Thank you.
For a further point of precision, in the minute or so I have left.... What you're describing is people who are designing the rules and also personally benefiting from the rules, allowing tax havens to continue to operate.
Having Mark Carney as our Prime Minister, coming from Brookfield and continuing to be invested in Brookfield, is effectively like having someone say, “Okay, now I'm the referee. Now I'm adjudicating the system—or am supposed to be adjudicating the system—in the public interest, but I'm still on the payroll of one of the teams.” It has someone coming from Brookfield, benefiting financially from Brookfield and using these aggressive tax avoidance structures while in a position in which they're supposed to be defending the public interest. However, they're personally invested in an outcome that is, at best, partisan to one side of it, but likely is contrary to the public interest and the common good in general.