Renaud Lachance’s letter, published in the pages of To have to on November 26, has reason to question the value of his work at the Commission of Inquiry on the Awarding and Management of Public Contracts in the Construction Industry (CEIC). He affirms that contributing to the coffers of the (liberal) party in power was never a condition for obtaining a contract, but that on the contrary, it was the fact of obtaining a contract that ensured that an entrepreneur was then harassed to contribute. This is the age-old chicken and egg debate. Which comes first? The contract or the contribution? Mr. Lachance’s logic tells us that if the contract precedes the contribution, we cannot say that there is a link, even indirect, between the two. It’s so stupid that you’re surprised not to have thought of it. […] He concludes his letter by congratulating himself that the commission “has[it] pays for itself” in his own words. A petty accounting consideration. Health, justice, education and the holding of elections are all missions of the State with high deficits from an economic point of view. Are they worth less? In short, the CEIC had to answer a simple question that citizens are entitled to ask themselves. “To what extent does money control political decisions in Quebec? In his letter, he provides a clear answer: “Totally”. It’s not that we’re really surprised, but the proof by the absurd that he demonstrates is not heartening.
To see in video