Madam Chair, we talk about fairness and that communities have a certain budget and we told municipalities a number of years ago that we are going to adjust their budgets and allow them to have $100,000 to do certain things with. They, at the time, had to manage within that. Now we find out there's a new system in place that you can exceed your budget, but also find more money to carry out your activities.

I, for one, don't favour that we have a system that's really fair to communities who we told we are going to adjust their budget. Among the communities I represent, in the case of Aklavik, their budget went down. McPherson went up because they were under utilized with regard to their budget for years and now we find out that there is a new system in place that you can get that $100,000 which is part of your budget in one lump sum for a period of time. I don't think that's fair to other communities. If that's the case, why don't we just tell the other communities, if you need a project, go to the FMBS, request that you get a $400,000 project to classify as "not previously authorized," and get these increases put away through a supplementary appropriation. You don't have to go through the planning process.

We just went through the budgetary process. Again, there are certain projects in our communities that have to follow certain criteria being used by this government. Here we find a system that's been reincarnated and reinvented, so that a community can figure out a way to get more money into their communities for a special project which exceeds the $100,000 that you get in your budget estimates for municipalities for a particular year. I feel that this process is not treating all communities fairly. Yes, I take offence where we have certain processes in mind where communities have to wait. I mentioned earlier today there's a project in my riding and it's stated if it's $100,000, you have to spend the $100,000 out of your budget, but if it's over $100,000, MACA and Public Works will look after it.

Too many times we've seen supplementary appropriations come forward for special pet projects in certain areas. I don't think that's fair to all communities. This is a perfect example of how to get three years of funding in one year. That does not cut it. I ask my other colleagues to support the motion and at the appropriate time, I will ask for a recorded vote.