Since this is apparently going to go down as the Hypocrisy Election™ anyway, let’s throw another log on the fire.

I’m not saying this story has never been covered (here, for example), but it certainly hasn’t received nearly the attention or scrutiny it should.

For any cabinet minister, having a spouse who’s a lobbyist would be a significant risk of the perception – if not reality – of an ethical conflict.

It is inconceivable to me that in any circumstance the minister in question could also own a “significant interest” in the company from which her spouse is lobbying without creating a massive scandal.

But. for the minister in question to become the self-appointed arbiter of all things moral, political, ethical and legal – and venerated as such by the opposition and media alike – is the last straw to break ￼￼the hypocrisy-camel’s back.

Here’s two screen grabs that illustrate what I’m talking about:

The first is an excerpt from JWR’s disclosure to the oft-revered Ethics Commissioner. It shows that – long after being sworn in, putting a so-called “ethics screen” in place and her husband having been lobbying – she continued to hold a “significant interest” in KaLoNa Group.

The second image shows the multiple clients her husband, Tim Raybould, was lobbying on behalf of via KaLoNa Group.

So, to be clear: while serving as Attorney General, JWR’s husband was lobbying her cabinet colleagues using a company she partially owned.

Think about that. Imagine, for example, that JWR and her husband are at a reception during a cabinet retreat. While the “screen” prevents her from dealing with any of his files, nothing prevents Tim from schmoozing every single minister or chief of staff or senior official in the room on his clients’ behalf.

And none of it – nothing that wasn’t both “oral and arranged” (ie, an official meeting) – would have to be reported to the Lobbying Commissioner.

Now, those who know me know I’ve had my issues with lobbying rules. In my case, I neither did nor intended to do any lobbying but supposedly should have registered. This was acknowledged by the Crown.

My question has always been: cui bono? In other words, even if it was true, what benefit did anyone – least of all me – derive? I’m still waiting for an answer.

In JWR’s case, while the necessary registrations were made, surely in this case that simply wasn’t good enough. Surely ta gawd, this does not pass anyone’s sniff test.

And while I’m told that “senior liberals” were vigourously defending the “screen” at the time, even they now acknowledge it was woefully inadequate.

But again, this probably wouldn’t be bothering me so much were it not for the unadulterated hypocrisy of it when juxtaposed against JWR’s feigned moral outrage upon discovering that politics was, ya know, political.

Finally, I’ve pitched this story to half a dozen journos over the past several weeks. They have all demurred.

‘It’s not national in scope.’

‘The story has kind of been done before.’

‘I’d need something far more concrete.’

Frankly, the experience has been a very direct object lesson in just how hollowed out our media have become and left me deeply concerned as a result.

Ultimately it’s up to voters in Vancouver-Granville to decide if this is the sort of thing about which they care or not.

But given the massive role Wilson-Raybould played in distorting the public’s view of this government – all because she was really bad at her job and didn’t like her demotion – I’ll be damned if I’m not going to do everything I can to make sure those voters have all the facts available.

Jamie Carroll is a former National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada.