Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products Tax Act, be read for the second time.
The bill amends the Petroleum Products Tax Act to impose a carbon tax on petroleum products and natural gas. It makes the amendments necessary for collection and administration of this new tax to be handled in the same manner as the current fuel tax. Purchasers are required to pay the tax, and vendors and collectors are required to remit the tax to the Government of the Northwest Territories. The bill allows the Minister to provide in regulation for rebates and grants and increases the maximum fines and penalties which may be imposed either as administrative penalties or on summary conviction. Finally, the bill adds provisions for the appeal of an assessment of tax, interest or administrative penalties under the act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I will provide some introductory remarks and then turn to the process used to develop the bill. I will also provide some comments on the bill and concerns with what is there and what is missing.
The recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we are already seeing the consequence of global warming, with an increase of 1 degree Celsius in annual mean temperature. There is more extreme weather and diminishing Arctic see ice, among other changes. The report notes that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require "rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society." Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the report, with more than 6,000 scientific references cited. This is very serious, and, if we wish to save this planet from irreversible damage, we need to act now. The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius are already underway around the world, but they need to accelerate.
Canada has signed on to the global agreement to better address climate change. A real carbon pricing system for the Northwest Territories can help us in fighting this emergency. We must pursue legislative and policy changes to ensure the climate change leadership and an energy strategy built on renewables that does not masquerade as an infrastructure funding demand.
The process. The history of carbon pricing during this Assembly has been a convoluted one, at best. Cabinet developed three separate but related initiatives related to climate change. The first and obviously highest priority for Cabinet was the 2030 Energy Strategy, which leap-frogged ahead of the other two initiatives and even has a costed three-year action plan where 44 percent of the greenhouse gas reductions are supposed to come from a billion-dollar Taltson hydro expansion. The poor cousin, the Climate Change Strategic Framework, has languished, still has no action plan, and fails to respond to the Auditor General's report to establish the necessary leadership and authority for climate change success. Finally, there is a carbon pricing scheme which is the subject of this bill and is to be used to fund the GNWT contributions to the energy strategy.
In May and July of 2016, the Premier was in the media opposing a carbon tax. Thank goodness a new government was elected in the Yukon in November 2016 because that seems to have moderated GNWT messaging around carbon pricing. On December 9, 2016, the first minsters, including our Premier, announced the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. This would allow Canada to meet its international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
I appreciate that a lot of effort has been put in by Cabinet to work out the details of an NWT carbon pricing system. I just do not agree with their approach. GNWT put pressure on the federal government to ante up money for its favourite energy megaproject, the expansion of Taltson hydro, for export to unconfirmed southern markets and to other unconfirmed and hypothetical users in the Slave Geological Province. A discussion paper on the GNWT's approach to carbon pricing was finally released on July 26, 2017. Public comment closed on September 15, 2017.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations tried unsuccessfully several times to get the Minister of Finance to develop a number of options or scenarios for carbon pricing. He was urged to consider creating a competitive fund for large emitters to reduce emissions, larger investments into renewable energy that would further reduce the cost of living and greenhouse gas emissions, and other ideas. The Minister refused to respond in any serious way to committee's requests.
Almost a year after the release of the discussion paper, the Minister of Finance released Cabinet's final approach to carbon pricing on July 11, 2018. A summary of the public engagement on the discussion paper was released at the same time, and a federal report on the impact of carbon pricing on the Northwest Territories that had been completed five months earlier was also released to the public. No further comments were invited, and there has been no further public information or engagement since Cabinet's release on July 11, 2018. This government has been dragged to carbon pricing by the federal promise to impose a regime even if we don't create our own regime.
I would like to, Mr. Speaker, move on to the merits of the bill. I have spoken before in this House about Cabinet's approach to carbon pricing, which is what this bill will implement. Individuals and families will get some of the carbon tax back through adjustments to the cost of living allowance. The largest industrial emitters of greenhouse gas emissions will actually get all of the carbon tax back that they pay. It will be individuals, families, and small businesses that will subsidize the GNWT initiatives under the Energy Strategy, not the largest emitters, which are the diamond mines. This hardly seems fair or balanced.
A large part of the carbon tax revenues will also be used to fund GNWT's contribution to the Taltson Hydro Expansion, which I have also spoken against in this House. I have no problem and encourage the use of Taltson power to develop the regional economy on the south side of the lake, and I am glad to get the support of my friends as I speak, but to build millions of dollars' worth of transmission lines to unconfirmed markets is risky and likely to cost a lot more than original estimates. This is what happened with Muskrat Falls, Site C, Manitoba Hydro's Keeyask dam, and many other projects. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker: Taltson expansion will take money from other needs and opportunities, especially small community energy self-sufficiency.
I would like to turn to some of the problem areas with the bill. There is a precise regime and schedule for the carbon tax on various fuels. There is no separation of diesel fuel use between motive and non-motive use, as was the case in the July 2017 discussion paper. Butane was also not included in that discussion paper for carbon pricing, but now has a carbon tax rate specified in the bill.
While there is some clarity on the carbon tax to be charged and collected, there is no certainty regarding rebates, which are to be prescribed in future regulations at the total discretion of the Minister. The Minister will also have total discretion to prescribe who will be defined as a large emitter, and the Minister will have unfettered authority to determine grants to be given to such large emitters. It seems to me that there should be some bounds on the Minister's discretion in these matters.
Lastly, there is no requirement for any public reporting of revenues raised through the proposed carbon tax, rebates, or grants that the Minister may hand out, or even administrative costs associated with the implementation of the carbon tax. Given the concerns that the public and Regular MLAs have raised about a carbon tax, its impact on the cost of living, and how it may or may not contribute to greenhouse gas reductions, it is rather astounding that there is so little accountability and transparency around the revenues to be raised, their use, and impacts. I have consistently raised the need for an integrated approach to monitoring and public reporting of energy self-sufficiency, climate change, greenhouse gas reductions, carbon pricing, and the impacts on the cost of living, and this bill does not address that.
I still believe that carbon pricing is an essential tool in fighting climate change. However, the Minister has clearly been dragged to this measure and has shown very little interest in working with Regular MLAs or the public in exploring different options or scenarios to develop the best approach for the Northwest Territories and our residents with regard to a carbon tax. In my view, Cabinet's approach is unfair, and with the unfettered ministerial authority over grants to large emitters and rebates, an energy strategy focused on a huge mega project, lack of progress on climate change leadership, and no commitment to integrated climate change monitoring and public reporting, I cannot support the bill as drafted.
I look forward to participating in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Government Operations to hear what the public and interested stakeholders have to say about a carbon tax in the Northwest Territories, whether they think that this is a fair approach from Cabinet, and whether it will really lead to progress in climate change. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is my view on what this bill enables.
First, I want to acknowledge that the views and concerns that people have shared with me I consider very much valid and important, and their opinions are not lost on me. Bear with me as I share with you two perspectives on the carbon tax effectiveness and another that describes what we are doing here in the North.
Let me start with carbon tax. When originally proposed, I agreed that a carbon tax, as a concept, had the potential to be an effective way of achieving the long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, since its introduction by the federal government, the ongoing campaign conducted by its proponents, as well as politicians, including here in the NWT, has allowed it to become so politicized and tainted that it is no longer politically reasonable, and in the meantime, the rising oil prices continue to reduce the carbon tax's socio-economic business case.
While I agree that we need to shift our habits and behaviours, the fact is that, within our current limited technological means, in order to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to meet the Paris Agreement, it would require carbon taxes so high that they are a political non-starter.
I am not the only one who has this view. Many proponents of carbon tax seem to agree with me on this, and many proponents in the North also agree with me that the made-in-the-North version of carbon tax will do little to nothing towards changing Northerners' behaviours, much less meet set targets for carbon emission reduction.
As I have stated in previous Member's statements, current models of carbon taxes are not a serious proposal to curb emissions. Rather, in my view, it is a flailing attempt to alleviate government's conscience with a symbolic gesture toward mitigating the impacts of climate change.
As we see across the country, with many provincial governments now exiting the program, there is a fading interest in carbon tax, and that is not necessarily a bad thing for the environment. Why? Because even without a meaningful carbon tax, fuel prices across the country are reaching all-time highs at the pump. Again, I noted in a previous statement that fuel was at $1.13 a litre just a few years back, and now it has been as high here in Yellowknife as $1.50. The federal government has never clarified how the carbon tax would interact with changing oil prices. Yes, low prices made a carbon tax seem somewhat acceptable, but with high oil prices, it makes it seem punishing to the average northern family, already struggling with higher fuel costs.
What can we implement that already has a proven means of effectiveness and can have an immediate impact on reducing greenhouse gases? Well, let's remember that the use of a carbon tax is relatively new and is directed at shifting behaviour. Significant progress has been made in the past by using other tools, in particular, the use of legislation, regulation, and policy rather than behavioural taxes.
For example, mandatory mileage standards for vehicles have resulted in dramatic increases in fuel efficiency, allowing people to drive more energy-efficient vehicles without guzzling more gas. Electricity generation has been mostly decarbonized in Canada, not so much in the Northwest Territories, through government subsidies and/or appropriations. In some jurisdictions, there has been a major shift to natural gas rather than burning oil or coal. In other jurisdictions, there is a significant move toward hydro rather than diesel. Taxing behavioural change seems less important in those regions, especially given that it is industry that is making the commitments to these changes and that they are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, after all.
Now, the second point is regarding what we are dealing with here in the North. I have and continue to take this position since being elected, and that is that we are faced with many challenges in the North, but at the forefront is the ability to afford living here and doing business here. If we can't find ways to do either at a standard and comfort level that we have come to know and expect, then, frankly, those who can will begin to depart and leave the North so that they can have those standards and comforts met elsewhere.
That said, I believe that individuals are making smarter choices these days with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by implementing efficiencies and taking responsible actions in their day-to-day lives. Many families and homeowners are replacing windows, reinsulating ceilings and walls, installing pellet stoves and boilers, putting up solar panels, and doing simple things, like changing to LED bulbs and putting timers on lights and outlets. Proof of this is that Arctic Energy Alliance's energy rebate programs are oversubscribed year over year, and that is a good thing. We have noticed that, so has the federal government, and we have increased the Arctic Energy Alliance pot by nearly double over the next four years.
As the technology becomes more practical and affordable in the North, communities will implement better energy systems, just like Colville Lake's solar panel system and the soon-to-be Inuvik wind farm. I also believe that business and industry are making responsible energy efficiency improvements and are also motivated to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, because they, too, believe in being environmentally responsible, but also because it affects their bottom line profits. A good example, again, is the Diavik Wind Farm. I understand that that investment reduced Diavik's fuel consumption by nearly 15 percent.
I also feel that governments are doing good things with regard to meeting their goals for reducing emissions, and collectively, they are one of the highest emitters in the territory and would be exempt from the carbon tax. Both the City of Yellowknife and the GNWT have made significant investments in transferring over to biomass and developing and using district energy and co-energy for heating and powering their own assets and facilities. What's more, the savings and returns on investment from those initiatives are now allowing these respective governments to self-fund these projects rather than further burden taxpayers with increased taxes to pay for these improvements.
In addition, and I touched on this above, long before any carbon tax concepts were being discussed, governments have developed and applied significant laws, regulation, and policy that have been applied to individuals, businesses, and industry over the last decade or so to create less dependence on fossil fuels, and those regulations are starting to have proof-positive effects as well on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Why don't I support a carbon tax? Simple. I have come to realize that a very high carbon tax that would shift people's behaviour is not politically doable in the North, and that the made-in-the-North version is not going to change anyone's behaviour. Therefore, we can no longer hang onto this silver-bullet or magic-wand approach for a call to carbon tax, and therefore I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to the merits of the government's carbon pricing scheme that will be enabled through the passage of Bill 42. Mr. Speaker, I want to set for the record very clearly that I believe in carbon pricing for Canada. I believe in carbon pricing for the world. A mechanism for carbon, either through market measures or through taxation, are good things.
In the December 14, 2018, meetings of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, otherwise known as COP 24, they reported that, as of April of last year, carbon pricing initiatives implemented or scheduled for implementation were expected to cover 20 percent of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. That is representative that things are changing. This is no longer an initiative of fringe political parties or political actors who are passionate about one issue; this is good economic sense. It has been endorsed by leading economists. It has been endorsed by the World Bank. This is not an alien proposal to how the economy works.
In fact, China, which is one of the major stumbling blocks in ensuring a global response to climate change action through economic measures, has signed on. They are building on some seven municipal and provincial cap-and-trade markets within the country to what will become the world's largest carbon market.
Mr. Speaker, here in Canada, British Columbia has had a successful revenue-neutral carbon pricing regime since 2008, and since implementation, they have posted the strongest economic growth in Canada. It is very clear that, in the British Columbia model, they recognize the need to protect economic competitiveness while implementing carbon pricing and the need for effective collaboration by providing incentives for people to invest, for example, in home energy and zero-emission vehicles. The government has also further committed to all of its government operations will be completely carbon-neutral. It is those kind of leadership statements that provincial governments, federal governments, and world governments can take to show that they are committed to protecting and preserving the future of our planet, our environment, and the health of our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of carbon pricing. The chamber's view is that it is the only effective way to reduce carbon emissions, but it requires collaboration, again, with stakeholders, with businesses, to ensure that the regulatory burden on businesses in our jurisdictions is lessened, is not further increased with a new scheme, and that the revenues are returned to them in the form of incentives to help them lower their costs.
The Canadian Mining Association supports carbon pricing, which is a key actor for our economy here in the Northwest Territories. Their president has said that carbon tax is the most effective and efficient means of driving emissions reductions and making real progress in the fight against climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to carbon taxing. I don't think that the world is opposed to carbon taxing or carbon pricing. I think that the world has embraced this. Many Members in this House have been encouraging this government to be proactive on this, to not wait until the eleventh hour to put forward a carbon pricing solution that will allow us to meet our national and international obligations. Yet, here we are, in the last year of our term, with something that has become very controversial and something that Members on this side of the House have just spoken against. I think that is because this bill did not go through the same level of collaboration and partnership that we have seen on other pieces of legislation.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations has been working on carbon pricing for quite some time now. I think that my honourable friend, the Member for Frame Lake, put this very clearly. Our efforts to collaborate, to propose new ideas and solutions, have fallen on deaf ears, and I have come to believe that the honourable Minister of Finance would simply prefer this issue to go away. Perhaps the provincial governments who are opposing this in court will be successful, and we can drop it if a few federal government comes into place.
This is not leadership. That belief can be backed up with actions, statements, words, and a lack of action behind the scenes here at the committee level and in the business planning stages, that there isn't clear leadership coming from this government on this very important issue to the economic health and well-being of Northerners and to our goals to preserve and protect our environment and the health of our citizens.
The Auditor General report on climate change revealed a serious lack of leadership on GNWT actions to fight climate change. The standing committee worked collaboratively and provided clear and concise recommendations on how that can improve. None of those recommendations have been fully implemented, including the most important ones around leadership, about giving a very clear message as a whole-of-government approach that is binding on other departments so that there is a very clear sense in the public and within the bureaucracy that this is a top priority and that we need to continue to work on it. I agree that adaptation needs to be our priority, but the global economy is adapting to carbon pricing, and we need to be a part of that if we are going to protect our businesses and protect our industries.
Mr. Speaker, this bill places the burden of the pricing scheme through a carbon tax onto the pocketbooks of Northerners and small businesses, while carving out extensive breaks for large emitters that are responsible for nearly 50 percent of total emissions. The taxes applied to large industry are largely returned by the rebates, and the funds that are held by government can be accessed by those same emitters in personalized funds, rather than building a globally competitive fund in which all emitters can compete for resources as an incentive to help bring clean growth solutions to their industrial operations.
The vital rebate programs in this bill, which are the crux of any successful pricing regime, are governed solely through regulation, which means that this House will lack the necessary oversight tools to effect these programs and cements total control in the hands of the Minister. While this would not be such a major issue for me, the current Minister, again, has not demonstrated a willingness to collaborate with Regular Members and members of the public and members of industry on building a regime that works for everyone.
This House cannot speak for future governments and the Ministers of those governments, but I think that we must ensure that it is the House and its Members who decide these issues, such as the rebates and other important issues of climate change public policy and that those powers and discretion are not solely in the hands of the Minister and government bureaucracy. The people need to be able to speak to their representatives on these issues.
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that we need to do a better job of building a scheme that works. I have implored the government to look at other options. Again, I refer to the Chinese model where they have moved to a cap-and-trade system. We didn't even consider that. At the time, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec had a very successful cap-and-trade program in partnership with California. There are no reasons we couldn't have collaborated with Yukon and Nunavut to build a northern carbon market and to keep the burden on industry and off of everyday Northerners and to find more competitive ways to incentivize clean growth solutions to business.
The Taltson expansion is something I do, in fact, support. I think it is a key component of building the economy of the North. Again, it is very far off. For this government to pin 33 percent of its reductions on something that is a policy proposal that has pennies for the big picture invested in it currently, we cannot afford to pin all of our hopes on that. We need to have a better mechanism. The mechanism that is being proposed today, again, it puts the burden onto the pocketbooks of Northerners in such a way that I cannot support.
I hope that we are able to improve the bill if it does go forward. At this time, I encourage all honourable Members of this House to carefully consider what is being proposed, the lack of collaboration, the lack of consultation. Whether or not the proposed federal backstop that Yukon and Nunavut are both agreeing to implement in their jurisdictions, now that we know the details of that, is a more generous rebate for individuals, and individual Northerners will receive more from the federal backstop than they will from this carbon-pricing scheme.
I think we must carefully consider if this is the direction we want to go, if this is the direction we want to bind future governments for, or if we should leave the administrative burden of the new tax in the hands of the federal government that this Minister has said is imposing this tax on the people of the North. Let them impose it, then. Let them give a more generous rebate. Let's work with our partners to build a more robust carbon-pricing system that targets the people who are actually causing the emissions and that ensures we can keep the cost of living as low as possible in the Northwest Territories.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the principle of the Bill 42, we have been placed in our seats here by the members of our respective ridings and the community as a whole in subjects as sensitive as this one to increase a revenue stream to make efforts in reducing our gas emissions.
As my colleague from the Kam Lake riding mentioned, this is really a global community one to address the target set in the Paris Accord. I keep an open mind that I will look forward to engaging the community consultation process after the second reading of this bill to give the people a chance to voice their concerns to the bill aside from our own. Keeping an open mind, I will not take that privilege away from the people who put me in this position in the Sahtu, for example.
I have mentioned in previous discussions and presentations: take the average young or old or middle-aged trapper downtown Colville Lake. How would they be impacted to this additional tax, putting the gas in their snow machine to go harvest income in fur-bearing animals? I am willing to give that individual a chance to speak to the bill, give the proper documentation to the communities, let them, in collaboration with this government, make a decision that we think is fair to everyone in creating revenues for offsetting cost reductions with the consumption of, say, home diesel fuel, for example, or non-automotive in purchasing energy-efficient appliances.
I think everybody would agree: we live in a high-cost part of Canada. We have a formula that is set, a fixed income. We are trying to broaden our benefits based on a set income. We have said all along in the Premier's sessional statements, a number of times, 32 percent of the revenues is contributed by industry. We have to be mindful of industry's presence here. I was very encouraged to hear the industry thinking and stating this is a good tax in the reducing of gas emissions into our atmosphere.
It really is a pan-territorial initiative. I am willing to support going on the road with this bill and giving the people the proper information so they can make informed decisions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Marsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I cannot support anything that would increase the cost of living for the people of the small communities. The people I represent are natural people who go out and they hunt. That is how they supplement their income. As everyone knows, we have very low incomes in the small communities. When an elder asks a young hunter to go hunting for them, their responsibility is to pay for the gas. Then the young person does all the work, goes out on the land. The further away the caribou is moving, the more costly it gets for the gas for the young person to go hunting.
Even if there is a tax rebate attached to the gas, or just a tax rebate inside the Income Tax Act, it is still going to cost money at the time the person needs to go hunting. It is not going to be that, sometime after income tax season, the individuals get a rebate and that becomes something that can be then turned into the gas they had already paid extra for to go hunting.
For me, I am thinking about: what would my community want? Tomorrow, when they pour gas into their vehicle, gas into their machines, snowmobiles, and whatnot, at that point, do they want to pay extra because they might get a rebate or they will get a rebate sometime during the income tax season? When you are hungry now, you can't wait for income tax season to buy the food that you need.
What they need to do is to not pay the extra as a tax on the gasoline. The cost of gasoline is high enough. Sometimes, the elders have just enough money to buy just enough gas to be able to get somebody to hunt for them. The hunters do it because they, too, can hunt for themselves at the same time at the expense of the elders. The elders do it because it is a lot more efficient for them to have caribou meat, moose meat, whatever it is that they are hunting for, muskox. It could be a variety of things.
The communities I represent, all four communities, rely on caribou. The fact that there is a reduction in the numbers with the caribou and the caribou seemed to either have disappeared or moved further east, a lot of the people and the elders say, "A lot of the caribou have moved east or have joined other herds." It has become more difficult for them to access caribou.
Then on top of that, to tell them that they will have to pay extra at the pumps. I am saying: it doesn't matter to them whether they get a rebate sometime in the future. That will go to something else. That rebate will be consumed by something else.
Also, the premise that the major reduction of greenhouse gas is going to be based on the Taltson project, I spoke against an expansion of Taltson here. Although I will most likely vote in favour of money that is going to be handed out to the territorial government from the federal government to consult with the people who are impacted by Taltson, I still think there is a lot to be settled there. I mean, the Taltson dam wiped out a whole community. It wiped out two communities, actually. Very little was said about a place called Rat River, which had a few people who generally had family in Rocher River, the other community that was completely wiped out. You hear about, the elders talk about, there were so many muskrat on the shores that it looks like there is a hill sitting there, and I think an elder told me the other day that there were so many muskrats swimming down Taltson river that he thought it was a raft. That was wiped out completely.
It happened a couple of years ago, too, by the release of water during wintertime, when you release water in the wintertime. Although NCPC said there was no release of water, I do not think, naturally, they flood the river. I do not think mother nature would kill all of its animals on a river by itself. I think that is man who has done that, and I think that has to be settled, too. If we are going to put together a strategy that bases itself on Taltson river expansion and that is how we are going to reduce our greenhouse gases and that is our contribution, then we should settle with the people from Rocher River. We should settle with the people who are wiped out, forced to relocate, lost their way of living, became a lost society. I think that has to happen, but the bottom line is today.
For today, the most important thing is the increased cost of gas, and, for today, to put more cost on the elders, that is what will happen. It does not matter what it looks like. It does not matter what the Income Tax Act is going to say at the end, when we make those adjustments. It's the cost today that's important. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think any of us here would like to see a carbon tax implemented in our territory as we have the highest cost of living in this country, alone. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of the Members are not supporting this. Like the Member from the Sahtu, I would like to see this proceed. This initiative, the federal government actually, I believe, sees that the territory has a small footprint on the carbon in our country, and they are willing to work with us. What is being presented is a far better deal than what will actually be imposed on us if we do not support this. The bottom line is that what is the best deal for my riding is what I will support, and this by far will be less impact on the cost of living in my riding. My constituents are paying in the neighbourhood of $1.92 per litre. We cannot afford it. Even 5 cents makes a big difference, and that is what we are talking about with the cost-of-living offset, and I think that that would be less impact on the residents in the Mackenzie Delta and for all people of the Northwest Territories. So we will let this proceed, and we'll get all of the information that is actually to this and make the right decision when it comes to third reading. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have heard everybody here talk about it, and I appreciate that the Government of the Northwest Territories has reached out to the federal government to work on a deal for heating fuel so that it's not going to have an impact, but we are still going to have an impact on it because we are going to have to pay for the transportation costs here. I am not going to reiterate everything, but it's the cost of living. I have listened to my communities, and I have heard the concerns about gas. It is an issue. We do not have to go on a road trip to hear it. We have heard it in the House here. We have heard it in Members' statements. We have heard it. Ministers have heard it through our correspondence with them. It's going to be an impact on cost of living, so, right now, the way we have it right now, I cannot support this. It's about the small communities. It's about the people there. It's about the people who we are supposed to be representing, and so, right now, I cannot support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Nunakput.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like my colleagues from the Mackenzie Delta and the Sahtu, my region, we are very rich in natural gas resources, and we have yet to develop that. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that, in the future of the territory, the Inuvialuit will come to that. The cost of living is the highest in my region and territory, also the cost of transportation, and to see aviation fuel being exempt from things like that as well as anything to bring down the cost of living, Mr. Speaker -- consultation is very important, especially with Indigenous groups. When we look at the number of bills, there is a huge number of bills that are going through this legislature and this Assembly. I think what we need to keep in mind is we need to continue with growing capacity within this legislature to bring those forward so that our Members are informed and we are able to make educated decisions. Sometimes I sit here and I see some of the decisions that we make on both sides. Sometimes, from where I sit, they seem uninformed, but maybe there is something that I am missing, as well. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this go forward, and I would like to encourage the Government of the Northwest Territories to involve the Inuvialuit and all of the other Indigenous groups across the territory, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the principle of the bill and mainly because here in the Northwest Territories we live in a vast and remote part of Canada, and, of course, the cost of living is very high. Recently in the media, it was brought to the public's attention that, our income support, the cost of income support is increasing, with more of our people depending on supplements from this government to put food on our table. So how could we rationalize adding more of a burden on the average people in the average communities the North? It just boggles me. So, for those reasons, I will not support it. Mahsi.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government is opposed to any kind of tax, but this is one that the federal government, in their infinite wisdom, had decided that they were going to implement, regardless. So our challenge was to try to mitigate the impact that it was going to have on people across the Northwest Territories. Our folks at the department went across the Northwest Territories. They listened to people. They understood that a tax was coming. They did not like it. Everybody is opposed to a new tax. That is why this government has in our four years done very little as far as raising taxes in the Northwest Territories. People have said that they want the least impact on themselves as possible. Now, I am sure Members opposite have heard those concerns, and it's always good to stand up and say, "Well, I am opposed to a new tax." Well, I am opposed to a tax, as well. The federal government is going to implement it. There have been a couple of challenges. We will have to wait to see. What this does, this gives us the tools we have to try to work to mitigate.
I have provided some information to Members opposite, some briefings that we have had on the cost to people in the Northwest Territories had we used the federal backstop. The federal backstop: $922.59 cost on the average family; the NWT approach the carbon pricing: $356.92; that is a $753 difference, so you want to tell the people of the Northwest Territories that, "Yes, we like the federal backstop so much. It is going to cost you $700 more a year, but we are going to go with that." Is that what you are telling them? Or as a couple of Members so wisely said, "Why don't you take it on the road. Let them tell you that themselves and see what they say."
We claim to hear the voice of the people in the Northwest Territories sometimes, and there are times we can't over the sound of our own voices, so let's not decide what is best for them. Let's give them an opportunity to decide for themselves. I think we worked very closely. We showed a lot of leadership on this. We have had other jurisdictions actually using or wanting to use our approach because they think it is one that is a little more fair to them. Aviation fuel. We worked with the federal government. They exempted that. Great. Heating fuels, diesel, propane, natural gas. Our approach is zero. Their approach is $435.95. I mean, I can understand the Members' concerns, of course. I mean, I have heard a lot of concerns. We want to do our bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is all fine. I think that was the overall goal of the Pan-Canadian Framework and the Paris Agreement, but our challenge here in the Northwest Territories is how we are going to mitigate the impact that it is going to have on our folks here.
I have given you some numbers. Part of what we are criticized for sometimes is our lack of communication. I have to agree there. I mean, we should have communicated a lot of this information better to the folks out there. Then they can get hold of you and say, "Hey, my MLA is not too bad. I don't like a tax, but if this is going to mitigate."
We don't know what is going to happen on July 1st. As I said before, there are a couple of challenges that are being taken out there, but I don't want to play catch up. I want to make sure that we are prepared so, when it comes, our people are not feeling it, and using the federal backstop is not good for our people. Not at all. Not at all.
I have given you the numbers, and again, I think there should be an opportunity for people out there to tell you how they feel about this, recognizing the fact that the federal government again in their infinite wisdom plan to implement this regardless, and what we are trying to do for the people of the Northwest Territories is mitigate the impact. Otherwise, it would cost them a lot more. We don't like taxes, but we are trying to do what is best for our people, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, a discussion like this, I think, requires a recorded vote.
Masi. To the principle of the bill.
