Thank you, Chair.
My thanks to all our witnesses. We are aware that this is a very complex subject that is sometimes very difficult to fully understand, not only for the general public but also for us as members of Parliament.
I find that it's actually very hard to understand. I think one of the biggest challenges that any government faces—and this goes for provincial governments as well, as they attempt to explain their own approaches to pollution pricing—is explaining the details to the public in a way that generates understanding and buy-in.
I think Canadians understand, and have understood for many years, that polluter pay is a principle of Canadian law. They appreciate that. Those are Canadian values, but they don't yet necessarily understand the system that is being put forward.
I have a couple of questions, and I'm hoping that this can be explained in terms that would be not just understood by experts, but also translated to the average constituent in Pontiac.
The 10% increase provided for in relation to a credit received by individuals living outside of a census metropolitan area is effectively a support for rural Canadians. In this, I think our government has done right by rural Canadians. However, it's not clear what the basis of that 10% determination was.
Could you please explain how we arrived at 10% and how that reflects the different realities of rural Canada?