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

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.