[1] Though an ongoing affair for years, it rose to national prominence in early 2004 after the program was examined by Auditor General Sheila Fraser, who found significant concerns.
[3] In the national spotlight, the scandal became a significant factor in the lead-up to the 2006 federal election when, after more than 12 years in power, the Liberals were defeated by the Conservatives, who formed a minority government that was sworn in February 2006.
May 8 – Fraser issues a report accusing "senior public servants" of having broken "just about every rule in the book" in awarding contracts worth $1.6 million to the Groupaction ad firm.
The commission was called by then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in February 2004 soon after a report by the Auditor General of Canada found unexplainable irregularities in the government's Sponsorship Program.
[25] The commission had a broader mandate, more power and greater resources than the Auditor General, and most importantly could look beyond government to the advertising agencies that had received the Sponsorship dollars.
The terms of reference allowed the commissioner to question witnesses, hire experts and adopt any procedures or methods that he considers expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry.
Specifically requested of Gomery were the following: to prevent mismanagement of sponsorship or advertising programs in the future, taking into account legislation to protect "whistleblowers"; to recommend changes to legislation to change the governance of Crown corporations to ensure that audit committees are strengthened, that public access to information is increased, that there is a consistent application of the provisions for each organization, that compliance and enforcement be enhanced, and finally that respective responsibilities and accountabilities of Ministers and public servants as recommended by the Auditor General of Canada.
At the end of his day of testimony Chrétien closed his statement by pulling out a series of golf balls bearing the name of American presidents and the law firm Ogilvie Renault (which at the time employed former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Gomery commission counsel Bernard Roy and Gomery's own daughter) asking whether each of them was "small town cheap."
The most important of these were by Groupaction executive Jean Brault who recounted a series of crimes committed to direct government money to Liberal party supporters.
Gomery specifically said that Martin "is entitled, like other ministers from the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct," as the Department of Finance's role was not oversight, but setting the "fiscal framework."
[27] On 26 June 2008, Federal Court ruled that Gomery had in fact displayed bias in several comments made before the hearings had closed and that his remarks showed that he had prejudged the issues.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper was sympathetic to Chrétien's complaints of bias, stating that the main problem was that the commission's terms of reference did not allow it to investigate Paul Martin's contracting habits as finance minister.
Chrétien, on the day the report was tabled in the House of Commons, objected to the findings of the commission, commenting that Gomery believed the wrong witnesses.
"Personally, I believe Jean Pelletier, a man who dedicated his life to the service of his city, his province and his country," said the former Prime Minister, dismissing Chuck Guité's testimony.
They want the court to review the commission report on the grounds that Gomery showed a "reasonable apprehension of bias", and that some conclusions didn't have an "evidentiary" basis.
[27] On 26 June 2008, Federal Court ruled that Gomery had in fact displayed bias in several comments made before the hearings had closed and that his remarks showed that he had prejudged the issues.
According to the Court, Gomery had personally insulted Chrétien when he described the distribution of golf balls bearing the prime minister's signature as "small-town cheap."
[24] Justice Max Teitelbaum criticized Gomery for having a preoccupation with the media spotlight that led him to give interviews he should have eschewed, making comments that indicated he judged issues before all evidence was heard, exhibited bias against Chrétien, and trivialized the inquiry proceedings.
For instance, Teitelbaum pointed out that Gomery's remark halfway through the hearings that "juicy stuff" was yet to come made it appear that evidence of wrongdoing was expected before it was heard.