News, quotes, and opinions from latest meeting about hospital redevelopment

By Ruby Truax, contributor to this blog and the Huntsville Voice.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of Muskoka Unlimited.

Our District Council met Monday afternoon to discuss a motion moved by the Mayor of Muskoka Lakes, Peter Kelley. 

The motion set conditions on the release of the money the District of Muskoka has committed to Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare’s (MAHC) hospital redevelopment plan, because the proposal has been “drastically altered” since the commitment was made last year. 

Back in October 2023, our District Council made a commitment in good faith to contribute $77.3 million of our tax dollars to this project with no conditions attached to it. 

Then just a few months later, MAHC changed their proposal. Councillors were inundated with emails and phone calls from constituents across Muskoka and Almaguin who were unhappy with MAHC’s new plan for our two hospitals. 

Mayor Kelley said that District Council has a strong obligation to responsibly manage the tax money we pay them, and in the case of this unconditional commitment, that obligation had not been met.

He noted that the $77.3 million dollars doesn’t actually belong to them, but came from their constituents, so council owes their constituents a higher standard. 

His motion called for the District’s local share funding to be made conditional on council approving MAHC’s proposal before it is submitted to the Ministry of Health.

There was a lengthy discussion Monday afternoon between the mayors and councilors representing all the towns and townships of Muskoka.  

Mayor Rod Ward of Armour Township in Almaguin was in the chamber to observe, as were Cheryl Harrison and Dave Uffelmann from MAHC.

Mayor Peter Kelley began the discussion by explaining that his motion is “a matter of process rather than product,” and said that other communities have set preconditions on their local share funding commitments. 

He described a formula that Niagara Region used which looks at the process by which the plan was derived, kind of like an audit. 

Did they follow the rules? Did they consult the right people? Did they put tenders and bids out? Was the process transparent and available?

Niagara Region looked at the process through a filter of diligence, accountability, and economic opportunity. They left it to the experts to come up with the actual plan.  

Councillor Guy Burry, who had seconded the motion, said that with the diversity of thought and the collective intelligence of those at the council table, if they decided that the plan had been well conceived, it would probably be good for their constituents. 

Councillor Burry emphasized that the motion was not about Council making the plan; it was about Council being convinced that the plan is right for their community.

Most councillors supported the motion, saying it’s important to put parameters in place to safeguard our finances. Councillor Tatiana Sutherland commented that there’s a collective lesson to be learned about unconditional funding commitments from the way MAHC changed the plan after the commitment had been made. 

Councillor Ruth Nishikawa talked about how Council was coerced last fall to make a decision by January, and added that she would not be coerced again by the threat that the provincial funding would be lost. 

Some felt the motion was too vague and wanted to know what the specific conditions would be. Mayor Kelley described the five-point system that Niagara Region had used. 

They gauged the mandatory requirements, the economic benefits, the social benefits (access and inclusion), the direct regional healthcare benefits, and the indirect healthcare benefits.

They left the actual hospital plan up to the experts. Gravenhurst Mayor Heidi Lorenz suggested council look at the conditions that Niagara Region had imposed. She said it’s not unreasonable to ask for these checkpoints; it’s part of MAHC’s job.

Georgian Bay Township Councillor Brian Bochek offered a different perspective.  Georgian Bay taxpayers will be paying 11 per cent of the District share of the project, yet none of the population of Georgian Bay Township will ever use either of the two hospitals. 

Georgian Bay Township is nowhere near the Huntsville or Bracebridge hospital sites. They go to Midland, Orillia and Barrie for healthcare. But Councillor Bockek supported the motion because it will put guardrails in place and some accountability.

Huntsville Not In Favour

Huntsville councillors were the outliers in this discussion. None of them supported the motion. 

Mayor Nancy Alcock said the motion suggests that MAHC must go back and redesign the model starting from scratch, and said that if the model isn’t approved by the Council, we will have blown our opportunity with the province.

She objected to the wording that MAHC’s redevelopment plan had been “drastically altered,” and asked for a six-week timeframe for District approval because MAHC had said it’s important that the proposal be submitted to the province by November.

Huntsville Councillor Dan Armour agreed with Mayor Alcock and added that District Council should not be approving the plan because they’re not healthcare professionals. He suggested the word endorsement instead. 

Huntsville Councillor Scott Morrison talked about the “division and toxicity” that this motion would create and the increased pressure on councillors. 

“I do not want to be part of a council that goes down in history as the one who bungled a billion dollar investment opportunity,” he said. He also suggested a deferral of the motion until everyone on council has attended more MAHC education sessions 

Huntsville Councillor Bob Stone said he would not support the motion because it was too open-ended, and suggested deferring the motion until there were criteria for the conditions.

Mayor Kelley reminded the Huntsville representatives that the motion is about the process, not about the product. The motion is a way to gauge how MAHC and its advisors came to its conclusion, whatever that conclusion is. 

He refuted Mayor Alcock’s assertion that the motion suggested MAHC go back and start over. 

He said that the motion merely gave council the opportunity to consider whether MAHC had taken the time and consultation to come to a model in which the healthcare benefits are universal over the entire region. 

The motion only suggested that MAHC document the process whereby they came to their conclusion. What MAHC does should be done transparently, professionally, and with accountability, he said. 

Deferral Motioned

Deputy Mayor Armour put a motion on the floor to defer the motion until everyone had an opportunity to go to an upcoming MAHC information session. Councillor Morrison seconded the motion.

Bracebridge Mayor Rick Maloney responded by saying he expected that every councillor would have already taken every opportunity over the last several months to educate themselves on the model and to discuss it with their constituents and stakeholders. 

“That’s part of our job,” he said. “If you’ve been sitting on the sidelines at this point and you need to be educated, shame on you!”

Bracebridge Councillor Tatiana Sutherland agreed that Council members attending an MAHC information session would not qualify them to vote on the process.  

She reminded council that they wouldn’t be debating the plan, they would be debating the process, and said she hoped that council can develop a set of criteria based on the Niagara Region criteria that Mayor Kelley spoke about. 

Councillor Morrison repeated that the motion will set us up for more toxicity and more division, calling out Mayor Maloney for “going at” Councillor Armour for putting the motion to defer on the floor. Councillor Morrison said we need to bring the temperature down. 

Lake of Bays Mayor Terry Glover said he was not in favour of deferral, but wanted to move ahead, and suggested some amendments to the original motion. 

So Councillor Armour withdrew the motion to defer, and council made amendments to the original motion. 

At Mayor Alcock’s suggestions, the clause regarding MAHC’s design concept being “drastically” altered was removed, some of the language was changed, and a timeframe was included to accommodate MAHC’s timeline for submitting its proposal. 

But even after all her changes were implemented and all the other District councillors were satisfied, Mayor Alcock and her Huntsville counterparts still didn’t support the motion.

Councillor Morrison stood one last time before the vote to warn that without the District’s local share, MAHC won’t proceed, and that whatever model is proposed to council in October is not going to be the model that gets built anyway.

Over the years there will be many changes, he said. He encouraged councilors to attend MAHC’s information sessions, and commented that we can’t predict what the political climate will be in the future, so council cannot assume that the provincial funding will be there forever.

Result of Vote – after amendments

After the amendments were made to the motion, council voted in favour of making their original funding commitment conditional on the final proposal being approved by council at its October 21, 2024 meeting (or as soon as possible after that date) prior to MAHC submitting its final proposal to the province.

Council also agreed to continue working with stakeholders to advocate for the region.

Strong Impression

My strong impression of the meeting was that Mayor Alcock and Councillor Morrison were advocating for MAHC, not for their constituents: their fear mongering felt way over the top. 

Mayor Kelley and other councilors had explained more than once that District Council would not be approving the hospital plan itself, but the process MAHC went through to come up with the plan. 

I found this perfectly reasonable, as did most of council. But Huntsville’s mayor and councilors continued to speak as though they were expected to be hospital planners. 

They also continued to say that Muskoka could lose this opportunity if MAHC’s plan is not approved and soon. And they oversaw the careful rewording of the motion to make it more palatable to MAHC.   

They made sure that MAHC’s interests were represented, but had nothing to say about their constituents’ interests.

Councilor Nishikawa had spoken about feeling coerced last October. I’m wondering if she felt that coercion from MAHC, or from the Huntsville councillors.