Thank you, Minister. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Minister.
Just for clarity, Mr. Chair, the motion is intended to ensure that, regardless of whether the Public Land Act or the Mineral Resources Act comes into force first, the enabling authority for the mining regulations in the Northwest Territories Land Act or the Public Land Act over mineral rights will be repealed from the appropriate statutes once the Mineral Resources Act comes into force. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I raised this issue months ago with the department, and I don't know why it's just suddenly appearing now, but this is good. The Minister does listen once in a while, even if he comes in at the last minute. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the motion. I will put the question to committee. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Clause 116 as amended.
Agreed.
To the bill number and title, Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Does committee agree that Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act, as amended, is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Bill 34 as amended is now ready for third reading. Just for clarity, Bill 34 as amended is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us. You've earned your money tonight. I almost said Minister Faryna a few times there. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses from the Chamber. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the chair rise and report progress. Thank you.
There is a motion to report progress. The motion is in order and non-debatable. All those in favour. All those opposed. The motion is carried.
---Carried
I will rise and report progress.
Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Committee Report 33-18(3), Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment Report on Bill 34: Mineral Resources Act; and Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act. I would like to report that consideration of Committee Report 33-18(3) is concluded with seven motions adopted, and that Bill 34 is ready for third reading as amended. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole be concurred with.
Thank you. Do I have a seconder? Member for Mackenzie Delta. The motion is in order. All those in favour. All those opposed. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that Bill 39, Environmental Rights Act, be read for the third time. Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote. Thank you.
The Member is requesting a recorded vote. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
The Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Hay River North, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South.
Masi. All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.
The results of the recorded vote are: 17 in favour, zero opposed, zero abstentions. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Bill 39 has had its third reading. Third reading of bills. Minister of Finance.
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 third time. Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member is requesting a recorded vote. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the debate about the carbon tax bill last week, I indicated that I was prepared to support it, but after reflecting on our discussions and doing some reading about carbon tax plans in other jurisdictions, I am no longer prepared to vote in favour of this bill.
There is a consensus among scientists and economists that putting a price on carbon lowers emissions and spurs innovation to find clean energy alternatives. For example, British Columbia has had a carbon tax for 11 years. Emissions have decreased by 4.7 percent over that period; and, contrary to the false claims of those who opposed the tax, it did not kill the economy. On the contrary, BC's real GDP has grown by 19 percent over the same period. That's in spite of the fact the carbon tax on fossil fuels is now double what the federal government has proposed.
Mr. Speaker, this government has never demonstrated anything but hostility to imposing a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including condemnation of the federal plan. The Premier tells anyone who will listen that our territory produces so little carbon on a national basis that we shouldn't even bother with a carbon tax. That's in spite of the fact that warming has accelerated here and the effects disrupt residents and traditional land use and it is expensive to mitigate.
Mr. Speaker, here's a bulletin: size doesn't matter. NWT has a small population compared to all of Canada and Canada has a small population compared to the rest of the planet. Does that mean we shouldn't respond to the climate crisis? My answer is no. The planet is burning up and it's on all of us, individuals, and all orders of government, business, and industry to figure out how we can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, problems with the development of NWT carbon tax legislation reach back to 2016 when the federal government introduced its Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. The Premier followed the lead of his Conservative cronies who opposed the tax. He decided to go it alone in the Northwest Territories rather than work with the federal government on modifying its backstop to meet our unique circumstances. That was a mistake, Mr. Speaker, and the result is that we are worse off.
I am going to make a comparison to Yukon and Newfoundland and Labrador. Contrary to the Finance Minister's comments yesterday, there is every reason to compare the Northwest Territories with other jurisdictions. I find that the government makes comparisons to other jurisdictions when it suits them, as the Minister of Justice did yesterday, for example, with the Public Land Act.
Yukon faces many of the same issues as the NWT when it comes to the cost of living, and many communities in Labrador are as remote as the High Arctic communities in the Northwest Territories. Both jurisdictions negotiated the backstop with the federal government. The result is that they are paying 4.42 cents per litre on gasoline, while here, in the Northwest Territories, we are set to pay 4.7 cents per litre. Likewise, Yukon and Newfoundland and Labrador are paying 5.37 cents per litre on diesel while we will be paying 5.5 cents a litre. It turns out that taking the federal offer would have saved us money on gas, the expense that most NWT residents are most concerned about.
Our government has made much of the total rebate on home heating fuel, yet Newfoundland and Labrador has that, too, and there are also exemptions on aviation fuel, off-grid diesel electricity generation, and marine transportation, as well as fuel used for forestry, fishing, mineral exploration, and municipalities. Exemptions in the NWT are much less comprehensive. In short, we lost out. Why didn't the NWT emerge from negotiations with a similar sophisticated and comprehensive system of rebates and incentives?
Yukon and Newfoundland and Labrador started working with the federal government soon after the pan-Canadian framework was introduced in 2016. As a result, there was ample time to consult residents and write legislation. There was also time to create buy-in on the need to respond to the climate crisis at a personal level. In the NWT, the Finance Minister was unable to provide comprehensive and timely information that would have enabled the Standing Committee on Government Operations to do its job. The result is that the only public hearing was held in Yellowknife. Consulting Yellowknife is obviously not consulting the territory, given the number and diversity of communities in the NWT, and I understand why residents outside the capital feel short-changed.
Mr. Speaker, we are also losing out on rebates. In Yukon, there are specific rebates for a host of entities including individuals, businesses, industry, municipalities, and First Nations. Yes, the NWT plans to provide rebates, but -- and this is an important but -- the NWT Association of Communities predicts that the meagre rebate to municipalities will result in increased taxes levied in the regional communities and Yellowknife, who are tax-based. In Yukon, government is asking municipalities to pay a 0.5 percent tax on their fuel, and in return, they get 1 percent of carbon tax revenues. Why can't it be the same way in the Northwest Territories?
A vexing question for the Standing Committee on Government Operations has been management and reporting on the money collected. Yukon's response was to create a revolving fund, so that we could tell whether the money collected as a tax on carbon was being used to reduce carbon. That could have happened here. We have several revolving funds in place now, including for Yellowknife Airport and for Marine Transportation Services.
Mr. Speaker, let's turn to rebates. The GNWT is offering an individual rebate on the carbon tax, but the federal backstop rebates are more generous than those being offered in the NWT, by $80 a year for a family of four when fully implemented. Both Yukon and British Columbia offer additional rebates for individuals living in northern and remote areas. That is not a feature of the NWT legislation, even though the cost of living is obviously higher in those areas and a larger rebate makes sense. Other jurisdictions also apply means tests to their rebates so that there is more help available for low-income families than high-income families. BC provides benefits to low-income families by redistributing the carbon tax income. Again, that is a good idea, but it is not part of the NWT plan. Much more could have been done to shield residents in small communities from the impact of a carbon tax. After all, they currently have the fewest alternatives to burning fossil fuel.
There are then the rebates to large emitters, the industrial operations that produce the bulk of greenhouse gases. Newfoundland and Labrador set targets for individual industrial facilities to reduce their emissions by 2 percent a year from 2016-2017 benchmarks, and to engage in a cap and trade program. This system applies to iron ore mines located in Labrador, pulp and paper mills, and to electricity generation. In the NWT, by contrast, large emitters can expect a rebate of 75 percent of the tax paid and access to a fund for innovation, funded by the remaining 25 percent. They are being given a pass that is unprecedented in Yukon or Newfoundland and Labrador. The arrival of mines on the tundra increased our GHG emissions substantially. Why aren't we making polluters pay? Newfoundland and Labrador is doing it with mines that are nearly as remote as ours, located at the end of a 600-kilometre dirt road. Let's not forget, the Mining Association of Canada is on record in support of carbon taxes. They see carbon reduction as a necessary feature of responsible business.
Carbon taxes that are well-designed have a minimal impact on the economy. A study by the federal and territorial governments predict that our GDP will decline by less than 1 percent, while emissions in the mining sector are predicted to decrease by 0.5 percent in the first year and 2.1 percent by 2022 with a carbon tax in place.
The carbon tax proposed by this government is wanting in comparison to other jurisdictions on almost every front, from the public policy rationale through to the implementation. Although our production of greenhouse gas emissions may be comparatively small, our responsibility to reduce them is not. Harm is harm, and action is not an option; it is a necessity to take action. We had an opportunity to negotiate a better plan, better for residents and better for the planet, and we blew it. Perhaps saddest of all, we failed in the opportunity to rally our citizens to take a real part protecting our land, families, and way of life. I cannot vote in favour of this law. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While I appreciate that some other Members are going to speak this evening, possibly with regard to, "Maybe we could have negotiated a better deal," my position all along has been that I do not support a carbon tax, whether it is coming from this government or whether it is coming from the federal government.
I believe that we are already penalized severely for where we live. This is a dark, cold territory for eight months of the year. We are already penalized for being in this region. We are also further penalized by the cost of living. It is 20 to 30 percent more expensive to live here; other than maybe Nunavut, we are the second-highest jurisdiction in the country to afford to live in and do business in.
Thirdly, we are also penalized by not having any options, Mr. Speaker. We do not have any affordable options. We cannot decide to maybe go and buy an electric-powered vehicle, because here, unlike, say, Alberta, where it is 8 cents a kilowatt hour, our power is 38 cents a kilowatt hour. Just the affordability is not there. It just makes no sense to do that sort of thing.
We do not have cheap fuel options. We do not have natural gas like most of southern Canada has, which is much more affordable than diesel. We just clearly do not have the options. We live in a cold climate where we are penalized. We already live in a higher cost of living jurisdiction, and we don't have options to switch over to. Yet, the federal and our government feel that it is necessary to apply such a tax.
We don't need our behaviour changed, Mr. Speaker, and why? Because we are already doing good things. We were doing these good things long before a discussion of carbon tax came along.
Let's look at government. Government, through our capital asset retrofit program, has been making improvements for eons, improvements that are paying back, by the way, making energy efficiency and savings for tax payers. These have a positive return on investment.
Other orders of government are starting to look at district energy systems. We have all been putting in biomass heaters and boilers in all of our government-owned assets for some period of time now. Why? Because these are the kinds of things that we have to look at in order to lower our energy rates.
Let's talk about, for a moment, what government is doing in terms of leading by example in other areas. We have the Inuvik windmill farm that is going to be coming. We see industry using other options. Diavik has a windmill farm. We have solar panels popping up all over the place. We have communities starting to talk about new microgrids and other alternatives. We have potential for geothermal in the Deh Cho region. These are all things that we were talking about and planning and strategizing about long before anybody felt that they need to slap a carbon tax on us.
Mr. Speaker, we are also doing good things as it relates to enacting legislation and regulations. We have been doing that for a long time. Municipal governments have been doing that for a long time. EnerGuide 80 is a good thing that you can look at towards regulations that are starting to have a positive effect now. We put that in a number of years ago. People are building more energy-efficient homes.
The municipality of the City of Yellowknife now has an energy retrofit program that they are going to be able to put in place, because we enabled them through changing legislation of the Cities, Towns and Villages Act that people can now apply to and have a more affordable way in which to put energy retrofits into their house, because they, too, want to live more affordably, first and foremost, but secondly, they want to reduce their carbon footprint.
Again, we are going to be increasing the Arctic Energy Alliance's budget by nearly double over the next four years. That means that we are going to be giving more rebates back to people. That will incentivize them to put in better energy-efficient appliances, pellet boilers, and pellet stoves, maybe replace some windows, things like that.
It doesn't matter where you look, whether it's government, whether it's industry, whether it's communities, or whether it's individuals; due to where we live, and due to not having other options, we have been doing all the right things for a long, long time. It is shameful that the federal Government of Canada felt that the 100,000 people who live in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, who are the ones that are most impacted by climate change, somehow needed to be slapped a tax on so that they could change their behaviour somehow. This is shameful. I will not be supporting this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Northerners expect real climate change leadership, and that means a plan that works for the NWT. The plan that is being proposed by the GNWT that is central on Bill 42 does not achieve that goal. Only one model of carbon pricing was explored and developed without adequate legislative oversight or public engagement.
Although I support some form of carbon pricing in principle, such as a cap and trade system, I cannot support this plan that leaves unelected public servants responsible for new taxes and rebates without approval by Members of this House, not to mention the significant flaws with the plan as it was laid out and has already been thoroughly debated by this honourable House.
With so many decisions being pushed off to the next Assembly, there is no reason, apart from political pressure from Ottawa, why carbon tax can't wait another four months. Premier Kenney, our Premier's new ally in pursuing the NWT's agenda on the national stage, stood up to the federal government when he received a mandate from Albertans. That's what the people voted for in Alberta, and now they have received an extension until January 1st. Yet we stand down as soon as one email is sent from one political staffer.
Mr. Speaker, Northerners deserve a better plan than this, and I will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I know that it has been a long day, but I need to go on the record for my constituents so that they can see, in the future, what happened here tonight. I supported carbon tax as part of a comprehensive strategy for taking action on climate change. However, I don't support Cabinet's plan.
That plan is made up of three parts: the carbon tax bill that is before us this evening, Bill 42, which imposes, basically, a surcharge, a tax on some fuels. The other two parts of Cabinet's approach on this include the Energy Strategy, and I have spoken at length about the Energy Strategy. It's focused on Taltson rather than building real community and household energy self-sufficiency.
I have also talked about the Climate Change Strategic Framework that did not really address the failures identified by the Auditor General's Office in conducting a climate change audit of the Northwest Territories. The recommendation was that we develop real leadership, structure, organization, to allow for success. We had two strategies previously, they both failed, and I think that we are heading in the same direction. Of course, with the Climate Change Strategic Framework, 44 percent of the greenhouse gas reductions are supposed to come from Taltson expansion. I just can't see how it is going to be accomplished, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of the carbon tax bill has always been pitched by this Cabinet, by this Minister, as the big, bad federal government coming in here and imposing another tax on Northerners. This could have been an opportunity for us to actually face the reality of the climate crisis that is before us and start to find ways to transition to a new economy that is free of fossil fuels and build energy self-sufficiency. That is the kind of transition and leadership that should have come from our Cabinet, but it didn't.
In terms of collaboration with the committee on the development of this plan, I am not a Member of the committee, but I got to sit in on a lot of the deliberations, and I can honestly say that, when the committee had requested options, scenarios, from the Minister, nothing came forward. That information was not provided to committee. You heard from my colleague in Yellowknife Centre about how some other jurisdictions have actually developed plans that I think are far superior to ours.
Committee was interested in taking the bill on the road, but the Minister continued to make changes to the large emitter provisions, and committee felt that there was no way that they could share that information with the public, so what is the point of taking something on the road when you can't share the latest possible information? There wasn't even a plain language summary of the bill and what it would do.
What we have ended up with, Mr. Speaker, is a bill that is a made-by-Cabinet approach where all of the rebates, all of the grants, all of that will be totally controlled by the Minister in the future. We have seen a transfer of the authority of this House to a Minister in a future government to set what that plan is going to look like. I just don't think that this is good public policy.
Others have spoken about the lack of public reporting in the bill. There is no requirement for public reporting of the revenues in and the revenues out. There may not even be an opportunity for the public to comment on the draft regulations that set what the rebates and grants may be in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I tried to bring forward amendments to the bill to require some public reporting, require public input into the regulations. Unfortunately, they were ruled out of order because of the way that the bill had been crafted. I tried to make changes on the floor of the House and wasn't able to, because of the way that the bill was put together.
I am not going to go over the Yukon approach that my colleague from Yellowknife Centre spoke to very eloquently, but it does provide rebates to municipalities, First Nation governments. It does provide for revenue sharing and rebates with adjustments for those living in rural and remote communities. Mr. Speaker, we could and should have had that kind of plan here for our citizens. That's not what we got.
That might still be possible in the future, but not with this bill, not with the plan that Cabinet has developed. I cannot support Cabinet's plan. I believe it should be sent back for a more collaborative approach, for the 19th Assembly to begin to take real action on climate change. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be real quick and short. I don't support a carbon tax. I don't. I don't think it is great. It has an impact on Northerners. Unfortunately, the federal government has come up with it and said, "You either come up with one, or we will impose one." Therefore, I had to make a hard decision based on the information provided to me in this House. I will, as I told the Minister, support this bill. It is about Northerners. For me, it is about my elders who I represent. By allowing the federal government to just put carbon tax onto diesel fuel, we are going to see less fuel going into their homes.
Right now, it is 74 percent. That is what their subsidy is, according to what I have received. We will see this going down even further and further. As fuel goes up and up and the subsidy doesn't move anywhere, we will see that huge impact on our elders. These are the people who brought and were our foundation in the Northwest Territories. I am here standing up for them and saying, "This is not the best possible solution." I need to tell them that this is something that we have to do. At least it is at the origin, where it is going to be sold. It makes a difference for our residents. At least we are not seeing that cost to it. The aviation fuel, in my communities, they have to fly in. They have to charter in. At least now, they are not going to see that cost increased. It is not going to be put onto them.
These are some of the things I had to understand as I vote for this bill. I appreciate my colleagues and their concerns. I heard them. At the end of the day, I have to do what is right for the residents of Nahendeh. I will support this bill at the end of the day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the motion. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments that are being made. I feel compelled to stand up and speak to whoever is left awake in the Northwest Territories at this late hour and let them know because the messaging that they have been getting is: we have been letting some of the negative messaging get out there. We need to not do that. We need to not play politics with something as important as this.
I have heard someone say that our Premier signed onto this Pan-Canadian Framework, and he agreed that we need to come up with a made-in-NWT approach. I believe we did. I believe we did. We did exactly what we said we were going to do. They recognized the uniqueness of the challenges of the Northwest Territories, so we worked with them to come up with an approach instead of just going with the stream, going with the current, sometimes, which is the easiest thing to do as we have seen so many times.
We had a public engagement. We went out to the public across the Northwest Territories. We tabled a "what we heard" document. You can pick and choose things out of there. Of course there are going to be comments in there, truthful comments about "We don't want a tax." They are being honest. A lot of comments in there about "Okay. We are going to be taxed, but we are worried about cost of living." We tried to take steps to address that.
I hear the comments about "Well, this jurisdiction that. This jurisdiction that. This jurisdiction that." I heard a number of comments about the Yukon. They are providing $11.7 million in rebates to individuals. Northwest Territories is providing about $18.5 million between COLO and the point of purchase rebate on heating fuel. They also provide rebates similar to NWT COLO. However, they are not rebating the carbon tax on heating fuel, which results in the NWT, in my opinion, being superior.
By providing a point of purchase on the carbon tax on heating fuel, this ensures that those who pay the carbon tax, like homeowners who pay all their bills, receive the rebate. It doesn't require the resident to pay the carbon tax upfront. This applies to businesses, as well. They are not required to pay the carbon tax on the heating fuel upfront because, if they had to, they would have to pass those costs on to someone. Who would they pass them on to?
We recognize what this carbon tax is supposed to do. It is supposed to do our part in helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. We will do that. We also have an obligation to the people of the Northwest Territories that we are going to try and do what we can to protect them and their well-being and not have things to a place where it is so high that they consider moving out.
I have heard both the work that another jurisdiction is doing with the mines. One jurisdiction referenced, "Provide 100 percent rebate to the mining industry." How can we say we do that? Our system rebates about 84 percent. Some of that rebate is tied to greenhouse gas reducing initiatives. The jurisdiction in question is also not investing very much of their carbon tax, if any, into energy initiatives. Our government is expecting to invest about $8 million annually in energy initiatives with carbon tax revenue.
Municipal and Indigenous governments will receive some money under another rebate but will pay the carbon tax on all fuels. In the NWT, our community governments and organizations will get the point of purchase rebate on carbon tax on heating fuel. This is expected to save NWT community governments $1.1 million in carbon tax.
Electricity rates will also be protected for the community governments. Businesses in the Yukon are being rebated some money. In the Northwest Territories, businesses are being supported through the purchase rebates on heating fuel, which in our climate, as we all know, is a big cost driver. Let's face the reality here. It is a big cost driver.
My understanding from the information I got is that Nunavut and NWT Chamber of Mines doesn't agree with the Canadian Mine Association's position on carbon pricing.
We have done a lot of work. We have done the public engagement. We have listened to them. We have heard what they had to say. For anybody to stand there and say that this government is more concerned about rebates and that, we are trying to do our part in reducing the greenhouse gas emission. We will continue to do that. We have had a lot of energy initiatives that have been funded by this government. We have a lot of energy initiatives that have been partially funded by the federal government in their attempt to reduce the greenhouse.
Let's not use this as political pandering, Mr. Speaker. I mean that seriously. This is something that is very serious. I commend those who have said that, as hard as this is, "I am going to bite the bullet. I am going to support this." Because of the two options, I believe what they told me, first of all: I believe our plan is better.
I will continue to defend this because, at the end of the day, the bottom line is: we need to do our part. Even though our emissions are quite low compared to the rest of Canada, we will do our part. We have to. We have to. Our climate is very important to us. Let's not sound like it is, not to this Minister and the people he represents and the Indigenous people that he is a part of. Don't tell me that.
Again, I will go back to the fact that I commend those who have said this is a hard decision that they have to make. I have said that already, and I will say it again.
Mr. Speaker, it might look good, saying, "I am opposed to a carbon tax. I want to delay the carbon tax." It is going to be implemented. We have been told that. It is going to be implemented. It might look good politically to say that, but reality says that this is going to be implemented, and I will not take a chance on the well-being of the people of the Northwest Territories by playing politics with something as important as this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the motion.
Question.
The Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South.
Masi. All those opposed, please stand.
The Member for Hay River North, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Masi. All those abstaining, please stand. The results of the recorded vote: 12 in favour, five opposed, zero abstentions. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Bill 42 has had its third reading. Third reading of bills. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 43, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be read for the third time; and, Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
