Monday, December 19, 2005

OTTAWA - Today, Democracy Watch criticized all four federal political party leaders who took part in the election debates for failing to answer with clear commitments to three questions concerning promise breaking and honesty in politics posed by voters, and one by the French debate moderator, and for failing to pledge “I will resign if I break my promises” and failing to pledge to pass an “honesty in politics” law.

“The federal political party leaders are truly unbelievable and should be ashamed of themselves for misleading Canadians when asked about honesty and keeping promises, especially when in several laws they have required Canadians to tell the truth always, with high penalties for those who break these laws,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch and chairperson of the nation-wide Government Ethics Coalition.  "The leaders’ answers show they have misled even themselves into believing that voters should believe their promises just because they believe in themselves.”

The leaders’ promise-making was put on the spot in the French debate on Thursday night in three questions in a row by two voters (chosen from among 10,000 questions submitted by voters) and the moderator, Dominique Poirier.  In a remarkable display of national unity in terms of misleading voters, all the leaders tried to dodge the first question and had to be cornered by the moderator in follow-up questions.

On Friday night in the English debates, Murray Mills from Pugwash, Nova Scotia, again tried to corner the party leaders with the following question that required only a yes or no answer:

“My question is as follows - In an effort to instill honesty, credibility, and accountability in election campaigning would you be willing to pass, and then enforce, legislation guaranteeing firstly, that an election promise made must carry with it a strict but realistic implementation timeframe and, secondly, that any promise that is not honoured within the timeframe mentioned, the member having made that promise must resign his or her seat?”

• Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper was first to answer and tried to argue that it would be a bad thing for voters to be able to challenge political lies in court: "I appreciate that question from Murray.  In our platform we've tried to cost out very carefully the things we'll do and most of the major promises we've promised to do them immediately so the voters will be able to judge us on that.  I know there's some attraction to the idea of having laws that will deal with this kind of thing.  I made some reference to this in the French debate last night.  Several years ago I was involved with an effort here in British Columbia to hold a government  responsible which had run on a fraudulent budget.  There was actually a section in the B.C. Elections Act; we took the government to court; we fought for years trying to overturn the election, trying to have that government held accountable for that.  Ultimately, the court process didn't work, and frankly it left me with the feeling that this kind of process, no matter what the attraction for it, will inevitably just bog us down in the courts.  I think, in the end, it's up to the voters to evaluate, to evaluate the promises of parties, decide whether they can believe, and hold people accountable who don't live up to those promises."
• Prime Minister and Liberal Party Leader Paul Martin, as in the French debate, chose to dodge most of the question and instead present a very selective list of promises he claims to have kept, ignoring his many other broken promises: "Well Mr. Mills, you raise two very important points.  Certainly, I believe the electorate ought to punish parties which do not keep their promises, which was your second point.  Whether in fact it can be enshrined in law, I think, I do agree with the others that that's pretty difficult to do.  Your first point, I believe, however, is something that one can do.  I think that timeframes should be set out.  I think that you've got to be able to measure success, and if you can't set out timeframes, then I think that fundamentally you've got to wonder about the validity of the promise.  As an example, in the last election we said we would deal with the wait times, I said that I would call a federal-provincial conference.  I did it within two months of the last election.  I said the benchmarks would be out before the end of this year.  They came out, as I mentioned to you, this week.  So I do believe, that in fact the seriousness of many of commitments made by government ought to be set out by timeframes wherever that's possible.  It may not be always be possible, but I think that your suggestion, Mr. Mills, is one that ought to be examined, in fact carried into effect in most cases."
• NDP Leader Jack Layton confusingly agreed with Martin (on what is unclear, and then dodged the question completely, seeming to make the exaggerated claim that NDP politicians are more honest than others: "Well, thank you for the question Murray.  You know, I have to say I agree with Mr. Martin.  Except the problem is that he has been breaking promises for so long that he doesn't even recognize it anymore, I guess.  And as he's pointing fingers at other people, he should look that four of those fingers are pointed, three of them, right back at him.  What are the promises that he's has broken?  To reduce pollution.  It's up by 24 percent despite timetables and promises.  To international aid, so that Canada would be a leader.  Broke that promise -- Bono is no longer supporting the Prime Minister's initiative, and neither are Canadians.  Lots of other promises broken.  Child care, promised in '93, '97, 2000; we're barely getting around to it now, thanks to a minority  Parliament we're finally making some movement.  Pharmacare promised election after election.  I guess the first place Mr. Martin I would suggest you apply your newfound belief in the keeping of promises is to yourself.  The voters have a chance to send a message -- don't vote for a party that breaks it's promises, send some New Democrats to make sure their kept." and;
• Bloc Québecois Gilles Duceppe also dodged the question, and tried to blame the Liberals for all political dishonesty in Canada: "Yes, well I understand your concern sir.  Since, I remember that the Liberals campaigned in '98 against free trade, in 1993 it was against NAFTA and the GST.  First thing they've done once elected, they change their mind.  And this is why the population, and specifically you, is asking for something to break with that attitude, and we have to do something.  On the other hand, it would be very tough to have a timeframe.  I don't think it would be realistic since things could occur in life.  I remember, 9-11 in 2001 then all your priorities are changing and you to adapt to that new situation.  But between that, and between promising something and doing the opposite, I think there's a notion, and that notion is named Liberal, and that's the problem."