Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Committee of the Whole's review of Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act, I had too much to say and ran out of time. So I am thankful for this added time.
Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that increases the cost of living for NWT residents is not what we want. But that is not why we are here. This bill does not decide if we want a carbon tax or not. The federal government imposed the carbon tax on January 1st, 2019, and only the federal government can choose to get rid of the carbon tax. This bill is to decide who will administer the carbon tax revenues in the NWT. Our choices are either the GNWT, through Bill 60, or the federal government through a federal backstop.
In a published letter from the NWT Chamber of Commerce in regards to Bill 60, they stated, quote, "The GNWT boasted in 2019 its cost of living rebate program could see some residents receiving more than they spent on increased energy prices; however, the feds have now moved the goalposts, hiking carbon, national carbon pricing targets for 2023 to 2030, and Ottawa has closed the loophole and will prohibit carbon tax rebates that directly offset, reduce, or negate the impact of the carbon tax. With operating costs for NWT businesses increasing after the carbon tax rebate on heating fuel is removed, logic dictates that some or all of those costs will be passed to consumers. Does the federal government not understand there are no economically viable energy alternatives currently available here? Does it not understand the damage that will be caused to the private business sector and the overall economy if the NWT can't be exempt from the proposed changes from the bill?"
Viable alternative energies, while not in the bill itself, is a critical part of this conversation. We are being taxed for using old infrastructure through an energy monopoly, a tax that wants to force us to make better choices. But better choices for energy alternative options don't exist in the Northwest Territories. The tax shows the reality that those making the decisions at the federal level do not understand the realities of life North of 60. The big city privilege assumes that we have alternative energies we simply are ignoring. This is not the case and this government, along with the federal government, needs to work together to make alternative energy solutions affordable and accessible in the North. This means realistic cost sharing agreements and applicable criteria that reflect northern realities. This also means the GNWT needs to review its and NTPC policies to support alternative energy solutions.
Mr. Speaker, on one hand we have Bill 60 where the GNWT administers carbon tax. Regular Members have negotiated revenue sharing for community government for this year along with the regional cost of living offsets depending on where residents live. But the revenue sharing is not in legislation and does not include small and medium business, NGOs, or Indigenous governments. This means there is no guarantee that the next government will continue the precedent, for example of revenue sharing, with community governments.
On the other hand, there is the option to vote down Bill 60 and the federal backstop kicks in and the federal government will administer the carbon tax. From what I have seen, it appears the federal government does not want to administer carbon tax revenues and in other jurisdictions, like the Yukon, they have implemented a backstop similar to what we're -- some of us are requesting through committee work.
Cost of living offsets, revenue sharing, and reporting. But we can't say for sure what the federal government will do come April 1st because they have refused to share with the NWT what the federal backstop will look like.
Mr. Speaker, we are in what feels like a no-win situation. I want, I want a GNWT administered carbon tax with a law that requires all carbon tax revenues to be rebated to households, businesses, community governments, Indigenous governments, and non-governmental organizations, along with clauses that address accounting and annual reporting expectations. But because the current bill does not speak to revenue sharing, once tabled this information cannot be added to the bill that is before us today and would be deemed out of scope. So I am being asked to choose between something I don't like and that asks me to trust, not this, but every future Cabinet in the GNWT, or an unknown federal backstop.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. I trust Minister Wawzonek. She has made great efforts in the past couple of months to try to find ways to collaborate with committee within the unfortunately too narrow scope of the bill. This Minister is an incredibly smart person who has proven herself capable and worthy of her role, and I trust her heart. But, Mr. Speaker, could I stand in this House and say that I trust every Minister equally? No, I could not. Could I stand in this House today and say that I trust every Minister that is elected by future Assemblies? No, I could not. It is our job to pass legislation that can stand without us. So while I trust Minister Wawzonek, I cannot say that I trust who may serve after her and make revenue sharing decisions on behalf of the Department of Finance in the future.
Yesterday in Committee of the Whole, the Minister was sincere and clear in her attempts to make reparations with committee, and I sincerely appreciated this. The Minister indicated that she would like to find a way to bring forward some type of regulation or legislation that documents revenue sharing, and I appreciate this. But, Mr. Speaker, as I read from the 18th Assembly Standing Committee on Government Operations report on the carbon tax bill, the similarity of feedback from the 18th and 19th Assemblies was glaring. Much of the same concerns were raised in the last Assembly. And here I was, standing in front of a different Minister with the same department who, again, brought forward a mirror image bill, that does not address any of the concerns raised and did not make attempt to address any of them in the 19th Assembly's bill.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not have a statutory review clause, meaning it could continue as legislation without review or opportunity for review for as long as the government chose. And because the amendments I want to see deal with money, proposed amendments can't even come from this side of the House.
I would like Ministers and the GNWT to learn from my words today. I am not supporting Bill 60 because of the government's missed opportunity to open a committee report tabled in the previous Assembly that discussed the same topic with the same concerns and the same unwelcome response. This bill was just as contentious in the 18th Assembly, and no effort was made to amend the bill, to improve the bill, or learn from what happened last time, and history repeated itself.
So how can I believe that now things will be different? Committee reports are the words of stakeholders, Mr. Speaker, the residents of the Northwest Territories, and need to be responded to with more effort and care and read with greater openness to hear, reflect, and grow.
It gives me zero satisfaction to not support the bill. I'm going to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. It gives me no satisfaction to not support the bill. But I am committed to pursuing the best possible option for the people I serve. My constituents, including business owners, NGO operators, and community governments, deserve the certainty and transparency this year and in future years of consistent revenue sharing that reflects future increases in the carbon tax and transparent reporting. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.