I thought it was amazing: the counterclaim. Of all that I take away from my law studies in the last century, this is the most enjoyable concept. It allows a person prosecuted to overturn the table and water his sprinkler. It came back to me when I noticed, like all dumbfounded Quebecers, that Jean Charest was suing the government of Quebec for invasion of his privacy. He is now claiming $ 2 million.
He is outraged because, in the police investigation which tries to prove that it would have established the largest system of political corruption in our modern history, there were leaks. The public has had access to details of the private life of the former prime minister. He “felt feelings of frustration and embarrassment.” His request does not specify what details these are. But the only really crisp element of privacy was that Mr. Charest made many trips to New York with his friend and fundraiser Marc Bibeau and that the latter generously paid all the bills. May I indicate that my opinion of him was in no way diminished by these revelations. He did a lot worse.
Continue Jean Charest
I believe that the Government of Quebec should immediately file a counterclaim and sue Jean Charest for having embarrassed us collectively and for having made us feel feelings of frustration. Since in the civil case, the preponderance of evidence suffices, I am convinced that we have an excellent case.
It will be very easy to demonstrate that Quebec’s reputation has suffered greatly under its leadership. We will only have to put in evidence the famous cover of the magazine Maclean’s claiming that Quebec was “the most corrupt province” and showing Bonhomme Carnaval carrying a briefcase chock full of obviously ill-gotten dollars. Never before the seizure of power by Mr. Charest, the Bonhomme Carnaval and all of us, Quebecers, had been put in such an embarrassment.
The demonstration of the increase in corruption during the Charest era poses no problem: 31 companies have, so to speak, admitted to having lent themselves to corruption by collectively paying $ 100 million in compensation to Quebec and the cities. The involvement of the party led by Mr. Charest is beyond doubt: the PLQ has agreed to reimburse half a million dollars in illegal contributions from businesses collected mainly while Mr. Charest was leader. The link between the two? The Charbonneau commission report did the job by concluding that there was a “blatant proximity system between members of liberal cabinets on the one hand and companies benefiting from juicy public contracts on the other”.
Yes, but, how to demonstrate that Jean Charest was aware. Better, that it would have been the big manitou? It will be necessary to demonstrate that, despite his angry denials, he was personally responsible for this damage, by his actions or his omissions. Let us file the testimonies heard at the Bastarache commission according to which liberal fundraisers frequently guided a political attaché of the PM in the affixing of post-it on the resumes of potential judges to tell the Prime Minister whether they were good Liberals or Pekist villains. Let’s also prove them affidavits where business leaders tell under oath that the friend and fundraiser of Mr. Charest, Marc Bibeau, lobbied to increase the donations of one of these companies, had inside information on the awarding of contracts for another and bragged at all times of his closeness to the Prime Minister. Bibeau, like Charest, denies everything, that’s understood.
Unless at the stand Mr. Charest can demonstrate that he intervened repeatedly and in vain to put an end to these shenanigans, I believe that our case is concrete. By his action or his inaction, he has embarrassed us.
How much to ask?
It remains to determine the amount of our request. There are methods to estimate the positive impact of an event, sporting for example, on international opinion. So many positive texts in so many foreign newspapers amount to an advertising campaign of so many millions of dollars. Let us first establish, over the pre-Charest decade, the total of articles that speak for good or bad about integrity and corruption in Quebec. This will be our point of comparison. Let’s redo the same calculation for the Charest years, from 2003 to 2012. The difference in negative publicity will give us the amount to claim. We are definitely in the tens of millions of dollars.
One cannot think that Mr. Charest can pay for the thing on his own. Moreover, he may plead that he is not solely responsible. He had allies, facilitators, organizers, blind volunteers, profiteers (500 political appointments, a record!). Perhaps Mr. Charest will want to sue them in turn for letting him embarrass us? I have good news for him. He may have recourse to these third parties to his own counterclaim.
jflisee@ledevoir.com ; blog: jflisee.org