Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. First off, I want to thank the Minister for her kind words about me earlier, but she doesn't get off the hook completely.

You know, I do and will vote in favour of this bill. And I think it's -- the Minister's kept true to her word. After hearing what happened with the last changes to the carbon tax, the Minister said she was going to come back and try to fix the revenue sharing arrangement with community governments. That's in this bill. She even stretched it to include annual reporting. Thanks to the work of the standing committee, there's now some detail to that annual reporting. There's still one missing piece, that I'm going to get to at some point, about the need for a deadline for the annual reporting. But there's still some unfinished pieces of business with regard to the carbon tax, okay. I get to scratch maybe a couple of things off my list, but there's still unfinished business. I don't want to review the whole debate, Madam Chair, but I'm just going to highlight some of them because I think it's important to continue to raise these issues.

The first one is the unfair treatment of different kinds of businesses. The large emitters are getting 72 percent of their carbon tax back. That's not fair because small businesses, NGOs get nothing. That's just patently unfair. And the large emitters actually were consulted on this, development of the carbon tax, nobody else was. That's privileged access, and our government has to stop that. Everybody should have equal access and an equal say when policies, legislation, comes forward and the opportunity to have input. So we got to make this fairer and find ways to help smaller businesses, NGOs.

One other concern is the lack of transparency. This is going to be partially addressed by annual reporting thanks to the standing committee and the Minister. But, in my view, this should actually be set up as a revolving fund so there's completely separate accounting and greater transparency around this fund. And I know my friends in the Department of Finance really do not like targeted revenues, but if there was ever a case for targeted revenues, this is it.

Carbon tax should be used by our government to help mitigate the impacts of it, but it should also be used to help the environment and stop greenhouse gas emissions. Right now the money goes into the consolidated revenue fund, not good. Just not much accountability there. Yukon sets theirs up as a revolving fund and so should we. And those monies can only be used for greenhouse gas emission reductions and trying to mitigate the impacts of carbon tax as well. And I think we need and should be doing the same thing.

The last thing, Madam Chair, is methane. Methane should be a regulated greenhouse gas emission, and it is in many other jurisdictions. Our government lobbied for its removal. I just don't get it. Methane is 80 times more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide. It's one of the greenhouse gases that we could actually make some significant progress towards our overall target if we actually worked on methane alone. And, really, there's only one operation where this happens, and that's Norman Wells. So I don't understand why Norman Wells was given a pass on this. There's flaring. There's fugitive emissions in the industry. They have voluntarily agreed to start to work towards reducing these. And our government should have included methane as one of the gases that is regulated under the -- and taxed, and we should not have given a pass to Imperial Oil at Norman Wells. And I really regret that, Madam Chair. And that's not good public policy, quite frankly, so. So anyways, I will support this bill. We're making progress. We're now sharing some of the revenues with community governments. We're going to have annual reporting. But I do have one question for the Minister. Can the Minister tell me why there's no report deadline in the bill? Thanks, Madam Chair