With respect to tax ideas developed in Canada, we go through four stages, generally. First, there is a technical review, to make sure it fits within the tax law. Second, a partner conducts a technical review to ensure that the first partner got it right. Then we have a review of our general anti-avoidance rule committee, to make sure that it doesn't offend the spirit of the act, that it's not so-called aggressive tax planning. Is it effective for the law? Does it meet the tests of the general anti-avoidance rule?
We have a new lens that we placed on our reviews in our tax practice here in Canada and also globally. When I was a global head of tax, we instituted this. It started in 2006 and was codified in 2007. Finally, we have what I'll call, “Is it responsible?” Does it fit the needs of the client? Does it fit our needs? Is it something we would be proud of if it were to hit the papers?