Mr. Brison stole the sonar analogy from me. i was going to use it.
I do not see that the motion excludes the study. It has been very informative. We have been given a lot of information. I have learned a lot during the study. We are moving forward with its conclusions and we are going to submit a report about it. I see the motion as separate from the study itself. It provides complementary information. On one side, we have the results of this study and the report. On the other side, we have the motion. They are two different things. We will be able to put forward recommendations in the report, and the government will, I hope, be able to act on them by putting measures in place.
Mr. Rankin is actually hoping that we will look at the scope of the problem. Up to now, witnesses have said that it could be difficult. When I asked that question to the officials from the Canada Revenue Agency at our first meeting, they said that the assessment had not been done and that the decision to do it or not was a political one.
No one has said that getting an overall picture of the scope of the problem would be easy. But it is done in a number of countries, including Great Britain and several member states of the OECD. It is not additional work for the committee. I believe that the Canada Revenue Agency itself could benefit from data like that as soon as they could be evaluated.
I go back to the importance of being able to assess the consequences of the tax evasion measures in the budget. If we have a current picture of the scope of the problem, and another picture in three or four years after the measures have been in operation, the information will be very useful in our ability to proceed in the future.