Colleagues, I agree with Mr. Proulx that there's a fine line here. Let me explain it.
Dealing with what Elections Canada did or did not know or do, either in the particular in-and-out situation or in the sponsorship, or in any other proceedings or investigation or finding that they had, our motion is not to report or opine on the activities of Elections Canada. That's not part of the main motion, amendment, or subamendment. The issue for us is in regard to Elections Canada's report, its findings, the 2006 election, and the candidates--in fact the Conservative candidates at this point, as it says in the motion.
Our objective--and I hope members will move back to this--is not to find either wrongdoing or no wrongdoing on the part of any party, but rather to identify and determine if any of this that occurred, given the facts that we know, triggered any ethical undertakings or responsibilities. So to keep within our mandate, it is simply to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders. We have to do that for one very simple reason: otherwise it would be out of order under the mandate of this committee.
The amendment by Mr. Van Kesteren expands that to some extent. So should any information or investigation find it relates to other parties, we're going to expand the scope. So there's a flow.
Mr. Tilson's subamendment says that with regard to this, we're not going to restrict it to just the 2006 election, but rather to past elections.
The root of all of this is the ethical requirement and whether all the steps that are required of public office holders were taken in accordance with the ethical guidelines--if you read them--to the highest possible standard. I understand Elections Canada is involved here, but we cannot, as a committee, opine on whether Elections Canada has done anything correctly or incorrectly.
I want Mr. Del Mastro to continue, but I think just for the purposes of members' further interventions, it would be most helpful to keep the ethical root of this in the context of your argument. Okay?
Carry on, Mr. Del Mastro.