Don Stewart

Thanks, Mr. Chair. My understanding is the Housing Corporation keeps a pretty detailed list of the planning of all of their assets around what the timing is around major retrofits, as well as replacements, and I suspect the issue here is really around the timing of when some of the replacements were needed, versus retrofits. So there has typically been some variation on an annual basis. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am not fully versed on the details of the Yukon plan. Obviously, there is a difference between taking in revenues and giving it back out versus the point-of-purchase rebate that we are doing for heating fuel, as well as some of the other programs that we have available that community governments could take advantage of. For example, we have a government greenhouse gas fund that adds up to $9.5 million as part of the low carbon energy fund that community governments are able to apply for as well, so it is hard to get apples-to-apples comparisons when they are using total...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. The specifics of what I was referring to, in terms of sharing with committee, are things like the individual trust for the large emitters and some of the criteria, and I assume that would be done with the standing committees of the 19th Assembly. There is no real urgency in terms of implementing the trust program. Yes, we will have to collect the data, but in terms of taking applications and that, I think that we have a little bit of time to get that implemented. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. The large emitter definition will be in the regulations, and it is consistent with what the federal government has done, which I believe is 50 kilotons of emissions or higher. My understanding is that we have four of those in the Northwest Territories, based on the federal data that I have seen. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. The Member is right that they have said that they will spend the money in the jurisdiction where it is raised, but how they spend it will be up to the federal government. I will use the example for a small business. They came up with some specific examples around small business, where they are going to provide rebates in those provinces where they have imposed the carbon tax. The small business would have to pay some money to do things like retrofits and those sorts of things, and they will use part of the carbon tax revenue to offset some of that. That doesn't change how...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The comparison to rural New Brunswick is related to the climate action incentive that the federal government has implemented. They have implemented the backstop in four jurisdictions, I believe. That is the only one where they have adjusted for a more remote and rural population, where they have actually done an increased amount, so we thought that was the fairest comparison. If you were in urban areas of New Brunswick, the amount would have actually been lower. All of the information of this climate action incentive which is similar to our COLO is available on the...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. When we did the engagement report and the back report, we provided estimates of the average impacts, if you like, by household. It was everything from the direct impacts for things like heating fuel, as well as gasoline for vehicles and those types of things, but also the indirect impacts in terms of the modelling was done to estimate the impact on grocery prices and those sorts of things, and aviation and that. We used that information to help come up with the approach.

I don't have the figure right in front of me, but that was the basis on which we came up with the COLO...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Some of the regulations are going to need to be put together fairly quickly. I think that we have committed to share those as we develop them. We certainly have been talking with stakeholders about some of the more program elements, like the individual trusts and what the criteria may be around that. We will share the detail on those with committee, as well. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I will start on the revenue side. On the revenue side, there are a lot of similarities, as one would expect, given that the federal government set the criteria of how the carbon tax should be implemented and had jurisdiction that wanted to do their own, develop their plans, and then, had to check against the federal approach to make sure there is at least a level of consistency.

The one area that is different is related to the large emitters and their output-based pricing system, and we have had discussions about that with committee.

On the expenditure side, we have come up...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think one of the important distinctions are in terms of what's going on in the Yukon and Nunavut, and what is going on in other jurisdictions where the federal government has imposed the backstop. The difference is that, if the NWT decides not to put in a carbon tax, the federal government will impose one. They did not impose one in the case of the Yukon. The Yukon asked them to use their system, which meant that the federal government made the commitment to hand those revenues over.

In the case of the provinces where they did not come up with their own, or asked the...