Thank you. To the motion. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I don't really have any notes because I'm totally exhausted. But I just -- you know, committee -- at least our side is, we've had lots of discussion and debate about this bill over the last number of months, and we had to kind of carefully consider where we wanted to register objections and concerns with the bill. And so, you know, we thought about this a lot, and I think we saw a part of that even earlier today here where this side of the House didn't really want the bill called, period. Cabinet had to call this bill forward. So, you know, we could have had a vote and tried to prevent discussion of the bill on our side. We didn't do that. We did go into Committee of the Whole. We just concluded the discussion, you know, the opening remarks, and I want to commend everybody for -- particularly this side of the House and I guess the Minister for commenting on the bill. And, you know, we could have -- this side of the House could have tried to shut down the -- even the clause-by-clause discussion debate vote on the bill itself. We thought that that probably wasn't a good place to end up either. So, you know, one of the problems is if Bill 60 is voted down, it's -- the federal backstop will inevitably be brought into force. How soon and so on, I guess is probably some point for discussion. And if Bill 60 was voted down, there still would be an existing NWT carbon tax because of the legislation that was passed in the 18th Assembly. So we could be in a position, as early as Saturday I guess somebody said, April 1st, where there would still be an NWT carbon tax in place and then the federal backstop might kick in as well. So, you know, people could end up paying double carbon tax on their fuel.

Now, you know, the feds they might say well, gee, the GNWT, they kept their carbon tax in at this rate; we really only need to increase it this incremental rate. That could be an outcome but we're not sure. So, you know, we thought long and careful about how to try to deal with this situation in a more elegant way to try to deal with the NWT carbon tax that people would still have to pay without maybe bringing forward an emergency bill of some sort to repeal that legislation if Bill 60 was to be defeated. That's what we really have before us here is a -- perhaps a more eloquent solution in that what's -- it proposes is to basically delete all of the figures that are in the appendix and the schedule that set out increasing carbon tax rates over time as required by the federal government -- and I actually support that. So why would a guy like me who supports a carbon tax actually want to zero this out? Well, I want to work with Cabinet. I want to work with the federal government to actually bring forward a legislated approach to rebates, credits, cost of living, offsets, and a better plan than what Cabinet's brought forward. And I characterize that as a made-by-Cabinet approach. It's not a made-in-the North approach and nobody should be fooled by that.

So what this really does is zero out what's in the schedule before us and make it so that there would no longer be an NWT carbon tax. The federal government can still decide and will probably decide to implement the backstop, and I don't know I think we need to find a way to work together to come up with a better approach. And I think this provides some breathing time, some space to do that, which we kind of squandered that opportunity, unfortunately, earlier, but that's what this is really about, is creating some time and space for us to develop a better approach, hopefully with the federal government and hopefully with this side of the House this time around. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Question has been called -- oh, MLA -- or Member for Yellowknife North.

Madam Chair, I would request a recorded vote.

Thank you, Member. Sorry, Minister of Finance.

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.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question has been called. Oh, yeah, okay. Sorry. Go back to the mover for closing. Member for Frame Lake

Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm going to try to choose my words carefully because I did hear some conciliatory words from the Minister of Finance. But I worked really, really hard to try to not end up where we did. And I'm really, really disappointed. You know, and with all due respect, this is not the way consensus government is supposed to work, and this is not the way that most of the work in this Assembly's actually gotten done. So that is -- that in itself is actually quite tragic, that it's been this divisive. And I really want the Minister and her department to think really carefully about what the lessons were from this and to really reach out and work with us moving forward. And I think I've heard the Minister say she's prepared to do that. You know, the 120 days, I asked the Minister to speed this up, get us a response as soon as you can. And then when I saw that response, Madam Chair, as I said, I've seen a lot of responses in my seven years, this is one of the most condescending, dismissive responses I've ever seen. That really hurts me. That hurts me a lot, because that's not the way this is supposed to work.

Okay, I think I've heard that the Minister's willing to look at revenue sharing. I don't think you can do it in regulations because the bill is drafted, the legislation is -- the way it's put together, there is no provision for revenue sharing. There's no provision for revenue sharing. You can't do it in regulations. So you're going to need to amend the bill. But when you reopen up that bill, I want you to work with us because we've got ideas. I tried to bring some of that forward before. It was rejected, but I want you to reach out and actually work with us this time. And that includes ideas about transparency, accountability, reporting, not just revenue sharing. But that is a big part of it. And I think we really need to try to find a way to treat all of our businesses, NGOs, and community governments fairer than what happened the first time around with this bill where you only talked to the large emitters. That's just not a way that our government should do business, period. So as much as you want to -- I want you to work with us, you also need to work with the public and not just the large emitters. So I don't know. I don't want to say anything that's going to get me in trouble, Madam Chair. So I think I'm going to stop there. But I think I've heard the Minister say some conciliatory words. That's good. But I really, really want her to work us with this time. And I want to get legislation passed before the end of this Assembly, and if that means bringing forward a bill in May-June, she's got to do it. But you've got to work with us this time around, not like what you did with this bill, not like what happened in the 18th Assembly when I blew the whistle on the train wreck. It wasn't heated. That's why we're here. So -- okay. I've heard the conciliatory words from the Minister. I'm prepared to work together to get this done before the end of this Assembly. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. A recorded vote has been requested. All those in favour, please stand.

This is for the motion to amend the -- to zero out the -- the motion is to zero out, like, the amendments, to zero out the costs. Thank you so all those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

All those abstaining, please stand.

The results of the recorded vote are: One in favour, 11 opposed, four abstentions. The motion is defeated. So to the appendix of the bill, does committee agree?

Committee, to the bill as a whole, does committee agree that Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax, is now ready for third reading?

Thank you, committee. The committee has agreed that Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act, is now ready for third reading. Does committee agree that this concludes our consideration of Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act?

Thank you, Minister, and thank you to your witnesses. Sergeant-at-arms, please escort the witnesses. And Members we're just going to take a five minute break.

---SHORT RECESS

Committee, we've agreed to consider Bill 66, An Act to Amend the Property Assessment and Taxation Act. I will ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs to introduce the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here to present Bill 66, An Act to Amend the Property Assessment and Taxation Act.

The purpose of Bill 66 is to address issues that can be resolved through administrative and operational amendments without changing the overall intent of the Act. Bill 66 clarifies and modernizes certain definitions. It also gives the director of assessment greater authority in respect of first assessment orders, corrections to the rolls, and carrying out supplementary assessments. The bill updates provisions related to municipal boards of revision, the territorial boards of revision and the assessment appeal tribunal to extend terms of appointment, adjust decision-making timelines, allow for sole adjudication in certain circumstances and change the title of "secretary" to "registrar." The bill also gives municipal employees the ability to purchase property at public auction with the approval of the municipal council. In addition to these amendments, this bill makes several housekeeping amendments to gender-neutralize language and fix non-substantive grammatical errors in the Act.

During the Standing Committee on Government Operations review of the bill, the Department worked with committee staff and the Department of Justice on three additional amendments to the bill. The Department is appreciative of the time committee took in reviewing the bill and proposing amendments. This concludes my opening remarks. I look forward to hearing comments from Members and answering any questions the Members may have on the bill. Thank you.