Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You said earlier that there were allegations that certain things were going on in Laval. Were you not tempted to go in and clean things up?

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

Yes, certainly, right in my first year. We obviously talked about that. I did not discuss my particular case because I felt there was no evidence. In any case, we had to investigate a lot more than what was going on in Laval. As ministers, we discussed this and decided as a group—and I agree with that decision—that this issue fell more within the purview of the Minister of Municipal Affairs than the Minister of Public Safety. Mr. Chevrette therefore assigned one person to carry out an investigation. This was someone he had complete confidence in and who had the ability to analyze the numbers and records to see whether the public tendering process was appropriate.

That inquiry was launched in 1995. When Mr. Martin's report was tabled, I was no longer Minister of Public Safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Ms. Freeman, you have seven minutes.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Ménard. Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before the committee to shed light on this whole episode.

To begin with, Mr. Ménard, in your opening comments, you stated that you had refused the money and that, as far as you were concerned, that was the end of it because there had been no violation of the law.

I believe you were a law professor at one point, and you were also a criminal lawyer. Perhaps you could explain why there was no violation, neither under the criminal law or under the Election Act.

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

It's important to make a distinction between a crime, which falls within federal jurisdiction, and the offence in question, which falls within provincial jurisdiction. As you know, the provinces do not have the power to legislate with respect to crime. The crime we are talking about here would have been attempted bribery of a public official. As a candidate, I did not meet the very broad definition of public official in the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, it was obvious that he was not doing this while carrying out his normal duties. He was doing it as a voter who wished to contribute to an election fund. The offer he made was not the offer of a mayor. That's why I was absolutely convinced of that.

I also noted a third point. As I already said, he was not asking for anything in exchange for the money offered to me. At that point, it was clear to me that no offence had been committed or anything of the kind.

However, there had obviously been an attempt to violate the Election Act, but that in itself is not an offence.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

According to you, then, no offence was committed when this incident occurred.

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

That's correct, and had I gone to the police, I'm certain I would have been told to go and see the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. The job of police is to investigate crimes, not give out certificates of good conduct. The Chief Electoral Officer would have told me what he recently repeated, which is that I had committed no offence because I refused the money. I hope he would have congratulated me.

Furthermore, had there been one, and the legislation had been different, the fact remains that it would have been my word against his, and I am certain that no Crown prosecutor would have wanted to take that case. It would have been just as big a media sensation as it is now, except that no charges would have been laid against him. And if he had been charged, he would have been acquitted. So there was absolutely no point.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

If I'm not mistaken, neither bribery nor a violation of the Election Act was involved.

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

That is my belief.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

That is what is being alleged today.

Mr. Ménard, you gave a brief explanation of your reasons for not saying anything. I'd like you to tell us what would have happened had you spoken out back then?

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

First of all, I am sure he would have denied everything. Furthermore, if people were expecting to see the results of the $10,000 he offered, they, too, would surely have denied everything. As I say, it would have been my word against his.

Also, I don't think the police would have decided to investigate. It would have looked at the same Criminal Code that I'm familiar with, to arrive at the conclusion that there was no attempt to bride an official. As a result, they would have told me to go and see the Chief Electoral Officer, and he would have arrived at the same conclusions then as he has now.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

As I understand it, disclosing information would have served no purpose.

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

No, and I admit that this would have done me tremendous harm; I'm certain of that. It would have meant open warfare. He would have done everything in his power to discredit me, at a time when I didn't have my record as Minister of Public Safety to hold up as I do now.

I was a criminal lawyer prior to that, but I had an excellent reputation. That's why I was the first criminal lawyer to be elected “bâtonnier” or president of the Quebec Bar. I had a good reputation with the judges, police officers, colleagues and a lot of journalists.

But for the public at large, criminal lawyers are people who associate with gangsters. That's why it would have been my word against his. I never associated with gangsters, but it's quite true that I did not only defend honest people, even though I also defended innocent people who were in great need of my assistance.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

So, disclosing this episode would have served no purpose, and no charges would have been laid.

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

That's correct.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

What I take from your testimony is that, in light of the facts that have been presented, there was neither bribery nor any violation of any law whatsoever when this incident occurred.

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

Yes. It's sad to say, but just because nothing illegal was done doesn't mean that it isn't serious. I considered it to be very serious. Later, I felt it was a way to bring me in. However, at the time, I reacted instinctively.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

You spontaneously refused.

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

Yes.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

It was clear; you immediately refused. In fact, he asked for nothing in exchange either.

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

No, he offered me $10,000 for my election fund.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard. There was no bribery, and there was no violation of the Act. That is what I take from your testimony. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Freeman.

Mr. Siksay, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's good to see you this afternoon, Monsieur Ménard. I'm not used to you being at that end of the table, but it's good to see you.

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

[Inaudible--Editor]...to answer questions; I'm more used to asking questions.