Thank you, Chair.
Just before we broke, we were talking about perception versus reality and how clearly this is an attempt by opposition members to create a perception that the Conservative Party did something wrong when, in fact, that is absolutely false and baseless. We have done nothing wrong.
I'd like to come back to try to determine the basis of which Elections Canada said that we were at fault, because this is extremely important. We want to make sure that everyone has a full comprehension of this. Sometimes it seems that when you're talking about the complexities involved and the relationships between a national campaign and a local campaign, people's eyes start to glaze over and they don't understand.
As simply as I can, the contention of Elections Canada was that local candidates were funded by the national campaigns to run national ads. And they've said that's wrong. And on the surface I can see how somebody could accept that argument.
If the national campaign is giving money to a local candidate and the local candidate in turn runs a national ad, I could certainly see how Elections Canada could make the argument that you can't do that, except that you can. That is within the guidelines of Elections Canada.
Maybe those rules have to be changed, but it is allowable. Let me give you an example of another party that did exactly that and were not found to be in violation. This occurred during the 2004 election and it concerns the Liberal Party of Canada again.
I know my colleague opposite, Mr. McCallum, is new to this committee. He is sitting in to give one of his colleagues a bit of a break so I don't want him to feel that I'm ignoring the Liberals. I want to make sure that he understands I'm being as fair as I can in pointing out deficiencies in the arguments of all political parties opposite. So this is mainly for the benefit of our newest member to this committee. Hopefully he'll stick around for the next two or three hours so I can again try to convince him, as I have other members, that their position is untenable and in fact is wrong.
But let me just give this example because I think it's one that really speaks to the inconsistencies of the position taken by Elections Canada. Let's go over this again.
Elections Canada's argument is that because the Conservative Party transferred money to a local candidate and the local candidate in turn ran an ad that was national in content, that was wrong, because that money, rather than being claimed by the local candidate, should have been claimed by the national party and it would have put them over their national cap. Okay, that's their argument.
We say that is not only a false argument, but is also an argument that flies in the face of the guidelines put out by Elections Canada. It also is inconsistent because other parties have done exactly the same thing.
Here is the latest example. I think this was a good one. In 2004 a Liberal ad appeared in The Edmonton Journal on Sunday, June 27. Now, the content of the ad, except for the name of the candidates, was entirely national. In fact, the ad had a big picture of Paul Martin and it promoted the Liberal Party of Canada. It had the names of all candidates, but no pictures. There were no pictures of the local candidates whatsoever, only a picture of Paul Martin. It was a national ad. It listed: Anne McLellan, David Kilgour, Doug Faulkner, John Bethel, Bruce King, Maureen Towns, Neil Mather, Moe Saeed, Debby Carlson, Lyle Carlstrom, Duff Stewart, Joe Dion, Rick Bonnett, Peter Crossley.
It appears that all the Edmonton area candidates participated in this, paid for this, and they were able to claim their portion as a local campaign expense. The national party was never found at fault.
Elections Canada then said that what the national party did—this advertising campaign—was completely legitimate. Yet it is exactly that type of transaction that they are saying the Conservatives did, and it is not allowed. I mean, you can't have it both ways.
This was a regional ad. The content of the ad was absolutely national. There was no reference, outside of the name, to a local candidate or local campaign whatsoever, yet it wasn't found to be in violation of the Canada Elections Act by Elections Canada. You can't have it both ways.
At the time, of course, Anne McLellan was the Deputy Prime Minister.
We have a letter here from the director general of the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta, and it states:
During the past election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta transferred funds and/or paid for services in kind directly to the candidate on whose behalf you were acting as Official Agent.
In other words, the Liberal Party paid money to the local candidates so they could participate in this ad buy, which promoted the national party. It certainly can be argued that the national party paid for this ad. Yet, were they found at fault by Elections Canada? No. Elections Canada didn't find them to be in violation of the Canada Elections Act one bit. So my question is, if we were to be found in violation for doing the same thing, why weren't the Liberals found in violation of the Canada Elections Act for doing that? There is total inconsistency in the manner in which Elections Canada has ruled in this case, total inconsistency.
Once again I say that perhaps this practice of the national party of any political party sending money to local campaigns, having them run a national ad and claim it as an expense of their own, is something that should be examined and perhaps it should be stopped or at least altered somewhat. It's a legitimate point, and maybe that's something we should be discussing at this committee, but I don't see a rush to do that by the members opposite. I don't see a rush to do anything by the members opposite with respect to examining their own books.
I will agree, as I have done many times before, that in my estimation at least, what the Liberal Party did in this latest example I just gave you was absolutely 100% in compliance with Elections Canada regulations. It states so. It states that a local candidate can run either a local or a national ad. That's their decision. It also states that a national campaign can transfer, unrestricted, money to local candidates. That's within the guidelines, that's within the rules, and that's what happened here. The national Liberal Party of Canada, the national campaign, transferred money to local candidates, they used that money to put an ad in the paper that promoted the national party, and they weren't in violation. Elections Canada had no problem with that. Neither would I, because the rules are quite clear that it's allowed. Well, maybe we need to change the rules, but the fact of the matter is, in 2004 and in 2006, the rules hadn't been changed. That was allowed. So why have we been found in violation?
I think it truly has been just an honest mistake from Elections Canada's standpoint when they made this ruling, and I think if we were able to present that information and ask those questions of Elections Canada officials, we'd be in a better position to find out the rationale behind their rulings to begin with. Unfortunately, we're prevented from doing so because the members opposite won't agree to my motion.
It's very difficult. If we're making the argument that we have done nothing wrong, and making the argument that, to prove this, we have acted in exactly the same fashion as opposition members, how can we prove that, how can we demonstrate that, if the opposition members refuse to allow their books to be examined? We're saying, “Open up our books. Let's get at it.” But to absolutely prove, in a side-by-side comparison, that we're all engaging in advertising practices in the same fashion, we need to have some agreement from members opposite. We need them to be able to, as we have done, willingly and voluntarily allow their books to be examined. They just won't do it. So what else are we to take from this? Why do you think, frankly, they're engaged in this discussion right now?
For the life of me, I cannot see any position where I would ever agree to a motion that is so clearly designed for partisan motives from the opposition to go forward. I cannot, under any circumstances, see myself or any of my colleagues allowing that to happen, because it is just a sham. It is nothing more than a political sideshow.
If you want to get into this, let's get into it. Let's open up your books; we'll open up ours.
I'm sure, quite frankly, that when a list of witnesses had been developed, if there was any kind of discussion or vote as to who to bring forward first, the opposition members would use their powers, as a majority on this committee, to bring forward the Conservatives. I don't even have a problem with that as long as I had the ability to use examples from the opposition, to present and defend our position in our case. That's all I'm saying.
Yet even with that, we have the collective opposition saying, “No, I don't care how fair it is, I don't care how reasonable your argument is, I'm just not going to go along with it.” So no wonder we have some dysfunction going on here at this committee. We could get beyond this in a heartbeat if the opposition simply agreed to doing what they should agree to, which is to bring forward their own books, to agree with this motion.
If they don't, I'm afraid all we can do is to try to convince Canadians, through conduits such as media representatives who may be reporting on this and hopefully taking copious notes and using examples that I've been reading into the record, and to report to the Canadian public that in fact here's the story. As a famous old radio broadcaster would have said, “The true story, the untold story, page 2.”
But because this issue is fairly complex for a lot of people, they just don't understand. All they hear, many times, are the headlines. If somebody makes an accusation, it gets news, it gets coverage. If somebody accuses someone of a heinous crime, that gets headlines. Maybe three months later the charges are thrown out, but it doesn't matter; the headlines are what stick in the minds of many Canadians, and that's what the opposition is trying to do here.
What I'm attempting to do, quite frankly, is to demonstrate, from example to example to example, that the rulings that were levied against us are exactly the charges, or the levies, or the findings that should have been put towards the opposition parties as well, because if we were at fault, if we were in violation of the act, it is readily apparent that all of these parties should have been found in violation, but they were not.