Thank you.
So the point is that there are at times differences of opinion on the rulings of Elections Canada, and you cannot say in all instances that Elections Canada has been correct. In fact, just the opposite. We've just given an example in which Elections Canada, in their 1997 ruling, had some problems with inconsistencies. Those rules had to be clarified. I would suggest that it's entirely possible that the rulings made by Elections Canada with respect to the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2006 election are also faulty. I would suggest that if we had a proper examination at the committee level, irrespective of whether or when our court case is heard, we would be able to determine that very thing. We would be able to determine, quite quickly, I would submit, that every action taken by all parties with respect to provisions contained in the Elections Act, as outlined in the candidates handbook, were consistently applied across the board by all parties.
The Conservative Party and I are looking for an opportunity in which to present this case, by standards of comparison with the other political parties. It is a fundamental part of our argument, which we are presenting in federal court, that we been in compliance with the act from both an interpretive and a comparative standpoint. We are in compliance for this reason: if a party other than the Conservatives has engaged in activity similar to that of the Conservatives, and that party is found to be compliant, then the Conservatives must be seen to be in compliance as well.
I think it's extremely important to recognize that, unless we have the ability to compare similar advertising practices and protocols, we will not be able to demonstrate that we have been compliant with the act. In fact, we would be denied our legal right to be able to advance our position. Therefore, Madam Redman's motion that only the Conservative books be examined in committee denies the Conservative Party an opportunity to demonstrate why we have not been uncompliant. We need that opportunity to compare our own examples with those of the other parties.
Unfortunately, my motion, which suggests that we engage in a comparative discussion of practices between parties as well as an interpretive discussion on Elections Canada, has not been favourably received by the opposition. They are seeking to deny us the opportunity of comparing our advertising practices with theirs—to deny us a fundamental right, almost a legal right.
Our request would never be refused in federal court. Can you imagine, if part of our defence in Federal Court was that we were doing exactly the same thing as the opposition parties have done, that a judge would refuse to hear our argument on the grounds that we could not enter into evidence the advertising practices of our opponents?
That would never happen. That would never happen because it would be a denial of our ability to defend ourselves. Yet that's exactly what the opposition members are attempting to argue. They are denying us the opportunity to examine their practices, because such an examination would substantiate our argument that we have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Chair, I see that the Speaker of the House is here. I certainly wouldn't want to interrupt any important conversations that the chair might have. I'm sure it's just a matter of idle curiosity that brings the Speaker down...his esteemed presence.
Let me say, Chair, further to some comments that I made before, that there was this confusion between whether a candidate could advertise on polling day in 1997 and advertise a national ad. This was deemed to have been not allowed from national party perspectives, and the confusion that resulted ended up with a position being presented by Elections Canada.
This position was reflected in a press release, a notice to the media, issued by Elections Canada on May 24, 1997, and May 29, 1997, respectively. Both documents made it very clear that it was Elections Canada's position that there was no restriction on the content of advertising by candidates.
This was a position taken by Elections Canada in 1997. It stated in 1997 a position that it has not reversed, up until and including the 2006 election. Let's be quite clear here on what it says. The stated position was that there was no restriction on the content of advertising by candidates.
Mr. Chair, from a ruling from Elections Canada in 2006, Elections Canada is now saying that there is a restriction. If candidates run national ads and they're paid for through transfer of funds from the national party, you can't do that. That's what they're saying now. That's their position now. But in 1997, they articulated the fact that you can run whatever kind of ad you want—local, national, whatever—and they haven't changed that position. They did change the guidelines, but again, a year after the 2006 election.
The then Chief Electoral Officer explicitly recognized that the act allowed candidates to pay for national advertisements, contingent upon, of course, their putting the appropriate tag lines on and everything else. So all right, local candidates can run and pay for national ads.
Now, if we were in a position where we were actually having a fulsome discussion on this, we would be able to enter into testimony evidence from Elections Canada in their ruling against the Conservative Party, where they stated that they felt that for local candidates running national ads with money supplied by the national campaign, those moneys should be considered a part of the national advertising cap of the registered party.
Chair, there are huge inconsistencies, not only in the interpretation of the act itself but huge inconsistencies in the application of the rulings from Elections Canada from party to party. That's something that, quite frankly, shouldn't be allowed. There has to be some form of consistency.
If we were allowed the opportunity to bring forward all of the books of the respective parties, and take example by example by example, we would clearly and quickly find out that there has been no non-compliance issues with respect to the Conservative Party of Canada. We'd be able to absolutely determine that we acted in an entirely appropriate manner, in full compliance with electoral law, with the guidelines, with the handbook, with the act itself.
Again I go back to wondering why we have this reticence exhibited by members of the opposition on this very fundamental matter. Why are they so indisposed to accepting our motion? Why do they not want a full examination of this very issue that they say proves the Conservatives have overspent? Well, there's only one reason that I can see: they do not believe their own argument.
They are putting forward a specious argument merely to try to throw some mud on the wall, to try to smear the Conservatives, when they know the actual truth of the matter is that the Conservative Party did nothing wrong. Were they convinced otherwise, they would have no difficulty in accepting our motion. Unfortunately, Chair, we have a situation in which, for partisan reasons, they want to deny this committee the ability and, I would suggest, their right to examine this issue thoroughly. They only want to take a certain portion of this issue, craft it to their own political use, and try to spin the story as if there was some scandal or some problem.
Chair, I would strongly suggest that if we had these matters before an independent tribunal, let alone the Federal Court, it very quickly would be determined that there has been some real wrongdoing here, but certainly no wrongdoing on behalf of the Conservative Party. The wrongdoing is that there has been an inconsistent application on behalf of Elections Canada in their rulings. I think any independent tribunal of reasonable Canadians could determine nothing but that, could come to that conclusion and nothing else. The evidence is clear that other parties have done exactly what the Conservative Party has done, and yet only the Conservative Party has been singled out by Elections Canada.
Chair, since we don't have an independent tribunal to examine this matter, the next best thing, in my opinion, would be to have this committee examine it, thoroughly examine the issue. To do that, to allow us to adequately and appropriately defend and explain ourselves, we need to be able to offer the same defence that we will be offering in Federal Court. That defence, partially, allows us to bring forward examples from other political parties on how they conducted themselves. That's part of the defence that is contained in our affidavit. That's part of the defence that we will be advancing when this case is finally heard in court. That's part of the defence that we would offer up to this committee. Yet, the opposition is denying us that right and that ability to bring forward this type of explanation, this type of defence. I keep using the word, defence, Chair, because that's exactly what it feels like here.
The opposition is making these trumped-up charges and allegations, yet not allowing us the ability to defend ourselves against the very things that they contend we did wrong. Who is playing politics here? Clearly, Chair, it is not us. We're merely trying to defend ourselves in a matter that is appropriate, consistent with the basic tenets of natural law. Yet, we have continued opposition by the members opposite to that very fundamental principle, that all parties in a dispute have the right to adequately and appropriately and fully defend themselves.
Chair, the defence that I would offer, and I would suggest the defence that members on this side of the table would offer, is twofold. First, a thorough examination of the Canada Election Act itself and the candidates handbook. Secondly, a comparison of the advertising practices of all political parties to determine if any or all of the political parties should be viewed as being in non-compliance with the act and with the regulations themselves.
Now, Chair, it's a commonsensical argument to make, and it just makes perfect sense to me, because anyone who wants to assure Canadians that they're trying to get to the bottom of any story, to find the truth behind any allegation, would have to admit that they have to allow a full defence. They have to allow a full examination of all of the issues. They have to allow the aggrieved party an opportunity to offer up its best defence. Yet we have an example here, Chair, where members opposite are trying to deny that very right, the very right that is afforded every citizen in this country, certainly every member of this committee.
Again, I only could draw the conclusion, Chair, that the reason the members opposite do not want to afford us that very basic right of an appropriate and adequate defence and representation is because they are not interested in the truth. They are not interested in the fact that we may prove without a shadow of a doubt, both here at the committee level and in a court of law, that we did nothing wrong.
They do not want to hear that. They do not want that proof to be brought forward. Then, that would destroy the very little credibility they have on this issue. It would destroy it completely. It would prove completely and thoroughly that the only reason this action is taking place, this trumped-up motion that the Liberal Party have advanced, is to try to score some cheap political points. Otherwise, Chair, they would have absolutely no difficulty in accepting this motion intact, without amendment.
When I read media reports, when and if members talk about this issue, members opposite are saying, “Well, we're just trying to get to the bottom of it. We're just trying to get the truth. That's all we're trying to do.” Yet their actions speak loudly and they speak otherwise. Because they don't want to get to the bottom of this. They don't want to get to the truth. All they're trying to do is create sensationalist headlines and then convince people, through an aggressive media spin, that it's only the Tories who did something wrong in terms of spending practices and advertising practices in the 2006 election.
They're not interested in the defence. Far from it. The last thing in the world they want to have happen—