Tag Archives: politics

Majority Rules – Right Or Wrong?

Posted on by

Jack Edwards told Councillor Pouget that ‘the majority has to rule on this’ during the Open Air Report discussion at the November 21 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting.

And we frequently see the 4 votes at council meetings.

The following article is reprinted with permission of the author, Registered Parliamentarian Eli Mina.

Is the majority always right?

During a coffee break at a training session, a newly elected municipal official spoke to me
privately and said this: A wise person taught me that with a council of seven members, the most important number is four. With four votes you can change policy. With four votes you can
provide exceptional leadership. With four votes you are at liberty to govern however you wish.
After all, the majority is always right. What do you think about these words of wisdom?

On the surface, what he said sounded correct. After all, in parliamentary democracies, a basic
principle of decision making is that the majority rules. In order to adopt a proposal or enforce a
measure, a voting body requires that more members vote yes than vote no. If not, the motion is
defeated. With this in mind, the numbers are ultimately the only thing that matter. Right?

Not so fast. Something significant is missing with this logic.

Here is the problem: Have you ever observed an aggressive and impatient majority forcing its
will on a helpless minority by cutting off debate prematurely? Ever witnessed a majority being
stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to tolerate new data that might lead to enlightened and
thoughtful decisions? In such cases, there may very well be enough votes in the affirmative, but
this does not change the fact that the decision-making process is flawed; possibly leading to
flawed decisions that the majority, the minority, and the community, will regret.

Yes, the numbers are important. But if the group focuses exclusively on the number of votes, it
may be making its collective decisions on the basis of ignorance, self interest, and loud and
aggressive voices, instead of making them on the basis of objectivity, full knowledge, and a
careful analysis of the issues at hand.

With numbers-based democracies, the end—getting enough votes—justifies the means, which
may prompt some people to make pre-meeting deals on how they’ll vote. On the other hand,
with knowledge-based democracies, members refuse to commit their votes in advance of a
meeting. Instead, they arrive at meetings with fully open minds, listen to and learn from
everyone, and treat minorities as partners in decision making.

With numbers-based democracies, assertive and persuasive advocates tend to prevail. With
knowledge-based democracies, the individuals with the most relevant information and the most
astute and compelling analysis are listened to. The group has a culture that promotes learning,
inquiry and excellence in decision making.

Ultimately, numbers-based democracies are more likely to produce flawed and risk-prone
decisions. On the other hand, knowledge-based democracies are more likely to produce
informed decisions that increase opportunities and minimize risks for affected organizations.

RECAP November 21 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting – Open Air 2025 to 2026

Posted on by

Spoiler Alert: admin is already making plans for Open Air 2025 and the committee, thanks to cheerleader Councillor Crain, carried a motion that it continue as is into 2026. Crain did co-author the THRIVE White Paper on Open Air. Jack Edwards suggested hair stylists cut and style hair outdoors and dismissed complainers as a ‘small group of people that have been naysayers since the get go’ and vitriol. I was appalled that Edwards used the offensive and outdated ‘handicap’ and Alan Buterbaugh used ‘people that have handicapped needs. It appears there is a limited knowledge of barriers to accessibility: converted accessible parking will address the issue.

After deciding the next committee meeting would be held on January 16, 2025, the dumpster fire started. Cheerleaders Edwards and Crain gushed over the admin report, or as Edwards called it, ‘absolutely magnificent’ while Crain thanked staff and called it ‘exceptional.’ I’ll never understand why so many kudos are warranted for people doing their jobs.

Admin’s recommendation was for the committee to receive the Report Back on Open Air Business Open House for information but Edwards said this huge report, which he thought was excellent, also thought they were going to talk about it.

Deputy CAO Melissa Osborne answered, without going through the chair, that’s her understanding; if there are any questions of administration on it, or comments or recommendations for council, that this is the opportunity.

Edwards; unofficial transcript: I’m absolutely amazed that the amount of time and effort is being spent on this Open Air, and it’s gone to council a couple times, had been a divided vote, and the mayor had to split the vote. It seems such and from the report, and by the way, Jennifer, I assume that majority of this work is yours, and it’s just absolutely magnificent report and all the effort and the work has gone into this, and we will now have another vote of council whether we go ahead with it. I can’t fathom why anybody would be against open air. It has been so successful wherever it’s been tried around the world, and it’s successful for Amherstburg and the comments by all the people that answer the survey, all the percentages are so high, everybody’s in favour. And I know there’s a beautiful stylist down there, and I assume she’s the one that wrote three pages of comments in your report, and if she can’t figure a way to make her business viable during open house, and I was thinking of her as I said, all she has to do is do what everybody else move a chair outside, cut hair, style hair outside. Give a 25% coupon when you can’t park next door. The complaints in the report were so and you were at the meeting at the little cafe, you must have seen the vitriol list. Is that a word, the vitriol accent of the people that were there, but to me as the representatives on economic development and to me as our councillors and to me as the administration, it is a no brainer. It’s got to go forward. It’s good for this town. It’s good for the county. And thinking of this report, I thought, what an opportunity we have. The Valente, I knew Remo in Windsor a long time ago. They are a good family business, and now they own the high school. Look at that beautiful piece of property, that (unintelligible) onto open air. What you can do with all that green area to have something magnificent. It just doesn’t make any sense that we you have to go through 50, 60 pages of discussion in order to again bring it up at the Council where Councillor Crain, Councillor Pouget  and the other five will have to vote on this.

Osborne clarified that this report is merely the information back from the business survey as well as Open Air itself. At this particular time, the motion that has been put forward and approved by Council and is built in our base budget, is the 14 week, Friday to Sunday, Open Air, which, unless there is new direction from Council by way of a motion, at this point Open Air will proceed in 2025 as defined in the base budget and as defined as the last motion back in March so that doesn’t change unless Council makes a motion to make that change.

There was some back and forth about the motion and council’s direction between Osborne and Edwards.

Councillor Pouget commented; unofficial transcript: I can tell you without a doubt, with everything that’s going on in Council this is probably one of the most controversial issues there is because without a doubt, I get so many complaints about Open Air, numerous, numerous complaints, not only because we’re paying significant amount of money and tax dollars for it. But also many, many businesses, in fact, if you look at this, the survey, 70% of the businesses say they don’t want Open Air. And the motion that I think we’re referring to was the motion that was made March 25, 2024 that at the end of Open Air events in September, administration, business and council, if they so wish, participate in a meeting together to discuss the footprint, frequency, benefits and improvements for Open Air for all businesses within and outside the footprint up to 500 meters. But the motion of March 25 was supposed to be within and outside the 500 meter footprint. But the business survey actually says, and this is on page 2 of 13, the direction from council was to survey all businesses within the open air footprint. It doesn’t say within and outside. So many of the businesses from outside of the Open Air footprint didn’t receive an official invitation, so therefore they weren’t present at that meeting and they weren’t aware of the survey,

Simone called on admin to clarify and Pouget continued; unofficial transcript: But as I said, many of the businesses that wanted to participate that were outside that 500 meters, they weren’t allowed to participate yet they pay taxes for this and when we talk about the barber shop, she closes on Saturday because she can’t get her clients there and for hairdressing, as we know, Saturday is a day for weddings, and these people are dropped off. They want their veils put in, and they have to park two or three blocks away. They can’t get to their hairdressing shops. And people with accessibility issues, you have no idea how many phone calls and complaints I received because loved ones that take care of people with accessibility issues, they work and they can’t get to the bank until after hours, and by three o’clock on Friday afternoon, the streets are closed so they can’t get to the bank, and they can’t very well just drop off their loved ones and say, make it to the bank yourselves, or they can’t take part of services. They wanted to attend the music in the parks. They can’t even get close to it. They have to park at least five to six blocks away. So it’s accessibility issues. We put barriers in place. So there’s just so many issues to deal with this and 14 weeks if you received how many emails I received that show that the place is absolutely bare. Nobody’s there, and yet those streets are closed.

Crain; unofficial transcript: I have to say thank you to staff. This report is exceptional, and I agree with what Jack had mentioned. The report speaks to the economic impact and the over 104,000 attendees that took place in 2024. I voiced this at Council several times. We continue to poke at open air and try to, in some cases, shorten the timelines, lower the cost and shorten the event. But really, we should be looking at, how can we enhance this to make it even better, because we see the economic drivers and the activity it’s bringing in and the spending that’s taking place in town. So I fully support the report I would like to make a motion. I think it’s important that this committee speaks loud and clear to council, so that we do not continue to have surveys that yield the same results. And in my opinion, sometimes can waste staff time, if we’re asking the same questions every single year and really it’s the same result. So I would like to make a motion that the Economic Development Committee endorses the report and recommends that Council supports the continuation of Open Air. If I can get a seconder. 

Edwards responded to Pouget; unofficial transcript: I’d like to add comments to what Councillor Pouget had to say. I agree, because I’m one of the people that use handicap; there are ways about it, and I think having the high school part will help. The people have to do something that our administration will be doing something to answer the questions of the few. And they are few that are getting a hold of you are doing all of the complaining about it. It’s the majority that elect you people, and it’s the majority that we’re thinking about tonight, and the majority want this, and the people of Essex County want this, and I 100% support the motion. Oh, by the way, one other question to that we could take all of those parking spots that border on Navy Yard Park and make them all handicapped. You have access to them, and you can solve the problems of the majority. And I’m in that majority that has a problem getting downtown. The majority has to rule on this.

Michael Deneau supported Edwards; unofficial transcript: it was perfect Jack. As someone who had, I’ve had an opportunity to go down there several times during the summer, probably over 10 and what I had witnessed is a lot of density. In regards to people walking the streets, people going into shops, lineups. There was significant density. The atmosphere was wonderful. It was something that seemed to catch on even beyond the borders of Amherstburg to Jack’s point. There are things that can be done to go and satisfy accessibility, and those are techniques to be considered, and certainly things that could be overcome, but I would say that it would be a complete shame for us not to take full advantage of that environment, full advantage of all the shops, stores, and it’s like, like we said, it’s the majority that I believe are truly behind the initiative. And this is an initiative that not only Amherstburg carries, but many other communities like us carry. So with that said, I completely support it.

Alan Buterbaugh chimed in; unofficial transcript: So what I find is that this is an amazing treasure that we have for this community. I think it brings a great number of people overall, over the years, looking at the programming and the added programming that’s been coming, it’s got, there’s even more diverse things that people can participate in. And I think things like Rib Fest, when I attended that last year. When you look at the density and number of people that are attending, that it’s just phenomenal. There’s always going to be periods of time at any festival or any kind of event where it’s not going to be as busy as others, but that’s just the way it works, because of a variety of things. But you look at this thing, by and large, 104,000 people going downtown, spending money participating. It’s a phenomenal thing to be able to witness and for families to be able to have that freedom, to be in the streets with their children and not have to worry about cars or other things, kind of moving through the environment. It’s a pretty unique treasure. You know, in terms of the accessibility, my understanding is, I’ll ask staff, that the Navy Yard parking lot, that was my understanding, converted so that during that period of time, that’s all accessible parking just for people that have handicapped needs. And that was one of the accommodations that was made a couple of years back, when it was questioned about losing some of those accessibility spots. Is that fair?

Admin spoke about the conversion and placement of accessible parking at the perimeter, which is of little use to people with hidden mobility disabilities.

Edwards then had another suggestion; set up a table at the Budget Open House with a set of signs asking are you in favour of Open Air? Yes or no, and you would know instead of a small group of people that have been naysayers since the get go. Osborne said it wouldn’t be feasible.

Crain then amended his motion to add that it be the same format that we have now, which is Friday to Sunday, 5 to 8pm and he believes it’s 14 weeks, and that they support the continuation of Open Air for the remaining term of this council. And the reason he believes they should make this amendment is that it avoids having to continue to debate this until 2026.

Councillor Pouget requested a recorded vote.

In favour: Jack Edwards, Crain, Kenneth Morrison, Michael Deneau, Chair Patricia Simone.

Opposed: Pouget.

Motion carried.

The meeting minutes, attached to the November 25 council meeting, state that two motions were made:

  1. The report on the Open Air including the Business Survey and Open House BE RECEIVED for information; and
  2. The Economic Development Advisory Committee RECOMMEND that Council support the continuation of Open Air, in the same format, same times, and same duration, for the remainder of the current term of Council. Motion Carried.

There was no motion to receive the report.

Crain’s motion was:

  1. that the Economic Development Committee endorses the report and recommends that Council supports the continuation of Open Air.
  2. Then he wanted to amend it to add that it be the same format that we have now, which is Friday to Sunday, 5 to 8pm and I believe it’s 14 weeks, and that we support the continuation of Open Air for the remaining term of this council.

The town’s Terms of Reference for Committees defines an Advisory Committee: ‘Advisory Committee – a committee that provides advice and recommendations to Council as requested on areas within their mandate with no authority for decision making or independent actions. Members are appointed by Council and membership typically includes one member of Council as liaison.’

Councillor Pouget and Councillor Crain are both members of this committee. Actually, this is the only committee Pouget sits on, whereas Crain sits on three.

The Burg Watch Is 13 years old

Posted on by

In 2011, right after the 2010 election, I became Amherstburg’s first blogger, sharing my observations about municipal governance in the ‘burg. I wanted to create a record of elected officials’ decisions and actions so I could make informed decisions about who to vote for. I facilitated questions to the candidates for three municipal elections and I endured threat of legal action and trolls. Some candidates chose not to respond at all while others were happy to share their platforms.

As a person with disabilities, and an advocate, I let candidates know if their campaign advertising was inaccessible. I wouldn’t vote for someone who excluded a marginalized community if they were campaigning to represent everyone. 

In 2014, only three candidates created websites and all three had accessibility issues. In 2022, an increased number of candidates used social media but didn’t provide accessible information, even after I pointed it out to them and after they received accessibility information from the town. Candidate Lori Wightman’s website had accessibility issues in 2018 and 2022. 

The most noteworthy item about the 2022-2026 council is the more restrictive procedural by-law that limits citizen participation; residents can no longer raise issues with council for their information and decision. Delegates can only speak to an issue that’s listed on the agenda if it’s accompanied by an admin report or a by-law. Residents can also no longer speak from the gallery unless a unanimous vote is carried. So far, Councillor Crain and Deputy Mayor Gibb have voted a couple of times in opposition. Their reasoning seems based on inequities of people not in attendance not having the same opportunity. As I pointed out, residents should have a variety of methods to provide input as delegates. To me, that would be a more logical and inclusive way to increase civil participation instead of blocking it.

Some council members constantly promote themselves on social media while they ignore communications from residents or even block them; another noteworthy inconsistency.

My past lists of common themes remain unchanged:

  • Ombudsman Reports regarding in camera meetings in 2011, 2018, 2022
  • lack of decorum
  • incivility
  • inconsistencies
  • flip-flops
  • lack of accountability and transparency
  • preferential treatment
  • over expenditures
  • police costs
  • privacy breaches
  • council divisions, usually 4-3
  • conflicts of interest
  • ableism
  • lack of commitment to accessibility
  • inaccessible town hall and Gordon House

Thank you to those who continue to follow and stay connected.

RECAP October 15 Council Meeting

Posted on by

It was another dumpster fire. An abundance of kudos to staff, who are well compensated to do their jobs so I’m not sure why all the kudos, comments/speeches instead of questions, jabs at provincial politicians, some ignoring accessibility barriers while citing the AODA, and some more grandstanding.

Mayor Prue noted an error in the minutes – it was not the Legion but a different group; another inconsistency since two errors involving his wife were noted in minutes pertaining to my delegations that I asked to be corrected but they never were.

The first delegate, Bryerswood Youth Camp Optimist Club, wanted Texas Road tarred and chipped. After council passed a revised and more restrictive procedural by-law last year, delegates would only be allowed if there was an admin report or a by-law for an agenda item. The delegate request form did not list an agenda item that would be addressed.

So, Bryerswood submitted the petition and request, then the admin report was created, and then the agenda was published. Notification of the council meeting agenda was delivered on October 4 at 3:55 pm. The October 2 admin report mentions ‘a petition was circulated and has been submitted to the Town of Amherstburg requesting consideration of the conversion of a stretch of gravel road on Texas Road, from Howard Avenue to the 6th Concession North. The estimated cost is $250,000.’

Following the delegation, the admin report, item 15.1, was brought forward and Councillor McArthur wanted to move a motion to consider the request at budget because he thought they made a great case for them to at least consider this at budget time among other competing priorities. At the March 11, 2019 council meeting, McArthur declared a conflict of interest because he had a child who was a Girl Guide and was previously hired to do web design for the presenters. The motion carried.

As an aside, it’s shameful that McArthur hasn’t been more of an accessibility champion. After all, he volunteered to be council’s rep to the accessibility advisory committee and I think residents with disabilities have ‘made a great case’ for barrier removal and inclusion.

The second delegate, Bill Petruniak, spoke in opposition of an application for the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund that would allow for the provincial government to match funding of $500,000. Petruniak opposes spending money on parks, citing financial constraints and the need for fiscal restraint. He said the time is now to become a council that Amherstburg taxpayers can be proud of, instead of one we are ashamed of. He mentioned that 14 years ago, McLean’s magazine wrote an article about the 10 worst mayors and councils in Canada; Amherstburg made that list. He continued, If this council does not change course, Amherstburg is going to make that list again. He emphasized the importance of managing tax dollars wisely and avoiding frivolous expenditures. He suggested using the fire hall and town hall for additional space and stopping unnecessary spending. Prue asked the usual, if there were any questions of staff and Councillor Courtney offered kudos to staff not a question. Prue did not object to Mr. Petruniak responding to Courtney for almost a minute and a half like he has done in the past to other delegates; another inconsistency that creates the perception of preferential treatment for some.

When 11.1 was brought forward, community sport and recreation infrastructure fund, there were more kudos for staff from Courtney and McArthur and Gibb, who applauded staff. Prue had two comments and said he didn’t have a question. McArthur said they couldn’t get blinded by dollar signs and we need to invest in recreational amenities; his speech lasted about 4 minutes. His enthusiasm for recreation, including cycling, running, and trails is obvious. Councillor Allaire said she’s obsessed with parks; likewise, her enthusiasm for parks is obvious. I already wrote about Prue’s jabs at MPP Leardi and Premier Ford in this post. Eventually, a motion carried after making some changes.

National Disability Employment Month proclamation is passed with a motion by Allaire and seconded by Deputy Mayor Gibb. More on that to follow.

The contentious issues came up during new business. Councillor Pouget mentioned that she believed it was in June that council passed a notice of motion, unanimously, to go before the county. They thought it was a county road and council would ask them to investigate the feasibility of a crosswalk at Sandwich and Lowes Side Road and to move the 70 kilometer sign from the corner of that intersection, just past the five driveways. The motion went to county council; both the mayor and the deputy mayor acted on their behalf. She further believed it was approved August 14, and now she understands that there’s a problem and they wanted it to come back to this council because they believe that it’s our responsibility, because that section belongs to our town, and the county road doesn’t exactly start until a few meters away from that; they need this council to decide what they’re going to do with that area before the county can proceed with the moving of the 70 kilometre sign.

Pouget suggested that Deputy Mayor Gibb could probably speak more to it since she was just acting on his behalf of what he was told. Gibb’s response was: so when we originally approached the county, I think we were all under the assumption that that intersection was shared with the county, and it’s come to light that no, that intersection of Lowes and Sandwich belongs entirely to the town of Amherstburg. So from discussions I’ve had with county staff, they’re reluctant to make changes to the speed limit until they know what direction Amherstburg is going to go with the intersection. Again, the way I understand it is, you know, if we were to put in crosswalks, they may move. They may have to move the speed limit a certain distance. If we have flashing lights, it might be another distance. If we do a full signaled intersection, it might be something different. So they’re the way I understand it, and I’m I would defer to the clerk, but the way I understand it is the county needs some direction from this council as to what we’re doing before they can take the appropriate action on the speed limit.

Prue asked if it would it be advisable to have staff, and then asked which one? More whispering in his ear, and he agrees to whatever was said, for staff to bring back a report outlining exactly who owns that intersection and what options there are and what costs there are, and bring it back to council so that they would be able to either act on it themselves or go back to county council for their support and assistance. Then Prue asked, is that okay? You can do that? Okay? All right, that’s sufficient. (Why would anyone ask if that was okay? Admin is expected to provide reports, they get kudos for doing so, and it is council’s job to direct them, not ask if it’s ok).

Then Pouget confirmed if she was to make a motion to direct administration but Prue said no no, he thinks they’ve already indicated, (more whispering) yeah, they’re going to bring back the report. (A motion should always be made after there has been a decision to take action. The minutes are the official record where resolutions are stated).

Prue then introduced the matter of some people upset in the George and Seymour area, and staff went out and did what staff is supposed to do. He said they have to dig up the entire two roads and put in new sewers, probably have to put in new sidewalks, and try to keep all the trees. There is some encroachment, and the staff has gone out and talked to people and have sent out a letter talking about the end of the month, and he has tried to advise people that they will not be acting on that, and the staff have agreed they will not act on that until after council has had an opportunity to weigh in. So he asked that a report comes back to the next council meeting. It is not his wish as the mayor, he doesn’t know what council thinks, to force people to take out their porches or their houses or anything else. Some of these houses are 100 years old, and it’s a difficult circumstance, but he wants this to come back to council so they can have a good discussion at the next council meeting and determine how best to proceed. He said it’s gone too far. People are talking about hiring lawyers. Some have actually gone to lawyers to spend money (as is their right). And he thinks they can, with goodwill, accommodate all the concerns around this council table. He just wanted to say that publicly so that the newspaper and others can get it out.

Pouget asked if administration can bring back a report whether or not those five foot sidewalks are required in the older section. She said she fully accepts five foot sidewalks in new sections, but she believed there’s an exception under the Act that when it’s in a very old section, and it would affect some properties like that. She wondered if they can keep the sidewalks at four feet the way they are right now, with this exemption, then they wouldn’t have these worries. While Pouget was speaking, CAO Critchley whispered to Prue; he said the CAO has just indicated to him it will be in the report. Prue added, in case people wonder, (it sounded like he said AOD instead of AODA) compliance to make sure that it’s compliant would be five feet. But if it has to be four in that section so people won’t have to take down portions of their house he thinks they can all recognize that may have to be done but they’ll see the report and have a good discussion at the next meeting.

Allaire read her notice of motion to reconsider council resolution 20240527–008 regarding temporary patio extensions. Councillor Crain said it’s a bad idea to reconsider and McArthur was also opposed. Pouget supported it but Prue cut her off while she was speaking to say she was getting into the merits. Courtney supported. McArthur said he personally loves patios, it gives our residents something to do. Prue said the province allows patios to be on streets in Ontario. Staff needs to ensure AOD (the second time he left off the last A as in AODA). He mentioned emails and the arguments people made: 1. it takes away two parking spots; 2. it was ugly; 3. no money to town in return. He didn’t mention that I pointed out my argument regarding inaccessibility.

The motion to reconsider was carried and then there was more back and forth posturing. Gibb said he just didn’t understand what the issue is; two parking spots out of 500 you know what? He doesn’t think there’s that big of a problem parking in downtown Amherstburg. (The number one complaint in the residents’ survey about Open Air was accessibility, followed by parking. And again I wonder when there will be a strong commitment to accessibility and inclusion).

Crain echoed Gibb: It’s two parking spots, or maybe a little bit more, in the downtown, there’s definitely not a parking issue downtown. We received that in the study that came back, there’s a parking perception issue, but I don’t believe there’s a parking problem, and for me, it’s not something that I think we need to look at again.

More inefficient windbaggery and the motion to remove temporary patios on public properties failed. A recorded vote was held. In favour: Allaire, Pouget, Courtney. Opposed: Crain, Gibb, McArthur and Prue.

Mayor Prue’s Stance On Provincial Grant Funding

Posted on by

During the October 15 council meeting discussion of a provincial grant, Mayor Prue passed the gavel to speak. Following comments he made about MPP Leardi and Premier Ford which, in my opinion, were unprofessional I reached out to MPP Leardi, who responded.

Unofficial transcript of Prue’s speech: (listen to the audio).

I’m going to pass the gavel because I want to speak to this. I’m going to support this. And I know that some people say, oh, he just wants to spend the money. No, I also want to save the money. If we put in this application now, we are eligible for 50% funding from the province. If we don’t put it in now and we wait, which was suggested, we’re going to get zero. So am I going to say to the people of Amherstburg I said I’m going to, you know, we should just wait and maybe next year or the year after, we can see whether we have enough money at that point and forego the $500,000 from the province of Ontario, absolutely not. It is very difficult and anyone who sat around this table over many years will know it’s very difficult at budget time to try to do all the competing interests. But never once did I ever, in all of my years see a politician refuse provincial or federal money when it was there, and I don’t think we should be just saying cavalierly, no, we’re not going to even apply, because if we don’t do this tonight, we can’t, we can’t even apply. Might as well kiss it goodbye, and I am not going to kiss that money goodbye. It’s difficult enough waiting for Provincial funds. And every year our funding from the province goes down. Every year it gets less and less and less. And somebody sent me something from Facebook, and I was rather appalled so many people in Amherstburg commenting how wonderful Mr. Leardi was making sure we were getting 200 or $2 million from OCIF. That’s the least amount we’ve got in the last 10 years. Every year it goes down. Every year it goes down. And yet there are people who congratulate him for pushing it down. When I went to the to the AMO conference, there’s the Premier up there, big and bold as could possibly be, bragging that in his four years as Premier, he’s never had to raise taxes once, no, because he doesn’t fund things like municipalities anymore. And then we have to turn around and do the best we can. So when this rare opportunity comes for $500,000 I’m going to take it and I’m going to support this tonight so that we can get that 500,000. If we don’t get it, I know what we’re going to have to do instead. I don’t like it, but I want to see that place built right out if it can be done, I’ll take the gavel back.

MPP Leardi’s response was: Thank you for letting me know about Mr. Prue’s comments. I don’t think he has a full understanding of the millions of dollars that Amherstbug gets in infrastructure grants. Below is a breakdown. The infrastructure grants effectively doubled in 2022. In infrastructure grants alone, Amherstburg has received over $16 million from the Ford government.