As Saskatchewan’s Task Force on Municipal Legislative Renewal completed its cross-province tour, it faced the same chorus of anger, outrage and accusation heard since its controversial interim report was released Feb. 25.
Rural councilors and administrators condemned chair Joe Garcea and his fellow task force members for their recommendation that the province drastically reduce the number of municipalities in the province from more than 800 to fewer than 125.
Municipal councilors attacked the recommendations of the report and the motivation of the authors. Some said they believed the provincial government had told them what to say.
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
Others said Garcea’s report, and another report from the University of Saskatchewan that also supports lowering the number of municipalities, are products of the “ivory tower,” and would not work in the real world.
Though dozens of reasons were given for why the government should not force small municipalities to merge with each other, Patrick Clavelle, the administrator of the RM of Viscount, summed up the view held by many councilors.
“The system we have works,” said Clavelle at the task force meeting in Saskatoon, one of 17 held.
Presenters of written and oral briefs said the existing system is effective and efficient, that any changes should be voluntary, and that the recommendations of the task force would destroy one of rural Saskatchewan’s few remaining assets.
Two presenters said the provincial government was acting “like a dictatorship” because of the task force recommendations.
Another said the task force should resign, as did the chair of the provincial inquiry into no-fault insurance.
People cheered for and applauded these speeches, but booed, hooted and jeered a presentation by former Saskatoon city councilor Mark Thompson, who said amalgamation is needed and needs to be done soon.
“I believe the majority of people agree with regionalization,” said Thompson.
He said the anger and outrage among many RM councilors is due to “people’s reaction to fear,” and the “fight or flight” response many people exhibit when facing a challenge.
Thompson hopes the debate over amalgamation will become more intellectual and less emotional.
But rural resident Mary Saunders said this issue isn’t one that can be coldly, analytically resolved, because that ignores the reality of how local governments operate.
She said the interim report views local government as a machine with certain functions.
“But communities are not machines. They are living organisms.”
She said dismantling the present system, then trying to stitch another one together is like dissecting a frog and then trying to bring it back to life by reassembling it.
Task force members were more subdued by the end of their trek than they were at the early meetings.
At the North Battleford meeting, during the first week of feedback, Garcea commented more frequently, asked more questions and clarified statements he and others had made about the task force.
At the Saskatoon meeting, the second-last on the tour, Garcea and the two other task force members sat quietly and listened to presenters, seldom responding to the anger or allegations against them.
At the end of the meeting, Sask-atchewan Association of Rural Municipalities president Sinclair Harrison told Garcea he wanted the task force to explain to the provincial government how the people of rural Saskatchewan feel about the report.
He said Garcea could determine the mood of the province by making stacks of briefs in favor of forced amalgamation and those not in favor. Almost all were opposed.
