If I could direct it over to director of shared corporate services, Mr. Chair, please.

Thank you. I'll go to the director.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you. So the increase then -- it sounds like the increase is solely due to the increased cost per ton, is that correct? Thank you.

Thank you. To the Minister.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you. Okay, so I mean hopefully this is a moot point because it seems like there's, again, movement federally to eliminate these. So what is the plan if there is a change to the policy direction from the federal government towards consumer carbon taxes, how will these numbers change? Thank you.

Thank you. To the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we're certainly live to what's being said on the national stage by prospective future leaders of the country and what they may or may not do. Obviously, Mr. Chair, we certainly do want to be prepared to action a change if there is one, but it certainly hasn't happened yet, and the election hasn't been called as of yet. So what the outcome would be if we were to be in a situation where we're having to respond to the reduction on the carbon tax, there would be a net loss of income, revenue generation income, about $11 million approximately. But that, Mr. Chair, is a pretty small amount overall in the grand scheme of the total revenues of the budget, so I certainly want it to make it sound like that would be any kind of barrier. It would be a matter, if it needed to be done quickly, that we could certainly make decisions as an Assembly that that's a direction we want to go, and it can be done relatively quickly through a use of the regulations. But, again, at this point there just hasn't actually been an election called, so we have not taken any steps to make any changes that would bring us out of compliance with the current law. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

So just to confirm, does -- the consumer carbon tax is worth $11 million to this government? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Mr. Chair, I believe the $11 million is for the total net revenue that we would have. I was just trying to pull the revenue numbers. I can confirm -- if I can, Mr. Chair, I will try to confirm quickly the portion that is only for consumer, but it would be less than that. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chair. We're providing the cost of living offsets to offset the impacts of the tax. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.

So $11 million is not a lot in the grand scheme of things unless you're $3.2 million away from your debt ceiling. So is the government prepared to lose this revenue -- how will this impact the DAT, the fiscal responsibility policy, the sustainability policy? Like, have we factored in this very likely scenario into our financial projections? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there are contingencies built into the fiscal strategy. You know, for example, even just knowing around that there might be -- you know, going into collective agreement, bargaining, it's factored in. This -- yes, an $11 million in revenue, I certainly don't want to understate that that would not be something to take lightly. At the same time, on, you know, a budget that is almost $2.7 billion, that amount of revenue change overall is one that can be managed throughout the course of the year. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.