Sackville town councillors will be spending Valentine’s Day having one of their most controversial discussions in a long time, as two councillors prepare to make motions in opposition to the amalgamation of Sackville, Dorchester, and surrounding areas.
Councillor Bill Evans is asking council to back a complete boycott of the process, that would see both council and staff not participate in advisory committees established by the province.
It’s not clear how the province would implement the forced amalgamation without the cooperation of staff from Sackville, as they have appointed just one part-time facilitator with no municipal government experience to oversee the task. Chad Peters is expected to spend less than one day per week in the next 10 months on the amalgamation of Entity 40.
Evans’ motion indicates that the boycott is justified because councillors will have no real say in the process anyway, but if they participate, they will be held accountable for the results.
Councillor Sabine Dietz is also planning a motion for tonight’s meeting. Dietz has said before that she would support a boycott motion, but that if that failed, she was hoping to exert some council control over aspects of the amalgamation plan.
Dietz’s motion calls for Mayor Shawn Mesheau and Deputy Mayor Andrew Black (who have both been appointed to a provincial advisory committee) to hold back their advice on the future make-up of the Entity 40 council, and instead make demands for changes to the process. The demands include inviting representatives from Fort Folly First Nation to the committee, and for the province to develop a communications plan which includes public engagement for Entity 40 citizens on the future make-up of their new council. The motion also calls for a less aggressive and more realistic timeline for the amalgamation process to occur.
Here’s the full text of the motions which are expected tonight at council, courtesy of Dietz and Evans.
Motion 1 (Bill Evans)
Whereas the provincial government is forcing this amalgamation on the Town of Sackville against the will of its elected representatives who believe that the result will be bad for Sackville and its residents, and
Whereas the provincial government has the authority to force this on us against our will, and
Whereas this is a sham process in which Council may participate but will have no control over it and in which the minister will only accept advice that the minister wants to receive or on matters in which he has no interest, and
Whereas, by collaborating in this process, Council will be held to account for it,
Therefore, the Council of the Town of Sackville refuses to be complicit in doing something that it believes is bad for the municipality that it represents. Council will not appoint representatives from Sackville to serve on this so-call advisory committee, Council will not participate further in this process and Council will instruct the CAO to instruct Town staff not to assist with this forced amalgamation. The only participation in this process should be to condemn it, work with other municipalities in refusing to engage in it and encourage our community members to protest against it to the Provincial government. In this way, if this amalgamation does take place, it will be seen for what it was, something that was forced on us, and not done with our collaboration.
Motion 2 (Sabine Dietz)
Whereas the Town of Sackville is asked to participate in a process towards amalgamation that is undemocratic and lacks considerations for the reality of communities;
Whereas the design of the Advisory Committee lacks democratic representation, and lacks recognition of Indigenous Rights, since Fort Folly First Nation is not included in this process at all;
Whereas the timeline is extremely aggressive and is bound to create massive problems and challenges all along;
And whereas the timeline and process do not allow for any meaningful engagement and consultation with communities around the type of system (wards or at large) and the number of councillors for the future municipality;
The council of the Town of Sackville directs its Advisory Committee representatives to not provide advice from Council on ward or at large systems, or the size of council, to the government representative in charge of the transition, but to demand the following:
That the elected chief of Fort Folly First Nation be added to the Advisory Committee;
That representation on the Advisory Committee be based on population;
That representation on the Advisory Committee be more flexible;
That the Advisory Committee composition reflect who has been democratically elected, and that representatives of LSDs be selected through a transparent selection process;
That the Town be presented with a reasonable timeline that lays out, in detail, the steps within the process, in consultation with the Advisory Committee;
That the timeline for the work of the Advisory Committee, which is limited to 3 things only, determining wards or at large, the size of the future council, and the name of the community, be extended to allow for the government to engage meaningfully with the affected areas;
That there is a clear communications plan developed by the government representative and presented to council which uses a variety of means to engage, and that explains the on-going process and its implications to the affected areas.
Levesque: “It’s a gamble”
Last week, CHMA spoke with two political scientists at Mount Allison university to get their thoughts on amalgamation, and the opposition to it. Mario Levesque and Geoffrey Martin both teach in the department of politics and international relations at Mount Allison University.
Mario Levesque says that the wisdom of opposition to amalgamation may have more to do with the next provincial government that gets elected, and the potential for retribution down the line.
“The way this has been driven by the Higgs Conservative government, we’re getting this whether we want it or not,” says Levesque. “There’s no changing that dynamic there… And if the Conservative government gets reelected here, then I would say that we should be bracing for some retribution… Maybe less grants for us for infrastructure, or maybe other things that may happen.”
Levesque says there’s precedent for this reaction based on what’s happened with rural hospitals in Sackville and Perth Andover, where proposed cuts that were reneged after strong public protest in 2020, have happened anyway.
“That’s retribution, right there,” says Levesque of the hospital cuts. “So I think if we oppose [amalgamation], we’re gonna get the same thing. But only if the Higgs Conservative government gets reelected again in the next provincial election.”
“It’s a gamble,” says Levesque.
Levesque also points out that the municipality can play the long game, and that there could be opportunities to make changes to the system imposed by the Higgs government once a new provincial government is eventually elected. In that case, he says, the town should be participating while also registering their opposition, and building the case for an alternative.
“This government will pay you back if you really push hard against them,” says Levesque. “There’s no question there. We’ve seen that across the province… So what’s the best course of action? Tough call. You’re really gambling here. I wish our decision makers well in this process.”
Martin: inside-outside approach is best
Geoffrey Martin sees potential for opposition to the provincial amalgamation plan, but he is concerned that an outright boycott of the process could be a mistake.
“We don’t want to be in a situation where the municipality of Sackville totally opts out and says we’re not participating in this, and then you have a not-terribly-well-defined protest effort that maybe not much comes of it,” says Martin. “And then we end up with a system in which the interests of Sackville and the 6000 people who live here maybe have been underrepresented.”
Martin recommends what he calls an “inside-outside” approach. He’d like to see a more grassroots protest effort that spans the new Entity 40. The protest should be “supported by, but not explicitly connected to the Sackville council or the Dorchester council,” says Martin. An outside movement would “unite people from all over in one organization that says we don’t want this. We want something different.”
The alternatives proposed could vary, but would be developed by residents united in opposition to the current Entity 40 proposition. “Maybe it’s something centred on Sackville and something centred on Dorchester,” says Martin. “Maybe people in local service districts, like Frosty Hollow, would prefer to be part of Dorchester rather than be part of Sackville in terms of community of interest, and in terms of, you know, not being absorbed by the 6000-person entity in Sackville.”
Martin’s vision for an outside protest movement encompassing people from all over Entity 40 includes a productive discussion of possible alternatives.
The ‘inside’ part of the approach is the elected representatives who are participating in the amalgamation process with the province. Spurred on by the outside protest and alternatives, they would lobby for changes to improve the outcome for the region.
The provincial government, “will want consensus,” says Martin. “And my guess is that in implementation, they will be willing to make changes to try to achieve a consensus. And I think that they’re not going to know what that’s going to take unless everyone’s at the table.”
