I'm afraid that I'm not very familiar with the Brookfield case to be able to make an informed statement about this.
Usually, I would tend to argue that lowering taxes here in order to gain more revenue is a bad idea, and enticing the use of tax havens with the aim of increasing revenues here is also in the same category for me—not a convincing policy.
Usually, one would expect that the Laffer curve.... The long-held belief, coined in the Reagan era, that when you are lowering taxes, more investment will come and, in the end, you will end up with more revenue is just a myth and has not been proven to hold true anywhere in the world. The empirical evidence is firmly to the contrary. When you lower taxes, when you shift profits to lower-tax jurisdictions, the end result will never be increased tax revenue, at least ceteris paribus. It might coincide with another growth effect that would have happened anyway, and you would have ended up with even higher taxes had you not reduced your tax rates beforehand. This much I can say to this case.
Thank you.