Thank you. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Minister of Finance -- sorry, Member for Frame Lake.

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.

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I too have a lot of concern about this bill. I understand where the Minister of Finance is at and that we have a federal obligation that we need to meet and that we really have no choice in putting forth something. If we don't put this bill forward, then we end up defaulting with what Canada decides for us and we often know that Ottawa does not make the right decisions for us here in the North.

Where I have concern is that often things are imposed upon our citizens when after -- and then they're given a rebate or some sort of offset after the fact. However, in looking at this, I have a lot of concern that the cost of living offset that is going to be provided will not in any way make up for the increased cost of living, and especially the cost of heating that's coming for our people over the next several years.

I also think there is sort of an assumption at times that everybody is living in a dual income family here in the Northwest Territories and that they can absorb these types of costs because they're making $250,000 to $300,000 a year. Well, I can tell you as a single person, my costs, my bills, everything is going up and up and up and I don't have a second person with which to share all of those costs with. So I'm concerned for myself personally.

When I went to COP, to the climate change conference with the Minister of ENR, our messaging was very clear to Canada, that we could not afford to pay for Canada's promises when it came to climate change legislation. And here we are. We're literally going to be paying for Canada's promise. And when we ask about what can be done, the answer is that, you know, the way that the federal law is being rolled out is that the government can't give us any sort of, you know, break on this type of payment because of the fact that the whole reason for this fee is to create a penalty-type regime which will force people to use less fossil fuels; however, we don't have that luxury in the Northwest Territories to use less fossil fuels.

So you know what I'm going to do this went, Madam Speaker, or when this gets passed, is I'm going to be sitting in more sweaters; I'm going to be under blankets; I'm going to be trying to figure out ways that I can make my bills go down while I deal with the municipal tax hike, while I deal with the increasing cost of power, while I deal with increasing costs for my gasoline, while insurance is rising, while my house is falling apart, municipal taxes, everything. So I really don't see a solution here so I'm just kind of getting up and speaking more about what the problem is. But the problem is huge, and our people they cannot handle this. The everyday resident that does not work for the GNWT cannot afford this. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, my first instinct is to not support this bill to move past second reading, but I am going to; I want to first tell you why.

First, I want to tell you why my instinct is to not support it. The cost of living in the Northwest Territories is suffocating many NWT residents. Everyone is feeling it. Between the added cost of inflation, supply chain, energy, food, health, and housing, the people I serve are feeling the added financial pressures that come with living in the Northwest Territories. Over the last year this territory has seen rate increases from NTPC, threat of removal of supplementary health benefits, increases to municipal taxes, as well as the added inflation in cost of living squeezes that are happening globally as well. It's as if every decision that impacts the cost of living is happening in a vacuum rather than considering the increasing of cost elsewhere in the system, and it's all connected. So quite clearly, Madam Speaker, NWT residents cannot afford increased costs.

Last week in this House, the Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources said, quote, "climate change is one of the most complex and far-reaching issues facing the Northwest Territories today. Despite being responsible for less than 0.2 percent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, the Northwest Territories is experiencing rates of climate warming up to four times faster than the rest of Canada. This affects all aspects of our way of life. It is a serious threat to the economy, our socio-economic, cultural, and environmental health as well as residents", end quote.

This bears repeating, Madam Speaker, so I'm going to repeat it: The NWT is responsible for less than 0.2 percent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, and I hope the federal government hears that too.

According to the federal government, carbon pricing is about recognizing the cost of pollution and accounting for those costs in daily decisions. But here in the NWT, using fossil fuels is largely the only decision as I spoke to today in my Member's statement. Madam Speaker, it's a Northerner's double jeopardy - charged by NTPC for using their expensive aging infrastructure and then charged by the federal government through carbon tax for using our energy monopoly.

With rising costs of diesel and northern cost of living, NWT residents should have a clearer outlook of how the territory will add renewable energy sources and reduce the NWT dependency on diesel. But we don't. So the people of the Northwest Territories are being taxed for not making a choice that isn't in their hands.

But, Madam Speaker, I want to clarify why I am supporting the bill to move through second reading today. The Carbon Tax Program was introduced in 2018 as a "take it or take it" initiative directed by the federal government. The GNWT was originally given the option of signing on to the federal backstop or a made-in-the-NWT solution. The GNWT opted for a made-in-the-NWT solution whereas both Nunavut and Yukon opted for the federal backstop. But without moving this bill through second reading, I do not get answers to my questions, and I do not know what the federal backstop would look like here in the Northwest Territories and what option would better serve Northerners particularly when it comes to cost of living.

I want to ensure I am making an informed decision for the people that I serve. I look forward to reviewing the bill with committee and stakeholders and being able to publicly report the finer details of what this and other options might mean for the Northwest Territories and to make recommendations of how we can collectively better serve the residents of our territory. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I can't support the bill, because of the cost of living that's going to affect my riding. I'll support it going to -- into the second reading but the Minister has to hold the line with our federal government, Madam Speaker, in regards to holding that and working with this side of the House to get a tiered system. We have to have more control and we give so little, you know, offsets that we're getting with the federal government. I mean, the cost of NTPC, the power bills, and it affects so many with the cost of fuel. It's going to affect our housing. Even the people that are living in Housing houses. It's going to affect the Housing Corporation to do the work that they're supposed to do. So there's too many questions that we haven't asked -- that's been asked in regards on this side of the House. But for myself, the rising cost, the carbon tax, and especially the cost of living offset, we're already paying so much in the territory. It has to go to a tiered system before I could support something like this. But, again, the small communities in the Beaufort Delta across the territory are going to be paying this carbon tax. We should be going -- I guess you look at the news today, Madam Speaker, that Nunavut went to one payment across the board, right across the whole of Nunavut of paying their power rates all the same. So we got to be looking at something like that where it's right across the territory, not singling out small communities and punishing them for living there. And thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Minister of Finance.

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.

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too don't like the Carbon Tax Act, and I know it's being kind of shoved down the throats of all Northerners. The most vulnerable population are the ones that are going to be affected by this mostly, and everybody in the Northwest Territories. And I'm willing to go with the second reading but I have a lot of -- a lot of situations within my own constituency that are pending, and one of the ones is the -- you know, the Public Utilities Board is doing a review of electricity in the community of Thebacha. And we have the NTPC expansion project near our constituency and yet they want to increase our rates by 20 percent over two years. And those are unreasonable wants by the NTPC board and the NTPC establishment. And, you know, but I also am in favour of greener energy and there's no more greener energy than hydro. And that expansion is going to be good for the whole Northwest Territories, including Yellowknife.

I don't understand how some of my colleagues could talk about environment and all these other things and not understand that the best energy possible, for greener energy, is hydro; not all these other things that come about with the mini whatever. Those end up costing more. You either do it on a big scale and look after everyone or you don't do it at all. And that's the way I feel. And we have to be also considerate with the, you know, talk about larger remitters. A lot of those larger remitters are employing a lot of people in this territory. And, you know, we have to be open for business. We're never going to balance any budgets here or anything else if we are not open for business. The business community is suffering in the Northwest Territories. And, you know, we always -- it's easy to criticize larger business, medium businesses, and smaller businesses. And, you know, we have to see -- look over -- have a look overall at what we're deciding when we're considering this Carbon Tax Act. And I know that it's not good for no one. And how we can get that message across to our federal partners is something we're going to have to look at. And, you know, the Minister mentioned something about having a look at some of the conditions and relaying those messages, and I think those messages have got to be relayed, because it's a major problem for each and everybody in this room, outside our -- all of our people that we represent and especially the vulnerable population. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. To the principle of the bill. Member for Monfwi.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too will not support this carbon tax, you know, especially now, especially now with my constituent -- many of my constituents are struggling as it is, with high cost of living and with fuel price increase in many of the small communities. So there is a lot of struggling happening right now. I know that. I am aware of that because I come from a community -- from small communities -- from a small community in the region. So this is an additional burden for my people so I will not support this carbon tax at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you. To the principle of the bill.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining?

The motion is carried. Bill 60 has had second reading and is referred to standing committee for further consideration.

---Carried

Second reading of bills. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters. Bill 23, Bill 29, Committee Report 36-19(2), Minister's Statement 264-19(2), Tabled Document 681-19(2), Tabled Document 694-19(2), Tabled Document 723-19(2), Tabled Document 747-19(2), and Tabled Document 748-19(2).

And Members, by the authority given to me by Motion 1-19(2), I hereby authorize the House to sit beyond the daily hours of adjournment to consider the business before the House. Member for Deh Cho in the chair.

I now call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Member for Frame Lake.

Merci, Mr. Chair. Committee wishes to deal with Committee Report 36-19(2), Tabled Document 747-19(2), Tabled Document 748-19(2). Mahsi, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi, committee. We will take a short recess and resume with the first item. Mahsi.

---SHORT RECESS