What happened to the ‘rule of law’ in Canada?

You can almost hear the laughter in Beijing.

After Canada recently found itself in the uncomfortable position of being in a diplomatic standoff with China, there’s a phrase the Chinese have heard over and over again from senior Liberal officials: “rule of law.”

The rule of law is why Canadian authorities had no choice but to arrest and detain Meng Wanzhou, a Chinese national and executive with Huawei Technologies. The U.S. government, wanting Meng to face extradition on fraud charges related to violating sanctions on Iran, had filed a lawful request for Canada to arrest her while she was in Vancouver. Canada’s position was clear: whatever the politics between the U.S., China and Canada, Meng could expect completely aboveboard treatment. Because Canada is governed by the rule of law. It sounded principled. It sounded authentic.

“I believe very strongly that it is absolutely essential for Canada to remain a rule of-law country in how we behave,” Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said at an event in Toronto. “A rule of law is not like a smorgasbord ... You have to accept them all, so that’s the fundamental point.”

Well. About that.

This week, The Globe and Mail reported that the Prime Minister’s Office may have been picking and choosing at what parts of the rule of law it prefers. The story is that the PMO had been pressuring then attorney general and justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to go easy on Quebec-based SNC-Lavalin. The company has for years faced serious charges related to a long-standing culture of bribery and corruption (since reformed, it insists), in this case specifically about allegedly greasing government contracts in Libya. SNC-Lavalin has been lobbying the government for years to seek a settlement — anything to avoid a conviction, which would disqualify the company from winning future government contracts both here in Canada and abroad. Last year, the Trudeau government amended the Criminal Code to make just these kinds of deals possible, no doubt with the Liberal-friendly folks at SNC Lavalin’s Montreal headquarters in mind. But the ultimate decision to prosecute or not was to rest with the public prosecutor, which has proceeded to press criminal charges. Wilson-Raybould was allegedly facing pressure from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office to guide the public prosecutor toward a settlement instead.

The allegations are appalling, politically devastating and quite possibly criminal. It is against the law in Canada to attempt to influence judicial processes. This could well be an existential moment for Trudeau’s government.

A note of caution: There is, at this time, no proof beyond the anonymous sources quoted in the Globe. The story is credible but not decisive. But the Trudeau government’s reaction has been nearly as revealing. Trudeau and his office have issued denials ... of a kind. Carefully worded, they claim that there was no “direction” to the former justice minister. Perhaps that’s the case. But that’s not what is alleged: the allegation isn’t that Wilson Ray bould was “directed,” in some formal, written sense. It’s that she was being pressured, by her powerful bosses in the PMO, to intervene politically in a nominally independent judicial process.

Wilson-Raybould’s own role in this is fascinating. She was demoted to the career-killing blackhole of Veterans Affairs last month, which came as a surprise to Hill watchers. And then she released a long and unusual statement, touting her accomplishments. It was an unusual act for an outgoing minister in any portfolio, but reads very differently in light of this week’s news.

In her statement, Wilson Ray bould repeatedly cited her independence and the importance of the rule of law. “The role of the Attorney General of Canada carries with it unique responsibilities to uphold the rule of law and the administration of justice,” she wrote, “and as such demands a measure of principled independence.” She continued, “It is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political interference and uphold the highest levels of public confidence.”

These things are plainly true. But how unusual that she felt the need to publicly express them, as some pundits noted at the time. Now, if it so happens that what’s been reported this week is true, if she was being pressured to intervene to help out old Liberal cronies in the party’s favoured province of Quebec, and if she was demoted and transferred even in small part because she refused to co-operate, then her statement takes on far greater significance.

As do her polite refusals to comment since the story broke, claiming solicitorclient privilege (her client having been the government). It’s remarkable: the Prime Minister’s Office is being credibly accused of applying inappropriate, perhaps illegal, pressure to a minister of the Crown. And Wilson-Raybould declines to even confirm said denials? Any lawyer who thinks their client is innocent of charges is usually not shy about saying so loudly and clearly, without fear of violating solicitor-client privilege.

If Canada is a country dedicated to the rule of law — and most of us still believe it is — these evasions from the prime minister and others cannot be allowed to stand. The allegations revealed this week are extremely grave and require a thorough vetting. The opposition is demanding full hearings. That’s a start. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has called for the police to investigate the matter. Another good idea. But these things must begin immediately. There’s a federal election coming in seven months. Canadians need to know if the Liberal party running for re-election truly believes in the rule of law, or if it just says it does, while making up its own rules.

EVASIONS FROM PM CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND.