If I’m approximately correct in that, three times the amount is how much more we’re paying than the normal rate. So if our water bill is almost $6 million, then a normal bill in this regard should -- the combined water bills, that is, when I refer to a normal water bill -- only be around $2 million. If we’re just using it as to subsidize the communities, why aren’t we just funnelling this money through MACA through some sort as opposed to doing it through the back door? It seems like a flawed policy that we’re inflating one side of the equation just to hide income under another process. Why isn’t it revisited on that basis? It should be under MACA as a direct grant. Thank you.
Robert Hawkins on Motion 6-16(3): Increases To Income Thresholds Carried
In the Legislative Assembly on February 19th, 2009. See this statement in context.
Motion 6-16(3): Increases To Income Thresholds Carried
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
February 18th, 2009
See context to find out what was said next.