Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the motion speaks for itself as to the merits of why this should be taken on. I want to thank the seconder, Mr. Jackie Jacobson of Nunakput, for seconding this.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is very important. I’ve been made aware through a number of sources that the Food Mail Program is probably not used regularly in the context of being used properly and as efficiently as possible. When push comes to shove, at times the good, healthy food tends to get pushed aside for the less healthy food. That’s a shame.

Although the federal government at this time is doing a review of the program, to my knowledge and research so far they’re not auditing the actual food that is being shipped up. Mr. Speaker, in times like this when we’re always worried about what type of food people are eating and whether they are eating properly and whatnot, we want to make sure that we’re getting the best value we can for this program.

Mr. Speaker, I won’t speak at length to this, because as I said, the motion itself clearly states that it needs to be evaluated to make sure it’s running properly. That’s really the intent: to make sure that things like milk, eggs, fruit and vegetables are getting to the people of the North at the best price possible. That’s the intent of the Food Mail Program: to make sure that the transportation cost is reduced as low as possible so food gets on the shelves of good working Northerners and they can afford to buy these types of things in that environment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues and thank the Assembly for this motion going in.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion, the seconder of the motion, Mr. Jacobson.

Mr. Speaker, today I’m happy to be supporting, as seconder, the motion on the Food Mail Program. Not all constituents can use this program. The high cost of food in our communities, our elders having to pay the high cost of food that’s available, which is half-rotten half the time, for produce and stuff like that…. I think it’s a shame that larger families have to pay such a high cost of living due to caribou shortages and restrictions to hunting. We’re having to rely on Alberta beef.

I think this a really good thing we’re doing. I’m in full support of it. The local stores are being held accountable for the pricing, not only the stores but the airlines as well. It’s making sure we get somebody on this as a watchdog, making sure that the people, our constituents, who this is mostly affecting, get what’s coming to them in the pricing.

I thank my colleagues, and I hope everybody supports this.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. To the motion, the honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment that we have had a number of discussions with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada regarding this program, which is an important program for communities across the North. We have 17 communities in the Northwest Territories that qualify.

As the Member has indicated, this is a $40 million to $50 million program. However, the bulk of the investment for this program goes into Nunavut and Nunavik. We get a small percentage. I think last year we got about $1.4 million of that revenue coming into our communities.

We’ve made a number of recommendations over the years to change how some of the program is run and operated, including the point of origin for shipments to allow them to be consolidated at any southern point. We’ve also asked that the airlines themselves be allowed to administer this program.

The review has started. It had started in the life of the previous government prior to the federal election. That has really brought the whole review to a standstill. We’re expecting that the new Minister appointed will pick it up again. We do have a northern representative

—

his name is Graeme

Dargo

—

who is leading the NWT consultations.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly respect the request for an audit. We all agree that there should be best value in this program. Again, since this is a recommendation to the government, our Cabinet will be abstaining from this motion.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. I will allow the mover of the motion some closing comments. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for recognizing how important this program is to the people of the North. I respectfully disagree with him on the size of the figure he’s pointed out. I think it’s a lot higher in the Northwest Territories. The specific benefits in theory are supposed to go to the program.

But what I will say is that the important thing is: are we getting value for money? Is the money going to the right ideals that we believe we subscribe to, which is making sure we can keep the cost of food as low as possible for all Northerners to be able to benefit, no matter what community you are in? This is a fantastic program that emphasizes northern and remote communities and can do a lot. The question is: is it doing a lot? From all evidence I’ve seen and heard, I don’t believe it’s working as hard as it can. That’s why it’s so important that this audit bring those issues to light, and hopefully we’ll deal with it.

In closing, I think this is a good value step for the people of the Northwest Territories. I will be asking

for a recorded vote at this time, and I appreciate support from my colleagues who can stand behind this one.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The Member is requesting a recorded vote. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

All those opposed to the motion, please stand. All those abstaining from the motion, please stand.

Results of the recorded vote: 11 for, none against, seven abstaining.

Motion carried.

The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion, the honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to a preventative approach to addressing the root causes of issues that we face. Milk is the single most important nutrient to the healthy development and benefit of our youth. The issue has been brought to us by community representatives, by health workers and by educational workers and teachers. Many thanks to them for bringing this forward.

Many people have seen, or heard recently from my colleague, the frightening photographs of many of our youth who are in desperate need of dental surgery and the backload we have there to deal with. Sugary drinks, as I mentioned in the motion, are much cheaper than milk in some of our communities, and it’s most unfortunate. But when people can’t afford the appropriate thing, they’ll turn to substitutes, and in this case it’s damaging our youth.

This program is meant to be implemented in concert with important ongoing community and school nutritional programs, and I’m sure the government will make sure that that’s done. Many residents fail to benefit from Food Mail Program, as has been mentioned, particularly those in our small communities who don’t necessarily have the literacy and education required to take advantage of this — or even the tradition, like the tradition that’s developed among our professionals who are visiting our communities for short periods of time. It should be our intent to promote the full use of the Food Mail Program, and this will minimize the cost of this program and the subsidy to milk specifically to ensure efficient use of our subsidy dollars.

Finally, I’d like to just mention the long term benefits that this can bring. Healthy kids mean healthy bodies and strong minds, with resilience to the challenges we face. This investment will return benefits and savings in terms of the physical, mental and psychological well-being of our youth and our families, and we’ll notice that in our costs down the road. I urge all Members to support this motion. There’s been very good support in getting it to this stage and presenting the issue, and I thank everybody for that support.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. I’ll go to the seconder of the motion, the Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will add just a couple of brief comments.

I’d like to commend my colleague Mr. Bromley for bringing forward this idea and this motion and for thinking creatively. It’s something I think we all should be well aware of and should attempt to imitate. We spend millions of dollars in subsidies on our residents. Albeit this is an additional subsidy, I think it’s a subsidy that probably is more important than almost any of the other ones we currently have, and I think it’s one that is very much needed. I also think of this as one option to try to go a little bit towards evening out the costs that residents have to bear in smaller communities versus Yellowknife, the capital and the largest community.

Just as an aside, I think there is some opportunity, if we add this subsidy in, for reducing the price of milk. We can probably do something to offset it by looking at increasing taxes on pop and junk food and/or removing subsidies for freight, which we already have on pop and junk food. We may end up being revenue neutral as we also get creative in how we implement this particular subsidy.

I urge all Members to support this. I think it’s a wonderful initiative and one we all should gladly support.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion, the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to recognize Mr. Bromley’s motion as very important, and I appreciate the spirit and intent of it.

Mr. Speaker, as the father of two young children I certainly understand and in no way dispute the nutritional value of milk. I understand that clearly, and it makes perfect sense to me. I also understand the impacts of what happens when you don’t have milk.

It’s difficult to say this, but I cannot support this motion at this time the way it’s designed. This program, in my view, is what the Food Mail Program, in principle, should be doing but isn’t doing. I believe that the problem really is focused on how the Food Mail Program is delivered. I think in a little bit of time the Food Mail Program, if delivered properly, would solve this exact problem.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day the feds are paying $50 million into the Food Mail Program, and I’m not sure we’re getting the value we need out of it. We now have to find a way to subsidize milk to lower that cost when we already have a program

that does it. I don’t feel the territorial government is in a position to subsidize the federal government.

I completely understand why the motion has come forward. I like the intent; I like the spirit — if it could just be that simple. I really wish it could, but it isn’t. Where is the money going to come from? We already know that the territorial government has difficulty with its finances now, and we’re making tough choices every day. But are we going to a $500,000 program run by a $1 million administration? I’m not necessarily sure.

Is it a question of people making good choices for their families? Well, I’ve always believed that families will make good choices by themselves on what they feel is appropriate for the family. If you are in a small community, I understand that it’s easier to reach for a $2 can of pop versus a $10 jug of milk. But you know what? When you do the math, the milk still is cheaper. I think it comes down to nutritional choices that people are making.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to have impact on the youth, my feeling is: why aren’t we subsidizing things like baby food? Why are we leaving seniors off the table? Seniors would benefit from milk too. I’ve heard constantly that osteoporosis is a problem in the seniors’ community; we should be including them in this program. There are a lot of concerns right now.

There’s another way. If we want to benefit parents to make responsible choices, why don’t we give them all another $100 per child in child care? That would free up money in their pockets to make good choices.

Mr. Speaker, the intent is really good. There are lots of ways to achieve the same thing, but I’m not necessarily sure how this would be. If it’s to go to low income folks or income support folks, I am concerned and curious if this money would be clawed back. In other words, we’ve just found a new way to give more money to the Northern Stores or the co-ops without necessarily doing much. I think the end user would be set back.

If the goal is to help people, I think we need to find ways to help people directly. Let’s put it onto income support payments and increase the base for people who have children. If you have children, you get an extra $100 per child per month. That way they can help make good choices directly. We could do that in one broad brush stroke without creating a new program. That could be done today if we really wanted to. It’s this House that sets those dollar values, so we could do that.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I want to thank Mr. Bromley. He also came to me to talk to me about my reservations. I want to thank him for his efforts to go through his perspective on this motion. I agree with the intent, but I have to stand by my

concerns and convictions on this one, which are that the fundamental problem is the Food Mail Program. That is the delivery mechanism that we could get the best value for all Northerners on, and that’s exactly where the problem is. Once an audit goes through, I think that will solve a lot of our problems and go in the right direction.

If we want to change the subsidy in another vehicle to help support people with their milk, that’s okay. I’m willing to listen, and I’m certainly willing to stand up and support an income support adjustment to help the people in the lowest income bracket any day of the week, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I’ll be voting against the motion. I don’t do so in a happy way. I just think this isn’t exactly how it should be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion, the honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to support the motion that’s before us on the milk subsidy program. I want to commend my colleague Mr. Bromley for having the sense and the courage to bring something like this forward. I think it shows a great deal of creativity. As a government I think we need to start somewhere, and this is a good place to start.

I think milk is absolutely a requirement in a child’s nutrition, and we need to make sure that children can get milk in the smaller communities where it’s costly. You know, I’ve been to Inuvik, and it’s interesting how the government can subsidize the sale of liquor in our communities. The price at the liquor store here in Yellowknife isn’t much different than it is in Inuvik. But if you look at the price of milk in Yellowknife compared to Inuvik, it’s a great deal different. There’s something wrong with that picture, Mr. Speaker, if the government is subsidizing the sale of liquor when we should be giving our parents, especially in the smaller communities, the opportunity to choose between pop and milk. If there’s a subsidy in place that would allow them to purchase more milk for their families, I think that’s a step in the right direction.

Part of the vision of the Government of Northwest Territories is Healthy Choices, healthy individuals making healthy choices. Again, I think this speaks to that. It’s a principle motion. This is going to be developed. It’s going to be taken through the committee system. It’s going to be, you know, poked and prodded by Members until we get a final version of it. So this isn’t the last that we’re going to hear of it. This is the principle and something that I fully support. Again, I want to thank Mr. Bromley for his creativity. We need to start somewhere as a government, and this is a great place to start.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion, the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will be supporting the motion, and I would like to thank Mr. Bromley for bringing it forward. I think this is a no-brainer. When you go into a community and you see $16 for two litres of milk and you expect people on low income or income support clients to make a choice between spending $16 for two litres of milk, or in some cases $3.50 for a can of pop…. We have to realize that with the high cost of living in our communities, it is a very expensive commodity in a lot of our communities. In the larger centres it may not be that way. In order to stretch our dollars as far as we can, by implementing this motion, it will improve the quality of life for children in our communities.

Yes, we do have a problem when we start seeing our children walking around the communities who are just starting to walk, and they’ve got a can of pop in one hand and candy or chips in the other. It makes you wonder what the condition of that child is going to be in the next ten or 15 years and the high rates of sugar diabetes that we are seeing in regard to our population. A lot of that stems from exactly the food that’s being provided and choices people are making. If this can help by offsetting the high costs in our communities, I am fully in support of it.

Mr. Speaker, as a government we also have to look at other jurisdictions throughout the North, such as Iceland and Greenland. They have implemented a sugar tax on products that come into their jurisdiction which have high traces of sugar. We tax fuel products; we tax tobacco. I think there’s no reason why we shouldn’t consider that as an option — taxing items that carry high traces of sugar. Everybody knows there are nine teaspoons of sugar in one can of pop, and again, that’s something we should be made aware. So I will be fully supporting this motion, and I think it is a good motion going forward.