Richmond Hill voters have legitimate reasons to question how politicians use public money. But declaring that they are “all corrupt” does not strengthen accountability. It replaces judgment with resignation.
By City Desk
It is easy to understand why people become cynical about politics.
Recent reports revealed that Ontario cabinet minister Stan Cho claimed more than $16,000 for Toronto hotel stays between 2023 and 2026, despite representing a Toronto riding and living only a few kilometres from Queen’s Park. The expenses were reportedly permitted only under special or unusual circumstances, but the frequency and cost raised legitimate questions about judgment and the use of public money.
Earlier this year, the Ontario government faced another backlash after purchasing a used private jet for $28.9 million, partly for Premier Doug Ford’s travel. The government announced that it would sell the plane only days after the purchase became public.
Stories like these naturally make people suspicious. At a time when many families are struggling with housing, food and transportation costs, politicians should expect close scrutiny of every dollar they spend.
But there is a difference between healthy scepticism and blanket cynicism.
Healthy scepticism asks questions. Why was this expense necessary? Who approved it? Was it properly disclosed? Was it within the rules? Were the rules themselves reasonable? Did the politician offer a convincing explanation? Should the money be repaid?
Cynicism skips those questions and jumps directly to the conclusion that “all politicians are corrupt.”
That may sound tough and worldly, but it is not accountability. In fact, it can make accountability more difficult.
Not every questionable decision is corruption. Some actions may be legal but wasteful. Others may follow poorly written rules, demonstrate bad judgment, create a conflict of interest or show a troubling sense of entitlement. Actual corruption is more serious and should be alleged only when supported by evidence.
Those distinctions matter.
When every mistake, expense controversy and criminal act is placed under the same label, the public loses the ability to judge severity, compare records and impose appropriate consequences. A representative who answers questions, discloses expenses and corrects a mistake becomes indistinguishable from one who hides information or deliberately abuses public office.
The phrase “they are all corrupt” also provides cover for the worst behaviour. A politician facing serious allegations can simply argue that everyone does it. Supporters can dismiss documented misconduct as ordinary politics. Voters, convinced that no better alternative exists, may stop paying attention altogether.
That is not punishment for the political establishment. It is surrender to it.
Real scrutiny requires more effort. It means looking at records, reading reports, following council and legislative decisions, examining who benefits and asking whether representatives apply the same standards to themselves that they impose on the public.
It also means being willing to recognize differences.
Some politicians will disappoint us. Some will make poor decisions. Some may misuse their positions. Others will serve honestly, even when we strongly disagree with their policies. Voters should not grant automatic trust to any of them, but neither should they issue automatic convictions.
This matters as Richmond Hill approaches its municipal election.
Low public interest does not make local government less important. Council decisions affect property taxes, housing, roads, parks, development, public safety and the long-term financial health of the city. Residents should examine the records of incumbents and the claims of challengers carefully.
Candidates should be asked difficult questions. Their financial support, past conduct, policy positions and potential conflicts should be examined. Promises should be tested against evidence and the actual powers of municipal government.
But dismissing every candidate as corrupt before that examination begins guarantees only one outcome: fewer residents participating and less pressure on those who eventually take office.
Politicians do not deserve blind trust. They do deserve to be judged individually, according to evidence.
Democracy needs sceptical citizens. It cannot survive citizens who have concluded that scrutiny, participation and better government are pointless.