text: Yes, indeed, it has been clearly stated that the letter of the law did not require the Fin Min to set up a blind trust, if instead he put his shares into a corporation that he controlled (a form of indirect ownership, I believe).  Please explain to me the actual difference in the two forms of ownership.  Does he not derive a similar benefit in either case?  How does this honour the spirit of the law?  Furthermore, the Ethics Commissioner saw it as a problem and had recommended that "loophole" be closed.  Perhaps Mr Morneau is the Liberal's equivalent to Mike Duffy, think about it...