Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I spoke previously, it was as the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, and now I speak as the Member for Kam Lake. I have spoken with Kam Lakers about this very issue, and many of them are torn because they do care about the environment, they care about climate change, and they want options, but they are also faced with the reality that the North is already a very expensive place to live and work.

I have heard from businesses, as well, who say they cannot afford another cost and encouraged me to work to improve whatever this bill would ultimately result in, to give them some relief on that front. Unfortunately, that is not there. As my honourable friend from Yellowknife North put out, there are no measures for small businesses, and this despite the urging of the standing committee. There are no measures for municipalities, as well, which is another feature of the federal backstop. These are features that are not in our plan, that are in another plan, but does that make the federal plan better? Well, no, we do not know that. Taking the Minister's comments earlier, "It's clear that the residents and businesses will be better off with the GNWT approach." Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, it's not clear because the exact details of the federal backstop don't exist because those backstops that we have seen are in jurisdictions that have accepted the backstop and worked with Ottawa to develop it within their jurisdictions.

I think it has become clear to me at this point that the reason we cannot get anything out of either this government or the federal government is because nothing is really there apart from targets, metrics, and other useful data that is used to build whatever the backstop ultimately looks like, barring the industrial emission standards, which we have already reviewed in our report, in the committee's report, and discussed. So the real question here is: why was this so difficult to get the information? I wanted nothing more than to see that committee report come out and fully endorse the GNWT's plan and say it's head over heels, a hundred percent better than what the federal government is going to impose on us if we don't take it," but we cannot provide that kind of comfort. What we are left with is a carbon pricing plan that is being imposed by this government, not by Ottawa. The Premier unilaterally signed on the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change and committed to this tax without seeking input from all Members of this House, and without properly engaging the Members of this House on how that tax would work and what kind of features were needed to make it work for the North.

Large emitters are responsible for more than 70 percent of the NWT's total emissions, and yet individual Northerners are given nearly the same tax to pay on things that are not automatically rebated. Individualized trust for these emitters instead of a competitive fund for clean energy investment leaves our clean energy investment of our large emitters in roughly the same shape as they were before. These are holding places for the rebates that would otherwise receive.

There was no consideration of alternative approaches to carbon pricing, including cap and trade through establishing a northern carbon market. At the time that the pan-Canadian framework was signed, Ontario and Quebec had a shared carbon market with California and the United States. This is a discussion that could have been had with those provincial governments, and certainly with our northern premiers to create a carbon market that could have dealt with the industrial emissions and left individual Northerners not paying a tax out of their own pockets for, again, a problem where 75 percent is produced by those emitters.

There is a lack of a formal tax plan in these bills that needs to be approved by the Assembly, which leaves the rebates and actual rates of tax determined by regulation; which is another way of saying by unelected bureaucrats. We have a very capable public service, but taxation, above all other things, should be determined by the Legislature. That is what we are here to do, and that is what should be coming forward with a formal tax plan, and that is not a feature of this bill.

There is a fundamental lack of accountability in reporting the revenues and operations of the carbon pricing scheme that will make it all but impossible for public and independent assessment of a revenue-neutral tax, which is another commitment that the government has made. There are no rebates, as I have said before, for small businesses and municipalities, who have no choice but to pass increased costs on to residents. This is significant because, if carbon pricing is meant to change behaviour, then there need to be options for change. Nahanni Butte is not Vancouver. Gameti is not Toronto, and even Yellowknife is not like any other major city in Canada, where residents can switch to low-carbon alternatives such as subways, LRT, buses, et cetera. I find it hard to believe we can build the infrastructure for electric cars, and the money that is actually going to be invested in clean energy is already going to GNWT-owned and operated infrastructure and their energy strategy.

Furthermore, the final point I will make is the government has waited until the bitter end to roll out these bills, and now we are confronted with the reality that we are going into not one but two elections, one territorial and one federal, that could undo this entire carbon pricing plan and render it unnecessary. If the 19^th Assembly decides that this is not the way they wish to go, they can undo it. If there is a different government elected in Ottawa, they can decide this is not the way to go. Members of this House urged the government to bring forward a carbon pricing plan early in the life of the Assembly so it could be properly considered, vetted, and consulted with the public, and that did not happen until the very end, until the dying days of this Assembly. Again, now we are in a position where these bills with a carbon tax will be implemented during an election, during two elections really, and the outcome is not so certain. This is not the way to roll out sound public policy that is going to achieve its clearly stated goals of reducing emissions and ensuring that it is revenue neutral and invested in the right ways. Even the rebates for individuals are not income tested, so everyone gets the same rebate. Whether you make $200,000 a year in the Northwest Territories or are on income support, you are still getting the same amount of rebate back, and that doesn't speak to fairness of costs.

This plan is not something I can currently support. I have learned a lot over my term, and when I started, I certainly had high-minded and lofty public policy goals. Once you begin working in this role and hearing the concerns of your constituents, it is very clear that the cost of living is always going to prioritize everything else.

This government has done very little to convince me that their plan is superior, and as a result, I cannot support it. Thank you.