Well, that's good to learn. I would like to give you an example of the accusation.
Just before I move on, I should point out that it is not what Ms. Vézina testified in recent legal proceedings with the Conservative case against Elections Canada. She said it was the end result of the advertisement, which I think is a very curious position. I don't think any government agency can ascertain and rule on the end result of an advertisement, especially considering the fact that you concede there's no distinguishing between the benefits to a party and its candidate.
Let me give you an example of your accusation. I will read you an e-mail from one of our party's bookkeepers. I read it to illustrate the practice you have, through your five factors here, deemed not to be allowed.
It reads:
Hi Phyllis,
We are told by communications folks in BC that there were radio ads with the Candidate's personal tag on the end--therefore a local expense to be reported under the Candidate's expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign--in the case of VanEast, $2,612.00.
The good news is that the Federal Party will transfer $2,600 to the Federal Riding Association as we agreed to pay for the ads.
We hope that you are able to squeeze this under the ceiling.
So $2,600 was transferred from the party, in and out, to pay for advertising organized by the party, constructed by the party, and for which the party did all the dealings with the advertising agency.
What is wrong with that?