Yes. For low-income households in particular, we have pointed to British Columbia, California, some of the other U.S. states, and other jurisdictions like Quebec in our advocacy here when we were trying to persuade our province that it needed a low-income-specific rebate or some way of alleviating the actual financial impact. The hiccup here seemed to be that, the way the program was designed, it was only going to be able to be expended on measures that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We argue that the differential impacts of those programs on low-income consumers should be part of the very programs that are alleviating greenhouse gas emissions and are a justified cost. We agree with that. We also agree that there should be revenue taken from programs like carbon pricing or cap and trade and used to alleviate carbon emissions and housing retrofits that are conservation. We do agree with that, but for the low-income sector we need to also alleviate the differential impact on them.
