Perhaps I'll start, Mr. Brison, on that.
On the point that the extended capital depreciation allowance is of limited value, it is of value and we also support it. It is of limited value, though, precisely for the factors you've mentioned. You have to be a profitable company to actually get value out of it. You have to be able to raise the financing to pay for the new investment. Also, the window of opportunity for that program, just being the two years, was a bit short, frankly. It takes companies a longer period of time to design and implement the investment program in order to take advantage of it.
I think the proposal from the auto parts makers for the loans or some other form of direct support reflects the fact that many companies are just not in a position to be able to take advantage of a CCA-style program because they're not making money in the first place, in which case the value of a tax measure like that is zero, and they can't raise the money for the new program.
My preferred approach for that would be a refundable investment tax credit, as Mr. Jackson mentioned. If the federal government, perhaps partnering with the Ontario and Quebec governments, would offer us, say, something like a 20% investment tax credit that was refundable when the new equipment was installed and focused on machinery and equipment to help, say, medium-sized companies adapt to a high-dollar environment, even companies that don't have a lot of money on hand right now can take the value of that credit, go to a capital-leasing company, and arrange to pay for equipment that can allow them to try to survive the current storm. I think that type of measure, focused on the machinery and equipment investment, more than on the research and development per se, would get the most bang for the buck.