We have been talking about restrictive covenants because I think your concern was the intellectual property aspect and generally the issue of intangibles. You also referred to GlaxoSmithKline and Google, which have obviously been in the news, and probably to Starbucks in the U.K.—those types of situations. What you're probably talking about is something broader, frankly, than what we have in Bill C-48.
We have a set of transfer pricing rules in the Income Tax Act. Of course, concern has been flagged in some other jurisdictions—most recently in the U.K., and they've had some hearings.
Even when you have a developed transfer pricing system in place, does it provide enough scope for multinational corporations to order their affairs, particularly with respect to intangibles? You can take an intangible and by its nature can put it in any jurisdiction in the world that you wish to, and by way of support through transfer pricing studies, you develop expenses and such things to reduce your taxable income significantly.
I would say that while it's somewhat related, really what you're talking about is transfer pricing and how robust Canada's rules are with respect to intellectual property.