Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to make a few comments about the bill. I am very much live to the criticisms and concerns that are being raised here. They certainly were raised when we had the opportunity to appear in front of committee. And in my view, Madam Speaker, this is a good opportunity. This is one of those times where in consensus government the ability to put forward a bill that does have contentious elements to it, elements that are challenging, that are not easily resolved, going through the second reading and going through the committee process, in my view, Madam Speaker, will actually be to the benefit of this bill.
This was a circumstance where, because of the nature of the situation we were in as placed by the federal government, made it difficult to get information out in advance. The Department of Finance was in discussions with Environment and Climate Change Canada right up until August, which didn't give a lot of runway to go back to committee.
I can say, Madam Speaker, also that, again, there's a real challenge in figuring out the best possible solution in a situation we have been put in. The thing we cannot do, unfortunately, is any sort of negation of the price signal. That's the federal system. So it's the federal government that have taken away that ability to be more nuanced, more targeted in the types of rebates that we offer. By not being allowed to negate the price signal, what that means is that you can't have an at-source rebate anymore, because you're negating that immediate price signal change that you'd have. You cannot have the fuel use rebates. So you can't go to someone's House and say well, this household uses more fuel, this one uses less; the one that uses more gets a bigger rebate. That is considered to be negating the price signal. So that puts us in that difficult of position. Do we make one equitable -- or equal -- not equitable -- one equal payment for all, or is there a way that we can be looking at regional -- you know, regional differences.
So, again, I've already asked that we go back and look at some form of regional difference, not use the equal approach that we have, always mindful that if we don't achieve something that keeps us within the federal parameters, we do wind up going to the federal system.
Madam Speaker, again, it'll be certainly open to committee to consider, you know, simply whether or not this is an approach they want to go to. I will say for the moment, Madam Speaker, the bill is presented as it is keeping us in the made-in-the-North approach because that approach provides flexibility to the Northwest Territories. That approach allows us to provide rebates in some form or fashion. There's no guarantee what the federal system may or may not do. It allows us to provide a rebate system for our industry that is reflective of our industry, specifically, Madam Speaker, the large emitters; namely, the three diamond mines would pay less if they were under the federal system - the output-based pricing system. Under this system, they pay more but they do get the remitter rebate program where they would have the opportunity to access funds to reduce their GHG emissions. And at this point, Madam Speaker, it provides them certainty on what that's going to look like and not have to change systems. And it also allows us, again, Madam Speaker, the flexibility to look at future development and what that might be, which might not be the same as the large remitters we have today. The federal system isn't going to give us that flexibility. So a number of reasons that I'd like to keep us in that made-in-the-North approach, but the made-in-the-North approach, like many other things in the North, can be flexible; it can be adaptable; and it can be a product of consensus government. So there's no reason to think that there can't still be modifications to this bill.
I do appreciate, as I say, my colleagues' comments. I do hope that committee can look at ways to better be more responsive to the needs of residents, in particular, who are facing the costs -- the rising costs that will result from that and if the approach of being equitable across the board is not one that is considered to be the best, I do look forward to having that conversation in some further detail working with the Department of Finance to see what we can do to keep ourselves within the box that the federal government has created for us but one that still gives us the flexibility and the room within that from using a made-in-the-North approach. So I do look forward to this process. I hope my colleagues do take it out for their process, and we'll move forward from there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.