That was one of the concerns that led to the introduction of some of the non-arm's-length restrictions that I mentioned. I can speak to what the specific amendment would do.
As we discussed, an investment incentive property is what gets you in the door for these enhanced deductions that let you take tax depreciation in excess of what's currently provided for in the base rules.
Right now, in order to qualify for this enhanced deduction, when it's acquired from a non-arm's-length party, such as through a sister corporation or something like that, the rules require that the property cannot have been used for any purpose before its acquisition. It has to be new. The rules also require that no other person or partnership can have claimed a capital cost allowance deduction or a terminal loss in respect of the property. These two conditions have to be met currently in order for a property to qualify for the accelerated investment incentive.
This amendment would actually remove the first conditions so that there's no requirement that the property must never have been used for any purpose before it was acquired, leaving only the second requirement that nobody else may have claimed a tax deduction on it. You can have a property, acquire it and use it, and because capital cost allowance deductions are discretionary, you don't need to take a deduction in the first year—or any year, really—but when a non-arm’s-length person has acquired a property, never taken any tax deductions on it, and then transfers the property to you, the risk of the kind of game playing whereby multiple people can take the accelerated deduction just isn't there.
These would relax the rules for something to be an accelerated investment property so that the rules are better targeted to where a non-arm's-length person has actually started taking the deductions.