I appreciate why the mover made this. My question — really out there — is, although I know it won’t be answered in this forum…. The fact is, it now looks like we’re funding. The motion here says we should fund this twice. We give them New Deal money. The money inside there, at the authority of that municipality, exists. They have funding if they choose to chipseal or choose not to chipseal. That’s their choice. We’ve empowered them with that ability. Now this sends the message to MACA that they now have to find more money, assuming they don’t draw back that funding. Saying “outside of existing funding to communities” further muddies the water, because now, truthfully, it looks like a suggestion that we fund them twice.

If chipsealing isn’t funded properly, I want to know. If chipsealing isn’t getting done, I think we should have that discussion. I don’t believe any community should not have chipsealing. I think every community should have it where they need it.

I know that the original person who made the first motion probably is only going to think I’m against small communities. Whether he’s grimacing or not over there, in his own chuckling way, you’ve got to get the message that I’m not against small communities.

I’m concerned about the design of this motion and its outcome. I try to support motions, whether I agree or disagree with them, if they help small communities or help my colleagues here. To me this clearly says: funded twice. It puts it as a real challenge; all of a sudden we’ve got a Finance Minister who says our finance cupboards are bare, and now we have a motion to fund it twice. We are funding it already, I think, and I have nothing that tells me otherwise. I have no other position to assume than that’s the case.