Quebec Corruption: Maclean's Vindicated, Time for Bashers to Apologize

Gilles Vaillancourt..alleged 'Godfather' of Laval corruption

It didn't come as a surprise that the ex-mayor of Laval (Quebec's third largest city) was finally arrested over corruption, what was astounding was the fact that another 37 big shots were also arrested and that Gilles Vaillancourt along with two others who ran Laval city hall were charged with 'gangsterism'

Now 'gangsterism' is a relatively new concept to Canadian law and was created in 1997 to deal with organized crime, particularly the Mafia and street gangs who organize themselves into groups which are in essence companies whose business is crime.

The charge of gangsterism has never been used in respect to political graft and it reflects how solid the proof is in regards to those charged.

In effect, the police concluded and believe they can prove that Vaillancourt led an organized gang of thieves that systematically bilked Laval taxpayers of millions and  millions of dollars, by overpaying on construction contracts in anticipation of kickbacks.

The investigation was long, over three years and considering the scope, it is a credit to police that it has finally resulted in so many charges.
The rumours surrounding the investigation are shocking if true. It has been said that the police recovered a detailed summary of illegal donations made to politicians of all political stripes and that up to $15 million has been shipped off to Caribbean tax havens. What police do confirm is that they discovered almost half a million dollars in cash, stuffed into safe deposit boxes controlled by the ex-mayor.
Vaillancourt has claimed innocence, but with the wealth of evidence that the police are boasting they possess, much of it provided by inside sources who have cut a deal with prosecutors, it seems that the ex-mayor's goose is pretty well cooked.

While among the arrested, there remains a hard core of closed-mouth crooks, look to the weak-kneed professionals, who once threatened with real jail time, will crack rather quickly and spill the beans. The whole illegal scheme involves too many weak links to respect the principle of Omertà.
At any rate, it is pretty clear that two of the men at the center of the controversy have already turned states evidence. While police didn't confirm this, events surrounding their behavior and the fact that they weren't arrested along with the rest of the cabal is pretty clear evidence as to what is going on.

Robert Lafrenière, the head of the investigative unit told an interviewer that the investigation looked at corruption all the way back to 1976, a cutoff date artificially imposed for practical and financial reasons. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Laval has been run by criminals for at least forty years, spanning several mayoralties.
And remember, the shoe hasn't yet dropped on the crooks at Montreal city hall and their related co-conspirators, but it is coming.
The  Charbonneau Commission went in camera several times recently and according to the judge it was done in order not to jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations. 
So it is only a matter of time before this next hammer falls, another devastating blow to Quebec's honesty index.

While rumor, innuendo and unproven accusations may be the stock-in-trade of the Charbonneau Commission, the arrests of so many players in Laval including the ex-mayor, his chief aides, important businessmen and professionals and the seriousness of the charges, puts paid any notion that other provinces are as corrupt as Quebec, something that apologists in the media have put forward as a defense.

Now I'd like you to think back to that Maclean's article entitled 'The Most Corrupt Province in Canada.' I don't have to remind you that the charges made in that article, which were shocking at the time, have been dwarfed by the revelations made since the publication of the story.

We all remember the virulent reaction and charges of "Quebec-bashing' made by politicians, the media and Quebec-can-do-no-wrong defenders, who should have let the chips fall where they might before taking such a strident position.

"Patriquin, Maclean's Quebec bureau chief, said the magazine is legitimately exploring the history of corruption in Quebec.
He said people should read the entire five pages dedicated to the story before casting judgment. According to the article, Quebec had been described by historians as far back as 1968 as the most corrupt region of North America.
"The idea that this is Quebec bashing is frankly moronic," Patriquin told CBC News. "We hit hard with our covers. We have done this for other regions in Canada. [Anyone who says] that we are singling out Quebec for any reason hasn't read any of the other issues we put out in a year."

In light of all that has transpired, one would expect a round of apologies. Instead, those who bashed the magazine and the authors are keeping silent, secure in the knowledge that Canada's vapid core of somnolent and intimidated reporters will give them a pass.
We've seen it before, the press' unwillingness to confront the NDP over the lie of Jack Layton's illness.
It is the Canadians Press' dirty little secret, that important stories are ignored in order to maintain good relations with those public figures that the reporters cover, in a shameful effort to maintain access.

And so those who have wrongly smeared Maclean's can stay silent, secure in the knowledge that nobody will call them out publicly, in other words, a wink and a nod, say no more, and Bob's your uncle!

Since Maclean's and its authors are too honorable to point out the obvious and since nobody to my knowledge has done so, it befalls to me to remind everyone of what they said, and to denounce them publicly for their lack of courage in admitting that they were dead wrong.
Jonathan Kay of the National Post did write an article, where tongue in cheek, he apologized to Maclean's on behalf of Canada, but the article did not remind us exactly what was said and by whom.

Now everybody in journalism, the opinion business or the political game, stands the chance of getting an opinion, a fact or even a complete story wrong.
I've done it myself and recognize that admitting a mistake and apologizing is the moral and fair thing to do, especially when reputations are at stake.
All that is required is that whomever made a mistake, offer a small "My Bad" or 'mea culpa.'
This is what a fair apology should look like.

Now of all those denunciations of Maclean's and the two authors, the most egregious fault came from the Quebec Press Council which by its condemnation and its subsequent refusal to admit its mistake has lost all credibility as an impartial and fair adjudicator in matters pertaining to fairness in the press. Perhaps Maclean's knew what we didn't, the fact that they couldn't get a fair shake from this august body and so chose not to participate in the lynching. Laughably, the Quebec Press council also cited Maclean's for not publishing the condemnation issued by the Council.

"In a March 18 decision that was made public Tuesday, the seven-member watchdog unanimously blamed the publication for the headline and "a lack of journalistic rigour."The council concluded that Maclean's did not prove Quebec was the most corrupt province and that the article was based on perceptions.
The magazine didn't collaborate with the press council and offered no defence against the complaints filed by Gilles Rheaume, a well-known militant Quebec sovereigntist.
A Maclean's spokeswoman said Tuesday the publication preferred not to comment. The council has asked the magazine to make the decision public.
A majority of council members also found that journalist Martin Patriquin and columnist Andrew Coyne did not show Quebec was the most corrupt province despite amassing several points of view about the existence of a series of corruption cases.
The council wrote that no thorough and rigorous analysis was done to compare Quebec with other provinces in terms of corruption.
Six of the seven council members also took Mr. Patriquin to task for writing that problems encountered by Premier Jean Charest's government were part of a "long line of made-in Quebec corruption that has affected the province's political culture at every level."
They said Mr. Patriquin displayed a lack of journalistic rigour.
"We are forced to conclude that they (the comments) reveal prejudice and are all the more condemnable under the circumstances as they carry prejudices against all Quebecers," the council wrote.
That lack of rigour was also attributed to a column by Mr. Coyne." Link

Now the second most serious condemnation came from Premier Jean Charest, because as head of the Quebec government he spoke on behalf of us all.
As you know, (for personal reasons) I never publicly criticized him while in power, but today he is retired from politics and while still a personal friend, I couldn't write this piece honestly without calling him out for the letter he sent to the editiors of the magazine.

Mr. Stevenson:
I’m writing in regards to your sensationalist “feature” on Québec. Your article met none of the basic standards of journalism. By authorizing its publication, describing Québec as “The Most Corrupt Province in Canada,” you have discredited your magazine.
Far from serious journalism, which is supported by facts in  evidence, your article tries to demonstrate a simplistic and offensive thesis that Québecers are genetically incapable of acting with integrity.
Drawing on recent debates, you have concocted an assortment of dubious conclusions, unproven allegations, and isolated events, in which you confuse premier Duplessis, public service unions, the Quiet Revolution, state intervention, our Catholic roots, and above all the sovereignist movement.
With this twisted form of journalism and ignorance, any society would be painted in a poor light.
This is not the first time Maclean’s has published such an article. Less than a year ago, your magazine included a similar story about Montréal......

Jean Charest, Premier of Québec. Read the rest of the letter

In the cruel light of recent facts, the letter is sadly pathetic, particularly the part where he complains that the magazine unfairly bashed the city of Montreal over corruption, in a previous story.

Here's some notable players who also need to apologize.

Denis Coderre 
 "It's the Plains of Abraham disease, wherein we're viewed condescendingly and with contempt."
"...To generalize like that, I find it totally inacceptable" Link

'Uncle' Thom Mulcair
"Quebec New Democrat MP Thomas Mulcair said he is sickened by the magazine's treatment of the issue from the cover to the content.
He said there is no evidence Quebec's history with corruption is worse than any other province.
"It's the worst type of group smear you could think of," Mulcair told CBC News on Friday. "It's beneath contempt." Link

Nathalie Normandeau
The ex-Liberal deputy premier was visibly irritated by the article and said her government would formally ask Maclean’s to apologize because, she insisted, it attacks not just the government but all of the Quebec people. Link

Montreal Gazette Editorial
"Could it be true? Did Maclean’s prove its case? Or is the article just another in a long line of gratuitously offensive sorties against the one province that dares to insist on having its own identity, complete with European style state interference in the economy?...Maclean’s is wrong. It didn’t come close to making its case. The haste with which the magazine slid past the shortcomings of other provinces, while lingering on 80-year-old scandals out of Quebec, was remarkable.The Maclean’s article is a journalistic drive-by shooting."

The Montreal Gazette pulled this  article by journalist Henry Aubin from the web, concerning his take on the Maclean's story. I can only wonder why.
 Henry Aubin 
"Yes, Quebec has a putrid level of corruption. But the problem is with that one crucial word -"most." Is corruption really worse here than elsewhere in Canada ? It could well be. But it’s a serious accusation -one that could easily affect outsiders’ investment decisions. The national magazine makes no attempt to compare the situation in Quebec empirically with that in other provinces.
To be sure, Maclean’s lists some headline-making scandals in other provinces, and it concludes that since more such cases have been unearthed in Quebec than elsewhere this province has to be the most corrupt.
The flaw in logic here is blatant. Corruption by definition is hidden. There is no way of knowing how much goes on out of sight...." Alternate Link

Now I'm not going to cite the many Maclean's bashers on the francophone side who would never in a million years apologize or even consider that they were wrong, it serves no purpose. The exception is Jean-François Lisée,  who wrote what he assumed was a clever rebuke in English to Maclean's denouncing the story.

No wait ! Maybe one of these titles came from another magazine. No matter. Having been a journalist for a couple of decades, I did try to find in last week’s issue the methodology used to grant Québec its number one spot on the corruption scale. I was curious to know who was number two, and how wide the margin was – as in Maclean’s yearly university rankings. Did the writers use the number of corruption convictions of elected officials in each province since 2000 ? The cash amount proven to have changed hands illegally? Or, since no conviction is to be found in Québec (yet ?), the number of police inquiries in play ? I was disappointed. Maclean’s has no comparison metrics whatsoever. The whole cover is based on opinion and perception alone. Hopes for a Pulitzer on this one are dim.
So, just what is the fuss about ? A screaming headline loosely based on facts ? They’re a dime a dozen. They sell. And Maclean’s is in the selling business. So all would be forgiven, if it were not for Andrew Coyne’s scoop that Quebecer’s are impervious to « constructive criticism ». Let’s try. Link

To this day, Wikipedia still lists the Maclean's article under the citation of 'Quebec-bashing.' Link{fr}

I spoke to one Quebec-apologist about getting it wrong and his subsequent refusal to apologize.
His answer intrigued me because it is typical of the language/sovereignty industry where spin, slide and sometimes fanciful facts and interpretations are used to explain away any trifling set of facts or circumstances.

According to him, the magazine was clearly at fault because at the time they could not have known of the deep and dark depth of corruption in Quebec, as the damaging facts hadn't yet come to light.
And so, according to him, Maclean's and the reporters involved just got 'lucky' that things turned out the way they did.

I looked at him incredulously, shook my head and told him the story of  Lamar Gillett, the only P-35 pilot in World War II to shoot down a Japanese Zero fighter.
When asked to explain his heroic exploits, he told the interviewer that;
"It's better to be lucky than good. I was lucky I was behind the Zero instead of in front of him."