Thanks to the Minister. I guess I would ask the Minister if he could provide me and other Members with a written summary of this practice and convention that we’ve been following for however many years he mentioned.

I have great difficulty in seeing a similarity between what we’re talking about here with iPads, which are branded, presumably, and putting money into, for instance, Arctic Winter Games. I don’t see that these are equated quite the same.

It’s one thing to take funding and to put a logo on a program or put a logo at an event on a sign. It’s another thing, in my mind, to take a piece of equipment that a child is going to be using and/or that the parents are going to be using, and put that basically in front of the child or in front of the parents where they’re going to see it over and over and over. So I see a distinction there.

The comment from the Education Minister earlier was that at the end of the day, we have to remember we’re giving iPads loaded with materials to the parents. That struck me as the important thing, is we’re giving the iPads, never mind about the fact that this is a corporate sponsor and never mind about the fact that there is branding on there and that there is a corporate name that is going into the home. Whether the iPad is intended for the parent or not, it’s going to get into the hands of the child. I cannot see that a parent with an iPad is not going to put an app on that iPad that is going to keep their kid amused for 10 minutes while they have a shower or whatever. So I don’t think that we can assume that these iPads are only going to be put into the hands of parents. If we do that, then I think we’re only fooling ourselves.

My request is if we can get some kind of a summary of a policy or protocol or convention that we are following. That’s the question. Thank you.

We’ll pull together what’s requested by the Member. We’re also, as we’re going to have this discussion, I need to clarify the issue of branding, per se, is not a problem, it’s the type of brand, from my understanding from the Member, that if it was Toys R Us or whatever, that would be fine, but if it’s an oil company, the Member’s predilection for what’s right and wrong, that would be noted. Is that the issue, that all brand name is bad, regardless

whether we’re sponsoring oil and gas conferences or we’re giving books from Diavik Mine or we’re getting airlines and all the other good corporate citizens who put money towards Arctic Winter Games, or is it because they have a particular point of view about some corporations and they shouldn’t be allowed near children? That’s a whole different debate. Thank you. But we will get that information.

Yes, it is a whole different debate and it kind of goes to the crux of this issue for me. There’s the issue of getting $5,000 from a company and putting their logo on a sign at an event. This is a different issue, in my mind, where conceivably, because we don’t know yet what’s going to happen, but every time somebody opens up this iPad that a corporate logo is going to pop up or a corporate name is going to pop up, or every time they turn the iPad over they’re going to see a corporate logo pasted on the back of the material or the iPad. I see that as very different from a one time or even a repeated event of a logo on a sign. The books for De Beers, I mean, yes, the books are given away in a bag that says De Beers on it, but I don’t believe – I can’t remember totally – but I don’t think the books all have De Beers emblazoned all over them, and if they do, I would have a bit of a problem with that.

It is a very different debate but it’s not a debate that we’ve had, and I think, as Members, maybe we ought to have that debate. I don’t know that the government should be making these decisions around corporate sponsorship without the input of Regular Members. That said, bottom line for me is if we have to, and I appreciate partnerships to get events done, but if we have to start canvassing corporate partners or corporations to get funding to run our programs and services, I think we are headed down a very difficult road and a very dangerous road. If we can’t properly fund our programs and services without getting money from whether it’s big business or little business, and it doesn’t matter – to go to the Minister’s suggestion – whether it’s an oil company or whether it’s a food company. I have a problem with the fact that it is in the face of children particularly, but in the face of residents constantly, and if we can’t fund our programs and services properly, then we shouldn’t be asking corporations for it. We should be asking taxpayers to fund our programs and services properly.

It’s a very mixed bag answer, but it is because it is a very difficult debate and I would again encourage the government to consider having that debate with the Regular Members.

This supplementary request of $114,000 has triggered a policy discussion that would probably best be held at another time. I wouldn’t confirm that the De Beers books have stickers on them. God forbid that they have stickers on them. The policy discussion,

maybe it can be agreed that we do want to have that debate about is there a prescribed list, what are we going to accept as brandable and whatnot, and what activities, what actual physical objects, and have that discussion. I don’t know if we’re going to resolve it here today, but clearly some of the Members have a problem with that particular item.

I mean, it’s for the families, to hook them into our systems, to help them with parenthood, to hook them into the immunization, dental, all these good things that the Minister of Education has laid out. I would be shocked and appalled if there was subliminal advertising built in to the iPads that are flashing out things about the oil companies or love Chevron or whatever it is. I mean, this is a partnership arrangement to do good things for parents and families that otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford this type of support and advantage. We can have that debate. I don’t know if we’re going to finish it here tonight.

No, I’m not suggesting we have the debate here tonight. I think it needs to be done in a different time and venue. I just want to say two things and then my time is up. One is that the books from De Beers are not being handed out by the government. They’re being given out by the company, and albeit they’re being given out in our schools and to our schools, they’re not coming from the government. These iPads presumably are coming from the government, and I think they are being recognized that they are coming from the government. I don’t have a problem with the concept of the iPads, giving the information to the parents. I do have a problem with the fact that we are, as a government, giving out materials that presumably are going to have a corporate brand on them. That’s the debate we need to have.

To understand that clearly then, the question would be, then, if the partner gave out the iPads and we just put our information in it and they gave it out, is that then acceptable? I guess it’s a question. I’m not quite clear. That’s the next question that leaps to mind, listening to the Member about what she would consider acceptable.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Next I have Mr. Menicoche and then Mr. Yakeleya.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. I’ll take that as a statement. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya, then Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to just weigh in on the issue here. We’re talking about a small sum of money versus a whole budget here and that these iPads will benefit, as Mr. Menicoche mentioned, the parents and families, so far that we can go into disciplining children in terms of how to use these iPads.

Branding has always been a marketing ploy of whatever company you have in this world. McDonald’s has a brand, Coca-Cola, you know, ever since I was growing up, Snap, Crackle and Pop, Rice Krispies. I still remember that, that’s a branding. Yes, it has always been in the industry, corporate world, you know, effective marketing, effective branding. Everybody does it. We just do it differently and it does have an effect. This new technology we’re into now, I see it no different than when technology was coming out in my school days and getting into it. Now we’ve advanced further and our children are more into it and they’re smart, these little ones. They can grab the iPad and just doodle on something, even set up my phone and things like that. They’re very, very smart, very keen. That started in the days of Thomas Edison, Einstein, Henry Ford. They all advance. That’s their God-given right. With the technology that we have, the advancement is more in the medical field, the science field, the environment field. All of these will move forward. For good or bad, it’s how we see it with our eyes. Henry didn’t make that judgment. I see that and Mr. Menicoche sees that this is an educational tool.

I heard a Member talk about technology in the world today. It’s good to have Facebook, that’s a real good tool, but it’s being used sometimes in not a good way. It’s scary. So the technology is there, it’s how will you use it and it seems like this is an educational tool we can use.

I also agree with Mr. Menicoche about big business. Big profit organizations have a corporate responsibility and this is a corporate responsibility. I see it as a good thing and you can take that interpretation however you want.. Imperial Oil just gave the students in Norman Wells new computers. They’ve been in Norman Wells over 90 years. One of their corporate responsibilities was the schools and they found out they were lacking computers, so they gave the schools a lot of new computers. So you interpret that how you want to interpret that, but the kids certainly enjoy those new computers and they’re making good use of them. How they use it, that’s up to their own integrity in how they do it, but for them, their families worked for Imperial, maybe, or their aunties and uncles work for Imperial. So

that’s the benefit of some of these large corporations coming to our communities.

Madam Chair, as Mr. Menicoche said, there are books, I’m sorry, Mr. Chair, you hear that Snap, Crackle and Pop, it’s because I’m happy here. Mr. Chair, there are many documents written by well-known academics that are smarter than us in psychology and that on the study of the effects of the world today. I certainly appreciate Mr. Bromley bringing some of these here to look at. I mean, there are many. So we have to look at all of them and see what those effects are, not to disregard but to look at some of these studies here. There are many of them out there.

I myself do not think we need to have a discussion about the policies of branding. I think we need to be fair about it and look at it, but there are some goods that we have received and we’re to look at the government, the taxpayers, do we increase our taxes so we can cover so we know the needs out there? They’re so great. Even on a motion that I’m still thinking about that, you know, we couldn’t increase the taxes because it’s costing us a lot of money.

So this branding issue here, I believe for me it’s common sense. Look at it. In Tulita and other small communities in the Sahtu, Husky has given our communities a breakfast program for our small kids. So I don’t think there’s any branding about it. It shows the people if you’re willing to work, they will provide you something, some benefits. So we have a breakfast program going from Husky Energy and that’s helping us. That’s a good thing. Husky also provided a couple hundred thousand dollars to the people in Tulita. They took 47 people out to build a moose skin boat. The government, there’s no money left, they’ve got no money for that. We asked them, can you help us train traditional skills on the land and construct a traditional boat? There might be other motivating factors from Husky, I don’t know, I haven’t gotten in their head, but 47 people who took advantage of that went up to the Keele River and built a moose skin boat. As a matter of fact, Mr. Premier went in that boat and he went for a boat ride.

But those are some of the things I wanted to say that corporate donation, responsibility, I don’t know what you call it, but it certainly helps us and helped the 47 people on the Keele River teach the traditional skills of boat building to our younger generation. So those same things are how you look at it. We could be settling for other things that are not quite so positive.

So I wanted to say, just going back to the tablets and these iPads, let’s not be too hasty in rushing, I mean, look at all things, are there alternative motives. I want to say I’m not very interested in them or having any discussion on the policies right now or in the future. It’s a big issue that we need to

look at and there are probably other examples out there for both sides. But I want to leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, there’s really no questions to the Minister. Those are my comments as I see this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya, for those comments. Next I have Mr. Hawkins on my list.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This problem is quite simple to me. I boil it down to this little piece. The question is to iPad or not to iPad. Whether it is noble to suffer without an iPad or to slings and arrows without rages fortunate against those who cannot afford it – that darned iPad – or to take arms against those trying to offer those iPads, and in the end, as we oppose them as we go to sleep, there will be no iPads for any children or any family.

It’s quite simple. The challenge before us is do we support the iPads to get in the hands of the young people and the parents and provide the mechanisms to do that. I don’t have such concerns with the iPad. Actually, I am more about the technical side, about who is responsible for content, who is going to own the iPads, who is going to maintain them? What if they get dropped? Do they get replaced? Who’s going to supply the Internet and stuff?

I do hear the concerns brought forward by the Members who are concerned, but the reality is this is a trend which is that sometimes things just don’t get done without corporate support. We have to be thankful when they come in and they are able to do things.

Is this a taxation problem as Mr. Bromley has brought up? Maybe in the bigger picture it is in some ways, but no one can deny that that can’t be a real consideration of the problem, but I don’t think we are solving today’s problem by standing in the way of the iPads. I am more concerned about now, once we have them in our hands, are we responsible for content? When I sign on to my computer in the morning, the first thing it says is it controls the contents, a little message about using it appropriately, et cetera. Well, if the government is buying an iPad, where do we take the responsibility? When I say government, I mean it means with Chevron’s money, that is. But I think that is one of the questions that need to be fully answered for the public.

Are these going to be disposable in the context of giving them away? Let’s start with those technical questions I am more focused on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Health and Social Services, working

with ECE, will be looking at loading up the tablets with all the appropriate programs and apps that allow people to tie into all these programs and services that the government does provide.

As I was sitting here listening to the debate, if I just may digress for one second, about 10 years ago ECE entered into a multi-year contract with the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation to cover the Northwest Territories, which they did with going in all the communities trying to set up virtual libraries. It was a two- or three-year arrangement, but that was done with the money and funding from the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation. We used Microsoft computers, of course, but it was a very successful partnership. So there are some very strong examples that we could all quote or point to in the area of the need and benefit of partnerships. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister was so excited to get his message out he forgot my question. If he would like me to repeat it, I would be happy to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger, about some of the costs, Internet, et cetera, that Mr. Hawkins was asking about.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understood the Member was interested in the content piece that Health and Social Services and Education will be looking at loading it up. Once they get it, the Member is correct in how they use it other than what that content is, is another question. In terms of Internet access, that’s not going to be our cost unless there is public accessibility somewhere. In the homes, it will be the cost of the parents. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we are getting a little closer than before. I guess that’s progress.

So, who owns the iPad? Who controls the content of the iPad? Who maintains them and are they disposable? In other words, once we give them, we don’t see them back? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that they will be loaded up and given along with all the other accoutrements that go with the things we provide to new parents. That will be part of that package that they get. It will be from there, and henceforth their iPad. Thank you.

Are we in the maintenance business if there are problems with the iPad? Thank you.

No, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. As far as branding goes, who is paying for the implementation or how are they going to be branded? That is one of the problems that are being discussed here. I think, frankly, it’s the elephant in the room. How are they

going to be branded? Are we talking about 50 percent of the screen and it stays on the brand name 20 minutes? Are we just talking about a small piece on the side like we see on a BlackBerry, et cetera, just small, little wording? What are we really talking about when we talk about branding in reflection to size and the impression it may have?

I mean, let’s be realistic. I support the fact that if a corporation is going to supply them, I think they deserve the credit for supplying them. But I also recognize Mr. Bromley’s point; we don’t want to be hypnotizing young minds into thinking that this is the best brand in the world and those types of things. It’s just like putting Coke, for example, at a sporting event. It is its own juxtaposition.

So, let’s get to the bottom of that. What are we really talking about when it comes to branding? How much money will be invested in the branding portion and who is responsible for that? Thank you.

My

understanding is that those details are still being hashed out. Whether it’s branding of the actual case of the iPad or is it logos that are going to come up every time you turn your iPad on, I’m not sure. I’m not sure if the Minister of Education has any further detail on that.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Minister Lafferty.