Democracy Watch: Public inquiry needed into RCMP’s national command coverup
“The records show the RCMP is a negligently weak lapdog that rolled over for Prime Minister Trudeau by doing a very superficial investigation into his Cabinet’s obstruction of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, not trying to obtain key secret Cabinet communication records, and burying the investigation with an almost two-year delay,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. “The RCMP also misled the public by claiming it wasn’t investigating, violated the open government law by keeping investigation records secret much longer than is allowed, and is refusing to disclose the legal details why no one was prosecuted.”
“Given pressure by the Prime Minister and Cabinet officials to obstruct a prosecution is a situation that has not been revealed publicly before, and given no past court ruling makes it clear that the RCMP and Crown prosecutors could not win a prosecution, they should have tried to get a search warrant for secret Cabinet communications, and prosecuted so a judge could decide in an open court whether obstruction had occurred instead of making a behind-closed-doors and very questionable decision to cover up their investigation,” said Conacher.
Bumped for more from Dan Knight.
The pages we do have tell a tale of sloth-like efficiency. Over four years—yes, years—the RCMP spoke to a grand total of three witnesses. Were they expecting these witnesses to come carolling at RCMP headquarters, hot chocolate in hand? It seems that due diligence was put on ice, perhaps indefinitely.
They called their lukewarm endeavors an “assessment” rather than an “investigation,” as if they were grading a sixth-grade book report instead of probing into the alleged corruption at the highest levels of our government. The verbal gymnastics here could win an Olympic medal, but they also deceived Canadians.
Now, the RCMP had what they needed to press on with obstruction of justice charges. Even a rookie lawyer fresh out of a Canadian law school would salivate at the prospects of this case. But what do they do? Suddenly, the goalposts move, and they decide they need proof of “a corrupt intent to interfere” before any prosecution could occur. This convenient shifting of standards smells more fishy than a Newfoundland trawler.