Getting back to this issue: as I understand the argument, it’s not simply rule by the French; as you state, that ended over two centuries ago. The argument is that the social mind-set about government corruption was largely created during that time, and became part of the social mores in New France. As I said, I don’t know enough about it to say whether that’s a valid argument, but from what I’ve read about political corruption in other countries, one of the strongest indicators about why corruption exists is not the lack of anti-corruption laws, but the level of social acceptance.
As well, I’m not sure I agree with the assumption that we’re not someplace where baksheesh rules, but I also don’t want to make it sound like everyone in Quebec is in on it, and accepts it.
On the first point, and following up on Cat Whisperer’s comment, one of the points that came out at the Charbonneau Commission testimony a few months ago is that everyone in the construction industry knows that pouring concrete is more expensive in Montreal than anywhere else in Quebec. The price per cubic yard is higher for construction projects in Montreal. Why should that be? it just is…
But, and this is something I can’t emphasize enough, is that I don’t want my comments to be interpreted as suggesting everyone in Quebec is corrupt. That’s not the case. Much of the Quiet Revolution was about Quebecois pushing back hard against corruption.
We tend to think of the Quiet Revolution as mainly about social, linguistic and religious issues, but at the time, a big part of the driving force for the Quiet Revolution was outrage in Quebec about the level of corruption. That was one of the factors that brought people like Trudeau, Pelletier, Marchand, Levesque and Ryan into public affairs.
The Union Nationale was widely seen as corrupt; it was an unholy marriage of the elites in Quebec (both franco and anglo) running the province without a lot of democratic accountability. For instance, in its 20+ years in power under Duplessis, the U.N. never charged membership fees nor ran fund-raising drives. How can a political party afford to contest elections successfully for decades without money? Well it had money…just didn’t feel any need to tell anyone where it came from… It wasn’t until Duplessis died that the UN started moving towards more openness and accountability, but by then it was too late for its survival.
Think of the major civil liberties court cases that came from Quebec in the 50s - the padlock case, the oppression of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by the police, the Premier personally pulling Roncarelli’s liquor licence to put him out of business; all of those were indicators of a deep corruption issue.
And, I want to make it clear, I’m not saying it’s everyone in Quebec - the reformers of the Quiet Revolution pushed back hard against corruption, with considerable success. When Levesque came to power, he brought in some of the most stringent campaign finance laws in Canada. Trudeau at the federal level pushed hard for the Charter, because he saw the guarantee of basic rights as one of the best measures to prevent corruption.
Nonetheless, studies of corruption across the world indicate that once it is established within a body politic, it is very difficult to eradicate. Rigourous enforcement of anti-corruption laws are important, but the social mind-set is equally a factor. That too has to change for corruption to be eliminated.