I have, as I said, initiated talks with them. We have not been able to sit down yet. We have been in session for awhile, now, but our next Finance Ministers' meeting, I believe, is in June. There might be opportunities for me to have a conversation with the federal Finance Minister beforehand and see if we can work on -- we are fortunate right now that, with the borrowing limit that we do have, most of our project, we are able to fit under there, but if there are announcements for bigger projects that might need more of an investment from the Government of the Northwest Territories, then we need to work with Ottawa to increase our borrowing limit. As we stand right now, I think we are in fairly good shape with the projects that we do have.
I am looking forward to the next Assembly and the Assemblies after that because these are big projects. They are long-term projects. They are not even going to get started in the life of this Assembly and the piggy bank is almost empty, so can we get assurance from the Minister that he is going to have those talks with the Finance Minister in the life of this Assembly so that, going into the next Assembly, we might have the money to complete some of these projects? Because we are spending territorial funds in addition to the federal funds, exploring this project, but if they are never going to get off the ground, we are just wasting our money. So can we get a commitment that those talks will happen and we should see some results this Assembly?
I said I was going to have discussions with the federal government. I was going to have the meetings with the federal minister. I'm a man of my word, and I will initiate those discussions. I think, with the work that we have done in the last three years in the Assembly with some of the corrections we have made on the budget, I think we positioned ourselves very well to be able to match it. I take the Member's point, and as I've said a number of times, a lot of the work that we do here has set the table for those coming after us, so they will be in the position, if there are bigger announcements to be made, they will be in a good position to take advantage of that with our matching dollars. If there are discussions, and I will, and I have said I will, I will initiate those discussions, have those discussions with the federal Finance Minister before the end of this Assembly.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we have set the table, then we ate all the food. There is going to be nothing left for the next Assembly. So just so we know what is going on, would the Minister be able to provide us with a list of projections, cost projections, for these future projects over the next five or 10 years, just so we have an idea so that, you know, when people are considering entering politics next year, they know what they are in for? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Most departments have 20-year infrastructure acquisition plans, and as money becomes available, they are able to put those plans in to do the actual building. You know, there are Members who are coming after us and I think we are going to position them to come and realize that there are some decisions that were made in this Assembly, I think, that made their work a little easier, and we hope it is a little easier, and if they are in a good position to match a lot of the federal projects, I don't know what is coming on. I mean, we have had some of the projects that we have been working on or we have been proposing, we have been working with Ottawa, and the departments have 20-year infrastructure needs assessment to have plans, so I think the next government, the 19th Assembly, is going to be well-positioned to take advantage of any federal dollars that become available. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. Last week, I made a Member's statement about the great post-devolution resource giveaway, where the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment issued 10 significant discovery licences that tie up petroleum resources forever without any benefits to NWT residents. The original exploration rights were issued by the federal government. Can the Minister tell us whether the federal government made any provision for fees or work requirements in the issuance of those original rights? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The federal government has never charged rental rates on significant discovery licences, provided there was a significant discovery declaration in place when the STL was issued. Among the terms and conditions tied to exploration licences, a 25 percent work bid deposit was paid and drilling activity was required in order to maintain the licence for a full term. Interest holders are also required to pay rentals in the second period of an exploration licence as part of a condition to hold an exploration licence for nine years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, it is my understanding that, when the federal government issued those original rights, they made provision for fees to be charged as a rental rate. Perhaps the rental rate wasn't specified, but at least it was in there, so why did the Minister not include any fees or work requirements in the 10 significant discovery licences that he issued?
These interests were tied to exploration licences issued by the federal government prior to devolution. It has been the policy of our government to hold companies doing business here to the terms they negotiated with the federal government. Future STL rental rates were not stated in the terms and conditions of the original call for bids documents issued by Canada prior to devolution. The GNWT would have been in a high-risk litigation.
I thank the Minister for that explanation. It was a fear of risk of litigation, so that we now don't get any benefits from these significant discovery licences. The Minister last week said that we should not, "set rules without a transparent and open process." The Minister also said that he will consider charging rental rates under the terms and conditions for future bids in the Northwest Territories when we put out plans for petroleum exploration in the future. Can the Minister tell us who is consulted in setting those rates and what they will be?
The topic of rentals and other STL policy elements, such as terms, have been discussed with all current interest holders in the Northwest Territories and representatives of the intergovernmental council during the development and amendments of the Petroleum Resource Act and Oil and Gas Act.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I want to thank the Minister for confirming that for me. For a government that says it is open and transparent, consulting only the industry and perhaps Indigenous governments, only consulting industry, I don't think that is a great idea, and I think that is a clear definition of regulatory capture. Can the Minister make public the work requirements and rental rates for future significant discovery licences and the rationale that he used in setting them? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
The proposed amendments that we have put forward for the PRA do include a requirement for the Minister to make the text of any significant discovery licence publicly available, future STL rental rates, and how STL work will be credited. It will also be specified in the future call for bid documents. Whether or not we publicly release the rationale for the rates that we might apply is more of a policy decision at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I would like to follow up again with the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. He talked about two different ways of capturing some benefits from significant discovery licences. One is in the initial call for bids, and second, in the actual issuance of the significant discovery licence itself. In the call for bids, has a decision been made by the Minister on what the rates would be for significant discovery licences in the future? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the interim, we have laid out some rates that are detailed, and we have shared that information with committee.
Thanks to the Minister for that explanation. Is the Minister prepared to make that information public?
I don't see why we can't do that. We can certainly have a conversation with the Member. I will talk with the department, but I don't see why we would not make those rates public if we are going to impose them on industry.
I thank the Minister for that commitment. Can the Minister give me an idea as to when he expects to make this information public?
I will have to talk to our officials and see when we can get that out there and let the Member know.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I want to thank the Minister for that commitment again. Can the Minister commit also that, when he puts this information out, he is prepared to accept public comments on it? Because he has already made up his mind perhaps about this without any public input, but I would like to know whether he is prepared to accept public comment when he puts this information out. This is about having an open and transparent government and not just consulting with industry in setting these kinds of rates.
I will try to make the afternoon, seeing as it's a Friday. This is an interim measure that we have put in place because we saw there was a gap in this one post devolution. The PRA is going to be taken on the road by the Member and his committee, and there will be input from the public if they want to have input on this. Everyone in the Northwest Territories can have input on legislation that is going to be put out there, amongst consultation with all members of the Northwest Territories, industry, and Indigenous governments, and I welcome all comments back on what we want to do around SDLs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following two documents entitled "Letter from President and CEO, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association to Assistant Deputy Minister, Justice regarding Genetics and Insurance, dated March 5, 2019"; and "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 619-18(3): National Energy Board Regulatory Authority in the Northwest Territories." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 44, Forest Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. The motion is non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion carried.
---Carried
Bill 44 has had its first reading. First reading of bills. Minister of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that Bill 45, Corrections Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. The motion is non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion carried.
---Carried
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products Tax Act, be read for the second time.
The bill amends the Petroleum Products Tax Act to impose a carbon tax on petroleum products and natural gas. It makes the amendments necessary for collection and administration of this new tax to be handled in the same manner as the current fuel tax. Purchasers are required to pay the tax, and vendors and collectors are required to remit the tax to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The bill allows the Minister to provide in regulation for rebates and grants and increases the maximum fines and penalties which may be imposed either as administrative penalties or on summary conviction. Finally, the bill adds provisions for the appeal of an assessment of tax, interest or administrative penalties under the act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I will provide some introductory remarks and then turn to the process used to develop the bill. I will also provide some comments on the bill and concerns with what is there and what is missing.
The recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we are already seeing the consequence of global warming, with an increase of 1 degree Celsius in annual mean temperature. There is more extreme weather and diminishing Arctic see ice, among other changes. The report notes that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require "rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society." Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the report, with more than 6,000 scientific references cited. This is very serious, and, if we wish to save this planet from irreversible damage, we need to act now. The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius are already underway around the world, but they need to accelerate.
Canada has signed on to the global agreement to better address climate change. A real carbon pricing system for the Northwest Territories can help us in fighting this emergency. We must pursue legislative and policy changes to ensure the climate change leadership and an energy strategy built on renewables that does not masquerade as an infrastructure funding demand.
The process. The history of carbon pricing during this Assembly has been a convoluted one, at best. Cabinet developed three separate but related initiatives related to climate change. The first and obviously highest priority for Cabinet was the 2030 Energy Strategy, which leap-frogged ahead of the other two initiatives and even has a costed three-year action plan where 44 percent of the greenhouse gas reductions are supposed to come from a billion-dollar Taltson hydro expansion. The poor cousin, the Climate Change Strategic Framework, has languished, still has no action plan, and fails to respond to the Auditor General's report to establish the necessary leadership and authority for climate change success. Finally, there is a carbon pricing scheme which is the subject of this bill and is to be used to fund the GNWT contributions to the energy strategy.
In May and July of 2016, the Premier was in the media opposing a carbon tax. Thank goodness a new government was elected in the Yukon in November 2016 because that seems to have moderated GNWT messaging around carbon pricing. On December 9, 2016, the first minsters, including our Premier, announced the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. This would allow Canada to meet its international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
I appreciate that a lot of effort has been put in by Cabinet to work out the details of an NWT carbon pricing system. I just do not agree with their approach. GNWT put pressure on the federal government to ante up money for its favourite energy megaproject, the expansion of Taltson hydro, for export to unconfirmed southern markets and to other unconfirmed and hypothetical users in the Slave Geological Province. A discussion paper on the GNWT's approach to carbon pricing was finally released on July 26, 2017. Public comment closed on September 15, 2017.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations tried unsuccessfully several times to get the Minister of Finance to develop a number of options or scenarios for carbon pricing. He was urged to consider creating a competitive fund for large emitters to reduce emissions, larger investments into renewable energy that would further reduce the cost of living and greenhouse gas emissions, and other ideas. The Minister refused to respond in any serious way to committee's requests.
Almost a year after the release of the discussion paper, the Minister of Finance released Cabinet's final approach to carbon pricing on July 11, 2018. A summary of the public engagement on the discussion paper was released at the same time, and a federal report on the impact of carbon pricing on the Northwest Territories that had been completed five months earlier was also released to the public. No further comments were invited, and there has been no further public information or engagement since Cabinet's release on July 11, 2018. This government has been dragged to carbon pricing by the federal promise to impose a regime even if we don't create our own regime.
I would like to, Mr. Speaker, move on to the merits of the bill. I have spoken before in this House about Cabinet's approach to carbon pricing, which is what this bill will implement. Individuals and families will get some of the carbon tax back through adjustments to the cost of living allowance. The largest industrial emitters of greenhouse gas emissions will actually get all of the carbon tax back that they pay. It will be individuals, families, and small businesses that will subsidize the GNWT initiatives under the Energy Strategy, not the largest emitters, which are the diamond mines. This hardly seems fair or balanced.
A large part of the carbon tax revenues will also be used to fund GNWT's contribution to the Taltson Hydro Expansion, which I have also spoken against in this House. I have no problem and encourage the use of Taltson power to develop the regional economy on the south side of the lake, and I am glad to get the support of my friends as I speak, but to build millions of dollars' worth of transmission lines to unconfirmed markets is risky and likely to cost a lot more than original estimates. This is what happened with Muskrat Falls, Site C, Manitoba Hydro's Keeyask dam, and many other projects. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker: Taltson expansion will take money from other needs and opportunities, especially small community energy self-sufficiency.
I would like to turn to some of the problem areas with the bill. There is a precise regime and schedule for the carbon tax on various fuels. There is no separation of diesel fuel use between motive and non-motive use, as was the case in the July 2017 discussion paper. Butane was also not included in that discussion paper for carbon pricing, but now has a carbon tax rate specified in the bill.
While there is some clarity on the carbon tax to be charged and collected, there is no certainty regarding rebates, which are to be prescribed in future regulations at the total discretion of the Minister. The Minister will also have total discretion to prescribe who will be defined as a large emitter, and the Minister will have unfettered authority to determine grants to be given to such large emitters. It seems to me that there should be some bounds on the Minister's discretion in these matters.
Lastly, there is no requirement for any public reporting of revenues raised through the proposed carbon tax, rebates, or grants that the Minister may hand out, or even administrative costs associated with the implementation of the carbon tax. Given the concerns that the public and Regular MLAs have raised about a carbon tax, its impact on the cost of living, and how it may or may not contribute to greenhouse gas reductions, it is rather astounding that there is so little accountability and transparency around the revenues to be raised, their use, and impacts. I have consistently raised the need for an integrated approach to monitoring and public reporting of energy self-sufficiency, climate change, greenhouse gas reductions, carbon pricing, and the impacts on the cost of living, and this bill does not address that.
I still believe that carbon pricing is an essential tool in fighting climate change. However, the Minister has clearly been dragged to this measure and has shown very little interest in working with Regular MLAs or the public in exploring different options or scenarios to develop the best approach for the Northwest Territories and our residents with regard to a carbon tax. In my view, Cabinet's approach is unfair, and with the unfettered ministerial authority over grants to large emitters and rebates, an energy strategy focused on a huge mega project, lack of progress on climate change leadership, and no commitment to integrated climate change monitoring and public reporting, I cannot support the bill as drafted.
I look forward to participating in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Government Operations to hear what the public and interested stakeholders have to say about a carbon tax in the Northwest Territories, whether they think that this is a fair approach from Cabinet, and whether it will really lead to progress in climate change. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is my view on what this bill enables.
First, I want to acknowledge that the views and concerns that people have shared with me I consider very much valid and important, and their opinions are not lost on me. Bear with me as I share with you two perspectives on the carbon tax effectiveness and another that describes what we are doing here in the North.
Let me start with carbon tax. When originally proposed, I agreed that a carbon tax, as a concept, had the potential to be an effective way of achieving the long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, since its introduction by the federal government, the ongoing campaign conducted by its proponents, as well as politicians, including here in the NWT, has allowed it to become so politicized and tainted that it is no longer politically reasonable, and in the meantime, the rising oil prices continue to reduce the carbon tax's socio-economic business case.
While I agree that we need to shift our habits and behaviours, the fact is that, within our current limited technological means, in order to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to meet the Paris Agreement, it would require carbon taxes so high that they are a political non-starter.
I am not the only one who has this view. Many proponents of carbon tax seem to agree with me on this, and many proponents in the North also agree with me that the made-in-the-North version of carbon tax will do little to nothing towards changing Northerners' behaviours, much less meet set targets for carbon emission reduction.
As I have stated in previous Member's statements, current models of carbon taxes are not a serious proposal to curb emissions. Rather, in my view, it is a flailing attempt to alleviate government's conscience with a symbolic gesture toward mitigating the impacts of climate change.
As we see across the country, with many provincial governments now exiting the program, there is a fading interest in carbon tax, and that is not necessarily a bad thing for the environment. Why? Because even without a meaningful carbon tax, fuel prices across the country are reaching all-time highs at the pump. Again, I noted in a previous statement that fuel was at $1.13 a litre just a few years back, and now it has been as high here in Yellowknife as $1.50. The federal government has never clarified how the carbon tax would interact with changing oil prices. Yes, low prices made a carbon tax seem somewhat acceptable, but with high oil prices, it makes it seem punishing to the average northern family, already struggling with higher fuel costs.
What can we implement that already has a proven means of effectiveness and can have an immediate impact on reducing greenhouse gases? Well, let's remember that the use of a carbon tax is relatively new and is directed at shifting behaviour. Significant progress has been made in the past by using other tools, in particular, the use of legislation, regulation, and policy rather than behavioural taxes.
For example, mandatory mileage standards for vehicles have resulted in dramatic increases in fuel efficiency, allowing people to drive more energy-efficient vehicles without guzzling more gas. Electricity generation has been mostly decarbonized in Canada, not so much in the Northwest Territories, through government subsidies and/or appropriations. In some jurisdictions, there has been a major shift to natural gas rather than burning oil or coal. In other jurisdictions, there is a significant move toward hydro rather than diesel. Taxing behavioural change seems less important in those regions, especially given that it is industry that is making the commitments to these changes and that they are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, after all.
Now, the second point is regarding what we are dealing with here in the North. I have and continue to take this position since being elected, and that is that we are faced with many challenges in the North, but at the forefront is the ability to afford living here and doing business here. If we can't find ways to do either at a standard and comfort level that we have come to know and expect, then, frankly, those who can will begin to depart and leave the North so that they can have those standards and comforts met elsewhere.
That said, I believe that individuals are making smarter choices these days with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by implementing efficiencies and taking responsible actions in their day-to-day lives. Many families and homeowners are replacing windows, reinsulating ceilings and walls, installing pellet stoves and boilers, putting up solar panels, and doing simple things, like changing to LED bulbs and putting timers on lights and outlets. Proof of this is that Arctic Energy Alliance's energy rebate programs are oversubscribed year over year, and that is a good thing. We have noticed that, so has the federal government, and we have increased the Arctic Energy Alliance pot by nearly double over the next four years.
As the technology becomes more practical and affordable in the North, communities will implement better energy systems, just like Colville Lake's solar panel system and the soon-to-be Inuvik wind farm. I also believe that business and industry are making responsible energy efficiency improvements and are also motivated to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, because they, too, believe in being environmentally responsible, but also because it affects their bottom line profits. A good example, again, is the Diavik Wind Farm. I understand that that investment reduced Diavik's fuel consumption by nearly 15 percent.
I also feel that governments are doing good things with regard to meeting their goals for reducing emissions, and collectively, they are one of the highest emitters in the territory and would be exempt from the carbon tax. Both the City of Yellowknife and the GNWT have made significant investments in transferring over to biomass and developing and using district energy and co-energy for heating and powering their own assets and facilities. What's more, the savings and returns on investment from those initiatives are now allowing these respective governments to self-fund these projects rather than further burden taxpayers with increased taxes to pay for these improvements.
In addition, and I touched on this above, long before any carbon tax concepts were being discussed, governments have developed and applied significant laws, regulation, and policy that have been applied to individuals, businesses, and industry over the last decade or so to create less dependence on fossil fuels, and those regulations are starting to have proof-positive effects as well on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Why don't I support a carbon tax? Simple. I have come to realize that a very high carbon tax that would shift people's behaviour is not politically doable in the North, and that the made-in-the-North version is not going to change anyone's behaviour. Therefore, we can no longer hang onto this silver-bullet or magic-wand approach for a call to carbon tax, and therefore I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to the merits of the government's carbon pricing scheme that will be enabled through the passage of Bill 42. Mr. Speaker, I want to set for the record very clearly that I believe in carbon pricing for Canada. I believe in carbon pricing for the world. A mechanism for carbon, either through market measures or through taxation, are good things.
In the December 14, 2018, meetings of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, otherwise known as COP 24, they reported that, as of April of last year, carbon pricing initiatives implemented or scheduled for implementation were expected to cover 20 percent of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. That is representative that things are changing. This is no longer an initiative of fringe political parties or political actors who are passionate about one issue; this is good economic sense. It has been endorsed by leading economists. It has been endorsed by the World Bank. This is not an alien proposal to how the economy works.
In fact, China, which is one of the major stumbling blocks in ensuring a global response to climate change action through economic measures, has signed on. They are building on some seven municipal and provincial cap-and-trade markets within the country to what will become the world's largest carbon market.
Mr. Speaker, here in Canada, British Columbia has had a successful revenue-neutral carbon pricing regime since 2008, and since implementation, they have posted the strongest economic growth in Canada. It is very clear that, in the British Columbia model, they recognize the need to protect economic competitiveness while implementing carbon pricing and the need for effective collaboration by providing incentives for people to invest, for example, in home energy and zero-emission vehicles. The government has also further committed to all of its government operations will be completely carbon-neutral. It is those kind of leadership statements that provincial governments, federal governments, and world governments can take to show that they are committed to protecting and preserving the future of our planet, our environment, and the health of our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of carbon pricing. The chamber's view is that it is the only effective way to reduce carbon emissions, but it requires collaboration, again, with stakeholders, with businesses, to ensure that the regulatory burden on businesses in our jurisdictions is lessened, is not further increased with a new scheme, and that the revenues are returned to them in the form of incentives to help them lower their costs.
The Canadian Mining Association supports carbon pricing, which is a key actor for our economy here in the Northwest Territories. Their president has said that carbon tax is the most effective and efficient means of driving emissions reductions and making real progress in the fight against climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to carbon taxing. I don't think that the world is opposed to carbon taxing or carbon pricing. I think that the world has embraced this. Many Members in this House have been encouraging this government to be proactive on this, to not wait until the eleventh hour to put forward a carbon pricing solution that will allow us to meet our national and international obligations. Yet, here we are, in the last year of our term, with something that has become very controversial and something that Members on this side of the House have just spoken against. I think that is because this bill did not go through the same level of collaboration and partnership that we have seen on other pieces of legislation.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations has been working on carbon pricing for quite some time now. I think that my honourable friend, the Member for Frame Lake, put this very clearly. Our efforts to collaborate, to propose new ideas and solutions, have fallen on deaf ears, and I have come to believe that the honourable Minister of Finance would simply prefer this issue to go away. Perhaps the provincial governments who are opposing this in court will be successful, and we can drop it if a few federal government comes into place.
This is not leadership. That belief can be backed up with actions, statements, words, and a lack of action behind the scenes here at the committee level and in the business planning stages, that there isn't clear leadership coming from this government on this very important issue to the economic health and well-being of Northerners and to our goals to preserve and protect our environment and the health of our citizens.
The Auditor General report on climate change revealed a serious lack of leadership on GNWT actions to fight climate change. The standing committee worked collaboratively and provided clear and concise recommendations on how that can improve. None of those recommendations have been fully implemented, including the most important ones around leadership, about giving a very clear message as a whole-of-government approach that is binding on other departments so that there is a very clear sense in the public and within the bureaucracy that this is a top priority and that we need to continue to work on it. I agree that adaptation needs to be our priority, but the global economy is adapting to carbon pricing, and we need to be a part of that if we are going to protect our businesses and protect our industries.
Mr. Speaker, this bill places the burden of the pricing scheme through a carbon tax onto the pocketbooks of Northerners and small businesses, while carving out extensive breaks for large emitters that are responsible for nearly 50 percent of total emissions. The taxes applied to large industry are largely returned by the rebates, and the funds that are held by government can be accessed by those same emitters in personalized funds, rather than building a globally competitive fund in which all emitters can compete for resources as an incentive to help bring clean growth solutions to their industrial operations.
The vital rebate programs in this bill, which are the crux of any successful pricing regime, are governed solely through regulation, which means that this House will lack the necessary oversight tools to effect these programs and cements total control in the hands of the Minister. While this would not be such a major issue for me, the current Minister, again, has not demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with Regular Members and members of the public and members of industry on building a regime that works for everyone.
This House cannot speak for future governments and the Ministers of those governments, but I think that we must ensure that it is the House and its Members who decide these issues, such as the rebates and other important issues of climate change public policy and that those powers and discretion are not solely in the hands of the Minister and government bureaucracy. The people need to be able to speak to their representatives on these issues.
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that we need to do a better job of building a scheme that works. I have implored the government to look at other options. Again, I refer to the Chinese model where they have moved to a cap-and-trade system. We didn't even consider that. At the time, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec had a very successful cap-and-trade program in partnership with California. There are no reasons we couldn't have collaborated with Yukon and Nunavut to build a northern carbon market and to keep the burden on industry and off of everyday Northerners and to find more competitive ways to incentivize clean growth solutions to business.
The Taltson expansion is something I do, in fact, support. I think it is a key component of building the economy of the North. Again, it is very far off. For this government to pin 33 percent of its reductions on something that is a policy proposal that has pennies for the big picture invested in it currently, we cannot afford to pin all of our hopes on that. We need to have a better mechanism. The mechanism that is being proposed today, again, it puts the burden onto the pocketbooks of Northerners in such a way that I cannot support.
I hope that we are able to improve the bill if it does go forward. At this time, I encourage all honourable Members of this House to carefully consider what is being proposed, the lack of collaboration, the lack of consultation. Whether or not the proposed federal backstop that Yukon and Nunavut are both agreeing to implement in their jurisdictions, now that we know the details of that, is a more generous rebate for individuals, and individual Northerners will receive more from the federal backstop than they will from this carbon-pricing scheme.
I think we must carefully consider if this is the direction we want to go, if this is the direction we want to bind future governments for, or if we should leave the administrative burden of the new tax in the hands of the federal government that this Minister has said is imposing this tax on the people of the North. Let them impose it, then. Let them give a more generous rebate. Let's work with our partners to build a more robust carbon-pricing system that targets the people who are actually causing the emissions and that ensures we can keep the cost of living as low as possible in the Northwest Territories.
