That's assuming that the current accelerated capital cost allowance—which has been renewed on a two-year basis since 2007 and has been affected—is not renewed. Assuming that it is not renewed, we're recommending this 50% declining balance, but on a permanent basis. We say so because the issue with the two-year accelerated capital cost allowance has been that for the major, $1 billion, projects that we see as potential for Canada, the timeline of two years doesn't provide enough certainty to the investor. They're looking five years out. The measure has to be in place when the plant starts up, five years from when the initial planning begins. That's why we're recommending a 50% declining balance. Again, the 45% would give us equivalent treatment to the U.S., but the U.S. coverage is actually greater. Their class includes land improvements like roads and effluent ponds. They have much better depreciation treatment for rail cars and rail sidings, which are extremely important for our sector. That's why we're recommending the 50%.
On October 28th, 2014. See this statement in context.