Editor:
In Oct. 1 and Nov. 12 letters, Richard Corbet took issue with the use of the word “subsidy” in an attempt to blunt criticism of the B.C. government massively subsiding the oil and gas sector. Citing a dictionary definition of subsidy as “a grant or gift of money such as…a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public,” he argued that, “if government does not pay money to a person or company it’s not a subsidy.” That’s not true!
Corbett overlooks or is unaware that the dictionary definition is out of date with respect to international trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO) defines subsidy as follows;
“A subsidy has a very particular meaning under the Subsidies Agreement and U.S. law (Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930). A subsidy is defined as a “financial contribution” by a government which provides a benefit. The forms that a subsidy can take include:
a direct transfer of funds (e.g., a grant, loan, or infusion of equity);
a potential transfer of funds or iabilities (e.g., a loan guarantee);
foregone government revenue (e.g., a tax credit); or the purchase of goods, or the provision of goods or services (other than general infrastructure).
Under the Agreement, actions can only be taken against subsidies that are ‘specific.’ A specific subsidy is one that is only given to one company, or to a special group of companies.”
The WTO adopted that comprehensive definition of subsidy precisely because various governments attempted to deny they were providing specific subsidies by falling back on out-dated dictionary definitions of what does or does not constitute a subsidy. Let’s deal with substance not semantics, please. The B.C. government is massively subsidizing the oil and gas sector.
Jef Keighley, Garden Bay
