If I may, sir, I appreciate that it may be similar, but the chief of staff to the Prime Minister is not the Prime Minister. The chief of staff to the Prime Minister does not have the ability to make decisions and does not have the influence that the Prime Minister has.
The situation also appears to be different, because with Brookfield's investments in all of the things that the government is committing major government spending to, whether it's artificial intelligence, modular housing or heat pumps, the Prime Minister's future payments depend on Brookfield's performance. That's not something that's going to be sold by the trustee; that's something that went in and something that's going to come out looking the same way.
The Prime Minister knows the investments of Brookfield from when he was chair of Brookfield Asset Management. He created the funds that he's going to benefit from based on their performance. Canadians are the ones who are in the dark about the decisions that the Prime Minister is taking and how they're going to impact his potential future compensation. It's a lack of transparency that gives rise to this concern.
My recommendation.... I don't come with a problem without a proposed solution. Would you not say that in this situation it would give Canadians confidence that decisions aren't being taken with the perception of personal financial gain, if anyone holding the office of Prime Minister were to divest their assets by selling them before taking decisions, instead of placing them in a blind trust where they would still be able to know what they put into it?