The 2006 Canadian Federal Election

By Harold Clarke (University of Texas, Dallas), Allan Kornberg (Duke University), and Tom Scotto (West Virginia University).

Additional Canadian Politics Resources Experts, Research, & Publications >>

      Canada's 39th general election was held on January 23rd, 2006.  Only twenty months earlier, on June 28th 2004, the governing Liberals - in power continuously since 1993 -- had been reduced to a minority in Parliament, winning only 135 of 308 seats and  37% of the popular vote.  Minority governments in Canada typically have quite short half-lives, and the Liberal government formed after the 2004 election was no exception.  On November 28th, 2005, the government lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, and Canadians faced the prospect of a winter trek to the polls.  As had been the case in 2004, the ensuing campaign was an exciting contest, with opinion polls showing strong movements in party support.  On election day, the erstwhile principal opposition party, the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), attracted 36% of the vote.  This was enough to give the CPC a small plurality (124) of seats, and the opportunity to form a minority government.  For their part, the Liberals were reduced to 103 seats and a 30% vote share.  The small left-of-center New Democratic Party (NDP) ate into Liberal support, taking 18% of the national vote, and 29 seats, 10 more than in 2004.  In contrast, the Quebec separatist party, the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) lost support.  Although the BQ captured 51 of the province's 75 seats (only 3 less than in 2004), its vote declined from 49% to 42%, as a sizable group of Quebeckers rallied late in the campaign to the surging Conservatives.          

     Many of the issues at play in 2006 strongly resembled those in 2004.  Most salient was the "sponsorship" scandal.  In the run-up to the 2004 election, the Auditor General's annual report revealed that the (Liberal) government had allocated millions of dollars to pro-Liberal advertising agencies in Quebec, ostensibly to inform Quebeckers of the many good things Ottawa was doing on their behalf.  In fact, much of the work was not done, and proper records were not maintained.  The scandal precipitated a judicial inquiry (the Gomery Inquiry) which reported in November 2005 that although Liberal leader, Prime Minister Paul Martin, was not personally at fault, former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and several other prominent Liberals bore responsibility.  In addition, the report found evidence of a massive kickback scheme whereby large sums of money were funneled into Liberal Party coffers.  The scandal did substantial damage to Mr. Martin and his party in 2004, and threatened to do so again in 2006.  

     At first this did not seem to be the case.  As the campaign began, polls showed the Liberals running well ahead of the Conservatives, with vote intention shares very similar to the parties' vote tallies in 2004.  For nearly three weeks, the campaign seemed to be nothing more than "de ja vu all over again."  However, in late December allegations of two new Liberal financial scandals made national headlines.  The effects on party support were quickly evident.  Trends in Ontario and Quebec were particularly important.  In the former province, the Conservatives and NDP both benefited at the Liberals expense, whereas in the latter, large numbers of so-called "soft nationalists" deserted the hitherto dominant BQ in favor of the Conservatives.    

     Although important, Liberal scandals were not the only prominent issues in the 2006 campaign.  As is typical in Canadian elections, all of the parties tried to convince voters that they would deliver a bountiful supply of health care and other cherished public services.  In 2006, hospital care waiting times and child care were focal points of concern.  Attempting to demonstrate that he was very much in the mainstream, and not the right-wing fanatic the Liberals portrayed him as in 2004, Stephen Harper promised that a Conservative government would boost health care funding, implement a guaranteed hospital waiting time scheme, and give families $1200 per child "no strings attached."  Another 2004 issue back on stage was same-sex marriage.  Endorsed as a "Charter Right" by both the Liberals and the NDP, and dismissed as irrelevant by the BQ, the Conservatives said that same-sex marriage would be subject to a free vote in Parliament should they win the election.  

     Gun control, U.S.-Canada relations, and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) also made return engagements.  In the wake of heavy criticism of their "gun registry" program and a wave of highly publicized gang-style shootings in major cities, the Liberals proposed eliminating all hand guns.  The Conservatives responded that the Liberals (and NDP) were mistaking guns for criminals, and that persons using firearms in the conduct of felonies were the ones that needed to be locked up.  And, replaying a perennial theme in Canadian politics, the parties sparred about relations with the United States.  Portraying himself as the defender of Canadian sovereignty, Prime Minister Martin charged that the U.S. had repeatedly violated NAFTA regulations about tariffs on the import of softwood lumber, and was negligent on a host of environmental protection issues.  In addition, Martin reiterated his 2004 charge that his rival, Mr. Harper, was in league with President Bush, and had plans to send Canadian troops to Iraq.  Harper responded by saying that, in fact, it was Martin who had plans to put Canadians on the firing line in that war-torn country.  As for the GST, the Conservatives announced that they would reduce this national sales tax by 2%.  The Liberals, touting low employment and a budget surplus, countered by arguing that an income tax reduction was the way forward.  

     Finally, national unity was once again on the front burner.  After the very narrow defeat of the 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum proposal, it was widely argued that the separatist movement was in terminal decline.  But, as the 2004 election result and numerous subsequent opinion polls demonstrated, this was wishful thinking.  Fueled by widespread perceptions that the federal Liberals had "disrespected" Quebec by their actions in the sponsorship scandal, Bloc Quebecois support skyrocketed.  Early in the election campaign, a leaked internal Liberal party memo warned that the BQ was poised take all but 10 seats in the province.  Moreover, polls showed that Jean Charest's pro-federalist provincial Liberal government also was massively unpopular, making a separatist victory in the next Quebec provincial election a distinct possibility.  The latter would set the stage for another sovereignty referendum.  

     The strength of pro-sovereignty forces in Quebec was both problem and opportunity for the federal Liberals.  It was an obvious problem for them because the growth of separatist sentiment has occurred on their watch.  But, it was an opportunity as well.  Historically, the Liberals have reaped political profits by portraying themselves to the ROC (rest of Canada) as the only party that can keep Quebec in Confederation.  Equally, the Liberals have been able to convince many Quebeckers that they are only party that can keep the separatists in check, while advancing Quebec's interests in the national political arena.  In the 2006 election, Mr. Martin and his party played this familiar double-edged gambit one more time.
 In the event, neither national unity nor any of the other major campaign issues worked the way the Liberals hoped.  And, unlike 2004, many voters did not accept the Liberals' late campaign barrage of negative advertising that portrayed Stephen Harper as a Canadian George Bush.  As a result, the Liberals were unable to convince NDP supporters that they should behave tactically, voting Liberal to stop the right-wing bogey man.  Indeed, as it became evident in the waning days of the campaign that the Liberals were about to be defeated, NDP leader, Jack Layton turned the logic of tactical voting on its head.  He appealed to left-leaning Liberal partisans to "lend us your vote" to ensure a strong, progressive voice in Ottawa to oppose a Harper-led CPC government.    

     When the ballots were counted, the Liberals were indeed ousted, and party leader Paul Martin immediately resigned.  However, the Liberal defeat was limited, because the Conservatives have only a plurality, not a majority of parliamentary seats.   Minority governments are not unusual in Canada -- fully eight of 17 federal elections conducted over the past half-century have resulted in hung parliaments.   Placed in an inherently fragile political situation, the Conservatives will need extraordinary political skill to implement their campaign pledges.  And, although Mr. Harper and his party have  demonstrated their ability to appeal to a pivotal segment of the Quebec electorate, pro-sovereignty forces remain formidable in that province.  Thus, should it survive past the next Quebec provincial election, a Harper-led federal government may well face the prospect of championing the cause of Canada in yet another sovereignty referendum -- a contest where the very future of the country will again be on the line.