UCPayToPlay Scandal Deserves a Public Inquiry
Adscam taught us that multiple investigations are good, but not enough
The UCPayToPlay scandal is now the subject of six separate investigations. That might sound like a lot—more than enough to get to the bottom of the allegations—but history tells us otherwise.
During the federal Sponsorship Scandal (AdScam) in the early 2000s, multiple investigations ran in parallel, each serving a different purpose. It took a full public inquiry—the Gomery Commission—to provide the definitive account of what went wrong.
The Alberta government’s current patchwork of investigations, audits, and court cases involving UCPayToPlay lacks that crucial element of comprehensive, independent, and public accountability.
The Sponsorship Scandal showed us that multiple investigations, even criminal ones, can only do so much on their own. They work best when a public inquiry brings all the findings together, connects the dots, and lays out the full picture for citizens. That’s exactly what Alberta needs.
The Six Investigations
1. AHS Internal Review
What It’s Doing: Alberta Health Services (AHS) conducted an internal review to determine if procurement rules were followed when handing out contracts. The last we heard (from the Mentzelopoulos lawsuit), this report was handed off from the former AHS CEO to the health minister.
The Problem: The findings go directly to the Smith government. This means the review lacks independence and transparency, as Albertans won’t see the full report unless the government chooses to release it.
2. Auditor General’s Investigation
What It’s Doing: Reporting to the Alberta Legislature, the Auditor General is examining whether public funds were mismanaged in awarding the contracts at the heart of the scandal.
The Problem: The Auditor General is independent but limited to financial oversight. This investigation won’t cover political interference, ethical breaches, or systemic democratic failures.
3. Third-Party Review
What It’s Doing: The UCP government has contracted a former Manitoba judge to conduct an independent review. His reports will be made public.
The Problem: The government determined the scope of the review and has limited it to “the relevant legislation, regulations and policies related to procurement typically used by Government of Alberta departments and agencies, specifically AHS, and their application to the procurement of pharmaceuticals and to services offered by chartered surgical facilities.” The scandal runs much deeper and broader than that, including allegations of political interference.
4. Mentzelopoulos Lawsuit
What It’s Doing: The former head of the Alberta Medical Association, Athana Mentzelopoulos, has filed a lawsuit, alleging wrongful dismissal related to the scandal.
The Problem: Lawsuits are private legal matters that resolve disputes between parties. While court proceedings could reveal useful evidence, they won’t investigate broader systemic failures or political misconduct. They can also be settled out of court.
5. Ethics Commissioner Inquiry
What It’s Doing: The Alberta Ethics Commissioner is investigating potential conflicts of interest or breaches of the Conflicts of Interest Act. The report will be issued to the Alberta Legislature.
The Problem: The Ethics Commissioner has a narrow mandate—this inquiry will only determine whether specific individuals broke ethics laws, not whether deeper structural problems exist. Also, the government altered ethics rules in the midst of the alleged wrongdoing, limiting the amount of scrutiny the Commissioner can provide.
6. RCMP Investigation
What It’s Doing: Presumably, the RCMP is investigating whether criminal laws were broken in the awarding of contracts.
The Problem: Police investigations focus only on criminal wrongdoing, not political or ethical failures. Many of the most serious breaches of public trust may not be illegal but are still unacceptable in a democracy. RCMP investigations are also notoriously lengthy, sometimes stretching beyond an electoral cycle (particularly if witnesses are not forthcoming).
What These Investigations Can’t Do—And Why a Public Inquiry Is Necessary
Each of these investigations serves a function, but they are piecemeal, fragmented, and limited in scope. Without a public inquiry, Albertans will never get:
A full account of the scandal, including how deep and broad the problems go.
A public forum where key players are forced to testify under oath about who knew what and when.
A comprehensive set of reforms to prevent future abuse.
This is exactly what happened in the Sponsorship Scandal, and it’s why a public inquiry was ultimately necessary.
Lessons from the Sponsorship Scandal
The Sponsorship Scandal—a federal Liberal Party corruption scandal in the early 2000s—involved a similar mix of investigations. At its core, the scandal revolved around millions of dollars in federal sponsorship funds being funneled to Liberal-friendly advertising firms in exchange for little or no work. Public outrage grew as details emerged, and various investigations were launched:
1. Auditor General’s Report (2004)
Auditor General Sheila Fraser released a damning report exposing serious financial mismanagement, kickbacks, and improper contracting.
What it did: Provided evidence that rules were broken and taxpayer dollars were wasted.
What it didn’t do: It could not hold public hearings, compel testimony, or make broader political or systemic recommendations.
2. Parliamentary Committee
MPs launched an inquiry in the House of Commons to hold officials accountable.
What it did: Allowed parliamentarians to question key figures.
What it didn’t do: The committee lacked subpoena power, and its findings were politically charged and divided along party lines.
3. Liberal Party Internal Review
The Liberal Party of Canada conducted an internal review, expelled implicated members, and attempted to distance itself from wrongdoing.
What it did: Allowed the party to impose internal discipline.
What it didn’t do: It was not independent and had no legal authority to investigate beyond party members.
4. RCMP Criminal Investigation
The RCMP conducted criminal investigations, leading to charges against several individuals, including business executives and political aides.
What it did: Led to convictions and jail time for those involved.
What it didn’t do: Like all police investigations, it focused only on criminal acts and ignored broader political and governance failures.
5. The Gomery Commission (Public Inquiry)
The turning point came when the federal government launched the Gomery Commission, a full public inquiry chaired by Justice John Gomery.
What it did:
Held public hearings where key witnesses testified under oath.
Subpoenaed documents and uncovered political interference.
Laid out a full timeline of how the scandal unfolded.
Made sweeping recommendations for governance reform.
Why it was essential:
Unlike other investigations, it connected all the dots and provided the public with a complete, transparent picture.
It ensured long-term accountability by recommending legislative and structural changes to prevent future scandals.
Why Alberta Needs Its Own “Gomery Commission”
The UCPayToPlay scandal mirrors the Sponsorship Scandal in several ways:
Multiple investigations are underway, but none will tell the full story. We may get a lot of details, but lose the forest for the trees.
Criminal and ethical probes are too narrow, focusing only on individual wrongdoing.
Internal reviews lack independence and are politically controlled. Most don’t have the reach to include former government employees or those outside government.
Albertans deserve full transparency, not selective releases of information.Only a full public inquiry—with the ability to subpoena documents, compel testimony under oath, and hold public hearings—can connect the dots and provide Albertans with the full truth.
If Danielle Smith’s government is serious about restoring public trust, it should embrace a public inquiry.
If the Sponsorship Scandal taught us anything, it’s that real accountability requires multiple layers of scrutiny—including, and especially, an independent public inquiry. It also taught us that the revelations from numerous investigations can make it all but impossible for a governing party to dodge one.
The Gomry Inquiry is a good reference, as is the Code Inquiry mentioned by Mr. Chapman. There were also the shipbuilding scandal (albeit that focused on leaking documents), the Mulroney "bags of cash" scandal, and the corruption of the Devine government in Saskatchewan in the 1980s => https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/saskatchewan-tories-in-fraud-scandal. There are more (Bennett in B.C. for example), but the point is that it took in pretty much every instance the kind of comprehensive inquiry/investigation discussed by Prof. Wesley to get to the bottom.
One expects the RCMP investigation being started in Alberta will be focused on the potential of fraud, and the giving and accepting of bribes, but the real issue from a public perspective is, in the event any such is found, is how high up within the government did knowledge and consent (tacit or express) extend.
Yes, that will take a Public Inquiry, and I might suggest that the idealt person to appoint to do that would be Beverley McLaughlin, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
#FireTheLyingConnivingUCP