R�nald Beaudry, a lawyer representing former Quebec justice minister Marc Bellemare, delivers his closing argument before Commissioner Michel Bastarache on Oct. 12.Jacquest Boissinot/The Canadian Press
The Bastarache Commission probing the nomination of judges in Quebec is a "useless" exercise and an "abuse of power" by Premier Jean Charest, according to the lawyer representing former justice minister Marc Bellemare, whose allegations of influence peddling sparked the inquiry.
In his final summation, Jean-François Bertrand explained that that there was nothing wrong with the process of nominating judges in Quebec, calling it one of the "best systems in the world." He argued the system was "perverted" when Quebec Liberal Party fundraisers were allowed to exercise influence on Mr. Charest and his staff.
"I call it a useless exercise because the system works just fine but that human beings were tempted to pervert the system" Mr. Bertrand argued.
Mr. Bertrand said the naming of the commission was a diversion created by Mr. Charest to avoid bowing to public pressure to hold a much larger probe into allegations of corruption in the construction industry involving donors to the Quebec Liberal Party.
And the lawyer also argued that the commission was serving as a "pretrial" test run for Mr. Charest's $700,000 personal libel suit against Mr. Bellemare.
At the heart of his summation, Mr. Bertrand argued that Mr. Charest's testimony was riddled with contradictions. He said the Premier changed the rules governing the nomination of judges by allowing the person in his office responsible for ties with the Quebec Liberal Party, Chantal Landry, to vet the candidates and consult with party fundraisers, Mr. Bertrand said.
"That's how you pervert the system. You allow people access to the Premier's office and then they hire their own people," Mr. Bertrand said.
The lawyer had harsh words for the way the commission handled his client, saying Mr. Bellemare was required to face five days of tough questioning while Mr. Charest was treated with kid gloves.
"From a simple witness, he [Mr. Bellemare]suddenly became an accused and all possible means were used to destroy his credibility," Mr. Bertrand complained.
Faced with contradictory testimony, it remained unclear whether the commission will venture into determining who between Mr. Bellemare and Mr. Charest was telling the truth.
However, the lawyer representing the Quebec government, Suzanne Côté, urged the commission to reject out of hand Mr. Bellemare's allegations.
"The government has a duty to take a position," Ms. Côté said at the outset of her final arguments. "Mr. Bellemare's allegations are unfounded and are not supported by the evidence."
She argued that constitutional precedence showed that the Premier had the legal authority to oversee the nomination of judges and that the law even allowed for outside consultation by the Minister of Justice.
Furthermore, based on the evidence, the commission cannot conclude that Liberal party fundraisers influenced in any way the nomination of judges, Ms. Côté concluded. And even if they did, she added that Mr. Bellemare broke the law by failing to put an end to the potential influence peddling.
She also argued that Mr. Bellemare's personal calendar showed that on September 2, 2003 - a crucial day when the former minister said he first warned Mr. Charest of the "colossal pressure" being exerted by party fundraisers to nominate certain candidates to the bench - Mr. Bellemare was in fact attending his riding association executive meeting. "The proof is not conclusive that Mr. Bellemare met with Mr. Charest that day," Ms. Côté argued.
Mr. Charest denied under oath that the meeting ever took place.
On Wednesday, lawyers representing Mr. Charest and the Quebec Liberal Party will make their final arguments.