It's a multipronged question.
The message is very clear: The more tax jurisdiction we have, the less liability and therefore oversight from any other government. We need tax jurisdiction just like every other government.
I think a lot of these issues like tobacco, cannabis, fuel, excise and income tax could all be looked at through the budget implementation act. I think these are areas where we've asked for an expansion of jurisdiction.
When it comes to the timelines, what I'm proposing through the infrastructure institute is having the legislation passed by the summer.
The tax jurisdiction ultimately rests with the community. When you talk about the Indian Act, section 87 says that it's an individual right. The only override is the individual community. The community has to make a decision about what kind of tax jurisdiction it should overcome and take responsibility for.
Some of these are complex, because you need participation from the provincial governments. That's why we have tax disputes in New Brunswick and elsewhere in the country, because these are not statutorily based. They're program-based. It isn't the same as jurisdiction.
What I propose is a jurisdictional way forward as opposed to a program. Even resource revenue sharing isn't the same, because you can't go to the bank with that. Ernie can't go to the international bond market and say, “I've got resource revenue sharing”. That could change, as we've witnessed in New Brunswick.