National Post David Frum - Well that was a real service to Canada. Parliament worried that Canadians could not make up their own minds about Maclean’s’ reporting on corruption in the province of Quebec. So Parliament helpfully undertook the job itself, unanimously expressing “profound sadness” at the Sept. 24 article that supposedly “denigrated the Quebec nation, its history and its institutions.”
As Maclean’s itself notes, this recent vote is not Parliament’s first entry into media criticism. In 2006, Parliament condemned another piece about Quebec, that one in The Globe and Mail by Jan Wong.
What’s helpful about these double precedents is the clarifying message they send when taken together. Parliament does not purport to assess every single article about every imaginable subject. That would obviously be impossibly time-consuming. It’s only articles about Quebec that require comment from the national authorities.
But there’s a real risk of unfairness here. Will Parliament only blame, but never praise?
Here’s an article published the very same day as the Maclean’s piece so painfully traducing Quebec’s, ahem, “institutions.” The article is charmingly titled: “Quebec City: A French Canadian Treasure,” and it appeared on Mangalorean.com, a website serving expatriates of the south Indian city.
Surely such a positive presentation of Quebec deserves solemn national commendation — a resolution of its very own? Otherwise, there’s a risk that future writers will merely refrain from saying what Parliament does not want them to say, rather than working actively to say what Parliament does want them to say.
Still, Parliament did speak loudly enough for the publishers of Maclean’s to hear the message. Rogers, Maclean’s’ parent company, Thursday released its own statement of regret. Parliament succeeded in intimidating a major Canadian private corporation. We shall see whether it has also succeeded in quashing future investigations into Quebec political corruption.
The thing that one most admires about Parliament’s action is its bipartisanship.
Quebec’s current round of corruption scandals involves a Liberal government. The anti-Maclean’s resolution was introduced into the federal Parliament by a Bloc Québécois MP. You might expect that the Bloc would relish reporting that embarrassed the Liberals. But no: Quebec politicians disagree about much — but they can all join together as one to reject any outside criticism.
Some may wonder: What specifically about the Maclean’s piece gave such offence? The piece was built upon uncontested facts, including such nuggets as the information that to build a highway in Quebec costs 30% more per mile than anywhere else in Canada. It quoted acknowledged experts, including Quebec politicians. Nobody has detected — or even suggested — any important errors of fact or interpretation in the piece.
But to ask the question is to misunderstand the problem.
In the old law of England, there existed a crime of “seditious libel” — a libel that specifically affected the reputation of the sovereign. In a case of seditious libel, truth was not a defence. Very much to the contrary: As the saying went, truth compounded libel.
If you said the king was an imbecile, when he was not an imbecile, that would be bad. But if you said the king was an imbecile and he actually was an imbecile — that would be very, very much worse.
And so here. The truth of the allegation is not disputed. Indeed it is almost universally accepted. (See for example Jean-Francois Lisée’s column in L’Actualité, critiquing the piece but nonetheless acknowledging:
“1) alleged and probably rampant political-donation-for-contracts schemes of the current Quebec government; 2) alleged and demonstrably occurring strong-arm tactics and graft culture of one major element of one of many Quebec unions; and 3) [an] alleged and probably rife bidding-rigging system of a group of contractors (dubbed ‘the fabulous 14’) in the Montreal area since earlier in the decade.”
It is the truth of the allegation, not the falsity, that is the affront.
The Bloc Québécois MPs are playing the same victim game played by Al Sharpton, Eva Peron and James Michael Curley. “When they accuse me, they insult you!”
But it is no insult to call on voters to reform a dirty political system. It is the dirty political system itself that is the insult — because after all, it is the voters’ money that is stolen. Quebecers pay taxes. Quebecers pay federal taxes. When Quebec grafters purloin federal dollars, they are at least 20% purloining Quebec dollars, and when they filch provincial dollars, they are 100% filching Quebec dollars.
The people who wrong Quebecers are not those who publicize the facts.
The people who wrong Quebecers are those who would hush the facts.
National Post
©David Frum
dfrum@frumforum.com