‘Hope and Trust’ vs. Blind Trusts: Trudeau’s Former Clerk Grilled on PM Ethics Screens as Carney’s Brookfield Holdings Loom
OTTAWA — In a tense ethics hearing, former Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick was questioned over Ottawa’s reliance on internally administered “ethics screens” for prime ministers—rather than requiring divestment into a truly blind trust—amid intensifying scrutiny of Justin Trudeau’s record and Prime Minister Mark Carney’s vast holdings through Brookfield.
As The Bureau has previously reported, Ottawa transparency watchdog Democracy Watch has long argued that Canada’s conflict-of-interest regime is “loophole-filled” and open to abuse. Both the Ethics Commissioner, who is responsible for determining conflicts, and the Clerk of the Privy Council, who administers the conflict-of-interest screen, serve at the Prime Minister’s pleasure, and screens are invoked privately with no legal requirement to disclose when they are triggered.
(The author testified in a hearing following Wernick today, stating that based on The Bureau’s reporting, a fully independent ethics commissioner is required to ensure Canadians can trust that conflicts do not arise in an increasingly dangerous and complex geopolitical era where foreign states and actors seek influence over policy in democracies such as Canada’s.)
Conservative MP Michael Barrett opened questioning of Wernick with a blunt challenge: do current provisions, including blind trusts, actually prevent conflicts—or “fall short”? Wernick described the conflict-of-interest framework as only “one tool in a broader toolbox” of democratic safeguards, adding, “I’d keep it in the toolbox.”
Barrett then pressed: “Would you say it’s effective for people who report to the Prime Minister to be the ones ensuring that the Prime Minister they report to is not in violation of the Act?”
Wernick replied that ultimate rulings rest with the Ethics Commissioner—prompting Barrett to highlight the opacity: “There’s no reporting to the public on when a conflict-of-interest screen has been triggered and if it’s ever been triggered.”
Barrett argued that Canadians’ confidence was at stake. “You served a Prime Minister who was found to have broken the Act—and that’s based on the regime as it currently exists. You must have some suggestions on improvements.”