Article content continued

As to Trudeau’s defence, that he was an old friend of the Aga Khan’s, and that therefore the gifts were within the law, the commissioner was unsparing: but for a single encounter at the funeral of his father in 2000, they had had no personal or private dealings with each other in thirty years.

Ordinarily, when you break the law, there are consequences: a penalty of some kind. There are consequences, even if you failed to inform yourself of the law, or thought you had a good excuse. It is not ordinarily sufficient to avoid those consequences that you express contrition afterwards, or vow not to do it again.

What have been the consequences of the prime minister’s law-breaking? That much is clear: none whatever. Neither can there be, as things stand: while Parliament did pass a Conflict of Interest Act forbidding ministers, their advisers and other public office holders from accepting such gifts, it provided only the most trivial fines for offenders.

What, on the other hand, should be the consequences? On this, the prime minister’s view is equally clear: none. On the day that the report was delivered, he made a show of appearing before the press, looking vaguely contrite, or as close to it as he is able. He even said he was sorry, albeit for the “mistake” of not having “cleared” the free vacations with the ethics commissioner. As for the commissioner, she told the Commons ethics committee Wednesday the bad publicity — a year after the story broke, in a report delivered just before Parliament rose for the Christmas break — was punishment enough.