Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Adler.
I'm going to take the last round we have here today.
I think in my limited time I'll direct my questions to Ms. Annesley and Mr. Egan.
On the labour issue, coming from my riding I agree 100% with what you said, that it is certainly the number one economic challenge facing my province and my region. I do, though, want to focus on the capital cost allowance issue. As both of you probably know, the accelerated CCA was put in place for the manufacturing sector through the March 2007 budget largely, I think, as a result of the industry committee report, which came out in February of that year. The 2007 budget put it in place for manufacturing and processing, and actually started the phase-out of it for oil sands facilities, which I think concluded in 2012.
It's important to note, though, because some people do consider it a subsidy, that it is the rate at which you can write off an asset over time. We call it accelerated CCA for the manufacturing sector because it's considered differently from the way Finance would normally consider it or the way Finance or CRA would value an asset.
As the two of you are arguing here, in terms of a competitiveness basis, we're not on a cost-competitive basis with countries like the United States and Australia. I think that point needs to be made over and over again, because what you're looking for is some kind of fairness or equity with respect to countries that obviously we're directly competing with.
In the CAPP presentation, to start, you talked about class 47 and class 43. I have just one specific question on that. You say it takes 27 years to substantially depreciate a class 47 asset—that's the current situation for Canada where you are, Ms. Annesley—whereas in the U.S. or Australia it takes 13 years. You want to move it into a class that would take seven years. Am I understanding that correctly? If so, the obvious question is whether you would be satisfied with the move to the 13-year depreciation?