You used the phrase “one of the best”. My question to you is about whether we can improve on it. I think that Canada has the opportunity...and that's the study we're undertaking at the committee right now. Can we improve on the system that we have? Are there concerns or loopholes? Are there things that are giving rise to Canadians' loss or lack of confidence in our democratic institutions? We have an opportunity to improve on it. It doesn't necessarily serve as an indictment against Mr. Carney, but is there an opportunity?
I appreciate your reference to how it has been used in the past and to the Federal Court ruling. That's important context, and it serves well to inform the evidence that this committee will have in taking recommendations forward to the House, but is this the best way? If a prime minister, if Mr. Carney owns controlled assets, even if they're in a blind trust, and if he knows what he put into the funds that he stands to benefit from, through interest payments in the future, and the decisions he and his government take improve that portfolio, Canadians understand that, well, he's going to profit from the decisions that he takes. If he owns it, the potential for him to financially benefit continues.
Wouldn't it be cleaner, simpler and improve the confidence that Canadians are able to have in the process if the requirement were for prime ministers and for party leaders, including the Leader of the Opposition, to sell all controlled assets? Then, if there were investments to be made, the discussion could be had about whether a trustee could make those, but perhaps they don't hold controlled assets while they're in office. Wouldn't that, just simply, eliminate the risk and thereby solidify and actually improve Canadians' confidence?