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.