With the Liberals, I think it was all of the above. 
But the specific action that led to the current crisis is that the government had, back in 1995, hired advertising agencies to promote federalism in Quebec. It’s since come out that advertising agencies with ties to the Liberals got contracts because of their ties to the party, and didn’t really do much work. It’s come to a head recently because, back in April, a judge agreed to release publication of testimony of Jean Brault, the head of an advertising firm in Montreal, who testified that his firm got a $141 million dollar contract, in exchange for kickbacks of $818,000 to the Liberal Party.
Here’s a timeline of the scandal, by the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/timeline_2005.html
Acceptance of bribes? Solicitation of bribes? Failure to honor deals predicated on bribes? - so far, there have been no allegations of bribery (i.e. paying someone to vote or influence policy in a particular way) coming out of the Gomery Commission.
Embezzlement of public funds? Not embezzlement per se, but the big allegation coming out of Gomery is kick-backs and invoice-padding - that the Liberal government directed public funds to Liberal-friendly ad agencies, on the understanding that the ad agencies would pad their invoices and would re-direct some of the money back to Liberal flaks, in the traditional “cash in big bills in brown paper bags.” Justice Gomery has not yet ruled on the credibility of such allegations, and other witnesses have denied them, hence PM Martin’s plea to let Gomery finish his work, make his report, then have the election.
Cheating on campaign-financing laws? There have been allegations of this as well - that the Liberal flaks who were getting cash kickbacks were working on the campaign, and thus were getting paid surreptitiously, which if true, is a violation of campaign finance laws, and out of public money to boot, which is the insult to injury. Again, however, there have been conflicting stories coming out of the inquiry, and Justice Gomery has not ruled on the issue, hence the “wait for Gomery” theme.
Sexual peccadilloes? Prime Minister Martin? That white, pasty body in the noood? Gawd, I hope not. Thanks for planting that thought in my head, BrainGlutton!
Seriously, Canadian scandals don’t usually involve sex. There was the Munsinger thing back in the sixties, but that was more about a politico sleeping with an East German spy than pecadillos per se. Sexual activities of our politicians don’t normally arise as a matter of public interest - I think it’s the influence of the French attitude that matters sexual are private.
** Or just telling lies or half-truths to the public?** I think that’s an endemic complaint in all democracies… 
[QUOTE=Northern PiperSexual activities of our politicians don’t normally arise as a matter of public interest - I think it’s the influence of the French attitude that matters sexual are private.[/QUOTE]
You are so wise! 
Or maybe it’s true that Canadians are dull, and we only have sex with our respective wives and husbands.
Hey, it just occurred to me - that may be the real reason that same-sex marriage is getting traction up here: if you’re having sex you’d better be married, dammit! We like things to be respectable!
Well, there were also the Fox and Coates scandals (see the CBC Top Ten scandal list for details), but they were pretty tame.
[hijack] Take this list with a grain of salt. I have some personal knowledge from my job of the 9th item listed (the “Billion-Dollar Boondoggle”), and the media reports were typically long on horrified outrage and short on actual research into the facts. The main outcome of the audit and RCMP investigations was the identification of a half-dozen dubious projects and a scathing report by the Auditor General that poor record-keeping and failure to do follow-ups made it difficult to prove that projects were legitimate based on the file documentation, and had the potential for major problems if not corrected. [/hijack]
I’m not so sure that there’s no place for such a party - I’m just not convinced that Stephen Harper and his group actually want to be that party.
One of the most telling points is that several prominent MPs on the left of the conservative spectrum have not found it possible to get traction in the new party, to the point that they either leave the party or don’t join it. And not just minor MPs, but several prominent ones, notably ones that have run for the leadership of the current party or its predeccessors:
-
Keith Martin (former Reform/Alliance MP; ran for leadership of the Alliance; lost to Harper; defected to the Liberals);
-
Scott Brison (former PC MP; ran for leadership of the PCs; lost to Peter MacKay; did not join new party; crossed floor to Liberals);
-
Stronach (ran for leadership of new Conservative party; lost to Harper; you know the rest).
And then there’s Joe Clark - former PC Prime Minister; refused to join the new party; in the last election, recommended voting for Liberals.
These aren’t minor players. If you run for the leadership of your party, you’ve normally got some position within the party to start with. And all of them identified Harper’s positions on social issues as major factors in their decisions. That’s pretty telling about the strength of the social conservatives in the current party.
And, it’s important to remember the difference in this area between a parliamentary system and a congressional/presidential system. It’s perfectly okay for Bush to crush McCain in the primaries and send him back to Congress, because the executive in the congressional system is a one-man show: the President runs it, and doesn’t want any competition. But in a parliamentary system, MPs who disagree with the leader can’t be crushed in the same way, because they have standing within the caucus, and as Harper has now discovered, they can vote against you.
Tony Blair understands the need to keep all wings of his parliamentary party satisfied. Exhibit A: Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown, who evidently loathes Tony, who reciprocates the loathing, but has kept Brown in a prominent position in his government since they got in. Tony understands that if he ignores viewpoints in the party because he disagrees with them, he may eventually get knifed in the back by one of his own party members. Either Harper just hasn’t figured that out, or he prefers ideological purity over a big tent parliamentary party.
Paul Martin just got another reinforcement: Labrador has returned a Liberal MP to the House of Commons in today’s bye-election, thereby bumping up the Liberal caucus by one more. Still not a majority, even with the NDP, since there are also the three independents, but every little bit counts:
Liberal win in Labrador byelection gives ruling party some breathing room
Does this really make a difference? They still need Cadman’s vote, or at least abstention.
[C. Montgomery Burns voice] “Climb the ladder, Monty, climb the ladder…” [/ C. Montgomery Burns voice]