 |
Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay at a press conference at City Hall where he announced his resignation.
Photograph by: Dario Ayala
, THE GAZETTE Read more: http://bit.ly/X4b5Bo
|
The recent resignations of the mayors of Montreal and Laval, Gerald Tremblay and Gilles Vaillancourt, have left me wondering whether, sometime when I wasn’t quite paying attention, Quebec’s regularly scheduled legal system was substituted with “Survivor: Quebec Politics,” a system of public bullying of those “everybody knows” are guilty.
It’s as though we’ve
decided to skip over all that legal mumbo jumbo we used to call a trial in
favour of public shaming, metaphorical tarring and feathering, and the throwing
of the bums out.
The Charbonneau Commission into the granting and management of construction contracts, and its associated sideshows, is as close to a legal
lynching as anything I’ve ever seen.
Quebecers are desperate to end these recurring episodes
of corruption, and sooner, rather than later. But how does anyone prove to the
court of public opinion that he or she DIDN’T do something, when “everybody
knows” something nefarious has been going on?
Messrs. Tremblay and Vaillancourt’s situations became
increasingly untenable as time—and innuendo—mounted. But once Martin Dumont
alleged Mr. Tremblay knew about dirty versions of municipal campaign expenses,
it appeared a line was crossed.
And yet…
Within days of Dumont’s allegation, the Commission’s
earlier songbird, Lino Zambito, was disputing Dumont’s version of some facts. Dumont said he met Zambito twice in 2004 in the offices of
Union Montreal chief party fundraiser Bernard Trepanier. Zambito denies ever
having been in the party offices. He denies even knowing where they
are.
Somebody has some ‘splaining to
do.
This is why we’re supposed to have a measured,
dispassionate, and independent justice system. Instead, it seems we’re bent on
satisfying a pack of jackals baying for blood.
If Mr. Duchesneau, former anti-collusion investigation
head and current Coalition Avenir Quebec MNA, amassed these allegations, why
didn’t he act on them? If he had evidence, why weren’t there charges?
Jean Charest was vilified for arguing against the public
inquiry. He warned that revealing names in public would tar those named as
guilty, all without due process. Just mention a monicker and that person
immediately loses the presumption of innocence, no matter who, exactly, is
shooting off his mouth. But the presumption of innocence is the foundation of
our system of laws and we tamper with it at our
peril.
If someone accused you of malfeasance--diddling your
boss’s accounts years back, say--how easily could you prove your innocence? Even
if you were innocent? Especially if you were
innocent.
Take, as an object lesson, another case in the news,
that of former RCMP deputy commissioner Barbara George. After a distinguished
30-year career with the Mounties, she tackled a high-profile 2007 inquiry into
an RCMP pension fund scandal.
 |
| Barbara George |
RCMP Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell accused her of
stifling his investigation into the pension fund imbroglio. MPs of the Public
Accounts Committee bought Frizzell’s account and held George in contempt of Parliament.
By the time it was over, according to Global news,
members of the House of Commons committee said she lied during testimony before
them, Liberal then-MP Borys Wrzesnewsky alleged outside the House that she
committed perjury and, finally, her reputation destroyed, George was forced to
resign from the RCMP.
There was only one small problem: Barbara George was
innocent. She was actually exonerated by the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial
Police, in separate investigations. But the truth didn’t matter and her career
was destroyed.
Is it wise to put all this faith in the words of men
like Zambito and Dumont? Why are they coming
forward now? I understand the media and political opposition are going to town
on this dog and pony show, but seriously: were these men suddenly having trouble
sleeping nights?
Who’s to say they aren’t settling a few scores with
their accusations? Drive-by shooting of reputations, as it
were.
The Charbonneau Commission hasn’t even hit its stride
and already has the heads of two of our mayors. I sure hope all the accused are
guilty. And, failing that, I hope they, like Barbara George, can take action
against those who slander them. Recently, former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewsky
publicly apologized to Ms. George as part of the $4 million libel action
settlement.
I have no sympathy for liars, fraudsters, mobsters, or
corruption. But naming people in the absence of corroborating evidence and without their being able to mount a defence
is more like McCarthyism than a sober, dispassionate investigation. Which is
what is meant by that blindfold on those statues of Lady Justice.
Not that Mr. Tremblay’s or Mr. Vallaincourt’s
refutations would have made much difference in this climate. Because, as Leonard
Cohen might have said, “everybody knows” the jig is
up.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment