The House of Commons was tense. “We have, on numerous occasions, called for a judicial inquiry into the scandal,” the Opposition leader said. “In order to reassure us that there will be no interference in the investigation into the prime minister’s own party, is he prepared to agree to a judicial inquiry, yes or no?”

The prime minister was having none of it. “Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has just said that the RCMP is doing its job well and is doing its duty as far as these matters are concerned.” Be patient and let the investigation proceed, he said.

The Opposition leader jumped back up. “Mr. Speaker, I gather from that answer the Prime Minister still refuses to hold an independent judicial inquiry into this ongoing scandal.”

The prime minister was a stone wall. “The RCMP is doing very independent work and the auditor general, who is a very independent officer of this House, and both of them are doing their jobs as they have to. I have nothing else to add.”

Of course the comment about the auditor general gives the game away. This isn’t a recent exchange over the voter suppression scandal. It’s the back-and-forth in the House of Commons on September 15, 2003. The prime minister is Jean Chrétien. The Opposition leader demanding a judicial inquiry is Stephen Harper.

And yet the fit with current events is eerily close. I did have to snip the words “Liberal” and “sponsorship.” And it’s Elections Canada investigating now, not the auditor general. But otherwise, this nine-year-old exchange could have come from the most recent Hansard.

But that detail about the auditor general makes all the difference.

When Sheila Fraser delivered her report on the sponsorship scandal in February, 2004, it was damning. But it was also limited. The auditor general didn’t have the authority to do all the muckraking that needed to be done. Having been condemned by the most respected officer in Ottawa, with worse allegations and suspicions outstanding, the Liberal government had no choice but to call a judicial inquiry. And watch it chisel the final date on its tombstone.

Today, the New Democrats and Liberals want an inquiry. The Conservative government refuses. Let Elections Canada investigate, the Tories say. (To be precise, the investigation is being carried out by the Commissioner of Canada Elections, appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada. Ultimately, Elections Canada will produce a report.)

Most pundits agree, citing the sponsorship scandal as a precedent. Wait for the Elections Canada report as we waited for the auditor general’s report, they say. Then we’ll see.

But the parallel is inexact. And the conclusion wrong.

The trust Canadians have in the office of the auditor general is extraordinary. That was particularly true when Sheila Fraser was the AG. Her word was gold, her integrity unquestioned.

It’s safe to say that most Canadians haven’t the same trust in Elections Canada simply because they know little about it. (What’s the name of the Chief Electoral Officer? The Commissioner of Canada Elections? For the record, they are Marc Mayrand and William Corbett.) As a consequence, politicians are not compelled to show Elections Canada the deference they do the auditor general. And they don’t.