Thank you.
The subamendment speaks to past elections. This is why it's so important. If we're going to look into this and look at the ethical conduct of public office holders, if we're going to talk about how they conducted themselves during an election and whether it was ethical, why are we looking to shine the light simply on one group or a few people? Quite frankly, I think there are people here sitting in judgment, and people sitting in our House of Commons, who may well not be fit to judge them, based on the ethics of some of the things they may have done.
We need to look into this. If it was wrong, or if others have committed wrongs, then let's shine the light on it. If they haven't, then fine; the report will reflect that.
The original motion, which is what the amendment and subamendment speak to, talks about refused reimbursement. I would really like to know, first of all, if there was reimbursement paid on money that was not.... You see, the Conservative Party raises money from its grassroots supporters. Millions of people across the country donate small amounts of money, and we're well supported. I think that's well known; it's a matter of record. People stand up for this party. They send in their money in volumes that no other party can possibly hope to compare to. We invest that money into elections, to put the truth out on what the issues involved in an election are. So we want to look at why reimbursement was refused.
I would like to know if there was stolen money reimbursed. Would anybody else like to know that? Isn't that relevant, that not only was taxpayers' money stolen, but that potentially more money was reimbursed on the back of stolen money? Isn't that interesting?
That's why the subamendment to the amendment, which expands this, is so critically important. It would absolutely confound me.... And I'm sorry that Mr. Martin left, because he's been a champion on this for his party. We don't agree on everything, but he has been a champion on this issue. Surely to goodness he would support this subamendment to the amendment based on that fact alone. If we're going to try to get the truth, if we're going to try to stand in judgment of any party, all parties should hold themselves to a standard and say “Here's what we do, and we think you haven't met that bar.” If the other parties are going to say that, then they had better be prepared to demonstrate exactly where the bar is in their party.
I have more information that I will bring up shortly--and I do have to step out shortly. But I think if any party is going to stand in judgment and say “We don't believe you've met the bar”, then they'd better establish that bar. I think other parties are saying “Oh, no. We don't want you to see what we do, because maybe we're not proud of what we do. But we want to look at what you do.” It's surprising.