Thank you. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. In my opening remarks, I talked about Cabinet's crisis climate change plan, consisting of three separate initiatives. We have the climate change strategic framework, the energy strategy, and now carbon pricing. Unfortunately, there are no strong links between the three of them. This bill does not provide for any formal links between the other two parts of the strategy or the plan that this Cabinet has developed. In the absence of that, it is very difficult, I think, for anyone to see and understand how these are linked together and what kind of progress we may be making on some of these as a result of the carbon tax.
I talked numerous times about the need for integrated reporting. There has not been a clear commitment in writing. There is no legal requirement for that to happen as a result of this bill. All we are left with is trying to make a recommendation from the standing committee. I do support this. I will have more to say when we get to the bill itself. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Mr. Testart.
Mr. Chair, I move that this committee recommend that the Department of Finance undertake a comprehensive review and evaluation of its carbon tax approach, including public consultation, to be completed after the program is fully implemented in 2022. The purpose of the review is to determine the effectiveness of the program on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to assess its impacts on the NWT economy in order to develop program improvements. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this is a way to ensure that the tax is being monitored for effectiveness and that any rebalancing of grants and rebates to offset any drawbacks from our local economies or territorial economy can be properly assessed by making necessary changes to the carbon pricing scheme. This motion is calling for or recommending that that be done in a formal and public process by the time the carbon tax reaches its full amount of $50 per tonne. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Mr. Testart.
Mr. Chair, I move, to the extent it is possible before the dissolution of the 18th Assembly and for the public record, that the government provide a response to these recommendations, even of a preliminary nature, that committee may publicly disclose. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Seeing nothing further, does committee agree this concludes our consideration of Committee Report 26-18(3)?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. This concludes consideration of Committee Report 26-18(3). Committee, we have agreed to next consider Bill 42: An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products Tax Act. I will give committee a chance to pull out their acts. It looks like everyone is ready to go. I will turn to the Minister responsible for the bill to introduce it. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am here to present Bill 42. This piece of legislation, along with Bill 43, are critical pieces of legislation will allow the Government of the Northwest Territories to meet its carbon pricing commitment under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change through a carbon tax on all petroleum and natural gas fuels, except aviation fuel.
The purpose of Bill 42 is to amend the Petroleum Products Tax Act to create the carbon tax on petroleum products and natural gas so that the collection and administration of the carbon tax is the same as the current fuel tax.
The legislation being considered today requires us to make a choice. A carbon tax is going to be introduced in the Northwest Territories. Either we will pass this legislation and introduce the related rebates and offsets the GNWT has planned to mitigate the impact of the carbon tax on NWT residents and businesses, or we will allow the federal government to implement the federal carbon tax and Ottawa would make the decisions about how to use the revenues from a carbon tax.
We know, based on how the federal government has implemented the carbon tax in jurisdictions that didn't introduce their own carbon tax, that the GNWT approach is much more favourable to residents, businesses, and communities than the federal backstop approach.
The GNWT approach, when fully implemented, will provide a family of four with over $1,100 annually from the cost of living offset benefit and residents will not have to pay carbon tax on heating fuel as it is being rebated at the point of purchase. This is very significant for Northerners who already pay high costs for heating fuel and face an overall high cost of living.
The rebate of the NWT carbon tax on heating fuel will also mitigate the impact of the NWT carbon tax on small businesses and community governments as they will not face increased heating costs for their facilities. All residents, businesses, and communities will also benefit as we will rebate the carbon tax on fuel used for community electricity production, which will ensure that electricity rates will not have to be increased because of the carbon tax.
Large emitters are facilities that produce more than 50,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually. The GNWT approach results in similar overall carbon tax as the federal backstop for these facilities, but the carbon tax is applied in a way that is more appropriate for the NWT context.
Finally, the GNWT approach is expected to provide $8 million annually when fully implemented that the GNWT will be able to use to invest in energy initiatives.
I am not saying that we will be able to mitigate all impacts of carbon pricing. It is a tax and no one likes a new tax. It is clear that the residents and businesses will be better off with the GNWT approach than simply allowing the federal government to impose their approach to a carbon tax and spend the revenues as they see fit.
This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you. I will turn to the chair of the standing committee that reviewed the bill for any opening comments. There are no opening comments I see from Mr. Testart, so I can open the floor to general comments on Bill 42: An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products Tax Act. First, we have Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I spoke to the principle of Bills 42 and 43 at second reading, I indicated that I do not support a carbon tax in the Northwest Territories. In fact, I still do not support a carbon tax, and I will not be supporting these bills. My reasons have evolved, and I will explain.
First, let me be perfectly clear about one thing. I wholeheartedly support the reduction of greenhouse gases. Like most people, I am worried about the effects of climate change. As a Northerner, I have seen its frightening impact up close and probably a lot earlier than people living on other parts of the planet. I believe every one of us should be doing what we can to modify our behaviours to reduce our carbon footprint. I just do not believe that this carbon tax is the way for us to get there.
I also want to be clear on another point. My decision not to support Bills 42 and 43 should not be interpreted as support for the federal backstop. In debating these bills, we find ourselves between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and, as a legislator, I do not appreciate being put in this position by the federal government. As I said in March, I view this heavy-handed approach by the Government of Canada as a flailing attempt to alleviate its conscience with a symbolic gesture towards mitigating the impacts of climate change, one that will cost our residents dearly at a time when people are already struggling. Instead of ongoing diplomatic squabbles with China, I would far prefer to see our federal leaders doing all they possibly can to encourage this superpower responsible for a whopping 28 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions to move to cleaner fuel sources. The same could be said for the United States, which holds only 4 percent of the world's population but is responsible for 15 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.
I appreciate the GNWT's attempt to mitigate the impacts of this unwelcome and mandatory tax, but including a 100 percent rebate on heating fuel at the point of sale, without that, a carbon tax in the Northwest Territories would be utterly unconscionable given our already high cost of living. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of this policy decision is that any behavioural changes which might have been brought about by a carbon tax in the NWT will also be mitigated. In other words, this rebate, while welcome, makes the carbon tax virtually useless for the purpose for which it is intended, reducing effects on climate change.
The GNWT released its summary of public engagement on the implementation of pan-Canadian carbon pricing in the Northwest Territories in January of 2018. Let me read for you just a few comments made by Northerners, which reflect the majority of the public opinion: "Do not impose a carbon tax. We already pay too much for fuel and electricity." "Kill it. Kill it dead. People aren't saving on electricity, even though we are reduced usage. Minus 50 is awfully cold without household heat." "What a stupid tax. I can't do anything to change the heat I use to heat my house." "The North will suffer with such a tax. It means less money in my home. If the environment means so much to the government, start subsidizing 100 percent of the cost to move to renewable energy." "It will make small northern businesses less competitive and exacerbate an already bad situation, furthering small business decline." Lastly, "I think the carbon tax will penalize those who live in the North and will end up being an incentive to leave the North." Mr. Chair, the comments go on and on in this vein for 68 pages. I don't think our constituents could be any more clear about their views on this tax.
Today I am standing with them. It is time for this government to wake up and recognize how short-sighted this is and how dire economic circumstances are for many northern families. The Standing Committee on Government Operations repeatedly asked the Department of Finance to include measures for small businesses in their made-in-the-North approach, but nothing was done for small businesses. Even the federal backstop offers small businesses a direct rebate program to offset 25 percent to 50 percent of their costs to buy more energy-efficient equipment or appliances and rebates up to 25 percent of the eligible costs for retrofits to reduce energy use. There are no measures to include it for municipalities. Just yesterday in this House, one of my colleagues pointed out the fact that the diamond mines will be closed in the next decade. As we all know, the GNWT's transfer payments from Canada are driven in part by the size of our population. The GNWT should be doing all it can to keep Northerners here and to attract new residents, not impose a tax that threatens to drive people away. Need I remind this House of increased airport fees, land transfer tax, increased lease fees, and consideration of a sugar tax, all put forward by this government in this term alone. Don't get me started on the power rates.
I understand that the Standing Committee on Government Operations also wanted to see reporting requirements included in Bill 42 but that that was determined to be out of scope, and we heard about a recommendation to this effect earlier. I support this 100 percent. Just because the requirement is not in the legislation, that does not mean that the GNWT should be off the hook for reporting. It is essential that the GNWT be tracking the NWT's greenhouse gas emissions now, before the tax is introduced, in order to get baseline data. It is equally important that greenhouse gas emissions be tracked after introduction of the carbon tax so that government can report on how emissions have changed, if at all.
Mr. Chair, the imposition of this tax has that familiar old feeling Northerners know all too well, that a distant, out of touch, colonial, federal government knows what's better for the North than its own people do. What this tax fails to acknowledge is the climate change leadership already shown by the Northwest Territories. We live in remote communities, in a cold, dark climate that sees winter for eight months of the year. By necessity, we have had to adapt to more efficient forms of energy. The GNWT is already investing in energy retrofits for our own asset upgrades and looking at projects like the Taltson Hydroelectric Expansion Project. The Arctic Energy Alliance budget has been doubled over the next four years to accommodate the increased demand of residents wishing to make energy efficient home improvements such as the installation of solar panels. Even industry has stepped up. Just look at the Diavik windmill farm. It is the first large-scale wind energy facility in the Northwest Territories, and it is saving the company an estimated 5- to 6-million dollars a year in fuel costs. Diavik expects this $33 million project, which is the world's most northern large-scale wind-diesel hybrid power system, to reduce its reliance on diesel by nearly 15 percent and lower the mine's carbon footprint by about 6 percent.
Mr. Chair, I am disappointed that the governments of the three territories were not successful in working together to dissuade the federal government from introducing this carbon tax. However well intentioned, it will result in an increased burden on the cost of living for our residents, which is already considerably higher than in Southern Canada. For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I cannot support Bills 42 and 43. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Next, we have Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I spoke previously, it was as the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, and now I speak as the Member for Kam Lake. I have spoken with Kam Lakers about this very issue, and many of them are torn because they do care about the environment, they care about climate change, and they want options, but they are also faced with the reality that the North is already a very expensive place to live and work.
I have heard from businesses, as well, who say they cannot afford another cost and encouraged me to work to improve whatever this bill would ultimately result in, to give them some relief on that front. Unfortunately, that is not there. As my honourable friend from Yellowknife North put out, there are no measures for small businesses, and this despite the urging of the standing committee. There are no measures for municipalities, as well, which is another feature of the federal backstop. These are features that are not in our plan, that are in another plan, but does that make the federal plan better? Well, no, we do not know that. Taking the Minister's comments earlier, "It's clear that the residents and businesses will be better off with the GNWT approach." Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, it's not clear because the exact details of the federal backstop don't exist because those backstops that we have seen are in jurisdictions that have accepted the backstop and worked with Ottawa to develop it within their jurisdictions.
I think it has become clear to me at this point that the reason we cannot get anything out of either this government or the federal government is because nothing is really there apart from targets, metrics, and other useful data that is used to build whatever the backstop ultimately looks like, barring the industrial emission standards, which we have already reviewed in our report, in the committee's report, and discussed. So the real question here is: why was this so difficult to get the information? I wanted nothing more than to see that committee report come out and fully endorse the GNWT's plan and say it's head over heels, a hundred percent better than what the federal government is going to impose on us if we don't take it," but we cannot provide that kind of comfort. What we are left with is a carbon pricing plan that is being imposed by this government, not by Ottawa. The Premier unilaterally signed on the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change and committed to this tax without seeking input from all Members of this House, and without properly engaging the Members of this House on how that tax would work and what kind of features were needed to make it work for the North.
Large emitters are responsible for more than 70 percent of the NWT's total emissions, and yet individual Northerners are given nearly the same tax to pay on things that are not automatically rebated. Individualized trust for these emitters instead of a competitive fund for clean energy investment leaves our clean energy investment of our large emitters in roughly the same shape as they were before. These are holding places for the rebates that would otherwise receive.
There was no consideration of alternative approaches to carbon pricing, including cap and trade through establishing a northern carbon market. At the time that the pan-Canadian framework was signed, Ontario and Quebec had a shared carbon market with California and the United States. This is a discussion that could have been had with those provincial governments, and certainly with our northern premiers to create a carbon market that could have dealt with the industrial emissions and left individual Northerners not paying a tax out of their own pockets for, again, a problem where 75 percent is produced by those emitters.
There is a lack of a formal tax plan in these bills that needs to be approved by the Assembly, which leaves the rebates and actual rates of tax determined by regulation; which is another way of saying by unelected bureaucrats. We have a very capable public service, but taxation, above all other things, should be determined by the Legislature. That is what we are here to do, and that is what should be coming forward with a formal tax plan, and that is not a feature of this bill.
There is a fundamental lack of accountability in reporting the revenues and operations of the carbon pricing scheme that will make it all but impossible for public and independent assessment of a revenue-neutral tax, which is another commitment that the government has made. There are no rebates, as I have said before, for small businesses and municipalities, who have no choice but to pass increased costs on to residents. This is significant because, if carbon pricing is meant to change behaviour, then there need to be options for change. Nahanni Butte is not Vancouver. Gameti is not Toronto, and even Yellowknife is not like any other major city in Canada, where residents can switch to low-carbon alternatives such as subways, LRT, buses, et cetera. I find it hard to believe we can build the infrastructure for electric cars, and the money that is actually going to be invested in clean energy is already going to GNWT-owned and operated infrastructure and their energy strategy.
Furthermore, the final point I will make is the government has waited until the bitter end to roll out these bills, and now we are confronted with the reality that we are going into not one but two elections, one territorial and one federal, that could undo this entire carbon pricing plan and render it unnecessary. If the 19th Assembly decides that this is not the way they wish to go, they can undo it. If there is a different government elected in Ottawa, they can decide this is not the way to go. Members of this House urged the government to bring forward a carbon pricing plan early in the life of the Assembly so it could be properly considered, vetted, and consulted with the public, and that did not happen until the very end, until the dying days of this Assembly. Again, now we are in a position where these bills with a carbon tax will be implemented during an election, during two elections really, and the outcome is not so certain. This is not the way to roll out sound public policy that is going to achieve its clearly stated goals of reducing emissions and ensuring that it is revenue neutral and invested in the right ways. Even the rebates for individuals are not income tested, so everyone gets the same rebate. Whether you make $200,000 a year in the Northwest Territories or are on income support, you are still getting the same amount of rebate back, and that doesn't speak to fairness of costs.
This plan is not something I can currently support. I have learned a lot over my term, and when I started, I certainly had high-minded and lofty public policy goals. Once you begin working in this role and hearing the concerns of your constituents, it is very clear that the cost of living is always going to prioritize everything else.
This government has done very little to convince me that their plan is superior, and as a result, I cannot support it. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Next, we have Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a very interesting and challenging aspect as we are moving forward. I have heard a number of people talk about carbon tax, climate change, what are we doing to fix the climate change, and that's the issue. When I have listened to the argument on both sides, it puts you in the spot, but at the end of the day, we have to make a decision for Northerners. Not somebody from Ottawa, but somebody here. Is it the best solution? No, but you know what, the solution the federal government is offering isn't the best solution, either.
My concern is that, in my riding, there are opportunities for what we call cleaner energy, like geothermal. We are going to spend a lot of money on the project, the Taltson dam. Well, we could do a geothermal project in Fort Liard, which would also cut the cost of our green gas, but also put people to work.
The other thing is that my concern is about the cap that we put with the Power Corporation at 20 percent. The community in Jean Marie River put up a number of solar panels and they were able to help reduce the cost to their power plant. It's great, but it's only able at 20 percent. Those are some of the things that we need to look at. We need to look at how we can use renewable energy that we have up north to help us reduce the greenhouse gas effect on our residents.
Cost of living is very difficult in my riding. When we say 35 percent of unemployment in some of the smaller communities, I'm having communities that have 10, 15 percent of employment. That means 85 is out there. They are going to be hit hard for this. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, I have to make a decision on what the Government of the Northwest Territories is offering versus what the Government of Canada is doing. I'd rather stand up and go to the doors and say, look, maybe it's not the best solution; however, I'd rather say, we did this. I will take ownership of "we." At the end of the day, that's what counts. I cannot say, well, something from Ottawa, and this is good. I can't honestly say that. I have made a commitment to the Minister, and I have made a commitment to people who have talked to me about climate change and say, what are we doing? I've made this commitment. It is not the best. I really would like to see some pilot projects in the riding that I represent, but that is some work that needs to be done next term. We talk about "what if." I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. I don't know if I am going to be here after the next election. I've got to make a decision right now.
Again, as I have made a commitment to the Minister of Finance, I will be supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I have no one further on my list for general comments to the bill. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am thinking about what I want to get on the record because I expect that there are a lot of residents out there listening and will watch what we have done and said here on this debate.
I reviewed what the Minister said in his opening remarks. We've got two pages here of what is an interesting defence of Cabinet's plan about how to make sure that this doesn't impact the cost of living. That's not what a carbon tax is actually supposed to be all about. The words "climate change" are found once in here with regard to the pan-
Canadian framework. Climate crisis is not in the Minister's opening remarks.
The purpose of a carbon tax is to encourage fuel switching, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and change our behaviour so that we can build a new economy that is not reliant on fossil fuels. That is not what this bill is about. That's not the approach of this government. That's not what the approach of this Minister has been since day one.
We have an opportunity to start to build energy self-sufficiency as part of a real plan on the climate crisis. That is not what this bill does, and I am sad to say that we have an opportunity, and it has been squandered.
I do support the committee's report. It highlights numerous instances where the committee tried to work with the department, the Minister, Cabinet colleagues, on developing a collaborative approach to designing a carbon pricing system for our residents. There were lots of requests for information back and forth, but nothing was really ever delivered. In fact, what we have is a bill that is set out in a way that it actually precludes committee and Regular MLAs from making any kind of meaningful amendments to it, which is very disappointing. This was not developed in any kind of a collaborative way. It really precludes us from having any meaningful input into it. That is not how consensus government is supposed to work.
The committee tried to work with the Minister and get more information and tried to work with the federal government. It was very frustrating in terms of getting more information about the federal backstop. The kind of information that is being put out by our government, by Cabinet, by the Minister, if you look, the description of the federal backstop is set out in the plain language summary, and there is similar information on the Department of Finance website. The stuff about the federal backstop, if you look, in very small letters here, it says that the information presented here is based on the federal approach for rural communities in New Brunswick, which is one of the problems with where the federal backstop is being implemented. All of these predictions about the federal backstop put together by our government are based on what is going on in New Brunswick. What does that have to do with us? We had an opportunity, as my colleague from Kam Lake said, to actually work with the federal government to develop a federal backstop that would work for us, and unfortunately, that opportunity was squandered.
To be clear, I support carbon pricing, but this is not the plan that is going to help us deal with the climate change crisis that's on it. The only firm thing in this bill is the carbon tax itself. Everything else is discretionary; rebates, grants, how the money is used. Everybody else is totally at the discretion of Cabinet moving forward. It's a made-by-Cabinet approach; it's not made-in-the-North approach. The only thing that this bill does is set out what the carbon tax is going to be, and that is what the federal government has already told us. Everything else is at the discretion of Cabinet.
That could change with a different Minister next time. The rebates, the grants, it is all going to be set out in regulation that nobody is going to have any input into necessarily. The only thing that this bill does is set what the carbon tax is going to be, and that is what the federal government has told us. The use of that money, and so on, is all at Cabinet's discretion, with no accountability, no requirements for reporting, no requirement to work with the public or Regular MLAs moving forward.
For those sort of reasons, that is why I cannot support the bill, because this is a made-by-Cabinet approach. I think that what we need to do is to send this back and let the 19th Assembly develop a real plan for the climate crisis that is on us. This is not going to help us get there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. I am going to call a brief recess.
---SHORT RECESS
Committee, I apologize for ringing the bells. I am going to have to call another recess. We are back in recess.
---SHORT RECESS.
All right, committee. We are back at it. I understand there are some witnesses that the Minister would like to bring in, so, Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses to the table. Minister, please take your seat at the witness table. Minister, please introduce your witnesses for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my right, I have Mr. David Stewart, the deputy minister of Finance. To my left, I have Ms. Cherie Jarock, who is legislative counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Welcome back to the witnesses. Committee, in case anyone forgot, we are considering Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products Tax Act. Does committee agree that we move on to consideration of the clauses?
Agreed.
Are there further general comments? Ms. Green.
Is it possible for us to ask the Minister general questions about the bill, or is it only in the context of the clause-by-clause?
I will allow general questions, Ms. Green. I don't believe that you have spoken. Ms. Green, go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel like I am playing some catch-up with this, as I am not part of the committee that looked at it. I heard the Minister's opening remarks and his assertion that the program that he is offering is better than the one that would be offered by the backstop, but when I did a simple Google search of how the Yukon was approaching the carbon tax, I noticed that there were some distinct advantages to their approach. I guess my first question would be whether the Minister considered making the rebate on a sliding scale geographically, so that people who live in smaller and remote communities would be eligible for a larger rebate than those who live in Yellowknife, for example? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. One second. Thank you. To clarify, Ms. Green, in this bill, there are rebates for heating fuel and aviation fuel, and then there is a Cost Of Living Offset that is in the next bill. Are you referring to the heating fuel and the fuel rebates or the Cost Of Living Offset, just for clarification?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The question that I asked was about the rebates. I understand that that is in the next bill; the questions that I need to ask are in this bill.
Let me try this question. One of the things that Yukon is offering is that municipal governments will receive a share of revenues from the tax. Is this something that is in this bill? Yes. Municipal governments will pay the carbon tax, but also receive a share of the revenues. Did the Minister consider making that a provision of this plan? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We were able to get a couple of exemptions when we proposed our approach to the federal government. Obviously, a big one would be aviation, because our main mode of transportation up here is aviation. The second one, which I think will be a great benefit to folks in the Northwest Territories is the heating fuel, which is rebated at the point of purchase. I think that is huge, especially for the climate that we live in. Sometimes when you live in the Northwest Territories and you live in bigger centres, you are kind of out of touch with the reality of living in some of the smaller communities and the challenges that that proposes. They are the ones that would use the most heating fuel.
To the Member's question, though, that heating fuel rebate will also apply to the municipalities. Their heating fuel purchases would be rebated at the point of purchase. We have not considered the Yukon's model, and I am not even aware of exactly what that model is, but ours is at the point of purchase, which is a big cost factor for a lot of our municipal governments, especially in the colder climates, that they spend on heating fuel. We were able to propose that in our approach to Canada, and they accepted that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Green.
This information is information from the media, so it may not be in the kind of detail that the Minister would appreciate, but what it says here is that municipal governments will pay 2.5 percent of the total tax -- I take that to mean all types of fuels, not only heating fuel -- and receive 3 percent of the revenues. Did the government consider a similar approach? Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Stewart.
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 revenue versus rebating at point of sale on something like heating fuel. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Green.
Thank you. Another feature of the Yukon plan is that there are estimates for how much it will cost Yukon families for the price at the pump, and then per household for all fuel types. Are there similar calculations available for the NWT? Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Stewart.
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 benefit levels that we did in the case of the Cost Of Living Offset. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
