I wanted to lead into my question. That was a little humour there. I'm from B.C., you know. We're kind of serious in B.C., so I have a hard time.
I want to get back to your reference to the accelerated capital cost allowance. You've referred to it as a subsidy, as have some of the other members. I just want to try to clear this up.
In business, Revenue Canada provides tax writeoffs for research and development, for building your project, for operational costs in every type of industry. Whether you're a farmer or a miner, or drilling oil wells or cutting trees, there are tax writeoffs that you can take. But they're never forever. Sooner or later, the tax is going to be paid. It's not something that you write off and you never expect to pay it. Two things are sure: death and taxes. You are always going to end up paying.
It's a little unfair or misleading to refer to the accelerated capital cost allowance as a subsidy, because, like any other industry—in this case, the oil industry—they're entitled to write off their input costs to develop their projects against their taxes on their revenue. Until the oil starts flowing, there is a period of time before they can claim it, and then they can claim it against their revenue in a shortened period of time. But they still have to pay those taxes. Some would say this is good business for the government, because it's creative and it fits the use to which it's put.
I want to question you about the term “subsidy”. If it was free and you never had to pay it, it could easily be called a subsidy. If the government was sending these companies cheques and was saying they were grants for these companies, those could easily and rightfully be called subsidies. But when you have to pay the tax at some time or other, then I have trouble with the term “subsidy”.
Could you explain your version of that and how you can call it a subsidy? Maybe Mr. Alvarez or Mr. Stringham could then respond to what you say, because I just want to clear it up.
Go ahead.