Sure. I'll go off the memory of my own reporting.
Thinking of that story, which I wrote in the lead-up to the federal election, I researched Brookfield's investments in China, and on the real estate file I noted that, after 2015, Brookfield had made very substantial China-based real estate investments. Due to my knowledge of Beijing's United Front networks, I noted that one of the key Hong Kong investors who was connected to the projects that Brookfield was investing in was part of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. That was important to me because the Central Intelligence Agency notes that people on that high-level Chinese Communist entity are involved in Beijing's global United Front networks. That's how the Chinese Communist Party brings influential people together.
Therefore, I noted in my reporting that for Brookfield to get access to that same type of investment project on a major real estate deal in China, together with a very elite Hong Kong real estate tycoon.... Certainly, in my learned opinion, it would take a special kind of access to get that kind of deal. Then, tracking forward through when Prime Minister Carney joined Brookfield, in the surrounding years, I noted that the real estate market in China had plummeted. At some point, Brookfield needed to secure a sort of “reinjection” of capital, let's say, and it emerged that the Bank of China—as others have reported—was involved in bridging some capital to reinfuse that deal into China's troubled real estate market.
Stepping back from that, I noted that, with people in Mr. Carney's position in Brookfield and with Mr. Carney also travelling to China to meet with senior Communist Party officials around the time of the Bank of China assisting Brookfield with their real estate investment.... It would certainly, in my mind, raise questions around access and influence.