Article content continued

Alas for SNC-Lavalin and the Liberals, even with the remediation provision in place, it remained up to the discretion of non-partisan prosecutors whether to make use of it. Last October, the director of public prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, refused. Officials from the PMO then reportedly put Wilson-Raybould under “heavy pressure” to intervene with Roussel; she reportedly refused. A couple of months later she was busted down to Veterans’ Affairs.

The truth of these allegations is suggested not only by Wilson-Raybould’s repeated, on the record, non-denials (the solicitor-client privilege she has invoked may forbid her to confirm incriminating statements by her former clients in government, but not to deny them), but by the prime minister’s own repeated non-denial denials, carefully refuting allegations (he did not “direct” her to intervene) that had not been made.

There remain a number of unanswered questions, to be sure. If Wilson-Raybould was pressured to do something so obviously improper, why is she still in cabinet? On the one hand, why wouldn’t she resign in protest? On the other, why would the PM risk firing her, knowing what she knew? And why would she accept such treatment?

But the scandal here does not lie in its aftermath, but with the original alleged interference. It is hard to overstate how serious a matter this is. It would be bad enough for Wilson-Raybould to have instructed prosecutors on her own, at least without putting her reasons in writing and notifying the public, as the law requires. It would be many times worse for the prime minister or his staff to have pressured her to do so — for any reason, let alone on behalf of a firm whose illegal campaign donations their party had only recently had to return. Prosecutors are supposed to be insulated from political interference for a reason. Put it this way: suppose instead of leaning on the minister to go easy on a friend, the prime minister’s people had wanted her to go after an enemy.