Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know this is frustrating for people who are watching. They're confused as to what this matter is about. Maybe I can come back to it, because I think it's important.
This isn't about money going in and out. This is about how money is spent, how money is claimed, and it's actually about truth in advertising. The truth in advertising is the following: did the local campaigns who supposedly authorized spending know that they were doing it for their own campaign, or was it in fact for the Conservative Party of Canada?
My friend across the way would have you believe that this is about money going in and out of campaigns. It is not that. It is Elections Canada's assertion that the party had transferred large amounts of money to the candidates' campaigns--more than $40,000 in several cases--and financial agents for the candidates promptly then transferred the money back to the party as a payment for radio and TV advertising.
Elections Canada says the candidates could not provide evidence they incurred the expenses. That means the cost would have to be credited to the party. As we've heard in media reports, the national ads the party unveiled during the campaign show very scant evidence that this had anything to do with local campaigns. Indeed, what we heard through the media reports that have already been referenced is that the candidates were unaware of the intent and use.
What this comes down to is a matter of trust, Mr. Chair, and the trust question is about who we should trust here. Do we trust the candidates at the local campaign who said they weren't aware of this scheme, or do we trust the party officials who have said everything was fine and that we should just trust them, or do we trust Elections Canada, which is, after all, the institution responsible for overseeing how spending is done? I would submit to you, Mr. Chair, that we need to have this in front of us. I would like Canadians to be able to see the truth.
I would finally like to talk a little bit about past experience. We know that this kind of scheme has been uncovered before, in the province of Manitoba. In fact, Minister Toews was known to have had a similar experience with this kind of situation. It might be interesting to have him in front of the committee to explain his experience in this kind of scheme. In fact, if you look at this, Mr. Chair, what we need to do is not examine the question being portrayed by our friends across the way, of opening books and looking at in and out, but what we need to do is to have a full examination of the issue of the day.
That is what I have just described from Elections Canada. That's what this is about. All parties had their books looked at, and a failing grade has only gone to one party to date. If there is further evidence that other parties and citizens wish to bring forward to Elections Canada, they can do that. That's why it's important that the Conservative Party stand down with their court actions to try to cover themselves.
I have to say that in the previous Parliament, in a previous time, it was the Conservative Party that did want to bring forward issues around malfeasance and misspending with another government, and they certainly didn't worry about whether or not court action was being taken. In fact, they dismissed it. I am saddened to say that this is a party that was being truthful--we thought--on changing the way business is done. We worked to have Bill C-2 amended to change who funds political parties in elections. We were hoping that was the congruent position of the party opposite, of the government. It's sad to see that they are fighting accountability, that they're fighting the Chief Electoral Officer, whom they appointed.
I just ask that the Conservative Party support us on this and support this motion. Let's get to work.
Thank you.