Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We need to look at this issue. I would
suggest a broader perspective of why we have placed such a high cost on alcohol. Having spent a good number of years in social services, five and a half years as Health Minister, I can tell you it’s because the abuse of alcohol costs this government over $100 million a year, probably more if you add in all the costs related to hospitals and FASD children. We just approved in this House, I think about $11 million for residents down south, the majority of which, if you checked the case files, would have alcohol abuse in there somewhere.
So, we have deliberately placed the high price on some of the things that are causing the most trouble in our jurisdiction. Those two things are alcohol and tobacco. Northerners have a prodigious thirst and a fairly prodigious propensity to smoke or use tobacco, all of which we know, when they’re abused, can be deadly.
We have made a conscious decision for many, many years now to stick to that. It’s the same concept as a carbon tax. If you make the price high enough, it’s supposed to drive down consumption. It hasn’t quite worked yet, but it’s still something we see as a very, very big issue.
So in regards to this issue, we have offered up an incentive, as the Member has indicated, 50 percent, but the bottom line rationale is what’s the impact of alcohol on our society and our government and our coffers as a government, and it’s dramatic, and that’s why we are where we are. I’m not sure there would be the public will to start cutting taxes for alcohol. Thank you.