Thank you again, Chair.
The only point I was trying to make—and I will re-emphasize this, perhaps several times, for the benefit of Monsieur Godin and others, the media included—is that it is very important to understand that Elections Canada's own guidelines specifically state that a candidate can run a local or national ad if they wish, and that a national campaign, a national office or federal party, can transfer funds unrestrictedly to a local candidate. That's the argument they're posing to try to find that the Conservative Party of Canada has been in violation of the act.
Well, Chair, I again point out that it absolutely makes no sense. Their own guidelines state this is acceptable practice. On the one hand, they're saying this is acceptable practice in all of their written material, and yet in their findings they're saying that because we follow these very practices, somehow we're in violation of the act. Please explain that to me. How can that be? Well, it can't be.
Chair, it is true that after the 2006 election, these guidelines were changed—but that was after the fact. One cannot be found to be in violation of a guideline that wasn't in existence. I just think, Chair, quite simply, that the findings of Elections Canada are wrong and that they honestly erred in their interpretation of these rules.
I do not want to suggest for one moment there was anything but an honest mistake made by Elections Canada. I think that Elections Canada over the years has done an exemplary job in conducting elections in this country. We have had CEOs of Elections Canada before this committee on several occasions. And while we've had differences of opinion from time to time, and sometimes we might even characterize these as disputes, I don't believe there's a member of this committee—certainly not me—who's ever, ever suggested for a moment that the integrity and the honesty of Elections Canada has been questioned. That's not the case. I'm very proud of the work Elections Canada has done over the years and, frankly, proud of the fact that representatives from our country, from Elections Canada, have been instrumental on many occasions in assisting other jurisdictions throughout the world in conducting their elections.
I think our electoral process is a model throughout the world, one that is honest and above reproach, but that doesn't stop the fact, Mr. Chair, that from time to time, mistakes can be made. I honestly and sincerely believe that in this case a mistake has been made. I've given a number of examples and will continue to do so underscoring my contention that a mistake has been made.
Chair, when the court case that we have initiated is heard, I have no doubt that the findings at the end of the day will reflect the position we have taken. That, quite simply, is that we have done nothing wrong; we have followed the guidelines proposed by Elections Canada to the letter.
In fact, Chair, I might also say that I have yet to hear any member from the opposition give a definitive example of how we have violated the electoral law; I've yet to hear that. I've heard a lot of partisan rhetoric saying that clearly the in-and-out game of the Conservatives has violated elections law, and this is a scandal, but they have yet to give one concrete example of how we've done so.
On the other hand, Chair, I have presented, and will continue to present over the course of the next few hours or the next few days, example upon example of how opposition members have followed the same practices as put down in the guidelines from Elections Canada and have done so with impunity. They were not found to be in violation of the act.
We will also demonstrate, Chair, that if in fact that is true, and those practices were similar to ours, then how can one be found in violation and one cannot? It doesn't make any sense.
Chair, it is quite obvious that what's happening here is that we have an attempt by the opposition to smear the reputation of the Conservative Party.
I also want to point out the obvious: if the opposition members were truly interested in finding out whether the Conservative Party or any of our candidates had violated any section of the Elections Act, they would allow us to present our arguments, arguments similar to the ones we're making in Federal Court, that we engaged in practices similar to those of the opposition. Yet they're refusing to do so. They refuse to allow us to do a side-by-side comparison of their books.
They're doing that for only one reason, because they know, as we know, that if we were able to do this side-by-side comparison, it would without question demonstrate that we were either all in violation of the Elections Act...but I think the obvious conclusion would be that none of the parties or candidates were in violation of the Elections Act.
Chair, let me see if I can get to another example, because I think that is what most people can relate to. The example I'll use, because Madam Jennings is here, is from her own campaign. Again, this is something that is fully within Elections Canada guidelines, but I think it shows how many candidates, many members of Parliament, some of whom are sitting around this table, engaged in the same practice.
Ms. Jennings' campaign received an invoice from the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine electoral district association. In other words, her riding association invoiced Ms. Jennings' campaign for $16,132.93, dated May 29, 2004. Later that year, in November 2004, the electoral district received the same amount, $16,132.93, from the Liberal Party, and on the same date Ms. Jennings received a $16,132.93 transfer from the association.
In other words, the association billed Ms. Jennings' campaign for $16,000 and change. She claimed it as an election expense—got a rebate for it, I assume—and then the federal party paid the same amount to her riding association. Then the riding association transferred it back into Ms. Jennings' campaign.
The net effect is that it cost her nothing, but she was able to claim $16,000 and change as a campaign expense and get a rebate.
Is there anything wrong with that? Not according to Elections Canada rules and guidelines. Subsequently, there was no finding that Ms. Jennings did anything wrong.
The point is that our candidates acted in a similar fashion. They did exactly the same thing—received invoices, paid the invoices, claimed them as election expenses, then received money back in through a transfer, either directly from the federal party or federal party to riding association to candidate.
In any event, the national party ended up reimbursing the local candidate for the amount of the ad, and in all cases that is acceptable according to the guidelines set down by Elections Canada itself. Whether Ms. Jennings used the money to run an advertisement promoting her own candidacy or used the money to promote the national party by running a national ad is irrelevant, because both are legal; both are acceptable. Elections Canada itself says that.
The point is, she was fully reimbursed from the national party for running ads in her campaign.
If they were national in scope, Elections Canada, if it wished to be consistent with its findings about the Conservative Party, should have then said that this $16,000 and change should be applied to the national Liberal Party of Canada's advertising campaign cap. Why wasn't it? I don't know. I can't answer that question.
But I do know, Chair, that the process Ms. Jennings followed was the same process our candidates followed. So how can one be in violation and one not? It absolutely makes no sense.
The issue we have is obviously one of great concern to us. We disagree with the findings of Elections Canada. We will certainly be bringing forward these examples and many more arguments when our case is finally heard in Federal Court.
I have also been trying to demonstrate for the record, for the sake of all committee members here, that the allegations made by the opposition certainly don't hold any water. But do you know something, Chair? They know that as well.
They are not making these allegations in an attempt to find the truth or get to the bottom of this to find out whether or not the Conservative Party was in non-compliance. They are only doing this, Chair, in an attempt to get some headlines, to try to find out whether or not they can successfully manipulate the media into running stories that would be unfavourable to the Conservatives. I suggest, Chair, that if that is their only motivation, with time, as with most of their allegations, it too will be disproved.
I talked at our last committee meeting, before you had to suspend, about this being just the latest in a long series of examples of how opposition members are trying to create scandals where none exist.
They have done so with the Schreiber-Mulroney thing. For the days leading up to the first committee meeting at which Karlheinz Schreiber appeared, all of the questions regarding that event in question period were about the alleged—or imaginary, as it turns out—links between Schreiber, Mulroney, and Prime Minister Harper. They went to the great length of bringing in the government House leader to ask the $64,000 question in committee: “Did you, Mr. Schreiber, have any dealings with Prime Minister Harper?” Of course, they didn't know the answer that was forthcoming, which was absolutely not. He has never talked to the Prime Minister.
Since that time, if you've noticed, we've had precious few questions about any link between Schreiber and the Prime Minister's office or Prime Minister Harper. Why? It is because, again, there is no truth to it. That is an issue that is 15 years old, but the opposition tried at the outset to create a scandal where none exists.
They found out in short order that the best they can do now is to try to pull a guilt-by-association trip by saying okay, we know there are no links between Mr. Schreiber and the Prime Minister's office, but if we can somehow smear Mr. Mulroney and find out if there was some sort of untoward dealing between Schreiber and Mulroney, maybe by association, even though they're two completely different political parties and this was an incident that happened 15 to 20 years ago, perhaps just by guilt by association we might be able to throw some mud against the wall and maybe it'll stick, and maybe somehow the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister will be negatively impacted by it. That's the best they can hope for.
Well, it's the same thing here. This is another issue in which we have done nothing wrong. We will be able to demonstrate that quite clearly in a court of law, but it doesn't stop the opposition from attempting to use anything and everything in their power for strictly partisan reasons to try to smear the reputation of this government.
I would suggest, Chair, that one of the primary reasons they're doing that is that they see an election in the not-too-distant future. No one truly knows when the next election will be, but clearly it is apparent that the Liberal Party has all the cards on that issue, all of the power within their control to force an election.
I believe the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party have proven by their actions and their words quite clearly that they're willing to bring down this minority government at any time at their first opportunity. So it will come down to a decision made by the Liberal Party when they want the next election to be.
I believe, Chair, in the run-up to that anticipated election—and no one, at least no one on our side, really knows when that's going to be—the Liberals primarily are trying to create a scandal to try to smear the government in any way, shape, or form possible so that when they get into an election campaign, they've got an issue or two to point to, to say this is why you should defeat that government.
Well, there's nothing on Schreiber and Mulroney. There's absolutely nothing on this issue, and I think I've demonstrated enough examples, both through what is contained in the Elections Canada guidelines and in the actions and practices of opposition members, to show that there's nothing here. Yet I know that won't stop the Liberals in particular from trying to continue with the practice of smear and fear and innuendo and all the rest of the partisan tricks that political parties try from time to time. But it certainly doesn't mean that their allegations have any basis of fact or truth behind them, because they simply don't.
Now, Chair, let's see if we can find another example. Let's talk about what happened with Mr. Dion, the leader of the opposition. Again, the Liberals are the ones contending that there's this in-and-out scheme, which they keep referring to, which the Conservative Party engaged in, and which is somehow in violation of electoral law.
Well, let's see what happened with Mr. Dion back in the 2004 election. Chair, I'll give you an example. That's again one of the reasons we thought it would be appropriate in my motion to allow an examination of all parties' election expenses going back to the year 2000, so we could see that there was a continuing pattern by all political parties that engaged in the same process that has been deemed by the opposition to be the in-and-out scheme.
In 2004, Chair, Mr. Dion's campaign received an invoice from his EDA, his riding association, dated April 21 in the amount of $12,200. He claimed this invoice as an eligible election expense. The following day, on April 22, 2004—and this is indicated by the return from his riding association—it indicates that the association made a non-monetary transfer to the Liberal Party in the same amount, and two weeks later the Liberal Party transferred $12,200 back to the EDA. Chair, that means the federal party was financing this. There was an invoice for the money, it was claimed as an eligible election expense, but then the federal party backfilled it. They just repaid the amount.
Was there anything wrong with this? No, there sure wasn't. We don't suggest there was. But it appears when one of our candidates has done this, there is something wrong—at least that's the finding of Elections Canada. We suggest again that this inconsistency on behalf of Elections Canada is at fault here.
It may be that during the course of the court case, which will hopefully begin sometime in the near future, everyone—courts and Elections Canada alike—will be able to admit that there was a mistake, that they did err in their judgment, and they'll reverse their findings. I think it's going to be apparent as soon as we get into that court case that this will be the ultimate conclusion.
What I have to point out, Chair, is that while that may be true, this committee could come to those very conclusions if they merely accepted the motion I have put forward, and that is to immediately begin examination of our books as well as their own. Yet there's simply no appetite on behalf of the members opposite to do such a thing, because it wouldn't be politically favourable for them to do that. Not that they have anything to hide—perhaps they do, but certainly in these cases that I've illustrated they haven't, because they did nothing wrong. But it wouldn't be politically acceptable to have everyone have their books examined because the attention would be on every party, and that's not what the opposition wants. The opposition simply wants the attention drawn to the Conservative Party, for their own partisan reasons, so that they can try to convince Canadians that those big bad Conservatives have done something wrong again.
Well, Chair, we have not done so. If the opposition parties were truly convinced that we had violated the Elections Act in any way, shape, or form, and they had not, they should welcome my motion. They should absolutely welcome it, because then they could apparently demonstrate to Canadians that after a thorough examination of all of our books, it was only the Conservatives that were at fault here. You'd think they would welcome my motion, because then we could get this discussion and this examination going right away.
But they haven't. Why haven't they? Because they know there's no substance behind their allegations. If they are convinced that it was only our party and our candidates that violated the Elections Act, they should welcome my motion to begin the study right now. If they have done nothing wrong, they should welcome the examination of their own books and compare it to ours. If we were in violation, that would give them the opportunity to prove it, or at least to make a fairly compelling case. The ultimate arbitrator of this will be a Federal Court judge. But if they truly felt that we were in violation of the Elections Act, they would welcome my motion, and they have not.
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out why they have not agreed to our motion, why they desperately want to avoid that side-by-side comparison. It's far easier to conduct a political smear campaign based on innuendo than on non-existent facts. That's what this has come down to. We have allegations and innuendo by members opposite, by the opposition parties, that cannot be supported by any facts.
On the other hand, during my presentation I am producing those facts, producing example upon example of practices used by opposition members that are exactly the same as our candidates in the last 2006 election, but they don't want to hear that. They don't want to hear that, and they certainly don't want to examine it. They don't want to bring it forward as an official committee item, because then the obvious conclusions would become apparent, not only to them but to Canadians, that all parties conducted themselves in a similar fashion and none of the parties were in violation of any Elections Canada acts. It is far easier for members of the opposition to simply sit back and cast aspersions, make innuendoes and false allegations, and hope that the general public accepts them as fact. But that is simply not the case.
Let's talk about a few more in-and-out transfers by other candidates. I had mentioned Ms. Davies earlier. I have given one example for the record, but there are more. In the 2006 election there was an invoice to Ms. Davies, who was the candidate, of course. This invoice came from the NDP, from central headquarters, for $7,003.64. It was dated January 13, 2006, 10 days before the election. I checked them, and Ms. Davies, of course, claimed that as an election expense.
A cheque in the same amount, for $7,003.64, from the national party to Ms. Davies was deposited by Ms. Davies on January 31, roughly a week after the election. So here we have another example of Ms. Davies claiming as an election expense an invoice from national headquarters for $7,000 and change, and then, after she claimed it, she was reimbursed for the same amount by national headquarters—the in and out.
Was that wrong? Was that in violation? Well, that's a tough one to answer right now, because apparently if a Conservative member did it, it's in violation; if an NDP member did it, it wasn't. That's the ruling, or at least that's the finding, of Elections Canada.
