Thank you, Chair.
Again, I want to make sure that we're quite clear on the motivations of everyone here.
The motivation, clearly, from the opposition side is that they want to have a discussion for media purposes to try to get some headlines, to get some media stories going that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examines Tory election spending practices, and they want to have stories coming out that because of the alleged illegal activity of the Conservative Party a standing committee of the House of Commons is examining their books.
In fact, Mr. Chair, they don't use the word “examine” or “study” in the motion put forward by the members opposite, they use the term “investigate”.
Mr. Chair, if that doesn't make apparent what the opposition is up to, I don't think anything else I say could convince you, because it is absolutely, fundamentally, obviously true that the only reason and the only motivation that the opposition members have to bring forward a motion, as they have done, is to try to score some cheap political points. In fact, Mr. Chair, if they don't appreciate the fact that the examination that would take place in a Federal Court case could bring more disclosure and more light to our practices, then I would suggest all they are attempting to do is create some form of kangaroo court at this committee level.
Mr. Chair, I see absolutely no reason why the motion that I presented could not be agreed upon by members of this committee, yet we see total and absolute resistance from the members of this committee with respect to my motion. Again, I would remind members of this committee that only the Conservative Party of Canada is willing to open up our books. We've stated that quite clearly. We'll gladly do it, and we can start the examination today. We can start getting a witness list, at least, compiled today if only the opposition members would say, all right, we have nothing to hide, we'll open up our own books as well. We could start this today. Why aren't we? Quite simply because the opposition doesn't want any examination of their own books.
Mr. Chair, as I stated, I do not believe, based on the information we have compiled, that the opposition parties did anything wrong in the practices they employed in the last election, because they too engaged in what is called the in-and-out advertising—advertising practice, I would suggest, but the opposition tend to call it a scheme. But they did exactly the same thing as we did. Is that illegal? No, it is not.
Let me perhaps, for the record, try to put this into context and try to frame the so-called in-and-out scheme, and how it works, and also, Mr. Chair, try to frame the argument that the opposition members are attempting to make.
Basically, where the dispute is is that Elections Canada has contended that the Conservative Party of Canada overspent the cap that they have on national advertising. In other words, every party during a federal election has a cap on how much it can spend at the national level for advertising, whether it be radio, electronic, television, and that sort of thing. Elections Canada has contended that the Conservative party got around this cap and exceeded this cap by getting local candidates and their local campaigns to run national ads.
They also contend that the national party paid for those ads in a practice known, again, as the in and out, where a local campaign would pay for an ad that they ran—which the opposition claims is national in scope—and then be later reimbursed by the national party for it. So it would have the net effect of running a national ad that wouldn't cost the local campaign anything. In fact, since they paid for the ad and were later reimbursed, they could claim their payment or their invoice as an election expense and actually get a return from it.
Chair, it may appear to many uninformed members of the general public that there's something wrong with that. How can you get reimbursed and still claim it as an expense? Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the way election laws are presented. Whether or not that's the correct method by which Elections Canada should conduct itself is a question for another day. But that is the current system that Elections Canada employed, and it was followed to the letter not only by the Conservative Party but by all other political parties.
Mr. Chair, I would like to deal with those issues as best I can. Wherein, again, the contention is that something was wrong, that the Conservatives did something wrong by overspending their national advertising cap.... In fact, one of the allegations is that local candidates should not be allowed to run national ads, that they should be allowed to run only ads that promote the local candidate, not the national party.
Mr. Chair, let me just read, for the record, the following:
In summary, the records of Elections Canada indicate that the interpretation it apparently applied in refusing to recognize the expenses for some of the regional media buys of Conservative Party candidates in the 2006 Election (due in particular to the so-called “national” content of the advertising) is expressly contrary to the interpretations repeated many times by Elections Canada in its own published interpretation material from at least 1988 through early 2007—when there was an abrupt change published without notice, over a year after the 2006 election.
Let me just deal with that for a second. What this refers to is simply that up until and including the 2006 election, for a period of at least 18 years, Elections Canada in its own material stated that candidates could run advertising campaigns that promoted either their local candidacy or the national party. That was within the parameters and the rules set down by Elections Canada. Yet a year after the 2006 election, Elections Canada came out with interpretations saying local candidates can promote only local candidates. In other words, they can't promote the national party. But that was a year after the 2006 election.
So I would submit, and I would argue, Chair, that if Elections Canada is contending that the Conservative Party of Canada broke elections law, elections rules, by having local candidates promote a national party, they're absolutely wrong, because they changed the rules after the 2006 election.
We were following the letter of the law in the 2006 election, as was each other nationally registered party. The rules were changed after the election, Mr. Chair.
Secondly, Chair, Elections Canada interpretation material also indicates, consistent with the act, that national parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns—and that's the second part of the allegation that the Conservatives did something wrong. They're saying that not only did they run a national ad, which therefore contravenes the national cap on advertising, but they received money from the national party to pay for the ad. So somehow that is wrong.
Again, Elections Canada's own interpretive material says that the national parties have an unrestricted right to transfer funds to local campaigns. So in their own material, Chair, Elections Canada is contradicting itself, and that, frankly, is one of the main arguments we will be proposing when this case is heard in court. Here's an interpretation of Elections Canada that absolutely contravenes its written material, its instructions to candidates and national parties, the rules that we are all to follow.
How can that happen? How can Elections Canada, Chair, summarily and arbitrarily state that the Conservative Party was at fault when in fact by the letter of the elections law, we followed their instructions absolutely completely?
Mr. Chair, that's a question I don't believe anyone at this committee can answer. That's why we have to take this to court and why we have engaged in the action we have.
Again, I go back to one of the arguments I raised earlier. If the opposition parties and the members of this committee were truly interested in finding out whether the Conservative Party broke elections laws, they should let this court case play out. There will be far more examination done in a federal court of law than could ever be done at the committee level—and we all know that here. The way the committee structure is set, there's only a limited amount of time that each member can question witnesses. Yet in a court of law, the judge and the respective lawyers representing Elections Canada and the Conservative Party would be able to engage in a very fulsome argument. That's where the information will become evident, and that's where the information will be made public.
So again, it's apparent to me and to any right-minded Canadian, I think, who's been following this that all the opposition members are trying to do in this committee is to create a scandal where none exists and to do anything within their power to embarrass the government, because, Mr. Chair, we all know that in a minority government situation, there's a distinct possibility of an election being called at any moment.
So what does an opposition party trailing in the polls need to do if they want to force an election, or if they want to engage in an election campaign? They need to have an issue. They need to have something that embarrasses the government. They need to be able to point to something during an election campaign and say, see, that's why you have to get rid of these guys.
Make no mistake, in the 2006 election—and prior to that in the 2004 election, but more so in the 2006 election—one of the main controversies and issues was the sponsorship scandal. That, of course, was a scandal unprecedented in Canadian political history, the largest political scandal in Canadian history, and it had a huge effect in the defeat of the then Liberal government. So the Liberals quite obviously know the effect a scandal can have on an incumbent government, and they are trying, with the help of their opposition colleagues, to create a scandal where none exists, and they're pointing to and considering this to be a scandal. It's absolutely partisan, Chair, and it's the only reason that committee members are adamant in their view that Ms. Redman's motion be voted upon and be followed through.
We, on the other hand, Chair, as I state for the record once again, have said that we have absolutely no problem with our books being examined. If we did, we wouldn't be bringing forward a case. We wouldn't be bringing forward to the Federal Court the very thing the opposition members on this committee have been demanding and asking for.
We'll be completely examining—and allowing a Federal Court judge to examine, Chair—all of our books with respect to the 2006 election. And we've gone even further, at this level: we've stated that we'll go back to 2004, we'll go back to 2000, we'll go back as far as you want—as long as the other parties agree to do the same.
Yet we have had consistent and repeated resistance from the opposition members to do so. Why? It's because this isn't about fairness; this is about partisan politics. That's all this is. The opposition members do not want to have a media story saying that their books are being examined. They only want the media stories and the headlines to say, “Tory books examined—committee investigates”.
Chair, not only is that not fair, but I think it is readily apparent to all observers that this shouldn't be the purpose of this committee. This committee, probably amongst all others, has, I believe, in past years had a well-deserved reputation for being relatively impartial. This committee generally deals with issues that affect all parties in Parliament. It's the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; we talk about procedural matters, about matters that affect all parties. The legislation this committee deals with is mainly on the democratic reform side.
Again, over the past years it has had a very well-deserved reputation as a committee that gets things done, that is impartial in its nature, that does good work to the benefit of all members and all parties. Yet, Chair, we have strayed a long way away from the noble intents and the noble work that this committee has done in years past. We're down to a point now where opposition members are using this committee as a vehicle for their own partisan purposes, to try to embarrass the government, to try to create a scandal where none exists. And, Chair, that's something I'm certainly not prepared to let happen.
If you truly want to have an examination of the Conservative advertising practices, if you want to talk about the in-and-out advertising scheme, let's do so. But let's do so by examining all books.
In fact, Chair, I would even go further. If the in-and-out advertising practice that has been employed by all political parties is something this committee feels to be inappropriate—and frankly, Chair, I would suggest there may be a very good argument to be made there—then let's deal with that. We have all followed the same set of rules, and if we think that practice should stop, let's investigate the matter. Let's talk about that issue.
I'm not suggesting we make any fundamental changes to the Elections Act or to the practices of advertising, but if you want an examination, let's do that; then we can fully discuss that issue. We can examine whether other parties have followed the same practice, which they have, and whether or not it's appropriate. But let's not go down into the political gutter, as the opposition members are attempting to do, and say let's just look at one party.
You know, Chair, I'm looking forward to the court case that is going to be heard in the next few months, because it will give us clear opportunity to tell all members of this House and all members of the Canadian public exactly how we conducted our advertising practices in the 2006 election. We will be able to argue—and effectively argue—how we followed to the letter electoral law.
Part of that argument, Chair, will be comparison between what we have done and what the other parties have done. I think there's a pretty logical case to be made, if we can demonstrate, if we can completely illustrate, that the practices we followed absolutely mirrored the practices of an opposition party. And if the opposition party was not charged with any offence, then how could we be? If the opposition party was not guilty of any election infractions, and we did exactly the same thing, then how could we be found guilty of any election infractions? It doesn't make any sense.
That's the situation that we now find ourselves in with Elections Canada. That is why we have brought forward a legal challenge to the interpretations of Elections Canada. That is why we are fully prepared to have this whole issue investigated in Federal Court.
Interpretation guidelines contained in Elections Canada candidate handbooks, dating back to 1988, are consistent over time on the issue of candidate advertising, until a sudden drastic change in 2007, fully a year after the 2006 election. Until this drastic change, the guidelines were clear that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate specifically and/or the national party. That again goes back to Elections Canada and their interpretation of our advertising.
One of their criticisms, one of their allegations, is that local candidates ran national ads, and that the national party advertising cap was thereby exceeded. They say, they contend, that this is against the law.
Mr. Chairman, in their own guidelines they say that advertising conducted by local campaigns could promote the candidate or the national party. So how can it be that in their own guidelines they allow this practice to happen, yet they charge that the Conservatives, by following this practice, somehow violated elections law? It doesn't make sense. And everyone around here knows it. We've all been candidates; that's how we got to this place. It is up to the candidate to determine the most effective use of advertising for getting elected.
There's a fairly common rule of thumb in politics that 95% of the success or failure of a local candidate is determined by the success or failure of their national party. In other words, the majority of people, the majority of voters, make their decisions based on the national campaign. Certainly the local candidate has some effect. The longer the time in office, the greater the power of incumbency and the stronger the influence of the local candidate. Generally speaking, though, voters vote for the party. If they think, as voters did in 2006 with the Liberals, that a party is no longer worthy to govern, they have a right, in effect, to fire them. And in 2006, that is what the voters did.
When I was first elected in 2004, I was elected more because the voters in my riding wanted the Conservative Party to represent them than because they wanted to be represented by me as an individual. Primarily, that's why I got elected.
That's why the guidelines that Elections Canada has always followed said that local candidates can determine whether they want to run an ad promoting their own candidacy or promoting the national party. In 2004, when I was first elected, the majority of my advertising promoted the national party, because I felt that this was my best chance of getting elected.
Now, there are some rules that go along with that, and we all know them. We can run a national ad, but we have to identify our own candidacy somewhere in the ad. If it's a print ad, you have to have the name of the candidate and the official agent and authorizations. You need the same thing if you run electronic ads, whether on radio or television. But as long as you do this, it is considered eligible election expenses for the local candidate.
Yet all of a sudden we have this ruling from Elections Canada that because our candidates followed that very basic rule, somehow we were wrong; we, the Conservative Party candidates, erred, and violated somehow Elections Canada law. The net effect was that the ads we ran that might have been national in context and in scope actually should have been paid for and used as national ads, and that in effect exceeded the national advertising cap.
Chair, I would argue to anyone that, as a candidate, it is my sole right to determine what advertising is going to benefit me the most. If they are national ads that benefit me and contribute to my election as a candidate, then I should have the absolute right to run those ads, as long as I authorize them and as long as people know that I was the candidate responsible for paying for those ads. That's the authorization, declaration, and disclosure that I talked about just a few moments ago.
We've all done that. I would suggest that members of this committee, if they were to go back in their political careers, would find that on many occasions they have done exactly the same thing. They have run ads that promoted the national party more than their local candidacy. That was their decision—