We collected all the necessary evidencehe said, referring to the Commission’s revelations about the relationships between political financing and the awarding of public contracts.

This is why, with regard to the testimony of Jean Charest, the game is not worth the candle “.

The magistrate explained that such testimony could be detrimental to the ongoing investigation into both issues, especially since Mr’s public revelations. Charest could not be used by Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit (UPAC) investigators.

One who is now a judge in the Superior Court, however, insisted that Mr. Charest could testify if he wished, a week after the latter described the decision that he was not invited to testify as nakakatawa in an interview on the same set.

If he insisted on hearing, as did [Guy Chevrette, ancien ministre péquiste des Transports] we would have heard it, and that would have changed the whole situation, he says. The Commission, he explained, does not want to take a chance to see the evidence derived from the obtained testimony by coercion possibly be scratched and discarded in a possible litigation under the right against self -remorse.

France Charbonneau was also asked about the famous dissidence of one of his co-commissioners, Renaud Lachance. The latter distanced itself from the Commission’s final report by refusing to acknowledge a direct or indirect correlation between the payment of a political contribution and the awarding of public contracts.

Former Prime Minister Jean Charest also relied on this opposition to defend himself against allegations of illegal funding strategies for the Liberal Party of Quebec under his leadership.

The former commissioner called this dissent a not happy.

” When we saw the presidents and vice-presidents of big companies come and tell us that after receiving several million contracts, there was a knock from the party to tell them: “it’s time to give” […]for me there is a link, direct or indirect. “

He downplayed this difference of opinion, however, called itone line in a 1300 page report.

Ultimately, he believes the $ 45 million in public funds invested in the Commission has yielded good results for Quebecers.

At the monetary level alone, during the work of the Commission there was a 30% reduction in construction costshe remembered. When you think the government should give $ 10 billion a year, 30%, that’s $ 3 billion..

He also welcomed the enactment of Bill 26 and the establishment of a program to encourage companies that have defrauded the government to pay these amounts.

That program brought in nearly $ 94.7 million and in Laval, the same program allowed the city to collect $ 50 million.