Mr. Chair, I know that the results of the motion to in effect overturn your original ruling are not debatable. I will not be debating that, but I do want to make comments on a portion of your ruling because I think that really underscores a lot of the arguments being advanced by Mr. Poilievre.
I stand to be corrected, because I don't have a copy of your ruling in front of me, but I do recall your saying that in the opinion of the chair--and I think it was supported perhaps by an opinion by Mr. Walsh--that while you ruled the motion out of order, if the terms of reference were expanded or were to be more inclusive, then perhaps it could be considered to be in order.
I think that's exactly what Mr. Poilievre is suggesting here, that we have absolutely no problems with examining the books of our election financing over the last number of years, but in the spirit of cooperation, openness, and transparency, then should it not also be deemed reasonable to examine the issues and the books of the other political parties? It would seem to me that if, as Mr. Proulx was suggesting, there really is one party here that is being called into question, and then by extension if the other political parties are, as Mr. Proulx seems to be suggesting, squeaky clean, that should be a very simple fact to verify.
I do not see why any of the other political parties would oppose that. We are confident in our own party that any dealings we have had in election campaigns are certainly within the spirit and law of the Canada Elections Act, and we are willing to demonstrate that, both in a court of law and if necessary at this committee, but for the life of me, I cannot understand why the other parties might oppose that. It would seem to me to be a very simple fact to demonstrate before this committee, or before the ultimate court of public opinion, the Canadian electorate.
And if in fact the other political parties have done nothing contrary to the Canada Elections Act, they should be willing to be the first ones jumping up and down and saying, “Here are our books. We can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that we have complied fully with the Canada Elections Act.” Yet from what I'm hearing--and I'll wait to see what the other parties and other members of the committee have to say--it appears to me to be quite the contrary. The other members are saying, “No, you can't examine our books. Don't even think about examining our books. We only want to examine yours.”
There's fairness and there's fairness, and I would suggest that if in fact the other parties are sincere in their suspicions and want to get to the bottom of what they believe to be actions contrary to the Canada Elections Act, then they should be the first ones stating that they will offer their books as a proof of goodwill. I do not hear that, and I don't suspect that we will be hearing that, because as you mentioned in your ruling, Mr. Chair, this is clearly nothing more than a partisan exercise, in my opinion. I hope I'm proven wrong. I hope the other parties will voluntarily agree to the motion and support it, as brought forward by Mr. Poilievre.