I have to ask. What is it with the corruption in Quebec?
I work in Ontario for a crown corporation and have been part of a team that has awarded multimillion dollar contracts, and I can tell you that absolutely everything about the process is above the table and transparent to all.
So, what is it about Quebec? Why?
I have to ask that question too, Leaffan. During the past five weeks I have been in Québec, and the Charbonneau Commission investigating corruption was on the news Every. Bloody. Night.
The the city government of Laval has been put under external management. The police picked up some guy who, if I was understanding my host family correctly, was the director of a hospital in Montréal, and one day he decided to grab as much cash as he could get his hands on and head for Panama. There was a more-or-less normal outdoor swimming pool that somehow ended up costing over a million dollars. There are apparently hands in every pocket and Mafiosi in every closet.
Compared to that, Toronto corruption is run by a bunch of bumbling amateurs.
I just got word of this on Facebook. I still can’t believe what I’m seeing and hearing on this video
Hey, you can buy our mayor for a few hits on the old crack pipe, rumour has it … 
Care to share for those of us blocked at work.
What former minister, O’Connor? And what’s he saying?
ETA: nvm. Just googled the story. Wow.
nm
Its Paul Hellyer. He claims that western governments, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg group have been keeping secret that there are 4 species of extra terrestrial aliens who have been visiting earth and presently a couple are living on US air force property in the desert. One of these species are known as the “Tall Whites”.
Those aren’t aliens. They’re my Swedish cousins.
I defy anyone to prove that Paul Hellyer is not an alien.
Been that way for the 20th century, if the grumblings of my parents, my grandparents and their friends were correct.
More Rob Ford news (really, we should ask the SDMB management to make us. Rob Ford stickie):
Supreme Court will announce Thursday whether or not it will hear the appeal in the court case challenging Ford’s eligibility to stay as mayor, because of that conflict of interest allegation.
Can I just move to some big city in Canada that has a respectable mayor?
Vancouver?
He’s been saying stuff like this for years now.
Koo Koo for Cocoa Puffs.
My husband works for a major player in the construction industry in Canada and the US, and they have historically not touched jobs in Quebec because of the corruption.
Sorry, we’re full. 
[QUOTE=Leaffan]
I have to ask. What is it with the corruption in Quebec?
I work in Ontario for a crown corporation and have been part of a team that has awarded multimillion dollar contracts, and I can tell you that absolutely everything about the process is above the table and transparent to all.
So, what is it about Quebec? Why?
[/QUOTE]
I have heard the argument advanced that it goes back to the fundamental difference between the economic basis for New France and the English colonies. New France was an exploitive economic model, primarily furs, while the English colonies were settlers’ colonies. (That’s not to say that there weren’t settlers in New France, or fur traders in the English colonies; just that the focus was different.)
That in turn meant that the goals of the inhabitants were different: in New France, there was a strong tendency for a French colonist to come out with the goal of making a pile, then return to France. While in the English colonies, the goal was to build a new society. The exploitive economic model, so goes this theory, lends itself more to institutional corruption, and societal acceptance of it, than does the settler model.
There’s also the fact that the English model of government during the formative period of the English/British colonies (say, 1650 to 1750) was steadily moving towards public accountability for finances - that was a major part of the parliamentarian revolt, and the Glorious Revolution afterwards. By contrast, during the same period, the French model of government was moving steadily towards autocratic, centralised government and finances. (Note that the collapse of the French monarchy’s treasury was a major factor in the French Revolution.) The theory is that these differences in attitudes towards public finances became deeply engrained in the social models of New France and in the English colonies, and that the autocratic, centralised French system leant itself more to corruption, because there were no institutional checks on public corruption.
The final step in the theory is the argument that even though these differences arose three centuries ago, they contributed to different social acceptance of corruption levels, a social acceptance which has carried forward even today.
I don’t know enough about the area to assess how valid these explanations are, but I have heard them advanced.
A couple of questions:
(A) Is Paul Hellyer still alive? If so, how old is he?
(B) If he is as old as I think he is, does his word still carry any weight? Or is he a retired, doddering old man, whose opinions can be dismissed as those of a retired, doddering old man?
Understand, Northern Piper, I am not discounting your theory, but I’m left wondering: after three centuries of non-French rule (of which were 146 years of Canadian rule), how can Quebec politicians not get it?
We’re not someplace where baksheesh rules, or where “greasing a palm” makes things happen. I’m not entirely sure that I agree with the “well, they’re French,” attitude. Quebec has been a part of Confederation long enough to know that our system of government doesn’t put up with that.
How can the Quebec citizenry put up with such things?
Well obviously, when they find out they do do something about it.
My personal theory would be that the pool of politicians (and maybe more importantly their senior staff) in Quebec is both limited in numbers and consequently networked to the hilt. Municipal staffing outside of Quebec has the entire country to pull from when looking for senior staff. Migration between regions is higher meaning networks don’t necessarily concentrate in-region.
But really municipal politics tend to always make provincial and federal politics look positively enlightened.
I think it is extremely unlikely the Supremes will hear it. Not of sufficient national importance, too fact specific, etc.