I can answer the question.
Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie, for letting me answer Mr. Blaikie's question. I will do it in two parts.
Mr. Blaikie was pointing out that it was probably a good investment to properly fund the CRA. By comparison, large accounting firms will often present tax services fees to their clients as investments for the future. I would say that the situation is more or less the same in the public sector, particularly for the Canada Revenue Agency. I would even approach the issue in a negative way. Stagnant and even reduced funding for the CRA for years attests to the Canadian government's and the various governments's lack of seriousness and willingness to tackle the problem of tax avoidance and the use of tax havens head‑on.
I will continue to answer the question afterwards, but I would like to take this opportunity to quickly come back to the CRA's funding. The mechanisms, the tax avoidance schemes, are becoming more complex. Today, we must be able to continue developing expertise within the CRA to ensure that we recover this money that is leaving Canada.
I want to come back to the issue of tax treaties, which I think is central. One of our recommendations has to do with those treaties. Their review is one of the central points in our claims book, but it's also a huge and extremely important work. I can quickly mention the Supreme Court's decision in Canada v. Alta Energy Luxembourg, where Justice Côté, who signed the decision reflecting the majority opinion, rejected the CRA's appeal. She explained quite well that the reason, the source of the tax benefit that was claimed by Alta Energy Luxembourg, was provided for in the tax treaty between Luxembourg and Canada.
These tax treaties are riddled with loopholes, problems and gaps that allow not only foreign companies but also Canadian companies to avoid paying their dues here or elsewhere, where they actually conduct their economic activities.