This is page numbers 5763 - 5826 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

Recorded Vote
Motions

Page 5774

The Speaker

The Speaker Frederick Blake Jr.

All those opposed, please rise. All those abstaining, please rise.

Recorded Vote
Motions

Page 5774

Clerk Of The House Mr. Glen Rutland

The Member for Nahendeh. The Member for Yellowknife South. The Member for Sahtu. The Member for Range Lake. The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake. The Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Recorded Vote
Motions

Page 5774

The Speaker

The Speaker Frederick Blake Jr.

The results of the recorded vote: Nine in favour, zero opposed, six abstentions. The motion is carried.

---Carried

Motions. Notices of motion for the first reading of bills. First reading of bills. Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources.

Bill 74: Forest Act
First Reading Of Bills

Page 5774

Shane Thompson

Shane Thompson Nahendeh

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the House Bill 74, Forest Act, to be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 74: Forest Act
First Reading Of Bills

Page 5774

The Speaker

The Speaker Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Minister. The motion is in order. To the motion. Oh yes, sorry. Thank you, Minister. Pursuant to Rule 8.2(3), Bill 74 is deemed to have first reading and is ready for second reading.

First reading of bills. Minister responsible for Status of Women.

Caroline Wawzonek

Caroline Wawzonek Yellowknife South

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the House Bill 75, Council of Women and Gender Diversity Act, to be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Frederick Blake Jr.

Thank you, Minister. Pursuant to Rule 8.2(3), Bill 75 is deemed to have first reading and is ready for second reading.

Second reading of bills. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Bill 23, 29, 60, 61, 63, 66, 67, 68, and 73, Committee Report 40, 43, 44, 45-19(2), Minister's Statement 264-19(2), Tabled Document 681, 694, 813, Tabled Document 881, 882, and 883-19(2).

By the authority given to me as Speaker, I hereby the House to sit beyond the reasonable hours of adjournment to deal with matters before the House, with Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes in the chair.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5774

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

I now call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Member for Frame Lake.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5774

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Merci, Madam la Presidente. Committee wishes to deal with Committee Report 45-19(2), Report on the Review of Bill 60; and, Tabled Document 813-19(2), 2023-2024 Main Estimates, with Department of Infrastructure. Mahsi, Madam Chair.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5774

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. Does committee agree?

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5774

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5774

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you, committee. We will take a short recess and resume with the first item.

---SHORT RECESS

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5774

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

I now call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we've agreed to consider Committee Report 45-19(2), Report on Bill 60: An Act to Amend the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act. I will go to the chair of Standing Committee on Government Operations for any opening comments. Member for Yellowknife North.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5774

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.

In its review, it was important to the committee to identify what changes could help mitigate the economic impacts of the tax. Committee also wanted to understand implications of reverting to the federal backstop.

Committee held a public technical briefing from the Minister of Finance and the department officials on November 25th, 2022. Following that, the committee sought public feedback on Bill 60. Committee heard from several stakeholders both through written submission and oral comments. Committee heard serious concerns about the carbon tax approach.

As a result of the review of Bill 60, the committee presented a report with five recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on March 1st, 2023.

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

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5775

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. I will now open the floor to general comments on Committee Report 45-19(2). Members. Member for Frame Lake.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5775

Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly Frame Lake

Thanks, Madam Chair. I want to start by thanking the committee for its work on Bill 60. I sat in on I believe all of their proceedings. I was there for the public hearing and so on, meetings with the Minister and staff. And I think they've come to a -- given the state of information that was available and what they heard from the public, I think they've put forward a reasonable set of recommendations. Probably -- but I think it's important to kind of review how we got here first.

And back in 2021, the federal government set new targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions partly based on, you know, an international consensus that the Pan-Canadian Framework targets, the old targets were not going to get us where we need to as a planet. And, you know, the federal government went out and informed all the provinces and territories that there was going to be some new goalposts, new benchmarks, put in place. And the federal government required as of April 1st, 2022, an indication from each of the provinces and territories whether they were going to have their own carbon tax approach that would meet those goalposts, collect the revenues themselves and decide how to use the revenues, or whether they would prefer to go with the federal backstop. And if a province or territory decided to go onto the federal backstop voluntarily, the federal government would transfer all the revenues to that jurisdiction and allow that jurisdiction to decide what to do with the revenues. And if a province or territory decided that they didn't want to voluntarily go into the federal backstop, the federal government would, of course, collect the taxes but then rebate most of the taxes to individual taxpayers in those jurisdictions. And a number of jurisdictions have done that including Alberta, Ontario, and a longer list that I'm not going to go through.

So that was the first sort of gatepost, was April 1st, 2022.

The second was September 1st, 2022, when if a jurisdiction decided that they wanted to retain their own carbon tax, they had to submit specific proposals to the federal government so that they could evaluate that they would fit within the goalpost that the federal government had set. They even issued some guidance around that which, you know, jurisdictions could use in designing their own carbon tax.

Now, the first meeting that, you know, the Regular MLAs had with the Minister of Finance on this approach happened in July of 2022. So by then decisions had already been made and then of course the bill was introduced in October of 2022. So I think it's -- from my perspective, what this is really all about is Cabinet's approach and whether, you know -- I think it really is a struggle here about power and authority over who sets the carbon tax, at least within our jurisdiction, and who decides on those revenues and what role will be the Regular MLAs, and perhaps even the public, have in all of that.

So I think it's important to look at how the first carbon tax bill came in the last Assembly. It provided basically total authority jurisdiction to Cabinet to decide how to set the carbon tax rates other than they were set in the legislation but they tweaked -- they get to tweak it, but they also get to decide how the rebates are going to be set through regulations. And the Regular MLAs had no say whatsoever on the regulations, nor did the public, other than providing feedback and then they can take that. But Cabinet can change regulations at a whim. So I think it's important to look at how that exercise of discretion has been used between the first carbon tax bill and where we are now.

So I said that there was these two important mileposts, April 1st and September 1st last year for deciding if you're going to keep your own carbon tax and then submitting a design for that. And I think it's fair to say that that first milepost of April 1st, 2022, Regular MLAs, we didn't even know it was happening. There was no effort to reach out to us to look at options, get or seek our input. That decision was made completely by Cabinet.

Now, the -- so then I think, you know, other discretion that could have been exercised when we did start to talk with the Minister and staff about this, we suggested that there be some robust public communications around that. There was one presentation to standing committee, and that's all you can still find I think on the Department of Finance website about the carbon tax. That's it. So there really hasn't been much in terms of public communications around that, and I think that's borne out by what we heard in the standing committee from the public. They want more information about this, and they didn't get it.

So another -- some further exercise or discretion, the kind of approach the Cabinet has put forward, and I will go on record about this, is unfair. It treats the large emitters more favourably than other businesses, small businesses, NGOs, community governments. It's unfair. That's how Cabinet exercised their discretion with Bill 60. They brought forward an unfair approach.

The only consultation that happened in developing Bill 60 was with the large emitters. The public wasn't consulted. Regular MLAs, we had some input; it didn't start until after some of the major decisions had been made. So I believe that that was unfair the way that Cabinet decided only to consult with the large emitters.

Cabinet also got an exemption for methane emissions. Methane is problematic when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and its effect on climate change. It's 80 times worse than carbon dioxide. There are methane emissions that happen in the Northwest Territories, fugitive emissions flaring. These happen at Norman Wells, but Cabinet went and sought an exemption for whatever reasons. This is not environmentally friendly to get this exemption, quite frankly, so.

So Cabinet proceeded on. Cabinet has decided they do not want a legislated approach because Cabinet wants to continue to control how the carbon tax revenues are used. And so the impact, mitigation, offsets, rebates, will all be done through regulations with no input from Regular MLAs, no input from the public. That's not how we should be doing this.

I also tried to get some accountability, transparency, inserted into the bill. I gave the Minister even wording around this from what I tried to do in the last Assembly. That was not included. So there's no separate accounting for this money. There's some public reporting that happens; it's discretionary, it's not very good. I've been critical of that as well, but I think it should be right in the bill itself.

So all of this leads to the need for a legislated approach to set down a fairer approach, greater accountability, sharing of the revenues, and that's what they do in the Yukon. That's not what we have here. And I'm not prepared to yield that much authority and control to Cabinet because of the way that they've exercised that since the last carbon tax bill legislation that was brought in. I'm not prepared to give them a blank cheque to continue to exercise that kind of control and authority given what has happened and transpired here.

So to try to further some of the debate and discussion on this, I did table a model bill for NWT carbon tax rebates in the House last week. That, I think, needs to be plan B. That's the approach that we can and should be taking, Madam Chair. And I've also reached out, offered to discuss this, try -- I've said that we have to find ways to work together with Cabinet to come up with a better plan for the Northwest Territories. I haven't seen any willingness on the part of Cabinet to actually do that. Those are my remarks. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5775

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you, Member. General comments. Member for Nunakput.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5775

Jackie Jacobson

Jackie Jacobson Nunakput

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to Bill 60, the heating fuel and the gas over the last heating fuel and the diesel, gasoline has gone up in Nunakput. Heating fuel is up 25 percent. For automotive is 24. Gasoline is an average 12 percent. It's gone up to $2.75. Madam Chair, it's a rippling effect across my riding. Food prices are going up. We can't afford to buy food. Nunakput has the highest food price index in the Northwest Territories. Over 50 percent in Nunakput are worried about having enough money to buy food, and almost half the residents in Nunakput are worried that they don't have enough money to feed their families at any -- all the time or very often. We have to hunt, hunt to eat, Madam Chair. 67 percent of households in Nunakput eat country food. And if you're buying gasoline at $2.75 a litre, you have to get something on that hunt. If you don't, you're going hungry. We have a -- the price of power continues to go up across the Northwest Territories, which affects my riding. The power in Nunakput riding is among the highest rates in the Northwest Territories. For example, Sachs Harbour pays $2.37 a kilowatt.

Madam Chair, for the housing, you know, the insufficient housing that's built poorly, leaking energy, residents have to pay for poorly built public housing units that are 30 plus years or older. Also with that, approximately 8 percent of housings need in the region. Housing NWT will never renovate units fast enough to keep the housing problems at a minimum. 30 percent of the homes in Nunakput are overcrowded.

The inflation across Canada is at an all-time high, Madam Chair. The NWT has inflation, is higher than Canada at 7 percent. And going this way, where we have issues providing service already, why can't we do the federal backstop? I'd rather do it federally because I don't -- I don't trust -- in regards, I don't trust Bill 60 going into the government's hands in regards to what we're going to do and what's coming forward.

Nunakput has the highest cost difference in the NWT. 18 percent of the people in Nunakput are considered to live under low income. Nunakput has over -- is $50,000 below average on family income but the NWT's price of all goods and services in our region is the highest. We have to pay for where we live, Madam Chair. 10 percent of the families in Nunakput are less than $30,000 a year. 344 people in Nunakput live in income assistance, which is 17 percent. And I know that's higher. There are little employment opportunities in my riding since that moratorium hit and that M18 has gone into review from the federal government. We're resource rich and cash poor.

Impact to Nunakput communities on Bill 60, Madam Chair, the estimated total house carbon tax burden for the Nunakput residents is $899 plus, for 2023-2024. The people in Nunakput are already -- can barely buy food for the table, find employment, earn income, pay heat and power and housing. How can we tax people who have nothing?

The residents shouldn't be penalized for where we live, Madam Chair. The GNWT is not going to provide enough offsets, cost of living offset, the right direction? No. Madam Chair, this has to be sorted out. We should not support Bill 60. It's going to -- a rippling effect across the territory. It's going to be a rippling effect for all residents. Ottawa and the GNWT is looking out -- is not looking for the Beaufort Delta and Nunakput communities, Madam Chair. Ottawa is squeezing us financially with the tax while it imposes the moratorium and blocks resource development. The GNWT is doing Ottawa's dirty work, Madam Chair. If Ottawa insists on this tax, they should impose the tax that they thought and do the backstop. The GNWT isn't taking a meaningful role with this side of the House to try to work with us to get this done so I'm in total -- I'm in total disbelief in regards to why are we doing this? Why are we going to have more taxes on our people that have nothing? We have no jobs. It's just really disheartening. We're here to make a difference and put our people first. That's who we work for across the territory, and we're not. They're going to tow the Cabinet line; do the federal government's dirty work. Ain't going to happen. Whoever supports this bill, Madam Chair, they're not doing it for the right reason. They should be -- the right reasons is standing up for their people, their constituents that they represent, and not have this extra tax and extra burden on the families that are having a tough time. People are going hungry. People are not being able to pay bills. They're having to choose what to pay. This is not right. Our territory should be doing better.

Madam Chair, this bill will impact all residents, especially those in small communities in the High Arctic who already face the highest cost of living. Madam Chair, I oppose this bill, and I encourage everyone who's concerned about this, rising cost and living impacts of Bill 60, to talk to your MLA. And once this comes to the floor of the House, Madam Chair, everybody's going to have to answer for this to their constituents on why you supported Bill 60. I really -- I'm hoping that our Cabinet and this side of the House vote for the empathy for the people of the Northwest Territories and let the federal government do their own dirty work and so where we could be able to try to live a little bit.

And in regards to our moratorium, that's got to be lifted. We never used to have to worry about work in my riding. We always had work. We always had oil and gas but we're not -- we're not green. All the green projects, look at your windmill. They give us solar panels. Man, we're dark six months of the year, how does that help us? Nothing. Doesn't help. But here you could make a difference and stand up to Ottawa and tell them to do their job. Right now. We have to stand up. And I can't say this enough - stand up for your constituents, Members. Don't support Bill 60 because you're going to have to answer to your constituents when it's time for election. So Bill 60, please, let's kill Bill 60 and send it back to the federal government for the backstop and then we'll go from there, and we'll work together in regards to try to do better things instead of arguing in the House over something like this when the federal government should be taking full responsibility of it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5776

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you, Member. Are there any other general comments on the committee report? Member for Thebacha.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5776

Frieda Martselos

Frieda Martselos Thebacha

Thank you, Madam Chair. I too will be voting against Bill 60. I have -- I said that right from the beginning. I feel that sitting with all the Indigenous leaders across the territories for the 14 years before I came to the House, I know the hardships of Indigenous people, I know the hardships of the poor, and I know the hardships of every small business and the senior population. And I feel that I stand for that when I stand up in this House. I feel very strongly that the business community, whether they be small or large, it will affect them. I feel that the NWT Senior's Society had written a written submission to the standing committee, and I'm listening. The Indigenous governments also had written letters to the standing committee, and I'm listening. Ordinary people within my community are concerned about this bill, and I'm listening. I will not be changing my mind on this bill because once I've decided that I'm going to do something, I usually make sure that that's what I'm going to do. I'm not -- I don't waiver. I refuse to waiver on anything that I believe is best for the people of the North and people of my community. So I will be voting against the carbon tax bill, Bill 60. And like my colleague said, the federal government should not be making decisions on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories and making us do things that divide us. And we don't have to be divided. I think that this should be a free vote, and people should stand up and decide on how they feel in their heart on this whole issue. I have no problem standing up and voting against Bill 60, and that's exactly what I'm going to do. I will be following the majority of my colleagues on this side of the House. And thank you, Madam Chair.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5776

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. General comments. Minister Wawzonek. Oh, you don't want to go. Member for Yellowknife North.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5776

Rylund Johnson

Rylund Johnson Yellowknife North

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not going to make any substantive comments on the bill itself. I believe the report does that and, you know, it was my job as chair to try and navigate the multiple submissions we got. I just, for the record and for the public, want to explain the process we are in.

We are currently reviewing the committee report which has recommendations. Each of those will be voted on. The report itself is not the bill. In order for this bill to pass, there are still a number of steps that would need to occur. One, it would need to be called in Committee of the Whole, a clause by clause with the Minister and witnesses in the chair, would have to occur; each clause would have to be approved; then it would have to get out of Committee of the Whole and past third reading. And so I just think it's important for the public to understand how our processes work. We're all used to them by now but they're rather confusing, and they're long to make sure there is multiple debates awarded to all Members. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5776

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you, Member. I will now -- Minister Wawzonek.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5776

Caroline Wawzonek

Caroline Wawzonek Yellowknife South

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, typically -- and I suppose if we're talking process, typically you'll find Members of Cabinet don't always speak to recommendations to reports, and it's not because we're not listening but it's the typical practice that it's a direction to Cabinet to do something which is why we abstain typically on these votes. But this has been a very public process and one that I agree with comments already that putting more information out in this particular instance is really for the overall benefit. So I have had the benefit of sharing some remarks with my colleagues just so that they're -- to that extent hopefully there's no surprises, if not everyone on Cabinet speaks again. That is our usual process and we are able to discuss in advance what one Minister might say such as in an instance like this one.

I understand firstly, and I think it's technically the last recommendation, that there be a response in 120 days. That's fairly standard. Again though, I'm speaking today, again in part, because 120 days is a bit late. April 1st, the federal carbon tax rates increase and any jurisdiction, as you've heard from the Member earlier, that hasn't made a change will have the backstop imposed. So while if committee's recommendations in the report is accepted, we are going to try and have a formal response back as quickly as possible and much sooner than that. I nevertheless want to take this opportunity to speak here.

Firstly, Madam Chair, why did we not want the federal system voluntarily or imposed? In short, really, there was just no sign at any point earlier on or now that we'd be better off as a territory, that our economy would be better off, that residents would be better off under the federal system. I disagree that it's unfair or that there's any lack of open accounting.

Madam Chair, every single dollar that gets spent by the Government of the Northwest Territories is approved by the Legislative Assembly, and every single dollar that is spent is then reviewed by the Auditor General of Canada. So there's ample opportunity to have a lot of control in this House about what is spent and how and then to have that process reviewed through the public accounting process. But, Madam Chair, we do want to ensure when we are having the opportunity to have revenue from income -- or revenue from taxes that we continue to have control and oversight over those revenues and that really is all that's happening in Bill 60. And once you give up that control, if you opt into the federal system or have it imposed, either way, it's irreversible. That federal system is then implemented. It's here in whatever fashion. And the goalposts have already changed. The federal government's changed the goalposts for those who opted in earlier under the previous original system. They've eliminated the heating fuel rebate. They've made other changes, things you can or cannot do with your rebate system, in or out. And if we had opted in or if we opted in now, we'd be under that circumstance going into the future. We don't want to do that. We find one of the big things -- and I know that one that hasn't had as much time is the large emitter system in favour of the federal output-based production system, or OBPS.

There are down sides to OBPS for the Northwest Territories. First, Madam Chair, adopting OBPS would create an inequitable carbon tax burden. Let me explain that.

We've used fuel tax data to show that greenhouse gas emissions are about the same whether you're the three diamond mines or all other fuel consumers. So if you have the OBPS system where we'd be getting less tax revenue, basically it means that even though 50 percent of fuel usage is coming from the diamond mines, they would not be paying 50 percent of the carbon tax burden. We would not be receiving that enhanced revenue from them. OBPS would have them actually right now today paying less tax. So it seemed, frankly, rather obvious that we want to keep that system. But I acknowledge that perhaps it's been poorly understood. And as I said, it's less government revenue overall. That means less revenue for everything that we want to do here in this Assembly. But also importantly, besides being a hit to ourselves in terms of what we can do with our resources and revenues, the OBPS approach also isn't very responsive to the nature of the mineral resource industry in the North. And while they might pay a little bit less right now, that benefit would disappear as a large mine starts to, or may have to, reduce production if they move to or when they move towards closure and reclamation. There's also no offset system or process if a mine is coming in and being constructed and built.

So it's talked about in this House all the time, the high costs of doing business, the high costs of development, the lack of infrastructure. And here we have a made-in-the North system that provides a different way for large industry to invest, to build, and to exist, rather than the federal style system which uses an industry standard and a standard that may well be relying on a standard developed using lower cost jurisdictions. That has no benefit to our industry here in the North.

Madam Chair, I'll speak now just briefly to the recommendations, which really weren't focused on that large emitter system. But the large emitter program, really again, is a big part of why it seemed, quite frankly, quite obvious that we wanted to stay out of the federal system. But the recommendations in the report, I do -- I'm hearing people. I'm hearing my colleagues. And if I sound frustrated, it's not at them; it's frustrated that I share the frustration and it seems like we're all actually saying the same thing and yet continue to disagree, which is frustrating.

The recommendations, from what I've read and from what I've heard, are largely a dissatisfaction with the federal carbon pricing benchmark. It increases the carbon tax rates and puts a tax on heating fuel and that's what brings us largely here. So of course, there's a public engagement process. That is conducted by standing committee in the usual course after first reading of a bill. That public briefing was back in November. And in response to that briefing, in response to the concerns raised particularly from high cost zones, is exactly why we went back and created the zoned system for the cost of living offset. It was precisely to benefit residents in the highest cost zones, in particular Nunakput, and to ensure that those residents would get a higher amount to reflect the higher costs.

So in February, we thought it would be clause by clause and that turned into another public hearing. But in the course of that, we received more feedback.

The first formal feedback was this report that we have now. But nevertheless, even before receiving this report, Madam Chair, we were able to go back and realize that we could, indeed, find a way to do a revenue sharing agreement with -- or revenue sharing approach with the communities. We've done that. We've proposed to put in 5 percent for communities. Well, Madam Chair, I have to knowledge again, that's clearly been unsatisfactory, and we're proposing to, frankly, to double that, to bring that up to 10 percent revenue sharing.

The idea -- some of the other recommendations, Madam Chair, we'll go through. As I said, we'll try to have a formal response because they are speaking to concerns with the carbon tax system and the imposition thereof and not necessarily to Bill C-60, which is really just trying to find -- really just imposes the carbon tax rates. That is all it does.

Now as for whether or not we would relinquish the -- or yes, relinquish control and power, Madam Chair, respectfully, it's not about that. It's about maintaining flexibility. So in terms of ensuring that we as a government have flexibility to determine, you know, today, where do we want to see the revenues go, how do we want to recycle revenues, the idea of doing the graded system based on averages to best serve the residents in the small communities who have the highest costs, maybe we do have to make some changes to those zones. Is 10 percent enough? It's more than what we've calculated based, again, on our fuel tax use rates; it's more than what we have calculated to be required but maybe that needs to be adjusted. Madam Chair, it seems that we would indeed want to keep those things in regulations so that they can be changed more easily. That is the way of things here.

I know I'm running short on time, Madam Chair, and so I think I'll probably wind up putting a lot more of what I wanted to say in a formal response. But the other thing I feel compelled to speak to is the idea that we haven't gone to the federal government about this. Madam Chair, this doesn't appear anywhere in committee's report. Madam Chair, I've shared my correspondence, multiple letters with committee. They weren't present at various in-person opportunities but I've had in-person opportunities too. And even though there's a multitude of issues that we want to raise with the federal government, I raised this one. And I raised this one in some of the strongest terms available to me. I have had no positive response. I have had no indication of change. It gives me no confidence that putting control over the carbon tax in the hands of the federal government would put the residents of the Northwest Territories better off. It is the opposite. We relinquish the control and we put ourselves under the federal government system. From based on the kind of response I've had, which is none, we would not be better off; we'd have no control of our revenues and residents wouldn't see anything better coming to them. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters

Page 5777

The Chair

The Chair Lesa Semmler

Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Seeing no further general comments, Member for Yellowknife North.