What is of particular interest is not what is being said, but rather what is not being said and the strange silence in the media, the National Assembly and particularly the Liberal party.
Nothing about this affair adds up and although I don't have many answers, I certainly have a lot of questions, questions that nobody seems interested in answering or for that matter, even asking.
First, let's review the facts as we know them.
A while back, ex-cop and now CAQ member of the National Assembly Jacques Duchesneau publicized the fact that in the dying days of the PQ government in 2003, Boisclair, then the minister of Municipal Affairs, signed off on a deal that would give a subsidy to a Montreal Church for some much-needed restoration work.
The contract for the work was to go to an acquaintance/friend/fundraiser of Boisclair, a contractor who was identified at the Charbonneau commission as having ties to the mob.
Now Boisclair has admitted that he had used cocaine while serving as minister and Duchesneau asked very publicly whether Boisclair's cocaine use was linked to the contract and whether undo pressure was put upon him to authorize the contract by elements of the underworld.
"Boisclair left his position as Quebec's delegate-general in New York after the comments were made. The comments concerned financial aid provided to Saint James United Church in downtown Montreal for a $2.6-million restoration project. Boisclair was the municipal affairs minister for the Parti Québécois government when the church learned it qualified for financial aid.Clearly Boisclair committed an error in judgment which opened himself up to questions of propriety. The letter was sent in the dying days of a PQ government which was to lose a general election a few days later.
On Sept. 25, Duchesneau held a press conference in Quebec City in reaction to testimony given by Paul Sauvé, the owner of a company that specializes in repairing complicated roofs and restoring the facades of churches, during the Charbonneau Commission. The contractor said that, in 2006, he was associated with a member of the Hells Angels through his company.
During the press conference Duchesneau stated: "In 2005, Mr. Boisclair himself admitted that while he was minister, he consumed cocaine. The question we are asking is: Mr. Sauvé, being an associate of the Hells Angels, and we have a grant of $2.5 million given. Did it bring (Boisclair) to influence his decision? I don't know."
The following day, Duchesneau and Legault held a press conference during which Duchesneau asked rhetorically, "But where did he buy his drugs in 2003, when he was minister? Where? The Société des Alcools du Québec?"
During the first press conference, Duchesneau held up a letter and offered it as proof Boisclair had awarded financial aid to the church in 2003. Link
During an election campaign ministers are by convention, enjoined from entering into new agreements or granting 'favours' or appointments. They are supposed to act as caretakers until the election issue is settled. The rule is sensible, otherwise ministers could 'buy' votes during the election campaign.
So Duchesneau had every right to question the propriety of offering a contract during an election campaign, it is unethical.
But the first question to be considered is whether Duchesneau defamed Boisclair by making a link between Boisclairs's cocaine use and the authorization of the contract.
Now back in 2008, the Supreme Court loosened the rules in favour of (for want of a better word) the 'defamer,'
Julian Porter one of Canada’s foremost lawyers on defamation matters had this to say of on the matter;
“You could be stubborn. you could be pigheaded, you could be wacky, and it would be all right unless you maliciously said something you knew not to be true,” Porter said.Now even though the standard for defamation has been narrowed, it pains me to conclude that Duchesneau did cross the line and did so with malice aforethought.
When asking if Boisclair's cocaine use was linked to the Church contract, Duchesneau admitted that "I'm just asking the question"
That in and of itself is proof that Duchesneau had no basis in fact or no knowledge at all as to the veracity of his contention.
It is like getting up and asking publicly if a certain politician is a pedophile, with the caveat that "I'm only asking"
Though it pains me to say so, (because Jacques is a friend,) that is the very definition of defamation.
But no matter, the interesting part lies ahead, Boisclair's reaction.
Now the Press looked at the allegation and the general consensus was that Duchesneau got the time line all wrong and that the allegation didn't hold water. I tend to agree.
The story was fading when Boisclair fanned the embers of a dying fire by launching a lawsuit and stepping aside from his position, a move that would guarantee to make him a loser regardless of the outcome.
Having public sympathy on his side should have been good enough for Boisclair and a quick and forceful rebuke of Duchesneau should have ended the matter.
Boisclair having already won the public relations battle with Duchesneau, took the disastrous step of launching a lawsuit
Lawsuits are messy and long-drawn-out affairs. For Boisclair, winning his case might take five years and cost many times the settlement in legal fees, with no guarantee that even in victory, the court would award legal costs.
The CAQ and Duchesneau can make the process so painful and long, that winning or losing means losing...big time.
If you don't believe me, just ask Claude Robinson, the writer who has been waging a David and Goliath legal battle with Cinar Corporation, which was found by the court to have plagiarized and infringed on Robinson’s copyright.
That legal battle started in 1996 and although Robinson has prevailed on most levels, the case is still kicking around, proving that in Canada, suing rich people or corporations with deep pockets is a losing affair, regardless of the merits of the case. Read a horrific timeline of the case.
But back to Boisclair, where the real question remains...
Why did he step aside from his position as delegate-general? It was an unnecessary sacrifice, many politicians fight lawsuits while continuing to serve, Lucien Bouchard for one.
And so it is likely that Boisclair was pushed by Marois and the PQ to step aside and pushed to launch a lawsuit that would halt the public debate on the issue, because the matter would now be before the courts.
That may be why the PQ has agreed to pay his salary while he fights the court case.
The position of the delegate-general is 'at-will,' that is to say Boisclair serves at the pleasure of the government, who in light of his withdrawal, would have every right to fire him.
Remember Boisclair is not a civil servant, who would have all sorts of rights, including the obligation for the government to assume his legal fees.
No siree, you'll recall that when Marois offered Boisclair the job, she tried to sneak in an appointment to the civil service at the level of a deputy-minister, an appointment that was withdrawn after the opposition parties cried bloody murder.
Strange how things work out, the position in the civil service is a protection that Boisclair would dearly like to have now.
And so the PQ has agreed that they will continue to pay his salary for doing nothing (actually for sacrificing himself) and the idiocy of it all is that if the case hangs around for two or three years (and that readers, is the absolute minimum, if the CAQ fights the case) it may cost the taxpayers $600,000 to support a court case asking for $200,000.
It would be cheaper for the government to pay the defamation claim and be done with it, but we know that will never happen.
Now Marois has said she will find some busy work for Boisclair while he remains on leave of absence from his New York position, but he isn't a civil servant and so options are limited and it means appointing him to a new job when by his own admission, he is so tainted that he had to step aside from the delegate-general job.
This isn't a case like Louise Marchand, dumped from the OQLF over Pastagate who was immediately given another position at the SAQ.
If the PQ was to make that type of appointment for Boisclair, they should have done it already, he's been paid close to $40,000 to stay home and twiddle his thumbs, so far.
At any rate, for Boisclair, launching a lawsuit was suicidal. Vindication in court won't rehabilitate his reputation and I imagine that if the thing ever goes to trial, there will be a lot of embarrassing revelations about his personal life, even if it is beside the point. Remember, people love a good scandal and his admission that he used cocaine, leads me to believe that he didn't do it once, after all, who uses cocaine only once, except for Rob Ford? And so his lifestyle and judgment will be an embarrassing issue when forced to reveal details of his drug use. It will be painful and messy and particularly embarrassing.
He may win his lawsuit, but he will lose his reputation nonetheless and will become a political pariah (if he isn't one already.)
 |
| "I'm just asking.." err.....really Jacques? |
There is only so long that the PQ can pay his salary for sitting at home. The lawsuit will drag on long after the PQ dumps his sorry ass.
The best solution for Boisclair is a quick out-of-court settlement where each party admits nothing and nobody loses. Call it the 'Blanchet Compromise' (a term I just made up) after the famous settlement between the Montreal Gazette and Claude Blanchet, husband of Pauline Marois.
You will recall that the Montreal Gazette made allegations against Claude Blanchet, casting doubts on the legality of a zoning change for the land on which he and Pauline Marois built their mansion.
Blanchet sued the newspaper over the allegations and finally settled quietly out-of-court in a hilarious compromise where both parties agreed that;
"The Gazette considers that its article of September 22 , 2007 did not misrepresent the facts. However, The Gazette recognizes that other media have misinterpreted the article and Ms. Marois and Mr. Blanchet may have suffered a prejudice as a result. "Ha! Ha!.....A compromise only lawyers could craft!
("The Gazette considère que son article du 22 septembre 2007 sur ce sujet n'a pas faussement représenté les faits. Toutefois, The Gazette reconnaît le fait que d'autres médias ont mal interprété son article et que Mme Marois et M. Blanchet ont pu souffrir un préjudice en conséquence.") Link{fr}
My last comment on the story is to question why the Liberals have steered a wide berth over the issue of Boisclair still being paid a salary.
It is true that the issue of Boisclair versus Duchesneau and the CAQ is before the courts, but the Liberals have every right to attack the PQ and Boisclair in the National Assembly. They don't have to, but they could steer clear of the issue of cocaine and contracts, by attacking the PQ over its continued financing of Boisclair's stay in Club Med.
As for Boisclair, he seems to be the author of his own destruction and as the old saying goes....
Stick a fork in him, he's done....
