Masi. All those abstaining, please stand. The results of the recorded vote: 12 in favour, five opposed, zero abstentions. The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 42 has had its third reading. Third reading of bills. Minister of Finance.

Masi. All those opposed, please stand.

Question has been called. All those in favour, please stand.

Masi. To the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments that are being made. I feel compelled to stand up and speak to whoever is left awake in the Northwest Territories at this late hour and let them know because the messaging that they have been getting is: we have been letting some of the negative messaging get out there. We need to not do that. We need to not play politics with something as important as this.

I have heard someone say that our Premier signed onto this Pan-Canadian Framework, and he agreed that we need to come up with a made-in-NWT approach. I believe we did. I believe we did. We did exactly what we said we were going to do. They recognized the uniqueness of the challenges of the Northwest Territories, so we worked with them to come up with an approach instead of just going with the stream, going with the current, sometimes, which is the easiest thing to do as we have seen so many times.

We had a public engagement. We went out to the public across the Northwest Territories. We tabled a "what we heard" document. You can pick and choose things out of there. Of course there are going to be comments in there, truthful comments about "We don't want a tax." They are being honest. A lot of comments in there about "Okay. We are going to be taxed, but we are worried about cost of living." We tried to take steps to address that.

I hear the comments about "Well, this jurisdiction that. This jurisdiction that. This jurisdiction that." I heard a number of comments about the Yukon. They are providing $11.7 million in rebates to individuals. Northwest Territories is providing about $18.5 million between COLO and the point of purchase rebate on heating fuel. They also provide rebates similar to NWT COLO. However, they are not rebating the carbon tax on heating fuel, which results in the NWT, in my opinion, being superior.

By providing a point of purchase on the carbon tax on heating fuel, this ensures that those who pay the carbon tax, like homeowners who pay all their bills, receive the rebate. It doesn't require the resident to pay the carbon tax upfront. This applies to businesses, as well. They are not required to pay the carbon tax on the heating fuel upfront because, if they had to, they would have to pass those costs on to someone. Who would they pass them on to?

We recognize what this carbon tax is supposed to do. It is supposed to do our part in helping to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. We will do that. We also have an obligation to the people of the Northwest Territories that we are going to try and do what we can to protect them and their well-being and not have things to a place where it is so high that they consider moving out.

I have heard both the work that another jurisdiction is doing with the mines. One jurisdiction referenced, "Provide 100 percent rebate to the mining industry." How can we say we do that? Our system rebates about 84 percent. Some of that rebate is tied to greenhouse gas reducing initiatives. The jurisdiction in question is also not investing very much of their carbon tax, if any, into energy initiatives. Our government is expecting to invest about $8 million annually in energy initiatives with carbon tax revenue.

Municipal and Indigenous governments will receive some money under another rebate but will pay the carbon tax on all fuels. In the NWT, our community governments and organizations will get the point of purchase rebate on carbon tax on heating fuel. This is expected to save NWT community governments $1.1 million in carbon tax.

Electricity rates will also be protected for the community governments. Businesses in the Yukon are being rebated some money. In the Northwest Territories, businesses are being supported through the purchase rebates on heating fuel, which in our climate, as we all know, is a big cost driver. Let's face the reality here. It is a big cost driver.

My understanding from the information I got is that Nunavut and NWT Chamber of Mines doesn't agree with the Canadian Mine Association's position on carbon pricing.

We have done a lot of work. We have done the public engagement. We have listened to them. We have heard what they had to say. For anybody to stand there and say that this government is more concerned about rebates and that, we are trying to do our part in reducing the greenhouse gas emission. We will continue to do that. We have had a lot of energy initiatives that have been funded by this government. We have a lot of energy initiatives that have been partially funded by the federal government in their attempt to reduce the greenhouse.

Let's not use this as political pandering, Mr. Speaker. I mean that seriously. This is something that is very serious. I commend those who have said that, as hard as this is, "I am going to bite the bullet. I am going to support this." Because of the two options, I believe what they told me, first of all: I believe our plan is better.

I will continue to defend this because, at the end of the day, the bottom line is: we need to do our part. Even though our emissions are quite low compared to the rest of Canada, we will do our part. We have to. We have to. Our climate is very important to us. Let's not sound like it is, not to this Minister and the people he represents and the Indigenous people that he is a part of. Don't tell me that.

Again, I will go back to the fact that I commend those who have said this is a hard decision that they have to make. I have said that already, and I will say it again.

Mr. Speaker, it might look good, saying, "I am opposed to a carbon tax. I want to delay the carbon tax." It is going to be implemented. We have been told that. It is going to be implemented. It might look good politically to say that, but reality says that this is going to be implemented, and I will not take a chance on the well-being of the people of the Northwest Territories by playing politics with something as important as this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be real quick and short. I don't support a carbon tax. I don't. I don't think it is great. It has an impact on Northerners. Unfortunately, the federal government has come up with it and said, "You either come up with one, or we will impose one." Therefore, I had to make a hard decision based on the information provided to me in this House. I will, as I told the Minister, support this bill. It is about Northerners. For me, it is about my elders who I represent. By allowing the federal government to just put carbon tax onto diesel fuel, we are going to see less fuel going into their homes.

Right now, it is 74 percent. That is what their subsidy is, according to what I have received. We will see this going down even further and further. As fuel goes up and up and the subsidy doesn't move anywhere, we will see that huge impact on our elders. These are the people who brought and were our foundation in the Northwest Territories. I am here standing up for them and saying, "This is not the best possible solution." I need to tell them that this is something that we have to do. At least it is at the origin, where it is going to be sold. It makes a difference for our residents. At least we are not seeing that cost to it. The aviation fuel, in my communities, they have to fly in. They have to charter in. At least now, they are not going to see that cost increased. It is not going to be put onto them.

These are some of the things I had to understand as I vote for this bill. I appreciate my colleagues and their concerns. I heard them. At the end of the day, I have to do what is right for the residents of Nahendeh. I will support this bill at the end of the day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Nahendeh.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I know that it has been a long day, but I need to go on the record for my constituents so that they can see, in the future, what happened here tonight. I supported carbon tax as part of a comprehensive strategy for taking action on climate change. However, I don't support Cabinet's plan.

That plan is made up of three parts: the carbon tax bill that is before us this evening, Bill 42, which imposes, basically, a surcharge, a tax on some fuels. The other two parts of Cabinet's approach on this include the Energy Strategy, and I have spoken at length about the Energy Strategy. It's focused on Taltson rather than building real community and household energy self-sufficiency.

I have also talked about the Climate Change Strategic Framework that did not really address the failures identified by the Auditor General's Office in conducting a climate change audit of the Northwest Territories. The recommendation was that we develop real leadership, structure, organization, to allow for success. We had two strategies previously, they both failed, and I think that we are heading in the same direction. Of course, with the Climate Change Strategic Framework, 44 percent of the greenhouse gas reductions are supposed to come from Taltson expansion. I just can't see how it is going to be accomplished, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of the carbon tax bill has always been pitched by this Cabinet, by this Minister, as the big, bad federal government coming in here and imposing another tax on Northerners. This could have been an opportunity for us to actually face the reality of the climate crisis that is before us and start to find ways to transition to a new economy that is free of fossil fuels and build energy self-sufficiency. That is the kind of transition and leadership that should have come from our Cabinet, but it didn't.

In terms of collaboration with the committee on the development of this plan, I am not a Member of the committee, but I got to sit in on a lot of the deliberations, and I can honestly say that, when the committee had requested options, scenarios, from the Minister, nothing came forward. That information was not provided to committee. You heard from my colleague in Yellowknife Centre about how some other jurisdictions have actually developed plans that I think are far superior to ours.

Committee was interested in taking the bill on the road, but the Minister continued to make changes to the large emitter provisions, and committee felt that there was no way that they could share that information with the public, so what is the point of taking something on the road when you can't share the latest possible information? There wasn't even a plain language summary of the bill and what it would do.

What we have ended up with, Mr. Speaker, is a bill that is a made-by-Cabinet approach where all of the rebates, all of the grants, all of that will be totally controlled by the Minister in the future. We have seen a transfer of the authority of this House to a Minister in a future government to set what that plan is going to look like. I just don't think that this is good public policy.

Others have spoken about the lack of public reporting in the bill. There is no requirement for public reporting of the revenues in and the revenues out. There may not even be an opportunity for the public to comment on the draft regulations that set what the rebates and grants may be in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to bring forward amendments to the bill to require some public reporting, require public input into the regulations. Unfortunately, they were ruled out of order because of the way that the bill had been crafted. I tried to make changes on the floor of the House and wasn't able to, because of the way that the bill was put together.

I am not going to go over the Yukon approach that my colleague from Yellowknife Centre spoke to very eloquently, but it does provide rebates to municipalities, First Nation governments. It does provide for revenue sharing and rebates with adjustments for those living in rural and remote communities. Mr. Speaker, we could and should have had that kind of plan here for our citizens. That's not what we got.

That might still be possible in the future, but not with this bill, not with the plan that Cabinet has developed. I cannot support Cabinet's plan. I believe it should be sent back for a more collaborative approach, for the 19^th Assembly to begin to take real action on climate change. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Northerners expect real climate change leadership, and that means a plan that works for the NWT. The plan that is being proposed by the GNWT that is central on Bill 42 does not achieve that goal. Only one model of carbon pricing was explored and developed without adequate legislative oversight or public engagement.

Although I support some form of carbon pricing in principle, such as a cap and trade system, I cannot support this plan that leaves unelected public servants responsible for new taxes and rebates without approval by Members of this House, not to mention the significant flaws with the plan as it was laid out and has already been thoroughly debated by this honourable House.

With so many decisions being pushed off to the next Assembly, there is no reason, apart from political pressure from Ottawa, why carbon tax can't wait another four months. Premier Kenney, our Premier's new ally in pursuing the NWT's agenda on the national stage, stood up to the federal government when he received a mandate from Albertans. That's what the people voted for in Alberta, and now they have received an extension until January 1^st. Yet we stand down as soon as one email is sent from one political staffer.

Mr. Speaker, Northerners deserve a better plan than this, and I will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While I appreciate that some other Members are going to speak this evening, possibly with regard to, "Maybe we could have negotiated a better deal," my position all along has been that I do not support a carbon tax, whether it is coming from this government or whether it is coming from the federal government.

I believe that we are already penalized severely for where we live. This is a dark, cold territory for eight months of the year. We are already penalized for being in this region. We are also further penalized by the cost of living. It is 20 to 30 percent more expensive to live here; other than maybe Nunavut, we are the second-highest jurisdiction in the country to afford to live in and do business in.

Thirdly, we are also penalized by not having any options, Mr. Speaker. We do not have any affordable options. We cannot decide to maybe go and buy an electric-powered vehicle, because here, unlike, say, Alberta, where it is 8 cents a kilowatt hour, our power is 38 cents a kilowatt hour. Just the affordability is not there. It just makes no sense to do that sort of thing.

We do not have cheap fuel options. We do not have natural gas like most of southern Canada has, which is much more affordable than diesel. We just clearly do not have the options. We live in a cold climate where we are penalized. We already live in a higher cost of living jurisdiction, and we don't have options to switch over to. Yet, the federal and our government feel that it is necessary to apply such a tax.

We don't need our behaviour changed, Mr. Speaker, and why? Because we are already doing good things. We were doing these good things long before a discussion of carbon tax came along.

Let's look at government. Government, through our capital asset retrofit program, has been making improvements for eons, improvements that are paying back, by the way, making energy efficiency and savings for tax payers. These have a positive return on investment.

Other orders of government are starting to look at district energy systems. We have all been putting in biomass heaters and boilers in all of our government-owned assets for some period of time now. Why? Because these are the kinds of things that we have to look at in order to lower our energy rates.

Let's talk about, for a moment, what government is doing in terms of leading by example in other areas. We have the Inuvik windmill farm that is going to be coming. We see industry using other options. Diavik has a windmill farm. We have solar panels popping up all over the place. We have communities starting to talk about new microgrids and other alternatives. We have potential for geothermal in the Deh Cho region. These are all things that we were talking about and planning and strategizing about long before anybody felt that they need to slap a carbon tax on us.

Mr. Speaker, we are also doing good things as it relates to enacting legislation and regulations. We have been doing that for a long time. Municipal governments have been doing that for a long time. EnerGuide 80 is a good thing that you can look at towards regulations that are starting to have a positive effect now. We put that in a number of years ago. People are building more energy-efficient homes.

The municipality of the City of Yellowknife now has an energy retrofit program that they are going to be able to put in place, because we enabled them through changing legislation of the Cities, Towns and Villages Act that people can now apply to and have a more affordable way in which to put energy retrofits into their house, because they, too, want to live more affordably, first and foremost, but secondly, they want to reduce their carbon footprint.

Again, we are going to be increasing the Arctic Energy Alliance's budget by nearly double over the next four years. That means that we are going to be giving more rebates back to people. That will incentivize them to put in better energy-efficient appliances, pellet boilers, and pellet stoves, maybe replace some windows, things like that.

It doesn't matter where you look, whether it's government, whether it's industry, whether it's communities, or whether it's individuals; due to where we live, and due to not having other options, we have been doing all the right things for a long, long time. It is shameful that the federal Government of Canada felt that the 100,000 people who live in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, who are the ones that are most impacted by climate change, somehow needed to be slapped a tax on so that they could change their behaviour somehow. This is shameful. I will not be supporting this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the debate about the carbon tax bill last week, I indicated that I was prepared to support it, but after reflecting on our discussions and doing some reading about carbon tax plans in other jurisdictions, I am no longer prepared to vote in favour of this bill.

There is a consensus among scientists and economists that putting a price on carbon lowers emissions and spurs innovation to find clean energy alternatives. For example, British Columbia has had a carbon tax for 11 years. Emissions have decreased by 4.7 percent over that period; and, contrary to the false claims of those who opposed the tax, it did not kill the economy. On the contrary, BC's real GDP has grown by 19 percent over the same period. That's in spite of the fact the carbon tax on fossil fuels is now double what the federal government has proposed.

Mr. Speaker, this government has never demonstrated anything but hostility to imposing a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including condemnation of the federal plan. The Premier tells anyone who will listen that our territory produces so little carbon on a national basis that we shouldn't even bother with a carbon tax. That's in spite of the fact that warming has accelerated here and the effects disrupt residents and traditional land use and it is expensive to mitigate.

Mr. Speaker, here's a bulletin: size doesn't matter. NWT has a small population compared to all of Canada and Canada has a small population compared to the rest of the planet. Does that mean we shouldn't respond to the climate crisis? My answer is no. The planet is burning up and it's on all of us, individuals, and all orders of government, business, and industry to figure out how we can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, problems with the development of NWT carbon tax legislation reach back to 2016 when the federal government introduced its Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. The Premier followed the lead of his Conservative cronies who opposed the tax. He decided to go it alone in the Northwest Territories rather than work with the federal government on modifying its backstop to meet our unique circumstances. That was a mistake, Mr. Speaker, and the result is that we are worse off.

I am going to make a comparison to Yukon and Newfoundland and Labrador. Contrary to the Finance Minister's comments yesterday, there is every reason to compare the Northwest Territories with other jurisdictions. I find that the government makes comparisons to other jurisdictions when it suits them, as the Minister of Justice did yesterday, for example, with the Public Land Act.

Yukon faces many of the same issues as the NWT when it comes to the cost of living, and many communities in Labrador are as remote as the High Arctic communities in the Northwest Territories. Both jurisdictions negotiated the backstop with the federal government. The result is that they are paying 4.42 cents per litre on gasoline, while here, in the Northwest Territories, we are set to pay 4.7 cents per litre. Likewise, Yukon and Newfoundland and Labrador are paying 5.37 cents per litre on diesel while we will be paying 5.5 cents a litre. It turns out that taking the federal offer would have saved us money on gas, the expense that most NWT residents are most concerned about.

Our government has made much of the total rebate on home heating fuel, yet Newfoundland and Labrador has that, too, and there are also exemptions on aviation fuel, off-grid diesel electricity generation, and marine transportation, as well as fuel used for forestry, fishing, mineral exploration, and municipalities. Exemptions in the NWT are much less comprehensive. In short, we lost out. Why didn't the NWT emerge from negotiations with a similar sophisticated and comprehensive system of rebates and incentives?

Yukon and Newfoundland and Labrador started working with the federal government soon after the pan-Canadian framework was introduced in 2016. As a result, there was ample time to consult residents and write legislation. There was also time to create buy-in on the need to respond to the climate crisis at a personal level. In the NWT, the Finance Minister was unable to provide comprehensive and timely information that would have enabled the Standing Committee on Government Operations to do its job. The result is that the only public hearing was held in Yellowknife. Consulting Yellowknife is obviously not consulting the territory, given the number and diversity of communities in the NWT, and I understand why residents outside the capital feel short-changed.

Mr. Speaker, we are also losing out on rebates. In Yukon, there are specific rebates for a host of entities including individuals, businesses, industry, municipalities, and First Nations. Yes, the NWT plans to provide rebates, but -- and this is an important but -- the NWT Association of Communities predicts that the meagre rebate to municipalities will result in increased taxes levied in the regional communities and Yellowknife, who are tax-based. In Yukon, government is asking municipalities to pay a 0.5 percent tax on their fuel, and in return, they get 1 percent of carbon tax revenues. Why can't it be the same way in the Northwest Territories?

A vexing question for the Standing Committee on Government Operations has been management and reporting on the money collected. Yukon's response was to create a revolving fund, so that we could tell whether the money collected as a tax on carbon was being used to reduce carbon. That could have happened here. We have several revolving funds in place now, including for Yellowknife Airport and for Marine Transportation Services.

Mr. Speaker, let's turn to rebates. The GNWT is offering an individual rebate on the carbon tax, but the federal backstop rebates are more generous than those being offered in the NWT, by $80 a year for a family of four when fully implemented. Both Yukon and British Columbia offer additional rebates for individuals living in northern and remote areas. That is not a feature of the NWT legislation, even though the cost of living is obviously higher in those areas and a larger rebate makes sense. Other jurisdictions also apply means tests to their rebates so that there is more help available for low-income families than high-income families. BC provides benefits to low-income families by redistributing the carbon tax income. Again, that is a good idea, but it is not part of the NWT plan. Much more could have been done to shield residents in small communities from the impact of a carbon tax. After all, they currently have the fewest alternatives to burning fossil fuel.

There are then the rebates to large emitters, the industrial operations that produce the bulk of greenhouse gases. Newfoundland and Labrador set targets for individual industrial facilities to reduce their emissions by 2 percent a year from 2016-2017 benchmarks, and to engage in a cap and trade program. This system applies to iron ore mines located in Labrador, pulp and paper mills, and to electricity generation. In the NWT, by contrast, large emitters can expect a rebate of 75 percent of the tax paid and access to a fund for innovation, funded by the remaining 25 percent. They are being given a pass that is unprecedented in Yukon or Newfoundland and Labrador. The arrival of mines on the tundra increased our GHG emissions substantially. Why aren't we making polluters pay? Newfoundland and Labrador is doing it with mines that are nearly as remote as ours, located at the end of a 600-kilometre dirt road. Let's not forget, the Mining Association of Canada is on record in support of carbon taxes. They see carbon reduction as a necessary feature of responsible business.

Carbon taxes that are well-designed have a minimal impact on the economy. A study by the federal and territorial governments predict that our GDP will decline by less than 1 percent, while emissions in the mining sector are predicted to decrease by 0.5 percent in the first year and 2.1 percent by 2022 with a carbon tax in place.

The carbon tax proposed by this government is wanting in comparison to other jurisdictions on almost every front, from the public policy rationale through to the implementation. Although our production of greenhouse gas emissions may be comparatively small, our responsibility to reduce them is not. Harm is harm, and action is not an option; it is a necessity to take action. We had an opportunity to negotiate a better plan, better for residents and better for the planet, and we blew it. Perhaps saddest of all, we failed in the opportunity to rally our citizens to take a real part protecting our land, families, and way of life. I cannot vote in favour of this law. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member is requesting a recorded vote. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 42, An Act to amend the Petroleum Products Tax Act, be read for the third time. Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All those abstaining, please stand. The results of the recorded vote: 10 in favour; 8 opposed. The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 42 has had a second reading and is now referred to a standing committee. Second reading of bills. Minister of Finance.

Masi. All those opposed, please stand.

Question has been called. There has been a request for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

Masi. To the principle of the bill.

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 1^st. 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. Minister of Finance.

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. Member for Deh Cho.

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 Nunakput.

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 Nahendeh.

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 Mackenzie Delta.

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 Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

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 Sahtu.

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.

It is possible to get carbon pricing right, but this bill gets it wrong. I encourage Members to vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Kam Lake.

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 Yellowknife North.

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. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Member for Frame Lake.

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. The motion is non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 42 has had its first reading. First reading of bills. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products Tax Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.