Paul Martin - 2006 Federal Election

2006 Federal Election

Martin campaigned on a vision of Canada different from that of the Conservatives, centering on issues of health care, daycare, tax cutting, and national autonomy. However for much of the campaign, the Liberals were frequently on the defensive due to corruption within the party, as a result of revelations of details regarding the Sponsorship Scandal.

Martin became involved in a diplomatic row with the United States administration after accusing, with Bill Clinton, the US of not listening to global environmental concerns. Martin rejected the US Ambassador David Wilkins' rebuke and stated that he was standing up for Canada's interests over softwood and other issues. Wilkins, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, and NDP leader Jack Layton accused Martin of orchestrating a row with the US in order to garner public support during an election campaign and noted that Canada's record in cutting carbon dioxide emissions is worse than that of the US.

Prior to the campaign and upon dropping of the writs, opinion polling indicated the Liberals were ahead of the Conservatives by 2–10% popular support (November 30, 2005: Liberals 35%, Conservatives 30%). However, the Liberal lead did not last. They did not plan much serious campaigning during December, allowed the Conservatives to take the initiative in rolling out policy ideas. Several early gaffes were picked up by an unsympathetic media. One notable gaffe was Liberal Party strategist Scott Reid's suggestion that parents might buy beer and popcorn with the Conservative's child care subsidy, although Martin declined to apologize. Martin was also criticized for portraying himself as the defender of Canadian unity; some opponents pointed that this election was not a referendum while others pointed to the Sponsorship Scandal.

Near the end of December, the Liberals were rocked by a Royal Canadian Mounted Police criminal investigation into the leaking of news of a federal tax change for income trusts. This again brought the Sponsorship Scandal into public attention, at the time when Martin planned to make important policy announcements. Under constant campaign pressure by all opposition parties casting Martin and the Liberals as corrupt, Liberal support fell to as low as 26% in the early weeks of January 2006.

Martin did not put in a strong performance during the televised campaign debates. While appearing passionate in his message, he stuttered in making statements and appeared somewhat flustered. During one debate, Martin made a surprise pledge that he would eliminate the notwithstanding clause, while the Conservatives pointed out that this was not one of the announced Liberal campaign promises.

In an attempt to sway voter sentiment in the final two weeks of the campaign, the Liberals prepared a series of attack ads. One unreleased ad was seen widely as disrespectful of the military and it not only overshadowed the other ads but also forced Martin to defend the controversial ad instead of releasing new policies. During the last week, Martin was forced to defend Harper after the latter was called a separatist by Canadian Auto Workers union leader Buzz Hargrove. In another tactic similar to the 2004 campaign, Hargrove urged all progressive voters to unite under the Liberal banner in English Canada and the Bloc Québécois in Quebec to stop the Conservatives, hoping to attract voters who were leaning towards the NDP, but New Democrat leader Jack Layton responded by focusing his attacks on Liberal corruption.

In the end, the Conservatives won a plurality of support and seats, finishing 31 seats short of a majority. The Liberals held their base of support in Ontario, with 54 seats of the 103 in the province. The Liberals lost a number of seats in Quebec: winning only 13 of the 75 seats in the province, down from 21 in 2004, while the Conservatives won 10 seats there. The Liberals did not improve their standings in the Western provinces, winning only 14 of the 92 seats, the same number as in 2004.