Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mayrand, thank you for your comprehensive briefing. I think it's useful that we all start from the same base level of information. The clarification was very helpful.
Mr. Mayrand, the 2006 election was decided by razor-thin margins. I think over 50 ridings were won or lost by fewer than 1,000 votes. In other words, 50,000 votes could have turned the outcome of the election. That's why it's so important to us. This $1.3 million in extra advertising by this one party, above and beyond their spending limits, could have decided the outcome of the 39th election. It's really quite a serious matter when put in that context.
Now, you've made it clear that perhaps the “in and out” term is a misnomer. There's really nothing wrong with the transfer of money from the federal party to a riding and back again. That much I think we should put to the side for the context of the rest of our study.
What would be wrong would be if there were a deliberate conspiracy to defraud the Canada Elections Act and put in place a scheme so that they could exceed election spending by millions of dollars. That's where we find the allegations of wrongdoing. Is that accurate? Is that one of the elements, of course, of the allegation being dealt with here?