Who said what
Corruption schemes don’t usually leave paper trail, only proof is testimony from those who were there
The Charbonneau Commission is tasked with identifying and exposing corrupt schemes that, more often than not, don’t leave a paper trail. Monique Muise deconstructs the first six months of testimony and highlights some of the key allegations that have been made in an interactive graphic posted at montrealgazette. com/testimony that allows you to see which inquiry witnesses have corroborated what allegations. Stories,
When the former head of Quebec’s special anti-corruption unit first described a safe stuffed so full of cash that it wouldn’t close, there were more than a few skeptics in the audience at the Charbonneau Commission.
After all, Jacques Duchesneau had a well-known flair for the dramatic and the image was so astonishing that it bordered on the preposterous. But a few months later, when former Union Montreal staffer Martin Dumont took the stand and testified that he had not only seen the stubborn safe in the party’s offices, but had been asked to help shut it, Duchesneau’s story suddenly became a lot more plausible.
Such is the importance of corroboration at the Charbonneau Commission, an inquiry that has been tasked with identifying and exposing corrupt schemes that, more often than not, don’t leave a paper trail. There are no minutes taken at clandestine meetings between mobsters and construction bosses, no receipts given when an engineering firm hands over an illegal cash donation to a political party. In many instances, the only proof is the testimony provided by those who were there — and the more people who say the same thing, the harder it gets to refute their claims.
“The (Charbonneau Commission) is quite unusual because it’s been mandated to look at conduct that’s criminal in nature,” said Simon Ruel, a Montreal lawyer and author of The Law of Public Inquiries in Canada. “The mandate of the inquiry requires it to examine the existence of schemes. You can’t really establish a scheme if you just have the testimony of one witness. You need to have the testimony of many witnesses. A scheme involves many people.”
Ruel — who served as deputy chief counsel at the Bastarache Commission into the appointment of judges in Quebec and senior counsel on the government litigation team at the Gomery inquiry into the federal sponsorship scandal — was careful to point out that a public inquiry is not a trial. No one is being prosecuted at the Charbonneau Commission, and nothing needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. But while the rules of the game are different than in a regular courtroom (lawyers for the inquiry are permitted to ask leading questions, for example), one thing remains constant: the search for the truth.
“The role of the commission is to verify certain facts and make recommendations,” Ruel explained, adding that sometimes the puzzle comes together not all at once, but gradually.
“It’s obvious, with respect to the Mafia in particular, that not many witnesses seem to be ready to admit ties to the Mafia. You need to have bits and pieces of information from various witnesses which you can combine to make a determination if the Mafia had any role.”
Since Justice France Charbonneau officially launched the public hearings last June, there has been plenty of corroboration. Ten people have testified that a select group of construction companies in Montreal formed a cartel in the 2000s, colluding among themselves to fix their bids on contracts. Nearly a dozen witnesses have claimed that employees of private companies (and their family members) handed over personal cheques to political parties and were then reimbursed by their employers through the payroll or in cash (known as the “straw man” scheme). And at least six agreed that the mob had infiltrated Montreal’s construction industry.
Beyond the testimony of witnesses, official records, surveillance tapes, invoices and even personal agendas have also been used to corroborate the allegations made before the inquiry. The claim that former public works head Robert Marcil was leaking information to Union Montreal’s Bernard Trépanier, for instance, was backed up last week by phone records showing conversations between the two men often occurred on the days when Marcil attended selection committee meetings.
“If you made a phone call and there’s a record of it ... or if there’s bank records or other information on paper, it typically has a high value,” Ruel said. “Sometimes it’s just to refresh the memory, but in many cases it’s to obtain an explanation (from a witness) where there are inconsistencies.”
It’s possible to go overboard, of course. With the extension of its mandate until April 2015, the inquiry can afford to linger a bit, Ruel said, but there’s always the danger of bringing in too many people to say essentially the same thing.
“Examining many cases is necessary for the commission to protect itself against any allegation that it’s doing the job of a criminal court,” he said. “But it’s a question of balance. If you hear the same type of testimony for days, at a certain point you have to get to other topics.”