting looked at two pieces, one including
how boards would be established and the other around
some restrictions associated with naming individuals
to the upper level board. Staff have
compiled and put together draft comments in line
with previously approved advocacy platforms,
and those are attached to the report for review.
I do want to note that at the time of drafting this report,
we didn't have specific information around the individualized
numbers for those, and these were estimates.
Since that time we have received those numbers and
there's slight differentiations. However, generally you're
looking at a significant number of appointments in the east,
with Bruce County still looking at one appointment
to this amalgamated CA. With that,
I will leave it there and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. There is
a resolution that staff be directed to submit the comments attached to Report GR-2026-03 -34
to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks as part of ERO posting 026-0740.
Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by Kirkland, seconded by Katz.
Any discussion?
No discussion. Well, I wanna— the— oh,
sorry, uh, Councillor Peabody and then the Deputy Warden.
I just think we have to oppose this
allocation very vigorously. If you
look at the bottom of that chart there, giving one
appointment to Bruce County and then one to Durham,
Kawartha Lakes, Orillia. If you look at the map,
those appointments have extremely small Number
of square kilometers compared to Bruce County, it's, um,
this chart, this appointment system is absolutely unacceptable, and there's
no way we can accept this. It's a total misrepresentation
of what our two watersheds
are. It's absolutely wrong.
Yeah, thank you very much. Uh, the Deputy Warden.
Yes, much along the same lines as Chris. We're going to be left out
in the cold here is what I believe. Um, I'm not sure how to
get them to change their mind on these appointments, but we
need more representation along Lake Huron shoreline, whether it's
Bruce County, Huron County, or how we do it. But I think we each deserve
more representation along That shoreline.
What we did hear from the delegation earlier, and I heard a lot of comments
from members in support of the delegation with respect to a smaller
Conservation Authority. If you had a smaller Conservation Authority, the size, the number of
representatives you had would be, you know, would be—
if you could have fewer representatives in a smaller organization and your weight
would increase, right? So I think the problem, the fundamental problem here is is that
when you get mixed in with Simpcw County and Barrie and
all these people, places with huge populations, then your voice
gets diminished. And it probably will be diminished in the end. Um,
there are not very many ways to structure representation in a board
like a Conservation Authority. Population is one way to do it, and that's probably
how it's going to be done. And as long as we're in the mix with
these great big, big urban centers, we're going to be we're gonna be
a small voice, right? So, I mean, the key thing is to not
be in the mix with these great big urban centers, right? So I think it
comes down to maybe adding, adding something to these
comments along the lines of, you know, we oppose
the structure of the Conservation Authority that's being proposed fundamentally,
that we need it to be smaller. We need to have a— need to perhaps
propose what Mr. McGoogan has proposed,
which is to separate the proposed
Conservation Authority into two. And then, you know,
if we have a truly Lake Huron Conservation Authority that
is smaller, then we can talk about representation by population,
and our voice will be a lot stronger
in a Conservation Authority that's structured that way. But I think we just sort of
need to reject the whole structure. We can't—
this, this geography isn't going to work,
and this level of representation in that geography isn't going to work. And I think
we need to make that point as clearly as we can. I got the impression
from members that that was the general view on Council, and I think we could—
if it is, then we can direct staff to adjust
these comments to reflect that. My thoughts. The Deputy Warden.
Thank you. And through you, Warden, I completely agree. Of course, here in Kinloss
and put the delegation in on them basis. We are asking for a
smaller Conservation Authority along the shorelines, and I'm hoping Bruce
County will come on side with that. I think then we could
get some fair representation, like you say. If it's population-based,
I'm fine with that along the shorelines. We would have our share.
So, um, that's what we would be asking, is the support,
our ask of the minister. Okay, any further comments?
Kirkland, then Getz. Um, and, and I might have missed something,
but have we— in a lot of other things we ask for SAHN's
advice or, or approvals in, in certain instances
on planning, on the way we want to see this area, and Bruce
County is in the SAHN territory. So we asked for a comment from
SAHN on this type of thing, from Conservation Authority,
or is Is that something that would be wise or
not needed? Any thoughts from the
CAO or the director of the CAO? Sure, through you, Warden. So,
SAAHN does at times make comment themselves directly
on postings such as this. This is a provincial-level decision.
And so, you know, typically when there's an ER posting like this, we're providing comments
from the framework of Bruce County. If either the director
of government relations or director of planning has anything to add there,
do, but, but sawn may be making their own comments on the posting.
Councillor Goetz, thank you. Through you, Warden Charbonneau,
um, sometimes I find it useful if you
put it in terms that they could understand. And if this works, if they
believe this will work for the conservation authorities to amalgamate such
a big area, then perhaps it'll work for the ridings of our MPPs.
And look how many MPPs you could get rid of. Look at the cost savings
there. Excellent point. Thank you
for that. Uh, are there further, uh,
comments, uh, questions? Councilor Hamill.
Well, uh, first I want to clearly state that, uh,
my, my thoughts are, are pretty near the same as my colleagues
here. I, I do have a question that's contrary to that though,
just for a conversation, and the contrary question is,
is Do we not want the more densely
populated areas helping us pay for
the less densely populated areas?
Like, we could— if we're— if we have less population
to pay for the projects and the overall running of the area,
we could be paying, you know, twice or three times per person than
a densely populated area has for, you know, the smaller
area. So I don't
have those details. It's an open-ended question. I agree with this,
but I also wonder if, if therefore what
we're asking for 10 years from now or 20 years from now,
it'll be very costly to maintain
if we go that path instead of, you know, having a larger
region helping us because we're we're,
um, we're a big part of, you know, the water going in and the
water going out of those, those regions, and therefore they should help,
help us out a little bit. That's where I'm, I'm just
going to put it out there to other members that have been on the board
and have more experience. If anyone else is thinking a little bit
that way— Council Craig,
uh, thank you, Warden. I asked that question of,
uh, Mr. McGugan earlier this morning, and he said one of the issues
that we are facing in that regard is
that Lake Simcoe has its own mandated act,
the Lake Simcoe Act, and the, the water quality
issues surrounding Lake Simcoe in particular,
it's not whether they want to do it, they have to do it.
So yes, the population there will support that work,
and it could be that rather than being efficient here,
some of our money supports that work as well. Like there is
a different issues that face
the water management in the east and the west half
side of a split Conservation Authority
area. So that was one of many different things that, you know, it is the
fair way to do it based on assessment or population or something.
More people, more representation. That's the way democracy works.
But Sometimes you need to look at some of the
issues underneath that too. So thank you, Warden. Yeah, thank you. I might make an
even simpler point. No matter how many amalgamations we do,
our taxpayers are not going to end up paying less money, right? Just because we
bring in Simcoe— we could bring in Toronto— um, the taxpayers
in Bruce County are still going to be funding this, probably, and they're going to
be spending more money on this in the years to come, not less, right?
So the only question to me is how much representation does their money buy.
And in this case, they're— it's buying
less representation, right? And, and so I
don't think we're going to get much funding help from the City of Barrie.
They're not going to be sending money over to, over to Bruce County to
help us pay for conservation, in my opinion anyway. I just don't see that as
being in the cards. So I think anyway,
it would be good, I think, if we settle on
a position here with respect to the whole thing. I think the two things are
interlinked, right? The geography and the representation
and the cost. So I think if
we believe that we're underrepresented in this particular setup,
then I think we should make the statement on the overall structure of the Conservation
Authority and say, you know, I was just looking at the map here, you know,
just those, those Lake Simpcw 2 Big Lakes
Simpcw Conservation Authorities that are being worked
in here, and they should be lopped off and they should be made their own
Conservation Authority. Just as— just even the, the structure of it just doesn't make
any sense. We've been saying that all along. And so I think, um,
to me, um, that takes those big urban areas
out and would increase our level of representation. In my opinion,
that's the position the County of Bruce should take. Essentially what
what was proposed by, um, Mr. McGoogan, uh, and Huron-Kinloss,
um, reduce the size of the authority, increase our representation.
Councilor Kirkland? Yeah, I agree with that 100%. I think one of the only
things that we're going to be able to control is to try to get that
split into two, and then, then our representation
will be different within our own area. So I agree 100%.
And I think to note too,
about putting it in terms, as Councillor Getz raised, that they
can understand is rural communities. And this government has been
pretty strong in terms of talking about the importance of rural Ontario and southwestern
Ontario. And so surely they could be
made to understand that taking rural communities and putting them
in the same organization as large urban communities their interests are different
and, and, and that that would be damaging to those rural
communities. So I think that's the way to put it to them, in my opinion.
The Deputy Warden. Uh, the only other thing I would ask
is the name, the Lake Huron Region Conservation. Let's drop authority
off the end of it. I think it's a very old word that we don't
need. So when we're asking for the,
the name, I would like to see authority dropped off the end of
it. And I've talked to Mr. McGugan and Phil Beard about that. Nunatsiavut.
They believe that it's time that we did get rid of that last part and
make it look like we're more simple there to work with,
because some people think that we're heavy-handed in the conservation
authorities. And if we get rid of that word, was one other ask that
we were going to ask at Huron-Kinloss. Okay,
Councillor Kirkland. And let's not forget about Georgian Bay
in there.
Okay, anything else, uh, from the
members? If we could— is there a general consensus on that
direction then? Is there— everybody is— no,
nobody opposes, uh, what we've been talking about here?
Is that— do you have some clarity, uh,
there? I guess we should give you— maybe we should have a resolution on that.
So, um, So perhaps we could have a resolution
that council directs staff to amend this,
amend our letter,
amend the letter that's in this report to give direction
to offer them. See, I'm just, I'm stuttering now. I'm stammering and not coming
up with anything. Do you have anything for me, Christine? Sure, I can
offer some help, Warden, that, that council is
asking— directing staff to amend the letter to include distinction.
And we understand there's two conservation authorities that
we're asking to break out of it, and so we can specify that and update
the letter. And my last question for staff for greater clarity
would be, would you like us to distribute the letter that we're submitting to
the impacted bodies or not? Yes, I should
think we would want to circulate it to everybody who's
in the proposed Lake Huron Regional Conservation Authority, the CAs and the municipalities,
the upper-tier municipalities. Is there— everybody
okay with that? Any objection to that? Councillor Craig?
Yes, I agree. But I think there's the— there's 3 points:
the splitting of the proposed area into 2 distinct,
the governance structure and the circulation.
You know what? Yeah, I'm not sure that we're going to propose the governance structure,
but, you know, split it apart and revamp
that. That's two parts of the same question, I suppose.
Yes. So I guess we want to direct staff to
include in the letter Bruce County's opposition to the geography
of the proposed Lake Huron Regional Conservation Authority, our suggestion that
it be divided into two conservation authorities, and that the
representation on the conservation— that we, we should state clearly we
object to the record, to the level of representation we're receiving in
the proposed Lake Huron Regional Conservation Authority, and that
our preference would be to have a smaller conservation authority
where our representation would be greater.
So we need those two things. We need a smaller Conservation Authority and greater representation
on that Conservation Authority. That should be our position.
And that that be circulated, that position be circulated to all of
the affected Conservation Authorities and upper-tier municipalities.
Is that clear enough for everybody? Clear enough to
staff? Is there a mover and seconder?
Uh, pro? You wrote something down up there. Is that all the cheapers? Look at
that. Staff be directed to submit the comments attached
to the report GR-2026-034 to the Ministry of Environment,
Conservation and Parks as part of the ARO posting 26-0740,
and the staff be directed to amend the letter to include distinction to separate
the new organization in two and distribute the letter to the conservation authorities and
upper-tier municipalities in the proposed new conservation authority. Um,
and then those points are sort of, uh, set out underneath there.
So that's an amendment. Is there a mover and seconder for the amendment? Moved by
Kirkland, seconded by the Deputy Warden. Any discussion to the amendment?
Seeing none, all in favor? Sorry, opposed, if any?
That's carried. And then we'll on to the main question
then, which has been moved and seconded and now amended.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor. Oh, do you
have some? Sorry, pardon me. The Deputy Warden discussion on the proposed here.
I'm fine with it other than that. Should lower tier not
be distributed in the 4 conservation watersheds?
So that everybody knows what we're pushing forward.
It says here, and upper tier municipalities,
should we be Consulting with
the lower tier. I don't object to it. The upper
tiers are the ones involved in the discussion at this point, but it's up to
you. What if council would like to circulate to the lower tiers? We can.
And I guess my— sorry, through you, Warden— my thoughts are the lower tiers are
still paying the bill as of today. Okay, we can circulate
it to all upper and lower tier municipalities. Is that good with
everybody? If so, we'll take that as just adjustment
to the amendment. So if there's nothing further, then all in favor of the main
question? That's carried. All right,
all right. So we'll now move on to Item B from Government Relations: Election
Timeline and Lame Duck Restrictions and the Clerk.
Thank you, Andrew Warden. So this report provides a reminder of the
restricted acts that council cannot undertake if a lame duck situation were
to occur. So there's two different dates when lame duck can occur, and the first
is after nominations close on August 21st and
after those candidates have been certified.
So at that point, if less than 6 of our 8 county councilors are not
certified candidates for the position of mayor, Bruce County Council will
be in a lame duck situation. If on Election
Day less than 6 of the current council members are not reelected County
Council will then be in a lame duck situation.
So during the lame duck situation, Council is restricted from
hiring or firing their one employee, being the CAO position.
Council is also restricted from disposing of property valued over $50,000
or spending money or incurring liabilities over $50,000
if it wasn't included in the current year's budget.
So for the most part, it's business as usual during lame duck,
except for those expenditures and disposition of assets that were not
approved by council prior to nomination day.
That includes if an emergency was to occur, um, council retains
that ability to take the necessary actions. Further,
this report recommends a bylaw be passed to delegate authority to
the CAO to take necessary actions to ensure any unbudgeted expenditure
or liability $50,000 can be approved if necessary,
uh, should a lame duck situation arise. The report goes on to
provide the timelines for the current and the new council, um, and I'm
available to take any questions. Thank you. There is
a resolution then that a bylaw be passed to delegate authority to the
chief administrative officer for certain acts pursuant to Section 275 of the Municipal Act during
a restricted acts period. Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by the
Keeper, seconded by the Deputy Warden. Discussion? Seeing none,
then all in favor? That is carried. Thank you.
Okay, so now we're on to Item C from Human Resources on
the 2026 Student Wages Policy. And the director.
Thank you. Good morning and through you, Warden. This morning I have before you an
update to our Student Wages Policy. The update provides an
increase to the compensation rate of students
to ensure that we remain able to attract and support the recruitment of qualified students
to our workforce. The effective date of the update will be October
1st, 2026, which aligns with the next provincial update to the minimum wage
rates in Ontario. Updates to the policy are listed
within the report, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.
There's a resolution that the updated Human Resources Policy D07, Student Wages,
be approved. Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by
Kirkland, seconded by Craig. Discussion? Hearing and
seeing none. All in favor? That is carried.
All right, now we're on to Item D from the Museum
Collections Deaccession Report and the director. Uh, thank you, and through you,
Warden. So, uh, collection staff have been continuing to do their collections
management work, which is resulting in the deaccession report in front
of you today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are Thank
you. There is a resolution that the items listed in the collections deaccession report August
026 be approved for deaccession from the Bruce
County Museum and Cultural Centre collection. Is there a mover and seconder?
Moved by Deputy Warden, seconded by Councilor Kirkland. Discussion?
Seeing none. All in favor? That is carried.
Thank you. All right, now we're on to bylaws. One bylaw
there, uh, and the resolution is that the following bylaw be approved.
Bylaw 2026-035, being a bylaw to delegate authority
to the Chief Administrative Officer for certain acts during the restricted acts period.
Is there a mover and seconder? Moved by Goetz, seconded by McKeever.
Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? That is carried.
Um, now we're on to communications. There are 5 items of communication
there. Any questions or comments, any of those? Councillor Goetz. Thank you.
Through you, Warden Charbonneau, um, on item B there,
um, Ralph Kreitzweiser's concerns regarding Bruce Road
for winter maintenance. It's my understanding that Bruce
County plows into Huron County
and vice versa. In conversation with
Ralph back in the spring, he indicated that the— that
both plows are sanding the roads, and then the next plow
comes along and takes it off. Is— and, and And
in that conversation, um, it was suggested
that, is there a way we can alternate that, that portion
of winter maintenance from one year to the next, where Bruce County would look after
it? They would plow into Huron County one year, and then
the next year Huron County would plow into Bruce County.
The trouble is the boundary runs between, uh,
the two curves. The second is my understanding
of, of, uh, South Bruce It's not safe
to turn the plows around there, so they're going all the way to the 4th,
which just shortly— or just south of Teeswater,
turning around and coming back. But the trouble is that
when they're doing that, one plow could come through a half hour to an hour
before, and then the county— our county plow is going through shoving the sand
off that they put on the road. And I just— I
would support an opportunity to look into that and see
if there's a cost savings there or a better way of doing that, or maybe
Maybe the Director of Highways maybe could speak to that. Yeah, we'll put it
to— information's correct. Sorry about that. We'll put it to the Director of Transportation.
Uh, thank you for the question through you, Warden. So it's actually an opportune
time that this letter came forward. We are starting the process of our boundary
agreement renewal with Huron County. So in 2027,
we will see those talks progress, and this could be something that's
considered as far as maybe trying to work at a different solution
to this particular you. Okay, anything further?
Uh, the Deputy Warden, and through you, uh, Warden, to Adam.
Um, years ago when I plowed for the county, I plowed into Wingham on Huron
County roads. Huron County plowed into Teeswater at that time. Is that something
that, instead of meeting in the center— I know Huron County's plowing in the Lucknow
now. Um, will we be looking to go back to some old
ways we've done things? I think it worked better at that time than meeting in
the So just wondering. The Director. Thank you for
the question through you, Warden. Absolutely. I think, you know, as we
work through semantics on where plows turn
around, we're going to see some efficiencies and
make notes where things are working and not working and then aim to
correct those in the changes to the agreement as we move forward.
So I think the update will be a great time to address those and have
those conversations. Thank you. I'm glad to hear we're working with
Huron County on roads maintenance and, and those things.
I was— an issue raised to me by the warden of
Huron County a while back looking to see if we could work together on
not only winter maintenance but also on upgrades
and reconstruction of roads that between the two counties. So I think
it's good to hear we're working together on that. I know it's a matter of
concern in Huron County as well. Further comments,
Councillor Hamel. Thank you, Warden, and through you,
just maybe a comment from the director in regards to item 3. Years prior,
a snow fence was placed strategically on the west side of the road in
approximately 6 places. Was it not placed because, you know, winter came fast
and early, or is it placed due to
its effectiveness in spots? Is there historical spots
where it's always placed, or what's maybe the rationale with snow
fencing currently, you know, last year and then looking into
this year? Director. Thank you, through you.
The operations staff are continually working with landowners in those locations
where snow fencing has been traditionally placed.
I can't speak to the particular example, but in past,
we've seen where lands are exchanged through sales and
then we don't have a handshake agreement with the new landowners, But that's
something that's been drawn to our attention through this letter. So I think it's something
we'll be looking at as we move into the next winter season.
Okay. Anything further from any of the members on any of
the correspondence? I don't see
anything. Okay. So we'll move on then from
correspondence onto item 14, our closed session. The resolution is
that council move into a closed session in accordance with section 239 of the Municipal
Act Act for the following matter: 1, Q2 labor relations
under Section 2392D, labor relations or employee negotiations, and 2,
approval of the minutes of June 18th, 2026. Is there a mover and seconder?
Moved by Craig, seconded by anybody?
The Deputy Warden. All in favor? Council will now move into a closed
Okay, so Council will now arise
from open session, and I'll report that Council received the
Q2 labor relations update, and we approve the minutes of June 18th,
2026. And so now I have a resolution to confirm
the proceedings, and it is that the following bylaw be approved. Bylaw 2026-036,
being a bylaw to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the County of Bruce
at its meeting held the 6th day of August, 2026. Is there a mover and
seconder? Moved by Gett, seconded by Kirkland. All in favor?
That is carried. And finally, I have a resolution that this meeting of Bruce County
Council adjourn at 11:20 AM. Is there a mover and seconder? McIver and
Kirkland. All in favor? Council stands adjourned and will now move
to the Long-Term Care Homes Committee of Management when the clerk says