Thank you very much, Chair.
I appreciate the earlier comments by Monsieur Guimond that he's taking his pills, that he's going to be relaxed and attentive, because I think the motion that I introduced last meeting, Chair—and I'll again refresh the committee's memories as to why I brought it forward—is extremely important, inasmuch as there have been allegations, both from Elections Canada and members of the opposition parties, that the Conservative Party in the 2006 election had contravened the Canada Elections Act.
How they have done this, allegedly, has been that they overspent the national advertising cap. The method in which they did that, again according to the allegations, was by these supposed in-and-out advertising schemes, in which local campaigns would run national ads and be reimbursed by the federal party.
I am prepared today, Mr. Chairman, to give many examples of how that practice works, but as I said in the last meeting, the position of the Conservative Party is that, one, we did absolutely nothing wrong, that we did not in fact contravene the Elections Act; and secondly, that the practices used by the Conservative Party in the 2006 election were consistent with and entirely similar to the advertising practices of all other federal parties, at least the major federal parties, those being the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Liberal Party of Canada.
That was the genesis of my motion, Mr. Chair. To anyone who has more than just a passing knowledge of this committee's work, there is an apparent—I would say very overt—attempt by members of the opposition to examine only the Conservative Party's election practices, their spending practices in the 2006 election, not because they truly want to get to the bottom of this and to examine what happened and whether or not the Conservative Party was in contravention of election laws, but merely to try as best they can to embarrass the government.
We have been the only party, Mr. Chair, as you know, that has consistently stated that we are more than willing to enter into a study or an examination of all of the election spending practices of our party with one condition, and it is that all parties' election books are examined. In fact, Chair, we stated we would go beyond that, not just for the 2006 election, but we would go back to the 2000 and 2004 elections. We would willingly bring out books for examination to this committee as long as the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, and the New Democratic Party did the same.
We suggested this would be an appropriate course of action, Chair, and that's why I brought this motion forward for two very basic reasons. The overriding reason, of course, Chair, is that we think it's a matter of fairness. If we're going to examine the Conservative books, then we should definitely be in a position where we examine all parties' books, because, Mr. Chairman—and this is my second point—as we contend, not only have we done nothing wrong, but we have engaged in the same practices as opposition parties, and these practices, Chair, are entirely within electoral law. In other words, we are contending, Chair, that not only did we do nothing wrong in the 2006 election with respect to our advertising, but neither did any of the other parties.
I think there may be a slight misconception on behalf of the general public on that issue. There may be some who think we are attempting to examine the other parties' books because we feel they did something illegal. We have never stated that. We have repeatedly stated...and I think you will find, if you examine the records of this committee's testimony, that I have repeatedly stated that my belief is that with respect to the so-called in-and-out advertising scheme, no party did anything wrong. All of the practices followed by opposition parties complied fully with electoral law, as did the practices of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Yet time and time again, when I try to bring this forward--my motion was just the latest in a long list of motions similar to this that we brought forward to this committee--the opposition parties absolutely reject it outright. They refuse to accept this motion.
The only interpretation that I think most people can have of their actions is that they must have something to hide. Otherwise, why are they refusing to allow an examination of their books? If, as they contend, they did absolutely nothing wrong and they complied fully with the law, why are they then so resistant to this examination?
Chair, I would suggest to you that they're doing so for partisan political reasons. They may well know that they did nothing wrong, but they are attempting to create a scandal where no scandal exists. They are attempting, as they have many times in the past with other issues, to create an impression that the Conservatives have broken the law or done something illegal with respect to election spending. We reject that argument outright.
In fact, Chair, one of the reasons we have brought a court action forward is to prove in a court of law that we have done absolutely nothing wrong. We absolutely, vehemently oppose the Elections Canada ruling or interpretation of elections law that only the Conservative Party did something wrong in the 2006 election. That's why we have brought forward a case that will be heard in Federal Court, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Chair, later in this meeting, and perhaps even in subsequent meetings, I'll be bringing examples forward to members of this committee, reading into the record some of the testimony that we will be presenting in Federal Court, and showing members of this committee fully and completely the argument we propose, the argument that exonerates us, that shows without question that the Conservative Party of Canada did absolutely nothing wrong.
As I mentioned in the last meeting and will mention again today, if this committee were truly interested in getting to the bottom of this, they wouldn't need to bring this matter forward at the committee level for examination, because in the court case that will hear our arguments, all of the facts regarding our election spending in the 2006 election will be presented. In fact, I think it very fair to say that if one is to have a complete and fulsome discussion on our advertising practices, a court of law is the best place for that discussion to take place.
To give another example, Chair, we have seen what's happening currently in the Mulroney and Schreiber affair. The ethics committee is having their own examination, yet almost to a person, the members of that committee and the editorial and political columnists agree that the only way to really get to the bottom of this is through the public inquiry, which we all know, of course, the Prime Minister has already called. I would suggest that the same situation is in play here.
There will be a court case heard to determine whether the Conservative Party of Canada broke any election laws. We contend that we did not. That case will be heard before a judge in federal court. That testimony and the results obviously will be made available to not only the Canadian public, but certainly to all members of this committee.
In fact, much of the testimony I will be giving today is coming from an affidavit we have presented that really sets out our legal case. This affidavit is again available to all members of this committee. I'm very surprised that they don't have copies of it with them, because when we start discussing this and I start bringing some of our evidence forward, they could follow along.
Mr. Chair, again I go back to the overriding issue that appears to be at play here, that members of the committee from opposition parties don't seem to really want to get to the bottom of this. They don't really want to have strictly an information-gathering exercise. What they are attempting to do by bringing forward their own motion, put forward by Ms. Redman, is to examine only the Conservatives' advertising practices in 2006.
Their motivation is simply this: to try to get some headlines, to try to embarrass the government, to try to somehow create a perception that it was only the Conservatives who broke electoral law.
We reject that completely and wholly, Chair; therefore, we brought forward our own motion, which said we are more than willing to have an examination and have a study of our election practices—