I would suggest that if we truly wanted to inform Canadians as to the methodology and the processes that all Canadians followed and engaged in during elections, we would have no difficulty in putting forward a cogent and responsible opinion from this committee, certainly within a few weeks. If we'd have voted ourselves the full examination of all our practices, citing examples, giving appropriate responses to questions from other committee members, we could have this matter dealt with probably within a couple of weeks.
The reason I say that is because I don't see how we could possibly carry on an examination longer than that, simply because the practices of all parties are similar—in fact, almost identical. How could we go beyond, say, three or four meetings, which is six to eight hours of full examination, if in fact it is first discovered that the practices that all parties engaged in are the same?
I've given examples here, time and time and time and time again, that they are the same. So if they're the same, then the conversation could really get focused and say, “All right, we've all done the same thing. Are those practices consistent with electoral guidelines, or are they inconsistent?” That's the only question, at that point in time, we would have to consider as a committee.
So, again, I fail to see why the resistance from the opposition. If they actually want to get to the bottom of what they consider to be inappropriate and illegal election practices from the Conservatives and if they also agree that their party is above reproach, why don't they just allow the motion to pass? Why don't they just allow a fulsome examination? It shouldn't take them very long, if they're right, to prove their case.
I would suggest to you that will not occur. That agreement from my colleagues opposite will never come forward, because they don't want that examination. Why? Well, because at the end of the day it would be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, certainly to the satisfaction of this committee, that there's no untoward activity, no improper or illegal activity, with respect to election financing by the Conservative Party of Canada.
They don't want that story. Why in the world would they want a story that says “Conservatives vindicated”? They don't want that.
They just want a story that gives the impression, at the very least, that the Conservative Party has done something illegal, something wrong. Well, we totally reject that. We know that we have done nothing untoward. We know we have not broken any elections laws or guidelines. I've demonstrated that time and time again. I will continue to read into the record other examples. But the opposition, of course, can't accept that. That's simply not good enough for them from a political perspective. To justify their political agenda, they have to try as hard as they can to do whatever they can to cast aspersions on the Conservative Party, to try to smear the Conservative Party. Therefore, they don't want anything to do with a full disclosure, a full investigation of all parties, because they absolutely know that we would be proven to be innocent, that we have done nothing wrong.
But I think it goes beyond that. Consider this: many times, unfortunately—we've heard this before—in politics, perception is reality. I think that was actually first coined by a former Liberal senator, Senator Keith Davey, that in politics, perception is reality.
The opposition members are trying to create the perception that the Conservative Party did something wrong. If they were successful in creating that perception, they would have succeeded in their goal. So it doesn't really matter to them what the final answer is. They're convinced that if they're able to get the Conservatives, and only the Conservatives, at this committee to answer questions about their election financing practices, that would be the perception, that only the Conservatives had done anything wrong. Therefore, they don't want anything to do with an examination of their own books, because even if they were found to be totally in compliance—