Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. I have a copy of the motion in front of me. Just give me one moment to have a look at it. Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. I have to rule this motion out of order. This bill only narrowly, very narrowly, touches on regulations, whereas this motion is very wide-ranging and is beyond the scope of this bill. The motion is ruled out of order.

---Clauses 17 through 21 inclusive approved

Clause 22. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier today the honourable Minister tabled a letter from Mario Renault's chief of staff to the honourable Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This is Tabled Document, I believe, 497-18(3). This letter concerns the implementation date of this plan, and also a potential implementation date for the federal backstop. Could the Minister confirm whether or not a copy of Tabled Document 497-18(3) was provided to Members prior to its tabling in the House? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had provided that to the chair of the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the time. We started working with committee in June of 2017, and it is misleading to tell the public that the federal approach is superior to ours. The Member failed to mention that our point-of-sale rebate on heating fuel, the rebate at the point of purchase, is an additional $400-something per household in the Northwest Territories. We give bits and pieces of information, but we need to give all of the information, the correct information, and committee has had a lot of that information.

Thank you. Clause 22. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do have some questions, if I can, and then I think I feel compelled to say some remarks in response to what I have heard from the Minister. If the bill is passed, what date does the Minister intend to bring this into force? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

September 1^st, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Why wasn't that date actually put into the bill itself? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The original date of implementation was July 1^st, but because we needed to work on our legislation, we had approached Canada to see if we can delay the implementation. They understand our process, therefore we agreed to it. We had hoped to deal with this during our clause-by-clause so that we wouldn't have the debate on the floor of the House. I will be moving a motion later to change the implementation date from July 1^st to September 1^st. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. That's interesting. I hadn't heard that before, so I appreciate the heads-up moments before it is going to come to the floor. As I understand it, Alberta had a carbon tax change in government there. They took away the carbon tax. Can someone explain to me what the implementation date is for the federal backstop in Alberta now that there is no carbon tax in Alberta? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. That is a little bit out of our jurisdiction, but I will allow the Minister to give a response if he would like. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I totally agree with you. Alberta is a different jurisdiction than ours. We have been doing the work on our particular one. To say that, giving the heads-up on the motion, I have been discussing it with committee, and I think that we did ask committee if they would be willing to move the motion to change the implementation date as we went through clause-by-clause. I take issue with the fact the Member keeps saying that these things are being sprung on us in surprise. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. There is a rule against anticipation. For any future motions, I would ask all of the Members to refrain from discussing future motions until we reach that point. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I didn't get a response to my question, of course, but as I understand it, the federal government has indicated to the Alberta government that they intend to implement the federal backstop in that jurisdiction effective January 1, 2020.

I do feel compelled to make a few remarks in response to what I believe I heard the Minister say. The Minister talked about the failure of the committee to take the bill on the road. I think it is also fair for the public to know, and I would suggest anybody who is really keen to look at the committee report, the committee really didn't have any information to enable it to take the bill on the road. The Minister had changed the approach to large emitters and the implementation date and hadn't bothered to tell the public about that. Committee knew that information, but there was no way for the public to know. Taking a bill on the road on a faulty set of assumptions would not really be a great way to proceed with public consultation.

I guess, Mr. Chair, I would also point to my attempts, even in this review in Committee of the Whole, to make two small changes to the bill: one with regard to requiring some public reporting, and secondly, to require --

Mr. O'Reilly, those are matters that have previously been dealt with by the House. Similar to the rule against anticipation, there is also a rule against discussing matters that have been dealt with. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it would be fair to say that the way that this bill has been crafted is that the committee, Regular MLAs, are not able to make any changes to it. The only thing that this bill does, and I have said this before, is set out what the carbon tax rates will be. All of the decisions around what the rebates, the grants, how the money is going to get spent, are made at the total and utter discretion of a future Minister of Finance and by Cabinet. What's the point? The bill could not be changed anyways the way that this had been put together. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just so that we are clear, this is, for me, it's something that hasn't anything to do with an election. I take what the federal government has written to our Minister, and what the Minister tabled as something that is a route. I believe that the federal government was in a position to put the act in place on July 1^st, and have now indicated to us that they will be putting it in place on September 1st. If we don't put our federal tax in place on September 1^st, then, we are passing at least four months' worth of the federal tax on heating fuel onto the people of the territory. I just wonder whether that's a wise thing to do, considering the feds have advised us that they will put the tax in place.

The other thing that I think no one is talking about is the pollution. The whole idea of carbon tax was because of what our country is seeing, especially in the NWT, what the greenhouse gases are doing to our country and our territory. I think in 2000, when a house in Inuvik fell over because the permafrost melted, people began to realize that this was a pretty serious matter. I think the federal government made a decision for the whole country. They made a decision that they are going to price pollution. We are going to be pricing pollution, no matter whether we send the bill to our people or the federal government is the one to send the bill to our people to pay for the pollution and to pay for the cost of using your vehicle, heating your house. Unfortunately, heating your house is something that we can't avoid in the Northwest Territories, so I think the government has put in place something to protect the people on heating fuel.

If we are very concerned about gasoline, which many of us are because, in the small communities, the people have no option but to go out on the land to try to reduce their cost of living, I guess other people that can curb the way they do it. If it is not essential to drive, than don't drive. I think that right now, we all take positions because we are taking some positions because we feel that the federal government will not put the act into place on September 1^st. That's how I felt this morning coming to work, but after getting something in writing saying that they will, I believe that they will. Unfortunately, we have to have a carbon tax, and it is better to have ours than theirs, the federal government's, I mean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.