I wanted to clarify, because sometimes we wonder who is fighting for the two out of 10 and who is fighting for the eight out of 10. I'd say that I'm arguing to fight for the eight out of 10 to make sure they're not picking up the tab.
I'm going to read this quote from Andrew Coyne in The Globe and Mail. He made a comment about your report, and I appreciate your report. He writes:
The alternative to the carbon tax is not nothing, but something else—subsidies and regulations. And the cost of these, as every study shows—costs that are paid not by “the economy” or “the big polluters” but by households—is multiple times that of carbon pricing. More to the point, under the alternatives, there are no rebates. Not only are the costs greater than under a carbon tax, but 100 per cent of them fall on households. The rebates are zero.
Can you comment on that?