Thank you, Madam Speaker. I remember coming into the Assembly here February 10th, 2022, and when I was asked to put my name forward to run for MLA, in my riding they talked about the high cost of living. And we take a look at the community of Lutselk'e alone, you know, we have problems with the internet service that's just down the road. It costs a lot of money just to fly there and the cost of living in that community is high already as it is. And right now a lot of my friends are talking that, you know, where does this end? Like, the high cost of living in the North is here. Friends of mine are saying well, I'm thinking about moving south now because they can't afford to continue to live here. And then in regards to this carbon tax, you know, and there's no guarantees. You know, if it's going to be set at a certain rate and percentage on an annual basis, right now as it is, you know, it's not -- this fossil fuel thing is not going to go away overnight. It's going to be 20, 30 years before we have something to replace it. And that's reality living here in the Northwest Territories. And, for example, just to convert -- if we were to go to propane or natural gas in a home, we could probably spend about $50,000 just in my riding. My community alone, there's 540 homes. That's just to convert. $27 million just to get off fossil fuel. But where's the Government of Canada in this whole thing? You know, to me that hits home.

And right now as it is, while that's happening, you know, when people go out in the bush to get some wood, they already got to buy wood. The cost of just to getting that wood is expensive. And I know for sure in Lutselk'e they talk about, you know, winter road to help reduce cost of living and anything that we could do to do that. And I know in Dettah and N'dilo here, we're just on the highway systems. But just because we're right next to the city of Yellowknife, we're still feeling the impacts of the high cost of living. You know, fuel prices of oil has gone up. Power's gone up. Last year this time, after the session was ended, the power rates in my communities in Fort Resolution and also in Fort Smith went up 20 percent over the next two years. And good thing it was repealed and was brought back, you know, and -- but now when you go back online, you take a look at the website where the regulatory board is for the power, regulators here in the Northwest Territories, again NTPC went back and made an application to increase those power rates again. So it's getting to the point now where it's getting out of hand. The cost of living here in the Northwest Territories is just too high. It doesn't matter how you look at it. It doesn't matter where you live. It's impacting everybody here in the Northwest Territories. And if you were to take that $891 million just to do all 33 communities, that's what it's going to convert all those homes in the Northwest Territories. I just threw that out there as a number. We're not ready yet. It's going to be a long time yet before -- you know, Canada's going to step in to really try to help us and, in the meantime, we got to pay our share. But I really feel bad for the elders, the people in the communities, the single mothers, you know, the people that are just getting by from paycheque to paycheque. And now they're going -- on April 1st, they're going to be paying a lot more for the cost of fuel at the pumps. When you order fuel at their homes, again it's -- where does it end? And this morning, you know, when I -- when I heard that, you know, this -- we had that discussion in the committee, and I know my colleagues over here said who do you trust? Like, right now, you know, we had time, you know, we had a lot of time to really try to get this thing sorted out and organized and, you know, really, this is not a made-in-the North solution. We never really consulted with all the people in the Mackenzie Valley yet. A lot of people are still phoning me. They're sending me messages, emails, saying that don't support it. And I had to think about it. And I've been trying to figure a way to look at this and I'm trying -- I was kind of hoping that we really look at the Yukon model and Nunavut model and -- but no, it didn't happen. And now we're in the 11th hour here, we're forced to make a decision that's really going to impact our people in our communities. And, you know, again, this morning I was asked who do you trust?

At the end of the day, you know, when I -- when I look at the budget, we had, what, $2.2 billion, we're -- our debt limit's, what, 1.6; we're not very far off from $1.8 billion. You know, the economy in the Northwest Territories are not doing well right now. The mining industry's not there. The royalties are -- payments are not coming. Again, it's -- we're in a really tough situation now. And when Nunavut was here in 1999, when we parted ways, we had 3300 employees. Now we got 6600 with contractors and all that. So we got a lot to think about. And the next government, they're going to have to make some tough decisions. And, you know, it's really concerning for me now to talk about this but at the end of the day, you know -- and it's part of the mandate, you know, they was going to look at in 2019 to 2023, they talked about trying to help reduce the cost of living and the power rates and everything else. But it seems like we're not -- we're not following our own words. We say we all come together, we put that document together and all of a sudden, you know, we put that aside, and we're continuing to look at increasing the cost of living here in the Northwest Territories. It just bothers me.

And I asked for simple things for my riding. Simple things. I asked for a winter road. Nothing. I asked for money for inspections of the homes in my community. Nothing. I asked for homeownership repairs in my community. Nothing. And I had to make some tough decisions here about whether or not I should support the budget.

Last year there was nothing in there. $3.4 million to fix up public housing. This year housing corporation is taking money, that $60 million CIRNAC money, to fix up public housing but yet in my communities we really need homeownership repairs. So I'm really torn here. But at the end of the day, you know, who do we trust? And from what I could see and what the -- the way, how we were treated in my community, and I go back over the years, yes, we got a little bit here and there, and that's it. But this is not consensus government. If we had a chance, we should all work together. But we're not. It doesn't seem that way. You know, we play one off each another. People that sign on to devolution are treated different from the ones that didn't sign on to it.

So it really is disturbing for me to say that, you know, are you going to support this and trust the GNWT. That's a tough one.

So, Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague Jackie Jacobson that, you know, we really need to think about the people in our communities. That's who put us here. This is the public government. And when we do this kind of thing, it sends the wrong messages. It doesn't matter if I -- if I support this, the GNWT's going to do it. If I don't, it's going to be the federal government. But at the end of the day, who do we trust?

You know, these guys here have been around since 1967 and since devolution, they got their own land claim. So at this point in time, Madam Chair, I'm going to vote against the budget on Bill 60. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Member for Deh Cho

Mahsi, Madam Chair. When the carbon tax came into effect -- I'm not sure what year it was, but I think it was after industry was well established, all the mines were already in place. So anything there may have been grandfathered. The tax was set up to -- well, supposedly to penalize the large emitters, large industries. But what we've seen since, from that time, that's not what was actually happening because we got some numbers back from our research in our committee meetings that the large emitters were getting 72 percent of their dollars back and that kind of, like, defeats the whole purpose of what the carbon tax was all about. It's befuddling. Like, why did they -- why did they bother with it to begin with because the people that are actually getting hurt are the little people up in the Northwest Territories, think they did that brush, you know, with the territories and the provinces without really considering the implications to the Northwest Territories, and to the three northern territories. The large emitters are really winning in this instance, and we're not. Even though they dangle the rebates in front of people -- I think the last numbers I think I got was like $546 per person per year. That's just chump change, you know. Even I would put out a press release to -- you know, to tell my residents not to accept it. That's not enough to cover their bills.

A couple years ago the diesel, it was over a dollar. Now when I go to fill up my tank, I'm over $2, not as much as the residents up in Nunakput but we're still over $2. Now we've got this escalating sliding scale that we're looking at where it's going to increase every year, the carbon tax. And I don't think the diesel fuel will ever go down, neither will our power bills. And also it truly affects the trucking industry which delivers all our groceries and goods. So we don't know where we're really going.

This carbon tax is really hurting us. The emitters are the ones that are gaining. Large emitters are gaining, and our government has never ever said, hey -- never cried foul. And I don't understand why they didn't cry foul in that regard. There was no fairness, the large emitters getting their money back, yet the little guys are getting the full brunt of the tax. There's no fairness in that. Our government should have been yelling, kicking, and screaming in parliament. You needed to go there. You're saying, well we just only got one Member of Parliament. Well, you would have had many more voices if you were down there busting down those doors in parliament, and you got seven Cabinet Ministers and seven voices and that's not what's been happening.

We need to send a message to the federal government that we don't agree with the carbon tax and by us not accepting to move ahead with the carbon tax should be sending that message to them that we don't accept any increases to the carbon tax. That's a big message. You know, when you send that message and we all -- we're all together in this, that's a loud voice to tell them that we do not agree with this carbon tax, especially on our residents up in the northern parts of Canada where the cost of living is higher than any place in the south. Having said that, Madam Chair, I will not be supporting the carbon tax as is. Mahsi.

Thank you, Member. Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Right from the beginning, I took the stand that I was going to vote against the carbon tax on Bill 60 because we had written submissions from the NWT Chamber of Commerce, you know, NWT Metis Nation. I've heard from at least six other Indigenous government leaders who are very much against the carbon tax, the NWT Seniors Society, and mostly all the residents of the NWT are against the carbon tax no matter where they live. It doesn't matter if they're from the Arctic or they're from the South Slave. All costs have gone up overall and there's a snowball effect. And there are some people who cannot -- who decide what they're going to eat for supper, it's either going to be wieners or steak because they don't have that choice, and it's going to get worse because the way things are going after the pandemic -- the pandemic was a big one too. And the -- also I'm very -- I'm very concerned about the small business community. You know, we pay too much, and we don't have the -- we don't have them numbers for the -- to survive in most -- in the regional centres and the small communities. It's not only in the small communities. And I'm sure it's like that here even in the capital. The cost of everything has doubled or tripled in some cases.

And therefore, because of all these submissions -- and I listen to the people of the NWT, and small business, the Indigenous organizations, and especially the seniors of the NWT. And because of that, I stick to what I've decided at the very beginning, and I'm not going to waiver on this one, I will be voting against Bill 60. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Are there any further general comments on Bill 60? Member for Monfwi.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I did prepare a Member's statement but I'll do it for this. This is the right time to do it.

Madam Chair, we say that this is a consensus government, and this is not how the consensus government should be operating. The consensus government that I know in my region, they work together. They collaborate; they consult, you know, on issues that might have an impact that -- you know, on its citizens. So I don't see this as a consensus government. And, yes, being an Indigenous person, you know, like, since 1763 we never -- like, I mean, we know what the government did to us, to our people, due to assimilations. They took everything from us. They took our land. They took all the resources. And they push us aside. They put us in a reserve. In the North it's a settlement. So I do have a really serious issues with trust. Should I trust them, or should I trust the federal government? And that's a lot -- that's not just me. That's the view of a lot of Indigenous people, Indigenous government, Indigenous organizations, or people that are trying to settle their land claims. So there is a lot of trust issues, and I do have trust issues too as well. So I agree with what my colleagues are saying. We do have -- they're in the small communities and especially if you live in the small communities, you will understand what we're talking about. Even the senior bureaucrats, if they live in the small communities they would understand where we're coming from. There is a lot of struggles in small communities due to -- there's lack -- like my colleague said in -- from Nunakput, you know, we don't have a lot of jobs. And that's a struggle in many of small communities, in my region as well. You seen the 2018 status report. Everything that's -- you know, like, we have a lot of people on income support. We have high rates -- our -- well, not -- we have people, young people having -- we have low rates of academic success. Our education is low. There's lots of social issues, social injustices. It's all addressed. We have people on income support. Like, we have -- I don't know what you want to say in this, but there's a lot of social issues. It's right there, it's in the stats. It's in the statistics. I don't think I should be talking about it more, but I do have lots of elders in my communities due to all those houses, just like my colleague mentioned, that were built in the '60s and '70s, well, a lot of those elders that are living in those units or some of them, even that recently built because it was poorly built, a lot of those houses elders are paying $500 for power bills.

And a lot of these elders, who are already struggling, are garnishing -- you know, the government is garnishing their pension and other -- even their income tax. So they're doing all these things that how can anybody live? It's already -- they are already struggling to make ends meet. And, you know, like, especially in my region too as well, because a lot of my people they come to Yellowknife to access services that are denied in my region. You know, and they go shopping. Everything is in Yellowknife. And now that the all-season road is opened in Whati, now those people are travelling more, you know. So it is expensive for gasoline. It is expensive. So even with the higher fuel price, you know, I know that the Minister -- there's a fuel subsidy but the income threshold is low as well. So a lot of those people who are recently retired, you know, they don't qualify for any of these program that is in place. And that's a hardship on many of these people.

And now that -- I'm just wondering, like, with the climate change and the mine, that has a -- that has a major impact on our traditional way of living. And not only that, with the restriction that's placed on caribou and the mobile zone, our residents, they have to travel long distance to go hunting and it's once a year. We used to hunt before in spring, before the restriction, and fall time. Now it's in winter. And we have -- and then it's really sad because Whati and Gameti and Wekweeti -- Wekweeti they have to travel a long ways to go hunting for caribou. In Behchoko too as well. And the gas, it is expensive, especially in the small communities like that. And there is a lot of caribou in their background, and they have to travel to across. Like, they have to go to Whati and come this way and to go towards the mine to go hunting. So that has a major impact on my people as well. They have to travel further. And the mobile zone is keep moving, you know, and so it's becoming -- it's becoming more difficult to provide for our family, especially with traditional food, especially with caribou that has sustained our people for thousands of years. And we've been here for many years. And it's because of that, because they're going hunting in tundra, the weather is unpredictable. And we had some issues.

We had two hunters; we had one resulted in fatal, one resulted in -- got stranded due to blizzard. So rescue team came in. So all these things have to be considered. And it's not -- it's -- I feel for my people. You know, and it's not right what we're doing here because it's hard -- people are already struggling as it is trying to maintain their livelihood. And now with all the hunting gear and going to tundra, a lot of them are coming back with -- maybe with no caribou, you know. And then there are some family with, you know -- and the wear and tear on their hunting equipment. So it is -- it is difficult for my people to go hunting. Yes, it would be nice if we were living somewhere else, like maybe in Delta where they can go hunting, you know. But we don't have that pleasure. We don't have that. We too much restrictions. And there's a lot of roadblocks for our -- for my people to go hunting.

And so this carbon tax that's in place, it's something that I really have to consider because I have to think about the people, and I have to think about the community government, sports, recreation, when I am making decisions because the climate change is -- I know it's going to have an impact because the Gameti and Wekweeti, they rely on the winter road, and this year it's a short operation, even for Wekweeti, so. And then -- so I have to think about those people when I am making these decisions. And it is difficult.

And then right now I have trust issues. It's something that -- it's not just now. It's something that has been happened to us for many years. So with that in mind, I think when this carbon tax -- if we have to vote, I think I am voting against it because I have to think about my people. I would like to see -- what I would like to see is that more support going to the people, not to the mines, not to mining industry, all those, you know, like, company that makes more money off our -- from our land. You know, they're taking all the resources; we know that. So I have to really think about my people when I am making this decision. So I will support -- I will not vote for this carbon tax. And I guess we just leave it up to them now. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Member for Frame Lake

Thanks, Madam Chair. So just to be really clear, I do support a carbon tax as part of an approach to deal with the climate crisis but I firmly reject Cabinet's inflexible and unfair approach with this bill. And I want to kind of spend a minute -- a few minutes to kind of recount how we got here because this is not about a made-in-the North solution. This is a made by Cabinet solution. That needs to be really clear.

So, you know, Cabinet went off. They started to talk to the federal government about how to rejig the carbon tax. They didn't even bother to tell us that they were doing that. We had no input whatsoever as Regular MLAs. And then in September, they even submitted a proposal. They wouldn't share it with us until months later. Months later. And they just wouldn't listen to us. They wouldn't work with us. So, you know, Cabinet promised robust public communications around this bill and the carbon tax. It didn't happen. People in the public still don't know what this is all about and what's going to happen.

It took months for us to get the letters that went back and forth, even though we asked several times. The large emitters are treated favourably and the rest of businesses, NGOs, community governments are not. It's an unfair approach. And who did they talk to in developing this carbon tax? Only the large emitters. And we got that on record. That's the only parties they talked to in developing this. Didn't bother to talk to the public, other businesses, NGOs. No, just went to the large emitters. They also got an exemption for methane. That's not environmentally friendly. And it's just not a good move in my view.

I even suggested language that could be inserted in the bill right up -- even before it was brought to us about how to increase accountability, transparency, make public reporting a requirement. They wouldn't do it. Wouldn't put it into the bill. You know, I think what we really need here is a legislated approach as they have in the Yukon. And now -- so that's where -- how we got to at least this point. And then when I looked at the response to the committee report, basically Cabinet rejected all of the recommendations. All of them. That's the fastest reply I've ever seen to a committee report. It's also the most dismissive and condescending response I've ever seen in my seven years as an MLA. Something as simple as writing to the prime minister to say that we need to work together to find energy choices for our communities, for households, they wouldn't do it. They wouldn't even write to the prime minister to do that.

The second recommendation about get -- you know, dealing with net metering and removing caps on green energy. Said no, it's outside of the scope of the bill; we're not going to do it. But they are kind of actually doing it anyways. They just don't understand the link between energy choices and reducing the impacts of the carbon tax. But the default was let's just reject that because it comes from those Regular MLAs.

Third recommendation, oh well, we're going to offer some money to the community governments; $1.88 million is what they say it will be, not the $2.2 million that the community governments are asking for. And that $2.2 million come from using the Yukon approach. They've offered $1.88 million. But then the Minister said today we can't do that in the regulations; we can't do revenue sharing through the regulations because of the way the bill was drafted. Well, what kind of bill was this when you can't do revenue sharing through the bill itself and you can't do it then through the regulations. That's a lousy bill, quite frankly, Madam Chair.

The fourth recommendation that, a legislated approach. They said no, we're not going to do that; we should have done this earlier and oh, we can do the money to the community governments through the main estimates. Well, this government or this Cabinet may follow through on that. What about the next Cabinet? I'll guarantee that the MLAs on this side are going to have to fight for that year after year after year until you get it legislated. That's why it needs to be in the bill.

So, Madam Chair, I want to move over on now to what we've ended up with here, quite frankly, is a train wreck. A train wreck of a bill. This is the most divisive issue that I think this House has ever had to deal with. I want to commend the Members on this side for stepping up and actually talking about this, this very important issue and each and every one of us, I'm sure, by the end of this will get up and talk about this. This is the most important debate we've had in this Assembly. But what we've ended up with is a train wreck because Cabinet would not work with Regular MLAs. And I blew the whistle on this right at the very beginning. I said please do not bring forward a bill that just switches out the schedule. Think very carefully about this and work with us. They wouldn't do it.

So do I trust this Cabinet or the next Cabinet to follow through? You know, actions speak a lot louder than words, Madam Chair.

So we've ended up with this train wreck. And what was a path forward, and we could have changed, as the Minister said, if we talked about the -- if they had done this, we could have maybe done this earlier. I said withdraw the bill. Why can't you withdraw the bill. When the Minister came to the public hearing, the first question I had for her was would you consider withdrawing the bill and trying to work together? Wouldn't do it. That's why we got a train wreck, and we're here today.

So, you know, I asked for a new approach. I tabled a modelled bill based on the Yukon approach. That was a squandered opportunity, Madam Chair. I asked the finance minister to meet, to talk about this. Didn't happen. We could have worked together and avoided this train wreck but we didn't because I think of the stubbornness on the Cabinet's side. I'm still interested, though, in trying to work together on this. And Cabinet well knows my position on this. I've wrote on editorial. I've talked about this ad nauseam. We need a legislated approach to deal with the revenue sharing and management of the impacts on our communities and to make sure the money is actually targeted, reported publicly, and that it's transparent and accountable, and perhaps we can still do that. The Minister talked about perhaps looking at how to get revenue sharing through the regulations. The only way you're going to be able to do that is to change the legislation itself. And if they -- if Cabinet's willing to reopen it, let's actually get it right.

So, Madam Chair, this is not a made-in-the North approach. This is a made-by-Cabinet approach. Cabinet wants to retain all the flexibility, all the control, all the authority, and maybe bring forward something in the annual appropriations, maybe bring forward something in regulations in terms of the cost of living offset. But that's -- boy, that's a lot of trust to place in a Cabinet that, in my opinion, has not worked with us since day one on this. And that is a repetition of what happened in the last Assembly. And I blew the whistle on this. I tried to get Cabinet, the Minister, to work with us right from the very beginning and it didn't happen.

I guess a couple of other points: I know that this is very complicated stuff. I want to commend Members on our side for taking a lot of time to discuss and debate this internally about what we were going to do. And I respect everybody's position on this, even if we may not all agree. But there are no guarantees. There's no guarantees from Cabinet. There's no guarantees from the federal government. But I still think that we need to find ways to work together and develop a better plan, a better approach, but it has to be legislated. There cannot be the room for discretion on Cabinet because just look where we ended up in this train wreck.

So I think the last thing I want to say that this is probably the most important test for us as Regular MLAs in trying to stand up to and actually work with Cabinet. And I guess we'll see where this goes, Madam Chair. But I thought a lot about this, I spent a lot of time and energy, I brought forward concrete solutions. But every time I've done that, Cabinet has ignored them. And that's really a sad statement, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First I want to thank the committee that did all of the work on this bill because I do sit on two other committees that are quite busy; I didn't delve into it quite the same way they did, and really looked to that report to inform me as I have struggled with this bill and my position on it.

When I look at the choice in front of us, I realize we really just don't have much of a choice. We're either going to -- you know, as everybody has said, we're either going to look to the federal legislation if we defeat the bill here today and not -- then the GNWT obviously would not be in compliance with the federal requirements and we would then fall under their tax. So whether we go ahead as stated and pass this bill or defeat this bill, either way residents of the Northwest Territories will be paying this tax.

And what I hear -- and I know it's one item in the Minister's statements but the comment of some -- there will be minimal impacts to some. And I feel that that's just a totally wrong statement. There is nobody in this territory that is not going to feel the ramifications of this tax, whether or not you are a consumer or a purchaser. You could be in public housing, it doesn't matter. You will in some way bear the burden and pay the costs of this tax as businesses, governments, etcetera, pass it along to others. So I understand and -- I think I don't really even need to state it. I am a strong supporter of our resource extraction sector. That has been something I have stated from before I ever sat in this House and something that I believe is truly in need of support. And I do recognize that the Minister's approach to Bill 60 will allow for some of the industry that we currently have in the territory, our future industry, to have better circumstances and perhaps then that would be the make it or break it decision point for some of these projects to go forward. Specifically, Bill 60 does provide favourable treatment for smaller mines, newer mines, and mines that are closing; basically the situation we're at for every single one of our potential projects or current projects. We don't have any mines that are strongly in full production that will go for the next decade. So I recognize that. And I have heard from some industry stakeholders on the benefits but have to say, actually, Madam Chair, nobody contacted me from industry other than a few things that were forwarded on to me by third parties. But that being said, that does somewhat I think speak in some manners about where industry may be at in their own lobbying efforts as they're -- as their own sort of impetus to work on our government dwindles, as they look to other jurisdictions that are a lot more favourable for their sector.

I think we're already in quite a desperate spot when it comes to our mining and resource sector industry anyway; however, I do recognize the value of maintaining that control and flexibility in how we impose the tax. But when I look at the benefits to industry and where industry is at currently, I don't know how much that offsets the cost to everybody else in this territory. Residents can't afford this tax. I've heard it from any colleagues. I've heard it from people messaging me. Whether or not the public fully understands the ramifications of whether we say yes or no to Bill 60, the perception is out there that this is hurtful to us as -- and for us as my colleague said, we have a responsibility to listen to the residents that are contacting us, and that is something that I'm hearing. They're strapped for cash. Our current inflation rate is at 7.2 percent, and wages have not kept up with that. The housing stock, as mentioned, is quite old. It's not energy efficient, and we don't have that alternative energy source so therefore we all will be forced to absorb these higher costs. And when I look at the offsets that are being proposed by Bill 60, the cost of living offset is a step in the right direction and would provide all residents with -- my riding anyway, with $450 to $500 a year to offset their tax. But those amounts are based on average increased costs for average households. So that means some households, especially those with higher costs or fewer people, like myself -- I'm a single person, I'm going to struggle, because I'm only going to get one COLO in this situation. So anybody that is a single parent, empty nesters, elders, low income residents, that are not in public housing, we are all going to feel the effects of being one person or few people in a household.

Another piece that I'm really concerned about, and I know is going to have a massive indirect impact when the carbon tax is imposed, is on the NGO sector. It's already a strapped sector for cash that is really constantly operating on the margins, if not in deficits. The GNWT has not provided -- my understanding has not provided any offsets to NGOs for increased carbon tax costs. So even if you just look at that from, like, an optics perspective, we're going to sit here and hand the richest people, the industry, the richest industry in our territory, help. And I understand why. I know how economics work. But then we're not going to turn around and help the people that we're relying on to take care of people because our own social services can't take care of it. I come back to the shelter workers as an example of that. GNWT employees are not going to face these problems. But when you're paying somebody $20 an hour to do shelter work, which is really the responsibility of this Cabinet and this government, you know, to then turn around and say they don't get to have any sort of offset to help, they're going to lay off people; they're going to cut staffing; they're going to cut training; they're going to cut wages. I also want to support my colleagues.

Our remote communities are the most impacted by climate change and the rising cost of living. I've seen this. I've travelled into these communities in my past life and in my current. And my colleagues from small communities are very concerned about the rising carbon tax. We've heard my colleague from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh speak at length about the high and rising fuel costs of his constituents, and my colleague from Nunakput talking about people struggling to put food on their table and choose between heating their homes and feeding their kids. So while this bill has some benefits for industry -- and I can't say enough how much I do support industry, and I know that personally this is not going to be a popular decision, and -- and I'm -- you know what, I have to say I'm -- it bothers me that I'm in this position. It didn't need to be this way. And so now I have to make a decision, do I listen to residents of this territory or do I listen to industry of this territory? And to me, they're not opposing each other. However, we've now pitted them against each other, yet again making the mining industry in this weird dichotomy between social issues and taking care of our residents, and industry. And I do blame the government for creating this back and forth or this adversarial relationship there. It's the same thing I heard when we talked about agriculture supports. People saying well, it's agriculture or it's mining. These are not two polar opposite things. And then the same thing here I say supporting our residents does not mean not supporting our industry and vice versa. So I do have a lot of reservations here but likely will be voting in solidarity with my colleagues. And I really think that what needs to happen here or what I hope to see happening by the defeat of Bill 60 is that this is a very strong message to the federal government. My colleague has made waves on the federal stage. So if the federal government or the argument from the Cabinet's side is that the federal government is not going to take care of us anyway, they ignore us, we're not important, well then maybe this is a chance for us to take a stand and say, hey, you've made promises on the backs of people in this territory that are already struggling, that are already in third world conditions, and now you want them to pay so that you can sit in Ottawa and act like you are some eco-warrior saving the earth to make your supporters and your campaign donors look good and green wash yourself for the next election? No. I say it's time for us to stand up and -- it comes back to trust, and when I look at it from a purely Great Slave resident perspective, we don't -- either way, I get the same thing; they get the same thing, whether it be the feds, whether it be Cabinet. So I say let's use this time now to show Ottawa that we need to have them pay attention to us. And if that hasn't happened and this is the excuse, then that is on Cabinet. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I think it's worthwhile to actually start with identifying what is carbon tax. And so carbon tax, according to the federal government, is carbon pricing, about recognizing the cost of pollution, and accounting for those costs on daily decisions. Do I agree with the way that the federal government sees that rolling out in the territory? Absolutely not.

The government also says that -- the government sets a price that emitters must pay for each ton of greenhouse gas emissions that they emit. So what that, in turn, means is that they charge on fossil fuels and for regular everyday residents like ourselves and that there's a performance-based system that's input on to industry. So this is what the federal government has decided, is that they are going to do a carbon tax. But that's not what we're sitting here talking about today. That's already been decided. The federal government has already decided on a carbon tax. That was a decision made in 2018 that was debated at length in this House during the 18th Assembly. The whole notion of carbon tax here in the territory is something that I like to call a northern double jeopardy. And I mean, I've said that before in the House, that here in the territory we're charged a premium with high rate increases for our energy through NTPC for using their expensive aging infrastructure and then we turn around and we're charged by the federal government through carbon tax for using the energy monopoly that is limited by this government -- we are limited, sorry, for our ability to use alternative energies by this government because our deputy ministers sit on the board of NTPC. And so this government, really, at the end of the day is limiting our ability to use alternative energies so that we can actually accomplish the goals of the carbon tax of the federal government. But this is not what we are talking about today.

Carbon tax is here. Carbon tax is already in the entire country. We are not debating whether or not we are imposing the carbon tax in Canada or in the Northwest Territories. What we are talking about here today and what we are deciding on is who is going to administer that tax here in the territory. We are deciding if we are going to support Bill 60 and have the GNWT administer that tax, or if we are going to reject Bill 60, in which case on April 1st, which I believe is Saturday, the federal government will have to administer a backstop in the territory in order to take on the role of administering that tax here in the territory. So whether or not a carbon tax will exist in the territory is not what we are talking about here today. It's coming. It's here. It's increasing.

So I just wanted to be very, very clear on that. I also, as we're talking about the fact that carbon tax is here and is already been here and was debated already in the 18th Assembly, I went and pulled the report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations from the 18th Assembly, which was the report on the carbon tax bills, because at that point there was two separate bills that were reviewed, and I wanted to share some of that with committee because I think it's worthwhile.

The section is called lack of meaningful engagement with committee. GNWT -- sorry, raise -- sorry, the committee raised concerns that the GNWT's approach did not set out options for public debate. The proposed 75 percent direct rebate for large emitters was too high. There was no rebate or special measures for small businesses, and the policy objectives of the carbon tax were not clearly articulated.

The report goes on to say, the committee again wrote to the government advising that it does not support the proposal.

Later on in the report, it says committee also expressed its concern that there was no indication from government as to whether or not the carbon tax legislation would mandate public reporting to enable transparency, increased public awareness of how the tax revenue is being used, and measure the impact of the carbon tax on emissions in the NWT.

Later on, the report also says that the carbon pricing in the Northwest Territories was negotiated with the federal government leaving little room for input from Regular Members once that process had commenced.

Madam Chair, it sounds to me like history is repeating itself because we're sitting here staring at a bill that has not changed at all other than the schedules in the bill.

Later on in the report, under challenges in comparing options, which is talking about comparing the options from the GNWT, which is -- or versus the option that is the federal backstop, the report says committee found it challenging to assess the salient differences between the two approaches. While finance provided ample material regarding the GNWT's proposed approach, the key features of the federal backstop were more difficult to ascertain. We're still in that situation today. I literally said in my words in supporting the bill to move to second reading, that I wanted to support it because I wanted to learn what the federal government had to offer. I'm no farther ahead but I can't fault the Cabinet Minister for that here in this room. The federal government also has an obligation to be transparent with the Northwest Territories and they have not done that, and they need to be held accountable for that and wear some of that themselves.

So as I said here, Madam Chair, history has repeated itself, and the changes that this committee in the 18th Assembly wanted to see were outside of the scope of the bill. The changes that our committee wanted to see, which we proposed five recommendations, and the two that I think were the most important in order to be able to give a lot of people on this side of the House a little bit more comfort, I will say, was recommendation 3, which was revenue sharing, and recommendation 4, which is putting a lot of revenue sharing information and reporting into law, into legislation. But, again, that was out of scope of the bill and unable to be pushed forward because -- and I think it's worth noting here for the public, as soon as a bill is tabled and nothing can be added to it that is not within scope. And I'm noting that I'm running out of time. So I want to move along. But I think that this is very important to say because I think that I'm very disappointed in the bill that was brought forward by finance because it shows me that they did not go back to what was done already in the 18th Assembly. And the reports that are tabled in this House come from information from our stakeholders, from our residents, that are given to our committees. They're not reports that we make up on our own time. They're actual words that are elevated in this House from the constituents that we all serve. And so to have a government turn around and table a bill that has blatantly ignored previous recommendations is incredibly frustrating. So what we have in front of us here today is a no win situation because we cannot change the scope of the bill by legislating -- by legislating the revenue sharing, and that is something that we absolutely want to see.

So now where we are is we have Bill 60 which has a lot of things that I think are so important. It has regional -- regional cost of living offsets. So what that means is we were able to negotiate that places where the costs are more expensive, like for example, Ulukhaktok, will receive a higher cost of living offset than somewhere like Yellowknife. And I think that that is so important because it is -- as we've heard from our colleagues here today, it is far more expensive for someone to live in Paulatuk or Ulukhaktok than it is to live in Yellowknife. That is so important.

In addition, we have -- within Bill 60 -- or sorry, not within Bill 60, but through negotiations with the Minister, been able to negotiate revenue sharing with community governments. This is also so important because if there is no revenue sharing with community governments, you better believe that they're going to turn around if there are a taxed0based communities and pass that on to residents. If they're a nontax-based community, they're going to turn around and they are going to take those dollars needed out of programs and services. That's a huge concern of mine from social development because we have heard that the first thing to go is recreation -- or sorry, is recreation programming. Without recreation programming, we run huge risks to our suicide prevention initiatives and also what people are saying that they need to create and build healthy families and stable housing. Recreation was huge, and NWTAC said that is the first thing to go in nontax-based communities. So I think that's very, very important and it is definitely related to this.

My other concern is that the other option if we vote down Bill 60, we're left with the federal backstop. From what we know about federal backstops, it is either going to be a blanket cost of living, or they're going to turn around and send it right back to the GNWT. So we're no farther ahead. And Madam Chair, I have 30 seconds left, and I have many more pages that I wanted to be able to talk about today. But what I think I want to say is wherever this debate ends today, this cannot be the end of this conversation and a new bill needs to be drafted for the people of the Northwest Territories that needs to put revenue sharing into law and that requires carbon tax revenues be shared with households, businesses, community governments, Indigenous governments, and NGOs, and that reporting on carbon tax needs to be done in a meaningful way and that meaningful energy alternative advances need to be made in this territory. Thank you. And thank you for the extra ten seconds.

Thank you, Member. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to start with some -- I think in hindsight, I believe both the Minister and committee would have done this differently, and I think there's some lessons to be learned here. You know, it's unfortunate that, you know, that the Minister and probably quite a few of the staff and a lot of the MLAs weren't allowed -- around for the last carbon tax but if you were ever introducing legislation on any topic, go look if there's an old committee report about it because these committee reports make the same recommendations every single time and there is -- there's stacks of them that go unresponded, and then the issue comes up and, you know, in an Assembly or two later and the same recommendations get made. And I thank MLA Cleveland for pointing out that the last committee made the same recommendations that this committee made.

Madam Chair, I do want to thank the Minister for addressing the regional cost of living offset payment. That was a concern that we heard, that it wasn't fair to give a person in Yellowknife the same amount of money as a person in Nunakput, and they should be getting more. So I do think that's a good step.

Secondly, I just -- I think there's a lesson to be learned in replying to all committee motions, to be very careful about the responses. There's actually I think a bit of a disconnect in what I've heard the Minister say since and what was in the response to the committee motion.

In the response to, you know, regulating some sort of revenue sharing that was tabled by the Minister, it says burdensome and overcomplicated that doesn't allow the flexibility. And it seems to be this insistence by the Department of Finance that we're going to give back exactly revenue neutral and we're going to track what the community governments, you know, get and make it exactly the same every year. And that's not how I view the commitment here of approximately 10 percent. I view this as a political compromise that we came to. There's about $12 million in the GNWT in net revenue here that we're using for all the programs and services that everyone in this House talks to about every single day, and we're going to give about 10 percent of our share, approximately $1.8 million, to community governments because they do just as important work. And ultimately, Madam Chair, I am supportive of the carbon tax as is because of that money for community governments. I fought hard to get that included, and I want the Minister to go back and find a way to -- if it can't be in legislation, put it in regulation, and if it can't be in regulation, put it in a policy. We have community government funding policies. Peg it at 10 percent, and it has to increase annually with each of the carbon taxes. And there's clearly a lack of trust between us and the federal government and us and the Cabinet. And it's kind of who do you trust more. And I do trust the Cabinet more. But I take the Minister's word that she's going to find a way to make sure that we continue to share revenue with our community governments out of the carbon tax just as we are introducing one of the largest taxes in decades on our own citizens to fund our programs and services via the federal government's carbon tax. So they need their cut. And ultimately when I look at the regional cost of living offset that we had negotiated, our made-in-the North large emitter program, and the 10 percent net revenue sharing with community governments, those three reasons make me trust Cabinet just a little more than I trust passing this all back to a federal government that I don't particularly like, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Members. Is committee agreed that there are no further general comments? Can we proceed to a clause-by-clause review of the bill?

The committee has agreed to proceed to a clause-by-clause review of Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act. Committee, we will defer the bill number and title until after consideration of the clauses. I will call the clauses individually. Please turn to page 1 of the bill.

Clause 1, does committee agree?

Clause 2, does committee agree?

Clause 3, does committee agree?

Clause 4, does committee agree? The appendix of the bill, does -- oh, does committee agree? Member for Frame Lake.