Thank you, Chair.
As I started to say, obviously this is a very emotional issue for my colleagues opposite, but it doesn't change the fact that what we have here is a pretty fundamental issue. The issue is one of fairness, Chair.
I note with great interest that in the news conference that was held yesterday with representatives of all the three opposition parties they alluded to fairness as well. In fact, one of the main arguments they raised in the news conference was that the Conservative Party obviously had something to hide because it was refusing to accommodate the motion originally made by Ms. Redman. That motion of course, as we all know, stated that there be an immediate investigation--that was the word Ms. Redman used--of only the Conservative Party and its election spending practices in the 2006 election.
I would submit to you, Chair, that is the furthest thing from being fair. The fairer approach would be for all parties to voluntarily submit their books to this committee and allow this committee the opportunity to give a full examination of all of the parties' spending practices. Because the fundamental part of our argument has been that we have done absolutely nothing wrong with respect to election financing and election campaign rules, and secondly, that the practices the Conservative Party engaged during the 2006 election were exactly the same practices employed by all of the opposition parties.
I had cited several examples in Tuesday's meetings to this effect. I will continue to cite examples in today's meeting, and I will continue to re-emphasize for all members present and all observers that according to Elections Canada and its own guidelines we have done absolutely nothing wrong.
But, Chair, before I begin that, let me just deal with another issue that apparently is one of the main arguments that the collective opposition has. This is an argument again that they advanced yesterday in their collective news conference. They stated the reason the Conservative Party is the only party that should be investigated is that Elections Canada made a ruling and that ruling, according to the members opposite, should be sufficient to conduct this investigation of only one party.
The clear implication, Chair, was that if Elections Canada was conducting an investigation of the Conservative Party, then that says something. In fact, the implication is that they must have contravened electoral law, because otherwise Elections Canada would not be investigating them, and since they are the only party that Elections Canada is investigating, we must assume that they have done something wrong and that warrants an investigation.
My response to that, Chair, yesterday, and it will continue to be my response today, is that just because Elections Canada is investigating does not mean automatically that the party under investigation has done something wrong. If that was true, Chair, we have a member of this committee who clearly has done something wrong. Monsieur Godin is under investigation by Elections Canada. The election expenses, I should say to make it more clear, of Mr. Godin are being investigated by Elections Canada. So by Monsieur Godin's own rationale--the Monsieur Godin who participated actively in the news conference yesterday--he then must be guilty. But I'm sure if we asked Monsieur Godin, he would deny that.
I would also assume that Monsieur Godin, his official agent, and all of his election officials are going to be vigorously defending themselves and trying to demonstrate in some fashion to Elections Canada that they did not break any election financing rules.
That's irrelevant. That is Monsieur Godin's right. I firmly respect that. I think that's something he should be doing. But then I would ask why Monsieur Godin does not recognize the same basic rights that should be afforded to the Conservative Party in this case.
The reason why Monsieur Godin and the other members of the opposition have an approach that means “Do as I say, not do as I do” is that this is nothing more than a political witch hunt. What the Conservative Party is engaged in right now is a perfectly legitimate legal dispute with Elections Canada. However, the opposition is attempting to turn this legal dispute into a political witch hunt.
If the situation were to be reversed, Chair, if the situation were to be that this committee decided to investigate the 2006 election expense return of Monsieur Godin, and only Monsieur Godin, based on the investigation being put forward by Elections Canada, then I am quite sure that Monsieur Godin would be.... I'll choose my words carefully here and just say that Monsieur Godin would be strenuously objecting to the attempt of this committee or opposition members to investigate and do a complete study of his 2006 election return.
And do you know something? Monsieur Godin would be quite right to take that approach.
Again, I find it interesting, to say the very least, that Monsieur Godin now would be one of the chief proponents in arguing that only the Conservatives should be investigated because there's an investigation launched by Elections Canada.
Well, tit for tat, Mr. Chair. I would suggest that Monsieur Godin, if he wanted to do the honourable thing, should voluntarily state before this committee that he wants to include his own riding expense campaign to be investigated.
Why shouldn't he take that approach? He certainly is of the approach that the Conservative Party elections campaign expenses should be investigated because Elections Canada suspects they may have contravened elections rules. Well, by his own reasoning, clearly Elections Canada believes that Monsieur Godin did something wrong. They are investigating the 2006 campaign expenses of Monsieur Godin. They did not investigate mine. So I'll use the same argument that Monsieur Godin does: they did not investigate my 2006 election campaign, only his; therefore, his expenses should be examined and should be investigated by this committee.
That's the argument. I don't agree with it. I think it's hogwash. Yet that doesn't stop Monsieur Godin and other members of the opposition from advancing that very argument here to try to convince certainly not this committee but the general public, the voting public, that there is a scandal at work here and that the Conservative Party has clearly broken election financing rules.
Chair, as I stated yesterday and will say again today, it is our position that the Conservative Party did absolutely nothing wrong in the 2006 election. We are willing to prove that not only in a court of law but at this committee. All we have asked--and this is, obviously, the main thrust of my motion--is that all parties agree to examination of their own books. Monsieur Godin should be the first one who embraces this. Although he is being investigated by Elections Canada, I am sure, if you asked him, he would say that he did nothing wrong. Yet I don't see him volunteering to bring his own campaign expenses under the light here at this committee. Why not?
Well, Chair, I would suggest it's because he has the perfect right to defend himself in the appropriate manner and in the appropriate venue. I don't know how the investigation is going, but that venue may well end up in a court of law. It is his right to do so. He has every right to object to the Elections Canada position. He has every right to take whatever steps he feels necessary to demonstrate his position. He has every right to engage in whatever legal activities are to his avail to prove his point of view.
Contrast that, if you will, with what's happening in this committee. The Conservative Party has already engaged in legal action. We have stated quite clearly and for the record on many occasions that we did absolutely nothing wrong in terms of elections spending in the 2006 election. In fact, in order to prove that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, we have taken legal action. We are having our case heard before Federal Court because we dispute and object--
