But Professor Mendes also said that he believed that Mr. Dion misinterpreted the Conflict of Interest Act when he found that the prime minister broke the conflict of interest law. Specifically a section that prohibits public office holders from attempting to influence decisions “to improperly further another person’s private interests.”

Greatly simplified, Mr. Dion drew the obvious conclusion that a deal would be good for SNC-Lavalin’s finances. But he also found that the jobs that could be affected by a criminal conviction are completely entwined with the company’s financial interests. So, he also concluded that even if the prime minister was worried about jobs when pressuring Ms. Wilson-Raybould, he broke the law because the end result of a deal would also benefit SNC-Lavalin.

“But that happens all the time in government,” Professor Mendes said of raising public policy implications of decisions. He said that Mr. Dion “has completely taken out any discretionary review of the public interest.”

He added: “Think of everything the government does that involves the financial interests of companies. Does that constitute a conflict of interest?”

In Professor Mendes’s view, both the new law, which permits settlements in these kind of cases, and the conflict of interest law allow for public interest to be factored into decisions. Mr. Dion, in his view, improperly dismisses that idea.

And while Professor Mendes said the behavior of Mr. Trudeau and his staff toward Ms. Wilson-Raybould certainly raises questions about the independence from politics of criminal prosecutions, he also said that isn’t a conflict of interest question and Mr. Dion was wrong to deal with the issue in his report.