For all my sins, I have been involved with work at the G7 and the G20 over the years where we've spent far too much time agonizing over this very issue at the business advisory groups. If I'm being quite transparent about it, the language you'll see talked about in some of the businesses groups, because this is a very difficult thing to define, is “distortive” fossil fuel subsidies. That is how you might see it referred to in some of the documents that have come out of business advisory groups.
What I would say about the timeline is that it's very ambitious to try to phase all of these out by 2023, given the definitional challenges we face in agreeing on what the definition is. Having gone through some of the work that the Auditor General has produced, it has identified these very tricky things about how to define it. The risk is that we spend a lot of time chasing our tails in trying to define it but not really getting to the nub of the issue, which I think is what your question was getting at.
Mr. Goodman's answer earlier was a very good explanation of it, in that transition measures should be not something that we are, by any means, seeking to phase out. The chamber is on the record as being very supportive of CCUS. That would be a very reasonable approach to take to it.
The recommendation that I would give to this committee is to not get too hung up on whether it is a tax measure or it is a capital cost allowance. Is it a grant? Is it a refundable credit? You should be looking at what the outcomes are that this policy tool is working towards.