Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you. Can the Minister confirm that the time on Tabled Document 497-18(3) is 1:01 p.m.? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

The Minister can confirm that the time on that was 1:01 p.m.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A letter that was provided to Members is similar in nature to Tabled Document 497-18(3), but is timestamped 12:20 p.m., and there are some differences between this letter and Tabled Document 497-18(3). Can the Minister account for these differences? Thank you.

Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it was committee was asking for more clarification, so I believe we provided that.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the differences between the two seem to be that Tabled Document 497-18(3) indicates that the federal backstop will be in place on September 1^st, whereas the letter from 12:20 p.m. does not include a firm date. The other substantive difference is that Tabled Document 497-18(3) includes a line, "our preference remains for NWT to put in place systems so it has full control over the revenue," and this does not appear in the original letter. Can the Minister confirm whether or not he directed his staff to amend the letter sent at 12:20 to include these additional pieces of information contained in Tabled Document 497-18(3)? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did get a letter from them, and we thought that could be sufficient information for committee. Apparently it wasn't, so I asked staff to talk to Canada and see if they could further clarify that with a firm date, and they came back and did it, because committee didn't think our first piece of correspondence was sufficient, nor did they believe it.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand there was correspondence between the chair of the committee, but not the committee proper. So, to set the record straight, the committee did not weigh in on this. That being said, we know that the Alberta backstop will come in place January 1, 2020. Did the Minister inquire as to whether the September 1^st date was negotiable? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We worked with Canada; we understood there are processes, and the process we had to go through, we had not been able to deal with this in June, and the July 1^st implementation was the original date, so we worked with Canada and they understood that, after this particular session, we might have been in a position where the September 1^st deadline would apply. I'm not too concerned about -- I'll stop there, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the implementation date is a crucial factor of this, which is why I'm raising these concerns. I also have concerns with the clarity provided in Tabled Document 497-18(3). It seems that the differences between these letters, Tabled Document 497-18(3) does more to support the government's position than the original piece of correspondence sent out, and the Minister did confirm that he directed his staff to bring forward amendments to that correspondence. I think it's highly leading that that exchange took place and that that is the letter that was, in fact, tabled before the House. It impedes our ability to properly debate the coming-into-force date. Northerners have not been consulted on this plan. Northerners have had no say in this plan, Regular Members have had no say in this plan, and that is why this is a crucial component of when this comes forward. I am not convinced by the arguments that have been put forward, and I think that we need to give our citizens more time to weigh in on this crucial decision for our economy and not leave it up to governments, both the federal government and the GNWT, to decide on the future of this plan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's just be very clear on something. I did direct my staff to reach out to Canada and work with them on further clarification at the wish of committee. I have done that.

To the Member's comment about the people of the Northwest Territories not having an opportunity to comment on this, well, first of all, this piece of legislation was given second reading in March and given to committee. They have had six months. They determined that they weren't going to take it on the road, and that would not allow the people of the Northwest Territories to comment on this critical piece of legislation. Through the process that we went through in our public engagement and doing a "what we heard" document, we heard from residents of the Northwest Territories, and I believe that one of the Members quoted from it the other day. Of course, they weren't happy with the proposed tax, but I think that, in most cases, they were more concerned with addressing the cost of living, and I think that we have done that.

It is unfair to blame the department for committee's failure to bring this out on the road. I think that there was a public news release that they had sent out a little while ago, and people have not had the opportunity to tell them exactly how they feel because they didn't give them that. We couldn't. We did our public engagement, but beyond that, it was in the hands of committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Further? Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to clarify that I am in no way implicating the department in my criticism. I am criticizing this Minister for his approach to carbon tax and his willingness to engage or not engage. The cost of living issues are well-canvassed, but I did some number-crunching today and after the GNWT's plan is fully implemented, a family of four will receive $1,120 versus the federal backstop rebate under climate change incentive payments of $1,200. The federal plan is more generous in the form of personal rebates based on known information. I think that it is misleading to say that we did the best job that we possibly could do. Furthermore, committee tabled a lengthy report explaining our consultation process and how the information that Northerners most care about, namely how the plan would work, was not allowed to be shared with the public due to confidentiality concerns.

We can cherry-pick the facts as much as we want, but what we have before us today is a process that was pushed directly onto the Legislative Assembly without the same kind of cooperative, collaborative approach that other bills have had and that other committees and the working relationship between committees and the government that have been enjoyed in other major pieces of legislation. Those comments speak for themselves. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing further.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. A wide-ranging conservation on this clause. With 38 seconds of the Member's time remaining, the Minister would like to respond. Minister.