Michael Miltenberger

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have the authority, listening to the Member’s statement, to set some taxes in place as they pertain to some of the substances that the Member was talking about. We also do things like liquor, tobacco and those types of things as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to make a motion. I move that the definition “holder” or “interest holder” in the English version of clause 1 of Bill 11 be amended by striking out “under Part;” and substituting “under Part 8;”. Thank you.

The Member, once again, sort of underestimates and doesn’t recognize the significant investment that Diavik did make and it was very important in terms of achieving targets. We will continue to try to aim high. We could aim low and promise low and over-deliver, but we’ll have that discussion with the committee on a go-forward basis as we look at renewal of the Greenhouse Gas Strategy.

When we look at the areas that were targeted, it was successful. The Member is correct; the area of transportation is a big area that has to be addressed and it is a source of major greenhouse gas emissions.

Given the prodigious appetite we have in the North for things like junk food, if there was a definition that was agreed to and a tax that was agreed it, it would maybe generate an initial spike of revenue, but if the Member’s rationale proved out, then the demand would drop off precipitously. But it could be, if all the stars aligned. Thank you.

We, as a government, have been trying to use taxes as a way to encourage, in effect, behaviour, especially as it pertains to cigarettes and alcohol. We have some of the most expensive cigarettes and alcohol in the country. We’ve just recently raised the price of loose tobacco, and our smoking and drinking rates, unfortunately, across the board haven’t shown a lot of bending the right way. We haven’t bent the trend, as they say. We continue to monitor through it that way.

If there’s an interest in committee to look at some type of tax on sugar, I’d be prepared to have that discussion. It’s much...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve looked at the Hansard and I, as well, looked up the definition of duplicitous and it says, “deliberately deceptive.” I do say that if it’s not outright duplicitous, it’s a friggin’ double standard. I withdrew the “friggin’” and I apologize for that once again.

I will give the Member the benefit of the doubt, even though methinks he doth protest too much, that it wasn’t deliberately duplicitous and I will withdraw that comment, that phrase. However, I do think the use of the term “double standard” is entirely within the acceptable bounds of parliamentary language...

[Microphone turned off] …correct a typographical error in the definition “holder” or “interest holder” as the number of the part referred to had been omitted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government will be looking at trying to comply with what’s been requested in the motion. There has been work done by ITI and MACA, trying to regulate something that we don’t have the legal authority over right now. The Forest Management Act is going to be redone in its entirety and that will recapture it in the next coming piece of work. Now that the Wildlife Act is completed, that’s next on our list.

I do want to point out, as Mr. Bromley noted, that this is a profession that is very well organized from down south. They track fires, which the years after fires the...

As the Member talked about flares, he didn’t touch on the success of the Diavik wind farm, which is a major industrial achievement in terms of hitting our targets. In terms of the question that the Member asked with our new authorities and the new toolbox that, yes, as we move forward we’re going to be looking at our new world post-devolution and what opportunities do we have, what areas do we need to look at that we haven’t considered in the past for authority reasons or because we were not in a position to before, so on a go-forward basis, yes.