I extend a warm welcome to the lawyers, participants and potential intervenors, media representatives and members of the public. Although the purpose of these initial hearings is limited to the question pertaining to the admittance of participants and intervenors, I believe it is important to immediately clarify the extent of the Commission's mandate and the steps I will follow. Afterward, I shall discuss the procedural rights of participants and intervenors.

WHAT IS A COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

A commission of inquiry is an impartial body established by government whose goal is to consider an issue of national concern and submit to it recommendations designed to address the issues raised. It is imperative to understand that such a commission is not a Court of Justice. Although it has the power to subpoena witnesses for hearings or to file documents in evidence, it is not empowered to rule on the responsibility or guilt of anyone. This task, if to be used, lies within the civil or criminal courts. It is imperative not to forget this.

THE MANDATE

The day-to-day independence and impartiality of judges and decision-makers who make up our judicial and quasi-judicial system are essential to the maintenance and evolution of our democratic society. Therefore, any claim likely to reduce public confidence towards decisions of a judicial and quasi-judicial nature must be treated promptly in a thorough and rigorous fashion.

The government has established, by decree, this Commission of Inquiry, whose mandate is, and I quote:

I swore to perform the duties vested in me by the provisions of the Act Respecting Public Inquiry Commissions, (Revised Statutes of Quebec, chapter C-37) to the best of my knowledge and judgment.

By virtue of this oath, I, as of all the Commission's employees, shall discharge this mandate in a resolutely impartial and independent manner. I wish therefore to assure the public, participants, and interested persons that I address this duty with an open mind guided by a single goal: contributing in ensuring Quebec a healthy justice system beyond reproach.

As written, my mandate aims, among other things, at studying the nomination process of Court of Quebec Justices; municipal court judges and members of the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. We shall note that when the Commission was established, there existed no specific claims of influence peddling by third parties with regards to the two (2) latter jurisdictions. I do not have an inquisitorial investigative mandate against them. The mandate regarding these institutions is essentially one of public policy, it is a mandate that is administrative and technical in nature. This is made evident by reading the decree and is mandatory because of the time limit for filing the Commission report.

I have the duty to interpret my mandate, but I have no power to expand it. This does not mean that the examination of these institutions will be purely theoretical. The Commission will review the current processes; verify how they have evolved in recent years; undertake a comparative analysis and consider the ethical issues that arise. It will also examine the functioning reality of those processes covering a period of 10 years, from January 1rst, 2000, to date. Indeed, it seems to me useful to see if the processes or practices have changed over the past decade, and if either of them had any impact on the integrity and reliability of the system. My efforts, if these problems exist, will be focused on the discovery of institutional problems that are operational or administrative in nature.

In addition to such an analytical duty, the Commission has an investigative role with regards to the "claims made by Me Marc Bellemare ... particularly regarding influence peddling which third parties would have exercised" in the appointment process of Court of Quebec Justices, as clearly stipulates my mandate. However, I believe that this inquiry is not limited to the statements of the latter relative to specific cases. Indeed, in this case, it is incumbent on me to verify whether or not there is a systemic problem of third party intervention regarding appointments to the Court of Quebec. To ensure public confidence in our judicial system, we must shed light on the inferences to be drawn from the claims of Me Bellemare.

Nevertheless, the Commission is not a Court of Justice and it's objective is not intended to assign criminal or civil liability to anyone. The parameters of the inquiry were set by me within the mandate entrusted to me. Although the Commission was created by the government, it is totally independent and can arrive at adverse findings against persons, organizations or the government itself. I have access to any kind of evidence, but my work must be done within the rules of fairness.

I would like to emphasize here that the method of establishing the facts forms part of the framework of open and non-contradictory procedures. We seek the truth, no more, nor less, in accordance with principles of fairness, respect, dignity and fundamental justice. Commission lawyers have a very important role to play in this regard. They will help me and advise me on matters of substance and procedure. They are charged with establishing the proof. They will conduct interviews at the hearings. The main responsibility of Commission Counsels is to represent the public interest during the fact-finding mission so as to specifically ensure that all issues relevant to the public interest will be brought to my attention. They will act with greatest impartiality, they shall summarize the evidence for the benefit of participants and the public, but they will draw no conclusions and will not formulate recommendations for use in the preparation of the report.

All persons participating in the inquiry should be driven by a sense of cooperation. Neither lawyers nor participants and intervenors must discuss the evidence or the credibility of witnesses outside the courtroom prior to the filing of the report -- this is necessary to ensure a fair process for everyone involved.

By virtue of my understanding of my mandate, I opine towards possessing a sufficient margin of maneuver to scrutinize all aspects of the issue raised: determine whether there was or there is still an influence by third parties – improper or not – within the process of appointing Justices of the Court of Quebec. To accomplish this, I will examine the process itself and its configuration so as to detect whether or not there are shortcomings. I will examine the manner which this process is executed by stating, if applicable, its failures. I shall ascertain the actual or possible abuses committed by reason of failures or in spite of the current appointment process. If it appears to me that the current system suffers some fragility, I shall propose measures that I believe capable of accomplishing that which demonstrates why we put such a mechanism in place: to ensure the independence and impartiality of our judicial system . As I mentioned before, in terms of municipal Courts and the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec, I will do what is necessary for discovery of whether the appointment process is adequate.

CRITICAL APPROACH

General Plan

The work of the Committee evolves in stages:

• a collection of data on the current system concerning the appointment of Justices of the Court of Quebec, the municipal Courts and the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec, followed by a comparative and ethics study;

• a factual inquiry into the specific claims of Me Marc Bellemare;

• an examination of a possible systemic vulnerability of our current appointment process reflecting the investigation of specific cases of the Court of Quebec; and

• the preparation of recommendations devised to strengthen the current regime, where necessary.

Review of the current judicial nomination process

To correctly identify the problem, the Commission will first consider the composition and functioning of the currently used selection process where the post of a judge or member of the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec becomes vacant. We shall report the structures put in place; the qualification methods of participants; the consultations undertaken; the assurances of confidentiality, the manner in revealing the results obtained, and finally, the mechanism leading to the designation of the nominee.

Counsels for the Commission will conduct interviews with key people involved and study relevant documents they have obtained as a result of my requests. Commission Counsels shall present in open court all relevant evidence gathered during the investigation. In order to verify whether there are gaps between policy and practice, we shall proceed towards meetings with key stakeholders so as to ascertain to what extent the system is well understood and strictly followed. We will also check to see if deviations or snags subsist in these processes.

Finally, through the experts, we will conduct a comparative study of nomination systems existing across Canada and in other countries including a reflection on the ethical standards applicable in this case.

Public hearings on the issue of appointment processes will take place at the end of Summer.

The consultations that will focus on a comparative study of selection systems -- including the ethical rules that should support them -- will be achieved at the very end of the Commission's work. If necessary, I will elaborate in due course how this part of the Commission's work shall proceed.

Inquiry into specific claims of Me Marc Bellemare

Prior to holding public hearings on the claims of Me Bellemare, I'll undertake to conduct a factual investigation in order to verify the validity of those claims. I will verify, at the same time, the possible existence of a systemic weakness that could allow third parties to intervene with the intention of improperly influencing the selection of judges who are to be appointed.

Public hearings on this aspect of the Commission's work will take place at the end of Summer.

POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Unlike a trial, a Commission of Inquiry, I repeat, does not have as objective the pronouncement of a civil or criminal responsibility. The Commission does not feed on an adversarial or accusatory process. The procedure we shall follow is, first, inquisitorial in nature, and second, of an administrative nature. The inquisitorial aspect shall apply to the search of the truth concerning certain events or certain claims. The administrative aspect shall examine the value of processes, practices and policies in order to shed light on a series of questions on the improvement of the public regime.

These steps have only one ambition: to determine in any case whether third parties have influenced the judicial nomination process; to determine whether this was inappropriate and formulate, where necessary, some recommendations.

As the nature of a Commission of Inquiry is partly inquisitorial, I may summon witnesses to appear and require that documents deemed relevant be forwarded to me. I may also supplement the evidence revealed at public hearings by various other means: doctrinal literature, expert opinions, comparative studies, court decisions, etc.

If my investigation is justified by the powers vested in me by law, the broad scope of public hearings certainly does not elude me. I count on documentary evidence and given testimonials in order to consolidate my recommendations. As a requirement of fairness, however, you will understand that I will ensure the orderly conduct of hearings, and, while hearsay is allowed in this case, I will not consider such evidence unless it is necessary and reliable.

During public hearings, we will follow our own rules of procedure by applying them in accordance with established principles of fundamental justice and procedural fairness. Generally, witnesses shall be interrogated beforehand by Commission Counsels. They will then be examined by their respective lawyers. I will request that those lawyers turn to evidence relevant to the investigation not already covered by Commission Counsels. Cross-examination of a witness who has already been heard will only be permitted to a lawyer of a party whose interests are directly at stake.

Participants, intervenors and witnesses have the right to be represented by Counsel. Participants may request to examine witnesses and suggest the names of people to call as witnesses. They can submit documents in evidence. In general, procedural rights shall include access to Commission documents, subject to the rules, a notice of filing. a notice of forthcoming statements of witnesses that will be represented by Commission Counsels, a position at the Counsel table, the opportunity to cross-examine a witness on a point related to the purpose for which the participant was allowed to appear, the opportunity to make a final statement. In addition, of course, the right to request financial assistance. Should I have to draw adverse inferences against a person or entity, I will notify them in advance and in writing of such a possibility so they can provide evidence and make appropriate representations.

Final rules will be adopted after consultation with Counsels for participants and intervenors. Those rules have as object to ensure a fair and equitable procedure given the context and the need to consider the interests of those most directly affected including witnesses and persons who may be appointed during the public hearings.

WITNESSES

Article 11 of the Act Respecting Public Inquiry Commissions reads as follows:

• 11. Any person refusing to be sworn when duly required, or omitting or refusing, without just cause, sufficiently to answer any question that may be lawfully put to him, or to render any testimony in virtue of this Act, is in contempt of court and shall be punished accordingly.

Witness Immunity
However, no answer given by any person heard as a witness can be used against him in a lawsuit allowed for by law, except lawsuits for perjury or for giving contradictory evidence.

Convinced as I am that all witnesses called before this Commission will respect -- on behalf of their personal integrity -- the oath which they lend, and will answer questions with befitting candor, I will seek to protect any vulnerable person as allowed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the [Quebec] Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Act Respecting Public Inquiry Commissions and case law. There will be recourse to in camera meetings and publication bans, if necessary.