Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Yes.

Monsieur Ménard, I just want to say very simply that I have great respect for you and your work in this place. We were elected to the chamber, the House of Commons, at the same time. Nothing I've heard on this matter to this point shakes my respect for you or for your work. That's all I want to say.

Thank you.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That's very brief.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Ménard

I would like to say straight out exactly what Mr. Coderre said. I am a little concerned and a little troubled by what has been happening for some time, particularly the statement you made to the journalist, Mr. Latreille.

I would like to begin with this. You have been a lawyer since 1968, and you took an oath. Subsequently, you were president of the Quebec Bar. You were also an MNA. In that capacity, you took an oath to represent the people of Quebec. And, to be fair, you were also Minister of Public Safety and Minister of Justice.

I would like to come back to one of the first things that you mentioned. From what we can tell, Mayor Vaillancourt tried to bribe or corrupt you. You say that you're not sure. That was in 1993, and he had just been elected in 1990.

Knowing that he had done this, why was your immediate reaction not to go to the police? You know that the police would have taken your complaint and written up a report stating that you came to see them. That does not mean there would have been a conviction, or that you would have won your case, or anything else. Did you take that very simple step of going to police and telling them that this incident had just occurred and asking for a police report? Did you do that?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No, because I was convinced that the less I said about it the greater the likelihood that I would not publicly be forced to pit my credibility as a criminal lawyer against that of the then mayor.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Ménard, I'm sure you are familiar with the expression “when the occasion presents itself”. The fact is that you had several occasions, in that very short period of time, to discuss this with your colleague. Let me give you an example. On about the 6th or 7th of April, 1995, the person in charge of your section, Mr. David Cliche, prepared a letter which you signed. That letter stated that something was not working the way it should in Laval.

Did you tell Mr. Cliche and your colleagues that he had tried to bribe you or give you money? Did you take that opportunity?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No, Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

After that, Mr. Ménard, you received a petition signed by 500 people in your region. That petition demanded that there be an investigation into municipal administration, because the way things worked there was a little odd. Did you follow up on this or did you try at the time—this was during the same period—to go to police and tell them that you had received a 500-name petition, that something smelled rotten, that something didn't seem to be right? Did you at least go to the police to tell them that a month or two, or a year earlier, you had received something? Did you take any action?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I did not take that particular step, but I did something else. We discussed—certainly among ministers—all the allegations regarding the situation in Laval. As I said earlier, after giving this some thought, we all arrived at the conclusion that this was a matter the Minister of Municipal Affairs should deal with, rather than the Minister of Public Safety.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Subsequently, Mr. Ménard, you sent a number of letters to Mr. Vaillancourt. You sent letters in 1995, in 1996, in 2002 and even when you were Minister of Public Safety in Quebec in 2005, and one last time in 2009. In every one of those letters, you are practically telling Mr. Vaillancourt that he's a great friend and that everything is fine.

Did you at any point think that you should stop sending him these nice letters because he was an alleged criminal? Why did you send those letters to Mr. Vaillancourt telling him that he was an absolutely great guy? That is what you did for almost 10 years.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I don't think you will find any such terms used in the letters that I sent. It is true that I sent a lot of letters. I learned something very early in politics, Mr. Petit, which is that you have to know how to work with people, whatever your opinion of them. Just because we may have a certain opinion of each other doesn't mean we would not agree to cooperate. So, yes, I decided I would cooperate with Mayor Vaillancourt as long as he held that position and as long as the many allegations against him had not been proven. Mr. Vaillancourt had a great many qualities. He was the person most familiar with the issues in Laval. He had exceptional political experience and we talked about these things.

At the end of each session, I would spend several hours, several days in a row, writing to all my senior officials, colleagues, Laval City counsellors and the mayor as well. What I said in those letters—which were personal letters that were very much appreciated and won me outstanding cooperation, not only from elected officials in Laval, but in my department as well—was what I thought.

In a way, I didn't say everything I was thinking, but what we had accomplished together and the expertise he had shown in dealing with the issues and things like that, were probably things that I highlighted. It was in that context that those letters were sent.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I may have mentioned this, but I will be sharing my speaking time with my colleague, Mr. Blaney. How much time is remaining?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, we can come back to Mr. Blaney. You're almost through. You have about 40 seconds. We'll come back to Mr. Blaney for another five minutes.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have five minutes left.

Mr. Ménard, Mr. Vaillancourt sent you a demand letter recently, stating that what you have said is not true. Did he send you a civil demand letter?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

He sent me a demand letter asking me to issue a retraction.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Do you intend to issue a retraction or is what you have told us today the truth?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

When you're a good lawyer you ask questions that you know the answer to. The answer is no.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

You will not issue a retraction. You say that Mr. Vaillancourt tried to corrupt you.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No, I didn't say that. I did not use the term “bribe”, nor did I use the term “corrupt”. I am perfectly aware that this was not a criminal offence involving an attempt to corrupt a public official. It was very clever, but it wasn't illegal. What was illegal, for myself and for him, was my accepting it.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have one final question, Mr. Ménard. No? All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci.

I just have one question I'd like to put to you, Monsieur Ménard. With the hindsight of the years.... And I agree with Mr. Siksay entirely that you've come here with extremely, extremely high credibility and an excellent reputation and certainly you're considered around this building as one of the brighter minds in Parliament. But with the hindsight of time, do you not feel that you may have prejudged the statement the mayor of Laval might have made or the evidence that the authorities, whether that is the Quebec police or the Quebec election authorities, might have been able to garner?

It could have been that, when confronted, the mayor of Laval may have admitted to trying to make the payment. It could have been that the authorities may have had other corroborating evidence that would support your story. I agree with you 100% that if the evidence was “you said he did this and he said he didn't do it”, then the investigation was going to go absolutely nowhere. It would be dropped immediately. But in hindsight, do you not think you may have prejudged both the evidence that would have come from the mayor or the ability of whatever authorities were appropriate in the circumstances to corroborate your evidence, and the matter would have been taken to another level?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

There is no doubt that was how I saw it—that there would not be… I was sure of that… You don't know the Mayor of Laval.

[Voices]

Ah, ah!

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You can be sure that he would never have admitted it. His current attitude doesn't surprise me in the least. Had the police contacted him, he would have sued me for damages in any case, and I would certainly have been forced to explain things in public. It would have been the same situation: my word against his.

So, my assessment—I prejudged, as you say—was that there would be no charges laid against him in all likelihood, and that he would come out of this looking far more credible than I would have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you.

We have time for three more. We'll hear from Monsieur Coderre for five minutes, and Monsieur Blaney, and then Madame Freeman.

Monsieur Coderre, I'm going to restrict it totally to five minutes.