This is page numbers 5943 - 6022 of the Hansard for the 19th Assembly, 2nd Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was know.

Topics

Some Hon. Members

Question.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Member for Kam Lake.

Caitlin Cleveland

Caitlin Cleveland Kam Lake

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that this committee urges the Government of the Northwest Territories to

  1. Be innovative and identify options for increasing child day care spots at no or little cost including, but not limited to, changing the ratio of educators to children under two years of age by reducing the age of the infant category to children under 18 months of age. This would create additional spaces for children 18 months and older.
  2. Completing negotiations with Housing Northwest Territories to allow licensed day care -- sorry, licensed child care to operate in public housing;.
  3. Creating subgroups or sublicenses to allow child care centres, school-based child care, and child care offered in homes to offer licensed spaces;.
  4. Create substitute lists or licensing to backfill so that if one educator gets sick, not all six kids must stay home;.
  5. Create additional lists or licensing to enable before and after school day care , including evening care so that educators who have time can take additional hours.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Great Slave.

Katrina Nokleby

Katrina Nokleby Great Slave

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I first want to start by thanking -- thanking some of the constituents in my riding that do run day homes who actually were the source for some of these suggestions, particularly which really struck me was, you know, making the change of the age limit. That one being very critical to my constituents. But also the one that really struck me that I hadn't thought about was the substitution list, which the day home providers are saying that basically because they know that they're sick day will then result in, you know, six other people or potentially parents having to stay home from work if they were to choose the day, that they often find themselves working when sick or, you know, finding themselves at the end of burnout because they don't have the opportunity to take the time when they need it. And so I think there's some really easy low hanging fruit, as everyone likes to call it, in this recommendation that could easily be done that would create a bit more of sort of a network or community for day home providers.

I grew up living next door to a day home provider and the amount of work and effort that this woman put in for the children in her care, there is no way she was making a profit off of it. If anything, she was providing Christmases to children that didn't have it otherwise.

So having visited some of my constituents' homes, I recognize the absolute level of dedication and effort that they've put in to creating these amazing spaces for their clients and their children. And there's some very -- but yet they're not treated in the sense of another type of an industry where they would be given the respect, I think, that others would have or even just sort of the supports, like I said, to be able to go and network and find -- they're not people that are showing up at the Chamber of Mines -- or sorry, the Chamber of Commerce meetings and such. So, really, I think the onus is on the government and the department to help them figure out how to network and support each other and, you know, if someone is at a lower level, they can pick up slack in another area and vice versa, giving people a break when they need it.

Another really key piece was when this all came out, one of the things that I wanted to see was to see grandparents being paid to take care of their children, to see the unusual day care sort of -- or child care situations of the North recognized in the legislation because we so often have situations where parents are, you know -- or grandparents or such are stepping in, aunties or uncles or a sister might take care of her children and her sister's children at the same time because she is already staying home, and I think that needs to be recognized, and I think that needs to be compensated for, particularly as this bill really -- or this $10 a day day care is really more for Yellowknife and regional centres. So that's a way I feel to make it more equitable to small community members to access this federal funding and to get some sort of relief when it comes to their own child care needs because just because they don't fit into the stereotypical day care or day home in Canada. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. To the motion.

Some Hon. Members

Question.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Member for Kam Lake.

Caitlin Cleveland

Caitlin Cleveland Kam Lake

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that this committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories provide a response to the recommendations contained within this report within 120 days.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Some Hon. Members

Question.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? Motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, committee. Do you agree that you have concluded consideration of Committee Report 48-19(2)?

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you, committee. We have concluded consideration of Committee Report 48-19(2), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on Bill 68: An Act to Amend the Child Day Care Act.

Members, we will take a recess.

---SHORT RECESS

Committee, we've agreed to consider Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act. I will ask the Minister of Finance to introduce the bill.

Caroline Wawzonek

Caroline Wawzonek Yellowknife South

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am here to present Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act.

This bill addresses amendments to update the Northwest Territories carbon tax rate schedule to meet the revised federal carbon pricing benchmarks from April 1, 2023 to April 1, 2030.

The sole purpose of Bill 60 is to keep the Northwest Territories carbon tax rates in compliance with the federal government's carbon pricing commitments, including not returning the carbon tax revenues into the economy in a way that negates the carbon price signal.

Passage of Bill 60 is a singular choice: Either we keep control of the carbon tax legislation or Canada applies its system. By passing Bill 60 the GNWT retains flexibility to design a made-in-the-North solution that reflects Northern priorities and circumstances. That flexibility allows the GNWT to continue to adapt its rebate programs in response to feedback from the public and from discussions within the Legislative Assembly.

I cannot stress enough the advantage of keeping the Northwest Territories carbon tax system so that we can have the flexibility to collectively make changes on the use of carbon tax revenues. Already, we have improved the Cost of Living Offset design because of the concerns highlighted by Regular Members.

Under the proposed regional Cost of Living Offset, residents who live in higher cost of living areas would receive a higher Cost of Living Offset payment. With our own carbon tax system, we have the flexibility as a Legislative Assembly to further refine the Cost of Living Offset as or when needed.

We have listened to Members' concerns about the implications for community governments and are proposing to provide an annual revenue-sharing grant to community governments in an amount calculated annually at 10 percent of net carbon tax revenues to help in their efforts to adapt to climate change, reduce reliance on fossil fuel, and support overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

We are providing large emitters with an offset that does not run counter to the federal criteria but offers a customized, more flexible treatment of carbon tax for northern mining operations at different times in their lifecycle. This will allow key NWT industry to remain viable and competitive; both by maintaining certainty for existing operations and by ensuring prospective new entrants have some mitigation against otherwise overall higher costs of exploration and development in the North.

We have heard the concerns that the GNWT is not doing anything to support businesses and other organizations. Different businesses face a variety of different impacts and options in relation to fossil fuel use, ranging from those who will see minimal impacts to others who will be impacted and may have an incentive to make significant capital investments in order to change their manner of operating.

Accounting for such variety fairly through some form of publicly funded grant or credit would be very difficult. Instead, we are tying support business by returning carbon tax revenues to residents through the Cost of Living Offset that includes an amount for indirect carbon tax increases; in other words, for the expected increases in costs consumers will see if businesses pass their costs on.

We are also continuing existing GNWT grant programs to help businesses reduce carbon-based fuel consumption. Similarly, non-government organizations pay varying amounts of carbon tax depending on their activities and support to offset the carbon tax would be better addressed through other grant and contribution programs that recognize the overall needs of individual organizations or activities but which are not tied to the carbon tax.

I recognize that Members have also requested to put the enhancements we are proposing for residents in high-cost regions and the revenue sharing for communities into the legislation. In order for that to have been possible, the bill as drafted after the November public hearing would have had to include that as part of its scope. The rules do not permit me to change the substance of the bill to that extent at this stage. However, the proposed regional Cost of Living Offset would be in regulations, and I propose to investigate how to put the revenue sharing for communities element of this revised approach into the regulations rather than policy in order to give greater emphasis on the importance of our consensus-based approach.

I do ask, Madam Chair, that we pass Bill 60 so that we retain both the responsibility and the flexibility to adhere to the federally-imposed carbon pricing system in a way that meets the needs of the Northwest Territories. That concludes my remarks. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Minister, would you like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?

Caroline Wawzonek

Caroline Wawzonek Yellowknife South

Yes, please, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. Sergeant-at-arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.

Caroline Wawzonek

Caroline Wawzonek Yellowknife South

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, on your left is Kelly Bluck who is director of fiscal policy. And on your right is Bill MacKay, the deputy minister of finance. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. I will now turn to the chair of Standing Committee on Government Operations, the committee that reviewed the bill for any opening comments on Bill 60. Member for Yellowknife North.

Rylund Johnson

Rylund Johnson Yellowknife North

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act, received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on November 1st, 2022, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for review. Committee held a public technical briefing from the Minister of Finance and department officials on November 25th, 2022. Following that, the committee sought public feedback on Bill 60.

Committee heard serious concerns from the public about the carbon tax approach. Committee presented a report with five recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on March 1st, 2023. Those recommendations were moved as motions in Committee of the Whole on March 8th, 2023, and all motions were carried.

I would like to thank committee for its work on review of Bill 60. Individual Members may have additional comments. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. I will now open the floor to general comments on Bill 60. Member for Nunakput.

Jackie Jacobson

Jackie Jacobson Nunakput

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the cost of living in Nunakput is outrageous and, you know, the Bill 60, we're going down the road that we're unable to use sups to get our backlog, I guess, in funding to try to provide service. You know, our heating fuel and gas prices across the North over the last year, heating fuel and diesel and gasoline, all gone up in Nunakput. Heating fuel has gone up 25 percent, averaging $2.46 a litre. Diesel fuel, is up 24 percent, averaging $2.75 a litre. Gasoline is average up 12 percent at the pump, averaging $2.37 a litre.

This is going to have a rippling effect, Madam Chair, in regards to food pricing across the North and especially in my riding because I always said, you know, my riding, it's almost we're penalized because of where we live. Price of food is going up. We can't afford to buy food. Nunakput has the highest food price index in the NWT. Enough money -- we don't have enough money for food. We worry about our food for our families and our relatives. The people in Nunakput are worried about having to pay for food. Almost half of the residents in Nunakput are worried to do that because they don't have enough money for food all the time, or often. We have to hunt, hunt to eat. 67 percent of households in Nunakput eat country food half the time or more. Our power prices. Our power prices continue to go up across the Northwest Territories. The cost of power in Nunakput is almost the highest rates in the NWT. For example, Sachs Harbour pays $2.02 and $0.30 a kilowatt. You know, our housing situation, I always worry, is insufficient housing is poorly and leaking energy. Residents pay for poorly built public housing that are 40-year-old plus. Housing NWT renovations in 2023 addressed only approximately eight percent of the housing needs in the region. Housing NWT will never renovate units fast enough to keep up with the housing issues and problems that we do have. Thirty percent of Nunakput houses are overcrowded. Inflation across Canada is at an all-time high, and in the NWT it's higher; higher than Canada by seven percent. Our household income in communities, Nunakput has the highest cost of living, the difference in the NWT is 18 percent of people in Nunakput are considered to live low incomes. Nunakput is over $50,000 below average for family income in the NWT but the price of all the goods and services in our region is the highest. Over ten percent of families in Nunakput live less than with $30,000 a year. 344 people in Nunakput live on income assistance. That's 17 percent. And there's little employment opportunities in my riding. Over 20 percent of people in Nunakput are unemployed.

Impact on Nunakput communities on Bill 60, the estimated total household carbon tax burden for Nunakput is average $899 for 2023-2024. And if this goes, it's 17 percent and 4 percent every year after. People in Nunakput already can barely put food on the table, find employment to earn income, to pay for heat, their power and their housing. How can we tax people that have nothing; nothing to give? Small communities can't afford the carbon tax, Madam Chair. Residents shouldn't be penalized for where we live. The GNWT is not providing enough offsets. Cost of living offset to step up is the right direction. Some people are still struggling. My elders, the single parents, the widows, the low-income residents are struggling, and us down here we don't see it because you never lived it.

Ottawa and the GNWT isn't doing our Beaufort Delta any favours. Ottawa is squeezing us financially with this tax while it imposes a moratorium and blocks resource development in my riding, and we're doing the federal government's dirty work. We should let it go to the backstop, federal backstop, then we're not painted with that brush. The GNWT has to step up. If Ottawa insists on our tax, it should impose a tax throughout the backstop. The GNWT isn't taking a meaningful control. If it has anything to do with the North, it should be paid for cleaning the air because we're at 0.05 of our carbon in the territory and across the country.

Madam Chair, the bill will impact all residents of NWT, especially those in the small communities in the High Arctic who already have the highest cost of living. Madam Chair, I oppose Bill 60. And I encourage anyone who's concerned about the raising the cost of living to impact Bill 60 to contact their MLA, like I asked.

You know, for myself, whoever supports this bill, we should almost be ashamed of ourself. The pressure you're putting on people across the territory in the small communities, it's unbearable. I see it every day when I'm home in my communities, people are struggling. And like I said before, there's no sups to bail us out for the communities.

You know, control -- I'd rather have Canada in control of this made-in-the-North. I worry. Us as Regular Members have the -- we could put this down and let the federal backstop take place. Ten percent of climate fossil fuel and diesel. We have nothing else to do use but diesel in the far north. There's no choice. Can't use sunlight; we're dark six to eight months of the year. And, you know, it's a worry -- it's really worrisome because I see families struggle and go without. And I think sometimes, you know, some of this carbon tax, I think our government worries more about the mines than our people that we represent that's why we're here. These people have no sups to help them at home and can go somewhere for money because everybody's tapped out and can't lend because they're in trouble themselves because the high impact of what we pay.

The people I represent can't afford to live in regards to where we're at and, again, we're penalized because of where we live. This Bill C-60, I don't want to go down this road. I'm in full support of killing the bill, and we're in a position where us as Regular Members could do that but, you know, some of them want to support this bill and made-in-the North, us having control. We can't control what we have already in regards to the spending and sups that we're going through. How could you take this on now? Another burden for the Minister. Let it go to the federal backstop. Let the federal government do their own work and let them do their dirty work.

I'm really -- it's really upsetting in regards to I've been worrying about this. In regards to this bill coming forward, all I could say is I did my best in regards to to try to kill the bill. And I hope these -- my colleagues on this side of the House, all Members support us in regards to killing the bill and let the federal government do their own work. And it would be a lot better because at the end of the day, what happens in this House we all got to wear it, and we'll be painted with that brush that we supported Bill 60.

And, Madam Chair, I just, you know, once this vote comes through, I want a recorded vote when the vote comes down because this is going to effect everything in the months to come. Thank you.

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you, Member. Any other general comments? Has the committee agreed that -- oh, Member for Hay River South.

Rocky Simpson

Rocky Simpson Hay River South

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, there's been lots of discussion on the carbon tax, whether we should let it go and let it go back to the feds. And, you know -- so when I look at it, I guess I ask myself, you know, when it comes to the residents of the NWT where many are really considered vulnerable, is the carbon tax just? The simple answer is no. Like, we're reliant here in the NWT on fossil fuels and we -- and, you know, the cost of transportation, the cost of everything, is just that much higher. And for some reason the feds don't see it. But the reality is is that the legitimacy of the federal carbon tax was upheld in the Supreme Court. So it's there and it's law. Whether or not the bill gets voted down or not, the tax stays. One way or the other it stays, unfortunately. And if the bill is voted down, the federal backstop of course will kick in but from what I gather, and in doing some research, is that we're just going to end up in the same spot. We're going to see that -- you know, we're going to see the feds maybe do the collection but they're going to give us the money back and say, here, you guys deal with it. And that's what's going to happen. And so we're just going around in a circle.

So by keeping -- I guess the other thing is is that by keeping the authority to manage the funds, we can -- you know, we can -- I would hope that this government would look at putting more funds into the smaller isolated communities up north where the costs are that much higher. In the south, we're lucky. Like, our cost of fuel and power and all that is a lot cheaper, and I would like to see, you know, more of the money go into the North and help the people who actually need the help.

Can we trust the federal government to look after our best interests? I don't think so. You know, we've got this carbon tax in place for the Northwest Territories and what have they done about it? Nothing. You know, and like my colleague said that there's very -- you know, there's -- the amount of emissions is very, very, very little here. And that's an issue.

Can we trust those on the other side to do the best? I would hope so. Because if they can't do a good job for the people of the Northwest Territories, at least us on this side have an opportunity to make change. We can change people out if we want. So I think that's important to note.

The other thing is, is that if we maintain authority over the carbon tax, there's been talk about embedding it into -- embedding the use of it into legislation on the use of -- well, what we're going to use it for into legislation like they do in the Yukon. And something like that wouldn't happen this year but it's something that we could ensure that, you know, we put it in legislation and that the money is going to where it belongs, and that's the people that are really, really having trouble.

So when I looked at this whole thing, I looked at the legality of it. I looked at what the feds would do. I look at what we're doing with it. You know, I've talked to people back home as well. And for me, you know, I'm going to support the bill because I have faith in this government more than I have in the federal government. And I'm hoping that, you know, by my support, and if the bill passes, that the Members on the other side will actually listen to what we have to say and make sure that people are looked after. And we got to focus on, you know, the cost of living. We've got to put pressure on the federal government to realize -- make them realize that the cost of living in the Northwest Territories is high. Life in the Northwest Territories is hard. And we need support. The problem is is we've only got one MP here. So they -- you know, so the NWT probably is not really on their radar. So who would I rather having looking after it? I would say this government. And that's exactly why, you know, I will support this bill. Thank you.