Tremblay says police chief dismissed extortion allegations

Allegations that a former Union Montral fundraiser tried to extort $1 million were brought tothe Montrealpolice chief in 2006, but no investigation was ever launched, according to former mayor Grald Tremblay.

Tremblay told Quebec's corruption commission he personally confronted police chief Yvan Delorme about the allegations after he confirmedwith the representative of a private company called Smart Centrethat Bernard Trpanier had demanded the money from his firm.

"Delorme said very clearly, 'Grald, there was no act committed, so there's nothing to investigate,'" Tremblay told the commission.

"I repeated again, 'You're sure there's nothing that we can do? We can't do an investigation?"

Tremblay said no investigation was launched.

The commission has already heard from several witnessesincluding the alleged man behind the extortion demand, Trpanier about the Smart Centre commercial developmentaffair.

While Trpanier denied the allegations, others have said that he did indeed demandmoney from Smart Centre, which was interested in developing a shoppingcentre, to push the project forward.

'Very prudent'

Tremblay said he learned about the allegation after he received a confidential phone call one weekend.

He said he'd already met with the president of the company and thoughtthe projectwas a good fit for the neighbourhoodin whichSmart Centre wanted to build.

"On the [Monday], I called the president of the company and saidunder nocircumstances should you give one cent to have that project," he said. "You have a good project, and I'd be happy to meet with you if you need it."

Tremblay said he needed more proof before he took further action and wanted to be "very prudent."

'In the hours that followed, I went to see Mr. Zampino. I told him word for word what I'm telling you now.' Grald Tremblay on the sequence of events around Trepanier's firing

He called the company's representative in Quebec.

"He told me that Bernard Trpanier presented himself to him as an official of the mayor," he said.

He told Tremblay the same story that Trpanier wanted $1 million to secure the project.

"In the hours that followed, I went to see Mr. Zampino. I told him word for word what I'm telling you now," Tremblay said.

Zampino's denial

Montreal's former executive committee chairman Frank Zampino, whocompleted histestimony earlier this week, insisted that the mayor had never made the link between the extortion allegation and the firing of Trpanier, who he considered a personal friend.

He said he only learned of the link months later.

Tremblay said that wasn't the case, and Zampino knew the sequence of events that precededTrpanier's firing.

The former mayor said he pulled Trpanier into his office anddismissed himwithoutexplaining why.

Tremblay said that at no time did hetell Trpanier,asthe ex-Union Montral fundraising directorclaimed during his earlier testimony, that he was being let go because the party was cutting his position.

'I assume full responsibility,' ex-mayor says

Tremblay has remained out of the public eye since heresigned under a cloud in Novemberas witness testimony mounted, implicating his Union Montral party in a system of alleged collusion and fingering city workers for taking bribes from construction entrepreneurs.

He has beenanxious to testify before the commission to tell his version of events.

While maintaining that he didn't know aboutthe collusion scheme that has been the subject of the testimony of more than a dozen witnesses before the commission, Tremblay admitted to the inquirythat activitydid indeed take place on his watch.

"I am accountable. I am responsible. I've admitted that I assume full responsibility," he said.

"If I was surrounded by some people who betrayed my trust, I accept that."

Zampino and the yacht

Part of that betrayal, according to Tremblay, came at the hands of Zampino.

The mayor's former right hand man didn't tellhim about his trips on the yacht of a prominent Montreal developer because doing so would have cost him his job, Tremblay toldthe commission

He said heonly learned about Frank Zampino's luxury vacations through the media.

"There's no doubt that he would have known my reaction," Tremblay said. "If he took the time to come and tell me that he was going on vacation on the boat of Antonio Accurso in February 2007 and again in February 2008He knewit would have been dealt with."

"He would have no longer been the chair of the executive committee."

Tremblay said he had a good professional relationship with Zampino, describing him aspart of a team committed tooverhauling theCity of Montreal's precarious financial situation. However,Tremblay admittedhe would never have chosen Zampinoto work with himin 2001 if he had known who Zampino's friends were.

Tremblay said he suspects he was kept in the dark about suspicious or outright illegal activities within his entourage because everyone knew that he wouldhave actedon that information, had he been aware of it.

"Everyone knew that if they came to tell me something thatwasn't ethical, it would be resolved," he said. "For me, those were deeply held values."

He pointed to the firing of Robert Abdallah, the former city manager, as proof that he would have taken action had he known what was going on.

It was in fact Abdallah's relationship with Accurso that led tothe senior bureaucrat'sdismissal, Tremblay told the commissionrevealing the reason for Abdallah's departure publicly for the first time.

Abdallah was Montreal's city manager from 2003 to 2006. Allegations that he accepted kickbacks from developers,which Abdallah vehemently denied, surfacedin testimony at thecommission last fall.

Tremblay said he was toldconfidentiallythat Abdallah met Accurso regularly at a downtown restaurant. Tremblay decided he would have Abdallah replaced as soon as possible as he"had proof" that those meetings were inappropriate.

He didn't disclose the reason forhis decision to dismiss Abdallah to Zampino or to Abdallah himselfwho he said was probably only learning of itthrough his testimony.

[IMAGEGALLERY galleryid=4141 size=small]

"We gave him a year's salary to avoid prosecution by the City of Montreal," Tremblay said. "I don't have to confront a person who will give me1,001 excuses."

Denies willful blindness

Several witnesses have said Tremblay was either in the dark or deliberately ignorant of the collusion and corruption going on at city hall and in the construction industry.

Commission prosecutor Sonia LeBel wasted no time earlier today asking the question that has hung over the hearings and Tremblay since allegations about trouble at city hall came to light.

"After everything we've heard, the big question people are asking is, where were you?" she said.

"I was never willfully blind," Tremblay replied. "I wasn't nave. I'm not a nave person. I trusted, and I assumed my responsibility. The challenges were enormous and, as mayor of Montreal, it was my responsibility to ensure those challenges were met."

Tremblay said he always acted when he was informed about potential wrongdoing at city hall. However, he said, his hands were tied if he had only rumours and no proof.

Union Montral fundraising

Tremblay also denied any knowledge of cooked books within his political party. He said his campaigns were funded honestly and within the limits of the law.

However, Tremblay insisted there is no way that the so-called three per cent scheme, or the collusion arrangement that allegedly saw three per cent of the value of city contracts funneled back to the party by engineering firms, could have been possible.

He said there's no way the party could have hidden that kind of income and had no use for it, since it was able to win elections on its legitimate funds. He suggested that someone could have been pocketing the money if in fact engineers were paying those sums to Trpanier.

Commission chair France Charbonneau asked how, "in the same breath," Tremblay could be sure that there was no fundraising scheme if, as he stated earlier, he had no involvement in the party's finances.

"I had an official agent who had the responsibility of presenting a report to the chief electoral officer That report covers every single dollar that came in," he said, adding that there was never any complaint from the elections authority.

"That would mean that what was happening, was happening honestly," Charbonneau responded.

"That's for you to judge. It's an important challenge that you have," he responded.