Blog

By Sylene Argent, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Essex Free Press

Essex Council directed its administration to prepare and send a letter to the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) at the December 1 meeting to express the Town’s support for its Board of Directors’ position regarding the Province proposing Conservation Authority (CA) consolidation.

Recently, ERCA’s Board raised concerns about how these changes could impact local accountability and service delivery.

The letter will be circulated to ERCA’s member municipalities, to the submission window to the Province for comments on the matter, and to local MPPs.

Councillor Jason Matyi, one of Essex’s representatives on the ERCA Board, raised the resolution at the November 17 meeting, and Essex Council supported it at the December 1 meeting.

This is in response to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) announcing its intent to combine conservation authorities in the province, from 36 – largely in broader Southwestern Ontario – to seven regional entities under Bill 68, Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2025.

This would combine the Essex region with other Conservation Authorities up to the north of Guelph as part of what is being referred to as the Lake Erie Regional Conservation Authority (LERCA). It would be comprised of 81 municipalities. It is not known what the Board governance for this amalgamated CA would be.

At the previous meeting, Council also supported Matyi’s motion to ask ERCA CAO Tim Bryne to speak of the changes at an Essex Council meeting. He did so on Monday.

They are “rather sweeping changes being pushed forward by the Province,” Bryne told Essex Council of Bill 68, noting ERCA found out about it on a Friday morning three-weeks ago without any consultation.

“It caught us somewhat by surprise, but we weren’t shocked.”

ERCA has advised the Province if there is a need for change, “we need to understand why there is a need to change,” Byrne told Essex Council. “We need to understand what the problem actually is that we are trying to solve, and destruction does not actually push forward to success.”

CAs operate on the principles of integrated watershed management, James Bryant, Director of Watershed Management Services for ERCA, explained. That is done through its municipal partners. Once established, a Board of Directors is created of appointed Councillors. Its administration enacts the vision of the Board in compliance with legislation.

The proposed amalgamation of CAs is one silo of Bill 68, which is a budget measures Bill that is an enabling piece of legislation establishing a provincial oversight agency, the Ontario Conservation Agency, Bryant explained.

If passed, that agency will oversee the proposed amalgamation, deciding on boundaries, the transition, governance, strategic vision, performance, and funding of the conservation authorities. It will have five to 12 appointed Board Members by the Lieutenant Governor and Council. There would be an appointed CEO and agency staff.

Below that will be the seven proposed conservation authorities.

Bryant said the Essex Region will compete with those other municipalities proposed for the LERCA Board in terms of prioritization of local projects, some of which have major population centres.

As Bill 68 has been given Royal Assent on November 27, the expectation is that there will be a CEO appointed to the provincial agency, in addition to the Board members, Bryant said. Then staff will be brought on board and oversee the transition from 36 to the proposed seven CAs.

He noted, as far as ERCA knows, the timeline to finalize CA boundaries is in the spring, transitioning into the regional CAs into 2027.

“Every time I try to look at this through a different lens, I can’t find a good reason to amalgamate all of these Conservation Authorities,” Councillor Matyi said, pointing out of the 81 proposed for LERCA, 12 are large cities. “Having Essex’s voice ring out through that I think is going to get… cluttered.”

He fears it will remove local Councillors from being on the CA Board.

In answering Councillor Katie McGuire-Blais’s question, who is Essex’s other rep on ERCA’s Board, if building permits required through ERCA would be put to the next tier and not handled locally anymore, Byrne said they “do not have a clue.

“The one thing we do know is the jurisdiction extends from the Detroit River 300kms to the north-east; watershed principle be damned, that goes out the door. Local accountability, that goes out the door,” Byrne said.

“We have a flooding issue in Essex County…to potentially say we won’t have a board or…an authority in our own backyard who is going to protect our watershed and protect us from flooding is really scary to think about,” McGuire-Blais added, encouraging all municipalities and developers, as she believes they may have to wait a long time to get permits, to write the local MPPs and Premier Ford to express they are unhappy with the proposed changes.

Councillor Kim Verbeek wondered if there was an opportunity for ERCA and other municipalities outside the region, perhaps up to 100kms instead of the proposed 300km, to come up with a plan to work as a larger body. Perhaps a case can be made to the Province to consider that an option instead.

Bryant said the Province is looking for feedback and wants to see those types of suggestions. Byrne added there has been limited dialogue on that.

These things should be determined by electorates, he said.

Amalgamation does not necessarily mean cost-savings, Mayor Sherry Bondy added. It can lead to the degradation of local autonomy and governance and accountability.

“I think Essex County is so unique. If they want to amalgamate boards in Toronto for their own reasons, so be it,” Bondy said. “But we are so unique here in Essex County that we really need to be our own, in my opinion.”

She will be optimistic the Province will receive the feedback and “give Essex County the autonomy that it deserves from a natural heritage, flooding, and regulation point of view.”

ERCA’s 2026 Budget

In terms of the 2026 Budget, Byrne announced the original request of a 2.5%-2.8% increase would be put on hold and would move forward with zero-based budgeting, thanks to what he said was sound fiscal management and knowing of the economic climate. That will. However,be based on a split of local municipalities’ CBAs. The Town of Essex’s CBA jumped up by .3%, which he said is something.

The budgeted amount to Essex last year was $165,953. The 2026 allocation, including mandatory and non-mandatory, will be $166,916.

Essex CAO Kate Giurissevich appreciated the information, noting Essex built in a 5% increase into its 2026 Budget for which Council will start deliberations on Monday, December 8. That is around $8,000 in savings that can be adjusted into Essex’s Budget, she explained.

By: Pam Wright, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Chatham Voice

 

Despite a plea from Coun. Rhonda Jubenville to “move on” and forgo a recommendation from the integrity commissioner (IC) to dock her two month’s pay, Chatham-Kent council decided otherwise.

 

At the Dec. 1 meeting, council voted 9-5 to suspend Jubenville’s pay, based on a report from former IC Mary Ellen Bench. Bench recommended the two-month suspension, stating Jubenville had breached Section 15 of the Code of Conduct – the section she considers to be the most “significant breach of the code” noting “bullying and abuse” significantly impacted members of the public, staff and council.

 

The sanctions in question stem from social media posts made by Jubenville relating to a flag flap in 2023. In the spring of that year, Jubenville put forward a motion that only municipal, provincial and federal flags be flown at municipal sites. The councillor’s motion came after a request from a Chatham-based pro-life group to fly its flag was bypassed by the municipality.

 

The issue snowballed on social media, devolving into a heated discussion about Pride flags on municipal property and LGTBQ rights. Following a complaint about some of Jubenville’s social media posts, an investigation was launched by the IC.

 

In her original report, Bench found Jubenville had breached Sectio  10 and Section 15 of the code and recommended council dock her three month’s pay. Council went ahead with the three-month pay suspension – the harshest penalty available. However, Jubenville appealed the matter in court and this past summer, a judicial review quashed Bench’s original report and council’s penalty. The three-member panel found she did not breach Section 10 but found it to be “reasonable” she had breached Section 15.

 

As a result, Jubenville was awarded $20,000 in costs from the municipality. Bench was asked to revisit the matter and issue a report following the Judicial Review.

 

Those voting in favour of the two-month pay suspension Monday night included councillors Conor Allin, Brock McGregor, Anthony Ceccacci, Marjorie Crew, Hall, Melissa Harrigan, Morena McDonald, Jamie McGrail and Trevor Thompson.

 

Against were Lauren Anderson, Michael Bondy, Ryan Doyle, Amy Finn and John Wright. Coun. Alysson Storey was attending the meeting remotely and was unable to register her vote.

 

Prior to the vote, Bondy and Doyle said they would not support the motion with Bondy stating he had another motion ready to go in the event the original one failed.

 

Wallaceburg Coun. Carmen McGregor and Mayor Darrin Canniff were absent from the meeting.

 

Council also heard the matter has cost the municipality $188,622, not including the $20,000 payment to Jubenville, an amount she had not yet received.

 

In light of the new two-month sanction and the fact the original payment had not been made, C-K deputy CAO Dave Taylor told council Jubenville will be reimbursed one-month’s salary.

 

Prior to the meeting, Jubenville asked for extra time to address council, speaking for eight minutes. During her talk, the councillor said Bench’s report was not “fulsome” and had many omissions.

 

In her comments posted online post meeting, Jubenville said Bench excluded many items from the report and it was “biased and prejudiced” against her. 

 

“I feel my sincere words fell on mostly deaf ears,” the councillor wrote. “My naive self thought I had forged good professional relationships with most of these people. I thought perhaps they (council) realized who I really was and not how a biased integrity commissioner had falsely presented me. Boy, was I wrong,” she typed on social media.

 

Jubenville has not yet confirmed if she will appeal the decision.

 

By: Michael Bennett, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Ridgetown Independent News

 

After dominating the discussion for two nights at the 2026 Chatham-Kent Budget deliberations, rural residents will see the return of full dust suppressant service next summer.

 

But it comes at a price to all taxpayers.

 

Council voted 10-7 to return to the procedure of applying one round of dust control on all gravel roads in Chatham-Kent at an estimated cost of $1.46-million, which added 0.67 per cent to the budget.

 

This service brought the 2026 tax increase to 4.63 per cent, which Council approved by a 10-7 margin last Wednesday night.

 

The increase amounts to an annual tax hike of $172 for an average household with an assessment value of $176,194, or $97 per $100,000 of residential assessment.

 

Deliberations began last Tuesday with a proposed increase of 4.92 per cent.

 

In last year’s budget deliberations, Council drew the ire of rural residents when it approved the administration’s recommendation to eliminate the dust suppressant service, citing a $1.35-million cost savings.

 

However, due to public outcry, Council reconsidered eliminating dust control and approved a late-summer application round on limited roads at a cost of around $350,000, with the matter returning in the 2026 budget update.

 

On last Tuesday’s first night of deliberations, Council voted 16-1 in favour of South Kent Ward 2 Councillor Anthony Ceccacci’s motion for a dust control pilot program that would see treatment applied in front of residences and at intersections on gravel roads.

 

The $500,000 cost would come from the strategic reserve with no tax impact as a pilot project for the first year.

 

The approval of this pilot project, along with a $2-million reduction in two motions – also entered by Ceccacci – in the Asset Management Plan lifecycle inflation reserve, lowered the original increase to 3.96 per cent.

 

But when Council reconvened on Wednesday, Ceccacci entered a revised motion calling for two applications of dust suppressant adjacent to residential driveways and to consider increased applications at intersections.

 

This increased the cost to $1.1-million, but it would remain a pilot project and would still be covered by strategic reserves, with no tax impact.

 

The motion passed 13-4.

 

But right after the vote, Ward 6 Councillor Michael Bondy entered a motion calling for the return of full dust control measures that would be applied once a year.

 

The $1.46-million cost, however, would be added to the base budget since it was the return of a former service.

 

Ward 3 East Kent Councillor John Wright backed both of Ceccacci’s pilot project motions and voted against Bondy’s motion.

 

“Anthony and I were trying to get the brine back on the roads that wouldn’t cost the taxpayers any money,” Wright said. “They were going to do 100 feet in front of each house and take it out as a pilot project for one year.”

 

Wright said this was the same format as Orford Twp. used before Chatham-Kent took over dust control.

 

“Orford used to do just spot brine in front of all the houses and intersections, and it worked pretty well,” Wright said. “But it was a point they (Council) didn’t want to try anything new, they wanted to go back the way it was.”

 

While he supports the return of the dust control measures, Wright still has some concerns.

 

“I have some issues where there are a bunch of roads, where there’s no houses or one house, so we’re putting a lot of brine on roads where it doesn’t need it,” Wright said.

 

North Kent Councillor Jamie McGrail asked staff if they could identify roads, such as those Wright mentioned, where dust suppressant did not need to be applied.

 

“We’re always looking to optimize things, but if we’re looking to change which roads this is being applied to, it’s not a simple exercise,” said Ed Soldo, GM of Engineering and Infrastructures. “We don’t even have all of the parameters of what we’re going to look at from this motion.”

 

“Between now and the time we’re going to put this out for tender, I don’t think we have time to resolve any optimizations,” stated Soldo.

 

Soldo said the parameters of Ceccacci’s motions were very defined, as noted in administration’s third of three options in the dust control level of service.

 

East Kent Councillor Morena McDonald, along with Ward 1’s Lauren Anderson and Melissa Harrigan, Ward 2’s Ryan Doyle and Ceccacci, Ward 4’s Rhonda Jubenville and McGrail, Ward 5’s Aaron Hall, Ward 6’s Alysson Storey and Bondy all voted in favour of returning to the previous level of service along with it’s 0.67 per cent addition to the base budget.

 

Wright, Chatham-Kent Mayor Darrin Canniff, Ward 2’s Trevor Thompson, Ward 6’s Conor Allin, Marjorie Crew, Amy Finn and Brock McGregor voted against Bondy’s motion.

 

Along with Ceccacci’s successful motion for $2-million in cuts to the AMP, Council also approved his motion to increase landfill hosting fees from $150,000 to $200,000, which passed unanimously.

 

Harrigan entered a motion to approve the budget at 4.63 per cent, which was passed by a 10-7 vote. Allin, Anderson, Crew, Hall, Harrigan, McDonald, McGrail, Storey, Thompson and Canniff voted in favour. Brock McGregor, Bondy, Ceccacci, Doyle, Finn, Jubenville and Wright were opposed. Ward 5’s Carmen McGregor was absent.

 

The budget then went to Council, which was approved 10-7 in a separate vote, as Finn and Thompson switched their earlier votes.

 

The 2026 budget update had an original tax increase of 8.77 per cent, but under Canniff’s direction, staff found $9.5-million in savings to reduce the increase to 4.92 per cent entering deliberations.

 

Of that 4.92 per cent, a full two per cent was due to Chatham-Kent only receiving $10-million from the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund.

 

Chatham-Kent, Sudbury and Thunder Bay are capped at $10-million in the OCIF. However, the municipality should be receiving $29.3-million, according to local calculations, a gap that falls in the lap of taxpayers.

 

“This gap isn’t sustainable for municipalities like ours that manage extensive rural infrastructure,” Canniff said. “We remain hopeful that the province will lift the OCIF cap and provide the funding levels communities like Chatham-Kent rely on to maintain safe, reliable roads, bridges, and drainage infrastructure.”

 

The 4.63 per cent increase includes 1.10 per cent in investments to maintain existing municipal services, which is well below the 2025 inflation rate of 2.03 per cent.

 

The update also includes 1.76 per cent for capital infrastructure, 0.62 per cent for social issues, and 1.15 per cent for service-level changes, including the return of the dust suppressant program.

 

By: Michael Bennett, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Ridgetown Independent News

 

A petition that began in September of 2024 by frustrated residents in Bothwell and Zone Twp. reached the floor in Queen’s Park last Wednesday.

 

Independent MPP Bobbi Ann Brady, from Haldimand-Norfolk, brought the petition to the floor, asking the provincial government to allow Zone Twp. to succeed from Chatham-Kent and amalgamate as a lower-tier municipality in Lambton County.

 

The petition began as ‘coffee shop talk’ among residents who were frustrated by what they felt was the Municipality of Chatham-Kent’s lack of support for rural citizens and communities.

 

By December, the petition was posted in several businesses in the Bothwell area.

 

Emery Huszka, a spokesperson for the group, did not say how many signatures were collected, as a minimum of 300 is required by Parliamentary procedure to bring a petition to the floor.

 

“Whether we have 500 or 5,000,  it doesn’t matter,” Huszka said. “We were very successful, thanks to the community papers that picked it (the story) up across the country.”

 

He said coverage of the petition opened “a good discussion.”

 

“Municipal governance structures are good discussions, and we’re going to have an election, so this is a very timely discussion,” Huszka said, referring to the Oct. 2026 municipal election.

 

What fuelled the rush of residents signing the petition last December was Chatham-Kent Council’s decision to eliminate dust control and reduce rural road service as savings in the 2025 budget deliberations, as well as talk about losing at least one local councillor in a proposed ward boundary restructuring.

 

Although it never made it to the deliberations, residents were also riled when the possibility of closing the Bothwell arena and library, as well as losing other basic services, was mentioned in a report to Council in response to Ward 2 Councillor Ryan Doyle’s last-minute request to find 7.5 per cent in savings with reductions to seven departments.

 

Last week’s budget deliberations surrounding the dust suppressant, including administration’s recommendation to eliminate the process in 2026, did not go unnoticed by rural residents.

 

“Watching the budget deliberations was a really good indicator of that urban-rural split,” Huszka said. “There is still a real disconnect.”

 

Huszka said the province’s “forced amalgamation” in creating the Municipality of Chatham-Kent had some issues that are still unresolved to this day.

 

“When we had a two-tier system, the second tier looked after those things that were important to rural Kent,” he said. “Now that we’re Chatham-Kent, we’re all supposed to be one big happy family.”

 

Huszka said Bothwell looks like “downtown Beirut” with the burned-out buildings from last January still standing.

 

“Ten months later, it’s still not cleared up, let alone rebuilt,” Huszka said. “There doesn’t seem to be a community advocate who really recognizes the importance of rebuilding Bothwell.”

 

“They lost the bank, the restaurant, the Beer Store and the liquor store … I don’t know how much more we have to lose before we finally get some attention,” stated Huszka. “If they had a local council, it would have been a high priority.”

 

Zone Twp., which was once a part of Lambton County in the late 1800s, still enjoyed a strong relationship with Euphemia Twp, right up to amalgamation.

 

Huszka said that although the two townships sit on opposite sides of the Kent-Lambton county line, there is a history of cooperation with multiple shared projects, services and facilities, including fire service, community programming and an arena.

 

He also pointed out that the Moraviantown community was instrumental in the construction of the Bothwell Arena in 1972.

 

“Prior to Chatham-Kent, it was a co-operative neighbourhood,” said Huszka.

 

The plan was to give the petition to Steve Pinsonneault, MPP for the Lambton-Kent-Middlesex riding, but Huszka reached out to Brady to bring it to Queen’s Park.

 

“It’s not a snub, I talked to Steve to give him a heads up, he did offer to take it up,” Huszka said. 

 

“But we figured it was better to have Bobbi Ann present because, when we talk about the process, generally you’re petitioning the government and Steve is a part of the government,” he said of Pinsonneault being a member of the majority Conservatives. “It’s not a partisan issue, so having an Independent MPP present (the petition) was a bonus.”

 

Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, has 20 procedural days to answer the petition.

 

“It’s like playing roulette, I know the wheel is loaded against us,” Huszka admitted. “But it’s up to the Minister.”

 

“The best-case scenario is they let us go back into Lambton County; the worst-case scenario is they do nothing,” he said. “The main point is on the floor; the question has been raised, the problem has been cited.”

 

Huszka said it’s not just residents in Zone Twp. who are unhappy with the current local government format, as there were also petitions in Raleigh, Harwich and Howard Twps. to break away from the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

 

“The hope is they see there’s a problem –  and it’s not just Bothwell and Zone, there’s concern throughout Chatham-Kent,” Huszka said. “Let’s hope he (Flack) appoints somebody to come down here and ask some questions, to look at Chatham-Kent and say ‘hey, maybe we need to do something a little more.’”

 

“That would benefit every part of Chatham-Kent, I think we all want good governance,” ended Huszka.