Political suicide bomber Benoit Labonté has blown up his own career, just 10 days before Montreal's civic election. It remains to be seen how much collateral damage he has done to either of the major city parties, and their leaders.
In a bombshell interview with Radio-Canada this week, Labonté claimed to know of widespread, deep-rooted, systematic corruption in party financing and public-works contracting in Montreal, and claimed that city hall harbours a pervasive culture of don't-ask-don't-tell about this.
In a surreal twist, he claimed to be doing this to clear his name. Let's see now: He was a member of the executive committee under Mayor Gérald Tremblay, then leader of the opposition, then sidekick to Vision Montréal mayoral candidate Louise Harel, and all this time he knew city hall was reeking with sleaze, and he never went to the police? How is this revelation supposed to make him look better? If his claims are true, he has shown himself to be a swamp creature, no less than anyone else in the know.
Still, Labonté's claims have certainly rocked the election campaign. For icing on the cake, an Action démocratique member of the National Assembly claimed Thursday that three of Premier Jean Charest's ministers have enjoyed the yacht-cruise hospitality of construction mogul Tony Accurso. For the record, Charest repeats his ministers' denials, and Tremblay calls Labonté's claims false. And Labonté offers no evidence.
Labonté is no virtuous whistle-blower; he seems to us more like a crank shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. But we'll give him this much: His timing was exquisite. Months of reports about undeniably shady dealings in the Tremblay administration have grown, this month, into a firestorm of speculation: The Quebec government sets up a dedicated team to look into construction-industry corruption (in the private sector as well as the public); media reports suggest public-works contract collusion in various Quebec cities; the Mafia is invoked; claims and counter-claims and denials fly like autumn leaves.
Now there is truly no recourse except a prompt announcement, by Charest, of a robust and sweeping public inquiry, armed with subpoena powers, a large and capable staff, and everything else needed to get to the bottom of all these claims - and of the endless cost over-runs that make them plausible.
Ideally such an inquiry should cover municipal contracts in the whole metropolitan area, because corruption, like swine flu, is no respecter of borders.
We can't understand why Charest has waited this long. True, big inquiries are costly, slow, elaborate, and rarely fully satisfactory. But in this case anything less will now seem, to many Quebecers, to be merely a cover-up.
The more immediate problem is that nothing we have heard this week gives Montrealers any guidance about how to vote on Nov. 1. If Labonté's claims are true, Tremblay doesn't look very good. But Harel was minister of municipal affairs and minister for greater Montreal from 1998 to 2003; if Labonté is correct, Harel either knew all about corrupt contracting and did nothing, or was so out of touch that she didn't know.
We can hear the Projet Montréal people clamouring: What about us? Why not a new broom to sweep clean? This week's rumour-fest might indeed help Richard Bergeron's party, but that doesn't mean he would be a better mayor than Tremblay or Harel. Bergeron and his candidates might be as clean as the driven snow, but zeal and good intentions do not get the streets plowed. Bergeron and his key people have little management experience at any level, and running a city with a $4-billion budget is practical, not theoretical.
Bergeron's bizarre beliefs and his inexperience impose too high a price in exchange for his freedom from the slime of innuendo which coats the other candidates right now. Being mayor of Montreal is a job for an adult.
Next week in this space: an endorsement, and some thoughts about choosing a good city council.