Therefore, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral.
In that regard, a witness who appeared before the committee last week told us that, to restore people's faith, the issue of tax avoidance must first and foremost be resolved. Canada loses $15 billion to $30 billion a year as a result of this scheme. The article referred to at that meeting said that the current Prime Minister was a champion for tax avoidance. This article was published in September.
Without ruling out that change to the act, doesn't this call for a new way to restore people's faith by ensuring that the legislation makes it possible to better manage a situation where someone who champions tax avoidance decides to initiate projects that, at least on the surface, indirectly favour a company called Brookfield?
Do you think that's more important for democracy than ensuring that a person running for office is transparent?