In Quebec, we can boast of engineering consultants who charge $2,300 an hour to advise small towns on their infrastructure.
We have a government that continues to hand out millions of dollars in contracts to companies after they've admitted to inflating prices and cutting off competition.
The air is thick with accusations and rumours of organized crime's involvement in the province's construction industry.
How much more evidence do we need that a public inquiry should be called? The Charest government insists that the best course is to let the police get on with the job of investigating each and every instance of price-rigging and corruption that the media or the auditor-general uncover or someone is brave enough to denounce.
But even the police don't think they're up to the job that needs to be done. On Monday, Jean-Guy Dagenais, president of the Association des policières et policiers du Québec - the Sûreté du Québec union, said only an inquiry has the powers to uncover the big picture: how it was possible for government construction contracts to be manipulated to the benefit of corrupt players in the industry. That's beyond the case-by-case remit of the police.
It doesn't help the Charest government that the crown prosecutors' association has also chimed in, saying a public inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of what looks like systematic, long-term price-fixing in Quebec's public-works contracts.
The Charest government and its one remaining anti-inquiry ally, the construction union, QFL-Construction, have put up two objections. One, that a public inquiry will interfere with the work of police and prosecutors. The fact that police and prosecutors are calling for an inquiry should drive a stake through the heart of that argument.
The second objection comes from the Quebec Labour Federation. After Radio-Canada reported that organized crime has infiltrated the construction industry, including the unions, QFL members say they fear they will be made the scapegoats in the affair.
That assumes the terms of a commission of inquiry would be somehow twisted to be disadvantageous to them. There is no reason to think this.
The advantages of a commission outweigh other considerations in this case. Consider the allegations: Widespread corruption and collusion, price-fixing and anti-competitive practices on a scale that might involve the entire province.
How can we not have a commission of inquiry?