[00:00:00]

Samuel Bachand
Hello, my name is Samuel Bachand. I’m acting as prosecutor for the Inquiry in connection with your testimony, Monsieur Blais. So Monsieur Stéphane Blais, please spell your name in full.

Stéphane Blais
S-T-E-P-H-A-N-E-B-L-A-I-S.

Samuel Bachand
I’ll swear you in. Do you swear to tell only the truth to the Inquiry?

Stéphane Blais
I do. I vow to tell the whole truth.

Samuel Bachand
First of all, Monsieur Blais: with your help, I have extracted from the public registers of Canadian jurisprudence on CanLII [Canadian Legal Information Institute] the disciplinary decisions concerning you, which you are about to discuss. I’ve given you a hard copy of these documents, which are listed jointly as Exhibits QU-3 through QU-3d. Do you have them in front of you?

Stéphane Blais
Yes.

Samuel Bachand
Do you recognize these documents?

Stéphane Blais
I recognize these documents.

Samuel Bachand
Can you tell us what they are?

Stéphane Blais
It’s a decision: a disciplinary decision against me, revoking my [chartered accountant] licence for life plus 18 months-because they were afraid I could be reinstated-plus a $20,000 fine.

Samuel Bachand
Proceed document by document-because there isn’t just one decision, is there?

Stéphane Blais
There are so many documents here: “Decision on the respondent’s motion to obtain the information necessary to hold an impartial public hearing,” as I felt that the committee was biased; then “Decision on guilt,” which means expulsion; and then “Decision on sanction,” which means that I was guilty. And the penalty was expulsion for life plus eighteen months, plus a $20,000 fine.

Samuel Bachand
Right. So with that established, you’re here to testify about your personal experience with the disciplinary system of the Ordre des comptables [professionnels] agrייs [CPA] du Quיbec [the Quebec CPA Order covering Chartered Professional Accountants], following public statements you had made about COVID governance. Is that correct?

Stéphane Blais
Of course.

Samuel Bachand
Take us to the beginning of all this. Then we’ll go chronologically. Then, as you know, if you get lost or if I need clarification, I’ll jump in.

Stéphane Blais
Yes, I understood that I wasn’t permitted to promote la Fondation pour la dיfense des droits et libertיs du peuple [Foundation for the defence of people’s rights and freedoms]; that’s what you told me. So here I am: President of the Foundation.

Samuel Bachand
That’s not exactly what I told you, but that’s okay. It’s not about us. Just go ahead.

Stéphane Blais
So what I’m being accused of is having undermined the dignity of the profession of chartered professional accountants-despite the fact, Monsieur Bachand, that in my career and my life, I’ve never been to a civil, criminal, or disciplinary ethics court. So since this was a health crisis, I’ll put it in context for you. I received an email on June 12, 2020: four days after I filed an appeal for judicial review seeking to have Bill 61 declared null and inoperable as well as the decrees that violated our fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. So to put it in context, four days after filing this appeal for judicial review-which was a bit of a bombshell in legal and political circles, we talked about it-I . . .

Samuel Bachand
So we’re saying June 12, 2020?

Stéphane Blais
On June 8, the appeal was filed. On June 12, I received an e-mail from the syndic [representative] of the Quebec CPA Order asking me 76 questions, many of which-most of which-related to the content of the appeal for judicial review. So I told him to get lost. I told him that they were a creation of the Quebec government, which was being sued, and that there was no question of them interfering in a public prosecution since they were in a conflict of interest.

Samuel Bachand
Allow me to take you back to the list of 76 questions.

Stéphane Blais
Yes.

Samuel Bachand
Can you tell us a little more about the type of questions that were there, because we don’t have the benefit of reading the document here?

Stéphane Blais
Yes, well for example: “Why do you say that what’s happening in terms of the health crisis is nothing more than an international coup d’יtat by a clique of powerful thugs against the peoples of the world?”

Samuel Bachand
That’s what you had said, and that’s the basis on which they eventually accused you?

[00:05:00]

Stéphane Blais
I’ve said it before and I stand by it today. And the more that time goes by, the more we are proven right.

Also: “Why do you promote civil disobedience?” Well, my friend, Andrי Pitre, and I met Rocco Galati in Toronto-who’s a constitutional expert by the way-and he explained to us the importance of defying unjust laws. And it was also based on the ideas taught at university, such as those of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, who is celebrated every third Monday in January.

Samuel Bachand
What other questions were you asked?

Stéphane Blais
Several other questions. Listen, they wanted to know if we were registered with the Registraire des entreprises [REQ -Business Register], who the directors were-the total inquisition.

Samuel Bachand
When you say: “If we were registered with the Registraire des entreprises du Quיbec,” with the REQ, you say “we.” “We” meaning the Foundation?

Stéphane Blais
The Foundation indeed.

Samuel Bachand
So you were already the head of this organization at the time?

Stéphane Blais
Yes. It was founded on May 7, 2020, and was duly registered.

Samuel Bachand
Okay. Do you remember any other questions you were asked in this list of 76 questions?

Stéphane Blais
No, I don’t remember.

Samuel Bachand
Or any other topics that were brought up?

Stéphane Blais
These were scientific themes. Then during the inquisition that followed, we provided reports from international experts who became the Foundation’s experts. So these were given to the Disciplinary Committee.

Samuel Bachand
Now, as for what you were asked to do in this 76-question letter of inquiry-

Stéphane Blais
I’m sorry?

Samuel Bachand
In the letter from the syndic [of the Quebec CPA Order].

Stéphane Blais
Yes.

Samuel Bachand
In the letter of inquiry, sorry- You mentioned scientific aspects that you had raised. Can you tell us which scientific elements were covered at that time? Not what came after; we’ll get to that.

Stéphane Blais
Well we were asking questions about excess mortality. We had carried out analyses of what was happening in Sweden-where there were no mandates-versus Quebec: so the mortality rate. We already had statistics. So we brought up statistics; and then we justified the statistics with reports submitted in 2021 by our experts, including Laurent Toubiana, an expert at Inserm [Institut national de la santי et de la recherche mיdicale] in France, who corroborated our allegations.

Samuel Bachand
Now when you say, “We subsequently filed them,” you didn’t file them with the disciplinary authorities, did you?

Stéphane Blais
No, of course it was filed in the appeal for judicial review which is currently under deliberation. But it was also submitted to the disciplinary committee to demonstrate and corroborate our positions at the time.

Samuel Bachand
So ultimately it was also filed with the disciplinary tribunal, called the Disciplinary Board or the Disciplinary Committee?

Stéphane Blais
Yes.

Samuel Bachand
Before the ruling on whether or not you were guilty?
Stéphane Blais
Yes.

Samuel Bachand
All right. Now I’ll come back to your response: You said you had sent the Order’s representative packing.

Stéphane Blais
The syndic, yes.

Samuel Bachand
The syndic, yes, sorry. Is there anything else about your response you’d like to tell us?

Stéphane Blais
What I told them was that freedom of expression rights were guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And that if we compare a prior decision-that of Renי Fortin, CPA, which I texted to you; the guy was banned for four months for watching children being raped on his cell phone- I felt that saying that what was happening with COVID 19 was nothing more than an international coup d’יtat by a clique of powerful thugs against the peoples of the world was far less offensive to the dignity of the profession than watching children being raped on a cell phone.

Samuel Bachand
Now are you referring to the Fortin decision?

Stéphane Blais
Yes.

Samuel Bachand
Okay. I believe you’ve taken the trouble to find the reference to this disciplinary decision?

Stéphane Blais
Yes. The decision was November 2019. I texted it to you.

Samuel Bachand
But you’re the witness. Can you give me the reference for the benefit of the Inquiry?

Stéphane Blais
Of course. Would you like the decision number?

Samuel Bachand
Absolutely.
Stéphane Blais
My pleasure. So the decision number is 47-1900321. The decision was made on November 11, 2019. The syndic was the same one who investigated me: Claude Maurer.

Samuel Bachand
Now, following your reply to the syndic’s letter, which included many items, what happened?

[00:10:00]

Stéphane Blais
The complaints were subsequently upheld by the Disciplinary Committee. I appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and told them that they were a creation of the Quebec government; and I asked the Chair of the Committee to tell me if she had sworn allegiance to protect the institutions. She refused to do so. I also demanded the immediate withdrawal of the syndic, Claude Maurer, because he was restricting my freedom of expression since I had never committed any professional misconduct as an accountant. So he was interfering with an appeal for judicial review, with legal proceedings, and also with my freedom of expression. At the time, I was the leader of a political party called Citoyens au pouvoir du Quיbec. So it was quite absurd not to be able to criticize the Legault government and then, additionally, to see them interfering in legal proceedings.

Samuel Bachand
You were the leader of a registered party? Provincial?

Stéphane Blais
Yes. Absolutely.

Samuel Bachand
For how long?

Stéphane Blais
I’ve been leader since January 2018. It is a party that already existed.

Samuel Bachand
What’s it called?

Stéphane Blais
Citoyens au pouvoir du Quיbec.

Samuel Bachand
Very good. Continue your chronology.

Stéphane Blais
So I was brought before the Disciplinary Committee, and I asked the committee chairperson to tell me whether she had sworn allegiance, and she refused to do so. So I simply said that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I had the right to be tried before an impartial committee; and I demand to appear before a panel where I would be able to have my say and they would have their say. They refused. So I told them this wasn’t Communist China and to go fuck themselves. That sums it up. And after that, I never showed up for any hearings. I let them deliberate and then I got the result we’re seeing today. And if I had to do it all over again, I’d do it a hundred times over.

Samuel Bachand
The result we’re seeing today is what?

Stéphane Blais
It’s a lifetime licence revocation.

Samuel Bachand
And you were the object of a decision in absentia.

Stéphane Blais
Yes, absolutely.

Samuel Bachand
Can you tell us about your experience of this process in absentia?

Stéphane Blais
Well, you wait for a bailiff to bring you the result of the decision. And after that, you put it in the archives. It’s as simple as that. So I have no interest in being part of a professional order-especially accountants who are supposed to understand numbers, analyze the numbers- They were available at the INSPQ [Institut national de santי publique du Quיbec]: there were several expert reports coming out and yet everyone kept their mouth shut. In fact, I blame the experts in Quebec for not coming to the rescue of Quebecers in that crisis. We had to go abroad to find experts to defend Quebecers. So that says a lot about courage.

Samuel Bachand
Let me take you back to the subject of your testimony. I have reason to believe that in the Disciplinary Committee hearings, you raised constitutional and Charter arguments at the outset. What were they, roughly speaking? What is your understanding of your own arguments?

Stéphane Blais
Yes, it was simply that it infringed on my freedom of expression that is guaranteed by the Charter. And that the “dignity of the profession” was not an argument: it’s an undefined Trojan horse that’s a catch-all. When you want to trap someone, you invoke dignity. But what is dignity?

Samuel Bachand
What you’re telling me here are arguments that you, or your attorney, brought to the Committee’s attention?

Stéphane Blais
That’s right. But then I gave up. Because I have bigger fish to fry than a professional order that I no longer want to be part of. So I defended myself on my own and then I gave up. And then I appealed the decision but there were procedural issues and- Well, they weren’t the correct procedures. So case closed. My licence was revoked for life plus 18 months.

Samuel Bachand
Let’s come back to the decision on guilt before talking about the penalty. Obviously, the commissioners have access to the entire text, but the commissioners have access to a lot of texts. So I’d like you to offer them a summary of this decision and its conclusions. What offence were you charged with exactly? And of what were you found guilty?

Stéphane Blais
Yes, well in fact, it’s: an affront to the dignity of the profession and an obstruction to the work of a syndic. I can read the conclusion.

[00:15:00]

Consequently, under the first count-Offence to Dignity-the Board: “finds the respondent guilty with regard to the offence based on section 5 of the Code of Ethics of Chartered Professional Accountants and section 59.2 of the Professional Code: “orders the conditional suspension of proceedings with regard to section 59.2 of the Professional Code.” Under the second count-Obstruction of the Syndic’s Work-it “finds the respondent guilty of the offence based on Section 60 of the Code of Ethics of Chartered Professional Accountants and Section 114 of the Professional Code.”

Samuel Bachand
What conduct was alleged to be obstructive? What had you done that was called obstructive?

Stéphane Blais
Well, I was criticized for not having cooperated in a timely fashion. In fact, the syndic’s questions were answered some 20 days after I had initially refused to do so-on the recommendation of Monsieur Bertrand, my lawyer at the time. At the committee meeting later, I upset the syndic a little by telling him it was a real disgrace to the profession and that he should resign on the spot, and then I gave him 15 minutes to think about resigning. They didn’t like that.

Samuel Bachand
Is that why you’ve been accused-correct me if I’m wrong-of trying to intimidate the syndic?

Stéphane Blais
That time, yes, I did intimidate the syndic.

Samuel Bachand
All right, then. Now, the sanction decision.

Stéphane Blais
Yes, so it’s a lifetime licence revocation plus 18 months. I had trouble understanding-

Samuel Bachand
There’s a legal principle behind it.

Stéphane Blais
But, you never know; maybe it’ll get reinstated, I don’t know. And there’s a $20,000 fine. And a bailiff comes every month or so to bring me my payment notice, which I haven’t paid. I don’t have any money left; I can’t pay it. I won’t pay it either.

Samuel Bachand
By way of comparison, in relation to the sanction you’ve suffered or are subjected to, I think you were speaking earlier about the Fortin affair- Fortin, was it?

Stéphane Blais
Yes.

Samuel Bachand
Right, in which the defendant was sentenced to a suspension of how long?

Stéphane Blais
Four months, for using a cell phone to watch children being raped.

Samuel Bachand
All right. For my part, that concludes your testimony. I’ll leave the floor open for any further questions from the commissioners.

Commissioner Massie
Good day, Monsieur Blais.

Stéphane Blais
Hello.

Commissioner Massie
My first question is- Well, I understand from your testimony that your case is still being reviewed. Or is it completely over?

Stéphane Blais
It’s over.

Commissioner Massie
And the representations you made concerning the challenge to the law on health measures-is that also settled?

Stéphane Blais
Actually, the judicial review appeals are still alive. We have a judicial review appeal regarding the curfew which is on stand-by; the same goes for the masks. And we have a general appeal covering all measures which is currently under deliberation: it’s been four months. So we had the hearing on the government’s request to dismiss for theoretical reasons. We had another hearing on March 13 because we found a document that had been hidden from us, by either the lawyers or the government.

Right now, they’re still trying to figure out who hid the document from us. It was a directive from the Deputy Minister of Health to the effect that masks were mandatory in the health sector. So as for the argument that it was theoretical, until very recently everyone who went to the hospital had to wear a mask, otherwise they were removed by security guards or police officers. The judge is still deliberating on this point. The three appeals for judicial review are still alive. So there you have it.

Commissioner Massie
Obviously, as it’s underway at the moment, we can’t-

Stéphane Blais
We won’t go into too much detail. I know that Lili Monier is coming to testify and she’ll probably talk in a little more detail about the appeal for general judicial review, which is under deliberation.

Commissioner Massie
Are there any cases like this? In Quebec, I don’t think there are any others-but in Canada or in other jurisdictions?

Stéphane Blais
I don’t know of any appeals for judicial review that cover all of the measures and that are still pending, other than the ones we filed. Other appeals have been filed. For example, the Foundation helped Mr. Rocco Galati via Vaccine Choice Canada but the case was dismissed.
[00:20:00]

So as far as I can tell, only we remain to cover all aspects of the health crisis, both legally and scientifically.

Commissioner Massie
Thank you very much.

Stéphane Blais
It’s my pleasure.

Commissioner Massie
Any questions?

Commissioner Kaikkonen
[In English] Thank you for your testimony. I did try to follow as much as I could, so if I missed something, I’m sorry. But you did mention at one point there about the barriers: that the procedures were what held you back as a barrier. Is there something that would help other people as well?

Stéphane Blais
I don’t understand- The barrier . . . of what?

Samuel Bachand
The procedural hurdles that have been placed before you.

Stéphane Blais
Ah, the barriers. Okay, sorry. Sorry, okay. I don’t understand the sense of your question. Could you repeat please?

Commissioner Kaikkonen
So you’d mentioned that the procedures were one of the barriers. You didn’t actually use the word “barriers,” but the procedures kind of stopped you because there’s so many procedures in going into either a tribunal or the courts.

And I’m just wondering if you have any recommendations?

Stéphane Blais
Well, actually, it always comes to the same point. Okay. So yes, it always comes to the same point: that the narrative for the general public is given by the mainstream media. As long as the mainstream media continues to hammer home the narrative of those who own them, it’s going to be very difficult for the people to move forward. So what’s really needed is for people to realize that the media are, as Tucker Carlson used to say, the Praetorian Guard of-
Samuel Bachand
With the Commissioner’s permission, sorry: I’d just like to refocus the witness and then maybe make sure he answers the question about procedural hurdles, not the question of media.

Stéphane Blais
Okay, well, the court is the court. So we followed the procedures, which are very, very long. If we’re talking about my professional order- I hope that the professional orders will regain their power because I’d like to digress here to talk about the Quebec government’s interference in the professional orders. This is very important because I forgot to mention that two days after Guy Bertrand’s lawsuit was filed, Madame Marie-Josיe Corriveau [a lawyer], who was already president of all the disciplinary committees, was made president; and then two days later, there was the syndic’s investigation. But you have to understand that from that moment on, there was a witch hunt in Quebec. Daniel Pilon, an accountant, was also disbarred for life. And well, we know what’s going on with Gloriane Blais.

Samuel Bachand
So listen, since you mentioned Monsieur Pilon, can you just tell the court a little bit about the accusations against him?

Stéphane Blais
It’s the same thing. Once again, it’s the fact of being on social networks and speaking out against the government narrative that earned him the same sanction as me. He had his licence revoked for life plus a $10,000 fine.

Samuel Bachand
Now, to better answer Commissioner Kaikkonen’s question, I have a suggestion to make to you: Tell us about the response deadlines imposed on you or given in the syndic’s letter asking you 76 questions.

Stéphane Blais
Yes, excellent. On Friday June 12, I received an e-mail at 2 p.m., which I didn’t read. At 9 p.m., I opened my e-mails and saw that a second e-mail from the syndic had arrived. It was 8 p.m. on a Friday, and he said, “I require answers immediately.” So he was in a hurry to get answers. And we knew very well that it had something to do with the lawsuits that had been filed against the Quebec government. So what I said was, “You’re interfering, and this is a political request.”

Samuel Bachand
Okay, just to make sure that your testimony is extremely clear on the subject: What was the deadline given to you in the letter of the 12th?

Stéphane Blais
It was immediate.

Samuel Bachand
It said immediately? In the letter?

Stéphane Blais
At 2 p.m., he demands an immediate response.

Samuel Bachand
And there are 76 questions.

Stéphane Blais
There are 76 questions. So it was completely ridiculous. I spoke to Monsieur Bertrand. He said, “Well, listen, answer the questions.” At the time, I refused to answer the questions. Then, about 20 days later, he convinced me to write to the syndic to say that we were going to answer the questions.

[00:25:00]

Samuel Bachand
What happened after you answered?

Stéphane Blais
Well as you know, I replied; they put it in the archives; and following that, I had the Disciplinary Committee which accepted the syndic’s complaints; and we proceeded.

Samuel Bachand
To be precise, could we say that the Disciplinary Committee was occupied with a complaint from the syndic?

Stéphane Blais
Oh yes.

Samuel Bachand
At this stage?

Stéphane Blais
Yes, yes.

Samuel Bachand
Then between the time you first send them packing and the time you responded on the advice of your attorney, what happened during those 20 days?

Stéphane Blais
It depends. Are we talking about the global environment?

Samuel Bachand
No, no. In the disciplinary process?

Stéphane Blais
In the process, I didn’t have-

Samuel Bachand
Didn’t you get a reminder from the syndic or whatever?

Stéphane Blais
No. Not that I can remember. I simply replied with a little “get lost,”- If I recall, it was “go fuck yourself.” So I think he got the message. And Guy Bertrand told me to be gentler and answer the questions, which is what I did later.

Samuel Bachand
Writing is always easier than speaking, isn’t it?

Stéphane Blais
Yes, yes. But I’d still like to mention that Marie-Josיe Corriveau-lawyer Marie Josיe Corriveau-was the subject of a complaint for interference-

Samuel Bachand
Well, listen, I’m going to stop you there. It’s off topic. So if the commissioners want even more-

Commissioner Kaikkonen
Thank you.

Stéphane Blais
It’s a pleasure, always a pleasure.

Samuel Bachand
On behalf of the Inquiry, I’d like to thank you for your testimony. You are free to go.

Stéphane Blais
Thank you, Samuel. Thank you.

[00:26:44]

Final Review and Approval: Erin Thiessen, November 12, 2023.

The evidence offered in this transcript is a true and faithful record of witness testimony given during the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) hearings. The transcript was prepared by members of a team of volunteers using an “intelligent verbatim” transcription method, and further translated from the original French.

For further information on the transcription process, method, and team, see the NCI website: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/about-these-translations/

Summary

Stéphane Blais, a former accountant, shares his story of standing up against mandates and injustices during the pandemic. After filing a petition to the courts on behalf of human rights, he faced disciplinary action from the Disciplinary Committee of Accountants and was ultimately banned from practicing his profession. In this video, he speaks out about the importance of standing up for what is right, even in the face of adversity, and shares his experiences with fighting for human rights.