For the past couple of weeks, since Pierre Poilievre appeared on YouTube’s Northern Perspective, members of the dominant media in Canada have sounded like scorched rats howling in protest about his unfair comments regarding former prime minister Justin Trudeau. The problem with their frustrations seems to be more about what he said than about the facts. Poilievre simply recited some basic knowledge that everyone is familiar with. His conclusions irritate members of the Laurentian media because they bear responsibility for helping the RCMP keep this matter underreported.
On CBC’s At Issue on Oct. 23, 2025, the panel decided to continue pounding the Conservative leader for daring to express something that they had no problem gleefully reporting throughout 2024 when Donald Trump was being prosecuted for cases both flimsy and fabricated. Just because a truth may be uncomfortable does not make it any less valid. In the case of Trudeau, there is ample evidence that the RCMP investigation into his peccadillos was unduly interfered with and affected the decision to pursue charges. Althia Raj on At Issue commenting on the matter said, “It’s true, he did not say Justin Trudeau should be jailed, period. But he did say if the RCMP had been doing its job and not covering up for him, then he would have been criminally charged. And he said many of the scandals of the Trudeau era should have involved jail time.”
Yes, Poilievre could have chosen better language, and some Conservatives were unhappy with what he said, but that does not change the truth. And the mainstream press’s reaction remains amusing. The same people demanding that an American presidential candidate be jailed, who cheer on the disqualification of a Bolsonaro in Brazil or Le Pen in France, are very content with the skirting of the law, the undue influence on our nation’s leading justice minister, and the lies repeatedly told about the whole affair in Canada. Undoubtedly, the smart political move for Poilievre would have been to say nothing because when faced with speaking the truth about a progressive hero in Canada, or keeping one’s mouth shut, hoping the press will not be too hard on you, a smart man might clam up. Instead, the Opposition leader dared to challenge the accepted narrative.
Writing for the Toronto Sun, Brian Lilley pointed out that for the last decade, progressives have denigrated the RCMP and other police organizations “as tools of oppression, of being systematically racist, and the types of groups that should be defunded…” The fourth estate in this country behaves transparently partisan whenever an issue arises that forces them to look at their culpability in a national scandal. The facts in the SNC-Lavalin have not shifted. As Lilley confirms, “The evidence of the Trudeau government interfering in a criminal prosecution for political reasons to assist a favoured firm (SNC-Lavalin) was overwhelming.”
Lilley speaks to the pressure (including threats) put on Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Raybould to override a decision to send the matter to trial and opt for deferred prosecution. Text messages have been documented requesting Wilson-Raybould to take over the case so criminal charges could be avoided. How often do those facts surface when our media overlords discuss this matter? Instead, they focus on how impolite Poilievre was to say what any of them have said about Trump, have thought about Richard Nixon, or have tried to pin on those close to Stephen Harper over someone trying to pay back a $90,000 loan. The adage about “whose ox is gored” takes precedence when journalists not only hold an opinion but filter it through the news they are reporting. It explains why small matters like ill-advised loans in the PMO are compared to a Watergate-like scandal while corrupting the Justice Department of our nation and pressuring the leading law enforcement official in government receive tender treatment from the media because they favour the government’s policies about funding a public broadcaster, or they agree with the government’s overall agenda.
Poilievre’s statements could be judged as politically foolish. They could be called into question because people usually vote on the future and not the past. His assertions could also be considered unhelpful because the former prime minister has receded from view. But the attempt to condemn Poilievre for speaking the truth seems transparently partisan. The pile-on ignores basic truths long discovered but consistently forgotten by a press eager to discredit Poilievre whenever they can. Try to imagine the outrage Poilievre (or any Conservative Prime Minister) would face if the most powerful bureaucrat in the federal government (Clerk of the Privy Council) told a cabinet minister to change her mind because the prime minister was in “that kinda mood.” That was what Michael Wernick said to Wilson-Raybould, insisting that Trudeau wanted a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). Lilley provides the transcript.
Wernick: OK, alright…that is clear-um-well, he is in a very firm mood about this, so um…
Wilson-Raybould: Does he understand the gravity of what this could potentially mean? This is not about saving jobs – this is about interfering with one of our fundamental institutions – this is like breaching a constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence.
Wernick: Well, I don’t think he sees it as that…
Wilson-Raybould was replaced with David Lametti, then SNC Lavalin received the DPA, and Commons Committees investigated the matter, providing scads of public information to which, as Lilley reminded readers, the RCMP had full access. What they were prevented from seeing was a full accounting of the Trudeau cabinet documents. The RCMP ended their investigation at that point, and later, RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme simply claimed that preventing full access to information made things challenging. As Lilley concluded, and I agree, “We had a sitting government interfere in a serious case involving bribery and corruption and the government of the day, at the request of Justin Trudeau (the Prime Minister in that government), acted in a corrupt manner to stop the prosecution.”
South of the border, Trump was dragged repeatedly into court to defend himself against charges that had passed the statute of limitations, were padded with flimsy material, or were brought against him by partisan officials. The mainstream press in Canada thought this sublime. They reported it relentlessly, and with a grand sense of piety. Where was this sanctimony when a government in its own country blatantly broke laws? The press’s reaction to what Poilievre said revealed their own complicity in allowing a government to rig the justice system, feed the populist fever in this country, and once again demonstrate why people continue to look for alternative news sources. Their credibility in question, our home-based journalists continue to justify the public’s skepticism about their biased reporting and targeting of those not aligned with their modern progressive view. As former Peruvian leader Oscar Benavides said, “For my friends everything, for my enemies the law.” How that became the calling card of Ottawa’s press culture explains why a factual statement from the Opposition leader can become a weeks long skewering of his leadership.
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who now works part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, where he earned a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
