There is no requirement that there was any quid pro quo. There is no requirement that Trudeau participated in any debate or votes in the House of Commons related to the Aga Khan or was actually influenced by the benefits. There is no requirement of ill motive on Trudeau’s part. The Supreme Court put it very plainly: “[I]t is appropriate that government officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct which, for an ordinary person, would be quite severe.” Criminal damage is done when the benefit is conferred and not as the Supreme Court says, “after an ex post facto analysis which demonstrates that no harm was intended.”

Trudeau has claimed that the Aga Khan was his friend — it does not matter. It may be said that Trudeau did not know he was committing a criminal act — ignorance of the law is not a defence. It may be argued that the law is an ass — in this case, that may be true (hint: it’s time for the government to revive the Law Reform Commission to review and modernize the Criminal Code).

But none of these arguments is a legal defence. Make no mistake, a prosecution of Trudeau may not be appropriate and certainly would not be a slam dunk. There are many technical arguments that could be raised at trial.

For example, s. 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code does have a safety valve — a benefit can be received if the employee gets written permission from their boss. It has been suggested that Trudeau could have written his own get-out-of-jail-free card. This would have provided a transparent and immunizing self-accounting of why Trudeau took the trip and why he thought his actions were appropriate. This was the type of transparency promised during the election campaign — but so far there is no indication that any such letter was ever written.

The purpose of s. 121(1)(c) is to deter those in positions of power from accepting benefits that could create an appearance of impropriety. That is also precisely the same rationale behind s. 11(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act. In finding Trudeau violated s. 11(1) the Ethics Commissioner said that “the vacations accepted by Mr. Trudeau or his family might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence Mr. Trudeau.”