VOCO: Historical Summary

1999: Municipalities in Victoria County were already restructuring voluntarily
- The municipalities of Bobcaygeon and the Township of Verulam amalgamated voluntarily in 2000.
- Laxton-Digby-Longford, Bexley, Somerville Councils had negotiated an amalgamation agreement, which was awaiting the signature of the Minister of Municipal Affairs
- Carden and Dalton Townships had agreed to amalgamate.
1999: The Kitchen Commission was imposed on Victoria County by a lower tier municipality.
- The legislation that allowed this was used in only 8 Ontario restructurings. It has now been repealed.
- Victoria County Council voted against requesting a Commissioner 17 to 6 (November, 1999)
- The (lower tier) Township of Emily Council voted (3-2) to request a Restructuring Commission.
- Only the town of Lindsay supported the request. None of the other 14 municipalities supported the request
Jan - March 2000: The Kitchen Commission Hearings
During the 3 months of hearings the people spoke out. Mr. Kitchen ignored them
- Residents filed a record number (613) of written submissions. 74% opposed the single-tier structure
- 5 municipalities launched a legal challenge against the process, but it was withdrawn before being adjudicated upon. Before the matter came to court a Court of Appeal decision in another case made it inappropriate to continue.
- April 10, 2000 - (866) signature petition presented to the Ontario Legislature by Tory MPP John Cleary
Apr 19, 2000: Kitchen Order creates a one-tier City of Kawartha Lakes
- Disregarding all previous studies, Mr. Kitchen imposed a single tier stucture on a huge, urban-rural area
- For details: see the Kitchen Report
- Every previous study of restructuring in Victoria County had recommended a two-tier structure
- Mr. Kitchen himself recommended a two-tier structure for Peterborough (where he lives)
- studies have discredited the theories behind large amalgamations: “large and centralized governments will be further removed from their voters, and less able to respond effectively to local needs and choices.... the background assumption that smaller and more numerous jurisdictions provide services at high cost is typically wrong.” ... (Robert Bish, C.D.Howe Institute)
Jan 01, 2001: Victoria County (est. 1861) was dissolved.
1999 - present: The people protested
- As early as 1999, when they became aware of the danger of losing their local governments, the people of Victoria County became involved and protested to the government. An 866-signature petition was presented to the Legislature, a record number of submissions were made to the Kitchen Commission, and five municipalities joined to challenge the Kitchen Order in the courts.
- A group of concerned citizens held town hall meetings to inform the public about the amalgamation. On June 16, 2000 they adopted the name VOCO (Latin for “I speak”, and acronym for Voices of Central Ontario).
- On Sept. 16, 2000 at a Funeral for Democracy held in Lindsay, obituaries were read for the lost municipalities and the County of Victoria. Some of these municipalities had been incorporated for 150 years.
- A second petition, with 11,000 signatures, was presented to the Ontario Legislature. These were presented and signed by many members of the current Liberal government.
- During the summer of 2001 a citizens-initiated referendum on de-amalgamation was held throughout the County. 6209 people came out to vote. 96.5% voted “Yes” to restore Victoria County and their municipalities
Feb. 2002: Opposition leader Dalton McGuinty promised a binding referendum on de-amalgamation
Dalton McGuinty said in a news interview in Peterborough, and later confirmed in writing, that:
“the Ontario Liberals believe in local democracy. We believe that the best solutions are local solutions and that local residents should have the right to decide on the future of their municipality... the Ontario Liberal position is to allow a local referendum when there is a substantial demonstration of public support. I stated on my visit to Peterborough in October 2001 that the petition campaign there has clearly met this threshold. A Liberal government will ensure a binding referendum is held to allow local citizens to determine whether or not to dismantle the amalgamated city.”
Full text
November 2002: Minister Hodgson requests referendum
On November 12, 2002, Minister of Municipal Affairs Chris Hodgson appeared before City of Kawartha Lakes Council to request that the de-amalgamation question be put on the November 2003 ballot. He stated that:
- The process had not been democratic. (We were among the 8 imposed by lower tier municipalities, using legislation that has since been repealed)
- The residents had shown sufficient support for a referendum (the 11,000 signature petition, the citizens-initiated referendum)
- The threshold for success would be the same as any democratic election: 50% plus one of the ballots cast. He said that threshold was sufficient to elect himself, and all members of Council, and must be sufficient for this question too.
- Because restructuring is not within municipal jurisdiction, the question cannot be put under municipal referendum legislation. This is why it was put on the ballot as a Minister’s question.
(videotape is available)
The question was determined by the Minister, after receiving input from an appointed local panel.
- An appointed advisory team, led by Max Radiff, recommended a three-part question which would have opened the door to further restructuring. This was rejected by the Minister. The resulting question allowed only two choices: YES: return to previous structure (2-tier, 16 municipalities) or NO: retain the 1-tier City of Kawartha Lakes.
- The Minister stated that “the supplementary questions suggested by the advisory team will not bring closure to this debate....I feel there is great potential for a result that is unclear. The question that will be put to voters on the municipal ballot is the following: “Are you in favour of a return to the previous municipal model of government with an upper-tier municipality and 16 lower-tier municipalities?”
The Minister also outlined the process which would follow a “Yes” vote:
“If the result of the question is to change the structure, I would expect that the necessary steps could be taken to provide for new municipal elections in 2004 and the councillors elected during the November 10,2003 election would constitute an interim council.” (Full text)
2003: the Yes / No campaign
Throughout 2003, both the "YES" (de-amalgamation) and "NO" (retain the City) sides of the referendum question campaigned vigourously with brochures, newspaper and radio advertisements and Town Hall meetings. (Campaign details are available at www.yesvictoria.com)
- The "Yes" campaign was funded completely from private donations, with no public funding.
- Public monies were spent by the Province and the City on the referendum: - the Province sponsored "Public Information sessions" and sent observers to oversee the counting of the ballots.
Nov 10, 2003: The people vote to de-amalgamate
The vote was held. The question was clear. The threshold was clear. The result was clear.
- A majority of people voted “Yes” to de-amalgamate.
- The majority of wards voted “Yes”.
- The only mayoralty candidate who ran on a “Yes” platform was elected.
Election results
Feb 19, 2004: McGuinty refuses to honour referendum results
Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, John Gerretsen, appeared before Council to announce that the Liberal government would not honour the result of the democratic vote “at this time”
Full text:Page 1 Page 2
Dec. 16, 2004: Alternative restructuring proposal presented to Gerretsen, and refused.
In response to Gerretsen's refusal to restore the original municipal structure, a citizens' group presented an alternative proposal to Council, which in turn forwarded it to the Minister. In his reply, Mr. Gerretsen outlines his criteria for restructuring proposals:
" I remain willing to give consideration to proposals submitted by municipal councils that would improve local governance and service delivery systems and that meet the reasonable criteria of property tax fairness for all residents and assured fiscal sustainability of all resulting communities.
In my February 18, 2004 letter to council, I also expressed concern about the creation of any new municipal structures that would be unable to meet the fiscal and service delivery challenges that face our municipalities, given their present-day roles and responsibilities. I would expect any restructuring proposal from your council to address those concerns."
Full text
January 18, 2005: Council demands that the Province honour the referendum
In a recorded vote, Council passes a motion to send a letter to Minister Gerretsen,demanding that the Province honour the result of the November 2003 Minister's question: ie. to restore the original municipal structure.
Feb. 1, 2005: Council disallows further restructuring proposals
- In a recorded vote, Council passes a motion to disallow any further restructuring proposals. Any proposals brought to Council will just be forwarded to the Ministry. Details: section 16.1
- At the March 8 meeting, Council voted to disband the Task Force which had been formed to review the name of the municipality. In a complete reversal of the position she took to get elected, the Mayor voted for both of these motions.
- Thus the Mayor and Council (with the noted exceptions of those who opposed these motions) no longer represent their consituents.
- This creates an impasse preventing any restructuring progress: the Provincial Minister will only entertain proposals "submitted by Council", yet Council now refuses to submit any proposals brought before it.
Public opposition continues
Although their Council has refused to represent their concerns, and the Provincial government has refused to honour a democratic vote (on the same ballot that elected the aforesaid Council!), the residents of Victoria County have continued their fight for local democracy. On Oct. 18, 2005: a third petition was presented to the Ontario Legislature.