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.