The Chrétien government was plagued by scandal, from Shawinigate to political interference in commissions of inquiry (and much more), and yet his Liberals were re-elected to majority governments twice. Paul Martin, who inherited the sponsorship scandal (Adscam) after replacing Chrétien as party leader, saw his Liberals reduced to a minority government when he sought a new mandate just four months after auditor general Sheila Fraser released her February 2004 report exposing the government’s handling of sponsorship funds in Quebec. Martin faced another election in 2006 and lost to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives two months after John Gomery released his commission’s initial report into Adscam.
Harper’s government is arguably dealing with its first major scandal and polls indicate Conservative support tanking following revelations that a handful of senators made false, perhaps even fraudulent, expense claims.
In some ways, it isn’t even a Harper scandal. One of the four senators was a Liberal and senators are not even part of the government, even if they are members of the governing party. The conflating of the legislature and government in the public’s mind is one reason senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin resigned from the party’s caucus.
Furthermore, Adscam involved dollar amounts in the tens of millions that are many times larger than the expenses the senators have inappropriately claimed. Either way, it is a lot of money to most Canadians and the principle of not personally benefiting from holding office is important.
Yet, the Senate scandal has the potential to become larger if, as NDP MP Craig Scott has questioned, there are more senators who submitted expenses for their partisan activities.
There are any number of theories as to why some scandals seem not to affect a government’s popularity, while others seem destined to doom their prospects for re-election. Perhaps a certain level of scandal is tolerated. Or perhaps some types of scandals offend voters more than others.
If Adscam was politically fatal for the Liberals, does the Senate scandal present a similar danger for the Tories?
Adscam involved funnelling money to agencies and individuals with ties to the Liberal Party of Canada from the sponsorship program, which sought to buttress the Canada “brand” in Quebec to counter support for separatism; advertising companies and individuals with ties to the party were paid tens of millions of dollars for little or no work. This type of abuse of taxpayer dollars for partisan gain is easily understood and seems to upset voters more than other forms of corruption, such as an abuse of power.
The Senate scandal could be viewed similarly. It is one thing to claim a housing allowance or travel expense for which one is not qualified, but such venality is quite another thing when the senator is double-dipping, taking money from candidates for partisan activities such as campaigning or fundraising while also being reimbursed through the public purse by claiming official Senate business.
As former high-profile journalists, senators such as Duffy and Wallin had star power when promoting the Conservatives on the campaign hustings or making pitches for donations. Under the Canada Elections Act, senators can engage in such activities, but expenses such as travel and hotel bills, must be paid by the individual campaigns or national party. It appears that in some cases, Duffy was reimbursed by both the campaign and with a Senate per diem.
Harper is responsible for appointing the errant senators, but that was about it. His office only became embroiled in the scandal when his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, gave the $90,172 to Duffy to repay ineligible housing allowances. That involvement from a member of the PMO appeared to be a desperate attempt to make the issue go away. It didn’t. The gift was bungled and Wright was forced to resign.
One might argue that Conservative support is dropping because the scandals are occurring at the same time the government appears tired, offering little in the way of new policies or ideas. The scandal therefore lends credence to public cynicism that these politicians are in politics for only their own advantage.
Harper’s tough talk during a caucus meeting last week included calling on those who seek personal benefits from public life to leave caucus, and is reminiscent of Martin’s promise to get to the bottom of Adscam. Ultimately that cost Martin his government. Yet Harper also downplays the scandal as a “distraction.”
Some speculate that if Harper can rejuvenate his government with a cabinet shuffle and new agenda, the scandals won’t matter much in the next election. But there are enough similarities between Adscam and the Senate scandal for Harper to be worried; the damage to Harper’s image as a capable manager of both the economy and government might not be reversible.
Or perhaps Harper will be given a mulligan on this scandal as Chrétien repeatedly was, and it won’t matter in two years. There is still a lot of politics between now and October 2015.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Paul Tuns
No comments:
Post a Comment