It certainly minimizes their payment of taxes here in Canada to support all of the things that taxes are designed to pay for.
When a government sets policy that sees Canadians who might not have the means to afford those types of investment strategies, as you've described them...it hurts Canada. These people are supposed to be serving in the best interests of Canada, which speaks to this broader question of blind trusts and whether we can simply assume that everyone is operating in the best interests of Canada.
We heard from the commissioner that, in his experience, assets that go into a blind trust come out looking the same. The trustees don't really trade; they don't really sell them. The decisions that decision-makers are making can be made knowing what the impact is on specific investments.
The challenge this creates for Canadians, who have a cratering confidence in public institutions and public office holders, is that they believe, when they look at the act or when it's explained to them.... We've heard many times someone say, “I've divested all my assets.” Well, it's been characterized in the act in a very cute way: You can divest assets into a blind trust, where they're likely going stay in the same form as when you put them in, as opposed to them not being sold.
You came out of the gate and said that you think blind trusts are great. Do you think they do service to improving Canadians' confidence in elected officials, that they're acting in the best interests of the country and not in the best interests of themselves? For example, someone could hold office while also holding their assets somewhere else so they don't have to pay tax here in Canada to pay for all the things Canadians rely on, like public health care, transportation, border security, our national police force and so on.