Michel, for a friend like you...I just can't express my admiration for you. I could take some time and talk about that if you'd like, but I thought instead I'd address the substance of the issue here.
There were a number of objections I had to the initial wording of the motion. Everybody knows what those are, especially Michel. This amended motion, to a large degree, gets around this problem. It removes some of the highly partisan language. It removes the presupposition of guilt that was written into the original motion, and the presupposition that there are external allegations other than the ones being made by the four members who presented the motion in the first place.
I've made this point before. They refer quite dramatically to a systematic attempt to defraud Elections Canada as well as the Canadian taxpayer. I'm assuming this is rhetoric, that these are not separate actions, that in the act of defrauding Elections Canada, which would be a criminal matter, quite frankly—fraud is a criminal matter—therefore the Canadian taxpayer is also being defrauded. I'm assuming these aren't separate actions, but the wording is so sloppy, is so clearly written for the purpose of attracting media attention as opposed to actually dealing with getting at facts, that you get this kind of rhetoric written into it.
It didn't have to be done this way, even if they had wanted to simply examine the Conservative Party and make sure that they themselves were insulated from any analysis, which certainly, I think, seems to be the case. I think that's quite clear from the resistance we're seeing to having this go into the financing practices of other parties. The truth is that this makes a presupposition of guilt and it makes assertions that are factually untrue.
This is, I think, something that Mr. Poilievre's motion removes. You'll notice there is no assertion that anybody has done anything wrong, in the motion he presents. It says that—