The Parti Québécois (PQ) rejects the arguments of the Chief Electoral Officer (DGE), according to whom a simple unanimous motion from the National Assembly is insufficient to force it to make public the evidence collected during an investigation which revealed illegal spending during the 1995 referendum.
PQ MP Pascal Bérubé affirms that his opinion differs from that expressed by the DGE, Jean-François Blanchet, in an analysis submitted during a meeting with elected officials at the end of September.
“We have a different appreciation of the strength of the unanimous motions of the National Assembly, which are akin to orders from the National Assembly,” he said during a press briefing.
Mr. Bérubé affirmed that his political party, which had launched the request to which the other parties represented in the National Assembly rallied, will return in more detail to the subject this week concerning the follow-up to be given to the motion and the meeting at the end of September.
“We have a different opinion of what he can do with the powers he has. We have asked for different opinions and it will not take long in the coming days. »
The duty reported Monday that in its analysis, the DGE affirms that only a law could force it to make public the documents collected by the investigating commissioner Bernard Grenier in 2006 and 2007.
On Tuesday, Mr. Bérubé acknowledged that the PQ had already mentioned, last spring, the idea of passing a law. “It’s not out of the question, but I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary,” he said.
Mr. Grenier had been mandated by the DGE to investigate allegations of illegal financing of the referendum campaign.
In his report, the investigating commissioner concluded that $539,460 had been spent illegally in 1995 by two federalist organizations, Option Canada and the Canadian Unity Council.
Breaking the deadlock
The co-spokesperson for Québec solidaire, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, believed that a motion would be sufficient. According to him, a solution must be found to the “current blockage”.
“We need to find a way to make this information public. Is this the motion? Is this a bill? I am not a lawyer, but the documents must be public. We won’t give up on that. »
He relies on the suggestion made in the spring by the PQ to present a bill.
“We believed that the motion should have been sufficient,” he said. We are told that it is not. I understood that the Parti Québécois was going to present a bill. We will study it. We’ll look at it when it’s filed. »
Doubts in the Liberal Party
The interim Liberal leader, Marc Tanguay, underlined the credibility of the opinions presented by the DGE.
“The independent and highly qualified, competent institution of the DGE returns to us with a comprehensive legal opinion,” he explained. I would call this, his letter, a legal opinion. Then I agree with him on that. »
Mr. Tanguay refrained from immediately giving his support to a possible bill on the issue, especially since the DGE himself expressed doubts about the validity of such a law.
“It takes a legislative debate. We will see what the government proposes. But the DGE, even if a law were adopted this afternoon, raises many red flags. »
In his opinion, Mr. Blanchet states that disclosing the Grenier commission’s evidence would expose him to legal action because of the personal information it contains. He also maintains that he cannot be forced to do so by a simple motion from parliamentarians.
Since last spring, elected officials from the four parties represented in the National Assembly have been in a standoff with the DGE regarding the publication of the evidence collected by investigating commissioner Grenier. On two occasions, MPs voted unanimously for motions calling for the disclosure of these documents, which were subject to a publication ban.