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.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. As I stated, we are working on the details of that. Obviously, we don’t want to see when we open up an iPad and it flashes. We just want to have their branding or logo on the product itself. Those are the logistics that we’re still figuring out. We are working closely with Health and Social Services where it is a joint initiative, as well, early childhood development.
We are at the early stage of the branding at this point, but we are dealing with the industry on the particular matter. There will be some sort of branding, obviously, on the tablet itself. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Chairman, who is picking up the cost for branding?
Mr. Chair, the cost of branding, obviously, those are discussions that we are currently having with the industry. By the end of the day, we are going to have a tablet for each and every new mother that’s going to be out there in the Northwest Territories, promoting that with their kids, reading and whatnot. We are still working out the logistics of the branding and who is going to pay for the cost of the branding. The industry is working very closely with us as well. Mahsi.
Mr. Chairman, is the Minister really clear that a value on branding has not been decided nor a process has not been decided thus far? I have been led to believe that that has already been considered. So when you say these are things we still have to work out, you would think that the plan would have come to our committee and our attention just a little clearer before you ask.
Basically you are asking us to trust you. Then when you go on and you can do whatever you want, and by the time it gets back to us, that is long down the river and it’s too late to care about it.
Is the Minister very clear that this discussion has not been decided upon and, furthermore, no value has been directed to it? I have come to the understanding it has been decided and that’s why I’m trying to get that detail officially. Thank you.
As I stated, this is the discussion we’ve been having. We’re talking about potentially just a sticker on the back of an iPad, a tablet, similar to the De Beers book that we distributed through our partnership with De Beers and the schools. So it could be a matter of a sticker on the back of that tablet. We’re finalizing those discussions we are currently having. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Next on my list I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my colleagues for all the very interesting and good comments I have received here. I think it demonstrates that there are a lot of questions and it is a serious issue. I think there are underlying issues here that we are discussing. How appropriate is it for government to partner with large corporations, especially oil corporations and so on in dealing with our youngest? That’s what we’re talking about here. We’ve heard about sponsoring teams in the Arctic Winter Games. No, no, we’re talking about early childhood development here. Illiteracy is very strong.
I think Ms. Bisaro underlined a number of the fundamental aspects of this and so I think it’s very clear that corporations have influenced the tax programs in this country. Not so long ago our revenues were typically 50/50. Personal income tax, corporate tax has changed dramatically in favour of the corporations and so on. So it’s not surprising that government is very open to corporate partnerships and not having a close look at the impacts of those on our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. So I appreciate the call for the government to do that. I think that’s appropriate and was one of the intents in doing this.
I think this program has been delayed in ways that are related to sponsorship. Of course, these are the sorts of prices we pay and the public never hears about as we take on these partnerships.
I believe most people in Cabinet might know that the so-called free trade agreements that Canada has with other countries, we have reservations on the involvement of corporate delivery in education and health. To the extent that we start to move outside of that practice and use corporate delivery and sponsorships, we become very vulnerable to blowing those reservations out of the water and all of a sudden our entire educational/health systems and all business becomes open to global corporations from elsewhere coming in and removing business from our local businesses and so on.
In fact, just this weekend, Mr. Chair, on the national news, the Northwest Territories was solely pointed out and profiled as partnering quite often with big business in our educational and health programs. That is of concern not only to myself and some of my colleagues but to many of the citizens of the Northwest Territories and I wouldn’t doubt Canada as well.
So, it’s clear that the Ministers have not realized what the impacts of screen time were on our youngest children, nor of branding. It was mentioned that it was only one example provided, but obviously there is a large body of literature on that that can be referred to and brought into debate, if the Ministers choose to take the suggestions of myself and my colleagues to develop a policy on this.
Minister Miltenberger’s reference that he assumes there are no subliminal things going on here, again, shows a naiveté because there certainly is. These corporations didn’t get the way they are without knowing full well what they are doing and they have a huge amount of research on this. They know exactly how to take advantage of subliminal advertising. That’s what this is all based on. As the Minister of ECE has said, the logos will be front and centre 24/7, 365 days a year and will have the desired impact. So we can’t be naïve when we’re dealing with this.
I grant that this is a difficult debate. I hope that rather than just having our opinions, that we will go out and do the research and try to get informed so we can base it on the best information that we have.
Very quickly, will these young families be provided with information that highlights the impact of screen time on children, some of the health issues that are very clear and that I have mentioned in my statements today, and the Minister could certainly delineate through research with his own staff. Will the Minister be committing to provide that information with this technology, given that our young children today are facing more and more of these sorts of distractions from the sorts of activities that we know are healthy? Can I get that commitment from the Minister? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Certainly that is part of it as well. As I stated, there are various different apps on these particular tablets that we have been talking about. That is just one piece of it. When we’re distributing these tablets to the new moms, we’re talking about new moms with infants. Obviously, the infant won’t be able to pick up the tablet, but it’s all these programs so the parents can work with their child. It’s all learning tools and resources we are providing. So, yes, that will be part of the package that will be going out, what we’ve been hearing about in the whole discussion. Mahsi.
I hope the Minister will provide that information soon. Again, the Minister is very naïve on this. Perhaps he has not had enough screen time and seen the commercials on TV with the little rocking devices for those babies with an iPad frame in it so you can just set in the iPad, so you can go and have a coffee or go and visit your neighbour. This stuff is a dime a dozen. The corporations are taking advantage of this. I’m not saying in response to Mr. Miltenberger’s rather flippant remarks that all corporations are bad, that we’re supposed to assume all corporations are bad and so on, I think corporations play a very important role in our economy and so on, but it recovers some government oversight to protect especially our most vulnerable and youngest citizens.
Mr. Chair, looking at the clock here, I think there have been enough issues raised that we really need to look at this before we go further. I’ve looked at the cost of this. We’re talking about over a million dollars for this. It’s portrayed here at $114,000, but when you look at the time and the total number of iPads, I think we’re talking over a couple of thousand and then 700 a year after that and then the cost of programming and so on. It’s extremely costly. We could have jobs in our communities that are delivering early childhood development information rather than apps, really meaningful personal interactions that are proven to be the way to go in delivering early childhood development, especially with young families. So on that basis, Mr. Chair, I would like to propose a motion.
Alright, Mr. Bromley. Go ahead.
I move that the $114,000 be deleted from the activity education and culture, operations expenditures, under the Department of Education, Culture and Employment at page 12, in order to provide funding for electronic tablets to new parents under the Early Childhood Development Framework Right from the Start.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we are embarking on a program here that has been demonstrated to have serious reservations based on actual research and data. I presented some of it today. I know our research folks have done a lot more that’s available for anybody to look at. I’m happy to provide it. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. In contrast, there is a very useful way to spend this money and all the additional money that will go along with this and staff time for delivering early childhood development, and I’ll remind everybody, all my colleagues again, that we’re talking about delivery of early childhood development programs here.
I think the fundamental principle of involving large, multinational corporations in this activity is very questionable when these programs are things that should be delivered by the government. Involving them, of course, leads to delays and branding with its consequences to children and limiting their opportunity to develop to their full potential.
I will leave it at that. I think I have spoken to this. I have listened to my colleagues’ comments and there is not full agreement, but there are serious concerns out there and I think this will be a first step. I think we do need to also look at other issues, but we’ll leave that for now.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I kind of wanted to make my comments in response to the general discussion that was going around here, but let me make them to the motion. I am not in support of the motion to delete the $114,000 from this activity. I would like to put on the record that I would thank the corporate sponsor for becoming involved and partnering with us, and I am very sorry that they are being named here over and over again today. I am not sure if there is anybody listening here who is actually with Chevron, if I can say their name again, that they must be sitting here scratching their heads sitting listening to us, wondering what on earth they’re doing donating and contributing anything to early childhood development in the Northwest Territories.
Screen time, the times they are a-changing. We’ve gone from vinyl records to eight tracks to cassettes to CDs to downloading tunes on iTunes. I’m sorry. We cannot stop progress. I think that to say that the audience that we are targeting with these iPads or tablets should not have access to this, I find it offensive and I’ll tell you why. I know you can’t maybe completely compare this on the same level, but those little peewee hockey players that walk into that sports complex in Yellowknife here every time they go for their hockey practice, I betcha’ they walk by a corporate sign that says that a diamond company puts multi-millions of dollars into a complex here in Yellowknife.
This discussion we’re having here today seems very colonial. It seems very disrespectful to the audience that we’re targeting here. Anything can be abused. I’m worried about children that are sitting in houses full of second-hand smoke. I’m worried about kids that turn on television. Does Mr. Bromley not think that every home in the Northwest Territories has a television that is broadcasting commercials that are influencing the minds of children with their corporate products? I mean, I’m worried about more than commercials. I’m worried about kids that have got access to TV where they’re watching pornography, but I mean, we can’t be in every home. I don’t want to insult the parents, but we cannot be in every home.
As far as the branding goes, I do not see any subliminal harm or damage in a logo of a corporation, a highly regarded corporation, a reputable corporation being on a tablet and then participating with us as a government to put this tool in the hands of young families and mothers. Like I said, times are changing and we cannot stop progress.
I do take some exception also to the comment about the naivety of the Education Minister. I would like to suggest that probably our Minister of Education has more experience with raising children than anybody in this House.
---Laughter
That’s including Mr. Bromley, as he points out himself.
That’s not intended as any offence, but I think parents are doing their best, and like I said, we cannot stop progress. This is the way. I mean, I’m almost 60 years old and some of the stuff is amazing to me, too, but when the Legislative Assembly issued tablets to all of us, I’ve got to tell you, my screen time went up, like, 100 percent after I got this from the Legislative Assembly, but I don’t really think it’s had a detrimental effect on me. I know it’s the young people that we need to be concerned about, but we do need parental guidelines. We do need supervision, but so do we on many, many, many other things. So to exclude a group of people because we don’t think they can manage that, I don’t agree with that, and I certainly do not agree with this motion.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Next on my list I have Mr. Dolynny, followed by Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to thank my colleagues for stepping in and giving some good comments here today. Unfortunately, I too did not get a chance to throw some comments when it was going around and we were dealing with the line entry on the supplementary estimates.
I’m actually gravely concerned. I come from the corporate environment and if I was a corporation listening in or even having a copy of these transcripts, I would be second guessing my community sponsorship program and my community involvement or my giving back. We’re clearly sending a really wrong message here.
As much as I like to embrace the ideology of a few here, I don’t believe this is what we refer to as a serious problem. A serious problem here is that we’ve dragged out a very genuine offer from a company for about the last hour and we’ve mentioned company names in this House, which I think is wrong. These company names, I have the highest degree of respect. We shouldn’t be bringing company names to the floor of the House, and for that I apologize for every company name that was brought forward.
The issue that we have before us as a motion is a motion of deletion, which is really, by purview, one of the few options we have as a committee, and I can understand that, but the concept that we’re trying to do here under the guise of use is bad and brand is bad, I’ve heard some pretty daunting words here today. I’ve heard the words undermine, demonize, influence the taxation. We’re painting corporate Canada like a villain, and I think that is a huge error on our part here. If I liken the fact that if the donor here today had a mission statement of, you know, say no to carbon footprint or let’s save a tree, would we be having the same argument here today? I don’t think we would be. Because we’re dealing with a company that happens to be in the oil business, all of a sudden now this is a bad thing.
Again, no disrespect to any company that may have those mission statements, but the thing is that, as someone who’s trying to make sense of all this here, it doesn’t compute. We’re saying no to technology. We’re saying let’s play with a stick, and let’s ignore the modernization which has put us here in this very room and has made the Northwest Territories devolve. We’re saying no to evolution in a general sense, and I think, really, when it comes to early childhood development, there are going to be many schools of thought.
Growing up and going to university, I can tell you, I had professors. You’d have one professor say one thing and you’d have another professor saying a completely different thing. The beautiful thing about being academic is everyone’s got an opinion. Everybody. And you’ve got to learn to live with it and respect those opinions. No one’s really wrong and no one’s really right. It’s just that there are different opinions.
But, really, what we’re boiling down to is a company has come forward, they have offered to modernize our way of doing business. They’ve offered to partner with us with early childhood development. We have been involved with companies forever in the Northwest Territories, and yes, I liken this to the same thing as doing sports. You know, our youth ambassadors, sporting events, scholarships. Companies donate to many of our scholarships that involve our children. I grew up with a block of wood and if I had the choice between a block of wood and a tablet, I’d choose a tablet. The farm made the person I am today, but really, at the end of the day, I don’t see a huge issue here. Can we have some rules around corporate sponsorship and a policy? Absolutely. But today is not the day for that conversation, and I’m willing to have that debate when the time comes, but not at the expense of jeopardizing what I think is a very genuine offer and I do have good faith, and great faith, that we’re going to move forward in the right way with this sponsor in making sure that, yes, there’s no subliminal messages being broadcast time and time again.
Growing up with my two sons, we’ve had tablets around the house and stuff like that. These kids pick up stuff very fast. It’s amazing and I couldn’t even imagine raising my kids without technology in today’s day and age and giving them a fighting chance to have the jobs. At the end of the day, I’ve got to make sure that my kids are as competitive as any other kid down south and given the right tools and the same tools, and we’re dealing with impoverished communities here, we’re dealing with communities that do not have. This allows have, which I don’t know how we can say no to have. It just does not make any sense at the end of the day.
As much as, again, I respect my colleague’s opinion, like I said, everybody has got one. At the end of the day, block of wood versus a tablet, I choose a tablet. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. On my list I have Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Moses, Mr. Menicoche, then Ms. Bisaro. So, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m always entertained by growing up stories by Member Dolynny. They’re quite entertaining by all means.
I think the real fundamental problem here, and I think Member Dolynny touched upon it, is about the rules here, and certainly the roles and responsibilities are the issues. Frankly, I welcome sponsorship and we just have to have it under what we believe is our choice and our guidelines, and I think, fundamentally, that’s the problem here. Some of us are accepting things for the unknown.
If we did not consider this opportunity, which is one, you know, I think it would be a mistake not to welcome. The problem is we have to look at how many things we would have lost. There was a gymnasium I’ve been into not that long ago, the score board was sponsored. There are jerseys for sports teams; they sponsor music festivals. I mean, I believe that the credit is certainly and rightly deserved upon the corporation that steps forward.
A lot of things really wouldn’t get off the ground without sponsorship. I was at a sporting event the other day and I think it’s NT Power Corporation. I made sure that they got extra acknowledgement for their contribution to the athletes and opportunities that they helped create. Now, I’d hate to think that my power rates would need to go up for them to sponsor more, but the fact is that some of these events just don’t happen without help.
So I guess the question really here is, I sort of poked away at to iPad or not to iPad. Frankly, that’s it. Will there be iPads if we delete this? That will delete the line item, but will it delete the iPad and the opportunity it creates? Frankly, I think that that would take away that learning environment and opportunity.
I hear Mr. Bromley’s point about the messaging and whatnot, and I’ve made note of it myself on a few occasions about we have to be responsible about the right types of atmosphere, and furthermore, I was trying to get at the fact that no one seemed to want to answer who is paying for this logo issue. Where I was going with that is, frankly, I want to ensure that if somebody is sponsoring it and they want their name on it, then they should be paying for that piece. That’s where I was going with that. I wasn’t trying to trip government up this time. Frankly, it was just about them taking full responsibility. If they’re going to have their logo on it and they’re going to supply it, then once agreed upon by our rules, that they pay for their own logo, not the government. That’s all I was worried about.
So, fairly and frankly, I worry about the impacts. Can the kids get along without these, or can the families get along? Well, they’ll continue what they’re doing, and in Mr. Dolynny’s words, I mean, they’ll be continuing to play with yesterday’s technology. Mine happen to be not as fancy a stick or a block of wood as his maybe, but I don’t think it’s fair to hold other kids back with what really is modern day technology. By supporting this, it worries me about the messaging we’re sending to corporate opportunities.
Not every company out there should be thrown under the guise of evildoers or whatnot, or trying to play a quick one on the tax guy by saying, well geez, I’ll help you with $2 here, but don’t tax me $100 behind my back. I don’t believe that’s the case. If we have a taxation problem, and I’ve said this and I will continue to say this, then let’s work on the taxation problem, period. Okay, let’s talk about the taxation problem, let’s talk about our revenue problem, that’s it, but they don’t have to do this. That’s the something we’re forgetting here, is they don’t have to do it and they’re doing it. I thank them for that and I’m going to finish off by saying I try to think corporations, every time they step to the plate and they pick up, because the expectation in government time after time after time is to do everything. Frankly, we cannot do everything and I’m enjoying every moment of saying this because it’s so important. We just can’t do everything.
So I thank them for their contribution. My only concerns are about the responsibility of this, the ownership of this and, of course, fair and reasonable responsible guidelines for labeling. That’s all, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Next on my list I have Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I always welcome good debate in the House, depending on whatever concern or issue is brought forth. But when you look at the description here, it is to provide funding for electronic tablets to new parents. We’ve had many discussions in this House on many issues and even in committee, and a lot of times what it boils down to, we always talk about the underlying issues of why we’re funding or why program services for certain things, and a lot of times it comes down to parenting skills. How do we get our parents better skilled in terms of providing the right type of parenting to their children?
Most of my life I’ve had the opportunity to work on the front line and work with new parents, and we do get those responsible families that come in and want to learn about how to be a new parent, how to take those programs and services, all the education that’s needed with it, but there’s also a targeted audience in the communities, and we all see it and they’ll continue to possibly have babies and might not be very responsible and yet they still lack some parenting skills. This is an opportunity to change that cycle, especially with young parents that are possibly in high school or just out of high school or college and they need those skills moving forward.
However, moving forward, I do feel that as we develop this program that there are some questions that need to be addressed and that we’re not just handing over the tablets to new parents, but possibly some type of training, some type of monitoring, feedback, follow-up on how these programs are brought forth, the type of parenting skills that are going to be implemented, healthy eating, exercise, languages. If the tablets, obviously, cannot add some new applications on there, add resources, maybe have an icon with emergency resources. We have those books, do you have to see a doctor? We could have information on there where parents could go to reference the book and save hospital visits. Just information, not for the parent to be a healthy parent, it’s an opportunity to have information at home at the tip of your fingers without having to make phone calls, exhaust the health centres, exhaust the RCMP.
It’s a great opportunity, but as I said, we’ve got to make sure that we’re not just handing over the iPads, the tablets. However, there is potential for backfire such as visiting extra Internet sites, who knows? You might give it to a family; they take it on their own and sell it. So you’ve got to have things in place to make sure those things don’t happen.
I do agree with Mr. Bromley on screen time. I’ve done a lot of work in terms of physical activity, especially in youth and the high obesity rates and I think we’ll see some of those results with instruments, but it’s not just tablets, it’s TVs, it’s videogames, it’s movies, a lot of things outside of the tablets here. I think we do need to think in a more innovative way. The Internet is good. There’s a program that was just on the Nature of Things, David Suzuki, actually it was CBC National, it was a thing called the Khan Academy where they took education that was very difficult to learn and they taught individuals, they brought it down to simpler form so students that were getting academic education actually learned a lot better. Like I said, we could put applications on there for English, but also for all the Aboriginal languages that we are losing. Early childhood development, we have seen everything where the brain develops. If we had a parent and the infant learn at the same rate and we can start revitalizing our Aboriginal languages again.
We are going through the Education Renewal Initiative. We are promoting e-learning, and all these things are done through tablets and through screen time as well. There are some challenges that we have. The Minister mentioned we are going through a new funding formula for our schools and our authorities. The current funding formula we have right now, perhaps some schools might be getting the short end of the stick, so maybe that’s where we look at as a priority, look at some of the schools that might need this more than others, or look at where our EDI results are coming with the highest need for intervention to get this education addressed.
Coming from Inuvik, we are a regional centre. A lot of our NGOs and sometimes the schools do rely heavily on donations, donations in-kind and they do succeed and they do work that way. Coming down to Yellowknife for sporting events or actually being able to learn and take on new programs can be done without the help of some of our industry providers in Inuvik and possibly elsewhere.
Obviously, I can’t support the motion that Mr. Bromley did bring forward. There are a lot of challenges that we have in the North, and there are a lot of opportunities that we can use with this type of program and being innovative and unique in getting our small schools educated.
As I said, just on the news yesterday, we are implementing this e-learning program into the Deh Cho and the Tlicho region, I think. So we are going to be hitting these small schools, and this is a great opportunity to use this. We should be thanking and taking every opportunity that we can have to look at the successes that we have and build partnerships with our partners in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Next I have Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I spoke earlier about disagreeing with my colleague’s opinions that providing these tablets will be disastrous, deleterious and harmful to our children.
First, let me begin. Of course, I will not be supporting the motion. I am gravely saddened that my colleague’s opinions have led to a motion on the floor of this House. The motion, although it doesn’t say it, questions corporate donations. Like Member Jane Groenewegen, I too would like to thank them publicly right here for all that they do for our Government of the Northwest Territories, to the communities and to the schools in all our communities. These companies pride themselves in giving back to make a difference in the communities that they work in.
Once again, the premise of my colleague’s argument I believe is wrong. He is talking about screen time. The screen time that we are all talking about is at home. It’s a great concern to all Canadians and all jurisdictions about how much screen time that our parents are giving their children, but that’s under parental control.
He talks about branding data. That, too, the jury is not out. As much as he has his scholars that say that branding is bad, there are other scholars that can attest that branding has no or very little impact. To put those two together and say an iPad for parents and children is one and the same argument I believe is wrong. I don’t believe there is a connection there.
Once again, our education system and right across Canada, many of them are grateful that they have corporate sponsors, they have industry sponsors, non-profit sponsors, private sector organizations sponsoring them. They are happy, they are proud that everybody is working together for the education of their children.
My small communities have people with low and little and no income. I believe that what we are doing here will support access of my constituents to tablets for their children. Our children in the communities have the most to gain from this educational tool that’s in this supplementary budget. This will be otherwise unavailable to them.
In closing, I disagree that industry has the most to gain. It is us and our communities, our children and our schools that have the most to gain. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next I have Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I seem to have been labeled as anti-iPad and anti-corporate sponsorship. I’m not quite sure why. Maybe because I expressed a concern with the fact that we don’t have a policy to deal with corporate sponsorships.
I am not against corporate sponsorship. I think I need to impress upon people that I am making a distinction between corporate money going to government and corporate money going to a sporting event, for instance.
We are – and I use us all in this room – we are the government. By putting a name on a piece of equipment, we are endorsing that organization, that company, and I don’t think that that is what a public government should be doing.
I do support this project. I think the project is valid. I have concerns, as does Mr. Bromley, about the amount of screen time that our kids are getting into and can get into. I think what concerns me about what we are doing is that we are giving children another opportunity to increase screen time, but as Mr. Menicoche says, it’s within the purview of the parents. If we supply the iPads with information on how much time kids should have in front of a screen, then one weighs off the other and I am fairly comfortable with that.
I don’t know how to say it any more strongly, that providing material to our parents to help them raise their children better is a good thing. I think better is if we can provide the one-on-one and the individual person-to-person information about raising our children better. That’s probably more expensive and probably harder to do. So if this is a choice of two things and this is a second best choice, then I am okay with the iPads, but I do have concerns about the fact that we as a government are accepting corporate money and we don’t have anything to guide us in how we do that. That’s basically what my concerns are. I seem to have been tarred with the brush of we shouldn’t accept any corporate money, and that’s not where I’m coming from.
I appreciate Mr. Bromley’s concerns about the branding. That for me, I guess, is also a problem. We don’t have a policy which says whether we should have a logo that is 500 feet wide or five feet wide, if it’s somewhere. We don’t have a policy which says there should be nothing on the iPads but we give them credit in some document somewhere.
I don’t really know how else to explain it. Because I have concerns about the issue but I do support the project, I am going to abstain from the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chair, this motion talks about taking $114,000 from this activity and saying we will buy it ourselves within government. Take it from this pot and we’ll take it from the Right from the Start pot. Because of our philosophical and political issues, we say we don’t want to say to the corporate world thank you but we’ll fund it ourselves, we have enough money. Mahsi, but that’s okay. That’s what it’s saying, because of the philosophical issues of how we see the corporate social responsibility what they’re doing and because we need some more discussions as to government has always been receiving corporate donations through many, many forums, the federal government, the provincial governments, all three of our territorial government. Even with the Aboriginal governments, we’ve always had that type of request donations.
Now, this is kicking it up to another level that I don’t want to be involved in for the discussions. I’m not interested. I’m saying mahsi cho, because they always say…[English translation not provided]… I got no money. I want to just say that the branding and the screen time might be an issue, but this motion here is saying it’s rejecting the funds. That’s what it’s saying. Take it out of another one. All the other issues around us, it’s a big story, and I’m not going to accept this or support this motion because it’s going to have some other consequences. My people are hungry for this kind of information, and I’m getting hungry, so I’m going to close it there. I’m going to ask for a recorded vote on this one here.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. I’ll allow the mover to make a final comment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I appreciate all the comments from my colleagues. I think Ms. Bisaro has said it well. There is a lot of spring boarding from the issues that we’re discussing, which is the role of the impacts of screen time and branding on small children and how we are going to deliver our early childhood development programs to try and avoid that. I think that’s what we’re talking about here. Many of the comments I heard I agree with, and I don’t see them as necessarily inconsistent with what I’m talking about, and I will say, quite frankly, corporations I see as having big value and have a role to play, many roles to play in our society. I see the iPads as a heck of a useful tool and Internet as playing a big role in today’s education, so those questions are not being debated, though I’m happy to hear the comments and perspectives of my colleagues.
A couple of comments I did want to highlight, Mr. Dolynny’s especially. He grew up with a block of wood. Raise your hands. How many of us grew up with a block of wood? This sounds flippant in a way, but no, that is the rub. Do you know that block of wood remains one of the most fundamental tools in early childhood today because it enables innovation. The other thing is many of us grew up in the outdoors, an incredibly complex world and that alone enables innovation and full development of the brain. As seemingly straightforward as that is, that is a huge point that I’m trying to raise here. The iPad certainly enables all kinds of learning, and Mr. Dolynny referred to his children’s drawing on that. I’m not taking away from that. I am talking about early childhood here. But iPads and screens generally do have these proven impacts and tend to limit.
I believe he said iPads that enable kids to have the jobs, and I say what we’re talking about here is having the jobs versus creating the jobs. I’d say Chevron… Sorry. Many corporations…and that’s the first time I’ve said a corporate name. Many corporations would love you to have the job, but I think this government would love to create the jobs, and that’s at least the motivation for what I’m talking about today.
The taxation problem has been mentioned, and I think there’s lots of fruitful room for discussions there. The underlying issue have been mentioned, and I hope my colleagues would agree that early childhood development has been a huge issue for me. I’ve tried to push hard on it in providing a lot of resources, and I tried to be a leader in our move towards developing and delivering early childhood education and development programs, and that’s because, like everybody in this room, I really do care for the young people and our smallest children as well as our youngest families that we’re trying to address with this program. I realize that this can be taken as taking away iPads from a family, but I am also trying to look at the big picture on what the net benefits will be, is there an alternative way that we should be delivering these programs that are proven to be more effective and could be done with the budget we have at hand.
On the remote possibility that this motion gets defeated here today, I hope the Minister will do some evaluation of the impact of iPads and branding and screen time on kids. This is an opportunity to actually put some information on what the impacts are. I know we’ve bought some iPads ourselves, but I don’t see any evaluation. I see us just jumping into a wholehearted – you know, deliver this regardless – program, so I think some evaluation of it with being cognizant of these potential impacts that science demonstrates would be worthwhile.
Again, portraying it as a philosophical issue. Au contraire. I think there is a lot of evidence in the literature that these are real issues, and it’s probably a body of literature we’re not all familiar with. I’m certainly not as familiar with it but I have had research drumming up some information on it and I’ve learned a lot. I’ve also learned a lot from the debate today. I’ll leave it at that. I know we’ve spent a long time at this and I appreciate the thorough discussion we’ve had.
Question has been called. The Members have asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.
Mr. Bromley.
All those opposed, please stand.
Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Dolynny, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Moses.
All those abstaining, please stand.
Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you. One in favour, 14 opposed and one abstention. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Committee, we’ll take a short break and continue on.
---SHORT RECESS
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. Committee, we are on page 12 of the Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 1, 2014-2015. When we went for the break, we just finished a motion. I’m going to continue on this, and if there are any questions, please let me know.
Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, directorate and administration, not previously authorized, $1.378 million; education and culture, not previously authorized, negative $1.899 million. Total department, not previously authorized, negative $521,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 13, Transportation, operations expenditures, corporate services, not previously authorized, $349,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $349,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 14, Industry, Tourism and Investment, operations expenditures, corporate management, not previously authorized, $120,000; minerals and petroleum resources, not previously authorized, $250,000; energy, not previously authorized, negative $800,000. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To provide for the transitional allowances for eligible devolved employees, could I just have a brief explanation of what that is? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. We’ll go to Minister Miltenberger. Actually, we’ll go to Mr. Kalgutkar.
