Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I don't want to speak at length. I know it's been a long day for everyone but just in light of the comments made, Madam Chair, I do think it appropriate if I just address at least briefly some of what was said. I don't rehash the proposals in Bill 60 -- that are connected to Bill 60.
Fundamentally, Madam Chair, I want my colleagues on the other side to know that I've heard them and, frankly, I'm sorry that we are where we are. I'm live to the role of accountability of a Minister and I'm live to the fact that folks are very frustrated with where we are, so. I can't change the federal carbon tax. I can't go back in time to when we had our public hearing in the fall. That would have been the occasion to change the drafting of the bill. I am now stuck with the scope of the bill. That's why I can't put some of the proposed changes into this legislation. We're passed that point unfortunately. Did I underestimate, perhaps, the concerns that would be raised, that they would want to see them in legislation? Yes. Do I wish I had done that? Certainly not. I would like to be able to put the revenue sharing into the legislation or even into regulations but I right now don't likely have that legal authority. Again, owing to our understanding of where we were at in the fall, and that really at the end of the day rests with me. So I do want Members to know that I now hear that that's where they wanted that, and it's unfortunate that we are here now because I can't put it in. But I certainly want to continue to try to look for ways between now and May-June to see if something can be added, if something can be drafted, if there's some way that we could put it in a way that people are more comfortable in seeing the compromises that they have fought for seen reflected in the legislation, and that includes the regional system. That was an MLA suggestion, and it's a good one. They were right to take us away from the averaging and to move us into a situation of regionalization. It benefits the most vulnerable communities, and it allows us to say that the communities who are paying the most and facing the highest costs are likely to in fact say greater COLO repayments than what they are to see of increased costs. Also -- and similarly, the revenue sharing with municipalities, again, Members were -- I think Members stated it quite frankly, the numeric approach of what are the increased costs to communities is not the way they wanted to approach revenue sharing. So not only did we change and say we'll do revenue sharing; we changed again and said, yeah, we'll double what we were proposing to 10 percent of the net revenue. So these are changes that came from MLAs. They were proposed by MLAs. I can't put them in the legislation, as I mentioned, and that timing and those issues could have been dealt with differently. There's really no way around that. So, again, I want Members to know that I'm hearing that. I'm hearing their frustration and, again, I'm regretful that we're at the point we're at because I do, as I've said earlier today, think we have actually a very good functioning consensus system. I do actually think we have good opportunities to have discussions. And it is quite regretful, frankly, that a challenge and a situation, not of the Northwest Territories making, has led us to this level of divide. I find that tragic because it's actually not the way we normally do get along here. And so it is unfortunate to me that out of all the issues, a federal tax is what is dividing us this way.
Madam Chair, I do want to speak briefly to the comments that were made repeatedly about the committee's recommendations. And I, again, also appreciate the comments about looking back on past recommendations before drafting future legislation. Given where we were sitting here today, I would think a lot of Ministers have heard that comment quite clearly. As for the recommendations on this piece of legislation, we had 120 days to respond. We opted to respond sooner because of where we were in the timing. So it was certainly not meant ever to be in any way dismissive of our committee's recommendations but an effort to continue forward knowing where we already were in this process with April 1st looming. So I certainly -- it wouldn't be the first time that something in writing wasn't conveyed with perhaps the same sensitivity as what it could be done otherwise. There's not been any lack of desire or effort to talk to the federal government, not only this government, but with many governments. And yet here we are. And here are every other jurisdiction in Canada. And the other recommendations, some of them, again, they actually were agreed to, and I'll just take an example as being the intermittent renewable cap. Madam Chair, we noted that a solution to that is needed. And I want to repeat that. We know it's needed. It's just not going to find its way in through the carbon tax bill. But, you know, let's not stop having that conversation because it can be had; it just doesn't necessarily get had at Bill 60. So and with respect to federal, you know -- federal discussions, Madam Chair, there -- I do still hope that we can keep control over how this tax is garnered and administered and rebated. And if we do, the next thing I think we should be doing is going to the federal government to say what energy alternatives will you help us support? How will we get off of fossil fuels that everyone pays less carbon tax in the Northwest Territories. And, Madam Chair, that is a discussion that should be had in a consensus way. I can certainly -- I know we are coming up against our own election year. But, again, as I say, I hadn't been through this process here tonight, and through the entirety of what carbon tax has turned into, if there's anything that I can commit to in the next few months is to try to make that process of going and saying what energy alternatives are there and what federal funds are there to achieve them, one that we can come to in a more consensus fashion. I certainly would want to do that. Thank you, Madam Chair.