
Councillor Allison Butcher (R) questioning Premier Holt about the plan to put toll booths on the highway at Aulac
Premier Holt tried to defend her government’s plan to put toll booths on the TransCanada highway at Aulac near the Nova Scotia border as she answered persistent questions from Tantramar Councillor Allison Butcher and several of her council colleagues during a wide-ranging discussion Wednesday that lasted just over nine minutes.
“I am not sure if you’re aware, but Sackville, Cumberland, Amherst, Strait Shores, we’re really intertwined,” Butcher told Holt.
“There are many people who live here and work there and vice versa, where we share family members,” Butcher said, adding that two of her four siblings live in Amherst.
“People move back and forth across that [border] daily for work, for enjoyment, for business, all of that,” she continued.
“We saw what a huge difference it made for us when it was closed because of COVID,” Butcher said.
She added that she realized New Brunswick residents would not pay the tolls themselves, but they would affect families, businesses, people going back and forth for work and health care and even custody arrangements affecting children.
“Is there anything in the works to protect these people?” she asked.
Friends & family passes
“There are some things in the works, but I think there’s an opportunity for some creativity here,” Holt replied.
She suggested the Nova Scotia health authority could issue toll passes for professionals who work in Sackville but live in Amherst while New Brunswick could consider the concept of a friends and family pass or good neighbour’s pass.
“Something that’s dramatically less expensive,” Holt said, “you know a cost of, I shouldn’t even throw out numbers, like it’s $50 a year and that just gets you covered.”
“With all due respect, we don’t pay $50 now and there are many people living in our communities for whom $50 could make a huge difference,” Butcher shot back.
“We have university students travelling back and forth, we have the Irving Big Stop on the border. My daughter works there and she has as many co-workers from Amherst as from Sackville,” she said.
Butcher added that it may be fine for the Nova Scotia government to pay for health care workers’ passes, but what about patients who need to cross the border to get knee surgeries or other procedures at the Sackville hospital that the community here fought so hard to save.
“The cost of their tolls can get covered if that’s what you mean,” Holt replied.
‘Best location’
Mayor Wiggins-Colwell wondered if the government had considered installing the toll booths in Salisbury to avoid the disruptions they would cause to the closely knit communities on either side of the border.
“I believe that multiple locations were evaluated and this one was determined to be the best location where there was an alternate route,” Holt answered.
“You have to have an alternate route, that’s a requirement,” the premier said.
When Butcher asked about that alternate route, both Holt and Tantramar CAO Jennifer Borne said it would be Rte. 970, the 11.4 kilometre road that connects a Nova Scotia highway at Tidnish Bridge to New Brunswick routes 15 and 16 at Port Elgin.
“It’s not even shouldered,” Borne said. “It’s not adequate at all.”
“I think there’s lots of ways that we can work out options,” Holt said as the discussion returned to the effects on intertwined communities.
She suggested, for example, that residents who live near the border could be issued friends and family toll passes to give to their friends and family in Nova Scotia.
“The toll proposals have been kicking around for ages as ways to help us pay for infrastructure,” the premier said.
Borne suggested that trying to administer friends and family passes would be “a bit of a mess” because of everyone potentially claiming connections and she wondered about the financial impact of these passes on the $10 million the government is hoping to raise in toll revenues.
“We’ve just tried to recover from local governance reform,” Borne said.
“There’s fiscal reform, there’s property tax reform, so we’re going to tackle all of it,” she added before referring to the effects tolls would have on Tantramar.
“When you look at just these two themes, the economic impact, the social impact, mental impact on our community, we will not survive it.”
“So what are your suggestions?” Holt asked quietly.
“Not yours,” Borne replied as everyone around the table laughed.
This is the second of three reports on Tantramar council’s meeting with Premier Holt. Warktimes was able to attend the meeting after Holt said she had no objection because this was council’s meeting and it was up to them to decide who could attend.





















Commentary: The tricky world of misrepresentation — gas plant edition
By Logan Atkinson, Seniors for Climate — Tantramar
Pixabay Pinocchio image created by iffany
Children have a wonderfully efficient way of getting to the heart of the matter. “Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!” If a peer steps outside the recognized moral order, then there’s no need for debate, reflection, appeals and counter-appeals. Instead, the kids go directly to their own system of justice – chants, ridicule, humiliation and, ultimately, banishment to the far reaches of the playground.
Rough justice? Perhaps. But effective? Almost certainly.
In the world of adult discourse, however, to accuse someone of lying is a business fraught with risk. Instead, we tend towards “misrepresentation” as the safer accusation. After all, a statement might be made innocently, without knowledge that it’s untrue. Perhaps it’s made negligently, made without checking the facts carefully enough. Or, in some cases, a misrepresentation might be fraudulent, made with the intent to deceive and to exact some advantage.
This last is the lie.
For over a year now, the proponents (NB Power and PROENERGY) of the Centre Village fossil-fuel plant in Tantramar have been accused of misrepresentation by members of the public fighting against the project. The subjects of concern have been many: water usage, operating times, the need for more power, emissions levels, the economic implications. And on and on.
Are the alleged misrepresentations innocent? Are they negligent? Or are they lies, made with the intent to deceive the public and to exact some advantage, perhaps support for the project among citizens-at-large?
Indigenous investment claim
At the beginning, the Centre Village project proponents claimed that they had secured an equity investment from Indigenous investors. This is important and merits greater scrutiny. We can start with the proponents’ filing with the New Brunswick environmental impact assessment agency, dated July 4, 2025.
In section 2 on page 4, you will see the following representation:
There it is, in black and white. The proponent is holding out to the provincial regulator, and to the public, that the NSMTC has invested in the project.
The proponents were required to file something similar with the federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. This document is also dated July 4, 2025, and in section 2, page 1, it says:
It’s less clear here that NSMTC is represented as an equity investor in the Project, although that’s safe to assume given that NSMTC is being held out as a signatory to the tolling agreement.
But any ambiguity is removed further along, in section 4 on page 4, where we find this:
Public info sessions
To this point at least, there’s nothing to suggest that the representation of Indigenous investment in the Centre Village project is a misrepresentation. But then proponents held two public information sessions in Tantramar, the first at the Music Barn in Upper Sackville on August 12, 2025, and the second at the Civic Centre in Sackville on August 13th.
One of the display panels at the first public meeting clearly indicated that the North Shore Mi’kmaq Tribal Council was an equity participant, an investor, in the project.
Innocent? Negligent? Fraudulent? Are we yet to the point of “pants on fire?”
At the second public information session, the same display panel appeared, with the same misrepresentation of Indigenous investment. I pointed this out to Mr. Jackson, and asked why the panel hadn’t been corrected to reflect the true state of affairs. He merely smiled in response.
A question and answer session followed. When pressed about the misrepresentation, John MacIsaac (speaking for PROENERGY) said something to the effect that we can’t control what the media say about ownership of the project. But it was pointed out to Mr. MacIsaac that the media are simply repeating what appears in the proponents’ own proposal to the environmental regulators.
After that, Mr. Jackson claimed that the proposal was written as it was (claiming a First Nations’ equity interest instead of the actual option) to make it easier to understand!
At this point, things are getting serious. Was this an admission that the misrepresentation was made with the knowledge that it was false? Are we slipping away from mere innocence or negligence? Is the possibility of fiery pants now too obvious to ignore?
A-G blows the whistle
In case additional evidence were needed about this misrepresentation, the New Brunswick’s Auditor General released his 2026 Annual Report in installments at the end of May and early in June. Volume 2 addressed the Centre Village project, and the misrepresentation about Indigenous investment was succinctly pointed out on page 15:
Then, a bit later in June, Lori Clark, President and CEO of NB Power, testified before the Public Accounts Committee at the New Brunswick legislature, and appeared to deflect responsibility for the misrepresentation back to PROENERGY.
All doubt was removed when Brad Coady, a Vice-President of NB Power, was interviewed following his appearance at Tantramar Municipal Council on July 14th. Mr. Coady confirmed that no Indigenous investment had been made, and went even further, suggesting that such an investment is a nice-to-have, rather than a must-have. Indigenous communities have the opportunity to invest, he said, and that’s good enough. There is no formal regulatory requirement that Indigenous investment be secured.
Maybe Mr. Coady is right. Maybe there’s nothing in the formal law to compel Indigenous partnership in a project like the proposed Centre Village fossil-fuel plant. But is formal law the only mechanism at work here? Is formal law the only basis on which the project proponents might be judged? The evidence is very clear that the question of Indigenous investment in the project has been misrepresented from the very beginning.
Do we really want to play with the American firm PROENERGY, a firm that misrepresents a vital feature of its project, and then over months and months of scrutiny fails to own up to that misrepresentation? Do you think that this misrepresentation is innocent? Negligent? Something worse?
What would the children on the playground say?
How loud might the chants become?
How might they judge the behaviour of PROENERGY?
Do you think PROENERGY would be banished to the farthest reaches of the playground?
Logan Atkinson is a member of Seniors for Climate — Tantramar, scantantramar@gmail.com