Sponsorship Scandal - Political Consequences

Political Consequences

Within the Liberal Party during 2004-05, revelations of scandal and the subsequent Gomery Commission highlighted the rift between the "Chrétien camp" and "Martin camp". These two groups had been fighting perhaps even prior to Chrétien's election as party leader in 1990; the Chrétienites were descended from long-serving Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau while the Martinites were linked to the right-leaning (and briefly Prime Minister) John Turner.

The Liberals, for the most part, have weathered the damage from the scandal by pointing out the conclusions of reports of the Auditor General and the Gomery Commission: misdeeds were committed by a small, isolated, and corrupt subculture within the previous Liberal government and in particular the PMO of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

Similarly, supporters of then Prime Minister Paul Martin argued that the "culture of corruption" was a byproduct of Chrétien's leadership and that any malicious elements had been purged, both from the government and the party, since the discoveries of wrongdoing. When he assumed the leadership of the party and then the country, Martin made an active effort to dissociate the Liberals and himself from Chrétien's supporters, arguing these individuals were implicated in the scandal, thus hoping to illustrate that the Liberal Party bore little or no connection or resemblance to party elements involved in the sponsorship program.

Martin supporters contend that many Chrétien loyalists left with or shortly after Chrétien left in 2004, before the scandal was revealed. They point to the departure of John Manley and other Chrétien cabinet ministers from the party, many of whom did not stand for candidacy in the 2004 federal election. Martin's supporters assert those expunged from the party were ejected for their impropriety and not for their leadership affiliations.

Chrétien supporters alleged that Martin used the scandal as an excuse to remove Chrétien supporters from their positions in government and the party. Often cited examples include Martin's major cabinet change after taking power and Martin's refusal to sign nomination papers of MPs who were known to support Chrétien, with many of these controversial moves occurring before the sponsorship scandal broke out.

The Chrétien camp also contended that the Gomery Commission was established to make them look bad, and that it was an unfair investigation. Martin's supporters responded to such allegations by pointing out that the commission was set up to search for facts under independent judicial oversight. They also argued that Justice Gomery's commission operated without undue influence from Martin or anyone outside of the investigation, having all due and necessary authority to investigate and draw conclusions on the matter. Chrétien's supporters were outraged that they shouldered all of the blame for the scandal, even though the commission was directed not to make any conclusions or recommendations on criminal charges or civil liability.

Detractors of Martin's innocence point out that he had a particularly powerful role in government, not only because of being Finance Minister, but also because he had significant support within the party due to his strong showing in the 1990 leadership contest. This forced Chrétien to make concessions to Martin, allowing the latter to wield considerable influence. Another cited example was a speech that Martin made in 1995, stating that separatism would be bad for Quebec's economy, which damaged support for federalism in the province and relegated Martin to a backroom role in fighting the referendum.

Many inside and outside of the Liberal Party contended that, going into the 2006 election, Martin-vs.-Chrétien issues are effectively behind the Liberals. There were few publicized nomination battles, although some Chrétien strategists complained that they have been left out. Formally, the two leaders have remained publicly respectful of each other.

Critics of the Liberal Party and even former Liberals, like Sheila Copps, argued that the sponsorship scandal has highlighted a "culture of corruption" within the Canadian government. Some Conservative critics alleged that the problems within the Liberal Party are so systematic it could only be effectively reversed (or cured) by a change of government and argue that the Liberals, who had been in power for over a decade, were too arrogant and complacent to be trusted with instituting necessary reforms. The sponsorship crisis thus became a key election issue, and remained a rallying-point for conservative opponents of the Liberals in the 2006 federal election.

Quebec sovereigntists—led by the Bloc Québécois in the federal parliament and the provincial Parti Québécois—have cited the scandal as "proof" of institutional corruption and dysfunctionality of the federal government. Critics have argued that the entire sponsorship scandal, originally intended to encourage pro-Canada sentiment in Quebec, has done exactly the opposite and instead, emboldened separatist forces in Quebec: polls before the election indicated increased support for sovereignty, rising to approximately 53% (around 19 December 2005). Ultimately support for separatism declined and the Bloc Québécois lost both popular vote and seats in the Parliament of Canada in the 2006 Federal Election.

The New Democratic Party (NDP) caucus of Jack Layton has also been criticized for alleging major corruption in the Liberal Party of Canada, while simultaneously working with the Martin government to achieve NDP policy objectives.

Unlike the 2004 Election, the Conservatives did not spend the initial part of the campaign attacking the Liberals for Adscam. The sponsorship scandal was brought back to national attention after an NDP member tipped off the RCMP to launch a criminal investigation into the Finance Department, regarding allegations of insider trading from the leaking of the news on the taxable status of income trusts.

The Conservative minority government of Stephen Harper introduced the Federal Accountability Act which included new lobbying rules and electoral law reform; it was granted royal assent on December 12, 2006. Still unfulfilled are promises for a Public Appointments Commission and registrar for lobbyists which is an independent officer of Parliament .

Communication Canada was created after the results of the 1995 Quebec referendum to increase intergovernmental communications. The agency was connected to the scandal and labelled as a propaganda machine and eventually disbanded in 2004.