Open this photo in gallery:
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre claimed on a podcast that the RCMP conspired to prevent Justin Trudeau from being criminally charged over ethics violations and the SNC-Lavalin affair.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
When Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre levelled his extraordinary accusations of political cover-up by the RCMP, he chose a forum at odds with the seriousness of the allegation. He was not in the House of Commons or standing outside the Supreme Court. He made the claim in the 29th minute of a 32-minute interview with a niche podcast.
Even there, Mr. Poilievre did not preface it with anything that would suggest he was making a blockbuster claim. Instead, he just casually said the Mounties conspired to stop former prime minister Justin Trudeau being criminally charged over ethics violations and the SNC-Lavalin affair.
“If the RCMP had been doing its job and not covering up for him then he would have been criminally charged,” he said, going on to smear the federal police force. “But of course the RCMP covered it all up and the leadership of the RCMP is just frankly just despicable when it comes to enforcing laws against the Liberal government.”
Perhaps in Mr. Poilievre’s world this is not a sensational accusation. He clearly did not feel the need to offer any proof, stating the allegations as if they were self-evidently true. Certainly, the hosts on the right-leaning podcast did not ask him to offer any evidence. They merely nodded and then wrapped up the interview with a softball question.
But it’s worth stressing how unusual it is to make such an accusation. Police working to bury criminality at the highest level of politics would be an epic scandal. He needs to substantiate his comments, or to retract them.
Not doing either would show poor judgment that undermines Mr. Poilievre’s claim to be a prime minister in waiting.
Campbell Clark: Pierre Poilievre’s casual accusation of an RCMP cover-up is stunning
This space argued after he won his by-election victory in August that Canada would be best served by the Opposition Leader setting aside cheap attacks to focus instead on thoughtful and credible critiques. By that standard, this salvo against the integrity of the national police does not bode well.
It also creates a potential problem for Mr. Poilievre down the road. If he does become prime minister, he could choose the next leader of the RCMP. How much credibility would that person have if seen as someone willing to dance to Mr. Poilievre’s tune?
Law and order does not mean wanting the police to do their jobs, but only as long as they do it the way you want.
The ethical transgressions of Mr. Trudeau are well known. He put pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould, then the attorney-general, to help SNC-Lavalin avoid criminal prosecution.
Mr. Trudeau also accepted free vacations at an island owned by the Aga Khan. The ethics commissioners of the era concluded Mr. Trudeau broke conflict of interest rules in both of these cases. In neither of them did the Mounties decide to lay charges.
By rehashing this history, Mr. Poilievre may be seeking to tap into anger among in Tory ranks at some of Canada’s institutions. His pledge to defund the CBC speaks to that mood. So do his repeated vows to fire the Bank of Canada governor. Undermining the RCMP is on another level.
Critics are often too quick to draw parallels between Mr. Poilievre and U.S. President Donald Trump. But in this instance, the comparison is legitimate, echoing the playbook of Mr. Trump, who literally made rally chants of his desire to imprison Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. In essence, Mr. Poilievre is saying this of Mr. Trudeau: Lock him up.
It’s entirely within bounds to criticize the police, and question whether specific decisions not to lay charges were misguided. Police do make mistakes.
And there is a case to be made for a rethink of the federal legal apparatus. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper increased the independence of the Public Prosecution Service, including a provision that requires the Attorney-General to publish any instructions issued to the director of public prosecutions.
But British Columbia’s model of a permanent pool of special prosecutors is a model worth looking at: It would further distance politicians from prosecutorial decisions. Duff Conacher at Democracy Watch suggests that there should be a standing committee of non-partisan legal experts to appoint such federal special prosecutors.
There are reasonable criticisms to be made of the RCMP, and thoughtful reforms to be proposed. But it’s another thing altogether to baldly assert that not laying charges is, ipso facto, evidence of cover-up.
