HomeMy WebLinkAboutClinton News-Record, 1972-06-22, Page 11Clinton, Ontario
0s0.00,0".0%"#.00%0.0%.0twow"
Second Section
Thursday, June 22, 1972 107 Yetir N o. 24
These students achieved the highest standing, the Award of Excellence, for the Canada Fitness Award
Program. Left to right in the back row are, Sylvia Wilson, Shirley McFadden, Carla Brodie, Dwight
Kinsman, Mike Gibbings, Paul Robinson, Robert Wilson, Barb Doig, Debra Snider, Center row, Paul
Carter, John Coleman, Roy Brown, Dale Stephenson, Janice Webster, Teresa Ferris, Kathy Martins,
Sandra McGregor, Susan McAllister, Gordon Geddes. Front row, Steven Butt, Janet Haney, Nancy
Dietz, Cathy Taylor, Brenda Papple, Teresa Chapman, Marjorie Keys, Deanna Barry and Cary Doig.
WELLESLEY
0 OROOEPO/i7
NEW WATERLOO: 0
HAMBURG
ROatw000
GUELPH 25
ABERFOYI
401
GALT Puslinch L.
l a•••4,••t:
Centennial School fitness awards presented
If someone asks you what kind
of shape the pupils of Huron ,
Centennial Public at 13rucefield
are in, you can tell them they're
as fit as a fiddle,
They should be because they
just completed the challenging,
body-building Canada Fitness
Award testing program.
The awards for the program
were presented last Thursday at
the school to the top finishers of
the 431 girls and boys who
participated.
The awards, sponsored by
Recreation Canada under the
watchful eye of the Federal
Department of Health and
Welfare, are given to students
between the ages of seven and 17
who are tested on six items that
give a overall picture of their
physical fitness condition.
Crests are awarded on the
basis of how well the children do
onany four of the six tests which
include one minute speed sit-ups,
the standing long jump, the shuttle
run, the flexed arm hang, the 50_
yard rqn and the 300 yard run.
Bronze crests were awarded to
125 pupils who scored between 55
and 79 per cent. One hundred and
seventy two students received
silver crests for getting 80 to 94
per cent and 57 students took gold
crests for scoring 95 to a hundred
per cent.
The big winners, however,
were the 27 pupils who received
the Award of Excellence for
scoring 95 to 100 per cent on all
six tests.
A condensed report of MDC
Significant, long-run implications .
The following is a condensed
report on Midwestern Ontario
Design For Development Phase
I—An Appraisal, It is a case study
of citizen participation in
regional planning,
The President of the Executive
on the Board of Directors was
James C. Hayter of Godprich. The
Vice Presidents were Allan F.
Ross, Reeve of Minto Township in
Wellington County, and John A.
Stephen, of Blanshard Township
in Perth County. The secretary-
treasurer was Mrs. Betty
McMillan, Alderman in City of
Stratford.
+ + +
In 1966 the Province issued an
important policy statement in
which it set forth the basic
outline fora program of regional
development for Ontario—Design
for Development. Subsequent
statements have refined and
enlarged upon the fundamental
policies contained in the
Government's Design for
Development Program. The
Program, which is directed
toward planning and coordinating
the physical, social and economic
development of Ontario's
economic regions, was
introduced by the Province"..,in
order to make the most efficient
use of the provincial budget and,
at the same time, to assist each
region to reach its development
potential within the framework of
overall provincial requirements.
The Design for Development
Program has been divided into
several stages. The Inventory
stage, completed in 1967, was the
initial step, in which all data,
programs and policies of
Government departments
relating to regional development
were assessed, and research was
initiated into specific
development issues. The
Evaluation stage, the second step
completed in 1968, was one in
which major reports were
submitted to the Province by the
Midwestern Development Council
,and the Regional Advisory Board
concerning the defel5pment
problems confronting this region.
At the same time, extensive
research was undertaken by the
Province in which various
indicators of social and economic
change were used to ascertain the
position of the midwestern region
regarding its level of
development in several basic
sectors of the economy. The
DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT:
MIDWESTERN ONTARIO
REGION—PHASE I: ANALYSIS
report, a socio-economic study of
regional needs and problems.
initiated the third stage of the
Government's Program in 1970.
A succeeding study in this third
stage—the Phase 11 report—will
recommend planning solutions
and guidelines for the future
development of the region.
THE PHASE I: ANALYSIS
report on Midwestern Ontario,
which is the subject of this
present appraisal, is primarily
concerned with identifying and
examining the development
problems and issues of the
region, as well as suggesting
growth potentials for selected
urban centres in the area. It
presents a preliminary
assessment of the needs and
relative priorities for remedial
action that have been identified in
each of the four counties and in the
region as a v.i"de.
As this Phase I repel t not.)s,
the defining of both the future
development goals and the needs
of the region is the task that most
demands resolution before the
Government proceeds with
further stages in the Design for
Development Program for this
area. To a large degree, the
Province must look to the Phase I
stage to provide the essential
base data for all that follows in the
regional planning process.
(Steps taken by the Province to
establish a budgeting framework
for Ontario based upon inter-
regional assessments, of
development needs and priorities
for the ten designated economic
regions, underscore the potential
importance of the Phase 1 report
for the future of this region.)
(The findings of the present
PHASE I: ANALYSIS could have
significant, long-run implications
for the future development of the
Midwestern Ontario region; for,
the evaluation of conditions and
problems at this stage in the
Design for Development Program
will be a fundamental factor in
determining future Government
spending in the region—and
ultimately the physical, social
• and economic fabric and
character of the area.)
(In expressing its concern that
citizen participation be
considered an integral part of the
Design for Development
Program, and specifically of the
review of the PHASE I:
ANALYSIS, the Province
indicated its need for assistance
from the region ".„in achieving a
full'appreciation of those regional
conditions to which (Government)
plans and provincial budget
should be directed." Further, the
Province expressed the wish that
the people of the region voice
their comments and feelings
about the content of the report in
an open and frank dialogue.)
(In following these
"guidelines". the Development
Council has endeavoured to assist
both Province and people by
carefully reviewing the report
and preparing an appraisal of the
Government's PHASE I:
ANALYSIS that is candid and
constructive.)
(The Development Council. in
implementing the review of the
PHASE 1: ANALYSIS. organized a
series of public meetings and
study sessions in several
communities in the four counties
of the region. Through the use of
both formal and informal
meetings it attempted to provide
opportunities for participation by
as many and diverse a range of
individuals and interest groups as
possible.
In addition to discussion
sessions. and personal
interviews, written briefs were
solicited from local
municipalities and others. The
participants in the review
represented a broad spectrum of
backgrounds and occupations—
farmers, teachers, students,
housewives, planners, civic
officials, businessmen,
municipal councillors, etc.)
Evaluation and response to the
PHASE I: ANALYSIS are
presented in five parts: 1) study
materials, 2) procedures, 3)
goals, needs and priorities, 4)
potential growth centres
("potential centres Of
opPortunity"), and 5) summary,
conclusions and
recommendations.)
Public response would he
directed to Chapter VII
''Potential Centres of
Opportunity" and Chapter VIII
"Goals, Needs and Priorities''
which contain the two major
themes and key areas of concern
presented in the Government
report; I) regional needs and
priorities for development, and 2)
Potential urban growth centres.
The first theme relates to
conditions and problem issues of
varying degrees of concern in the
region that require some form of
remedial action: the second
relates to urban communities that
could be utilized as focal points
for economic development in a
plan of regional economic
expansion that is based upon the
"urban growth centre" concept.
Both are fundamental elements
in the preparation and
implementation of a regional
development plan for Midwestern
Ontario: the one provides the
grounds for the emphasis and
direction of the plan: the other
provides structural components
and the concept for the strategy
and approach of the plan.
In many respects. this review
of the PHASE 1: ANALYSIS has
become a case study or
commentary on citizen
participation in regional
development planning: as such, it
is a vindication of the value and
worth of the -partnership of
people with Government"
approach to developing Ontario
that has been taken by the
Province.
REVIEW OF STUDY MATERIALS
The study materials used in
this review of conditions and
needs in the Midwestern Ontario
region consisted of the
Government's report. Design for
Development: Midwestern
Ontario Region Phase 1:
Analysis. and two supplementary
reports. 1) the Development
Council's study and submission to
the Province of 1968, Midwestern
Ontario Development Area
Recommended Program for
Development 1969-1973, and 2)
Comparative Review — Phase
Analysis and Midwestern Area
Recommended Program. a
"discussion paper" which
combines, in comparative
fashion, excerpts from the Phase
1: Analysis and the Midwestern
Area Recommended Program
reports above.)
The Midwestern Ontario
Development Area Recommended
Program for Development 1969-
1973 was prepared by the
Development Council during
1968, It provides both an
assessment of conditions and
needs in the four-county region
and a proposed five-year program
of development activity to be
undertaken by the Council,
various levels of government. and
a number of associations and
organizations in the region.
The Midwestern Area
Recommended Program was
prepared by the Development
Council following a series of
public meetings and intensive
discussion sessions held
throughout the four-county
region. It represents a concerted
effort to indicate to the Province
the views, opinions and concerns
of informed residents of the
region as to the area',e
development needs and their
relative levels of urgency for
remedial action.
It was one of the - more
important source studies used by
the Government in the
preparation of the Phase 1:
Analysis.
The official presentation of the
report to the Midwestern Ontario
Regional Development Council
and to the people of the region was
made by the Honourable Charles
S. MacNaughton, at a meeting in
Listowel, July 27, 1970.
On that occasion the Minister
requested that a thorough review
and evaluation of the report be
made by the people of Midwestern
Ontario, with the particular
objective of obtaining from public
meetings and citizen
participation a broadly-based
assessment of opinion from the
entire area. Those studying the
report were encouraged to
provide the provincial
government with a candid and
critical appraisal of the Phase 1:
Analysis and the findings
contained therein.)
(The Minister stressed that the
Province was requesting the
Development Council to serve as
the coordinator of the review and
the communication link or
information channel between the
Midwestern region and the
Province in this appraisal of the
Phase 1: Analysis.)
The Development Council was
to assume responsibility for
taking the report to different
parts of the region, for
encouraging public discussion,
for eliciting views and opinions
from a range of sources, for
assembling and examining the
responses. and for preparing a
formal submission to the
Minister.) (Mr. MacNaughton
then suggested that the
submission from the
Development Council should he
Completed and forwarded to the
Department of Treasury and
Economies by October 31, 1970.)
Extensive use was made of the
mass media in the region — T.V,,
radio and newspapers — to bring
the public's attention to the series
Of meetings scheduled for one or
more evenings in the
Communities of Arthur. Ayr.
Goderith, Guelph, Milverton,
New Hamburg and St. Marys.
' Large numbers of the three
study documents were sent by the
Development Council to
individualS, organizations and
municipalities across the region.
Copies also Were distributed at
each of the public Meetings.
eVALUATION OF STUDY
MATERIALS
On the positive side, the report
preterits a reasonably good
overview of general conditions
and needs that either have existed
or presently do exist in each Of the
four counties, For the most part,
it appears to be a descriptive
rather than an analytical
treatment of the Midwestern
region. Emphasis has been placed
upon presenting (in a variety of
ways), substantial amounts of
background information for each
of the four counties studied. In
attempting to provide an overall
picture of the region's structure
and basic functional
characteristics it appears to
constitute an interesting and
useful source hook of information
on Midwestern Ontario.
It was not until after several
public meetings and informal
discussion sessions were
completed that an adequate
assessment of the report could be
made.„and some of the earlier
misgivings of the Development
Council confirmed. The concern
was that the-Development Council
would find itself attempting to
engage the public in reviewing and
responding to a study focusing on
needs, priorities and growth
potentials. which in its content.
structure, length and language
was basically unsuited for that.
purpose.
• As the fundamental
deficiencies of the report became
more evident, it seemed to those
conducting the review that it has
been rushed to completion and
that a great mass of generally
related information and
statistical data had been hastily
assembled, without sufficient
consideration for the report's
purpose, basic concept, format,
content and appropriateness as a
document either for educating and
informing the general public, or
for engaging that same public in
an examination of basic
development issues.
Somehow the report manages to
appear to he simple and
straightforward, and at the same
time poorly organized, complex
and difficult to integrate and
understand; one participant aptly
described it as "unnecessarily
complex simplicity".
Among the earliest criticisms
levelled at the report by the
general public concerned the
information on which much of the
description and analysis was
based. They were quick to point to
important sections of the report
where out-of-date statistics had
been used (often dated by five or
ten years), to instances where
• stated trends and changes had .„.
been reversed in subsequent
years, to the frequent absence of
information, to the use of
' subjective assessments and
estimates of both conditions and
needs that were solely based upon
the authors' value judgements,
and to instances Where data in
different jiarts-of the "i.6POi.i -viei7e
contradictory.
The discussion of goals. needs
and priorities in the following
chapter contained a number of
serious deficiencies.
Participants continually
experienced difficulty in dealing
With both the content and
structure of thiS part of the
PHASE ANALYSIS,
The use of a Standardized
system Of tables and need
categories that was designed to he
applicable to all regions of the
province madeit very difficult to
relate the needs identified in this
Manner to local conditions. In
practice, the need categories
simply did not relate clearly or
directly enough to the Ways in
which the participants tended to
think of their Counties and the
Please turn to Page 4 A