Well, we did support the measures. We felt that liquidity was--and still is--a huge problem for our companies, so the first big priority was liquidity. We also believed that we needed some demand stimulus, so we did support those aspects of the budget.
The area where we were disappointed, though, was on the accelerated capital cost allowance, which was the number one recommendation of the Rajotte report, a recommendation for an accelerated capital cost allowance for five years--not two, but five. We have been continually disappointed that the government has not responded to that.
As for the reason that is so important, in order to get the capital cost allowance, you need to have the equipment on the ground, ready to be installed, and companies can't make a set of decisions—investment decisions, pre-engineering design, environmental approvals, buying the equipment, and putting it on the ground—in two years. They can't do it, not in big plants--not in big chemical plants, not in big aluminum plants, not in big steel plants, and not in petroleum refiners. So even though we argued that capital cost allowance has to be five years, we keep getting it continuously for two years, and I would call that a tepid response. That is not an appropriate response.
I know that your party and the NDP and others have supported us on that, but for some reason, we don't seem to be able to get the urgency of dealing with that. Fiona mentioned that equivalent issue in terms of upgrading. Feedstock is another example of just not getting it in terms of capital cost investment.