Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like to talk about providing funding for electronic tablets to new parents under the Early Childhood Development Framework Right from the Start for $114,000. I respectfully disagree with the previous two colleagues that spoke on this matter. The iPads are for our new parents and their children. A colleague spoke about TV time and the numerous studies and the health effects of it, but this is TV time that’s spent at home under parental
control that we, as government, have no control over. In fact, we see it on the news all the time that Canadians, please, don’t have your children watch TV, try not to keep them on the iPads such as this when they’re on their own time, keep them away from games. That’s all about screen time, and certainly, there are detrimental effects, but that’s something that’s outside the home. We’re talking about an educational tool here. That’s something that I’m supportive about. In fact, the future education will be more virtual. There will be more educational tools like this at the school at all levels, in fact. That’s where we’re heading.
I represent small communities. Many parents have low and no income, and here’s an opportunity for my communities and my parents and my children to catch up to the world. I’m supportive of that and accessing the tablets because that’s where we are. The tools are there. The apps are there to help to get a jump on education and to further help them. Education courses, environmental and natural resources, in fact, are supported by government and they’re supported by industry and supported by non-profits and private organizations. These things are already being done. In fact, they’re being done in our schools, Aurora College, the high schools. In fact, small communities, in fact, I think it was Apple that gave 15 computers to Trout Lake because they had shown outstanding effort and they were chosen for a test project. In fact, Apple presented one to Trout Lake and delivered these products.
I’m not too sure about their concerns. Like I said, TV time, I’m not too sure about that, but they’re talking about branding too. I saw some of the briefing notes that my colleague had. They had only one opinion from one scholar out of the University of Alberta, and many of his colleagues disagreed that branding is bad. We’re also talking about policy. It’s probably a good time to talk about it. How do we handle people? How big are the signs? Those are good questions. We should go there and I’m supportive of continuing to work with our partners. It’s about transparency as well. The Minister at the table there talked about subliminal messages. I don’t think that anybody will be that low to do that. But it’s about transparency and letting everybody be aware, knowing who our partners are that are helping us with education. You know, should it be formatted, style, size? Certainly, but it’s about transparency and everybody knows that.
I certainly disagree, as well, that industry has the most to gain from branding. Like I said, our children in our communities have the most to gain from these educational tools that are otherwise unavailable to my constituents and my communities. So I just wanted to say for the record, Mr. Chair, that as passionate as my colleagues are, I don’t think, as a Member on this side of the House, that I share their opinion. Not that it’s a bad
thing; in fact, we’ve got to welcome partners. Thank you.