Time for a Truth in Politics Act

Andrew Coyne on how to stop politicians from lying, or at least reward the honest ones

by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, April 7, 2011 9:00am - 85 Comments
Time for a Truth in Politics Act

Photograph by Cole Garside

If there is one thing Gilles Duceppe would like you to know about Stephen Harper, it’s that he’s a liar. The Prime Minister, he says, is “lying” about his past dalliances with coalition government, “lying” about Employment Insurance rules, lying, well, generally.

There’s a lot of that going around. Harper has much the same to say about Michael Ignatieff: when he tells you he won’t form a coalition government after the election, he’s lying. “He did it before, and he’ll do it again.” Jack Layton pretty clearly thinks both Harper and Ignatieff are liars, even if he never quite uses the word. Ignatieff, for his part, challenges Harper with the old line that “if he’ll stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about him.” And so on and on.

The sad thing is, all of these liars are telling the truth. A culture of lying has overtaken our politics, and every party has been caught up in it, to a greater or lesser extent.

Politics has never been noted as a place for unsparing honesty. At best, it consists of telling people what they want to hear; it deals in shades of truth, selective facts, exaggeration, blarney and spin. But in most places at most times, it has been expected that politicians will stay within some sort of limits. If you wish to deceive, do so by the sly omission, the evasive answer, the non-denial denial. Equivocate if you can, mislead if you must, but don’t say straight up, without room for ambiguity, in a manner that is intended to be believed, something that you know is false.

Small fibs, told in haste, are one thing. But the more solemn the vow, and the more important the matter, the greater the expectation that a statement could be taken at something approaching face value: if not wholly true, it would at least not be wholly untrue. But somewhere along the way that taboo was broken in Canada, and nowhere more so than in that most fundamental unit of democratic currency, the campaign promise.

Perhaps it began with Pierre Trudeau, who campaigned furiously against wage and price controls in the 1974 election—that famous, mocking “zap, you’re frozen”—only to introduce them shortly afterward. There followed Brian Mulroney, who unctuously upbraided John Turner for his patronage sins (“you had an option, sir”) as if he were not himself about to take the practice to new depths; Jean Chrétien, who promised to abolish the GST and renegotiate NAFTA, but did neither; Stephen Harper, who, having promised he would appoint no one who was not elected to either cabinet or the Senate, on his first day as Prime Minister appointed his unelected Quebec organizer Michael Fortier to both—a pattern that was to be repeated in everything from fixed election dates to the taxation of income trusts.

This is hardly reserved to federal politics. The list of Dalton McGuinty’s broken promises would fill a scrapbook, but the most notorious was surely his pledge, signed in public as a sort of contract with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, not to raise taxes without a referendum—which was no more than a promise to obey the previous government’s Taxpayers’ Protection Act. Six months after he was elected, he had raised taxes, amending the law to eliminate the referendum requirement.

Examples abound, from coast to coast. The former Liberal premier of New Brunswick, Shawn Graham, elected on a promise not to sell New Brunswick Power, proposed to do just that once safely elected. The current premier of Nova Scotia, New Democrat Darrell Dexter, came to power promising he would neither raise taxes, nor cut spending, nor run a deficit. He proceeded to do all three. I need hardly dwell on British Columbia’s Gordon Campbell, and his disavowal, prior to the 2009 election, of any intent to harmonize the province’s sales tax with the federal GST, except to note that neither the promise nor Campbell are still operative.

Bookmark and Share
  • Guest

    Is it a coincidence or just a joke that the picture used in this article is of former Barrie City Councillor Andrew Prince, who was accused of domestic violence against his girlfriend. He said that nothing happened, whereas she claimed he hit her…someone is lieing…..!!!

    • melvin

      Its not to hard to figure out who was lying. Sometime we are a bit harsh on our elected officials. A quick search into the local media shows the crown “withdrew” the assault charge against councillor Prince shortly after the last municipal election. I wonder how much media attention was given to the false charge when it was withdrawn.

    • Tom C

      “Guest” wonder why you feel free to comment and are afraid to use your real name. I was a resident in councillor Prince’s ward. I voted for him as did my wife, we also PROUDLY displayed a lawn sign. Councillor Prince was cleared of this charge. He was found innocent of this charge in the court of law. And from what I can see was innocent in the court of public opinion. How else would you explain is very small election loss, losing his riding by under 80 votes to a former mayor. The public stood behind Prince. Its to bad he had to run an election with this frivilous charge. But I think his small loss was a LARGE win, when you factor what he had to deal with throughout his election….

    • Sam

      "Guest" I find it amazing how you are quick to look at the pictures and not focus on the article itself. However, since you do find it far more entertaining to flip through the photos and make comments regarding something you clearly don't know much about lets focus on that. As "Melvin" and "Tom C" pointed out, former Councillor Prince's charges were withdrawn. The was no evidence that the alleged incident EVER occurred, the girl never required medical attention and further to that there was no medical evidence that she had been hurt in any way. From the start Prince stated that he did not do this and was innocent, in the end his innocence was proven. I feel it is also important to point out something that has already been mentioned…Prince was informed shortly after the very small loss of the election that the charges were being withdrawn, can you say COINCIDENCE??? I have always stood behind former Councillor Prince and will continue to do so. I live in his ward and also displayed a sign showing my support of him, in fact I hope one day he will decide to run again in this ward as he did a great job and always put forth the needs of others in his ward. It is a shame people like you only see the initial allegations made and do not properly research or review the outcome, it is time to take a look at the girl who accused him of such horrible things and put some blame on her for lying and making accusations against a person when she could not back it up with ANY evidence.

      • http://thebrownretort.blogspot.com Robert Viera

        In addition to the assault charge, Andrew Prince was charged with two counts of uttering threats stemming from an incident involving a female police officer at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Andrew Prince plead guilty on one of the charges of uttering threats.

        • Ward 9 Res (Barrie)

          "Robert" maybe you should consider doing some background history before you start making comments. First, it was not a female officer it was a male officer. Secondly, after following this story since the beginning I am aware of the situation, not because I am interested in the gossip but because I wanted to make sure I was voting for a good and right person, I am proud to say I did vote for him. Prince stated in court and the papers that he will not say he didn't make the comment he just doesn't remember making the threat and will not argue it which is why he pleaded guilty. This was the only charge Prince admitted publically, everything else he maintained his innocence and after close to two years it was finally put to rest so he could move on with his life. In addition to that, as mentioned if you did some research, you may see that the situation that night when the threat was made was during a very difficult time for Prince, a time that many people may react in much of the same manner. I have personally spoken with Prince and admire the fact that he is a good guy with huge potential who has overcome many hard odds against him and done so with dignity and pride.

    • Scott Gorry

      Interesting that you would point the absurd charge against Andrew, Andrew is a close friend of mine and someone I have stood beside through this whole process. This matter was closed the day the court withdrew the charges, for you to comment on the matter without identifying the end result is bias hypocritical. If anyone is lying here it would be you my friend, Andrew was a great Councillor who fought a hard campaign against a tough opponent with a trumped up charge hanging over his head. Andrew has nothing to be ashamed of, he is a great father, a wonderful friend and a man that is working his way back from a horrendous affair that a lesser person might have cracked from.

    • Megan F

      I am a personal friend of Mr. Prince and he has always been a gentleman, in the full sense of the word! With regards to the alleged assault charges that were filed against him, he was open and honest. The truth prevailed and Andrew’s innocence shined through! Furthermore, as a woman Andrew has always been caring, kind and calm! I personally do not believe he would ever injure a woman! I find it interesting that Mr. Prince would get dragged into this article in a negative context when he did numerous beneficial things for the City of Barrie in his time as councillor! How quickly we as humans focus on the negative even when its not true maybe we should focus on the good things our government does for us. Perfection doesn’t exist! Keep working hard Andrew!

    • GTALiberal

      In regards to the posts regarding Former Councillor Andrew Prince (Barrie), I feel that I must respond. Mr. Prince served his community with honour, and unfortunaly during that tenure there were some allegations made. Those allegations we withdrawn, shortly after the election. Now how quick we are to assume that he is guilty. We was never convicted of anything. How many people have been wrongly accused of something? I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Prince numerous times, and during those times he handled himself with dignity and respect. I for one feel that Barrie has suffered from his loss.

      • Rahul Jain

        By the way, I just relized that I didnt use my name so here it is.

        Rahul Jain!!

  • Darden Cavalcade

    Andrew, is the press corps any better? The average citizen? We get the politicians and politics we deserve. Down south, we are awash in lies, corruption, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance. We've earned it, because we have tolerated it for so long.

    • non-partisan

      I think the point is not to tolerate it anymore.

      • Missy

        @non-partisan

        Exactly!

        Everyone in every profession is held accountable these days, except for politicians. Instead, they are asked to resign, when caught with their hands in the cookie jar, with not only a golden handshake, but taxpayers monies pension for life. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

  • Chris B

    Let us go back to WAC Bennet in 1961 in BC, telling the BC electorate that the socialist hordes were at the gate and they were going to privatize BC Electric. Which he of course did in the next three months.

    So this is not some new phenomenon.

  • gottabesaid

    Excellent idea… should be a key plank in the platform of your new political party.

  • Wayne

    As far back as I can remember, when choosing who to vote for its always been a matter of not who's telling the truth, it's a case of who's lying the least. Its like the old joke. How can you tell a politician is lying? Their mouth is moving.

    Why can't we sue a politician who's lying. Its breach of contract. You made a verbal contract with me that if I vote for you you will or won't do this or that or whatever, and when the politician lyes then they just violated the verbal contract we agreed to.

  • Thwim

    I still feel there is something particularly odious about Fortier. There was a promise that it would have been entirely possible to keep, yet he completely reverses himself on it on the first day, for absolutely no reason other than pure patronage.

    That his own supporters didn't lynch him at that point, I just don't understand.

    • alfanerd

      for the same reasons McGuinty's supporters have not lynched him.

      • Thwim

        Again with the "But moooomommmmm they do it too!" excuse. Seriosuly, I thought you guys were aspiring to be *better* than the opposition, not just the same.

        • novagardener

          Or worse, IMHO.

    • KeithBram

      And don't forget Emerson. Harper had been throwing hissy fits over Belinda Stronach being allowed to switch parties and get a cabinet position; he was adamant that this should never happen; that if someone leaves their party, they should sit as an independent until re-elected under a different banner.

      And then, announcing his cabinet, we discover he has enticed Emerson – freshly elected as a Liberal – to come play for his team.

      At that very moment, in his first act as PM, he lost all hope of ever getting my vote. Harper is a lying hypocrite (among other things).

      • gottabesaid

        I had much the same reaction. I was disgusted with the Stronach deal. Then Harper, shortly after getting elected to government on the pledge of 'doing things differently', entices Emerson to cross the floor, then appoints Fortin to cabinet via the senate. I was stunned… honest-to-goodness stunned. I don't think any other event in politics ever undermined my faith in politicians more than that. I don't mean that as an indictment of Harper in particular — I know, the Liberals were worse. That's why I voted Conservative in that election. But, as Coyne rightly points out, it's events like these that undermine our faith in the system altogether. No wonder people don't vote.

        • Andrew (not PorC)

          It's almost like he wanted to demonstrate right off the bat, on the very first day, that all his lofty rhetoric was just that, and that he was just as bad as all the other politicians before him.

      • Thwim

        Neither Stronach nor Emerson bothered me. Of course, I subscribe to the idealistic notion that your representative is there to represent you, so what flag he/she flies under doesn't matter anyway.

        That said, it did seem the switch for Stronach was far more natural — she'd spoken out against various Conservative positions a few times before, while Emerson had just barely finished talking about how they couldn't allow Conservative values to take over when he walked.

        • KeithBram

          To be frank, Stronach didn't bother me – and Emerson wouldn't have either, had Harper not campaigned so hard on being open, honest and ethical. He promised to be different. He set the bar as to expectations much higher than it had been – and then immediately slithered under it the moment he had the votes.

          No one expects politicans to keep every promise they make – there are too many variables, and circumstances change. But breaking promises as one's very first act has to be a record – and when campaigning on ethics and accountability, it's that much worse.

          Had this proven to be a blip, I may have eventually come around. But it proved to be a pretty reliable indicator of Harper's modus operandi. It will take a new leader before I will seriously consider voting CPC.

  • Judge Roy Bean

    As long as the majority continue to want something for nothing and have Mommy government take care of them politicians will continue to buy their jobs with taxpayer money. People tolerate the lying because they want something for nothing–simple as that.

    • harebell

      This would be the Harper party you are talking about?
      Want jets, want corporate tax cuts, want prisons all the while building up a deficit they promised would not happen, but conveniently forgetting to tell us who is going to pay for it?
      The party sponsors conveniently tolerate lieing because they know that their welfare is just a majority away.

  • Mike T.

    Another problem is that in an election, no regulatory body could address the issue of lie within the time necessary for it to matter.

    • http://www.executiveunderground.ca Richard Westgate

      Not only that, look at what's happened to Elections Canada in trying to monitor the election financing rules! Who'd bet that a head will roll at EC if/when PM_SHrug is returned to office?

  • http://www.jeffbursey.com Jeff Bursey

    With respect, such a change seems unlikely. Within legislatures, members are not allowed to call each other liars or deceivers, yet when two versions of what's going on are put forth, that may mean one is a lie, and the proponent a liar. There's no search for truth; the objection is to the word. The possibility someone may be lying is quietly recognized in Beauchesne:

    "It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident." (_Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms_, 6th ed., p. 151)

    If members can talk that way inside their own world, with little consequence (the most common consequence is a member is asked to retract a statement), why would they willingly choose something different for outside that world?

    Jeff Bursey,
    author of _Verbatim: A Novel_,
    a parliamentary satire

  • canucklehead

    I’d say that’s a pretty good idea. Opt-in is the key, maybe the penalty could be elegibilty to run again.

  • Mike T.

    Actually, once he left it became apparent how much he and Flaherty were lying about the province's finances.

    • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

      Care to link the budget with a deficit and Harris/Flaherty?

      • Mike T.

        If history is any guide, we won't know how much money the country really has/had until a new government takes over. Remember his absurd figures which led, in part, to the coalition?

        • http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

          You made a statement, were asked a simple question to produce the Ontario budget that had Harris/Flaherty in a deficit and you can't? I am shocked, look up cognitive dissonance.

  • HarveyMushman

    Well…I'm sure this is proposal sure to please a ga-zillion Canadian lawyers.

    Let's be realistic. It would be about 2 years before any action ever saw a court room, then months of litigation…all paid for by our tax dollars.

    Besides that, every new government would simply use the time-honoured "oh…well…we had no idea things were so, so bad now that we've actually had a chance to look at the books ourselves…those guys screwed up really bad, it's going to take us years and years (and a couple of new mandates) to straighten out this mess. Sorry, but we just can't do all the things we promised you…and it's not our fault!"

  • http://twitter.com/nragaz @nragaz

    Seems to me that this misses the distinction between "lies about the past" and "lies about the future", ie. outright deception about known facts vs. a promise that might be broken sometime in the future. And morally speaking, someone who lies about the past is much more odious.

    McGuinty, for all his flaws, doesn't lie in the first sense (unless you can prove that he never intended to keep his promises when they were made). Stephan Harper et al. often do.

    • http://twitter.com/nragaz @nragaz

      I should add, too, that I find it intensely wearying when people fail to make this distinction. Assuming that Michael Ignatieff is likely to be lying about his election platform because Bev Oda was lying when she said she didn't know anything about the Kairos document, merely because both of them are politicians, is a ridiculous syllogism.

  • modster99

    Andrew, I agree with you in principle. There are other factors, though, and one is the minority government. When we have a minority government, all bets are off, and all promises might as well be void.
    I think one of the issues is the voters themselves. Over time, our views and beliefs have become more diverse. This makes it harder for a politician to get elected by taking firm stands. Every firm stand that a politician takes on a certain issue, alienates the people who disagree with that issue. If a politician takes enough firm stands, no way can they get elected.
    I think that is one of the keys to the Liberal party's past success – they are usually a party that tries to be all things to all people. This of course is impossible, as eventually decisions have to be made, but it did help them get elected. I think we will see in this election more people voting against a politician, rather than for a politician.
    Bottom line, this is probably the way it will be for the foreseeable future.

    • canucklehead

      Yeah to be fair you'd have to be able to set some kind of parameters around your pledge like 'if current economic growth is maintained'. You could keep your promises in a minority but it could easily mean another election within months. I still think Coyne has come up with something pretty brilliant with the opt-in idea.

    • http://www.executiveunderground.ca Richard Westgate

      This is a very good point. I've always thought that the business of "election promiseering" is an undignified spectacle. It is after all, as everyone is aware, OUR actual money that's being flung with such gay abandon. I remember at school when the word "pragmatism" was discussed and I was introduced for the first time to that concept, I thought, "Oh, that makes a lot of sense." To think that any politician can promise specific THINGS over the course of several years into the FUTURE, seems insanity to me. What happens? "Events, dear boy, events!" I would rather know what principles the politician would adhere to in navigating those future events – will he/she tend this way or that way? What are his/her priorities? What will be the tone and tenor of the government. I think Andrew's idea of "qualified" promises might be a good idea – if this, then that.

      I was excited when i read the title of this article, as I would like to see standard "truth in advertising" rules applied to political advertising. However, I was disappointed in the article itself, as I don't see how it could ever be implemented. It would be like a government tying itself to fixed election dates …. oh, wait a minute …

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      There are promises that they should have been able to keep. No one was holding a gun to his head when he appointed Fortier to the Senate and cabinet in direct contradiction of his pledge.

  • Karma

    And the press doesn't lie or at least obfuscate, twist, manipulate the story in favour of a gotcha moment or worse yet, to support their own political beliefs? I dare McLeans to run an indepandant nationwide poll on that one.

    • harebell

      In this case what would a poll do?
      Use your brain it would be like asking, "are lawyers shifty," or are "doctors arrogant."

    • http://www.executiveunderground.ca Richard Westgate

      Well, they do have to sell newspapers …. or pixels, or whatever they're selling these days.

  • Thwim

    Hint: Your idea of "balanced" isn't.

  • oppo guy

    Today, Julian Fantino, a minister of the Crown, declared to an adult audience that opposition MPs don't sing the national anthem (!!!). One can be forgiven for concluding that even penalty of jail time could not persuade today's Conservative Party to join the reality based community if they think there is electoral advantage to the lie.

  • B. Fowler

    The princes who have done great things are the ones who have taken little account of their promises.
    Nicolo Machiaveli

    • harebell

      Careful now, you'll get down thumbed for being an ivory tower educated elitist intellectual.
      You quite clearly have read a book and it was written by a furriner.
      That's two strikes.

      • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

        I'd light my torch and sharpen my pitchfork, but those are more — you know — rural things.

  • Missy

    Brilliant idea!

  • TimesArrow

    Bring back the public stocks…rotten tomatoes, eggs and veggie for the fibbers. Guarantee it would be a popular event. Even journalists could participate. In fact why not make the most of it – journalists the second course, or aperitif even?

  • Ian

    In Andrew's list of Prime Ministers who lied or broke election promises, I noticed the absence of Paul Martin.

    The story went from Chretien to Harper.

    There was a guy in between. But maybe he was honest? Is that why he's not around anymore?

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      I think he was forgotten.

  • FVerhoeven

    Here's one for you, Mr.Coyne:

    Campaign 2008: NDP leader Jack Layton, as his main plank on the platform, campaigns against corporate tax cuts. Only the NDP and The Greens were against corporate tax cuts in 2008.

    Dec 1, 2008: coalition agreement with the Liberals and BQ: NDP agrees to drop its main stand on corporate taxes; NDP agrees to the Liberal stand on corporate tax cuts. 180 degree turn.

    This actually happened and this switch by Layton was open, public knowledge at the time. I know I wrote about it on this webpage. Yet, is has never really been marked as a major campaign promise switch.

    Now, think about how crooked this gets:

    NDP informs the nation that is has the voter's backing to take over Harper's minority government because 60 some % of voters were against Harper. In fact, a certain percentage probably voted for the NDP because of its opposition to the corporate tax cuts. And here comes Jack, telling us he has the right to take over from Harper by agreeing what Harper stood for in the 2008 campaign, namely the corporate tax cuts. Now, you call that a democratic coalition forming to overtake a minority government??

    And don't tell me the media didn't know about it at the time, for I know for certain I did mention it at the time at the Macleans webpage. :)

  • http://www.executiveunderground.ca Richard Westgate

    State regulation of the banks saved Canada from the financial meltdown.

  • http://www.executiveunderground.ca Richard Westgate

    I've really enjoyed reading all these comments, and even laughed at a lot of them. Good points, quite friendly debate, without all the stuff that usually makes me mad! AND … the topic was lying politicians … coulda got nasty, but it didn't.

    "You've all done very, very well!" (Young Mr. Grace).

    Thank you, one and all.

  • FVerhoeven

    Let's have a look at how the public is capable of lying:

    Most of us say we are very concerned about the environment.

    Yet, very few of us have made actual changes to our life styles to protect the pollution of the environment; we don't consume less, we don't drive less etc, etc.

    A lot of voters, when asked, will say that the BQ is not a separatist party. The BQ is merely another federalist party, most or at least some would say.

    Yet, the BQ and its leader will tell you that the BQ is a separatist party.

    Often, certain voters and certain members of the media will compare the BQ with the now extinct Reform Party.

    Yet, the two parties could not be more different from each other; the BQ wants out and the Reform Party slogan was – the West wants in!

    I don't know, but it seems to me that the human brain is undergoing some major changes. It seems to me that in a lot of these cases, the one side of the brain is not in contact somehow with the other side of the brain, thereby allowing the possibility for humans to be capable of lying to the self. And that would be a most interesting change in human development, would it not???

    • ColdStanding

      I doubt that it is, as you seem to be suggesting, a new development in the human brain. The self is already a fiction of the brain, so it is hardly surprising when all sorts of new lies start springing out.

      And yet… and yet the human mind is capable of grasping truth (by which I mean discerning a physical law of the universe) as evidenced by immortal Kepler's work on the orbit of Mars where he physically demonstrated the elliptical nature of its orbit, and thereby proving the heliocentric nature of the solar system (where as Galileo was only able to advocate but not prove.)

      • FVerhoeven

        Trying to address "the self being a fiction of the brain" I will leave aside for now; such dialogue would require more space than is available now.

        The Kepler – Galileo comparison is an interesting one.

        However, there most definitely is a distinction to be made between lying to others or lying to the self and knowing it, or being aware of it, and what I would consider to be a new human development, namely lying to the self in that one part of the brain would not be aware that the other side of the brain is lying. In other words: when being aware of lying, the two parts of the brain would be in communication with one another in order to bring about such awareness, whereas the lying to the self would require a sort of absence of awareness.

        And awareness ultimately centers around the particular functions of the brain hemispheres.

        • ColdStanding

          Compartmentalization of the self into discreet parts is a well established phenomenon. When you consider that essentially the same model of wetware is responsible for generating all of the different people that we meet, then you begin to see the power at our disposal. There are even wetwares with more than one personality in them! (Wonderfully parodied in Being John Malcovich.) Of course this involves a species of amnesia, even when we are talking about people that are not experiencing pathology of the personality.

          Rudolf Steiner, for all his many faults, did author a wonderful image when he described the eye as the organ most resembling lifelessness, yet it is our primary way of experiencing. It is more so with the brain. It has to be forgetful to function. It must forget itself so that the self can exist (very awkward sentance).

          • FVerhoeven

            But forgetting the self is not a compartimentalization of the self, if that's what you are trying to combine here.

            In fact, I would argue that the compartimentalization of the self and the self existing by means of forgetting about the self are two opposite modes of being; the first being perhaps a sign of not being able to reach for that self, and the latter by being able to reach for the self by forgetting about the self.

            Being the self is by being uncompartimentalized, as being one with all, being as self with all. A compartimentalization can not accomplish being one with all, as all. One being one with all is impossible to achieve, the compartimentalization is as result, as default mode perhaps.

            Interesting discussion.

            (I have no idea what you mean by wetware??)

From Macleans