Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So my first set of questions are for the Minister of Finance, and if there's time after, I have additional questions for the Minister of Infrastructure.
So currently the net carbon tax revenues after we hand out the offset payments, they go into the GNWT's general revenues, and this could be 14 to $20 million per year but the public cannot see how these revenues are contributing to climate change solutions. So will this government commit to ensure that all net carbon tax revenues go towards climate change mitigation and adaptation programs in the NWT with transparent public reporting on the spending? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife North. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I certainly can ensure that all of the net revenue from the carbon tax goes is spent on some sort of measure that will assist us in our climate change adaptation and GHG reduction efforts, and those efforts are reported in the public accounts every year. What I suspect maybe actually the Member's after here is some sort of separated fund. The concern of having a separated fund is you then just earmark a handful of dollars when, in fact, Mr. Speaker, we spend far more than just the at this point projected $11 million or so net revenue. 10 percent of that revenue now is being shared with community governments. And in the last year we had over $16 million in the Department of Infrastructure alone on capital asset retrofits, Arctic Energy Alliance support, and engineering studies and grants being outgoing to monitor things like permafrost and permafrost change for instance. So I am very confident we are spending that net amount. It's how we're reporting it that clearly what we're doing in the public accounts, folks aren't finding it, and I am quite determined that we will find a better way to put that forward for residents. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So just one followup here: So I know that we've consistently heard from the government that it's not a good idea to have a specific revolving fund but I've also we've also heard from the public that there's demand for that kind of transparency.
Can the Minister explain if there are specific technical barriers or legislative barriers to instituting such a revolving fund which would provide greater transparency and understanding for the public as to how we're investing in climate change alternatives?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, having a revolving fund where you take a specific amount of money and put that aside, typically it's used for Crown corporations, for example for the airport where there's money in and going in and going out. It allows an entity to operate and conduct its operations with that revolving fund. Having it where there's a revenue source coming in and we take that percentage out, one of the concerns is that you actually wind up saying, all right, here's the $10 million that we're going to use for this initiative. And I think the Member's statement laid out quite well why carbon tax should really only be part of what we're doing, and we need to be looking at the impacts of climate change in the North, the impacts of GHG emissions. The fact that we're on the front lines of climate change, we need to be spending probably a lot more than just the amount that we're getting on the carbon tax to actually advance this. So that is one part of the hesitancy around a revolving fund. But, again, as I said, I do understand that we need to find a better way to explain to the public what we're doing with not only this fund but with a lot of the funds spread across multiple departments. And I am committed to finding a better way to do that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Finance. Oral questions. Member from Yellowknife Centre.
