Thank you, Mr. Szabo, for summarizing our in camera discussions.
You mentioned the matter of contempt of Parliament and the fact that we would be inviting the law clerk, Mr. Rob Walsh, or some other individual to come here to explain in greater detail what action constitutes contempt of Parliament. The subcommittee also touched on the need to continue the committee's work on the fundraising practices of the Conservative Party.
I did mention earlier that in July or August of 2008, just prior to the elections, the committee sat for six days to hear from various witnesses and to discuss the spending practices of the Conservatives during the 2006 election.The study was never completed. Several witnesses refused to give testimony. We have yet to hear from the principal Conservative Party strategists.
It is critically important that we finish this study and produce a report to ensure that our efforts were not in vain. It is essential that we do so because this is a very serious matter.
The Conservative Party is suspected of having exceeded its authorized spending limit by $700,000. The party had every interest in cooperating to show that it had nothing to hide. I should point out that nothing has changed since the committee last met in August for six days. The questions raised at the time have still not been resolved. Who is responsible for this scheme? How much money was legally spent? Who knew what exactly?
The matter is still before the courts and there could very well be another general election before all of the facts come to light.
In fact, there is cause for even greater concern since some of the people involved in this whole affair have been appointed to public office by thePrime Minister. I'm thinking here about Michel Rivard, for example, who was appointed to the Senate on December 22, 2008. He had refused to testify before the committee, even though he had worked as a Conservative Party organizer in Quebec City during the 2005-2006 election. Another person that comes to mind is Irving Gerstein, who was also appointed to the Senate on December 22, 2008. Until very recently, he was the head of the Conservative Fund Canada. Like Mr. Rivard, Mr. Gerstein had also been summoned on July 31, 2008 to appear before this committee, but was a no-show.
If the Liberals refuse to give this matter priority consideration, I'm not sure what will happen. The reasons that led this committee to review the Conservative's election spending still hold. I hope our friends will agree that we need to continue with our study of the Conservative Party's election spending.
The other point I wanted to mention was the need for us to take action with regard to the individuals who refused to testify. That's the reason for inviting the law clerk here so that we can decide on a course of action. I want to be clear about this, Mr. Szabo. We can invite the law clerk here to explain to us the procedures to follow to determine if, by refusing to testify, these individuals were in fact in contempt of Parliament. However, I would also like us to agree on the need to continue the work of the committee. which was interrupted last summer, on the Conservative Party's fundraising practices.