Thank you very much.
In any event, I think it's quite obvious what needs to be done here, the acceptance by members opposite of the motion I've put forward that would allow us to fully examine this entire issue, but only if we're given the opportunity not only to fully examine the books of the opposition parties but to question the officials of the respective parties, who probably were the ones who put these advertising practices into effect.
I can tell you, because it's no secret, the regional media buys that the Conservative Party engaged in in 2006 were coordinated at the national campaign level. There's no secret. We fully admit that. And I am confident, I am sure that the same practices that were employed by opposition parties were all coordinated at the national campaign level. Local candidates don't have the time or, frankly, the expertise to put together a regional ad buy like this or enter into an agreement with the national party. That has to be coordinated by the people who run the national campaigns. That's quite obvious.
Let's have an opportunity, then, to speak to those people. Let's find out if they, for example, feel that they were in the right but the Conservative Party was in the wrong. Let the people who deal with these issues on a campaign-by-campaign basis enter that into testimony.
If the national campaign manager of the Liberal Party of Canada says, “Well, Mr. Lukiwski, you are wrong, and here's why: there are similarities, but there are differences as well, and here's the difference, and this difference is why you guys were in violation and we were not”, I can't have that discussion and he doesn't have the opportunity to make that claim, because the opposition won't let us bring him in as a witness, because we can't get access to their books.
I need to see the books to say, “Now, Mr. Executive Director, or Mr. National Campaign Director, your books indicate here's how you conducted yourself with respect to regional media buys. Here's the transfer process. Here's the in-and-out process. Explain yourself why, in your opinion, this is compliant with elections law and election guidelines.” Then I would ask the follow-up question: “Well, then, what is the difference, sir or madam, between your process and your protocol and ours?” I need to be able to ask those questions, but unfortunately, due to the resistance from members opposite, I can't. I simply can't.
I need to then be able to take the testimony provided me from election officials and by officials from each respective party and try to meld them together and to make some sense of this. I can only do that if I have the ability to do that. Right now, the opposition is not providing me or any member of the Conservative Party that ability. They are prohibiting us from gathering the necessary information to prove our case.
I said before, this appears more like a kangaroo court than any kind of real court. I can only state again that I think that's an accurate reflection of what's trying to be done here.
If we had an agreement amongst the members of this committee to go forward and approve the motion that I made at the last meeting of this House, we could begin examination as soon as possible. Obviously it wouldn't take place today, because this would be beyond the scheduled time for this committee meeting, but I'm quite sure that the examination could take place at the start of the next meeting, without question.
Our books are ready to go. If you agree to the motion—