Thank you. Moving on to management board secretariat beginning on page 169, information items on page 173. Are there any questions?
Seeing none. Okay, my eyes are -- okay, I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.
Oh no, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Range Lake, sorry. Range Lake.
There's a lot of lakes over here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I'd like to talk about the carbon tax offsets, the cost of living, the COLO, the cost of living tax credit.
The last budget process, there was a commitment to revenue neutral carbon pricing regime. We do not see detailed itemization on how this revenue's reallocated to be revenue neutral which is something that -- was a commitment last time. Why wasn't it -- why can't we find that in the main estimates, a revenue neutral carbon tax? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, appreciate the question. It won't necessarily show up as a line item here. The list of things that are being done within the GNWT right now to support carbon neutrality and environmental and climate change related initiatives are across departments, and so they wouldn't just show up right directly underneath this line item, but I can give some examples thereof.
We do have, for example, the cumulative impact monitoring that comes in around $3 million. Alternative and renewable energy programs and alternative technologies program as in and around just over nearing $300,000. Arctic Energy Alliance, 1.4. The offsets that go towards the Inuvik wind and battery program which was $38 million. And another long list of items, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure -- happy to read it here or if the Member would prefer, we could certainly find a better way to do that. Consider, perhaps, either a letter to committee or some other fashion, but there's a long list of things that do total up -- more than total up the amount of income that we do receive from the carbon tax. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you. I think the carbon tax report would probably be the best place for it. The issue was in that report previously, there's just been a line item for general revenue or a large -- anything that's not spoken for through the rebate programs is just revenue to the GNWT and then the argument is, well, the GNWT does lots of stuff that's related to climate so that's how we're doing. So it's, you know, dollar for dollar accounting of how it goes. I think the report would be the best place to do that. Can the Minister make that commitment? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I believe we certainly could make -- add a page to the report that comes out detailing the initiatives and different programs that are being spent in here. I anticipate that should be not a problem. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The carbon tax offsets have doubled in these estimates from the revised estimates. Can the Minister explain why that is. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The increase, Mr. Chair, is due firstly because the carbon tax rates are going up. There was an increase of $15 per ton. And there was also, of course, the change in terms of the impact of having heating fuel removed which saw a significant change year over year. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you. Shouldn't that make it go down, Mr. Chair? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
If I could direct it over to director of shared corporate services, Mr. Chair, please.
Thank you. I'll go to the director.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the budget is revised to be more in line with the actuals as the actuals came in higher than originally budgeted, and the addition of the diesel heating rebate approved in 2024 added to the expenditures. The COLO did reduce by a minor amount due to the addition of the home heating rebate. And also, we see an increase in the electricity rebate due to low water. I think there is no -- there is no carbon tax on diesel used to generate electricity. And then, in addition, we have community grant. A portion of the net carbon tax is sent to -- or shared with communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you. So the increase then -- it sounds like the increase is solely due to the increased cost per ton, is that correct? Thank you.
Thank you. To the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The increase is contributed to cost per ton, and it could also increase with the change in volume usage. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you. Okay, so I mean hopefully this is a moot point because it seems like there's, again, movement federally to eliminate these. So what is the plan if there is a change to the policy direction from the federal government towards consumer carbon taxes, how will these numbers change? Thank you.
Thank you. To the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we're certainly live to what's being said on the national stage by prospective future leaders of the country and what they may or may not do. Obviously, Mr. Chair, we certainly do want to be prepared to action a change if there is one, but it certainly hasn't happened yet, and the election hasn't been called as of yet. So what the outcome would be if we were to be in a situation where we're having to respond to the reduction on the carbon tax, there would be a net loss of income, revenue generation income, about $11 million approximately. But that, Mr. Chair, is a pretty small amount overall in the grand scheme of the total revenues of the budget, so I certainly wouldn’t want it to make it sound like that would be any kind of barrier. It would be a matter, if it needed to be done quickly, that we could certainly make decisions as an Assembly that that's a direction we want to go, and it can be done relatively quickly through a use of the regulations. But, again, at this point there just hasn't actually been an election called, so we have not taken any steps to make any changes that would bring us out of compliance with the current law. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.
So just to confirm, the consumer carbon tax is worth $11 million to this government? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Mr. Chair, I believe the $11 million is for the total net revenue that we would have. I was just trying to pull the revenue numbers. I can confirm -- if I can, Mr. Chair, I will try to confirm quickly the portion that is only for consumer, but it would be less than that. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you. I guess, like, because there would -- I'm looking for gross I guess, or like, the total revenue, because the COLO won't exist either. If the consumer tax goes, there will be nothing to fund the COLO. So I assume that would be direction; maybe we'll confirm that. Will the carbon tax payout stop when the carbon tax revenues stop as well; are they going to be tied together? Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chair. We're providing the cost of living offsets to offset the impacts of the tax. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
So $11 million is not a lot in the grand scheme of things unless you're $3.2 million away from your debt ceiling. So is the government prepared to lose this revenue -- how will this impact the DAT, the fiscal responsibility policy, the sustainability policy? Like, have we factored in this very likely scenario into our financial projections? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there are contingencies built into the fiscal strategy. You know, for example, even just knowing around that there might be -- you know, going into collective agreement, bargaining, it's factored in. This -- yes, an $11 million in revenue, I certainly don't want to understate that that would not be something to take lightly. At the same time, on, you know, a budget that is almost $2.7 billion, that amount of revenue change overall is one that can be managed throughout the course of the year. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Okay. Finally, very quickly, does the government intend to maintain taxes on industry and rebates for industry? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, again, Mr. Chair, this is back to, as I suggested earlier, that not yet finally knowing, A, when an election will be called; and, B, who would be elected, when they would be elected, and when they might make whatever changes they might make. The uncertainties that pile up with that, Mr. Chair, we're not going to be coming out right now and saying what we will or will not do other than to say that we'll remain in compliance at this time with the federal legislation, and, obviously, as that may vary, then we would be in a position to decide whether we want to vary ours. I mean, again, and the Member's mentioned this, that there may be some contenders who would say that they would remove the consumer portion and not the output-based system, whether the output-based system would be reasonable or relevant to us, again, to date, that's not been the response we've had from industry here. So, again, I -- and there may be variants to that -- those programs when somebody gets into office. So some unknowns but, again, happy to continue to brief on it with committee, happy to ensure that it does stay top of mind and that we monitor what different options we might be looking at. Again, I'm confident that given that it will be happening over the course of sometime and not instantly that we'll be able to manage that through the course of our fiscal year. Thank you.
Thank you. Next on my list I have is the Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to pick up on one question before I go to the area I would like to explore. But one of the questions I think in my mind -- maybe it wasn't 100 percent clear, and perhaps it's -- I'll frame it this way: Is the department exploring options for a replacement carbon tax? Have they come up with scenarios or any type of framework if things change? Because I can't imagine the government sitting in complete absence of this in their mind and completely sitting on their hands while this is a live issue? So this is not more hypothetical. This is the fact that are they exploring options or in scenarios? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, again, Mr. Chair, the department does have folks who have been involved with the file and with the evolution of the federal carbon tax system for quite some time, since its early inception. They were able to respond when there were changes coming out from the federal government in the last couple of years, more than once, and those same individuals, Mr. Chair, continue to monitor what comments are being made. But until we know with some finality if we're dealing with no carbon tax, if we're dealing with a modified carbon tax, if we're dealing with only an industrial tax, or if we're moving entirely to a cap and trade system, Mr. Chair, I'm not in a position to say what response we would have here. We would certainly want to, you know, again ensure that we are responding to the situation when we know what it actually is. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it kind of perplexing, and maybe the Minister can clarify if I'm misunderstanding her point, that if she's saying we're not doing anything until someone else does it first, that seems kind of odd especially considering the conversation is very live about nobody wants this carbon tax anymore, the department isn't developing scenarios as to what's next or preparing for it. So I'm trying to get a sense, are they developing any scenarios, or are they choosing to do nothing until someone does it to us? That's really what I'm getting at.
