The UPAC and the SQ is invited to reconsider their refusal to testify

News 16 October, 2017
  • Annabelle Blais

    Monday, 16 October 2017 00:00

    UPDATE
    Monday, 16 October 2017 00:00

    Look at this article

    The liberal mna Guy Ouellette will send today to the UPAC, to the SQ, to the EIB and to the DPCP a letter to invite them to reconsider their refusal to testify at the national Assembly about a bill on their independence, learned of the investigation Bureau.

    According to our information, if these four bodies do not reconsider their position by 18: 15 p.m. tomorrow, the members of the Commission of the institutions, chaired by Mr. Ouellette, will meet to discuss the solution of the compel to testify by subpoena.

    The PQ has claimed this solution last week and the CAQ will support the process.

    “The pressure is now on the liberals,” said Pascal Bérubé, spokesperson for the official opposition public safety.

    Mr. Ouellette refused to confirm or comment on the facts for the moment.

    Consultations will begin tomorrow at 19: 30.

    The Unité permanente anticorruption (UPAC) was scheduled to be heard at 19: 45.

    Very poorly received

    However, last week, the UPAC, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ), the Office of the independent surveys (EIB) and the Director of criminal and penal prosecutions (DPCP) have all refused to come to speak to bill 107, which relates to yet directly.

    This bill provides, in particular, that we give more powers to the UPAC in granting him the status of a police force specialist.

    UPAC had initially accepted the invitation on 5 October, but was withdrawn five days later.

    These withdrawals have been very poorly received by a number of mps, from all parties, according to our information.

    The refusal of the UPAC has been particularly disliked by the parliamentarians, as Robert Lafrenière, the head of the body, has on several occasions requested the government to grant the status of a police force, and his troops.

    Mr. Bérubé has publicly denounced this refusal, which he called” unacceptable ” and ” outrageous “.