I think somebody commented earlier on why wouldn't we extend these things. I also mentioned in that context that industry needs certainty. Certainty does not mean knowing whether that policy is going to be in place three years from now or not, or whether that AIF is going to be at that level four years from now or two years from now. Whether it be capital cost allowance, the parts incentive fund, an AIF, or any other, I would suggest they should be solidified, entrenched, made permanent.
Let me put it in another context. We've talked about job multipliers and things like that. In fact, one of Flavio's largest company members did a financial analysis on automotive company incentives. They put it in dollar terms. It was based on an example of a $100-million investment, which is small in terms of our playing field. You need to think of it as an investment, and on that investment, you get your money back within three years. That's a return on investment that's very short, unlike many other industries. In eight years, you more than double your investment.
To put it in those terms, you get incredible returns by getting new automotive investment. However, you won't get new automotive investment if there is a lot of uncertainty. Decision-makers who are part of the investment cycle 10 years from now need to know if that is going to be there in 10 years or not. It's just like collective agreements. People think, “We're in good shape; we have some good agreements in place.” Well, guess what? They're only there for four years.
Our industry, the petroleum industry, and any other major industry, including aerospace, need long-term certainty. To the extent that any government can provide that certainty, or when you hand off from one government to another, having discussions about how you maintain that certainty for industrial investment would be absolutely critical to and greatly welcomed by any sector.