Skip to content

Councillor calls for de-amalgamation

BY TRACEY DUGUAY tracey@northernlife.
BY TRACEY DUGUAY

More than five years of frustration erupted at a city council meeting Wednesday after Ward 2 Councillor Claude Berthiaume introduced a motion calling for the de-amalgamation of Greater Sudbury through a referendum vote during the 2006 municipal election.

Berthiaume
The voice of the normally calm and soft-spoken councillor was choked with emotion as he emphatically stated citizens were never consulted about whether they wanted their communities to merge.

"This is not right," Bertiaume reiterated passionately. "It has been imposed on us."

Adding insult to injury, the councillor was upset because he thought fellow councillors "pulled a fast one" by forcing a vote on the motion at the meeting.

Council procedure dictates when a motion is introduced, the actual discussion and voting doesn't take place immediately, but is deferred for a two-week period until the next council meeting. The only way to override this is for the majority of councillors agreeing to open the motion immediately, which is what happened in this case, leaving Berthiaume unprepared to make his case.

"You're trying to avoid a debate in the community," he said.

Nevertheless, Berthiaume went on to state how citizens he had spoken to are "quite unhappy" about being part of Greater Sudbury because many believe their interests and concerns were being "disregarded."

He can't even get city funds to paint the arena in his ward, said Berthiaume.

"This time I want the citizens to have a chance to vote on whether to keep the same structure or go back to the system prior to amalgamation," Berthiaume said.

It's not as simple as council snapping its fingers and voting to de-amalgamate because of provisions in the Municipal Act, 2001. The city could have to make a request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and get its approval to hold a referendum.

However, it appears to be a moot point because Berthiaume's motion was defeated, by a vote of 9 to 2. The only other councillor to vote in support of the motion was Ward 3 Councillor Andre Rivest. Councillors Doug Craig (Ward 5) and Terry Kett (Ward 1) were absent from the meeting.

Rivest supported Berthiaume, not only regarding the motion, but also with regards to the manner it was dealt with.

"It's sad to see this council handle it this way," Rivest said.

Rivest has expressed concerns about amalgamation since taking office, especially when it comes to issues like roads, area ratings and snowplowing.

"I can certainly understand why a motion like this is coming forward...let the people decide," he said, admitting he wonders if the forced amalgamation was "unconstitutional."

His fellow ward councillor, Ron Dupuis, conceded the municipal restructuring was forced on residents by the former Tory provincial government, but he wants everyone to move on and look to the future rather than dwell on the past.

"Here we are wasting time and energy trying to bring back the past," Dupuis said.

He added it would cost taxpayers "hundreds of millions" of dollars to de-amalgamate and return to the old two-tier system.

"Let's make sure the people know how much it's going to cost them," he said.
"Cut the crap. Enough is enough. I can't support this motion because it's not progressive."

Comments

Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.