The attitude of the legislatures and the courts has evolved somewhat from the days of the Duke of Westminster case, which you may recall. That was an example, which was the classic case, of tax avoidance. I don't know whether any of you are tax specialists here. Then we began the role of asking what the intention was, and we know there's much more discretion given to tax authorities than in the past.
But tax avoidance.... If you contribute to an RRSP, that's a form of tax avoidance. Had you not done it, you'd pay tax on that money. When you rearrange your investments so that you can deduct your interest, that's tax avoidance. All of these issues are tax avoidance and are quite legitimate. Some, in fact, like RRSPs, are encouraged by the legislation. Others, when they become too abusive.... For example, I started the film tax shelters in Canada back in the late 1960s, and we produced some very good pictures, but that became.... Some of them were bothered by authorities, so they kept narrowing, changing, and so on to make sure that there was not tax abuse in that sector. And that's the way the law should operate, basically.
So the distinction is still, I think, quite legitimate between avoidance and evasion—evasion being fraud, really.