The documents of the Mâchurer investigation into the financing of the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) which were leaked to the media by Quebecor in 2017 are “on the whole innocuous”, argued Wednesday the lawyer for the Attorney General of Quebec (PGQ). Moreover, the state is not responsible for either the leak or the publication, he stressed.
Posted at 12:38 p.m.
It was the turn of the Quebec state to plead on Wednesday in the civil lawsuit brought by Jean Charest against the Quebec government for violation of his privacy. The trial quietly began before Judge Gregory Moore this week at the Montreal courthouse. Jean Charest attends the hearings with his wife and members of his entourage.
The former prime minister and ex-candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada is demanding $2 million from the Quebec government because of leaks from the Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit (UPAC) investigation into the financing of the Liberal Party .
Confidential information collected by UPAC was “illegally leaked to the Quebecor Group and published by it” on April 24, 2017, argues Jean Charest in his lawsuit filed in 2020. He evokes an “abuse of power marked by bad behavior faith” from the author of the leak, a UPAC staff member.
“This invasion of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life was unlawful and intentional on the part of the Commissioner’s staff [à la lutte contre la corruption, M. Robert Lafrenière] who participated in this casting operation by their acts or omissions. The Mâchurer investigation, through the faults of the Minister, the Commissioner and his staff, had the effect, if not the purpose, of seriously infringing on the plaintiff’s fundamental rights to the preservation of his privacy,” the initial lawsuit states. of 2020.
However, according to the lawyer for the Quebec state, the revelations of the Quebecor media in April 2017 are “all in all innocuous[es] as part of the criminal investigation. ” [On évoque] the involvement of Mr. [Marc] Bibeau in terms of funding, the fact that Mr. Charest would be a person of interest in the investigation and that links unite Mr. Bibeau and Mr. Charest. That’s basically the article,” summarized Me Michel Déom, of the PGQ.
On this subject, it was already in the public domain that Jean Charest was a “person of interest” in the Mâchurer inquiry, according to Ms.e Deom. And at trial, Jean Charest himself confirmed his close ties with Marc Bibeau.
“When Mr. Charest says that he is in a different position, because he does not know what he could release in the media later, it is a hypothesis, Mr. Judge”, insisted Me Deom.
In addition, the person who provided the confidential information to QMI Media “probably committed a criminal act”, argued the lawyer for the PGQ. Despite everything, the Quebecor media still decided to use this material, knowing that they were on “slippery ground”.
“There is a limit to what you can blame the state for in terms of publication”, decided Me Deom. Thus, the state is “not responsible” for possible reputational damage resulting from this publication, and even if this thesis could be supported, there is prescription, argued Ms.e Deom.
Also, there is “no evidence” that the state put in place measures that were not “adequate” in terms of security to secure the information, argued the lawyer for the PGQ. His pleadings continue throughout the day.
Note that the UPAC ended the Mâchurer investigation without laying charges last February.