Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses. Certainly we're seeing a real diversity of viewpoints today.
First of all, in response to Mr. Paillé's comments with regard to the resources needed to go after the offshore accounts, I find it somewhat ironic that when we do estimates and look at the small marginal increases for supporting increased investigations and increased manpower, we are criticized for that. Then at the next meeting, we don't have enough resources.
Perhaps when we're looking at our budget for Canada Revenue Agency, we need to also look at what our outcomes are. When we bring in significant additional money by putting in some modest resources, perhaps we shouldn't be looking at them in isolation.
In terms of what Canada has been doing since 2006, we've increased the number of workers by 44% in this area. And an additional $30 million has been allocated to going after this issue, with some success. We've had a lot of money come back to Canada. I'm not sure that people are fully aware of the actions we've taken in moving this forward.
I'd like to make a few comments. If we look at the issue of evasion, it sounds as if we have everyone agreeing on the evasion issue. We and many other jurisdictions believe that the first step should be a voluntary disclosure program. It's been somewhat successful. People pay their penalties.
I'd like a comment from each of the witnesses. It sounded as if Mr. Jarislowsky thought we should be prosecuting to the full extent of the law.
Could you each give me a thought with regard to voluntary disclosure versus going in with the big, full force of the law and all the costs associated with that?
Perhaps I can start with Mr. Jarislowsky.