Dear Editor,
Rob Gardner, my old neighbor, makes some good points (Sept. 3, 2026). Points that could be applied to municipal elections across Ontario.
But maybe not in Meaford at this time. I believe you overlooked the most important Meaford-specific point, Rob.
In 2026, no candidate for Council in Meaford should be voted in if they support Save Georgian Bay’s cause based on imaginary victimhood.
Fresh faces could be a great idea, but right now Meaford Council doesn’t need one single face if that face hopes to turn Meaford Council into a circus. Fresh faces who won’t commit to doing what’s best for Meaford instead of pandering to one tiny group’s selfish agenda are a terrible idea for Meaford Council.
“We need to listen to everybody” is a very old chestnut trotted out by political candidates.
What us Meaford voters also need to hear is “… but we have to stop listening when they make no sense. When they’re misleading us. When they’re asking us to put their selfish interests ahead of Meaford’s interests.”
Every Meaford candidate owes us an unambiguous yes/no answer as to whether they support SGB.
Because candidates can’t support SGB and do what’s best for Meaford.
Those are mutually exclusive alternatives.
(Editor Vance. I’d love to see that question asked for your Candidates platforms issue. One word replies only. Expect a lot of “We need to listen to everybody…” answers.)
I see three possible reasons why a Meaford candidate would support Save Georgian Bay. Remember – there is no “They’re right.” option.
1) As of today, nothing SGB says has been shown to be true. If they said something that was true? It was irrelevant to the Meaford proposal. Any candidate who was hoodwinked by misinformation spread by a tiny minority in Meaford – if that candidate genuinely believes SGB’s fairy tales – that candidate could easily be fooled again by whatever campaign of nonsense plagues Meaford next. Those candidates (whether incumbents or new faces) don’t belong on Meaford Council. They can be disqualified on the grounds of being too easily fooled to serve.
2) Any candidate who’s not gullible – those who understand they are being fed a load of SGB heifer dust – but who make the cynical calculation that appearing on SGB’s side might deliver enough votes to get them elected, really has no place on Meaford Council either. They can’t put Meaford ahead of those few deluded voters they think they need? Then we don’t need them on Council. (They fool themselves quite badly about the number of SGB voters in Meaford anyway. How many of that little club can even vote here?)
3) A candidate [not 1) or 2)] might oppose the TCE project because they believe Meaford can’t deal with the local challenges once Mark Carney and Doug Ford decide to proceed. By ignoring what Meaford Council might say if necessary? (It’s Federal land! Ontario’s electrical grid!) Those candidates don’t sound ready to roll up their sleeves to get it done, do they? Not when they’ve already given up.
Our next Council needs realists who accept that this project is needed and so grows more likely to happen every day. People prepared to tackle the challenges facing Meaford when it happens.
Our next Council needs people who understand we don’t run Meaford for the sole benefit of 40-50 people. People who may not even be voters here.
Council runs Meaford for the benefit of all 12,835 people who live here.
Answered truthfully, their own answers should disqualify certain candidates:
1) “As of today, there are no credible scientific, environmental, or engineering reasons to oppose this project. Why then would you deny the town of Meaford as much as $75,000,000 in future Community Benefit Agreement payments? If the project proceeds, but Meaford Council has OPPOSED it, TCE has NO obligation to proceed with a CBA for Meaford. Do you dislike the thought of kids enjoying much improved facilities in Meaford that much? Why don’t you want things to be $75,000,000 better in Meaford?”.
2) “Why didn’t Meaford Council find devastation, economic collapse, and millions of dead fish in Ludington during their pumped storage site visit to Michigan, when that’s exactly what SGB keeps promising us will happen here if we get one too? Is it your contention that Deputy Mayor Shirley Keaveney, Councillor Rob Uhrig, Councillor Tony Bell, and CAO Shawn Everett all lied to us upon their return from Ludington? Are you calling them liars? Or are SGB the liars here?”
3) “Do you accept the reality that this project is probably going to proceed with or without Meaford Council?”
So. Fresh faces and a new approach MIGHT be a great idea for Meaford. Rob may be on to something.
But only if those fresh faces want what’s best for Meaford.
Getting back to Rob’s Justin Perks endorsement, I easily found “make sure all voices are heard” on Mr. Perks website. In fact, “…all voices are heard” is the only thing there in bold letters.
What I can’t find on Mr. Perks website is the “… but we have to stop listening when they make no sense. When they’re simply misleading us. When they’re asking us to put their own interests ahead of ALL of Meaford’s interests.” part.
Where does Mr. Perks stand on SGB? Yes or No? “Make sure all voices are heard” isn’t nearly good enough Mr. Perks.
There are a lot of voters in Meaford that need Mr. Perks (and ALL the others) to answer that question.
It’s not just me.
Bruce Mason, Meaford
