However, if a prime minister has to recuse themselves a hundred times because there may be a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, are they sitting in the right chair? I'm wondering about this, but I'm not asking you to answer the question.
Let's look at the issue of the global minimum tax. As you know, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, and the G20 agreed to combat corporate tax avoidance by implementing a 15% global minimum tax on multinational businesses. Simply put, if a multinational accounts its income in tax havens to avoid paying tax, the country where it resides will levy a tax of at least 15%. Bill C‑69, the budget omnibus bill passed in June 2024, included a global minimum tax act that came into force in 2025. The fiscal year started on January 1 of this year. However, in November 2024, two months before the Global Minimum Tax Act came into effect, Brookfield Asset Management moved its headquarters to the United States, thereby exempting it from this 15% tax.
Not only did that happen, but the Prime Minister also decided at the G7 to exempt the United States from this global minimum tax without going through the House of Commons. He made that decision after the head office in Brookfield was moved to New York.
Don't you think that poses ethical problems and the appearance of a conflict of interest? Is your screen able to shed light on things like that?