Well, I think I'd first like to answer the question about the firefighters tax credit. The important thing to understand about the firefighters tax credit is that it is an alternative to the existing tax exemption, and the policy behind it had not so much to do with this other fund that the honourable member has mentioned as it did with recognizing the fact that the existing exemption of $1,000 didn't get you much if you weren't being paid anything in the context of being a volunteer firefighter. As the word “volunteer” implies, that was often the case.
Hence, there were some recommendations to the government to introduce instead a tax credit that would offer relief to those who didn't receive compensation for their volunteer firefighting, and those are in the alternatives. Someone said earlier, if you don't have your 200 hours, isn't this worse than what you had before? It absolutely is not, because what you had before is still an alternative. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. So that's the answer to that question.
In terms of the analysis of the effectiveness of the accelerated capital cost allowance, we're really sort of delving into advice to the minister that we've given in the course of developing Budget 2011. As was indicated before, these things are really the purview of the Minister of Finance, and with regard to that, I think it's obvious that the government considers an extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance to be a good and worthwhile idea.
I suspect you're thinking that maybe it should be made permanent, but the government has had a policy for the last several years of trying, for the most part, to keep capital cost allowance rates in line with economic depreciation. This is a drastic divergence from that policy, and it's done on a temporary basis as part of the economic action plan, but not as part of a long-term policy for the government.