![[Democracy Watch Logo]](dw.gif)
|
|
|
Français |
“That's Not True!” Was
Leaders' Favourite Line
in Election Debates,
Honesty is the best policy
---
A person is only as good as their word
Monday, October 6, 2008 OTTAWA - OTTAWA - Today, with one week to go before election day, Democracy Watch again called on federal political party leaders to make a meaningful commitment to keep their election promises and ensure honesty in politics, after they again dodged this key issue during the election debate in English last Thursday.While the words "That's not true!" were heard again and again during the French and English debates, as the leaders accused each other of making false claims or blatantly lying, none of the leaders pledged to establish an honesty rule and an accessible and effective enforcement and penalty system, to clear the air of misleading statements that make politics dirtier. "The federal party leaders showed in the debates that they not only mislead, they also mishear, as they continued to close the ears to the clear demand Canadians have been making for the past decade that there be a strict honesty-in-politics rule that is strongly enforced with guarantees that promises will be kept and dishonesty penalized," said Duff Conacher. "Very unfortunately, the media continue to let them off the hook by failing to ask the clear, simple question -- What guarantee will you give as a party leader that you will keep your promises?" While English debate moderator Steve Paiken said that broken promises and lack of trust was "a familiar theme through many" of the more than 4,500 proposed questions submitted by Canadians, incredibly the media consortium chose to have a viewer pose an open-ended, softball question that let the leaders spin instead of make solid commitments concerning keeping promises and governing honestly. Aimee Cameron of Halifax, Nova Scotia asked: "I appreciate that we live in a country where we enjoy great rights and freedoms, and being able to vote is a real privilege. However, I haven't voted in the last couple of federal elections. I'm tired of un-kept election promises, and politicians who kiss babies and care about seniors until the day after the election. How can I, a frustrated young voter, sort through the political rhetoric and decide which is the right person and party to vote for?"Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe was the first to dodge the question by stating the obvious: "I think we have to look very carefully at what people say before the election and what they're doing after the election. Are they representing the people who gave them their confidence because if we want to have the confidence of the people we have to deserve that confidence not only before the election but also the time during which we are elected."He then went on to list Prime Minister Harper's broken promises but did not propose any measures that would help ensure election promises are kept. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May was up next and she also stated the obvious, saying: "I'm a former lawyer who has become a politician and I somehow wonder if I dropped down to a level where I'm just slightly above the paparazzi in terms of public esteem. Politicians, not just in this country, but around the world, are losing public trust and it's because of broken promises, it's because of acting when you win an election as if you just won the lotto and everyone else just lost, and all the people who voted for you no longer matter anymore."She then proposed a bizarre "forget the politicians" and "blame the voters" supposed solution for the dishonesty-in-politics problem that included pretending that voters have not clearly demanded effective honesty in politics guarantees for the past several years, when she said: "The only way people are every going to have confidence in their politicians, is if you forget politicians, forget political parties, vote with what you believe in, vote with your heart, and demand better. Canadians need to be engaged in their political life not just on voting day, but between elections. Demand better of your politicians, because you don't deserve what you've got, you deserve better."Liberal Party Leader Stephane Dion followed by taking a professorial, ignore-the-question but at the same time correct-the-student approach by stating "Ms. Cameron, I understand your view, but your premise I don't think is right, your premise is all parties are the same." He then went on to talk about how the Liberals would govern differently from the Conservatives (of course, only if the Liberals actually keep their election promises, which Mr. Dion did not guarantee in any way). Prime Minister and Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper chose the "you should feel lucky to live in Canada" approach to dodging the question, stating: "What I would say is this, these are very difficult decisions but I still believe every voter has a responsibility to vote. It's our fundamental democratic right. I travel around the world and there are so many places where elections do not happen at all or they do not happen democratically. We have a precious country where people are able to change who is in power and to do so peacefully. We should never let go of that."He then went on to make the false claim that the Conservative government has "matched" its actions to a "wide number of issues" in its 2006 election platform, ignoring the fact that, among their many broken promises, the Conservatives failed to include half of their promised measures in their so-called government "Federal Accountability Act" (including by removing the rule from the ethics code for Cabinet ministers, their staff, and Cabinet appointees that required them to “act with honesty” (the rule was never enforced because of negligence by past ethics commissioners and prime ministers - For example, to see details about former Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro's reign of error, click here) -- To see Democracy Watch's December 2007 Report Card on the Accountability Act, click here) As he did during the 2005 federal election debates, NDP Leader Jack Layton attacked the Conservatives and Liberals, saying: "My suggestion is this, we've had the same old parties in power for a long time, and people have become very cynical. And that's because the boardroom tables of this country seem to be able to get a lock-hold on either one of these two parties when their in power, and they seem to be the ones who end up with the benefits." He then made the highly questionable claim that voting for the NDP was the solution to dishonesty in politics. As in other election debates he has moderated, Mr. Paiken again let the leaders off the hook with his follow-up question, asking "Politicians always get creamed for changing their minds, but if circumstances change, should politicians not be entitled to change their minds?" Not surprisingly, all five leaders said yes, they should be allowed to change their minds, while also attacking the other leaders for not keeping their word, and claiming that they keep their word. Although it wasn't asked in the strongest way, did any of the debate participants actually listen to the message of Aimee Cameron's question? She said she (like 10-15% of voters) had stopped voting because politician after politician had lied to her. She was clearly asking the leaders for some type of guarantee that they would keep their promises. Truly incredibly, none of them gave any kind of guarantee, and just as incredibly moderator Paiken didn't press them to do so. Democracy Watch’s proposed honesty-in-politics law would make it illegal for all federal politicians, their staff, appointees and government officials to make false promises or statements at any time (overriding the parliamentary privilege MPs and senators abuse daily), and would also restrict MP party-switching between elections (To see an op-ed on the subject of party-switching by politicians, click here). Anyone would be allowed to file a complaint with the federal Ethics Commissioner who would have the power and mandate to impose very high fines on misleaders (a sort of “Political Hot Air Tax”). Since September 17th, Democracy Watch has sent a daily message to all party leaders asking that they make this pledge and also pledge to resign if they break any election promises (unless unforeseen circumstances arise, or in a minority government situation during which opposition parties change the ruling party's proposals). Democracy Watch called on reporters, and voters, across Canada to ask federal political party leaders and candidates at least once during this last week of the federal election whether they will make these two pledges. “If someone lies to you every so often, you can never know whether to trust what they are saying, and false promises similarly make it impossible for voters to make an informed choice between political parties,” said Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch. “As a result, dishonesty in politics violates fundamental voter rights, and so it clearly must be stopped.” If any Canadian corporation lies in its advertising, only six Canadians need to sign and send a letter to the Competition Bureau and the Bureau must investigate and determine whether the corporation lied, and what corrective measures are required. If any corporation or corporate executive misleads their shareholders, the shareholders have the right to go to court and seek compensation. Politicians have also passed laws requiring taxpayers,
welfare applicants,
immigrants, and most professionals to tell the truth when they fill out
government forms. - 30 -
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Democracy Watch's Federal
Election 2008 webpage To see an op-ed about the honesty-in-politics law proposal, click here Democracy Watch's Honesty
in Politics
Campaign page |