Page 8-30, Health and Social Services, activity summary, community health programs, grants and contributions, contributions. Agreed? Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question under the prevention and promotion paragraph on page 8-30. There’s a huge increase in the money going to authorities and agencies from the revised estimates from 2010-2011 to the main estimates for 2011-2012; about $600,000. Could I get an explanation of what that’s for?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s part of our Strategic Initiatives committee Building Our Future investments and Healthy Choices Framework and $254,000, for a total of $500,000. It will be sent to Beaufort-Delta and Dehcho.

I’m sorry, I need clarification on those numbers. I heard $250,000 for a total of $500,000. Could I get the other half of the $500,000, please?

It’s a $500,000 increase; $250,000 going to Beaufort-Delta Health and Social

Services Authority and $246,000 to Dehcho Health and Social Services Authority.

Thanks for the explanation. I did have a question under children services as well. Maybe it’s not so much a question as a comment. I look at these numbers and we spend almost $7.7 million on foster care and about $3.6 million on residential care, yet we spend $858,000 on intervention and protective services. I guess that’s apprehensions. If we look at the paragraph below we spend some $900,000 on prevention and promotion. It seems to me that we’ve got these numbers in the wrong place. I know it costs money to put children into foster care but it goes to the recommendations from the Child and Family Services Act review, it goes to statements that have been made by Members more often than not in this House and on this side of the House.

Prevention is paramount. If we can put programs in place, if we can work on prevention, if we can work on creating healthy children at an early age from zero to six it’s going to reap huge rewards as we go down the line. In terms of foster care, if we can put in place the recommendations that are in the Child and Family Services Act review we will not need to put children in foster care and that $7.7 million amount is going to be reduced significantly. I know it’s going to take time, but again we need to be putting more money into prevention, into dealing with children at a really early age. I don’t see that in here and it dismays me.

I didn’t hear a question there. I take the Member’s comment and I don’t believe we disagree with that finding and suggestion made in the CFSA report.

I appreciate that the Minister and the department don’t disagree with my point of view but, unfortunately, there’s no indication on the part of the department that money is going to be attached to this particular philosophy. That is a large concern. Thank you. No question there either.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Although there’s no question, I’ll still go to the Minister to see if she has any sort of response.

Yes, it’s true that there’s no new money in this budget but our response is that we will put it through the next business plan cycle, which is the way financial business is done.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Next on my list is Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of questions here. I’m just wondering, a couple of years back we had talked about a campaign to curb alcohol abuse. As anybody knows, alcohol is the biggest problem that we have out there, the biggest social ill that we have. We had talked about the department coming up with a campaign much like the Don’t Be a Butthead

campaign to try to target alcohol and the ravages that it has on our communities. I’m just wondering where that’s at in the department’s plans or if there’s any money in this budget for that type of campaign.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It would be part of health promotion.

Could the Minister elaborate on that? Are we going to come up with a new campaign? What is the strategy that the department has to prevent alcohol abuse in the Northwest Territories? It’s a huge problem. What are we doing about it?

As I recall, I believe we were talking about a campaign similar to Don’t Be a Butthead and there were some suggestions such as Don’t Be a Bottleneck or something like that. That was about two budget cycles ago. We were working on more investment money under Strategic Initiatives committees, but as the Member knows and the Legislature is aware, we’ve had to curb the money available under those initiatives. So the work that we do on addictions and dangers of alcohol abuse and such is done as part of our everyday business. We were not able to launch a whole new program similar to Don’t Be a Butthead because we were not able to get that extra funding under Strategic Initiative committees because we had to reduce that as a government. It’s not just a department but government-wide, as the Member is aware.

I think that’s some work that we have to continue on and that should take priority going down the road, that’s for sure. Like I said, alcohol is the biggest scourge that’s out there.

The other question that I have, I just wanted to ask the Minister whether or not the Department of Health and Social Services, under prevention, promotion, and health awareness, were you consulted with prior to the Department of Finance making a decision to raise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol?

Yes, of course we were.

Maybe could the Minister elaborate a little bit on what the stance of the department was in increasing alcohol and tobacco taxes and whether or not that might have a negative impact on families around the Northwest Territories? Because as I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, the people who are addicted to alcohol and tobacco are going to get their alcohol and tobacco no matter how much it costs, and the people who are going to pay the price are the kids in that home and the families in the small communities who are struggling to get by as it is. If you increase costs for alcohol and tobacco, I think it’s a perverse effect

you’re having on families around this Territory. I’d like to hear what the department had to say about that.

I don’t think I could counter that. I think that’s something that could be argued. All sin taxes we have to weigh the balance between providing a disincentive by raising the taxes, but we are aware that those who are severely addicted will get those items no matter what, against their self-interest and the well-being of themselves and the families around them. The flip side of that coin is if even without taxes being raised, probably those other people who because of their addiction issues do not spend money where they should be, on their families, anyway. I don’t think there’s any right or wrong answer to that.

Going back to your original question, the deputy ministers are on the steering committee that review those implications and the Ministers discuss and consider all those impacts as well.

I’m just wondering whether or not the department did any analysis on the increase to taxes on alcohol and tobacco and if the Minister could share that analysis with the committee.

I could provide the Member with what we have in the department on that topic.

Just one other thing. I’m just wondering if we’ve ever given any consideration to taking the tax that’s derived from cigarettes and alcohol in the Territory and instead of putting it into general revenue, earmarking it for activities under prevention and promotion. Maybe we should be identifying those dollars and using them in the right way.