All those involved in the festival of lawyers' fees known as the Bastarache inquiry, from retired Supreme Court justice Michel Bastarache on the bench all the way to the security guard at the door, know one basic rule: Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But Marc Bellemare seems to expect that this ancient and essential precept of justice be set aside in this case, on his say-so.
To be sure, the matter before the inquiry -did Premier Jean Charest appoint judges at the bidding of his party's political organizers and fundraisers? -is in no way a criminal matter. Judges could be appointed on the recommendation of a crony, a bookie, or for that matter a necromancer.
But people want to be able to believe that our judges are recruited on merit alone. Partisan patronage at this level is rightly considered shameful. And in the court of public opinion, the old rule does not apply: A leader can be deemed guilty in a general way, and unfit for office, any time enough people dislike his or her policies or image.
So it's not really a surprise that pollsters reported, on the eve of the Bastarache hearings, that far more Quebecers apparently believed Bellemare than Charest.
We'll see if that perception changes now. Tuesday Bellemare finally made formally the claim with which he has been roiling Quebec's politics since last spring: Charest told him to name two well-qualified people as judges, and to promote a third, because Liberal Party fundraisers wanted them.
Yesterday Bellemare added a little detail: He has no proof. "Maybe there are people who at the time were aware of this and could confirm it to you, but I don't have documents, or audio or video of that."
So we must ask ourselves what kind of man hints darkly at such shameful skulduggery, and then doesn't even bother to ask his former aides, or anyone else, if they can help him prove his claim.
We also have another question to ask: What kind of premier would set up a big costly formal inquiry to look into a hare-brained accusation by an erratic accuser who had quit an important job after less than a year?
Well, maybe the kind of man who wants to fight a fight he knows he can win, rather than continuing to lose the public-opinion war over his refusal to summon an inquiry into the possibility of corrupt links among political parties, construction firms, and construction unions. Charest, excoriated by a near-unanimous chorus across Quebec last spring for stonewalling that issue, has had reasonably good success, this summer, in keeping the spotlight on Bellemare instead.
Too bad for him, then, that the Canada Revenue Agency chose Monday to turn up in Federal Court asking for permission to take a close look at all contracts awarded by all Montreal Island boroughs and municipalities between 2006 and 2009. Readers will recall that 16 months ago, the CRA said it was looking into alleged tax fraud at Simard-Beaudry Construction Inc., a partner in Montreal's notorious water-meter consortium, and two other companies.
The third party at city hall, Projet Montreal, is doing a little war dance of triumph, but that might be premature. The CRA is inscrutable at the best of times, and we don't know what it is after in its sweeping request to see contracts.
We can be sure, though, that this inquiry will take a long time. The mills of the CRA grind slowly; we can only hope that if they are looking into construction, they will as in the adage also grind exceeding fine.