Thank you, Mr. Chair. For myself I’m not going to be supporting this. I think the $400,000 that the Minister is speaking to, Mr. Bromley, in my communities that I represent this breakfast program is a big thing in the communities and I cannot take this money away. We can’t allocate it anywhere else. We just could take it away and I’m not going to do that. So I’m not going to support the motion. This program is needed in the communities. Families can’t go and buy $18 for a thing of cereal and $22 for milk. They go to the schools. If they get into the schools early enough, the kids will get a breakfast program. So, I mean, the best thing about it is, like I said, I’m not going to support this motion. I want this money to stay in the budget. So just think of all the little kids you’re going to take that money away from. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I initially was thinking that because they reprofiled the money and went in front of committee with the reprofile and just listening to the Minister’s arguments that they’re looking at assisting and augmenting some of the programs that we have in the regions and the communities, that’s something that I certainly would like to see, and I think Mr. Bromley, the mover of the motion, was quite adamant about not setting up another steering committee and making a bureaucratic process. Of course, it’s a concern for all MLAs, that the last

thing we need is more government, but at the same time, should the government keep to their reprofiling commitment of helping our communities?

I’ve got a riding with many small communities that take pride in their nutritious programs with whatever little resources that they do have. So just with that, Mr. Chair, I cannot support this motion for deleting $400,000 with respect to this line item. Thank you.

Next on the list I have Mr. Bromley, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Miltenberger and Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that Members on this side of the House have said that they don’t want to lose this money and I, at the risk of offending anybody, and this is not my intention, but there’s certainly schools in Yellowknife that have the same difficulties that the schools in the communities do and have students who need the breakfast money or whatever.

My concern with this particular pot of money, our understanding was that it was going to be used for a study and I appreciate the department’s reaction to the Social Programs committee’s advice and comments and that it has now been changed. But from what I understood the Minister to say, this is a steering committee, we’re going to establish, as Mr. Bromley said, more bureaucracy and he’s also said we’re going to put it into other programs. Well, you know things that are already there, I have no information on which to base my decision relative to these funds. If the Minister could provide me with a list of the programs that are out there and how this $400,000 is going to be divided up between these programs, no problem. But at the moment what I am hearing is we are going to establish a committee -- Lord knows how much money that is going to take out of the $400,000 -- and they are going to do something with whatever is left, but I don’t know what it is that they are going to do.

I feel really strongly that we are being asked to consider... Basically we are being asked to vote on something that we really don’t know anything about, and it is a real problem. The other thing that Members need to know is that I believe there is an intention for another motion to come forward to replace this money or this particular...basically to advise the department to reprofile money to put food into the mouths of babes, so there will be an opportunity to have their fears about losing this money. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.

Next, Mr. Beaulieu, to the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the motion. I don’t know, I haven’t done any studies on what is needed. I don’t know where this money is scheduled to go. I am in the very same boat as Mr. Menicoche and Mr. Jacobson. I know we have had a lot of discussions about this and actually targeting

an actual subsidy for milk and so on; however, as this has evolved today, I don’t want the communities to feel that because the word “committee” falls into the plan, I would then remove something from the schools where it is needed. I mean, our communities are poor. We have, like I have said over and over again in the House here, a 40 percent employment rate in the communities I represent and people I think just get food from day to day, in a lot of cases. So if this is something that is a way of feeding the kids at the school, then I don’t want to see it removed as well. I can’t support this as well.

To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have some initiatives underway. For example, if we bring forward and all agree to a rate restructuring that will lower the cost of living in the smaller communities through lowering power rates, then we will be in a situation of being able to positively affect the whole food basket. I also would suggest that we are better off to leave this money in the budget where it now is, and the Minister has indicated that most of it is going to go to the communities and he has indicated his willingness to work with committee on this. I think it is important that we consider leaving it in the budget and working forward from here. Once money is removed, it is always very difficult to...(inaudible)...that it is going to go back into a different place. So I would encourage Members to support to keep this money in the budget. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As much as I personally feel that the money should be deleted, I am going to have to side with some of my colleagues from the smaller communities who feel that the money may find a good use. I have said this before and I think this is just an example of the government wanting to find a committee or do a study or maybe hire a consultant, and I think that is going to eat up a lot of this money. I think the money could be better spent, and I think that the committee has got to be on top of the department when it comes to trying to find ways and means to get nutritious foods into the children.

We have talked many times about a milk subsidy program and other things like that and I think we have really got to start looking at that. This money, hopefully it gets spent the right way. If we were to take it out, it would just disappear into the abyss and the government would find something else to spend $400,000 on what we probably wouldn’t agree with anyway. So I think I am going to err on the side of caution and side with those that want to keep the money in there. But again, I think the

Standing Committee on Social Programs has got to take the department to task and I know I have been to a number of meetings with my colleagues on the Social Programs committee trying to get this milk subsidy up and running. Something like that is meaningful and going to have some real impact on children and is more favourable than what is being proposed, but I am going to have to vote against the motion, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Next, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this discussion on this motion is turning into something that the motion to delete is not. I think we are talking about two different things here. The government is saying yes, support the $400,000. Why then can it not clearly be described to us what the $400,000 is for? Because if it is for a steering committee, I don’t support it. You can buy a lot of food for $400,000 and if we thought it was a milk subsidy or a food breakfast program for children and we keep talking about the communities, this would be, I assume, unless we want to specifically target to small communities, I assume this is all communities. So why is there such a failure on the part of the department and the Minister to explain to us what this is?

I don’t like being asked to say trust us, support us, we can’t tell you what we are going to spend it on, but, you know, leave it in the budget. That is where I have a problem. If that is the case, we might as well just take this entire budget document and say we trust you, go ahead, spend the money how you see fit. But that is why we go through this process of trying to look at this budget on a line-by-line, department-by-department basis. That is why it is called detail, so that we can understand what the money is budgeted for.

I am right now, sitting here, having listened to the Minister, I mean, this thing seems like it has morphed about three or four times. It started off as... When it first came in the business plans it was one thing; by the time it made it to the budget address, it was something else; and by the time it made it actually here to the floor of the House it has turned into something else again.

This is not mad money, we all support nutritious food for children in our schools. Let’s be clear about that. If that is what this is, I am all for leaving it in there, but if this is for a steering committee to look and study and review and, you know, absorb that money on travel and all kinds of things, then, no, I don’t support it.

There are lots of organizations out there right now that are dealing with this whole issue of nutritious food in the schools, I shouldn’t say lots of organizations, but there are organizations, there are good non-government organizations that are dealing with this. So if I could hear, Mr. Chairman,

the Minister say that this is going to actually translate into food for school children, not a review of the food basket, not the establishment of a steering committee, then I would totally support leaving that money in there. If I even, during the debate on this motion, could hear the Minister say that, I think that would affect how I vote, but right now I just don’t know. Thank you.

To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no doubt that the Members on the other side are... They are well intentioned; they want to do what is right for the children and increase support to the children and their nutrition programs. Perhaps it would have been better if we worded this not as a committee but nutritious food project, because this is something that all the Members have been asking for and this is what the intent of this money is, and the Department of Health and Social Services is working in partnership with the Department of Education, Culture and Employment to see this project through.

Details have not been worked out because this is a new program and you don’t want to work out all of the details before the money is approved. But I can tell you that’s how we foresee this working is the Department of Health and Social Services and ECE working with NGOs like the NWT Food First Foundation. I think it’s a group that lots of people are familiar with. They are strong advocates for increasing support to children and their food needs, and other groups involved in school boards to enhance what we already have.

I don’t know if the Members know there are 47 schools across the NWT, 49, and most of them have some kind of breakfast program, even in Yellowknife. I was doing a tour of St. Joes and they were excited about enhancing their kitchen facility, because we have the largest population of aboriginal kids and non-aboriginal kids who are not always getting breakfast in the morning, and they get support from other NGO groups to do that.

So I do believe that this is a program that the Members are looking for. It might have been misnamed, but I would really encourage the Members to not delete it, because we know a motion to delete is final; the money is gone and any other ideas to bring it back works in different channels. I think it would be better if we keep this money in there and Minister Lafferty and myself could work with the committee to finalize the plan. I think we could work to enhance what’s already there.

I could also tell you that the Department of Health and Social Services has Healthy Foods North, for example. There are active groups on the ground who are reviewing traditional food and aboriginal food for their nutritious value. So this will allow us to tie it all together.

I want to say one more thing. I think, when we are talking about healthy food for children, we need to look beyond milk. I know milk is important, but milk is not necessarily something that everybody is used to drinking or something they have grown up with and there are some people who are allergic to milk. I’ve never grown up with milk. Milk is not something I grab for first thing. I’ve had information from community people that said they would rather see that we focus our energy on programs that enhance nutrition for children on a wider basis than just milk, because we know there are other foods like fish that could be a source of calcium. We also know that children need food that enhances vitamin D and other necessary nutrients. So I would just close by saying that I would urge Members to not delete this money, but accept our commitment that we will work with you to work out the details. Thank you.

Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we report progress.

There is a motion on the floor. If there are no other speakers, I will allow the presenter of the motion to wrap it up. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this has been a very good discussion. I think the situation, you heard the surprise when the Minister mentioned the milk program and so on, or the breakfast program and so on, the things that were not mentioned in the detail we had received to date. The sticking point for the committee is obviously the steering committee. We do not need government by committee, and I am hoping that that will be nixed somehow, an NWT-wide Nutritious Foods Steering Committee. We envision people flying around and wasting dollars, which should be put directly into the sorts of programs that have been mentioned: Food First and breakfast programs in schools.

I also want to mention that this is certainly a new program, as the Minister of Health and Social Services… In fact, the idea was about a week old when we first saw it, which reflects the sort of thinking, the depth of thinking that’s gone into this. It’s on the fly, anything other than getting in line more directly and non-bureaucratically with what the committee had in mind seems to be something this government is willing to take here.

The Minister of Health and Social Services again mentioned milk allergies. Oh my gosh, how many times do we have to address that? We’ve never denied that that is an issue and there are other milk substitutes out there that will deal with that. An important aspect that is missed in the programs I have been hearing about is the early childhood side of the equation. That was always a very important part. In fact, initially we had conceived of this as dealing with the first six years of life, very much a preschool thing, at least in emphasis.

So, Mr. Chair, I am quite willing to have this motion die here or not be passed, but I would ask committee for their support in withholding final approval of this department’s budget until such time as the Minister provides much more detail on how these dollars will be spent and convinces us that it’s not going to disappear in bureaucracy, it will actually get translated into nutritious food delivered to children. That’s all I have. Thank you.

The motion is on the floor. We’ll deal with the motion.

---Defeated

At this time I would like to acknowledge the clock and I will rise and report progress.

At this time, I would like to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses out, please.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Tabled Document 62-16(4), NWT Main Estimates, 2010-2011, and would like to report progress, with three motions being adopted. I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Do we have a seconder? The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

---Carried

Item 22, third reading of bills. Madam Clerk, orders of the day.