If you did points of order in the right manner, Mr. Chairman, you could turn this into a question period, but actually, you know, Mr. Proulx has a point.
The assertion is made that allegations have been made. I went through the press clippings again today. Yesterday I had said in my point of order that I was unable to find any allegations that had been made of--let's be specific--systematic criminal actions. That's what's been said: “systematic”. That is to say, they are not merely occasional or random criminal acts, but systematic criminal acts. In this motion we are talking about, I assume, some web of criminal activity--a systematic attempt to defraud Elections Canada.
He's not saying that this is actually what he's saying; he's saying that somebody else is asserting it, so yesterday I spoke. I can't find anybody who's asserting it. I went through the clippings again from the media and I actually found something that may be kind of--sort of--such an assertion. This is someone other than the four people who made the request. If these allegations are proved true, it is election fraud and a gross breach of the public trust, but that assertion was also made by a Liberal MP, by Mr. LeBlanc.
Other than Liberal MPs and Mr. Guimond, nobody is suggesting that such allegations actually exist. What there is is a dispute as to an interpretation of the law between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada; very specifically, two court actions are under way right now. Neither of them is a criminal action. Neither of them deals with fraud. Neither of them deals with the kind of thing Judge Gomery was looking into, with envelopes of cash being delivered to Quebec ridings for the Liberal Party--I think there were 21 or 25 ridings. We're not talking about that. We're not talking about the stuff that Judge Gomery was unable to investigate because of the way Paul Martin had written his terms of reference, which was so as to exclude investigations of such criminal actions. We're not talking about this kind of thing; we're talking about a dispute between Mr. Mayrand's interpretation of the Elections Act, which is that certain kinds of transfers are not permitted, and ours. We say that the Elections Act does not forbid those transfers and that they are permissible.
There are two suits going on, because we're saying not only do we think he is wrong, but we also think Elections Canada owes a number of our election campaigns, and therefore riding associations, rebates that it's refusing to give. We are going to court and spending the money involved in doing that because we are making the calculation that we stand a good enough chance of winning that it's worth the expenses involved in fighting a government agency with bottomless pockets to get the rebates we are due.
Somehow the Liberals and Mr. Guimond have turned this into an accusation or an assertion on their part that there are allegations out there of widespread systematic criminal fraud going on.
This is preposterous, just preposterous. This is what Mr. Poilievre is attempting to deal with in his motion. Not only do we think there is nothing wrong and that it's entirely defensible to do what we did--to allow campaigns to transfer money back and forth--but we are also saying we're taking Elections Canada to court to make sure they recognize this right and pay us the rebates. The reason for expanding the investigation to look at other parties is to make the point that not only is it not wrong, let alone these ridiculous allegations about being criminally fraudulent, but it's also something we believe other parties are also doing. We think this is a standard financing practice. We're not saying it's wrong if the Liberals do it, because it is permitted under the Canada Elections Act.
We do think it's wrong, and I, for one, would go so far as to say that I think it is hypocrisy, to assert that what they do as a matter of course is not permissible when someone else does it; and that they can go on, suspend all the normal rules, and proceed to have a kangaroo court in a body unsuited to this kind of investigation—that would be our committee, which is simply not suited to engage in findings of fact, and you have the reasons why I think that's so in my point of order from yesterday—in a way that prejudges what the courts would deal with.