Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax fails to recognize that the Northwest Territories residents, the majority of whom are Indigenous, do not have access to alternative heating fuels, have no ability to lower their heating costs. Some of our communities are literally falling into the Arctic Ocean and others are being washed away by unprecedented flooding. All are facing the increased financial burden of adapting to and mitigating the risks of a warming climate. But none of our communities contribute meaningfully to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, and none are responsible for the history of greenhouse gases released during Canada's industrial development when northern Indigenous people were still living traditional lifestyles.
Despite this, the residents living in remote communities, like Sachs Harbour or Paulatuk, pay over $8,000 to heat -- a year to heat their homes before application of the carbon tax. Furthermore, there is no opportunity to switch to clean electricity for heat since most Northwest Territories communities the have no choice but to rely on diesel-generated electricity supply at their local community. The current approach poses a system that puts remote communities, whose residents are primarily or entirely Indigenous, even further behind the rest of Canada at a time when geopolitics and reconciliation suggest we should be making every effort to support them. It ignores the history that led to the disadvantages they experience and ignores their current lived realities.
Mr. Speaker, I've quoted some of that letter before. It was a letter that I wrote to the federal minister after the public hearing that committee convened. I thank committee for their hearing. It was in hearing them that emboldened me to write that letter. It wasn't the first letter I wrote. I wrote several letters. We spoke. I spoke. Other Ministers spoke. Other jurisdictions spoke. I'm not reading the entire letter. I have shared the entire letter, not because I was asked; I shared all of those letters at my own decision to do so because I needed to try to show that we have raised the voice of the North. We have tried to show the realities of the North. And I'm certainly not in favour of the carbon tax, of the federal carbon tax and the way that it applies to the North. But, Mr. Speaker, just as my colleagues -- and I appreciate that today's tone is certainly trying to demonstrate -- we have worked together. I do hope the public realizes we have met. I have tried to -- with the timing the way it's been to make some concessions. And I think it's made the carbon tax -- or Bill 60 much better. But at the end of the day, the idea of what is best for the Northwest Territories is also something that Cabinet and myself are also faced with a decision upon, that we too have to navigate the government waters and navigate our relationship with the federal government in the best interests of the Northwest Territories.
So having wrote that letter, having signed that letter, and others like it, having raised the issue at the finance table, at the finance FBT table under similar tones, pointing to the fact that federal ministers attended international conferences, acknowledged that other countries, other countries -- developing nations should, in fact, see some sort of benefit. The developing countries are not the reason that the rest of the world is now facing a climate crisis. They were -- they're underdeveloped. And now we're telling them that rather than developing, they have to pay carbon taxes and carbon burdens. We as a westernized country, we're acknowledging that. And yet in our own country, we're not acknowledging that reality. We're not acknowledging that in our very own country, that in the North we didn't benefit from industrialization. We are facing all of these challenges and yet we have to pay. I've said all those things, Mr. Speaker. I want my colleague and I want the public to know that I have said them, and my colleagues have said them, and we've raised the issue. It's not for lack of raising it.
So when I keep saying that I want to hang on to the responsibility and the authority to collect and control revenues under the carbon tax, it's because despite saying all these things, despite raising all these issues, I am not getting responses. We are not getting responses. We are not seeing a flush of alternatives coming to the North. And so I want to do what I can to hang on to as much revenue as I can to be able to recycle it in a way that keeps it in the North and that keeps control of it in the North, whether it's me or another Minister. I can't promise what's going to happen in the future. I don't -- as far as consistency or certainty, Mr. Speaker, the moratorium wasn't supposed to be reviewed the way it was, or rather not. Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the carbon tax was supposed to be collaborative, it was not. So I don't have a lot of faith in what that process from the federal government might look for. The best that I have extracted most recently is an understanding that federal government, federal government departments should meet, should in fact meet with communities in the North. I will, for the remaining time that I have here, certainly make sure that I follow up on that offer that I've had from them that we do everything we can to get those federal Ministers to the North so they can, in fact, see the lack of alternatives we have, and if there is federal money, that it starts to come here so we can get off fossil fuels. We need to do that for climate change reasons, and we need to do that for the cost reasons, and to do it because it's the right thing to do. And I will certainly continue to pursue that.
But in the meantime, in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to hand over control of this money to the federal government. I do think this is the best possible option. It is where I'm left. And I am sorry for the process that we faced as, again I said, I am accountable for the process on this one. We shouldn't have come to the point where people are feeling compelled to vote against carbon tax by voting for Bill 60. It shouldn't have come to this. I hear where people's frustration is, and I know they want to represent their constituents. I do understand that.
So all I'll say, to conclude, Mr. Speaker, one last time, I'm going to give the pitch of what it is that we are saying is the benefits and the not. I also -- I'm going to start with the large emitters program because this does seem to be fairly -- not, I don't know if "misunderstood" is the right word. I'm going to take that back, Mr. Speaker.
There's a lot of reporting that's done with the carbon tax. Let me start with that one. I realize there was a request for further and more reporting in the committee's report. There's already a fairly detailed report that goes out every year. It's on the website. It details all the different types of fuel, how much by volume, how much by cost, how much -- which different entities residents, small businesses, government, large emitters, who pays what, who uses what volume. Part of my struggle is not understanding what more needs to be reported upon but we've made a lot of changes to reporting in this government, and if there's more that somebody wants us to do that we can do within the boundaries here, I'm happy do it. I can't promise that the reduction and use of fuel is because of the carbon tax, because there's a lot of other reasons that someone may not want to use fossil fuels. But if we can make some changes to this report, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to do that.
Mr. Speaker, the large emitters, in 2021-2022, they paid $19.7 million, three months. Mr. Speaker, residents, small businesses, and governments collectively paid only $16.9 million. The large emitters are the ones paying the most, and they will continue to pay the most under the large emitters program. Keeping our program doesn't give them a discount. It actually keeps them paying, and it keeps them paying in line with being roughly 50 percent users as compared to everybody else, paying a little bit more.
The OBPS system, the federal backstop system will have some sort of nationalized standard, which may or may not just be our three mines, it may be other mines lumped in, and to the extent that they're over, they pay, and to the extent that they're under, they don't. So I don't think they'll be paying as much under the federal backstop. We'll see how that unfolds.
But besides that, Mr. Speaker, I am worried for the future of our mineral resource industry. I'm worried for future smaller mines that won't qualify under the federal system and those smaller mines I want -- I want the North to be the critical minerals/metals supplier of the future. But it's going to be making it very difficult if we aren't competitive in that space.
Mr. Speaker, there's two big parts for residents that committee has had a very direct hand in improving. The cost of living offset. The cost of living offset right now is now a tiered system such that the average resident in every community, including the high cost communities, will see that they will not be seeing an increased cost as a result of carbon taxes and that is thanks to committee and to their feedback for having us find a better solution. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, the community revenue sharing approach, again, put to us to find a solution, a solution was proposed and then in fact told no, you've got to go make that even better. And we did. 10 percent of net revenues, again, based on the current usage that we have and being able to evaluate the current use of fuels more than compensates the impacts of the carbon tax. But, Mr. Speaker, that's not necessarily the point as I think that was made a point of yesterday. Mr. Speaker, it's frankly just the right thing to do to help support communities to get off fossil fuels. At the end of the day, that is the point.
So, Mr. Speaker -- and, Mr. Speaker, one last -- one last one in addition to, again, saying that the reporting can still be looked at, with respect to getting some of this into legislation and regulations, as already has been said, part of it is the scope of the bill as drafted, which was drafted after our public meeting in the fall. But, Mr. Speaker, I did, in hearing colleagues still yesterday, speak one more time with the department. It is possible to draft a bill that would be very narrow in scope, so certainly not addressing everyone's issues in their entirety, but at least to get the purpose of having the cost of living offset and having the community revenue sharing portion put into a form of legislation or regulation. There is pathway by which we could do that, with committee's collaboration, and certainly if this were to pass tonight, I will go back to committee and ask if that is still in fact their wish. It will be narrow, it won't answer everything, but it will at least enshrine that portion that they fought so hard for into legislation.
Mr. Speaker -- and then besides that, again, I'll be following up with the federal government. I know my colleagues do as well. It won't just be me. I do hope that our federal government colleagues attend here, that they can be -- stand in the small communities and offer us -- offer a pathway by which to find alternative energies and alternatives to fossil fuels. We don't want to be on fossil fuels. It's not helping the climate. It is expensive. It is not the way of the future. But we're going to need help to get there. And no matter what may happen tonight, Mr. Speaker, that really fundamentally is what we're going to have to do.
For now, Mr. Speaker, I do hope, again, I know people have made their positions write clear and quite firm. Nevertheless, I do hope that what we do going forward gives us control in a measure by which we can help support residents, businesses, and small communities in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
