I have a couple of points, Mr. Chair, and again I want to underscore many of the remarks made by my colleague Mr. Reid.
What we have done in engaging in court actions with Elections Canada is to defend our position, which we feel to be quite defensible, because we believe it is a matter of interpretation as to how we have spent some of our advertising dollars in previous campaigns.
I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that in a former life I was an executive director of a political party--actually, two political parties--in Saskatchewan, and one of the jobs I had at that time was to re-examine the Saskatchewan Election Act on an all-party committee basis and to make appropriate changes. One of the major objectives is that we would, as much as possible, mirror our provincial act with the federal act. There were a few vagaries, a few slight changes here and there, but generally speaking we mirrored the federal elections act in almost all areas.
One of them was advertising expenses: who could claim, who could not claim, what would be a legitimate expense and what would not. I can tell members of this committee that we got clearance from the staffing side in the parties that I was in charge of before we engaged in any practices, and one of the practices was, Mr. Chair, very similar to what we have done federally in terms of transfers of money from the central party--which the Bloc commonly does in federal elections--and allowing those riding associations to spend that money and then be eligible for a reimbursement, a claim of money that came from the central party. The only requirement, Mr. Chair, at that time was that in the content of that act there would be recognition of the individual candidate and his or her riding association, which we have done, quite clearly, in all the ads we've partaken of in the 2006 campaign.
That is a difference of opinion between Elections Canada and our party, hence the initiative from our party to take this to court to get clarification. If we were truly trying to cover up, as the opposition members would suggest, we wouldn't have taken that action.
So I'm suggesting to this committee that there are clearly differences of opinion on how we conducted our advertising in the 2006 election, but I would also suggest to you that if we took a look at the practices of all other parties, we would find out that there would be some commonality among all four parties in how they conducted their advertising practices. We have stated in Mr. Poilievre's motion that we are willing to open our books, to have a fulsome examination of our practices during the 2006 election, and in fact going back even further--10 years with our legacy parties. I've yet to hear any members here saying they are willing to do the same at this committee level. We've heard the NDP and the Bloc say they're willing to do it, but only after we examine the Conservatives, and God only knows whether or not we as a committee would ever get around to examining it. Why not do it now? Why not do it simultaneously so we can compare the practices of all parties?
I mentioned earlier, Chair, that I think we need that frame of reference. How do you compare our practices in a vacuum? I stated that, yes, there are rules, there are practices and procedures and guidelines from Elections Canada. Clearly there's the dispute between us and Elections Canada, but I think a more cogent examination would be between all parties and taking a look: what did the Liberals do, what did the Bloc do, how did the NDP engage in advertising expenses during those same elections? By that comparison, party to party, Mr. Chair, I think this committee and Canadians as a whole would be in a far better position to say, you know, I don't know what Elections Canada says, but it seems all parties are doing roughly the same thing.
That is our contention. That's what we're going to try to demonstrate in court. I think if this committee were serious, they would be allowing that discussion at this level, the committee level. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I've come to the conclusion that there is no sincere effort by this committee to have this discussion.
The fact is simply this, Mr. Chair. Three byelections are happening in Quebec on Monday. The Bloc's motivation, I believe, is to try to besmirch the reputation of our party in anticipation of three very hotly contested byelections. In other words, they want to pile on the mud in the hope that will transfer to the elections held this coming Monday. That's the real motivation behind it. If the Liberals were sincere in bringing forward their motion to examine the practices we conducted in the past election, they would have no fear whatsoever of an examination of their own practices. But they have yet to come forward to agree and support Mr. Poilievre's motion.
I think there are many good reasons for that. As Mr. Reid stated earlier, during the Gomery commission inquiries, Justice Gomery stated quite clearly and without equivocation that he was restricted in some of the areas in which he could examine the practices of political parties. The terms of reference given to Mr. Gomery were restricted to the point that he almost appealed for further review.
I would like to give you a couple of quick quotes from Mr. Gomery's report dealing with that. The first comes form volume 1, page 435, where Justice Gomery states:
Two successive Executive Directors were directly involved in illegal campaign financing, and many of its workers accepted cash payments for their services when they should have known that such payments were in violation of the Canada Elections Act.
He's referring to the two executive directors of the Liberal Party in Quebec.
He goes on to say about Mr. Béliveau:
...he has clearly established in a credible manner that Mr. Corriveau was the person to whom he, as the Executive Director of the LPCQ, could turn for money, that Mr. Corriveau did not disappoint him when he was asked for financial assistance, and that the money received in cash came from unrecorded and improper sources.
Mr. Chair, if you recall--and I think most Canadians recall--Justice Gomery said he could not account for approximately $40 million; that it went missing. We don't know where that money went. We might be able to find out some of that information with a thorough examination of the practices of all parties. Yet I don't see the Liberals jumping up and saying, let's do it, let's go back 10 years, let's prove to you that we're squeaky clean. They don't want to do that, and there's probably good reason for that.
Through his motion, Mr. Poilievre is merely suggesting that we would be more than willing to open our books and discuss fully, in a very open and transparent manner, all the practices in which we've engaged in previous elections when it comes to advertising, reimbursements, and claims. So let's compare what the other parties have done as well. If there is absolutely nothing untoward in the way the other parties have conducted themselves, that should be easy to determine very quickly. But I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that there are some problems over there that they don't want to talk about.
There are going to be two court cases in which all of those matters and perhaps more will be discussed, but if this committee is truly sincere in talking about what they feel to be untoward activities from our party, let's talk about that and what they've done as well, Mr. Chair. I think it's a reasonable request. I can only support the arguments made by my colleagues and say let's get all of the party financing activities with respect to the last 10 years of elections on the table here. Let's have the equal ability to call witnesses from all political parties. It's a matter of fairness and transparency.
Thank you, Chair.
