Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin Ousted By Parliament

Prime Minister Paul Martin and his Liberal Party minority government were voted out of office tonight by political opponents in the Canadian Parliament, the first such ouster in 26 years.  The no-confidence vote, which follows a two-year escalation in a Liberal Party ad scandal, was called for last week when Martin refused to hold new elections in February.

From Bloomberg:

Lawmakers in Ottawa voted 171-133 in favor of a motion calling for Martin to step down after a public inquiry found members of his Liberal Party received kickbacks in exchange for advertising contracts.

No single party has majority support in Canada, so the prospect of another minority government looms, pending our northern neighbors' first mid-winter election in a generation.

The Liberals have about 36 percent support of decided voters, compared with 27 percent for the Conservatives, 16 percent for the New Democrats and 13 percent for the Bloc Quebecois, according to an Ipsos Reid poll published on Nov. 17. The survey of 1,000 people has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

Parties typically need to win more than 40 percent of the vote to gain majorities in parliament. The Liberals have 133 seats in the House of Commons, the Conservatives have 98, the Bloc hold 53 and the New Democrats 18.

Scandal Background

Paul Martin became PM in December 2003.  Less than two months later, the "AdScam" sponsorship scandal broke.  The scandal dates back to 1996, when Martin was Finance Minister.  Beginning that year, hundreds of millions of dollars (well, Canadian dollars) were allocated to mount a massive pro-Canada PR campaign in Quebec, following the nearly successful referendum by the province to secede from Canada.

The advertising that resulted was minimal and lackluster, owing (Conservatives charged) to the funds being directed to firms allied with the Liberal Party.  An audit of the program found that as much as $100 million had been allocated to ad firms that, in some cases, never rendered any services.  Critics maintained that Martin's prominent financial role in the federal government during this period meant he could not have been unaware of the misappropriations.

Further:  Wikipedia offers a detailed timeline of the scandal.
Elsewhere:  Daily Pundit, Instapundit, Captain's Quarters