The controversy over the Maclean’s cover story on political corruption in Quebec has brought to the surface an explosive mix of touchy subjects.
What has been gained? What are we to make of this episode? What effect will it have on the province’s political landscape?
Maclean’s seldom shies away from controversy and its story, the commentary, and the picture of Bonhomme Carnaval with a briefcase full of cash were indeed provocative.
Reading the critiques, one can understand why so many see it as just another case of “Quebec bashing” rather than the “constructive criticism” the magazine reportedly intended.
Critics of the magazine do not claim corruption doesn’t exist in Quebec. It does, there’s too much of it, and most Quebecers don’t like it. That explains widespread support for an inquiry and is a major reason why public approval of the Charest government has been sagging.
In that context, what will be the effect of the Maclean’s bombshell?
At first, the effect was obvious: Maclean’s sold dozens of copies and received lots of free publicity.
For Jean Charest, who stepped up to the plate immediately and asked Maclean’s for an apology he knew he’d never get, the episode meant temporary relief from his troubles over judicial nominations.
In the longer run, however, the affair may be much less favourable for Charest and Quebec federalists.
If the episode sticks in collective memory as another example of “Quebec bashing,” it will add to the alienation that leads many Quebecers to lose faith in the Canadian federation, thus giving sovereignists fresh rhetorical ammunition.
In the politics of Quebec nationalism, strong symbols of rejection by English Canada — like the adoption of the 1982 Constitution Act without the consent of Quebec or the 1990 death of Meech Lake — endure as powerful motivations for sovereignist support.
Of course, individual instances of Quebec bashing do not weigh as heavily in the balance of opinion formation on sovereignty, but their effect is not unlike the proverbial death by a thousand cuts: each cut doesn’t hurt much, but the cumulative effect adds up.
What if the cut is superficial and easily forgotten? What if Quebecers only remember the “constructive criticism”? What happens then?
For Charest’s Liberals, it’s not much better. By shining yet another spotlight on corruption, it keeps the issue at the forefront of the electoral battle. And the Liberals, now well into their third mandate, definitely own the issue.
At the federal level, elections are closer and this controversy is a boon for the Bloc Québécois. It has been a golden opportunity for the Bloc to rise in defence of Quebec’s interests.
In doing so, it even sparked a new controversy by pushing through a unanimous vote on a motion that mentioned, in its English version, the “Quebec nation” rather than the “Québécois nation.”
This semantic difference will bring back to the surface the inherent contradiction in the November 2006 motion recognizing Quebecers as a nation, which referred to a civic nation in its French version and to an ethnic nation in English.
Moreover, since it cannot hold power, the Bloc has everything to gain if power’s Siamese twin — corruption — is a central campaign theme. If the focus remains on political corruption, the Liberals will find it even harder to shake off their own taint from the decade-old sponsorship scandal.
The Conservatives, in hot water over a shady lobbying case concerning renovations to the Parliament Buildings, will be carrying many other pieces of baggage on the campaign trail. Stephen Harper will also face criticism if his party displays its largesse a little too blatantly around Quebec swing ridings.
The next campaigns should be interesting, but keep Bonhomme Carnaval out of it. All the blood and mud flying around may not agree with his bright white costume.
Pierre Martin is a professor of political science at the Université de Montréal.