Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At the risk of looking like I'm currying favour, I think you're doing a great job. I know this is very difficult.
I'm really pleased. I would have to agree with Monsieur Poilievre that I'm very pleased that the cameras are here. My only sadness is that this filibuster, which has been going on all week on this very important item, isn't a little bit more interesting.
It's important to point out for our viewing audience--and I know members around this table recognize this because we have all run successfully in elections or we wouldn't have the privilege of being members of Parliament--that all elections are subject to Elections Canada rules. I know previously when the Conservatives tried to bring in this broad-brush motion they seemed to say they needed some kind of standard of behaviour. Well, I would contend that there is a standard of behaviour and it is indeed the rules and regulations of the Canada Elections Act. Those are the rules under which all of us not only run elections but we abide by spending limits, whether it's the national party or the individual constituency in an election, and that is the yardstick by which we are measured.
The reason that four members—three Liberals and a Bloc member—asked for this meeting to be convened is because there are issues with Elections Canada, dealing directly with the Conservative Party, their candidates, their official agents, and some of their current members, over irregularities. And it isn't about transfers, as the Conservative members would have had the viewing audience believe, but indeed it was what would appear to be a widespread scheme in order to allow them to spend more than their limit.
If the allegations are correct, the Conservative Party of Canada used a systematic approach to funnel money into riding associations that had not spent up to their allowable limit and then turn around and help defray the cost of a national media campaign to the tune of slightly over $1 million.
Some of the issues around these allegations include the fact that there is no evidence that the ad expenses were incurred by the actual candidates who claimed them. There is no evidence that the candidates contracted the supplier for the purchase of the ads. Some of the candidates are on record as saying they had no knowledge of the buy details, and some said they were asked to contribute to the national advertising campaign.
The scheme was designed to give the appearance that local campaigns made the payment, and Conservative official agents characterized it as an in-and-out transaction. The scheme appears to have been designed to get additional rebates as well for candidates, because if you get 10% of your possible votes in an election, you do get a rebate from Elections Canada. The costs to run the ads were not an expense of the candidates but actually an expense of the national campaign.
The letter I referenced earlier was submitted on September 5, and the wording of it is to call a meeting under Standing Order 106(4),
in order to look into allegations made against the Conservative Party of Canada's systematic attempt to defraud Elections Canada, as well as the Canadian taxpayer, in relation to the 2006 federal election.
I need to point out that these allegations that we're referring to were not made by Liberals; they were not made by Bloc members, nor by NDP members, but rather Conservative Party candidates in the last election, and these individuals have a right to have their story told.