Montreal

Charest denies cronyism accusations

Quebec's premier has testified at the Bastarache Commission probing judicial nominations, defending his government against allegations of cronyism and influence-peddling.

Quebec premier says judges picked for competence, not political loyalties

Premier Jean Charest testified at the Bastarache commission on Thursday. ((Canadian Press))
Quebec's premier testified Thursday at the Bastarache Commission probing judicial nominations and defended his government against allegations of cronyism and influence-peddling.

Jean Charest took to the witness stand Thursday afternoon at the inquiry he called earlier this year to examine accusations of impropriety in the way judges are selected.

It is believed to be the first time since 1891 that a sitting premier has testified at a public inquiry in Quebec, and it rekindled memories of Paul Martin's appearance at the sponsorship hearings.

The stakes are considerable for Charest, who will continue testifying Friday.

With his popularity sinking under the weight of scandal, Charest's performance will inevitably become part of his revival — or, perhaps, feature prominently on his political epitaph.

So many people were watching that it established a rare benchmark: The public appearance by a provincial premier became a top trending topic on Twitter, the social networking site.

Denies meeting with ex-justice minister

Charest strode into the inquiry room in Quebec City seeking to exude an aura of confidence, calmly shaking hands and wearing a steady smile.

But he quickly bristled when asked about an accusation from ex-justice minister Marc Bellemare that he allowed party bagmen to call the shots when it came to naming judges in the province.

Bellemare testified that he met with Charest at length on Sept. 2, 2003, and informed him of the pressure he was facing to name judges to the bench.

But the premier said such a 90-minute meeting never happened. "That meeting never took place. If a minister had told me that, I would remember it, we would have taken steps to correct it and to protect them," Charest testified.

Charest said a rigorous selection process treated candidates equally, regardless of whether they were suggested by Liberals, by opposition members, or whether they were apolitical.

"The first criterion is competence," Charest told the inquiry.

Party fundraiser only an acquaintance: Charest

He also rejected the suggestion that he was especially close to Franco Fava, a Quebec City-area party fundraiser.

Bellemare, the inquiry's key witness, identified Fava as one of those pulling the strings and he described the businessman as the premier's friend.

Charest said he knew Fava and appreciated his efforts on behalf of the party — adding that was about it.

"Allow me to elaborate because I heard Mr. Bellemare's testimony.… The way he was telling it, we were on the verge of becoming twins," Charest deadpanned.

"I don't know where [Bellemare] got that. Mr. Fava is an acquaintance — one I saw, on average, twice a year. That was the relationship. It was a good relationship, but that was it."

Bellemare says premier knew all along

The commission is looking into claims by Bellemare that Fava and accountant Charles Rondeau put pressure on him to name specific judges in 2003 and 2004.

Bellemare alleges he told Charest about the pressure at the time and that the premier told him to do what the party's bagman wanted.

Charest has strenuously denied Bellemare's allegations and is suing his former cabinet minister for $700,000. Bellemare is fighting back with a countersuit of $900,000.

Bellemare resigned from cabinet in April 2004 after the Liberals failed to make good on an election promise to kill the province's no-fault car insurance law — something he had passionately lobbied Quebec governments for since 1994.

The ex-justice minister testified in late August that Fava put pressure on him to appoint two judges and promote another. One of the three was the son of a Liberal organizer.

Fava has since testified he never tried to influence the selection of judges even if he acknowledges knowing highly placed political figures.