The 2004 Canadian Elections

By Harold Clarke (University of Texas, Dallas)

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

Canada's 38th federal election was a closely fought, exciting, and consequential contest. Held on June 28th 2004, the election pitted the governing Liberal Party against three principal rivals, the (new) Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), and the separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ). Several minor parties, such as the Greens, the Marijuana Party, and the Marxist-Leninist Party, also fielded candidates. Since the virtual annihilation of the Progressive Conservative (PC) Party in 1993, the Liberals had dominated Canadian national politics, winning parliamentary majorities in each of the 1993, 1997, and 2000 federal elections. However, once the 2004 election was called, the party's prospects for a fourth consecutive mandate were anything but assured. Polls quickly showed Liberal support slipping, particularly in the key battleground province of Ontario, where the party won 100 of its 172 seats in 2000. The Liberals also were struggling in several other areas of the country. Quebec polls were particularly threatening, with the resurgent BQ leading the Liberals by over 20%. There appeared to be a strong possibility that no party would win a majority of seats, and it was even conceivable that the Conservatives, rather than the Liberals, might form a minority government.

This was a remarkable turn of events. In late 2003 everything seemed in place for another Liberal victory. The economy was in reasonably good shape, and the new Liberal leader, Paul Martin, enjoyed widespread popularity. In contrast, the opposition appeared weak and divided. Decade-long efforts to "unite the right" after the PCs' disastrous showing in 1993 had finally led to the formation of the new Conservative Party of Canada. However, many observers believed the new party and its leader, Stephen Harper, were too ideologically extreme to appeal to voters outside of the party's base in western Canada. In Quebec, the fires of separatism appeared to have been doused. If so, the BQ would be lucky to hold the 38 seats it held-the Liberals would take the rest. And, the Liberals would do fairly or, perhaps, very well in Atlantic Canada. Doing the math, Liberal strategists were very comfortable.

Then, two things happened. First was the "sponsorship scandal." On February 10th, 2004, the Auditor General reported that over $100 million in federal funds had been "misspent" as part of an initiative to advertise the many good things the federal government was doing for Quebeckers. In acts of blatant corruption, some prominent federal Liberals in Quebec had apparently simply pocketed the money. When the scandal broke, Liberal support in the province quickly eroded, and disaffected voters flooded to the BQ. The scandal also affected Liberal fortunes elsewhere, with polls showing that many Canadians found it incredible that Paul Martin, formerly a senior cabinet minister from Quebec, was not involved in the scandal.

The second blow to Liberal fortunes was a budget introduced by the newly elected Ontario provincial Liberals. As part of their successful 2003 election campaign, the Ontario Liberals had taken a page from George H. W. Bush's playbook, promising "no new taxes!" Then, just days before the federal election was called, they reneged-introducing massive new levies to cover revenue shortfalls in health care. The result was a strong backlash, with disgruntled Ontarians exercising their wrath on Mr. Martin and the federal Liberals.

At mid-campaign, many commentators were jumping on the Conservative minority government bandwagon. But, others were more cautious, noting that there were reasons to think the game might not be over. Polls showing the Liberals in trouble also indicated that many voters were undecided. In this regard, studies conducted since the 1960s have consistently revealed that many Canadians lack strong, durable partisan allegiances. As a result, party support can-and sometimes does-move in very consequential ways during election campaigns. And, what moves once, can move again. A Liberal recovery thus remained a realistic possibility.

This is exactly what happened. As the campaign entered the home stretch, the Conservatives committed two monumental gaffes. First, they accused Paul Martin of being soft on child pornography. Voters simply did not believe this extremely nasty charge, and Conservative poll numbers began to drop. The second mistake occurred when Alberta Premier Ralph Klein mused to reporters that his Conservative provincial government was considering a new health care scheme that involved significant privatization. This was exactly the kind of "right-wing" policy initiative that the Liberals were keen to warn the electorate about. The Liberals capitalized on Klein's miscue, launching a massive barrage of negative campaign ads that portrayed the Conservatives as ideological extremists bent on destroying Canada's cherished social safety net. The Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, was also accused of being in league with American President George W. Bush, and having plans to send Canadian troops to Iraq. People who were thinking of voting for the social democratic NDP were encouraged to switch to the Liberals to keep the Conservatives' ideologues from implementing their nefarious policy agenda.

On Election Day, the balloting revealed that the Liberals had made a substantial, but not complete, revival. Nationwide they attracted 36.7% of the vote, whereas the Conservatives and NDP obtained 29.6% and 15.7%, respectively. However, in Quebec, the separatist BQ maintained its large lead, with 48.8% of the vote, compared to 33.9% for the Liberals. Translated into parliamentary seats, these numbers spelled minority government. Although the number of Liberal seats was down substantially compared to the previous (2000) federal election, the Liberals still managed to win 135 ridings, compared to 99 for the Conservatives, 54 for the BQ, and 19 for the NDP. How long a Liberal minority government will last is now one of the most pressing questions in Canadian politics.

There are other important questions as well. One concerns the new Conservative Party. Overall, the new Conservatives captured 99 seats, and made a limited breakthrough in Ontario by winning 24 seats in that strategic province. However, their vote share was a disappointing 8% lower than the combined total obtained by the two previous right-of-center parties (the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives) in 2000. Whether "the right will (eventually) unite" is unknown. Another question concerns turnout. Only 60.5% of the eligible electorate went to the polls in 2004, the lowest level of electoral participation in Canadian history. Turnout now has declined in each of the last four federal elections. Whether this downward trend will continue remains to be seen.

Yet another, and ominous, result of the 2004 election was the strong showing by the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Surveys conducted during and after the election campaign indicate that the BQ's impressive vote total has been accompanied by a rebirth of public support for Quebec sovereignty, with nearly half of Quebeckers saying they would vote "yes" if another sovereignty referendum were held. These survey numbers and the BQ's electoral performance powerfully contradict claims that the sovereignty movement is dead. In the wake of the 2004 federal election, the Canadian polity is again "on the edge."

Harold Clarke is the Ashbel Smith Professor in the School of Social Sciences at University of Texas at Dallas. He is currently a principal investigator of a NSF-funded look at the 2004 Canadian elections, titled "Electoral Choice and Political Support in Contemporary Canada: Changing Choices and Rival Models." He can be reached at hclarke@utdallas.edu.