January 12, 2024

To: Wilmot Township Councillors

1) The Corporation of the Township of Wilmot provided a “press release” on July 7, 2021, regarding the status of a project called the Prime Ministers’ Path.

The press release refers to four statues specifically as “…aptly named “Unfortunate Four”. Feb. 23, 2020, a CBC News story provided perspective on the artistic creation of these 4 figures and included the following commentary:

“The Ontario charitable organization that commissioned the sculptures asked for them to be placed in a conversational grouping, Scott said. It was appropriate because they would have known each other as active members of the same party during the same time. 

After being cast in bronze, Scott’s Unfortunate Four will join more well-known members of their rank along the Prime Ministers Path in the township of Wilmot, Ont. The others include Sir John A. Macdonald, Kim Campbell, Lester B. Pearson and another of Scott’s sculptures, Sir Robert Borden. 

Scott said as he read and learned more about his latest subjects he came to see their largely forgotten status as undeserved.

Despite their brief tenures, he said, “there were things that they were involved with that shaped our country. It might have been small at that very time for them, or be something they didn’t want to deal with, but it ultimately shaped our country.“

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/prime-ministers-nathan-scott-sculptor-kamloops-abbott-thompson-bowell-tupper-1.5472254

The July 7, 2021 press release also added the statement, “…the immediate removal of the remaining statues is a symbolic action for the Township to move forward on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and work towards community cohesion and healing.” This statement may have reflected the opinions of some people at that time, but may not necessarily be reflective of the will of Wilmot’s citizens as a whole, then or now. After 5 years of emphatically supportive statements, the Council made an emotionally reactive turnabout in its beliefs. I raise the doubt above as the process resulting in the July 5, 2021 decision was, in my opinion, flawed. (See attachment (1) below)

9.2.1 REPORT NO. CL2016-06
Canada’s Past Prime Ministers Statue Project

2017 Sesquicentennial Initiative
Township of Wilmot Administration Grounds

Resolution No. 2016-55

Moved by: A. Junker Seconded by: M. Murray

CARRIED.

THAT Report No CL2016-06 dated April 4, 2016, and prepared by the Director of Clerk’s Services, be endorsed, and further;

THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into an agreement between the Township of Wilmot and Createscape Waterloo Region and to sign the associated By-law.

CARRIED, UNANIMOUSLY.

 “The Director of Clerk’s Services highlighted the report.

Councillor P. Roe noted that he welcomes this report and the project as a way to celebrate the leaders who founded Canada.

Council Meeting Minutes April 4, 2016 Page 3

Councillor A. Junker expressed his support of this project and endeavor to enhance the knowledge of the history of Canada. He stated that the burial sites of the past prime Ministers are scattered throughout Canada and that this project will bring all past Prime Ministers to one central location as an artistic endeavor and as an educational venture. He noted through the project both the good and bad can be taught and visitors can learn who these leaders really were. He stressed that people of today cannot impose their values on people from yesterday. He concluded by stating that Canada has a history we can be proud of but also a history that we can learn from.

Councillor B. Fisher noted that this project is a tremendous opportunity for Baden that will have national excitement. He stated that he personally chooses to remember and celebrate the positive contributions from Canada’s leaders.

Councillor J. Gerber expressed his appreciation for the historic nature of the project. He commented that it will be a chance to see and question the impact that these leaders had on the Country which can prompt some valuable discussion. He noted that this is an excellent opportunity on an appropriate location adjacent to Castle Kilbride, the home of James Livingston who served as a Member of Parliament. He concluded by stating that this will enhance the tourism in the area and that it is significant for the Township given the local roots for its beginning.

Councillor M. Murray concurred with his fellow Councillors and expressed his excitement for the project as well.

Mayor L. Armstrong advised that he has spoken with other local politicians who expressed that they were glad to see this project find a home within Waterloo Region. He noted that he is disappointed to see gaps in the way history is often presented since it is through the good and bad that we learn from our past. He stated that all aspects need to be presented so that we do not repeat the mistakes. He further stated that he views this as an opportunity to ensure all of history is presented. He thanked the committee for their work on this project.

Councillor J. Gerber added that the financial arrangements are appealing where it is being funded entirely through Federal grants and private donations, noting that staff will follow through with due diligence on the details of the agreement.

Mayor L. Armstrong concurred with Councillor J. Gerber.

In response to Councillor B. Fisher, Mr. Rodgers, Co-Chair with Createscape Waterloo Region, advised that this would be the only site consisting of all past Prime Ministers.

Council Meeting Minutes April 4, 2016 Page 4

He clarified that Prime Ministers’ Row on Laurier Avenue East in Ottawa has statues of the past Prime Ministers who lived on that street and Parliament Hill has only eight statues of past Prime Ministers”

2) The Corporation also provided a history of “public engagement” events occurring before the July 5, 2021, Council Meeting as a URL link below:

https://www.wilmot.ca/en/living-here/prime-ministers-path-public- engagement.aspx

The July 5th, 2021 Council meeting included a motion of direction by the previous Council.

“4.1.1 REPORT NO. CAO2021-03
Presentation of Findings and Recommendations First Peoples Group
Prime Ministers Path Community Engagement

Resolution No. 2021-141
Moved by: Councillor A. Hallman Seconded by: Councillor J. Pfenning THAT the report from First Peoples Group dated June 30, 2021, be endorsed,

THAT staff arrange for the immediate removal and temporary storage of the four remaining statues on the Prime Ministers Path and discontinue any future expansion or investment in the Prime Ministers Path as it exists today;

THAT staff work with the Township solicitor to activate the termination clause in the agreement with Createscape;

AND FURTHER, THAT staff be directed to report back to Council with an implementation plan for the incorporation of the remaining recommendations from First Peoples Group, including:

  1. a)  Creating a working group comprised of a balanced representation of the individuals and communities within Wilmot Township to discuss, develop and suggest plans for the implementation of next steps centred on community cohesion and healing.
  2. b)  Committing to transforming community engagement and consultation processes in Wilmot Township in a way that encourages greater openness, accountability and citizen participation in decision-making.

CARRIED. UNAMINOUSLY.”

To my knowledge, there has been no further direction by any Wilmot Township Council on this project. Thus, the above omnibus motion prescribes where we are and where we now go.

 The previous Council’s standing motion provided direction to itself and its staff at that timeregarding what to do. July 5, 2021, was 30 months, 2 ½ years ago. A bandage on an untreated wound causes the wound to fester. Doing nothing is unacceptable, and I suggest would be an irresponsible position to take given that there is still a motion requiring action on the Council table.

The present Council must now take up the responsibility for resolving the still-existing concerns regarding the decision-making process used by the previous Council, which I would suggest, resulted in none of those candidates being re-elected to office, and was a contributing factor in present members being elected to the Council.

The present Council must provide direction to its administrative staff on what specific actions it must now take. The administrative staff cannot act without specific direction from the present Council. That specific, limited direction and ongoing supervision of its staff is the responsibility of the Council as prescribed in the O.M.A.

 If we review the steps defined in the July 5, 2021, omnibus motion, we can determine where we should be:

  • “THAT the report from First Peoples Group dated June 30, 2021, be endorsed,” This was implemented with the passing of the motion.
  • “THAT staff arrange for the immediate removal and temporary storage of the four remaining statues on the Prime Ministers Path and discontinue any future expansion or investment in the Prime Ministers Path as it exists today;” A phone call was made, 5 – 10 minutes after the Council meeting was adjourned, to a contractor who had been contacted by staff before the meeting even occurred to have the statues removed and placed into previously arranged storage. Nothing has been done to expand the project, BUT great further investment has occurred for storage and security expenses. My cost numbers, received after an F.O.I. request, are several months out-of-date.

Given the direction given in the motion to create a working group to recommend “next action steps”, the commentary above may be deemed unilateral and premature.

  • “THAT staff work with the Township solicitor to activate the termination clause in the agreement with Createscape;” That has occurred under the supervision of the previous Council to its staff.
  • “THAT staff be directed to report back to Council with an implementation plan for the incorporation of the remaining recommendations from First Peoples Group, includingUndone

1 a) Creating a working group comprised of a balanced representation of the individuals and communities within Wilmot Township to discuss, develop and suggest plans for the implementation of next steps centred in community cohesion and healing.  Undone

2 b) Committing to transforming community engagement and consultation processes in Wilmot Township in a way that encourages greater openness, accountability and citizen participation in decision making.” Undone

It is the three (3) parts of the 4th subsection of this omnibus motion that, together, is the critical part!

3) BUT FIRST: THE WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE PART

I submit to the Council, and its staff, that this project has become a political issue with all sorts of misinformation and paint being thrown around, which attracts unnecessary negative attention from the press and ‘outsiders with an agenda’, simply because a previous Council (2016) did not fulfill its duties as outlined in the O.M.A. to provide direction and supervision to its staff to implement all the parts of a legal agreement which it had signed with Createscape. That Council did NOT implement clause 7 because it did not provide the appropriate supervision and direction to its staff (C.A.O. et. al.) to execute its contractual requirements.

7 “The Township shall oversee the development and ongoing operation of an educational program that is accessible to the public with respect to the PM Statues and the history of the prime ministers depicted in the PM Statues, their importance to Canada and their times, that is of a quality that meets public expectations. The Township will not be obligated to assume any costs incurred by other parties that may be involved in or contributing to the content or platform for the educational programming.”

Createscape had provided the Township with contacts at a university that provides educational instructor training and programming in Indigenous studies that the Township could access at no cost to itself. Wilmot staff did not follow up. There appears to have been an (unfounded) assumption at that time by staff that any educational program would have some unknown cost that they did not want to incur (even without due diligence investigation it appears).

It is my opinion that IF staff, under that Council’s ongoing supervision and direction, had investigated, had accessed that programming, had accessed the professional expertise, if it had availed itself of the financial support connections that it had been offered to construct a life-sized longhouse, to provide enlarged parking space for tour buses on Township property, if it had at that time invited participation by creating a “…working group of a balanced representation of the individuals and communities within Wilmot Township to discuss, develop and suggest plans for the next steps centred in community cohesion and healing…”, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNITY BUY-IN AND ‘OWNERSHIP’ BY ALL CITIZENS AT THAT TIME. The diverse voices would have already been in place in 2016. The placement and displays of statues that included the Prime Ministers (and maybe other characters of historic value) would be in context, in situ and the cohesive ownership force of that diversely representative core would have been able to channel any emotions driven by children’s shoes into appropriate on-site opportunities for grieving and learning and growth.

That was an opportunity that was lost, in my opinion, due to an inappropriate lack of supervision and direction to its staff by that Council. In my opinion, the professional staff appeared to have neglected its duties to implement its contractual requirements and the Council appears to have allowed them to. I have been back in Wilmot for only 3 years, but in that time I consulted with some of the people who were here at the time.

Those voices have given me the “inside dope” on things such as the longhouse, the parking spaces for tour buses, the no-cost educational programming, and the access to Indigenous studies professionals. A previous staff person told me that the Council had never received any information about a longhouse, educational programming, or donors for site support, and by implication denied the accuracy of the information. Just because it never went as a formal presentation, in public, at a Council meeting, does not mean that no one in the corporation was aware. The information was there, no one took action, just made nice statements for Council meeting minutes. I suggest that Councillors get the down-and-dirty from folks who worked in your building. Turnover of personnel sometimes results in a loss of ‘historic, contextual knowledge’. Opportunities still exist I suggest.

4) NOW: DEVELOP THE PLAN TO GET THE BOAT BACK IN THE WATER

LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

  • ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001, Section 224 states, “It is the role of Council,
  • (a) to represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality”
  • (d) to ensure that administrative policies, practices and procedures and controllership policies, practices and procedures are in place to implement the decisions of the council
  • (d.1) to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the Municipality.”
  • (e) to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality”
  • ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001, Section 225 states, “It is the role of the head of the council,
  • (c) to provide leadership to the council
  • (c.1) without limiting clause ©, to provide information and recommendations to the council with respect to the role of council described in clauses 224 (d) and (d.1)
  • ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001, Section 227 states, “It is the role of the officers and employees of the municipality,
  • (b) to undertake research and provide advice to the council on the policies and programs of the municipality.

It is the three (3) parts of the 4th subsection of this omnibus motion that, together, is the critical part!

4 “THAT staff be directed to report back to Council with an implementation plan for the incorporation of the remaining recommendations from First Peoples Group, including:

1 a) Creating a working group comprised of a balanced representation of the individuals and communities within Wilmot Township to discuss, develop and suggest plans for the implementation of next steps centred in community cohesion and healing.

2 b) Committing to transforming community engagement and consultation processes in Wilmot Township in a way that encourages greater openness, accountability and citizen participation in decision making.”

I have already had an in-person conversation with the C.A.O. on this section. That’s why I have copied her below. If her contemporaneous notes of our conversation, in the small meeting anteroom upstairs with all the pictures of previous mayors, differ from mine, we can discuss those. Full transparency.

This motion does not direct nor require the C.A.O. and staff to provide solutions regarding the next steps. I would suggest that the previous Council was placing undue responsibility on its staff when it asked for a report with an “implementation plan”. I suggested to the C.A.O., and I state it again to all present Councillors, that she and her staff need only make recommendations on how to create a “working group comprised of a balanced representation of the individuals and communities within Wilmot Township.” Staff does not create the working group. The staff makes recommendations on how to create such a group. The council officially creates the working group.

Part 1 a) gives the job to “…discuss, develop and suggest plans for the implementation of next steps…” to the working group. I repeat, the C.A.O. and staff DO NOT create the plan which would go to Council for deliberation. It is the job of the working group.

The wording specifically states that the C.A.O. does not do the defined tasks of the working group because the staff is not part of the working group. Township staff, I state, is not a component of a balanced representation of the individuals and communities. Township staff is hired by the Council and is responsible to the Council, and the Council is responsible to Wilmot’s citizens/voters.

On that basis, I asked the C.A.O. how she and her staff would go about the first task that must be implemented before any other next steps: 1) Identifying and describing the individuals and communities that are “representative” within Wilmot Township. 2) Determining a statistically “balanced” representation. That then leads to how you determine and eliminate bias (like picking a jury) in the working group. 3) What criteria will be included in the advertisements/invitations to be eligible to participate in the working group? (Minimum age? Must have proof of residency within the Township for a minimum number of years?)

Are there training sessions going to be provided to the working group’s members so they are competent in structuring surveys or questionnaires, acting as meeting facilitators, collecting, collating and maintaining data for statistical validity analysis by a professional staff member? Will the Township create a budget to cover incidental expenses such as transportation? (no honorariums or salaries as required by the ‘First Peoples Group’ for their elders)

I suggest to the Council that the creation and conduct of the working group itself will act as a model for 2 b) in the motion. A working group does not have a mandate from the Council to describe a predetermined outcome.

Its mandate is to:

  • start over from the beginning with certain factors in existence for the present: a) statues presently in storage, b) no expansion of the project for the present, c) a contract with Createscape presently nonexistent.
  • discuss, develop and suggest plans for the implementation of next steps centred in community cohesion and healing.
  • Recommend action steps for transforming community engagement and consultation processes in Wilmot Township in a way that encourages greater openness, accountability and citizen participation in decision-making.

As the Council resumes action on this unresolved project it has an opportunity to manage the process such that it stays ahead of any potential negative, reactionary curve. The Council can ensure that it provides proactive press releases, newspaper inserts, a dedicated Township website landing page, and individual Councillors’ web newsletter notices that provide a positive perspective indicating that the Council has a long-term plan that is transparent, broadly consultative, Wilmot-based. zNo news is bad news. Fulsome news is good news. An active messenger can greatly control the message. The mayor must be the message coordinator. I present this missive as a practical action plan to address an unresolved project.

I invite your comments.

Sincerely,

Barry Wolfe

Copies:

All Councillors, Corporation of the Township of Wilmot

Sharon Chambers – C.A.O.

Jeff Bunn – Clerk

Leslie Nanibush – Asset Management

Attachment (1) – July 27, 2001 > [Re. Data Validity]

“Hi Sandy (copied to Councillors)

This observation is separate from my previous requests for data today.

Thank you for reaching out to Mr. Watts for his response.

It’s unfortunate that an ‘organization’ that is contracted by the Township to perform a service does not have access to appropriate current technology or facilities from which to make quality presentations.

It is my recollection of various inputs that the “admitted bias” presented forthrightly by FPG was more inclusive than recalled by Mr. Watts. An admitted bias of FPG was that they placed a greater emphasis on the ‘voices of the future’, or a similar phrase. The report’s bias was to emphasize the ‘voices’ opinions, limited degree of information and experiences that young students had. 2 classes of school students was weighted, with a heavy hand on the perception scale, over others. Page 11 of the Report, 3.1 “YOUTH PERSPECTIVE – SETTING THE CONTEXT FOR THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS” says it clearly. It was the opinion of 54 non-voting, non-tax paying youths that was the entire “context” of the 3 recommendations. Context means, “…the circumstances that form the basis for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.”.

I don’t deny that Mr. Watts may have said, what he indicates below, but he is being disingenuous to think that the FPG’s bias was anything other than what it has written in capital letters in its own report.  The 3 recommendations, the Report alleges, are based on the YOUTH CONTEXT. The opinions of 54 school-aged people are important. But they are not statistically valid and they are not representative of Wilmot Township.

The Report has been myopically selective of ‘voices’. It does not include an Appendix with ALL responses. It is biased in its inclusions because it does not use questions that can be interpreted. All three questions were too vague to have any validity.

“…youth residents most commonly expressed that…” is a nice touchy-feely perception by the interviewers, but there is no data graph, nor any others of other respondents anywhere in the report. Equally valid questions to those asked would be; “What does a birch tree mean to you?”, “What does the Nith River mean to you?”, “What solutions might you have for the Shade Street Bridge?” Three open-ended questions are great to start anecdotal discussion and make friends, but do not for valid surveys make. There are no questions that determine the knowledge base of the respondents. Every person must be asked the same questions to determine background knowledge. It should be noted that the third question, “What solutions might you have to offer for the future of the PMP?” makes an a priori assumption that there are problems with the path. There is no question asking if the respondent has identified any ‘problems’ about the path, what they might be, what personal experiences led to that perception? All questions are open-ended and vague.

It is interesting to note that high school students cannot be held legally responsible for their decisions, as are adults, because their mental and emotional development is not advanced to a point where they can be held responsible. “They don’t know any better.” is one way it has been phrased. The Youth Voice is useful, but it does not provide the total context for a Report’s recommendations. The Youth voice is JUST ONE sub-group of all voices – and the other voices were not demographically described or numbered and thus belittled by BIAS of the Report’s writers.

This reflects my understanding of the entire research process used by FPG. They used anecdotal, ’tell me your story’, ‘how do you feel about…?’ types of leading stimuli. This is NOT scientifically, statistically sound research.

To be statistically valid, all questions must be:

+ bias free (vetted by a range of researchers trained in wording)

+ have confirmatory questions (question #1 is followed by question #7 which is the same question, but worded differently to confirm the accuracy of the response to question #1)

+ gathers demographic information about the respondent (age, gender, racial / ethnic choice if the survey is connected to ethnicity), level of education, residence (must be Wilmot in this case)

+ questions must be closed response (sliding scale from 1 – 10, one of a fixed number of defined choices, rank ordering preference in a fixed range of choices, etc.)

+ all respondents are given the exact same questionnaires, with the exact prompts (read from a script to the respondent)

+ all data is interpreted in the context of the demographic identifiers, and responses are grouped into different groups by the demographic identifiers (Thus if the total range of surveyed people is 475 out of a total population of 22,000, then there is a very small correlation of statistical validity based solely on the small size of the sample, and the report must include the validity of accuracy. Each identified sub-group – under 18 / 18-25 / 25 – 40 / 40 – 60 / over 60; ethnic group – white / native / black / etc; resident of Wilmot for less than 12 months / 1 – 5 yrs / 5 – 10 yrs / 10+ yrs; less than high school completion / high school certification / undergraduate degree / 1, 2 post graduate degrees; etc. all MUST be reported as separate sub-groups on graphs, %, etc. All data must be broken down so that it can be accurately interpreted as to who said what.

+ all data must be subject to statistical validation (present computers and software tools make this easier to do to than when I was doing it)

+ all processes and data results and statistical interpretation is confirmed by a ’neutral’ validator looking for errors of method or interpretation before a report is published.

To be recognized as valid, all methods, survey questions, validated data must be included in a final report. Otherwise any ‘results’, ‘findings’, recommendations’ are without “merit”.

The Report presented to Council and thus to the Township’s citizens was an insult to proper survey methodology and reporting. A high school student would FAIL if this report was submitted for a stats. class.

A significant issue the Township faces as it tries to move forward with the recommendations in the FPG Report is, IT IS UNBELIEVABLE. There is no reason for 21,000+ people in Wilmot to believe that their feelings and positions on this Prime Ministers Path Project have been recognized or reflected in the Report.

They may have a very strong sensitivity and affinity to the issues faced by native residents in Wilmot, but do NOT think that the FPG Report recognizes the positive, alternative solutions presented to address the huge errors the Township has made in not fulfilling its contractual responsibilities to provide a diversity of educational strategies accompanying the physical statues.

THIS IS A MESS OF THE TOWNSHIP’S MAKING! The Township now owns its past failures to act appropriately. It also owns the failure to conduct a statistically valid survey of its citizens. It is, so far, neglecting to fix its educational components failure immediately, and allow for a ‘PAUSE”, thus putting a ‘renewed’ PMP Project vision to the electorate as a referendum in 2022.

Township Council continued to act in opposition to the 3rd recommendation in the report by the political sham of asking for public delegations’ input on July 5th, when after a 5 minute break they read from previously written speeches. Council continues to insult the intelligence of its citizens with its actions on this issue.

The Chair was negligent in allowing a complex motion of 3 radically different “recommendations” be combined into one motion. This report contains 3 recommendations, not one. They should have been presented separately after further meetings by Council to deliberate on delegations’ input. Three motions. Delegations on July 5th could then have focussed their input for, against, modifications for each recommendation separately.  The motion was sophomorically structured and repeated a bias, just as the whole report was set in a biased context.

Council blew its credibility by calling a contractor to remove the statues approximately 5 minutes after the close of the July 5th fiasco. That’s proof that this process was “cooked” before the batter was mixed. It’s not too late.

The statues are “safe”. Council should be advised by its professional staff to implement recommendation #3. Recommendation #2 should be modified to include and implement a process of developing the educational component of the PMP Project as required under the terms of the Agreements. Thus, accommodations to meet the interests of all parties, as specified in the Agreement, are met and the statues can be placed in the original context that was envisioned and agreed to by both parties.

Barry Wolfe

Baden

This will be cc’d to all Council members.

On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:04 PM, Sandy Jackson <sandy.jackson@wilmot.ca> wrote:

Hi Barry

Thank you for your patience.

I received a response from Mr. Watts regarding the part that was cut off during the council meeting and this is his response: “As I recall the gist of my remarks were “ someone suggested FPG was biased and indeed we are.  Our bias was to work in partnership with Council and staff, to create a positive space for  interaction with the community and to reflect in the very best way possible what we heard back to Council for their decision making”. Something like that was my admission.”

Please see below regarding the other outstanding question.

Regards,

Sandy “