Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to pull the report out fast enough. I have it in front of me, Mr. Speaker. But, really, at this point, we -- and I've gone through this many a time. We spend far more as a government on -- in terms of our energy, energy supply, energy policy, climate change initiatives, energy efficiency programs, energy and electricity programs, significantly more there than what we take in on this tax. What we don't do in general, not just with this tax but any other form of tax, any other form of revenue, is pick out a certain type of revenue and sort of earmark it for one thing and one thing only. The reality is if we were to do that with a surplus that does vary year to year, we would not have enough money to do the things that we're doing in all these other spaces. If we said we are only going to -- we're going to use this amount, this is going to be our money for climate change initiatives, it would not meet the needs of what we are finding for climate change initiatives. If we said this is what we're going to use for climate change emergencies, it would not meet the needs. As we're seeing in the last few years, wildfires, floods, the resupply challenges in the Sahtu, all of these are wildfire emergencies. I could even tie in some of what's been happening in projects that are seeing delays. So it's not that -- that little bit alone is not going to be enough to address all of the energy challenges or climate change challenges that we have here.

So, I mean, it's been over $100 million, if you will, on climate emergencies in the last couple of years. I appreciate the desire is to have a better understanding of this tax and what we're doing with it. Again, I'm definitely going to go back and see if we can explain more where this year's money, why there's a change this year. Happy to do that. I'm happy to sit down and have that conversation. Thank you.