Merci, Madam la Presidente. I rise to speak to the principle of Bill 60, the Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act.
The Finance Minister introduced this bill yesterday, and there was very little public information available on what it actually means. Like the original legislation that was passed narrowly in the last Assembly, this bill is a result of federal pressure and leadership on the climate crisis. This reflects an urgent need to speed up reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to save this planet. I support those federal efforts and a carbon tax in general but strongly reject Cabinet's approach on a carbon tax that will reward large emitters, basically the diamond mines and Imperial Oil at Norman Wells, and not mitigate the impacts on those communities that have the highest fuel costs.
This bill does nothing to address the failures of the legislation from the last Assembly that implemented a carbon tax. All this bill does is switch out the carbon pricing schedule and tinker with vendor remittances of the carbon tax. The bill does not address the severe problems with a total lack of transparency and accountability in the collection and use of carbon taxes. The bill does nothing but continue to centralize all the power and authority over as yet undefined offsets, grants, and other measures into regulations and policies that remain difficult to understand and subject to the whims of Cabinet.
There is nothing in the original legislation, or this bill, that requires any separate accounting or even minimal public reporting on carbon taxes collected, how they are used, and the effectiveness of the regime in terms of greenhouse gas reductions.
The way the original legislation was drafted, and this new bill carries forward, Regular MLAs will not have the ability to make any changes. It's a "take it or leave it" approach, Madam Speaker. We must trust Cabinet to do the right things, but we have no way to hold them accountable. There is no requirement for public reporting, no separate accounting of funds collected or used, no input into regulations or policies. This is not consistent or reflective of what consensus government is supposed to be.
Some will ask why is Cabinet increasing carbon taxes now during a period of very high inflation? The easy answer is to blame the feds. The real answer is that Cabinet's approach to the climate crisis is failing, and failing dismally, and this new approach on a carbon tax appears to provide a convenient cover for this failure and pass it off as federal direction.
One needs to look no further than the 2030 Energy Strategy reports that show we cannot possibly reach the pan-Canadian framework target of a reduction in greenhouse gas reductions of 30 percent from 2005 emissions levels by 2030. That strategy was always founded on back-end loading of GHG reductions from the imaginary Taltson Hydro Expansion. Taltson expansion is not even economically viable without massive public subsidies and spending we cannot possibly afford.
The latest predictions of GHG emissions reductions to 2025 from the energy strategy report tabled in the House last week only get us to less than 10 percent of what is needed. How can we possibly make up the other 90 percent in the last five years? Even the feds recognize that Cabinet's approach is failing dismally and have required changes to the carbon tax to provide more incentives for greenhouse gas reductions. I've begged and pleaded with Cabinet to change this approach from the last Cabinet, and they have done nothing to change it. It is destined for failure.
I hope that Cabinet might be convinced that climate change is indeed a crisis that we need to embrace change and the opportunities to build a greener and more just economy. We have only to look around at unprecedented flooding, permafrost degradation, and damage to infrastructure to know that the crisis is upon us right now. Rather than subsidizing large emitters, we must find ways to create jobs and greenhouse gas reductions through improved housing retrofits and build energy self-sufficiency at the household and community level.
But no, this Cabinet is stuck in a time warp where they continue to believe fossil fuel exploration and production will be the salvation for the NWT. Just look at the request for proposals issued this week for the capture, storage, and transportation of carbon dioxide resulting from oil and gas production. It's unbelievable, Madam Speaker.
Regular MLAs have been engaged with Cabinet since July 2022 posing questions, getting in-camera briefings, and receiving some rather confusing information on how the new approach to the carbon tax will be implemented. Unfortunately, we cannot share that information with the public and Cabinet has so far failed to provide much public information despite promises of robust public communications.
We know that measures must be introduced that at least meet federal requirements or the federal government's program standards, the backstop, will kick in.
As to our territorial measures, what can I say? What I can say is that the current exemption of heating fuel from carbon tax will end on April 1st, 2023, and there will be a standard across the board increase in a cost of living offset for individuals and families that file income tax returns. This will help some individuals. Those in communities with lower fuel costs may actually make some money. But those in the remotest communities will be hit hard, and the offset will not mitigate those impacts sufficiently in my opinion.
Large emitters, the diamond mines and Norman Wells operations, will continue to get most of their carbon taxes back from some mysterious new facility-based baseline. Small businesses, local governments, and non-governmental organizations will get nothing. Let me repeat that - will get nothing. There will be vague commitments of possible programs to help other businesses reduce their fuel use. The subsidization and special treatment for the large emitters hardly seems fair. Of course all of this is subject to the whims of Cabinet discretion and secrecy.
I sent the Finance Minister 16 detailed questions on Cabinet's approach to the carbon tax on October 25th, well before the bill was introduced. I'm still waiting for answers, Madam Speaker.
I am going to summarize some of those questions here:
- What happens if this bill is not passed?
- With the continued large emitter 72 percent rebates, how is there an incentive to reduce GHG emissions?
- How and when will the large emitter rebates be reviewed and changed and will any of this information be made public?
- Was there any overall analysis, scenario work or modelling on the proposed new approach versus the federal backstop in terms of the following:
- Amount of carbon taxes generated and from what sectors, businesses, families and individuals, remote versus urban areas;
- Economic impacts of the new approach on carbon tax;
- Predictions of fuel switching and energy conservation measures likely to be pursued and any resulting GHG emission reductions.
- Will any carbon tax revenue be shared with Indigenous governments or community governments such as the way the Yukon does this? And they're under the federal backstop.
- Why are the carbon tax revenues not set up as a separate or revolving fund to provide greater transparency and accountability through improved public reporting and targeting of their use?
- Have any large emitters ever accessed the grant program? If not, why not?
- Were the guidelines for the use of the individualized accounts ever changed or adjusted? If not, why not?
- What regulations need to be changed to implement the new approach?
- What specific changes will be made?
- Will there be an opportunity for public comment on proposed changes?
- Having a standard cost of living does not seem fair and may even allow some residents to profit from this mechanism. Is there not some other way to provide a fairer offset based on actual fuel use or cost to give some relief in the high-cost regions?
Madam Speaker, I'm profoundly disappointed at the lack of analysis and sharing of information from Cabinet on this new approach to the carbon tax and cannot support it as presented to date. It's part of an overall climate change initiative that is not integrated and clearly doomed to failure. If there's one thing we know it's that we must convince the public of the urgent need of confronting this crisis and to get on board. There's no attempt to get the public on side with Cabinet's new approach.
So what are we to do with a bill that concentrates power in Cabinet with little to no transparency and accountability for an approach that treats some much better than others and thus is patently unfair?
We cannot even make basic changes to the bill. Regular MLAs and the public have not been provided with basic information on alternatives, options, and analysis of impacts.
If the bill passes second reading, it can go to a standing committee where public input and questions can be gathered and recommendations can be made. But there will not be any way to change the bill. The review could also provide an opportunity for a closer look at the federal backstop and how it has been used and adjusted in other jurisdictions, including the Yukon and Nunavut, in creative ways that seem to have escaped our Cabinet. My heart tells me to kill the bill but my mind says that we need to study alternatives because Cabinet has not or is not willing to share that information with us.
For that reason alone, I will vote to send this bill to committee for review. Cabinet in no way should take my vote as support for this approach or that I condone in any way how this has rolled out. Mahsi, Madam Speaker.