Thank you very much for your kind words. We certainly appreciate your support for the work. We obviously put a lot of diligent effort into producing our document each year.
Why are we still having those debates? If you look to Europe, you see that they're huge steps ahead of us in terms of what they're looking at and in seeing that the idea of “waste” should be an old term that we should be eliminating. Waste should simply be energy streams and resource streams for other purposes.
We're still in a situation such that if a company looks to be environmentally responsible, there's a cost to them, and they have to see whether they're willing to meet that cost. Probably, if there are stakeholders, if their investors see it, they might not support it. We need to shift, through fiscal changes, as you well know, to a point that businesses that take environmental leadership actually make more money, while companies that are laggards are paying a greater cost.
Obviously there's a lot of pressure for fiscal restraint in this budget. I don't think we're going to see a lot of money spent in the next budget, even though it could pay off in the future. But this is a prime time to cut counterproductive subsidies. We've made a commitment at the G-20.
I'd like to point out, with some really thorough research, that we could save $760 million a year, the two prime areas being the Canadian development expense and the Canadian exploration expense. I would encourage you to ask Minister Flaherty to simply bring tax treatment of oil to the same level with other—