Justice John Gomery appointed to lead sponsorship inquiry

In February 2004 Prime Minister Paul Martin's government appointed Quebec Superior Court Justice John Gomery to head a public inquiry into the federal sponsorship programme, after the auditor general reported misuse of funds. The televised hearings damaged the Liberal Party ahead of the 2006 election.

Independent inquiry into the sponsorship programme

A federal advertising programme intended to reinforce Canadian identity became a case of opaque spending, overcharging and political involvement. On 10 February 2004 Prime Minister Paul Martin announced an independent inquiry after Auditor General Sheila Fraser examined federal sponsorship and advertising activities. Quebec Superior Court judge John Gomery was appointed to investigate how agencies were selected, how commissions and fees were paid, and whether politicians and public servants had exercised appropriate oversight. The commission could summon evidence and make recommendations but was barred from assigning criminal or civil liability.

Martin had cancelled the sponsorship programme after becoming prime minister on 12 December 2003. In an April 2005 address he defended the inquiry and said his government had introduced additional spending controls and legal efforts to recover money. He stated that lawsuits sought more than 40 million Canadian dollars from nineteen people and companies. Those actions followed allegations that public funds had been mismanaged while the Liberal Party controlled the federal government. The public inquiry heard testimony in a politically charged environment, forcing scrutiny of the party's own governing record.

On 1 November 2005 the first Gomery report identified political involvement, gross overcharging by communications agencies and deliberate evasion of procurement legislation or policy. Martin accepted the report's findings and apologized for the failures of federal administration. On 1 February 2006 a second report addressed proposed reforms as an incoming Conservative government prepared to take office. The scandal contributed to public distrust and intensified party competition, but the inquiry's formal findings concerned particular spending practices rather than guilt of every Liberal official. The appointment's lasting consequence was to place evidence about contracting abuses into a public record and expose how weak procurement controls could entangle a governing party with state expenditure.