There is little point in reviewing the sordid details that have now received wide publicity. However, the RCMP has begun what may or may not be a thorough investigation and it is, therefore, worth examining the avenues the Mounties have to consider.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau made specific reference to sections of the Criminal Code of Canada that may apply in relation to this unseemly mess. Specifically he mentioned s.119 and s.121 of that cumbersome document.

As a non-lawyer, I found yet another section that perhaps may apply – s.380.

If you are willing to slog through some legalistic language I have appended a copy word for word – of the three sections of the C.C.C. noted.

But I wonder just how thorough the RCMP investigation will be and where it will lead.

Will this investigation become a musical ride producing a myriad of excuses for why none of the above noted legislation is applicable? Will Harper duck for cover and pirogue Parliament – again? Will the Senate stagger on as an expensive, secretive, archaic dumping ground for party hacks?

Will Canadians finally say enough is enough?

Appendix – Selections from C.C.C.

CORRUPTION AND DISOBEDIENCE
Marginal note:Bribery of judicial officers, etc.
119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who
o (a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or
o (b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.
Marginal note:Consent of Attorney General
(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.
Frauds on the government
121. (1) Every one commits an offence who
o (a) directly or indirectly
 (i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or
 (ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,
a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with
 (iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or
 (iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,
whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;
o (b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;
o (c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;
o (d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with
 (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or
 (ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office;
o (e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of the government or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with
 (i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or
 (ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or
o (f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government,
 (i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another person who has made a tender, to a member of that person’s family or to another person for the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or
 (ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from another person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their own tender.
Marginal note:Contractor subscribing to election fund
(2) Every one commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government, or as a term of any such contract, whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes or gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration
o (a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidates to Parliament or the legislature of a province; or
o (b) with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in Parliament or the legislature of a province.
Marginal note:Punishment
(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
o (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
o (b) is guilty
 (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
 (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.
Marginal note:Minimum punishment
(1.1) When a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more offences referred to in subsection (1), the court that imposes the sentence shall impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceeds one million dollars.
Marginal note:Affecting public market
(2) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, with intent to defraud, affects the public market price of stocks, shares, merchandise or anything that is offered for sale to the public is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

A significant majority of Muskoka’s 51 municipal politicians have shown a remarkable inability or reluctance to think outside the box. 

Take for example the issue of municipal governance reform. Week after week the discussion has graced the pages of Muskoka’s local newspapers. Comments made; points scored, and; serious discussions have evolved. 

But to the best of my knowledge the 51 heretofore mentioned have added nothing more than silence to the discussion. One must conclude that these municipal leaders are firmly convinced the current system of duplication, waste and inefficiency is flawless with no room for improvement. 

Of course, there are those who would argue the 51 are much more interested in maintaining the status quo and perhaps – just perhaps – feathering their own comfy nests. It has also been suggested this not-so-fearless group of elected officials can’t envision positive change. 

In other words there are 51 politicians in Muskoka who can’t think outside the box. But they don’t have to strain their cerebral grey matter as studies, currently collecting dust, are available for anyone who can read. A plethora of original thinking hides within their lap-top computers. Amazing! 

But since this “we care for the taxpayer” group refuses and avoids entering into any discussion about municipal governance reform I have decided to jump off the diving board and check later to see if the pool is full or dry. 

I will start with an obvious premise: Muskoka’s environment is the primary engine of the region’s economy as without pristine forests and clean lakes and rivers the Muskoka we all love and cherish will be no more. 

It doesn’t take an Einstein to realize that a coordinated approach to environmental issues for Muskoka will not and cannot be sustained with six area municipal governments watching only their own backyards. Environmental issues won’t be resolved based on artificial geographic boundaries as Mother Nature draws her own lines. 

Of course we are stuck with the current “build it bigger” approach embraced by our myopic 51. The philosophy of more industry, more massive hotels, more pits and quarries, bigger box stores, more “perfect” roads, more well-paved subdivisions and more golf courses is not a formula for environmental sustainability. 

Moreover, employment based on building additional structures is finite. Once completed the buildings worth millions in labour and material do not continue generating significant income for Muskoka’s residents. 

So why not put a single governing body in place with a focus on the environmental as opposed to concentrating on miss-directed growth. As an aside it would be a relief to see an end to the glut of municipal committees, sub-committees and citizen advisory groups. One can only dream that a single, manageable number of elected officials would take full responsibility for all decisions related to maintaining and improving Muskoka’s environment.  

I envision a newly structured political body that would oversee an environmental protection zone, a nature preserve – a natural sanctuary. Personally, I favour “The Municipal Park of Muskoka” as a moniker. Yes, it’s a radical departure from the status quo, but it defines Muskoka for what it truly is – an environmentally and aesthetically unique area of the world. It could be promoted as a single destination with offerings from every section of the region. The piece-meal, fragmented approach to tourist promotion would finally end. 

Immediately there would be a philosophic wedding of Algonguin Park and The Municipal Park of Muskoka. Common interests could and should be shared with the Province of Ontario that would be hard-pressed to argue against the formation of such a unique municipal body. For that matter a significant portion of Parry Sound might be interested in a loose or even binding alliance with this new municipal structure. The same holds true for the Haliburton region. 

I recognize this is nothing more than a dream based on the fundamental assumption that tourist dollars (the environment) is the life-blood of Muskoka. 

The idea that I have presented is not unique and probably not very original. However, it is better – much better – than the resounding silence we’ve heard from our contented 51. 

I am reminded of a quote from Buckminster Fuller. He once said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” 

The lifeblood of Muskoka’s fiscal survival is the environment and if Muskoka’s natural ecosystem degrades significantly the local economy, as we know it, will simply collapse. 

With this stark reality in mind it is disheartening, indeed frightening, that the Federal government is pulling the plug on research that could very well help Muskoka avoid a future environmental disaster. 

Omnibus Budget Bill C-38 calls for the closure of Canada’s Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), a world-renowned freshwater and fisheries research facility. The ELA, located in Northwestern Ontario, consists of 58 small lakes and their watersheds set aside for research. It is, up to now, been a permanent field station with a dedicated research team. 

From a Muskoka perspective it provides key information, unattainable elsewhere, for objective, evidence based decision-making. Environmental issues studied include algal blooms, mercury pollution, greenhouse gases, acid rain and a host of other subjects. Not surprisingly, the multifaceted focus of this research ties directly to some of the problems already experienced in Muskoka. 

However, thanks to Prime Minister Harper and his colleagues such as MP Tony Clement, the ELA’s important work ends in March 2013. 

But that political decision, with its enormous negative ramifications for Muskoka, pales next to the silence from Muskoka’s 51 municipal politicians. Not so much as a whimper or a peep has been heard from this group yet now is obviously the time to set aside parochial politics join together and let the Federal government know that the ELA must continue its work. 

Locally, we hear constant political pontificating about economic growth and environmental protection but here we are at a significant crossroad affecting both and the silence is deafening. 

Let’s consider a “what if” scenario. What if all seven of Muskoka’s municipal governments passed strong resolutions demanding that the Harper government reverse its stance on the ELA? 

What if all 51 of Muskoka’s municipal politicians signed a strongly worded letter to MP Tony Clement with a similar message? 

What if District Chairman John Klinck convinced other municipalities such as Halliburton and Parry Sound to also pass resolutions and collect political signatures demanding the federal Tories re-think their position on this issue? 

Of course, all of the above would require co-operation and political courage not just from Muskoka’s 51 but from others as well. As such, there’s not much light at the tunnel’s end. 

In Muskoka we really don’t have a strong, across the board policies for environmental protection. It has been argued that Muskoka’s 60-plus municipal planners are the guardians of Muskoka’s environment but that 60-plus group works in seven separate planning departments that are subject to the whims of seven different political bodies. A cohesive approach to environmental issues is difficult, if not impossible, given these circumstances. 

Further, although many Muskoka bylaws exist under the guise of environmental protection, enforcement in many cases is anemic or non-existent. 

There is also the Muskoka Watershed Council (MWC). It’s composed of a partially political and partially non-political membership that truly does outstanding work. No one questions their motives or their sincerity. However, the organization’s primary focus is that of creating report cards on the current state of Muskoka’s environment health. If there’s an environmental train wreck in Muskoka we could expect a thorough report from the MWC after the fact. This is the exact opposite of a pro-active approach where stopping the train before the crash is more important. 

Frankly, under these circumstances, throwing municipal stones at the Federal government is somewhat hypocritical except for the fact Canadians expect their most senior level of government to assume a leadership role in environmental protection. 

But most unfortunately, from an environmental perspective, the ELA closure is just the tip of the iceberg. There have been many recent and proposed cuts to federal environmental planning. Scientists are deeply concerned that Canada’s capacity to protect and manage freshwater and marine resources has been seriously undermined. 

There is a consensus of concern about proposed changes to the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act – all of which are rolled into 400-plus pages of the Omnibus Budget Bill C-38. 

Muskoka’s permanent and seasonal residents must stand up and be heard as cottage country as we know it needs all the pro-active environmental research and protection it can get. Snipping away at those components does not bode well for Muskoka’s economic future. 

The obvious conduit for passing this message on to Harper and Clement is our municipal leaders.  

Question: Do these 51 have the foresight and gumption required to do what is right for Muskoka?

I want to publicly congratulate Muskoka-Parry Sound MP Tony Clement and his boss Prime Minister Harper on their heroic efforts to silence and dismiss all pesky environmentalists and others of similar, dastardly, left-leaning ilk. 

I first thought of calling the prime minister but it’s obvious to most that he has, unfortunately, lost his hearing. Even the most casual observer will note that he simply can’t listen. 

Then I considered writing him a letter but quickly realized that the absence of a corporate letterhead would immediately relegate my correspondence to the shredder. 

But the Conservative government’s latest move certainly deserves kudos. Instead of just putting forward a budget – you know, the facts and figures related to how our tax dollars are to be dispersed and regulated – this crafty group of politicos have managed to cram everything but the kitchen sink into a single omnibus budget bill. 

Over 400 pages covering everything from pensions to fisheries were included to create an easily understood read to go with morning coffee. Such a smart move! It’s a great plan that would make even more sense if every piece of new federal legislation was gathered up annually, crammed into one elaborate document and voted on in a swift and expedient manner. 

Efficiency is the key. Parliament could meet for one day every year and pass a single piece of legislation. MPs would then be free of all responsibility and be able to travel the world at government expense while avoiding contact with those who voting them into office.  

This idea of holding up parliament with debates and suggesting that hearings should be open to the public is just so much nonsense. Get on with it! Who cares what David Suzuki and groups like Sierra Club Canada think? Really, what do those people know? 

The concept of worrying about the environmental mess already created is absurd as one cannot alter the past. And looking into the future is equally bizarre as the next generations can fend for themselves. Further, the world might end tomorrow while there is profit to be made today. Why, for instance, would anyone worry about visiting the polar ice cap in the absence of five-star hotels? Let it melt! 

On the subject of melting ice it is good to see that the federal budget, Bill C-38, finally repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. At last there is an end to any formal commitment Canada has to this absurd gas emissions treaty. If the hundreds of tree-hugging scientist are correct our winters will be warmer. Frankly, Muskoka winters are much too cold and could use a good dose of warm air.  

And thanks to the Tories we find blabbermouth federal scientists have been asked to button their lips. In keeping with the tradition of leaders such as Harper and Clement the truth shall not out, rather filtered through a fine political mesh. After all, highly educated civil servants work for the public at public expense and it would be very wrong if they revealed the results of their research and studies let alone offered an opinion. Obviously, those experts are trying to confuse the public with the truth – an unacceptable activity. 

It’s very heartening to see that the Harper government is moving away from environmental studies that may be duplicated at the provincial level. A regional assessment has, for obvious reasons, been deemed sufficient. Even David Suzuki should know that pipelines and pollution in air and water cannot possibly cross provincial borders. 

The federal budget legislation is absolutely “on the right track” (recognize that phrase?) It mentions the “environment” 74 times. Phrases such as “Canada’s business environment,” “secure the low-tax environment,” and “an environment in which companies can plan ahead, positioning themselves to compete for defence contracts” are sprinkled throughout. Environmentalists should stop whining. They are obviously getting an abundance of attention.  

Some, poorly informed organizations such as the Environmental Law Association claim the Harper government’s budget contains vague and unacceptable proposals which are likely to significantly weaken Canada’s environmental laws. Obviously, these do-gooders are thinking about the next generations of Canadians and have lost sight of the profits that can be made today. They just don’t get it. 

Lastly, Clement deserves special praise as Muskoka’s federal representative. He must be applauded for recognizing that environmental considerations in Muskoka are not a priority. 

Although long suspected it’s now official: The District Municipality of Muskoka under the leadership of Chairman John Klinck has a phantom censorship board. 

Now that “board” may actually be just one person but who knows as it’s all top-secret. A recent newspaper report indicated that Klinck “has no idea” who takes responsibility for what the public is allowed or not allowed to cast their eyes on. 

Apparently this all started when former Toronto police officer Mike Ingram sent a letter to the district’s airport advisory committee. The letter had a few rough edges but nothing that would startle a grade eight student who had just finished watching a gruesome murder on a re-run of CSI Miami. 

It was reported that the original letter went to the committee with a number of redactions presumably meant to protect the sensitive eyes and minds of the committee’s members. Redactions eventually led to complete removal of the letter from the committee’s minutes. 

Backing up just a bit it’s my fuzzy impression that Klinck is top dog at the district so the question is simple. Who authorized this censorship? It also leads one to ask if Klinck functions as captain or crew. 

Ingram had taken exception to delays related to development of Muskoka Airport and was very critical of the airport advisory committee charged with trying to sort through the complexities and politics of this particular development (non-development?) issue. 

One does not have to agree or disagree with the former police officer. However, his right as a taxpayer and citizen to have his opinion included in the minutes should not have been abrogated.  

It appears that his primary sin was to refer to committee members as asses. The word ass simply means stupid person although it also can refer to a four-legged animal related to a horse.  

He didn’t threaten the committee members; he didn’t accuse any of the committee members of criminal activity nor did he suggest committee members had in any way crossed to a socially unacceptable place. No, he simply said that their decisions were stupid and by extension those who made the decisions were also stupid. 

Yes, that’s a smidgen harsh but are members of this committee, hand-picked behind closed doors by district politicians, so thin-skinned that the word ass sends them scurrying for cover and the protection of an unidentified censorship czar or board? 

But the district’s secret censorship board/person saw all this from a somewhat lofty, self-righteous perch. Imagine words like ass in a letter to such an incredibly sensitive group.  Ingram should have known that even the mildest criticism would do irreparable damage to those delicate committee flowers and general public.  

Thank our lucky stars that the secret, unnamed, district committee or individual charged with purging all things that even carry a slight whiff of turpitude or mild insult was on guard for the sake of the sensitive public. Can you imagine the scandal if this sort of blasphemous language was embedded in the district minute book. 

Of course, letters of opinion often don’t appear in the district’s minute book. Missives from the public usually get listed under “correspondence” and if someone wants a copy of those letters a request must be made to the district clerk. 

It’s interesting that even though many of these letters are listed in the electronic minutes there is no quick link for the curious to access them. This is hardly a formula for two-way dialogue between the elected and the electorate. 

Klinck is reported to have said “……..that type of thing should not be in the public record.” This is just so much self-righteous drivel. If used in a movie Ingram’s language would get no worse than a “PG” rating and would not so much as turn the head of a primary school child. 

The District Chairman apparently also passed judgement on Ingram’s presentation that he described, in so many words, as convoluted. It would appear that only those with a PhD in English literature should consider expressing his or her opinion to such a scholarly group. 

The irony is that had the self-appointed censor(s) not jumped in with eyes and minds closed the whole sorry tale would never have reached the public. 

Even an ass would conclude that censoring mildly insulting, colorful language is far more offensive than the words that are censored.  

A public apology by Lawrence Tanenbaum, Chairman of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment has convinced me that I am a weak, foolish Leaf addict in desperate need of rehabilitation. 

Yes, as embarrassed as I am to say this, I’m a Toronto Maple Leaf fan and have been since childhood. My excuse, as feeble as it may sound, is parallel to an old Jesuit motto: Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man. 

My earliest recollection of the Maple Leafs came when I joined my father and grandfather to listen while Foster Hewitt described games over a crackling radio. I was little more than a rug rat and there was no TV in our household at the time. Yes, I’m no spring chicken! 

In public school one of my classmates, whose full name I’ve since forgotten, was a member of the Conn Smythe family. 

“Clear the track” Eddie Shack lived a block from my west-end Toronto home and he would roar through the neighbourhood in a sports car, scattering my road hockey friends and I as he whizzed by. 

In high school I found myself in the same class as Bill Ballard, son of the now deceased, unapologetic and pugnacious Harold Ballard who some will remember spent time in Muskoka at a federal resort known as Beaver Creek. 

Not far from that high school lived Johnny Bower, the Leaf’s legendary, ageless goalie. Some mornings he would drive by the school in his station wagon, looking much like an accountant heading to the office. All heads would turn and all would cheer and wave. His attention to the road never wavered. He was off, we presumed, to practice. 

And seared into my not-so-young brain are visions of Keon dancing around opponents, Kelly making perfect passes, Baun thumping players to the ice and Mahovilich winding up for an end to end rush. 

And to further cement my credentials as a Maple Leaf fan I attended the Gardens (nosebleed section) the night Darryl Sittler scored six goals with four assists for a record ten points. 

And I couldn’t help but be inspired and captivated by the tenacity and courage of Wendel Clark and Doug Gilmour. I keep hoping a player will come along someday soon that can emulate both their style and passion for the game.  

None of these somewhat obscure connections equate to Leaf loyalty, but the constant exposure to all things blue and white were contributing factors leading to my overwhelming addiction. 

Intellectually I am fully aware that allegiance to any professional sports team is truly mindless. The only interest team owners have in me is the almighty dollar – nothing less and nothing more. 

But I, like many others, am either conditioned or addicted in my allegiance to the blue and white. I can’t seem to let go. My rational side says find another team to cheer for, give up completely on NHL hockey or find some other sport. But I can’t. I’m too weak to let go. 

Tanenbaum’s open letter apology just doesn’t cut it. Teams that were not even in the NHL in 1967 have won the Stanley Cup. They build from scratch and scratched to win. On the other hand my team, the Leafs, have simply been scratched every year since 1967.  

I have concluded that I must find ways to deal with my addiction knowing full well that my body cannot continue to deal with the enormous stress created by cheering a team that loses in seeming perpetuity. 

Consequently I am determined that in September I will not pay any attention to the sports pages or any TV program that so much as whispers about the Toronto Maple Leafs. 

This summer please don’t talk to me about next season. I won’t listen, I won’t engage but I just may start foaming at the mouth. 

I’ve got to kick this horrible addiction and recognize that the first step to rehabilitation has to be a recognition that my condition is real and the onus is on me to get clean. My commitment is such that I will even refuse to wear anything blue or white.  

Under no circumstances will I buy or consume products advertised during hockey games. Don’t even think about offering me the wrong beverage. I’ll be forced to refuse. 

Tanenbaum’s apology and promise of making the playoffs next year rings hollow and flies in the face of historical reality. It’s just not good enough.  

I may be an addict but I’m not delusional. 

It’s amazing how even a budget discussion can quickly expose the need for municipal governance review in Muskoka. 

District councillors met last Wednesday to have a last kick at the budget can and although not acknowledged the issue of municipal governance kept popping up. 

The normal rules of a committee of the whole were suspended allowing for some degree of public participation. 

Evelyn Brown, a member of One Muskoka, noted that she had not heard any discussion about duplication and overlap from council – despite as she added, there is only one taxpayer. 

District Chairman John Klinck spoke briefly then turned that issue over to District CAO Jim Green, thus avoiding having to fully address the question himself. It was a political question and, frankly, it deserved an expansive political answer.  

Green proceeded to hold out the ongoing services review process as the vehicle to effect change. He indicated the services review process has a number of ongoing initiates that involve working with area municipalities. He said the process will be looking for “bottom line” cost savings. 

However, he failed to mention a number of factors. 

First, his reference was to possible cooperation between the district and an unspecified number of area municipalities. Further, there was no mention of cooperative action amongst the six area municipalities. In fact, that is where it’s a governance and political issue as much of the duplication of services is between area municipalities. 

The governance structure and the absolute failure of area municipalities to consolidate services and staff is a major stumbling block when it comes to duplication and efficiencies. In addition,  issues of governance are specifically excluded from the district’s Services Review Committee’s terms of reference.  

How a service review can get to the root cause of the incredible, egregiously wasteful duplication and overlap amongst Muskoka’s area municipalities is a mystery. 

But it’s only a mystery until you consider motive. The most logical theory is that District councillors and area mayors are using service review(s) as a way to avoid a complete, independent governance review of all seven municipal governments in Muskoka. 

The mayors and their respective councils do not want to see the disintegration of, for instance, the Monarchy of Muskoka Lakes, the Kingdom of Lake of Bays or the Empire of Bracebridge. Not only would most of their jobs vanish, so too would their control. 

Councillors Phil Harding and Rosemary King inadvertently brought home this point when they introduced a motion to cut back the budget for the Muskoka Tourism and Marketing Association (MTMA) by slightly more than nine thousand dollars – a relative pittance in relation to the funds received by the organization from district coffers last year. 

Harding, in his presentation to council, said when it comes to tourism promotion in Muskoka there is “lots of overlap and duplication.”  

There are at least seven groups all striving to promote tourism in Muskoka, each with their own independent mandate with little coordination amongst the players, said Harding. “I would like to see greater efficiencies.”  

At that point in time the council had the perfect segue that would have led to a broader discussion of overlap and inefficiencies. 

But councillors sat on their respective hands and failed to address the fact there are six fire departments in Muskoka, 61 planners, six property tax departments, seven CAO’s, seven treasurers, 51 politicians and a mere 73 political positions. The list goes on and on. 

But they didn’t go there. A golden opportunity to discuss “greater efficiencies” and “duplication” was frittered away while, incidentally, not one of Muskoka’s seven municipal governments will announce a decrease in property taxes. 

And again, the issue of leadership reared its head. A target big enough to drive a truck through presented itself and District Chairman John Klinck, given the perfect opportunity, failed to initiate a discussion that had relevance far beyond that of any service review. 

But Klinck has indicted in the past that he takes his marching orders from district councillors and not the reverse. His style, to summarize, is one of followership, not leadership. 

What we are seeing at district is a perfect example of the ostrich principle. Bury your head in the sand and the most obvious problems will simply disappear, except of course, property tax increases.

Muskoka’s political egg has finally cracked and, like Humpty Dumpty, it will probably never be put together again. 

There have been ominous but welcome warning signs that the political egg was vulnerable, not the least of which was the continuing frustration the voting public feels about Muskoka’s blatantly wasteful municipal governance system. Taxes rise while duplication of services continues unabated. 

The first visible crack in the egg occurred when Lake of Bays Mayor Bob Young was reported to mumble about secession from the district fold. Apparently he even took his thesis to Kathleen Wynne, Ontario’s minister of municipal affairs and housing. I’m sure she was instantly swayed.   

Imagine, Lake of Bays with its own retirement residence, engineering staff, police force and community services department. And lest we forget it would be obligated to assume its portion of the $100 million district debt. This would truly be an exercise in property tax reduction. Not!   

Muskoka Lakes Mayor Alice Murphy is also reported to have joined in the discussion, whining about the large chunk of taxes dollars her municipality pays. Her argument, of course, falls flat if one imagines a reverse scenario. 

Consider: A person lives in a lakefront house in Muskoka for 10 months of the year then spends the other two in their multi-million dollar house in Oakville. Would Oakville’s municipal leaders even consider lowering their tax assessment based on short-term occupancy? We all know the answer – a no-brainer to be sure. 

Then it’s reported that District Chairman John Klinck added his two cents worth. Apparently, what he didn’t say is that Muskoka’s municipal governance structure is fraught with problems, not the least of which (aside from blatant duplication) is far too many captains struggling to steer the ship along their own, independent, parochial course. 

But the district leader has not taken a bold stance. Either he is in favour of an independent review of governance in Muskoka or he is not. He doesn’t have to wait for others to speak up – leaders are allowed, indeed expected, to offer independent thoughts. It’s yea or nay Chairman Klinck. 

Yes, the political egg is cracked. No amount of apathy, avoidance or hollow rhetoric can repair the much-appreciated damage that’s been done. 

Perhaps, as a collective act of political courage all 51 of Muskoka’s municipal politicos should add more cracks to the egg. 

They can start now or wait for the next municipal election when they’ll be forced to explain their inaction.

The District Municipality of Muskoka’s political leadership is a clinker where a conflagration is desperately required. 

Ok, ok; that statement is sorely in need of explanation.  

Years ago, a great many houses were heated with coal furnaces. The by-product of the fire in those furnaces was a ring of clinkers – a form of slag no longer capable of supporting combustion. It had to be removed and placed in a metal trash can. 

On the other hand a conflagration is defined as a great, all-consuming fire. 

Clearly a conflagration is much the opposite of a clinker. The clinker is what is left when the fire has run its course. 

Indeed, as former District Chairman Hugh Mackenzie noted, the district has “passed its best before date.”  He seemed to be saying that district leadership is a clinker – a conflagration that is no more. Whatever fire that may have been is no longer. 

In fact, there is a collective failure of leadership, shared unequally and equally amongst 22 district councillors and Chairman John Klinck.  

But is the semi-circle of political clinkers actually being led by Klinck? 

Recently Klinck was asked why he has failed to talk publicly about municipal governance reform in Muskoka and, further, why he has not pushed forward in the direction of an independent review. 

He said there is a “void of concrete ground swell,” explaining that he had not heard much from the area mayors to lead him to believe governance change or even a review was needed. 

Klinck explained that he takes direction from council. There is no “grass roots” desire to proceed with an examination of the current municipal governance structure, he said. 

Is this leadership or followership? Surely, one would expect someone designated as a chairman to actually lead and not just follow. 

The malaise many taxpayers feel goes much deeper than the political. The District is a 40-year-old organization. Many of the District’s senior bureaucrats came up through the ranks and are now cruising for retirement. There is no fire within their ranks. There isn’t even a wisp of smoke and certainly not a conflagration. 

Whether the politicos have systematically snuffed out the bureaucratic fire or whether this flame suppression stems from apathy, frustration or fear of reprisal is a question that remains unanswered. 

At the political level new district councillors sit around the opulent, oversized district council chambers and look more like deer caught in the headlights than leaders prepared to take on a myriad of serious issues. 

Without question three mayors – Claude Doughty, Alice Murphy and Bob Young – appear to provide district council with some direction. Sadly, they often appear to have the same agenda. The meal is well cooked long before it’s served and it’s rarely very inspiring. 

The committee system is fraught with systemic problems, not the least of which is the fact only a handful of councillors at any given time are truly up to speed on all the issues requiring the blessing of a majority. 

There’s an old definition of “committee” that needs to be carefully considered by overburdened taxpayers and by the elected. That definition is as follows: 

 “A committee is a group of men (and women) who, individually, can do nothing but collectively meet and decide that nothing can be done.”  

And the number of district committees has grown. The newly formed Services Review Committee, for example, is the political equivalent of navel gazing.  Endless hours will be spent examining the district’s internal role while all the time pretending there is no co-relation between the district and the six area municipalities. 

But the die was cast before the Services Review Committee even began discussions. The terms of reference endorsed by council prohibit discussion about governance. But governance is the elephant in the room. Muskoka’s seven municipal governments are the exact opposite of a well oiled machine that constantly seeks to improve efficiencies. 

In effect, the Services Review Committee is trying to swim laps with its hands tied while fending off the sharks of reality. 

And the airport advisory committee certainly started with a whimper. Take, for instance, the meeting of March 05, 2012. It was chaired by Georgian Bay Township Mayor Larry Braid and had as much structure as a plate of spaghetti. 

There were side comments and casual conversations not sanctioned by the chairman along with staff input that seemed to emphasize what could not be done as opposed to what could be done. Frankly, little was accomplished. 

Most surprising were questions that had already been answered in a 2005 Environmental Impact Study for Lands East of Muskoka Airport authored by Gartner Lee Limited. Either the committee members had failed to read the report  were never provided with the report. 

Once again, serious environmental issues – and there’s a host of them connected to this airport – were not front and centre in a discussion about Muskoka’s future and the future of the airport. 

Questions regarding the structural integrity and longevity of the main runway surfaced. It turns out there are two studies on this subject that, once again, was either not distributed or not read. 

A conflagration is required. It has to sear the bottoms of the 23 district politicians who appear to believe that never rocking the boat, good attendance, a lack of originality and avoidance of controversy translates into leadership. 

And the flames of that conflagration must reach out to the area municipalities and burn into their parochial mindsets that the world is much larger than they currently believe. 

Unfortunately, sadly and pathetically the district as it now stands is a clinker. 

To convert the clinker into a conflagration requires leadership, not followership. Klinck must toss the clinkers into the trash can, search for the new, and start a blaze that burns into the future. 

One must ask if Klinck has the gumption, the desire or the ability to light a fire that becomes a true conflagration.