Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak on this. I'd like to explain the broader issue, as Ms. Glover and Ms. Nash have explained their parties' position.
I understand Ms. Glover's position. I don't agree with the position, but the reality is this government's approach to omnibus legislation and respect for Parliament has been a direct attack on the ability of individual members of Parliament to vote on legislative changes as individual pieces of legislation that affect over 60 rules and laws across departments and agencies.
Prime Minister Harper has said in the past that these kinds of approaches are inappropriate, yet his government has taken it to a different level.
The opposition members are following the rules. The Conservatives are changing the rules as they go, but I think they consider themselves a little bit omnibusted, if you will.
I find curious Ms. Nash's response that she will not support amendments that would delay the implementation of a particular clause, but she will vote against the clause being implemented at all. Theoretically you would think that if you supported the delay of a particular clause or the effects of it, if you supported killing the thing, you would also support a delay to it, so I don't necessarily understand. In the same way I don't understand her decision to vote against the chair earlier tonight. I have great faith in the chair—I guess I'm alone in that, Mr. Chair—but at the end of the day we all have to live with those decisions, and I look forward to your Christmas card as well, Mr. Chair.
This issue of tax avoidance is a broader issue than simply that which is reached through partisanship. It really is a question of resources and taking a look at foreign tax loopholes more broadly. Again, Mr. Chair, when we have proven a $30 million investment in the resources of CRA back in 2005 under a Liberal government has yielded, I believe, over $2 billion, which is a pretty good return on investment, I can't understand for the life of me, if the Conservative are serious in cutting the use of foreign tax havens, why we would be reducing the investment in the resources of CRA at this point. That is our broader concern.
Frankly, Mr. Chair, this is one of the reasons. If the finance committee were considering provisions that applied purely to the fiscal framework and we weren't forced to consider everything from changes to navigable waterways to some of these other provisions that have nothing to do with the fiscal situation or the fiscal framework of the country, it would enable us to do a better job on these types of provisions.
The fact is that we have heard from witnesses and we have talked to people in these sessions who have some concerns in simply providing a delay to these provisions for a period, which would enable us to conduct a more thorough study. Again I would say to Ms. Nash that if she is opposed to this clause, she ought not to have a problem with at least delaying it, which I think makes absolute sense, and perhaps that will be reflected in her party's decision on the next vote in terms of this amendment.
I do think that when you ultimately are planning on voting against a provision, simply delaying it ought not to represent a problem to you.