Policy is the best honesty

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty promised yesterday that he would not raise taxes if he is re-elected this fall and insisted he means it this time. -- National Post, June 4.

You really can’t do anything with this. Satire is impossible. You'd think, having issued more than 200 promises in the last election and broken nearly as many, the last thing Mr. McGuinty would want to do this time out is make any promises -- least of all on taxes, the ne plus ultra of McGuinty whoppers...

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty promised yesterday that he would not raise taxes if he is re-elected this fall and insisted he means it this time. -- National Post, June 4.

You really can’t do anything with this. Satire is impossible. You'd think, having issued more than 200 promises in the last election and broken nearly as many, the last thing Mr. McGuinty would want to do this time out is make any promises -- least of all on taxes, the ne plus ultra of McGuinty whoppers. 

Yet there it is. He actually said it. Only this time, as the Post reported, “he means it.” How do we know he means it? After all, the last time he promised not to raise taxes Mr. McGuinty went to unusual lengths to persuade voters that this was not just another political promise, but a blood vow. He even signed his name to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s no-tax-hike pledge, in a splashy public ceremony.

Having subsequently raised taxes by $2.6-billion in his first budget, Mr. McGuinty would seem to have a problem on his hands. Ah, but this time is different, because this time “I’m not hiding a deficit.” But then, in 2003 Ernie Eves insisted he wasn’t hiding a deficit, either, though the Liberals often accused him of it. 

Indeed, everyone knew Ontario was headed for a deficit in 2003, and a large one. The Fraser Institute issued a report, mid-campaign, predicting the deficit was on course to hit $4.5-billion. At the time, Mr. McGuinty would not say precisely how he would adjust his plans in that event, other than to suggest he might delay some of his spending proposals. But there would be no tax increase: on that he was clear. 

If the deficit made him do it, as Mr. McGuinty as maintained ever since, why was it that he was still pledging not to raise taxes even after he was elected -- indeed, until just days before the budget? Why were higher taxes, and not deferred spending, the answer? Or if there was no alternative to raising taxes, why could he not at least have kept his promise to the taxpayers federation, which was that he would put any tax increase to a referendum?

But never mind all that. It isn’t only on taxes, after all, that Mr. McGuinty has broken his word, but on any number of other issues, from closing coal-fired plants to rolling back toll increases on a provincial highway to freezing electricity rates. And it isn’t only Mr. McGuinty who has shown such casual disregard, once elected, for the solemn promises made before. It has been the habit of political leaders of all parties, at all levels of government.

Indeed, if there’s anyone for whom Mr. McGuinty’s serial mendacity presents an even bigger challenge than Mr. McGuinty himself, it is his opposition counterpart, John Tory. For the damage Mr. McGuinty and his ilk have done is not just to their own reputations, but to that of politicians generally. How, then, does Mr. Tory separate himself from Mr. McGuinty in this regard? What does the honest politician do nowadays to prove his good faith? What can he do? What’s left, after Mr. McGuinty’s taxpayer pledge?

It won’t be enough for Mr. Tory just to say “trust me.” Nor are narrow attacks on Mr. McGuinty’s character likely to prevail in a long campaign. If Mr. Tory wants to capitalize on the issue, he needs to broaden it out -- to make the issue, not just Mr. McGuinty’s failings, but the culture of dishonesty that has taken root in our politics. He needs, not merely to promise to do things differently, but to present concrete proposals for how he could be held to account if he doesn’t -- and not just himself, but other politicans as well. As it happens, I have a suggestion.

It’s one I’ve offered before: a plan that would allow politicians to voluntarily assume legal liability for uttering false statements, much as people do in other walks of life, as when swearing out an affidavit, or posting a bond. The point is not to catch politicians out for every stray slip of the tongue. Indeed, it’s not even about punishing the dishonest, so much as rewarding the honest, by making it possible for the voters to trust in politicians’ honesty once again.

How would it work? Suppose there were a provision in the elections law allowing politicians to "opt in" to certain legal consequences with regard to a given public statement, should it later be found to be false. No need to prove fraud, or damages. Just that it was false. “In releasing my platform today,” a party leader might say, “I invoke Article 19 of the Elections Act.” As I say, it would be like swearing an oath. This is no more -- it is actually considerably less -- than the standard politicians expect of other professions, such as lawyers or corporate officers.

Be bold, Mr. Tory. A Truth in Politics Act, were you to propose it, would transform our politics. As a bonus, it just might win you the election.