Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. I’ll go the seconder of the motion, the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seconded the motion proudly because I believe in this initiative. My wife and I bought a hybrid vehicle two years ago. I can tell you that when we were there, the salesperson said: where do you live? I said: we live in Yellowknife. He felt at that time, due to the analysis, that a hybrid vehicle might not necessarily give us the best payback. But that’s not how we run our family. We said that this is a smart, economical choice, and we’re making choices because we’re thinking of tomorrow as opposed to just today.
I would encourage any incentives that could be brought forward by this government that would encourage people to choose eco-friendly decisions. They make sense. Every step in the right direction — with a carrot approach, as opposed to a stick approach — is the right way to do to this. This approach, by asking for a tiered system, says clearly that our government believes that if you’re making smart choices, better choices for the environment…. Let’s help reward people with that type of choice.
In closing, I want to emphasize that a northern made system does not necessarily mean we have to penalize the existing vehicles that are out there. It’s finding a way to encourage people to use and manage their choices just a little better. That’s why I’m in full support of redeveloping a new vehicle registration system that is sound and makes sense in the North.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion, the honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity to address you. I want to start by thanking the Member for Great Slave for bringing this forward.
The context within which he brings this forward is important. Climate change is happening throughout the world. It’s a global issue. We know what some of the costs are. We’re starting to have an idea of what some of the costs will be. We’re talking about loss of some of our wildlife species and fish, some of our reliable water sources and perhaps, most importantly, our climate. Our climate is becoming very unreliable and relatively extreme compared to what it has been.
There are also global impacts associated with climate change. The contribution of vehicles is probably the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions. I think this is a good motion in that it starts us towards thinking about that and making wise choices when we purchase our vehicles.
I think we have a responsibility as a government to provide leadership on this and, certainly, to provide a stable and safe environment in the future. That’s uncertain at this point given climate change, although we have a small window of opportunity to address that.
I again regard this as a modest but very symbolic step in our work to address climate change. I want to recognize that this is put together by this Member as a step that would benefit all the people of the Northwest Territories. It would signal a new awareness and progressive approach to becoming responsible global citizens within the context of our own communities.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion, the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not be supporting the motion. I believe this motion is going a little too far, especially with the impact it’s going to have on our small communities where we depend on the good old pickup trucks to get around. Those are our work trucks; they’re not just a luxury item. In most cases we do have potholes. We don’t have just a few speed bumps on the way. Most of our highways are gravel and rough. I think someone with a hybrid trying to operate under that condition, or even a Lexus for that matter, will have a real problem in navigating themselves on the roads we have to travel on.
It’s important to realize that this is just one tax of many taxes that we see on the horizon. Until we know what the picture is in regard to the global issues by way of enforcing this type of legislation, but not imposing it strictly on the type of livelihood that you have or where you live, and not having the luxury of driving on paved roads….
I think you also have to realize that there are 12,000 truckloads that drive up our highway systems to the diamond mines, yet nothing in this legislation is going to affect that industry. They’re shipping 12,000 truckloads of diesel fuel to these diamond mines, and nothing’s been done in that case. I think it’s important to realize we have some bigger polluters out there than little Joe and Mary trying to run up the hills to get a load of wood.
I think it’s important that this government takes a comprehensive approach in regard to these different initiatives of tax increases, raising fuel taxes, or considering alternative tax implications. At the end of the day the bottom line for people living in small communities is what effect this has on the high cost of living that’s already in place. We pay the highest price in regard to fuel; we pay a fuel tax on top of that. We also pay in regard to heating fuel. We’re nailed with another tax on our heating fuel. I think it’s important to realize that in what little way this was intended…. You have to calculate the cumulative effect of all taxes, not just this one that’s being presented.
At this time I will be voting against the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion, the honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My colleague brought forward a worthy motion with many positive points. Regretfully, the point that affects me and my constituents is that it increases the cost by further registration. I cannot support this motion.
The Members have spoken about the benefit to all NWT residents. Once again, I have to disagree with my colleagues; it is not benefiting all the NWT residents. I’ve got a constituency with many small communities and road systems, and they have to depend on the bigger vehicles to move around, to move their goods. In fact, many of my communities don’t even have a consistent store, so they do have to travel quite a bit.
Having the benefits of a smaller vehicle is just not advantageous to them. It’s not a choice for them. They do have to have these larger vehicles in order to get around. In the urban centres — where you have nice roads and you’re using it daily and you have a choice — it’s probably a necessity that you move to smaller vehicles to do your running around from one end of Yellowknife to the other, to do your grocery shopping and move your kids around. But in the smaller communities there’s just not that kind of environment that’s conducive to this type of change in our legislation.
Some of the points — that the Department of Transportation should be researching this type of thing — I agree with, but by bringing it forward in the motion, I just cannot support it in this form.
Another thing is that Members made an issue of climate change and the ability of our constituents to think green. All those are good points. Again, for my constituency it’s not a choice. It becomes an issue of cost and how it impacts their pocketbooks. With those points I just cannot support this motion. I will be voting against it.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion, the honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the Member for Great Slave for bringing forward the motion that’s before us today. I agree with the principle of the motion. Being the chair of EDI, any proposed changes to registration from the Department of Transportation would be vetted through the committee. I think a lot of the concerns — and concerns I share with Members…. I am not going to support any increase, especially in the smaller communities, for operating a vehicle. That’s just something I wouldn’t condone.
If we do move to something like this, I could see folks who want to buy a hybrid or want to buy a more fuel efficient smaller vehicle being given a break on the registration fees. I can’t see myself supporting any increase to registration fees for vehicles in the Northwest Territories. I could see us lowering them for the more fuel efficient vehicles.
In the smaller communities, like some of my colleagues were saying, there isn’t much of a choice. The roads are such that you need a truck. A truck is a way of life in small communities for people who are out harvesting caribou or on the land. They need a big vehicle. And for transporting their families in the small communities, a small vehicle is just not going to do it. There are potholes. I’ve been to a number of small communities myself, and the roads are oftentimes a sad state.
Again, I want to say that I do support the motion in principle. To the Members who are opposing the motion before us today, I want them to take some satisfaction in that all of this, if it happens, is going to be vetted through committee. There will be ample opportunity to discuss this again.
Again, to the principle of the motion I do agree, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion, the honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to indicate at the outset that I am in support of this motion, and then to the principle of the motion that has been mentioned by my colleague before me.... I think I’d like to make some comments, though, in relation to some of the arguments that have been presented already and try to counter them.
I also feel that there should not be an increase to registration fees in small communities, and I don’t believe that’s what this particular motion presents. It presents, simply, the possibility of implementing a tiered registration system. It does not say that registrations will increase. We’re not discussing the implementation here; we’re merely discussing the principle of this particular motion.
I think that a tiered system will allow us to accommodate regional differences. I fully understand that we have regional differences and that in Tulita it’s far easier to drive with a truck than to drive with a small car on the roads that exist there. I agree with that. But I think a tiered system will allow us to maintain current registration fees at the level they are at now and give some sort of a break for people who wish to…. It will give them an incentive to take care of the environment and look at purchasing a more fuel efficient vehicle.
I have to say that, in my mind, there are large vehicles, which would be a truck that’s, say, an F-150, and there are gigantic vehicles. I think the intent of this motion is to increase fees for gigantic vehicles. I think there’s a full understanding on the part of Members that an F-150 is a fairly common vehicle in the communities, and it probably will survive the roads that exist in the communities and will take them from one to the other. There’s no need in most communities for the gigantic vehicle — even for those with large families.
I think that this particular motion will supplement the ecoAUTO rebate program that we have in place and that it will encourage people to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. I think that’s a good thing. I think that’s something we should keep front and centre of our minds all the time, and I don’t know that we do that.
I do think it’s time we take responsibility for our own energy use. It’s a mentality we have to keep hammering away at. I think most people, to a certain extent, have a little bit of it, but it’s in the back of our brain as opposed to the front of our brain. This is just one more tool we can use to get people to be conscious of what they’re doing.
I think I’ll quit before I lose my voice.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion, the honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly appreciate the comments of the Members on this issue. It is a very important issue, and it’s been an issue that the Department of Transportation has been looking at for some time in looking at the options that are possible within the area.
Given the location of where we live in the world — in the Northwest Territories — it’s important that we recognize we’re going to be the most impacted by climate change. It’s important that we do our share and lead by example.
Our government in the last while has been working hard to provide programs to provide incentives to reduce the cost of energy and promote energy efficiency for our homes and for our businesses. We’ve heard a lot about different ways to do that, and vehicles should be no different. We’ve really been working towards seeing what other jurisdictions are doing. We’ve done a scan on all the other jurisdictions across the country and how they work with the vehicle registration fee structures. A tiered approach, of course, is usually based on vehicle fuel consumption. But that’s just one of many options. Other jurisdictions are looking at a number of other things.
Of the 13 jurisdictions that we looked at, seven do not offer any type of incentives for fuel efficiency. Others do, however, based on different ways to calculate that. Some are based on vehicle weight, others are based on cylinder displacement, and some other jurisdictions offer a rebate on registration and insurance for vehicles that qualify for federal government programs.
Right now I wanted to inform the House that we are looking at a number of options that include a tiered registration system. We’d be glad to share our findings with all the Members of this House. As this motion is to provide direction to our government, Cabinet will not be voting on it.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion, the honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, the challenges before us in terms of climate change and the greenhouse emissions have certainly been brought to the forefront of people in the last couple of years, especially with the winter roads and the ice crossings. Even being in Fort Providence last weekend…. I talked about being on the river with my father-in-law. He set a net, and he was saying, “You know, at this time of the year we should have ice coming down the river here. How come there’s no ice on the river? The weather has really been changed quite a lot for us.”
We know our challenges as leaders in the community. The elders having a difficult time in the evening: what kind of weather is it going to be the next day in terms of reading the weather? Climate change is right in our face.
I want to say thank you to the Member for continuing to raise the issue here in terms of the challenges, which for us are very true in many different aspects.
Mr. Speaker, our biggest polluters — as Mr. Krutko, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, talked about — are the diamond mines and the amount of traffic that comes through Yellowknife to bring the fuel up to the diamond mines so they can produce diamonds in the Northwest Territories. Two big factors, in terms of the greenhouse emissions here, are the diamond mines and the trucks that come up to deliver supplies to them. I think this motion should be looked at again in terms of how we tackle these two big issues.
The NWT Hydro Strategy talks about the diamond mines. They talk about putting a road into the diamond mines to reduce the amount of traffic in the North. Things like that should be really looked at.
DOT is one of our biggest contributors in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I know they have done some work in terms of how they have reduced emissions by their use of the facilities in the North and by the number of vehicles they have on the road here. That’s something that should strongly come back to this government, talking about how we reduce the transportation initiative in terms of eliminating some of the greenhouse gas here.
I have an issue with this, because in some of our smaller communities there is no proper garage in terms of looking at how we use our vehicles. If we want a vehicle, sometimes our roads are not equipped for those vehicles. In my communities they talk about the use of vehicles, and what’s needed in there, as you said, is the F-150. Sometimes we have large families, and the high cost of living makes it so that we all need to travel to some of the communities to do some shopping.
Mr. Speaker, in my community we don’t have very many roads. On some of the small roads in our communities we travel around and around and around. In other regions they can go to different areas, but they are only lucky when the window opens up in January until the end of March, just to get out here.
A two tier system should look at all transportation. Look at the barges that come down the Mackenzie River and how much diesel they use in NTCL super barges arriving in the North. They use a lot of that. Look at the airplanes. We need to look at a lot.
I understand where the Member is going, but first I think we should look at it closely in terms of how we go about it. What we need to look at is how this is impacting some of our small communities and have some time to think about this.
Mr. Speaker, with the price of gas $1.69 a litre in Tulita, when that price went up again, a lot of people were talking about how we get fuel efficiency vehicles in lieu of the gas guzzlers to be had. We talked to the companies who sell these vehicles down at Hay River and Inuvik. There is a very fine balance in terms of personal choice and consciousness of climate change.
Again, we have large families. They all want to travel together. I don’t think we can afford another vehicle to travel with them. We thought the things that need to be considered…. I think breaks should be given to the people who are on the winter road system. They should get a break and a discount on registration for travelling on that road system. Something like that should be looked at.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I’m not going to support the motion. I think it’s a worthy cause, but we should have some more discussions. I think our people are going to be impacted in our communities if we start implementing this. I know if we start implementing this discussion here, a lot of investment can go into discussion and research. I think it needs to be brought to the community or to the House for some more discussion before we look into something like that. It could be beneficial to the people in the North. Right now I think the diamond mines and the trucking companies that are using more should be the ones who should be paying the types of prices, if we’re looking at something like this.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion? I’ll allow the mover of the motion some closing comments. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you. Mr. Speaker, maybe my initial opening comments were a little on the long side and people stopped listening to me halfway through. In no way, shape or form does this motion suggest that vehicles in small communities should have a higher registration rate. It doesn’t say that. It doesn’t suggest that. If that’s what you think, I’m sorry, but that’s definitely not what it’s saying.
It does actually provide some incentive and encourage people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. There may be a lower rate to those individuals, but certainly not a higher rate for those individuals in the small community driving, as Ms. Bisaro pointed out, the F-150.
I think it’s very important for us to be leaders and not followers, and this is an opportunity for us to demonstrate our commitment to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the Northwest Territories. I know that there’s a lot that needs to be done, and this is just one small step. I’m glad to hear the Minister responsible indicate that there is research underway. I think that’s a good step, but I also think passing this motion is important. It’s so important, in fact, that I think I’m going to request a recorded vote on this one. I’m also going to request and strongly encourage the Premier to allow Cabinet members a free vote on this motion so that we can all demonstrate our individual commitment to the environment and move forward in the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Member is requesting a recorded vote. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.
Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Bromley.
All those opposed to the motion, please stand.
Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Krutko.
All those abstaining from the motion, please stand.
Mr. Lafferty, Ms. Lee, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. Roland, Mr. Michael McLeod, Mr. Robert McLeod, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Results are of the votes: six for, four against, seven abstentions.
Motion carried.
Colleagues, I have two further motions on the order paper for today. The chair is going to call a short break before we proceed to the next motion.
The House took a short recess.
The House resumed.
Back to Orders of the Day. Item 16, motions. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS, the Government of Canada has operated the Food Mail Program for many years;
AND WHEREAS the program now costs approximately $50 million annually to administer, with those costs increasing on a yearly basis;
AND WHEREAS the intent of the Food Mail Program is to subsidize the high costs of groceries in small northern Canadian communities by reducing the cost to ship healthy food items north;
AND WHEREAS there have been many instances over the years of abuse and poor management of that program;
AND WHEREAS many people suggest that the Government of Canada is unintentionally covering the costs of shipping poor food choices such as soda pop and potato chips to northern communities;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is presently evaluating and reviewing that program;
AND WHEREAS it is important to the health and well-being of all northerners that the $50 million being spent on the delivery of the Food Mail Program be used for the purposes for which it is intended and that the program benefits as many northerners as possible;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Nunakput, that this Assembly communicate its desire for the Government of Canada to undertake a full and detailed audit of the Food Mail Program in order to determine exactly what food items and which clients are currently being subsidized in order to improve program practices and accomplish the stated government objective of contributing towards healthy diets in the north.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion, the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the motion speaks for itself as to the merits of why this should be taken on. I want to thank the seconder, Mr. Jackie Jacobson of Nunakput, for seconding this.
Mr. Speaker, this issue is very important. I’ve been made aware through a number of sources that the Food Mail Program is probably not used regularly in the context of being used properly and as efficiently as possible. When push comes to shove, at times the good, healthy food tends to get pushed aside for the less healthy food. That’s a shame.
Although the federal government at this time is doing a review of the program, to my knowledge and research so far they’re not auditing the actual food that is being shipped up. Mr. Speaker, in times like this when we’re always worried about what type of food people are eating and whether they are eating properly and whatnot, we want to make sure that we’re getting the best value we can for this program.
Mr. Speaker, I won’t speak at length to this, because as I said, the motion itself clearly states that it needs to be evaluated to make sure it’s running properly. That’s really the intent: to make sure that things like milk, eggs, fruit and vegetables are getting to the people of the North at the best price possible. That’s the intent of the Food Mail Program: to make sure that the transportation cost is reduced as low as possible so food gets on the shelves of good working Northerners and they can afford to buy these types of things in that environment.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues and thank the Assembly for this motion going in.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion, the seconder of the motion, Mr. Jacobson.
Mr. Speaker, today I’m happy to be supporting, as seconder, the motion on the Food Mail Program. Not all constituents can use this program. The high cost of food in our communities, our elders having to pay the high cost of food that’s available, which is half-rotten half the time, for produce and stuff like that…. I think it’s a shame that larger families have to pay such a high cost of living due to caribou shortages and restrictions to hunting. We’re having to rely on Alberta beef.
I think this a really good thing we’re doing. I’m in full support of it. The local stores are being held accountable for the pricing, not only the stores but the airlines as well. It’s making sure we get somebody on this as a watchdog, making sure that the people, our constituents, who this is mostly affecting, get what’s coming to them in the pricing.
I thank my colleagues, and I hope everybody supports this.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. To the motion, the honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment that we have had a number of discussions with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada regarding this program, which is an important program for communities across the North. We have 17 communities in the Northwest Territories that qualify.
As the Member has indicated, this is a $40 million to $50 million program. However, the bulk of the investment for this program goes into Nunavut and Nunavik. We get a small percentage. I think last year we got about $1.4 million of that revenue coming into our communities.
We’ve made a number of recommendations over the years to change how some of the program is run and operated, including the point of origin for shipments to allow them to be consolidated at any southern point. We’ve also asked that the airlines themselves be allowed to administer this program.
The review has started. It had started in the life of the previous government prior to the federal election. That has really brought the whole review to a standstill. We’re expecting that the new Minister appointed will pick it up again. We do have a northern representative — his name is Graeme Dargo — who is leading the NWT consultations.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly respect the request for an audit. We all agree that there should be best value in this program. Again, since this is a recommendation to the government, our Cabinet will be abstaining from this motion.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. I will allow the mover of the motion some closing comments. Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for recognizing how important this program is to the people of the North. I respectfully disagree with him on the size of the figure he’s pointed out. I think it’s a lot higher in the Northwest Territories. The specific benefits in theory are supposed to go to the program.
But what I will say is that the important thing is: are we getting value for money? Is the money going to the right ideals that we believe we subscribe to, which is making sure we can keep the cost of food as low as possible for all Northerners to be able to benefit, no matter what community you are in? This is a fantastic program that emphasizes northern and remote communities and can do a lot. The question is: is it doing a lot? From all evidence I’ve seen and heard, I don’t believe it’s working as hard as it can. That’s why it’s so important that this audit bring those issues to light, and hopefully we’ll deal with it.
In closing, I think this is a good value step for the people of the Northwest Territories. I will be asking for a recorded vote at this time, and I appreciate support from my colleagues who can stand behind this one.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The Member is requesting a recorded vote. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.
Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Beaulieu.
All those opposed to the motion, please stand. All those abstaining from the motion, please stand.
Mr. Lafferty, Ms. Lee, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. Roland, Mr. Michael McLeod, Mr. Robert McLeod, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Results of the recorded vote: 11 for, none against, seven abstaining.
Motion carried.
The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories has set the goal of having a healthy and educated population and has agreed to work with families, communities and schools to improve the physical and mental well-being of our youth;
AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories provides subsidies for goods and services that cost too much for ordinary northerners to realistically bear;
AND WHEREAS the increasing costs of living in the NWT make it more and more difficult for many northerners to provide the basic necessities for their families;
AND WHEREAS milk is an essential nutrient for the healthy development of children;
AND WHEREAS the price of milk in many northern communities can cost twice as much as Edmonton prices;
AND WHEREAS cheaper substitutes such as soda pop and other less expensive sugar-loaded drinks are often substituted for milk, leading to serious longer-term health issues;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, that the Government of the Northwest Territories establish a Milk Subsidy Program for all children aged one to twelve in any NWT community where milk costs are ten per cent or higher than those in Yellowknife;
AND FURTHER, that the Government of the Northwest Territories include the costs of the Milk Subsidy Program in the 2009–2010 budget and implement the program in early 2009.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion, the honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to a preventative approach to addressing the root causes of issues that we face. Milk is the single most important nutrient to the healthy development and benefit of our youth. The issue has been brought to us by community representatives, by health workers and by educational workers and teachers. Many thanks to them for bringing this forward.
Many people have seen, or heard recently from my colleague, the frightening photographs of many of our youth who are in desperate need of dental surgery and the backload we have there to deal with. Sugary drinks, as I mentioned in the motion, are much cheaper than milk in some of our communities, and it’s most unfortunate. But when people can’t afford the appropriate thing, they’ll turn to substitutes, and in this case it’s damaging our youth.
This program is meant to be implemented in concert with important ongoing community and school nutritional programs, and I’m sure the government will make sure that that’s done. Many residents fail to benefit from Food Mail Program, as has been mentioned, particularly those in our small communities who don’t necessarily have the literacy and education required to take advantage of this — or even the tradition, like the tradition that’s developed among our professionals who are visiting our communities for short periods of time. It should be our intent to promote the full use of the Food Mail Program, and this will minimize the cost of this program and the subsidy to milk specifically to ensure efficient use of our subsidy dollars.
Finally, I’d like to just mention the long term benefits that this can bring. Healthy kids mean healthy bodies and strong minds, with resilience to the challenges we face. This investment will return benefits and savings in terms of the physical, mental and psychological well-being of our youth and our families, and we’ll notice that in our costs down the road. I urge all Members to support this motion. There’s been very good support in getting it to this stage and presenting the issue, and I thank everybody for that support.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. I’ll go to the seconder of the motion, the Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will add just a couple of brief comments.
I’d like to commend my colleague Mr. Bromley for bringing forward this idea and this motion and for thinking creatively. It’s something I think we all should be well aware of and should attempt to imitate. We spend millions of dollars in subsidies on our residents. Albeit this is an additional subsidy, I think it’s a subsidy that probably is more important than almost any of the other ones we currently have, and I think it’s one that is very much needed. I also think of this as one option to try to go a little bit towards evening out the costs that residents have to bear in smaller communities versus Yellowknife, the capital and the largest community.
Just as an aside, I think there is some opportunity, if we add this subsidy in, for reducing the price of milk. We can probably do something to offset it by looking at increasing taxes on pop and junk food and/or removing subsidies for freight, which we already have on pop and junk food. We may end up being revenue neutral as we also get creative in how we implement this particular subsidy.
I urge all Members to support this. I think it’s a wonderful initiative and one we all should gladly support.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion, the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
