Thank you.
That was a fairly thorough answer. You set the stage geographically, and you talked about the challenges you run into. Those challenges exist in my riding as well.
I'd like to delve a bit deeper.
You illustrated that the funding doesn't cut it. I had heard the opposite: that geographic distance and remoteness was being taken into account.
Would you agree that the funding should reflect all the challenges you run into? In particular, the funding should be equivalent to that allocated in more southern areas, where communities are connected by roads and where materials are available and cheaper?
As I said, the committee was told that those factors were already being taken into account, but perhaps it's being done in a very general way with only minimal regard for community distinctions. The situation seems to be more serious, from what I'm hearing today.
I'd like to know whether you agree. If I'm reading the situation wrong, feel free to correct me.