Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not going to make any substantive comments on the bill itself. I believe the report does that and, you know, it was my job as chair to try and navigate the multiple submissions we got. I just, for the record and for the public, want to explain the process we are in.
We are currently reviewing the committee report which has recommendations. Each of those will be voted on. The report itself is not the bill. In order for this bill to pass, there are still a number of steps that would need to occur. One, it would need to be called in Committee of the Whole, a clause by clause with the Minister and witnesses in the chair, would have to occur; each clause would have to be approved; then it would have to get out of Committee of the Whole and past third reading. And so I just think it's important for the public to understand how our processes work. We're all used to them by now but they're rather confusing, and they're long to make sure there is multiple debates awarded to all Members. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. I will now Minister Wawzonek.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, typically and I suppose if we're talking process, typically you'll find Members of Cabinet don't always speak to recommendations to reports, and it's not because we're not listening but it's the typical practice that it's a direction to Cabinet to do something which is why we abstain typically on these votes. But this has been a very public process and one that I agree with comments already that putting more information out in this particular instance is really for the overall benefit. So I have had the benefit of sharing some remarks with my colleagues just so that they're to that extent hopefully there's no surprises, if not everyone on Cabinet speaks again. That is our usual process and we are able to discuss in advance what one Minister might say such as in an instance like this one.
I understand firstly, and I think it's technically the last recommendation, that there be a response in 120 days. That's fairly standard. Again though, I'm speaking today, again in part, because 120 days is a bit late. April 1st, the federal carbon tax rates increase and any jurisdiction, as you've heard from the Member earlier, that hasn't made a change will have the backstop imposed. So while if committee's recommendations in the report is accepted, we are going to try and have a formal response back as quickly as possible and much sooner than that. I nevertheless want to take this opportunity to speak here.
Firstly, Madam Chair, why did we not want the federal system voluntarily or imposed? In short, really, there was just no sign at any point earlier on or now that we'd be better off as a territory, that our economy would be better off, that residents would be better off under the federal system. I disagree that it's unfair or that there's any lack of open accounting.
Madam Chair, every single dollar that gets spent by the Government of the Northwest Territories is approved by the Legislative Assembly, and every single dollar that is spent is then reviewed by the Auditor General of Canada. So there's ample opportunity to have a lot of control in this House about what is spent and how and then to have that process reviewed through the public accounting process. But, Madam Chair, we do want to ensure when we are having the opportunity to have revenue from income or revenue from taxes that we continue to have control and oversight over those revenues and that really is all that's happening in Bill 60. And once you give up that control, if you opt into the federal system or have it imposed, either way, it's irreversible. That federal system is then implemented. It's here in whatever fashion. And the goalposts have already changed. The federal government's changed the goalposts for those who opted in earlier under the previous original system. They've eliminated the heating fuel rebate. They've made other changes, things you can or cannot do with your rebate system, in or out. And if we had opted in or if we opted in now, we'd be under that circumstance going into the future. We don't want to do that. We find one of the big things and I know that one that hasn't had as much time is the large emitter system in favour of the federal outputbased production system, or OBPS.
There are down sides to OBPS for the Northwest Territories. First, Madam Chair, adopting OBPS would create an inequitable carbon tax burden. Let me explain that.
We've used fuel tax data to show that greenhouse gas emissions are about the same whether you're the three diamond mines or all other fuel consumers. So if you have the OBPS system where we'd be getting less tax revenue, basically it means that even though 50 percent of fuel usage is coming from the diamond mines, they would not be paying 50 percent of the carbon tax burden. We would not be receiving that enhanced revenue from them. OBPS would have them actually right now today paying less tax. So it seemed, frankly, rather obvious that we want to keep that system. But I acknowledge that perhaps it's been poorly understood. And as I said, it's less government revenue overall. That means less revenue for everything that we want to do here in this Assembly. But also importantly, besides being a hit to ourselves in terms of what we can do with our resources and revenues, the OBPS approach also isn't very responsive to the nature of the mineral resource industry in the North. And while they might pay a little bit less right now, that benefit would disappear as a large mine starts to, or may have to, reduce production if they move to or when they move towards closure and reclamation. There's also no offset system or process if a mine is coming in and being constructed and built.
So it's talked about in this House all the time, the high costs of doing business, the high costs of development, the lack of infrastructure. And here we have a madeinthe North system that provides a different way for large industry to invest, to build, and to exist, rather than the federal style system which uses an industry standard and a standard that may well be relying on a standard developed using lower cost jurisdictions. That has no benefit to our industry here in the North.
Madam Chair, I'll speak now just briefly to the recommendations, which really weren't focused on that large emitter system. But the large emitter program, really again, is a big part of why it seemed, quite frankly, quite obvious that we wanted to stay out of the federal system. But the recommendations in the report, I do I'm hearing people. I'm hearing my colleagues. And if I sound frustrated, it's not at them; it's frustrated that I share the frustration and it seems like we're all actually saying the same thing and yet continue to disagree, which is frustrating.
The recommendations, from what I've read and from what I've heard, are largely a dissatisfaction with the federal carbon pricing benchmark. It increases the carbon tax rates and puts a tax on heating fuel and that's what brings us largely here. So of course, there's a public engagement process. That is conducted by standing committee in the usual course after first reading of a bill. That public briefing was back in November. And in response to that briefing, in response to the concerns raised particularly from high cost zones, is exactly why we went back and created the zoned system for the cost of living offset. It was precisely to benefit residents in the highest cost zones, in particular Nunakput, and to ensure that those residents would get a higher amount to reflect the higher costs.
So in February, we thought it would be clause by clause and that turned into another public hearing. But in the course of that, we received more feedback.
The first formal feedback was this report that we have now. But nevertheless, even before receiving this report, Madam Chair, we were able to go back and realize that we could, indeed, find a way to do a revenue sharing agreement with or revenue sharing approach with the communities. We've done that. We've proposed to put in 5 percent for communities. Well, Madam Chair, I have to knowledge again, that's clearly been unsatisfactory, and we're proposing to, frankly, to double that, to bring that up to 10 percent revenue sharing.
The idea some of the other recommendations, Madam Chair, we'll go through. As I said, we'll try to have a formal response because they are speaking to concerns with the carbon tax system and the imposition thereof and not necessarily to Bill C60, which is really just trying to find really just imposes the carbon tax rates. That is all it does.
Now as for whether or not we would relinquish the or yes, relinquish control and power, Madam Chair, respectfully, it's not about that. It's about maintaining flexibility. So in terms of ensuring that we as a government have flexibility to determine, you know, today, where do we want to see the revenues go, how do we want to recycle revenues, the idea of doing the graded system based on averages to best serve the residents in the small communities who have the highest costs, maybe we do have to make some changes to those zones. Is 10 percent enough? It's more than what we've calculated based, again, on our fuel tax use rates; it's more than what we have calculated to be required but maybe that needs to be adjusted. Madam Chair, it seems that we would indeed want to keep those things in regulations so that they can be changed more easily. That is the way of things here.
I know I'm running short on time, Madam Chair, and so I think I'll probably wind up putting a lot more of what I wanted to say in a formal response. But the other thing I feel compelled to speak to is the idea that we haven't gone to the federal government about this. Madam Chair, this doesn't appear anywhere in committee's report. Madam Chair, I've shared my correspondence, multiple letters with committee. They weren't present at various inperson opportunities but I've had inperson opportunities too. And even though there's a multitude of issues that we want to raise with the federal government, I raised this one. And I raised this one in some of the strongest terms available to me. I have had no positive response. I have had no indication of change. It gives me no confidence that putting control over the carbon tax in the hands of the federal government would put the residents of the Northwest Territories better off. It is the opposite. We relinquish the control and we put ourselves under the federal government system. From based on the kind of response I've had, which is none, we would not be better off; we'd have no control of our revenues and residents wouldn't see anything better coming to them. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Seeing no further general comments, Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move that this Assembly call on the federal government to better recognize the specific needs and circumstances of the Northwest Territories in its climate change approach. These specific needs include significantly more funding to make renewable energy options accessible and affordable for all Northerners;
Further, committee recommends that the Premier of the Northwest Territories convey this motion without delay to the Prime Minister of Canada with a letter requesting a reply.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I guess I find it necessary to respond to some of the things we just heard from the finance minister, but I also want to put this recommendation in context in terms of what the committee heard and saw. So, you know, Regular MLAs, we asked for this correspondence between the Minister and the federal government. We asked for that in July. We didn't get it until January, months later, months later after repeated requests. Repeated requests, Madam Chair. I've reviewed it, and of course I can't talk about it in any great detail here but what I saw was some pretty I think the federal government was quite flexible in how jurisdictions could approach a carbon tax, how they could design a system that would meet their own needs, and even if they decided to go into the federal backstop it was laid out in pretty clear terms. I think there was a lot of flexibility shown on their part. I don't think I can say much more, but I think that there was some commitments on our part that weren't fulfilled, but. I saw the correspondence. I reviewed it carefully. But it took us months to get that. Months.
So this recommendation, though, is not from Cabinet, not from the finance minister, this is from the Legislative Assembly. And if the motion passes, I think it reflects the will of this House. That's different than a finance minister writing to, you know, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This is a letter that would go to the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada also, as we understand, made some commitments to this government when GNWT did sign on to the PanCanadian Framework. And I think there's probably still some room to maneuver and try to work with the federal government to get greater investment here so that we can develop more alternatives on renewable energy to help give people more choices and reduce their cost of living. And that's what this is really aimed at. So I don't think this is necessarily a criticism of Cabinet or the finance minister. This is trying to follow up with commitments that had been made in the last Assembly and making sure that this expression comes from the House, not just from the Cabinet's side. So I support this motion, Madam Chair. And I think it's a reasonable one. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I too wanted to speak to this recommendation. I feel strongly that Northerners are currently in a kind of northern double jeopardy where right now Northerners are being they're seeing increases to their power rates through NTPC for using archaic energy infrastructure and then on the flip side they're going taxed through the carbon tax for using that infrastructure and not using alternatives but these alternatives don't exist to Northerners. And so if we're going to turn around and kind of, so to speak, slap Northerners on the wrist for not using these alternatives, then we need to make sure that these alternatives are available and that they're affordable. And this speaks not only to the NWT being able to achieve its greenhouse gas goals but also to the entire country being able to achieve its goals in partnership with all of its jurisdictions.
I also want to say here, Madam Chair, that increasing the cost of living in the Northwest Territories is not only a concern about cost of living; it also has huge impacts on whether or not people are going to stay in the Northwest Territories and, in turn, that has impacts on Arctic sovereignty, Arctic security, and also on reconciliation. So I support this recommendation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? The motion is carried.
Carried
Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Northwest Territories Power Corporation increase the cap on intermittent renewable energy generation that the residents and communities can install to offset their power use and develop a plan to support projects above the current cap.
And further, that NTPC and the Department of Infrastructure provide their response to the May 2021 net metering and community selfgeneration policy review. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
And furthermore, that each recommendation, NTPC and the department should indicate whether it agreed its work plan for implementation and its progress towards implementation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I support this motion and I want to thank, first of all, my colleagues for doing all this work on this. I am not on this committee and it has been a struggle to keep up with everything that's been going on. So what I like about this or what I think is really important about this one is that I don't think that the people of our territory or the residents of our territory, private business, should be paying for the failure of the Northwest Territories Power Corporation to maintain its grid properly. It was really shocking to me when I came into Cabinet actually, as a Minister, and was told that the Town of Inuvik could no longer add any future solar panels because it would cause too much of a drain to the power corp and it would no longer be able to sustain itself in that region. I know since then we've had some other projects come up but it is still my understanding, and again not an expert, that, you know, the power corp is or the rate, the cap, is restricting people from doing their own work or for creating innovative industries around renewables and such. So to me, while I understand that this is likely going to have a huge issue and cost to the power corp, I no longer think that's the problem of the residents of the Northwest Territories; that's the problem of the power corp. And the power corp being run by the board of deputy ministers, I think then becomes a problem of the Government of the Northwest Territories. Clearly if we'd been putting money into renewables 20 years ago, we wouldn't be in this problem. So I support this motion, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this is something that I spoke about in the House last week. And it's one thing to have the actual energy alternatives available to Northerners, but it's another thing to actually empower Northerners to use those energy alternatives. And NTPC needs a progressive plan to actually welcome these energy alternatives into its system and to the people of the Northwest Territories while still being able to maintain the affordability of a shrinking client base, and that's really the policy work that needs to be done here, is how do they both maintain energy as maintain energy provision as other people are shifting off and on to alternatives. So I support this motion, and I think it's an important one, and as my colleague said it is well behind the times. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I too support this motion. And I think it's you know, if you look at this in the context of the report itself, it comes back to how residents that have expressed to us as Regular MLAs and through the committee review process that they feel that there's not enough alternatives in terms of energy choices for people. And as I understand it, this you know, we've talked about net metering for at least the seven years I've been an MLA, the need to review that and improve it. It's tied up with our energy future future, bigger picture issues. You know, we've got NTPC; there's governance issues, problems there; there's also they have a huge grid. And while the world is moving towards smaller grids and energy selfsufficiency, and this is really about transformation of all of this, but giving people more energy choices. As I understand it, this specific recommendation around reviewing net metering is something that's already in the next action plan under the energy strategy. It's something that as I understand committee or sorry, Cabinet, the government, is actually going to start to do anyway. So I expect when we get a response back that they're going to say that this work has already started. But I think this is some extra pushing along the way to make sure that we get the right kind of policy direction to the public utilities board, to look at net metering again, but also to redirect the Northwest Territories Power Corporation to encourage greater use of renewables and alternatives to help build energy selfsufficiency and give people more energy choices. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I want to read something that a constituent sent to me yesterday, and I tabled it today, but I just want to read a portion of it, and I quote: "The bottom line is that the carbon tax is purely punitive for Northerners. There's no evidence that the carbon tax will drive down carbon emissions in the North nor that the minuscule reduction in carbon emissions will have any meaningful impact. If anything, the carbon tax will have the effect of driving industry, jobs, and population away from the Northwest Territories."
Madam Chair, you know, we've slowly killed off or we're slowly trying to kill off the oil and gas industry which has you know, which has provided some benefits to, you know, the people in the far North. And with carbon tax, we are slowly killing off, I think, you know, the Northwest Territories itself. And we have to do something. We have to make the federal government realize that, yes, we are different. We're living in a you know, in an area that's remote. It's costly to live here. We choose to live here mind you. So I think it's very important that that message gets conveyed to the federal government and that they actually look at they look at ways to, you know, offset those costs. I don't think they're going to go away. And so I you know, with this motion there, I'm glad to see it in front of us and I support it. But at the end of the day, I think it's a bigger picture and we have to do something and, you know, for the NWT I guess, looking after and keeping control of the system I have no problem with that, but at the end of the day, it's you know, it's about the people in the North. It's about the cost of living. And it's slowly slowly killing you know, killing the people off, you know, by, you know, just keeping piling, you know, costs on top of costs. And we can't we got to stop somewhere. And this one here is probably a good place to actually take a stand and let the feds know that, you know, we don't want to you know, we don't want to take any more. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Minister Wawzonek.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'll be very brief. The Member from Frame Lake actually made my point which is that this the matter of finding a solution to incentivize alternative energy within the power corporation has been acknowledged as a challenge and a problem and one that is a solution is going to be sought for. So did want to emphasize that, again, the finding of the issues, defining the problems, I certainly share that view of it. Bill 60 isn't connected to the it's not directly connected and certainly can't solve this problem. Bill 60 is just, again, raising the tax rates so that we can keep our system and keep the revenues from it. And, quite frankly, Madam Chair, it may well be that some of those revenues get directed to efforts on in the energy strategy to provide those kinds of alternatives. That's one of the reasons, again, we want to maintain those revenues here and to maintain the higher revenues through the large emitter system. But just I wanted to make sure that folks were aware that Bill 60 doesn't impact directly on the work that's happening already to solve that problem. That work does need to happen.
And just so there's no confusion, electricity generation, that is still exempt. So to the extent that communities are relying on diesel to generate electricity, that diesel is still exempt, just so, again, so the public is aware. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried.
Carried
Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories provide funding to community governments to compensate for their increased carbon tax payments;
And further, that this committee specifically recommends providing an additional $2.2 million in the 20232024 fiscal year with subsequent funding increasing proportionally to any future increase in carbon tax rates. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, when committee was doing its work, it took a significant amount of time to do the oh sorry, I just ran down the stairs. It took a significant amount of time to actually look at a jurisdictional scan and look at what other what other regions across Canada were doing, particularly other territories. And what we came across was the what is used by the Government of the Yukon, which provides municipal governments with 3.5 percent of its total carbon rebate. And while I appreciate what the Minister is talking about in terms of meeting committee a little bit closer to where we're at, the $2.2 million, really, that we are asking for here, ends up being equal to nearly the 3.5 percent that is being stipulated in legislation by the Yukon government.
One of the things that I think is really, really important is that within the territory within our communities, there are some that are taxbased, some that are not. The communities that are taxbased have indicated that if they do not receive any kind of rebates that their property taxes will go up. I've said already that I believe that the carbon tax is yet another increase in cost of living in the Northwest Territories that is going to continue to hollow out our middle class; it is going to continue to push people and industry away from the territory if it is costing them more to employ people, costing them more to they themselves operate a business here and also to pay their workers here. And this is a huge, huge concern when we are trying to grow our territory.
The people that I serve cannot afford additional increases. They feel like they are being squeezed at all ends right now and they feel, especially business owners postCOVID, that they need time to catch up. They held their breath for years while they were on lock downs and trying to mitigate public health orders and they need some time to catch their breath, Madam Chair.
That doesn't speak to the nontaxbased communities that can't turn around and increase their property taxes. Nontaxbased communities, we heard through NWTAC, are going to have to turn around and cut their programming from somewhere in order to pay for the differences in carbon tax. And the number one programming, they said is cut first in their communities, is recreational programming. This is a huge concern from the Standing Committee on Social Development because when we went and spoke to communities about child and family services, so how to lift northern families and support stable environments for families to grow in, when we went and spoke to communities about homelessness prevention, and when we spoke to youth about suicide prevention which is another report that we intend to table in this sitting of the Assembly, the one theme that connected all of those pieces so powerfully was access to recreational programming. And this is a massive concern in our territory, and our youth cannot afford to have less programming in their communities. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I support this motion. And just a little bit more background, committee did receive a presentation from the Northwest Territories Association of Communities, and in their written submission and in the discussion that was had with the representatives, this particular ask is based on what actually happens in the Yukon. That's how they calculated what they would like to receive to help offset and mitigate the impacts of the carbon tax. And I'm not going to attempt to explain what kind of impacts they anticipate. I think my colleague from Kam Lake did an excellent job on that. But that's what the ask is. And, you know, a bit of a surprise here today to hear the Minister of Finance say that Cabinet has reconsidered this and is willing to look at a 10 percent, I guess, use of residual funds from the carbon tax and provide that to community governments. I think I'd rather kind of see a percentage of the total rather than the residual amount.
And I guess the other area that's uncertain for me in what the Minister has offered is how that's going to be done. You know, I guess the mechanism's going to be a regulation because Cabinet, if Bill 60 does pass, has total discretion about rebates. They can the Minister might call it flexibility; I call it total discretion. And I think what we have here is a crisis in trust, quite frankly, but. So I presume that this would then be done through a regulation, and that regulation might be good from this Cabinet but what happens when the next Cabinet comes in? They could change it. That's why, Madam Chair, I preferred a legislated approach that where we could probably build in some flexibility, but a legislated approach, then you have to come back to the House if you're going to start to change that in significant substantive ways, take away the money that should go to communities. I'm sorry to say, Madam Chair, for me this is a crisis of trust. And from what I've seen with how that discretion was exercised from the first carbon tax bill to now, I'm not prepared to go there. So I think we still need a plan B, and that will be the next recommendation, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Minister Wawzonek.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, just to start, yes, I mean I'm sad to hear that there's this crisis in trust. I happen to be the same Minister that goes through the budget negotiations twice a year every year. So, and I actually as much as that process gets stressful at times, Madam Chair, we are a consensus government. We always somehow manage to come together. We always somehow manage to find pathways forward, even when there are large divides between us at times. Madam Chair, I just I guess I haven't seen any reason to think that the consensus system doesn't apply to absolutely everything else that we do, whether it's motions on legislation, whether it's recommendations in reports, it's still a consensus government and no dollar is going to pass this House unless we come to those agreements in the big picture. And bills don't pass this House unless there's agreements on the big picture, much like Bill 60. So I keep trying to come back to Bill 60. I'm not trying to narrow it, you know, inappropriately. I'm trying to just make clear for the public that this is just about raising the amounts to comply so that we can continue to go and do the things we had been doing, which was to ensure we have an industry to have jobs and to provide dollars back into the hands of residents so that they aren't unnecessarily impacted. I don't have the math, if you will, or the evidentiary basis for the $2.2 million ask that's being put forward. Madam Chair, I do have, however, records of total utility costs paid by communities. So in looking at the total utilities paid by communities, we are able to calculate what the impact of the carbon tax increase would be. That's where the 5 percent comes from, just so everyone is clear. It is approximately $940,000. And that seemed to make sense as a number. But, again, it is a consensus government and we want to try to be responsive. And so yes, we are certainly trying to be alive to the fact that everyone is facing some pressure on this bill, that there are going to be increases in costs. We've tried to account for the indirect costs. But, yes, Madam Chair, I do have ability to increase what we're proposing would be the sharing of revenues on this. I think it's appropriate to get into those details maybe with committee, not in this process but in others, and I would be happy to do so prior to the bill potentially coming forward. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? The motion is carried.
Carried
Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Northwest Territories create a law that requires all carbon tax revenues to be rebated to households, business community, businesses, community governments, Indigenous governments, and nongovernmental organizations.
And further, in creating this law, the government should consider how rebates to each group will work and whether the carbon tax system should be revenue neutral.
And furthermore, this law should also require a separate accounting and annual reporting. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. It's kind of a weird situation that we're having some debate and discussion back and forth in this kind of forum, but I think it's an important debate and discussion that the public needs to hear, and maybe we can still reach some kind of a compromise. But, you know, I guess the other thing I want the public to know is that the ability of the Regular Members to change this bill is zero. We cannot change it in any significant way. The way that it was crafted, the way that it was put together, it's a carbon copy of what happened in the last Assembly. In the last Assembly, I tried to get an amendment to the bill that would build in a requirement for public reporting, and it was ruled out of order because the way the bill had been drafted. So our ability as Regular MLAs to make any changes to this is zero. You know, as much and, you know, I raised this issue with the Minister right at the very beginning. I said, you know, I don't want to see a carbon copy come forward that we have no ability to change. And that's what we got. There's no room to negotiate in terms of making changes to the bill itself. And it does leave all the discretion and authority with the Cabinet. You know, I would have much rather prefer that we work collaboratively on an approach where we could have made, in our view, my view, a fair set of offsets, rebates, for all of the business communities. But that's not what we got. We got a bill that sets out a schedule that meets the federal targets, and that's about it. So our ability to change it is zero. We can't do it. We can't make any changes. We can't even insert a requirement for public reporting, separate accounting. And the Minister's right, that does happen. But it happens perhaps a little bit after the fact. It is discretionary right now. I'd actually rather see it right in the bill. And that kind of reporting should include something about the effectiveness of the carbon tax in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As difficult as that might be at times, that should be in the bill itself. But we can't do it. We can't make any changes to it.
So I guess the other thing I want to say is while I have characterized this as a crisis of trust, that's me as an individual, and that's with regard to the carbon tax and the way that this has been done. I think I have a good working relationship with the Minister of Finance on most of the other files. Most of the other files. Perhaps we disagree on some. I'm not even going to use one word that seems to be a trigger so I'm not going to go there. But, you know, I guess and I just don't understand how we got to this point where we didn't find a way to work together. And I still think that there is a way for us to work together between now and March 31st, and this is the way to do it, is to sit down, try to develop a plan together that puts in the right kind of offsets. But I'm just not comfortable leaving it to regulations in the future that a future Cabinet can change. Yeah, they want flexibility, but we also want some a framework somehow, Madam Chair, that creates a comfort zone that we know where we're going, and we have a path forward. That's not what we have in the bill. So I think there's still an opportunity to try to work together, and I would really like to be able to do that, and I think we've made some progress. But for me, I want a legislated approach that creates that certainty, that comfort of where we're going. And I think we can do it, and I think we can do it together and still allow for some flexibility setting some of the things through regulation. But I want to know, and I think the public deserves to know, that community governments are going to get something back and it's going to be in the legislation itself. Indigenous governments are going to get something back and it's in the bill. NGOs, small businesses are going to get something, and it's in the bill. It's not left to the discretion of Cabinet in setting through regulations. That's the kind of framework that I think we need. And if you want differential cost of living, put it in the bill. Don't leave it to regulations. That's why we need a legislated approach, and I think we could do it on our own. And if we needed to, we could even do that under the federal backstop like the Yukon has done. And that's what this recommendation is about, and I want to work with my Cabinet colleagues to get this done. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Nunakput.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's just keep it simple and kill the bill and go to the federal backstop. Pretty simple. My colleagues on this side of the House, you know, I I'm really concerned with this like I said in my opening remarks on the bill. We have to make a way for our people in the communities that we represent. People are going hungry. People are needing. And if we add this carbon tax, 17 percent across the board, that's a rippling effect. Our carbon right now, and across the territory, is 0.05 percent, Madam Chair. You know, if we add that 17 percent, that's going to be paying in my riding four and half times more than what we pay. It's not going to any kind of monies that you have, you do have, you're not going to be able to buy anything. People are people are suffering right now. It's easier to go to the federal backstop and make it simple. Kill the bill. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I won't keep everybody very long here. But what I really wanted to say here is there's zero guarantee that anybody in this room who is debating this right now will be here in six months. None. And so if it's important to anybody in this room, for example, that the revenue sharing from carbon tax goes to community governments, Indigenous governments, nongovernmental organizations, then that needs to be in legislation. If it's not in legislation, we don't have the opportunity for changes to how that revenue sharing is happening to come forward in a bill. And that means that it doesn't have the opportunity to then go to committee where committee gets to look at it and from that process, members of the public get to participate in public hearings. We had the opportunity to hear from individual residents, from the NWT Senior's Society, from NWTAC, and from Indigenous governments on what they wanted to see within this bill. And if we don't have the opportunity to hear from people, we don't have the opportunity to really learn how it's working or how it's not working. And from there, we don't have the opportunity to uphold the democratic process and the beauty of consensus government where we get to have these conversations, and we don't get to have conversations to this extent about accountability of public dollars. So I think having it in the legislation is really important. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Member for Thebacha.
