Thank you, Chair.
I was trying to say, Chair, that the advertising the Conservative Party engaged in during the 2006 election will be examined thoroughly in Federal Court. How could anyone say we were trying to hide what we did? How can they possibly say that when we filed an affidavit, which is open for examination by any of the parties? Frankly I would be very surprised, Chair, if the members opposite and their parties don't have a copy of this affidavit. It's open for public examination. They can take a look at exactly what we did. That affidavit shows many examples of the practices that were engaged in by members opposite. Members of this very committee are named in this affidavit.
Once again, it doesn't suggest for a moment that any member of this committee or any member of their respective parties did anything wrong--far from it. We are saying they complied fully with electoral law. And since they did exactly as we did and they were not challenged, Chair, then we argue, as one of our many arguments, that we did nothing wrong. How could it be that two candidates, for example, did exactly the same thing in terms of reporting their advertising and engaging in a regional ad buy? If two candidates do exactly the same thing, how can one be in contravention of the law and the other not? Common sense alone dictates that could not happen. Yet that's the conundrum we find ourselves in.
That is one of the reasons, Chair, that we chose to argue our case in court. Chair, if that isn't being open, I don't know what is. All of our books are going to be made available for examination by a judge. In fact, all of our arguments can be examined by members opposite, by respective officials within their own parties, by members of the general public. We are not hiding anything. Yet it appears, by the opposition's continual opposition and rejection of my motion, that they do have something to hide. I don't know what it could be.