Thanks, Mr. Chair. I agree with most of what our witness has said, but the federal government has also agreed that they will return revenues that are collected through the federal backstop to the jurisdiction where they are collected, so there is already a commitment to do that. In fact, that is exactly what the Yukon negotiated.
My point in raising these questions, Mr. Chair, is that we had an opportunity to design a different system. Committee asked to try to work with the department, with the Minister, to come up with options for what our system could look like in terms of making sure that people in rural, remote communities would receive greater consideration, ways of revenue sharing. All of those sorts of ideas were put on the table, but we got nothing back. As much as the committee tried to get some options discussed and laid out scenarios, it just didn't work. What we've got now is a bill that sets out what the carbon tax is going to be. Everything else is left to the discretion of Cabinet. We could have had a system like the Yukon, but we don't. We could have had revenue sharing with First Nations, Indigenous governments, municipalities. We could have had some consideration of rebates that would provide more for people in rural and remote communities. We don't have that. We could have negotiated a system like they have in the Yukon. That's why my position is not to accept the plan that Cabinet has developed, but leave it to the 19th Assembly, redesign this for our own needs, make a truly made-in-the-North approach. Thanks, Mr. Chair.