Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, when committee was doing its work, it took a significant amount of time to do the -- oh sorry, I just ran down the stairs. It took a significant amount of time to actually look at a jurisdictional scan and look at what other -- what other regions across Canada were doing, particularly other territories. And what we came across was the -- what is used by the Government of the Yukon, which provides municipal governments with 3.5 percent of its total carbon rebate. And while I appreciate what the Minister is talking about in terms of meeting committee a little bit closer to where we're at, the $2.2 million, really, that we are asking for here, ends up being equal to nearly the 3.5 percent that is being stipulated in legislation by the Yukon government.

One of the things that I think is really, really important is that within the territory within our communities, there are some that are tax-based, some that are not. The communities that are tax-based have indicated that if they do not receive any kind of rebates that their property taxes will go up. I've said already that I believe that the carbon tax is yet another increase in cost of living in the Northwest Territories that is going to continue to hollow out our middle class; it is going to continue to push people and industry away from the territory if it is costing them more to employ people, costing them more to they themselves operate a business here and also to pay their workers here. And this is a huge, huge concern when we are trying to grow our territory.

The people that I serve cannot afford additional increases. They feel like they are being squeezed at all ends right now and they feel, especially business owners post-COVID, that they need time to catch up. They held their breath for years while they were on lock downs and trying to mitigate public health orders and they need some time to catch their breath, Madam Chair.

That doesn't speak to the nontax-based communities that can't turn around and increase their property taxes. Nontax-based communities, we heard through NWTAC, are going to have to turn around and cut their programming from somewhere in order to pay for the differences in carbon tax. And the number one programming, they said is cut first in their communities, is recreational programming. This is a huge concern from the Standing Committee on Social Development because when we went and spoke to communities about child and family services, so how to lift northern families and support stable environments for families to grow in, when we went and spoke to communities about homelessness prevention, and when we spoke to youth about suicide prevention which is another report that we intend to table in this sitting of the Assembly, the one theme that connected all of those pieces so powerfully was access to recreational programming. And this is a massive concern in our territory, and our youth cannot afford to have less programming in their communities. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I support this motion. And just a little bit more background, committee did receive a presentation from the Northwest Territories Association of Communities, and in their written submission and in the discussion that was had with the representatives, this particular ask is based on what actually happens in the Yukon. That's how they calculated what they would like to receive to help offset and mitigate the impacts of the carbon tax. And I'm not going to attempt to explain what kind of impacts they anticipate. I think my colleague from Kam Lake did an excellent job on that. But that's what the ask is. And, you know, a bit of a surprise here today to hear the Minister of Finance say that Cabinet has reconsidered this and is willing to look at a 10 percent, I guess, use of residual funds from the carbon tax and provide that to community governments. I think I'd rather kind of see a percentage of the total rather than the residual amount.

And I guess the other area that's uncertain for me in what the Minister has offered is how that's going to be done. You know, I guess the mechanism's going to be a regulation because Cabinet, if Bill 60 does pass, has total discretion about rebates. They can -- the Minister might call it flexibility; I call it total discretion. And I think what we have here is a crisis in trust, quite frankly, but. So I presume that this would then be done through a regulation, and that regulation might be good from this Cabinet but what happens when the next Cabinet comes in? They could change it. That's why, Madam Chair, I preferred a legislated approach that -- where we could probably build in some flexibility, but a legislated approach, then you have to come back to the House if you're going to start to change that in significant substantive ways, take away the money that should go to communities. I'm sorry to say, Madam Chair, for me this is a crisis of trust. And from what I've seen with how that discretion was exercised from the first carbon tax bill to now, I'm not prepared to go there. So I think we still need a plan B, and that will be the next recommendation, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Minister Wawzonek.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, just to start, yes, I mean I'm sad to hear that there's this crisis in trust. I happen to be the same Minister that goes through the budget negotiations twice a year every year. So, and I actually as much as that process gets stressful at times, Madam Chair, we are a consensus government. We always somehow manage to come together. We always somehow manage to find pathways forward, even when there are large divides between us at times. Madam Chair, I just -- I guess I haven't seen any reason to think that the consensus system doesn't apply to absolutely everything else that we do, whether it's motions on legislation, whether it's recommendations in reports, it's still a consensus government and no dollar is going to pass this House unless we come to those agreements in the big picture. And bills don't pass this House unless there's agreements on the big picture, much like Bill 60. So I keep trying to come back to Bill 60. I'm not trying to narrow it, you know, inappropriately. I'm trying to just make clear for the public that this is just about raising the amounts to comply so that we can continue to go and do the things we had been doing, which was to ensure we have an industry to have jobs and to provide dollars back into the hands of residents so that they aren't unnecessarily impacted. I don't have the math, if you will, or the evidentiary basis for the $2.2 million ask that's being put forward. Madam Chair, I do have, however, records of total utility costs paid by communities. So in looking at the total utilities paid by communities, we are able to calculate what the impact of the carbon tax increase would be. That's where the 5 percent comes from, just so everyone is clear. It is approximately $940,000. And that seemed to make sense as a number. But, again, it is a consensus government and we want to try to be responsive. And so yes, we are certainly trying to be alive to the fact that everyone is facing some pressure on this bill, that there are going to be increases in costs. We've tried to account for the indirect costs. But, yes, Madam Chair, I do have ability to increase what we're proposing would be the sharing of revenues on this. I think it's appropriate to get into those details maybe with committee, not in this process but in others, and I would be happy to do so prior to the bill potentially coming forward. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Northwest Territories create a law that requires all carbon tax revenues to be rebated to households, business community, businesses, community governments, Indigenous governments, and non-governmental organizations.

And further, in creating this law, the government should consider how rebates to each group will work and whether the carbon tax system should be revenue neutral.

And furthermore, this law should also require a separate accounting and annual reporting. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. It's kind of a weird situation that we're having some debate and discussion back and forth in this kind of forum, but I think it's an important debate and discussion that the public needs to hear, and maybe we can still reach some kind of a compromise. But, you know, I guess the other thing I want the public to know is that the ability of the Regular Members to change this bill is zero. We cannot change it in any significant way. The way that it was crafted, the way that it was put together, it's a carbon copy of what happened in the last Assembly. In the last Assembly, I tried to get an amendment to the bill that would build in a requirement for public reporting, and it was ruled out of order because the way the bill had been drafted. So our ability as Regular MLAs to make any changes to this is zero. You know, as much -- and, you know, I raised this issue with the Minister right at the very beginning. I said, you know, I don't want to see a carbon copy come forward that we have no ability to change. And that's what we got. There's no room to negotiate in terms of making changes to the bill itself. And it does leave all the discretion and authority with the Cabinet. You know, I would have much rather prefer that we work collaboratively on an approach where we could have made, in our view, my view, a fair set of offsets, rebates, for all of the business communities. But that's not what we got. We got a bill that sets out a schedule that meets the federal targets, and that's about it. So our ability to change it is zero. We can't do it. We can't make any changes. We can't even insert a requirement for public reporting, separate accounting. And the Minister's right, that does happen. But it happens perhaps a little bit after the fact. It is discretionary right now. I'd actually rather see it right in the bill. And that kind of reporting should include something about the effectiveness of the carbon tax in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As difficult as that might be at times, that should be in the bill itself. But we can't do it. We can't make any changes to it.

So I guess the other thing I want to say is while I have characterized this as a crisis of trust, that's me as an individual, and that's with regard to the carbon tax and the way that this has been done. I think I have a good working relationship with the Minister of Finance on most of the other files. Most of the other files. Perhaps we disagree on some. I'm not even going to use one word that seems to be a trigger so I'm not going to go there. But, you know, I guess -- and I just don't understand how we got to this point where we didn't find a way to work together. And I still think that there is a way for us to work together between now and March 31st, and this is the way to do it, is to sit down, try to develop a plan together that puts in the right kind of offsets. But I'm just not comfortable leaving it to regulations in the future that a future Cabinet can change. Yeah, they want flexibility, but we also want some -- a framework somehow, Madam Chair, that creates a comfort zone that we know where we're going, and we have a path forward. That's not what we have in the bill. So I think there's still an opportunity to try to work together, and I would really like to be able to do that, and I think we've made some progress. But for me, I want a legislated approach that creates that certainty, that comfort of where we're going. And I think we can do it, and I think we can do it together and still allow for some flexibility setting some of the things through regulation. But I want to know, and I think the public deserves to know, that community governments are going to get something back and it's going to be in the legislation itself. Indigenous governments are going to get something back and it's in the bill. NGOs, small businesses are going to get something, and it's in the bill. It's not left to the discretion of Cabinet in setting through regulations. That's the kind of framework that I think we need. And if you want differential cost of living, put it in the bill. Don't leave it to regulations. That's why we need a legislated approach, and I think we could do it on our own. And if we needed to, we could even do that under the federal backstop like the Yukon has done. And that's what this recommendation is about, and I want to work with my Cabinet colleagues to get this done. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Nunakput.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's just keep it simple and kill the bill and go to the federal backstop. Pretty simple. My colleagues on this side of the House, you know, I -- I'm really concerned with this like I said in my opening remarks on the bill. We have to make a way for our people in the communities that we represent. People are going hungry. People are needing. And if we add this carbon tax, 17 percent across the board, that's a rippling effect. Our carbon right now, and across the territory, is 0.05 percent, Madam Chair. You know, if we add that 17 percent, that's going to be paying in my riding four and half times more than what we pay. It's not going to -- any kind of monies that you have, you do have, you're not going to be able to buy anything. People are -- people are suffering right now. It's easier to go to the federal backstop and make it simple. Kill the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I won't keep everybody very long here. But what I really wanted to say here is there's zero guarantee that anybody in this room who is debating this right now will be here in six months. None. And so if it's important to anybody in this room, for example, that the revenue sharing from carbon tax goes to community governments, Indigenous governments, non-governmental organizations, then that needs to be in legislation. If it's not in legislation, we don't have the opportunity for changes to how that revenue sharing is happening to come forward in a bill. And that means that it doesn't have the opportunity to then go to committee where committee gets to look at it and from that process, members of the public get to participate in public hearings. We had the opportunity to hear from individual residents, from the NWT Senior's Society, from NWTAC, and from Indigenous governments on what they wanted to see within this bill. And if we don't have the opportunity to hear from people, we don't have the opportunity to really learn how it's working or how it's not working. And from there, we don't have the opportunity to uphold the democratic process and the beauty of consensus government where we get to have these conversations, and we don't get to have conversations to this extent about accountability of public dollars. So I think having it in the legislation is really important. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to reiterate some of the things that I said. You know, this carbon tax is going to affect every single person in the Northwest Territories, including children. Right now we have high inflation. We're taxed out to the limit. We seem to be sending every -- you know, sending everything to Ottawa and then they give it away to some other place, but they don't look after us. You know, that should not be happening. If we don't look after our own first, then we look after no one. We're not in a situation where we can build new businesses. I am very pro-business; always was and that will never change, whether it be small or large, because for a business to thrive you have to have -- you have to have development. You have to have all these other things with it. And I support the Minister on that, always. But a 14 percent increase overall will affect each and every person in this room, outside this room, and the people on the street. A lot of people will go without because they're just trying to pay the bills just to make sure that they still have a roof over their head. Those are very serious situations that our people will be in. Whether you have a high-paying job, a low-paying job, or a middle-class job, it doesn't matter. They're all our people, and we have to look at it from a wide -- like, with a different lens. Every single person, including our children, are going to be affected by this. And who speaks on behalf of these people? We do. That's why we were elected. We were elected to speak for the wishes of the people of our constituency and for the people of the Northwest Territories. And I feel very strongly on this bill, and I said so right from the beginning, and I will not be supporting this bill until drastic changes are made to ensure that we're addressing all those concerns with business, with seniors, with Indigenous governments, and with ordinary people and for the poor. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Mr. Johnson.

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, committee. Do you agree that you've concluded consideration of Committee Report 45-19(2)?