Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the interest of time, I'll keep my comments relatively brief. I want to talk about two main things. You've heard the regulatory story and what has been going on today, but I want to talk a little bit about the technology advances that are going on. We

Finance committee  Oh, it would definitely make a difference in the business. He asked me whether it was a subsidy. It's the same cost that's being deducted, but to have it deducted—

Finance committee  That is correct. But what that does is level the playing field for all the mining industry, because if you have sufficient revenues within your company—

Finance committee  Oh, absolutely. That would change the risk profile associated with all these projects, for sure.

Finance committee  That's correct, because the recovery of that capital affects the financing, in particular for small Canadian companies.

Finance committee  No, I don't believe so. I see a subsidy as being cheques written from the federal or provincial government to people, and it would be giving them economics that are coming from taxpayer dollars. This is a deduction of costs that would be normally deducted; it's just a different t

Finance committee  Absolutely. The funds are going in to the government that are being put towards green initiatives. But not only that; it's providing revenues to the companies. If you look at some of the largest providers of wind power, on the renewable side, they include TransAlta, Enbridge, S

Finance committee  Absolutely. And whether it's a vehicle or the opening up of a mine, it really depends on when they are actually purchasing that vehicle. Let's take a vehicle that is put on order when they're planning to open up a mine. They begin to go through the regulatory process five to si

Finance committee  Unless you have substantial revenue from the mine, you have to write everything off equally, so you can't just pick that truck and write it off. It is limited by how much revenue is coming out of the mine. That is a strict limitation put on ACCA that is not put on other capital c

Finance committee  Absolutely. Thank you very much. The number I put forward was from the Canadian Energy Research Institute study that looked at oil sands alone, not the entire industry, over the period 2000 to 2020. Those oil sands generated revenue of $123 billion to governments, including the

Finance committee  Let me just add one point. On that as well, they need to recognize that it's not just written off in one year. The accelerated capital cost allowance can only be written off to the extent of revenue from the mine, and it has to wait until you actually have production coming for

Finance committee  From my perspective, I believe that is the same number. It's a number that was generated based on a 1997-to-2002 study originally by the Parkland Institute and then adopted by the Pembina Institute. So it is, I believe, the same number, which is again, as I said, historical and i

Finance committee  Thank you very much. The purpose of this accelerated capital cost allowance was the same as it was in 1974 and as when extended to the in situ in 1996. It was to recognize large capital costs, long lead times, and high risk of volatile prices with financing risk. It is fair to

Finance committee  Thank you.

Finance committee  Thank you. I'm hopeful that, given the short notice, you were able to receive the package of slides and distribute them. Is that correct, Mr. Vice-Chairman?