The early feedback on the city’s draft of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Community and Aquatic Centre Feasibility Study appears positive, based on the steady stream of residents who attended the drop-in open house this past Thursday (Jan. 22).
Held in the lower level of the Joe Thornton Community Centre, it was an opportunity to read through and ask questions about the two documents that will help guide future decisions related to parks, recreation facilities, and services across the community.
A considerable amount of attention was directed toward the aquatic centre, an ambitious undertaking that is likely eight or ten years down the road.
Not just because of the price tag – in the $100 million range for the fully decked-out configuration, and remember that is in 2025 dollars – but also, there is no city-owned land available to house such a facility.
We spoke with Adrienne Lacey Griffin, Director of Parks and Recreation, about the path forward and the public reaction.
“I think people are really focusing on the pool aspect and the community rec center. So we’re excited to see how city council receives that, how the public receives that.
“So we need 10 to 12 acres to complete all of what’s included in the community recreation centre, which could be incorporated over phases. But certainly, we want the space where we can grow it as much as we can. And one of the things the consultants noted is that only 40% of that will be allocated for the building. The rest is for parking.”
Following the closure of the therapy pool at St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, there was public feedback on the inclusion of a similar pool in the aquatic centre.
Lacey Griffin confirmed there has been discussion on such a feature.
“It all depends on what council wants to see. And of course, the budget allowed for it. But it’s certainly something that we’ve taken into account in this study.”
Not all of the focus was on indoor facilities, however, with interest shown for more trails and parkland.
“The recreational trails in the City of St. Thomas are the most used recreational activity,” noted Lacey Griffin, “with hundreds of thousands of people using them a year.
“So we know that that’s really special to the residents of St. Thomas, and we like that council supports annual expansion of the trails and parkland. And there is the need to continue to increase our parkland to be able to provide a beautiful city for the residents to live in.”
Another feature is a domed facility to allow for a variety of sports to be played indoors throughout the year.
“The feasibility study talks about the need for indoor turf fields, which is a smaller facility, revenue-generating, and would really support the children and the adults who don’t necessarily play hockey.
“The ones that have to go to London for the wintertime because there is no indoor space here. And also, you know, it could appeal to other groups such as cricket, indoor baseball, and field hockey.
“There are lots of different sports the indoor facility could appease, and it would really be another piece that’s missing in the city.”
The mention of cricket is intriguing as it is a sport popular around the world that is gaining a strong foothold in this province.
Lacey Griffin acknowledged that and added, “We have a preliminary design that includes a cricket pitch at Cowan Park, and we’ve talked with the soccer club, and they’re very supportive of sharing that space.
“And we picked that area because there is the ability for a lot of parking. You need quite an expansive space to put in a proper cricket pitch. And we’ve had informal cricket pitches set up at our other parks.
“We know that it’s needed in the community. And as the community continues to be diverse, more and more people are going to want that space. So we really need to make sure that we’re looking at all the needs of the community, not just certain groups.”
“So again, it’s just really good for staff and for the public to understand that there’s a plan in place, and that we see the importance of parks and recreation in the city.”
There are dozens of recommendations in the master plan, she noted.
“I think there are over 70 of them. Some of them we’ve already started on.
“One of the capital projects that was approved this year, which was mentioned as a recommendation, was outdoor volleyball courts. So we’re going to be working on installing those at Pinafore Park.
“So again, it’s just really good for staff and for the public to understand that there’s a plan in place, and that we see the importance of parks and recreation in the city.”
The final facility we discussed is the massive expanse at 1Password Park, and there are exciting developments in the city’s north end.
“That’s where the feasibility study recommends that the indoor turf facility go. So that’s up to council to decide.
“We’re looking at maybe reconfiguring some of the soccer fields, because now that we’ve played in the space, some of them aren’t getting used as much. But certainly, the space is well used, and we work with all the clubs there to determine what needs they have.
“We are moving the copper-roofed pavilion that sits on the other side of the basketball courts over to near the splash pad to create a space for shade because that’s one of the complaints, that there is not enough shade.
“So this will be like a central point where tournaments can host their groups. People can rent it for birthday parties. It’s right close to the splash pad. Parents can hang out where their kids are on the playground. So, we’re really enjoying that space, but there is a little bit of room to grow.”
As for the next step, Lacey Griffin advises that the public input phase closes on Feb. 13 and the final document will come to city council on March 9.
The draft documents can be found at https://www.stthomas.ca/living_here/parks_and_recreation/parks___rec_master_plan_update___feasibility_study and public comments can be submitted to parksplan@stthomas.ca by Feb. 13.
For Lacey Griffin, having the two documents in hand was akin to being let loose in a toy or candy store.
“I’m hoping that within the rest of my career here, I’m able to see this. I think as the city grows to the projected population that they’ve noted of 79,000, that we’re able to incorporate something like this, which would be really important to the community.”
KEEPING THE ST. THOMAS CEMETERY COMPANY AFLOAT
At the onset of the new year, we noted that for the second time in a decade, the St. Thomas Cemetery Company has begun the process of abandoning St. Thomas Cemetery (West Avenue) and South Park Cemetery, south of the city.
We spoke with board chair Tom Marks, who confirmed that year after year, the board seeks to increase the city’s financial participation beyond the $60,000 level.
The current budget is approximately $200,000, including around $116,000 for a pair of full-time employees and one part-time employee.
A request to increase city funding to $90,000 this year, plus $100,000 in capital funding, was nowhere to be seen in the draft 2026 budget presented to city council last month.
West Avenue Cemetery
So, we approached St. Thomas Mayor Joe Preston about the latest move by the cemetery board, and the frustration was clearly audible in his voice.
“For 20 years, we’ve been adding substantial income to the cemetery group. Now, they’re a private charity that runs the cemeteries, and there are rules and regulations they are to be following.
“So we keep asking them, look, if we keep subsidizing and we’d like not to have to do this under the Cemetery Act, it’s their job to raise the funds and to set their budget.
“But, in my whole time as mayor, more than $50,000 a year has been given to the cemetery. So, look, we will work with them on this.”
Preston suggested the board’s move to begin abandonment proceedings is nothing more than an attention-getter.
“I sometimes think people just want to announce what they’re going to do about it before they’ve said, hey, if we work together, how can we all do it?”
West Avenue Cemetery in St. Thomas
Preston reiterated, “We’ve been sending them some pretty good checks every year.”
The funds are directed to the St. Thomas Cemetery Corporation, which manages the West Avenue Cemetery in St. Thomas and one in Central Elgin (South Park).”
The Municipality of Central Elgin does not contribute to the day-to-day operation of South Park.
Preston continued, “And we’ve been supplying cash to them (the cemetery corporation) to help them with that organization. Central Elgin has not.
“And so we’ll need to work together with both municipalities.”
Preston suggested the cemetery corporation could choose to undertake fundraising to support its operating expenses.
Something it has relied on in the past.
Preston noted, “It is the job of the cemetery corporation to put money away to accomplish all the things cemeteries have to accomplish. Now, carrying a fund where all this happens is not an easy thing to do.
“But there are certainly some very successful cemeteries out there, and there are some that have been abandoned. And so we want to work together with the people that are within our community to help them come to a good decision of what type of help it takes or is there a better fundraising model for them.?
“Let’s make sure we check all the boxes.”
Preston alluded to past decisions that, perhaps, contributed to the present financial difficulties.
“Sometimes, you’ve got decisions that were made years ago that now don’t match the expenses of today. And so, you’ve got to stay current. And that’s why there’s a board at the St. Thomas Cemetery Company.”
Related post:
FACT VS. FEAR
Last week in this corner, we delved into the controversy surrounding Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.)
Some religious leaders believe the bill could remove a key legal protection for people of faith. Bill C-9 has been amended to remove religious defence under the Criminal Code.
A group of Conservative MPs, including Elgin-St. Thomas-London South MP, Andrew Lawton, have been touring the country hosting religious freedom rallies, and the link to last week’s item can be found here.
And, you can read the bill at https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-9/first-reading
Here are the Top 10 myths about Bill C-9
Myth 1: Reading, teaching, or even discussing religious texts or
beliefs are now “hate speech.”
Fact: The expression of sincerely held religious beliefs is not now and will
never be a crime. The offence of wilfully promoting hatred will only apply
when religious text is combined with contextual factors that show the
individual is intentionally promoting hatred. To constitute an offence, the text must be manipulated by bad-faith actors to push their hateful agendas.
Myth 2: The repeal of the “good faith” religious exemption defence
creates a censorship regime.
Fact: The right to freedom of expression, including religious expression, is
guaranteed by the Charter. The amendments to Bill C-9 will in no way
restrict Canadians’ freedom to express sincerely held religious beliefs.
Myth 3: This creates ‘bubble zones’ and bans protests near
synagogues, mosques, or cultural centres.
Fact: It does not create distance-based protest zones. The proposal targets criminal conduct: being intimidated (intent to cause fear, not subjectively feeling afraid) and intentional physical obstruction around specified places.
Myth 4: Chanting or holding signs could get people charged.
Fact: No. These laws exclude people who are there only to obtain or
communicate information (i.e., peaceful protest). Violence and
threats aren’t protected expression.
Myth 5: Any big crowd that slows entry is ‘obstruction.’
Fact: Obstruction requires intentional interference with access. Mere
presence to communicate without physically blocking doesn’t make out
the offence.
Myth 6: The hate-crime offence jails people for opinions.
Fact: The hate-crime offence applies only when a separate federal offence is committed (e.g., assault, mischief) and it’s motivated by hatred. The penalties scale with the underlying offence’s seriousness. It does not
criminalize mere opinions or insults.
Myth 7: Hatred just means being rude or offensive.
Fact: The Supreme Court says “hatred” is detestation and vilification, which is an extreme standard. The proposal would codify that; dislike,
disdain, offence or humiliation alone are not hatred.
Myth 8: Universities and community centres are automatically
covered.
Fact: Determining whether a property is or is not captured by the proposed offences would generally be a highly fact-specific exercise and ultimately for the courts to determine. However, some properties will more clearly be captured than others. Importantly, the existing general intimidation and obstruction offences apply to all property, and so any property that is not captured by these new offences would continue to be captured by the existing offences of general application. As examples of places that would likely be covered:
Churches, Synagogues, Mosques: Yes, because religious
institutions would be specifically identified.
Religious daycares and religious schools: Yes, although not
specifically identified, these are educational institutions that are
primarily used by an “identifiable group” based on religion.
Secular daycares and secular schools: Likely yes, as these are
educational institutions primarily used by an “identifiable group”
based on “age” (i.e., young people).
Colleges and Universities: Possibly, if the educational institution in
question was used primarily by an “identifiable group” (e.g., private
Christian college).
Funeral Homes: Possibly, if the funeral home was used for
administrative or cultural purposes primarily by an “identifiable group”
or was determined to be a place of worship.
Seniors’ Residences: Yes, if the residence was used primarily by an
“identifiable group”.
Cultural Centre: Yes, if it was used primarily by an “identifiable
group”.
Community Centre: Possibly, if the property is used for
administrative, social, cultural or sports activities or events primarily
by an “identifiable group”.
LGBTQ+ spaces: Possibly, if the property is used primarily ”by that
identifiable group” for administrative, social, cultural or sports
activities or events.
Museums: Unlikely, unless it is used primarily by an identifiable
group.
Hillel Campus Centres and Muslim Student Centres: Possibly, if the spaces were used primarily by these “identifiable groups”. It may be less clear in situations where rooms at issue are not dedicated primarily for use by these groups.
Myth 9: This bans any protest symbol the Liberals don’t like
Fact: No. It bans a specific and closed list of symbols: (a) those principally used by or associated with a listed terrorist entity; (b) the Nazi Hakenkreuz (swastika) or Nazi SS bolts; and (c) confusingly similar look-alikes.
Myth 10: Just displaying a symbol is a crime
Fact: No. The offence is displaying one of those symbols in a public place
and doing so willfully to promote hatred against an identifiable group. Intent (“wilfully”) and the hatred threshold must both be met.
Questions and comments may be emailed to City Scope
Visit us on Facebook
And a reminder, I can be heard weekday afternoons as news anchor and reporter on 94.1 myFM in St. Thomas. As always, your comments and input are appreciated.
