For those abstaining, please stand.

Those opposed, please stand.

Thank you, Member from Range Lake. The Member has asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Yellowknife Centre was just saying it's a shame the government is so pessimistic about our ability to successfully navigate the national fabric of relationships that allow us to be successful at leveraging funding to realize a future for the Northwest Territories. But I digress.

Mr. Speaker, this is a new government. This will be -- this is a new committee. These are new Members. And one thing I heard loud and clear on the campaign trail is that carbon tax, not just high cost of living, not high cost of groceries, not high cost of fuel -- of course, everyone feels the pinch -- but this specific policy was something that my constituents wanted reviewed. So when Members suggest that this is a waste of time and resources, I say anything we do for our constituents is never a waste of time. If our constituents want us to look at something and when we gave priority speeches in this Chamber, more people spoke of the need to deal with the carbon tax, many of them on that side of the House now, Mr. Speaker, than they did about the public inquiry or third-party review into a wildfire. That sounds like an important issue for this Assembly to tackle.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe in zero risk. I've been very clear on the public record about that. Maybe we don't get our rebate system honoured. Maybe we have to deal with the federal backstop or maybe the Prime Minister will listen to the Premier's eloquent words about the need for an exemption and we won't pay carbon tax anymore. Maybe. But we don't know until we do something. And I got elected to do things.

Mr. Speaker, if we are stuck with a backstop, the concern that the revenues will be lost, well, 90 percent of those revenues will come back under the backstop. 10 percent will go to renewable energy programs. Right now zero percent of them go to renewable energy programs. The government funds AEA, the Arctic Energy Alliance. They fund these programs. But they don't specifically use the revenues to do that. It's not a revenue neutral system.

Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic, of course, to the mining industry. We need to support them. But that industry continues to work in Nunavut and in Yukon even though they pay the full federal backstop and they use the OBPS system. So it doesn't -- it hasn't slowed down investment there. In fact, they have more exploration going on in both of those jurisdictions than we do in the Northwest Territories. So it can't be that bad. But we don't know if we don't take a risk.

Mr. Speaker, from now until 2027-2028, the carbon tax will raise $71 million in net revenue for the GNWT. $71 million. And that's not money that's going to go back to people in rebates. That's $71 million of general revenue for the GNWT. The federal system will not do that. All the money goes back to people or it goes back to hospitals, communities, businesses. So we have to ask yourself, how are we going to deal -- is that the right way to use that money? Should it be just going into general revenues, or should it be earmarked for projects? Should there be a commitment that every dollar raised not in a revolving fund -- I don't think we need to be that prescriptive but just say if we raise $71 million in net revenue, we're giving it all to the Arctic Energy Alliance for energy efficient programs or to the power corporation which currently spends 1 percent of its total infrastructure investments in renewables. One percent of our power corporation. So maybe the $71 million we are getting from carbon tax should go to the power corporation to invest in renewables and decarbonize our power system. These are important questions that we need to ask, and this bill is a vehicle to ask those questions.

I agree with my colleagues, it should be studied. It should be studied not just for the sake of good public policy decisions but because our constituents have asked us to look at it. They've asked us to study it, and we're here for them, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, why can't we do both? The minister has eloquently put that she has her reservations about this, and I respect what she's been through. The trauma of a carbon tax debate is not fun. I've been through it myself. And I don't -- I don't want to do it again but it must be had.

Now, we can do both though. We can study this bill. We can study the best system for the Northwest Territories, and we can invest in renewables. We can get our communities off diesel. We can do both. We can chew gum and walk at the same time, Mr. Speaker. I firmly believe that. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude the debate on this, but I will also call for a recorded vote and I look forward to my colleagues supporting this bill. Thank you.

Question has been called. All those in -- oh, Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Member for Yellowknife South. To the principle of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to start out -- I don't want any suspense in this, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Premier and Cabinet, we'll be abstaining on this motion, but I want to speak to some reasons for why -- or on this bill rather.

Mr. Speaker, committee reviewed the approach to carbon tax that was being proposed by the Government of the Northwest Territories back in the previous Assembly and the Assembly before that, so 2018, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2024. Three times this matter has gone to committee for review. It's gone out to the public. It's gone to stakeholders. It's gone to other levels of government. Mr. Speaker, if committee wants to do that again, we're not going to stand in their way. That is the purview of committee. And I do want to say very clearly that that's certainly -- we want to respect and demonstrate a respect for that choice but just keeping in mind that folks have had a chance to speak to the issues around carbon taxing, carbon pricing, and here we are yet again. And, Mr. Speaker, I would implore colleagues that we not lose time, energy, staff resources, and miss an opportunity to talk truly and meaningfully about energy alternatives, and to talk about how we're going to get the Northwest Territories off diesel, how we're going to turn ourselves into a place where there's green mining opportunities, where there was an opportunity to be part of a green economy value chain, and that we ensure that we're putting our time and efforts into those conversations which will make a difference in terms of GHG reductions which will make a difference in terms of cost of living and which will make a difference in what the future of the Northwest Territories might look like. But, Mr. Speaker, again I anticipate, and certainly based on some of the comments that we're hearing, this is likely to go back for review yet again. As such, I do want to set up some of what the concerns might be from the part of the Government of the Northwest Territories given that it is, of course, a system that does now sit with the GNWT to administer how this federal carbon tax is applied here. And, really, Mr. Speaker, it comes down to one of creating uncertainty and that with this current act, it is certain to create uncertainty.

Right now revenue that is paid -- tax revenue that is paid by residents and by businesses in the Northwest Territories comes to this House for its approval in terms of what happens to it. What those revenues -- what happens to those revenues, how they are expended by the Government of the Northwest Territories, gets approved here by way of the appropriations that are approved on the floor of the House. If revenues that are generated in the Northwest Territories go to Ottawa, they are approved through Ottawa. It might be, it might be, that after many years the federal government will come back and say don't worry that you were a little late to the party, Yukon and Nunavut signed up back in 2018-2019 to be part of having their own systems, others did not. And so when the last round of changes came out of Ottawa, other jurisdictions wound up under the federal backstop. Now, it might be that we're allowed to come in and create our own system. But at that point, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to create our own system and have our own manner of organizing what we do with these revenues and these funds, that's exactly what we do right now. So that's the best case but of course the worst case is that we have this backstop applied. And if the backstop does get applied, Mr. Speaker, our concern then of course becomes that we are subject to the political impacts that influence Ottawa which may not, and certainly in my experience are not, the same as the political impacts and desires of the people of the Northwest Territories. That focus comes here.

So, Mr. Speaker, we would certainly wind up in a situation where the large emitters program may be at risk. That's already been spoken to. It's a system that we've set up to reflect the realities of the mining industry here. It impacts the diamond mines, and it's going to certainly impact diamond mines that are heading towards reclamation and closure. They likely would no longer be able to get into the federal system. Those that remain, that go into the federal -- the base system, that changes where those revenues go because they're no longer going to be paying taxes. They're in a carbon pricing and trade system. Without that, the amount of revenue that's generated that goes into the fuel charge portion of carbon tax doesn't go back to residents. So the total amount they're withdrawing to pay back residents with carbon offset payments goes down.

Mr. Speaker, and what other gains then would there be? Well, again, this concern that residents aren't getting enough back. Residents on our expectation are getting enough back to ensure that they are getting, in general and on average, more than they're paying in carbon tax. This doesn't fix the cost of living in the Northwest Territories. We know the cost of living is high but, again, that's a different conversation, and it's one that we should spend time having.

And as for -- Mr. Speaker, so with that, I don't want to belabour the point any further again. I've made the point many, many times in this House. If it's revenue generated in the North, it should be revenue that stays in this House and we should be given the opportunity to deal with it. It gives us that opportunity -- it gives us that opportunity if we maintain the tax here. We give it back to Ottawa, whether they let us negotiate with them, whatever those negotiations might be or whether they simply oppose their backstop, we're handing back control over something.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to set up that conversation. We're going to be abstaining on behalf of Cabinet. If committee wants to go back and do this, certainly that is in their purview and they have that opportunity, and the department and the government will certainly participate in whatever way is available to us. Thank you

Frame Lake. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife South.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, certainly I appreciate the concerns raised by the Member for Yellowknife North. She spoke well to them and I think summarized well the concerns associated with moving forward with the bill as it is. Certainly the biggest one that I have is the uncertainty it could create. We certainly don't have certainty as to what would happen after the bill moves forward, and that is a concern that I share.

I also think the Member for Yellowknife North made it clear that we are not in a position to be repealing the carbon tax in the sense that citizens will not be paying carbon tax even if this bill moved forward. So we do need to be clear about that. And I think citizens need to understand that clearly, that we are not in the position to do that. This is a federal tax whether if the -- if the NWT repeals our tax, the federal tax will remain, and they will be taxed the same.

However, I do note that many issues with the existing act were raised the last time it was reviewed and not addressed when it was passed. So an opportunity for further investigation could lead to ideas for improvement that could either be applied to this act or to a subsequent one if this act were to be defeated. Furthermore, review of the bill by committee will allow for a fulsome investigation into its merits or the lack thereof.

So I want to be clear I am similar to the Member for Boot Lake. I am supportive of sending the bill to second reading for further investigation. I want to be clear that that is not necessarily an expression of support for the bill itself at this time. My hope is through investigation we can address uncertainties, possibly develop ideas as to how we can address the existing shortcomings of the current program and come forward with conclusive recommendations. So I am supportive of moving the bill to committee, investigating it. I think that we can come forward -- I hope that we can come forward with conclusive recommendations about it. And depending on the conclusions of the committee and my own personal conclusions which would stem from the investigation of the committee, I will make a decision on the bill at a later time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Member from Frame Lake.