Former Prime Minister Jean Charest suffered from investigation leaks chew. The Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit (UPAC) too.
“I really believe that the leaks have royally annoyed Mr. Charest,” says professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Montreal Martine Valois, in an exchange with The duty. “But, at the same time, it could have been worse. He could have been criminally charged,” she adds.
According to her, the publication of personal information in the April 24, 2017 edition of the Montreal Journalaccording to which Mr. Charest is “monitored” by investigators responsible for clarifying the financing practices of the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) – which were “inextricably involved in the granting of subsidies and contracts”, according to the president of the Commission of Inquiry on the Awarding and Management of Public Contracts in the Construction Industry, France Charbonneau — pushed UPAC into a dead end.
“With these leaks, the investigation chew was going nowhere,” says Ms.me Valois, who is an expert in governance. “It is certain that if there had been accusations against them [l’ex-grand argentier du PLQ Marc Bibeau et Jean Charest], there would have been, the next day, a motion for a stay of proceedings, saying that the leaks have ensured that it completely interferes with the right to a full and complete defense. And it probably would have been granted,” she continues. “You still have to be realistic. »
Jean Charest says he suffered “irreparable damage” because of the 54 leaks from UPAC, which were identified by the Bureau of Independent Investigations (BEI). Even if Radio-Canada had revealed as recently as November 2014 that he was in the sights of the sleuths in charge of the investigation chew, the former head of the Liberal government was in “shock” to learn on April 24, 2017 that his colleagues and clients, in addition to other Quebecers who followed the news that day, now knew “that we check his entrances and exits from the country, that we examine his banking activities and that we think of intercepting his calls”. Mr. Charest is “humiliated by the inference that he is a criminal”, “frustrated because this insinuation is not true”, “anguished because he does not know if The Journal of Montreal has and will publish other personal information or if there will be other leaks”, relates Judge Gregory Moore in a judgment handed down on April 4 (Jean Charest c. Attorney General of Quebec). The “harm” suffered by Mr. Charest “does not reach the level of significant psychological distress”, however qualifies the magistrate.
That said, “disclosure can convict Mr. Charest in the eyes of the public without the charges being presented or proven in court,” said Judge Moore, before ordering the Quebec state to pay some $385,000 to Mr. Charest, namely $35,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.
One thing is certain, “all these leaks will have harmed the Liberal brand, that’s very clear,” said the interim leader of the PLQ, Marc Tanguay, at the head of a group of 19 deputies.
Apologies to Quebecers, asks Nadeau-Dubois
After reading the 26-page judgment, the co-spokesperson for Québec solidaire (QS), Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, said that the people of Quebec should also receive an apology. “We created UPAC to catch bandits and put money back in the state coffers, and in the end, we didn’t catch many people and we put money back in the pockets of Jean Charest” , he launched in parliament on Wednesday.
Martine Valois cannot believe that a member of UPAC who cares about the success of the investigation chew could have been the source of the leak of personal information about Mr. Charest. “The police wrongly believed that the investigations were not successful […] and made leaks to show that we were protecting Mr. Charest and Mr. Bibeau, or someone orchestrated the leaks or participated in them to harm [l’ex-commissaire] Robert Lafrenière and at UPAC”, she suggests, while the investigation Oath on leaks at UPAC, conducted by the BEI, is continuing.
The work of the UPAC investigators was also seriously complicated by Marc Bibeau’s attempts to limit their access to the data they had entered using “Lavallée requests”, which serve to ensure respect for the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and his client, recalls Mr.me Valois. “To put that on the fault of the UPAC, there, it is downright unfair”, she argues.
She is concerned to see elected members of the National Assembly pointing the finger at this new page of the series of investigations into corruption which have failed to pull down the financing of UPAC – or even reinstate UPAC in the Sûreté du Québec, as recommended by PQ MP Pascal Bérubé.
Anti-Corruption Commissioner Frederick Gaudreau draws a line under the investigation chew in February 2022, after nearly eight years of work. Professor Valois is not surprised that he ended the investigation, but rather that he announced it a few days before Mr. Charest jumped into the race for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. “It’s highly questionable,” she says.
The ability of the Quebec state to block corruption, more than 10 years after the start of the work of the Charbonneau commission, cannot be measured only by the number of individuals identified, brought to justice and punished with all the rigor of the law, argues Martine Valois. She invites us to take a look at the money recovered — “it’s at least double, if not triple what the commission cost” — as well as the “integrity measures that are unmatched elsewhere in Canada” and deployed in Quebec.
“And yes, UPAC sent people to prison. There are people who have pleaded guilty. It may not be the former Premier of Quebec, his fundraiser…”