Well, it all depends on what provisions are included or not. Just following up on the discussion about the principal purposes test, it's an essential part of this and I hope that it isn't weakened going forward.
The estimates from some people in the industry are that it might increase payments from corporations by about 10% or 15%, so it's on a really significant bed. It's going to involve some patchwork in certain areas, but certainly it doesn't get at the magnitude of the problem.
It's hard to determine this, partly because a lot of this information is kept secret. We don't have information on where assets are kept and how corporations book their profits, as you probably know. A company like Apple, which I happen to have had the fortune to get some stock in, years ago, claimed it didn't have permanent residence in any particular country at that time. This is a significant thing.
The lower-end estimates from some international experts for how much Canada loses in this area are about $8 billion in revenue. Now that's not all related to corporations, but about two-thirds of that is corporations. It's a significant amount.
But it's an even higher share of the revenue from lower-income and developing countries. There is concern about the mining sector in Canada and preserving that, but it is the lower-income countries that lose out by taking advantage of these tax laws.
We can look at things in our own self-interest, but I do think we really do need to adopt some rules that are uniform, in the same way that we have in Canada, which we agree are fair for everybody involved around the world.