Mr. Chair, as I mentioned, that's basically the fundamental difference that we have with Elections Canada. They are making an interpretation that I can absolutely not understand. We have carefully examined all election rules with respect to advertising. We believe we have complied fully with those rules, and yet we can't seem to find any accommodation within Elections Canada.
I can't for the life of me understand why they have made this ruling. I know why the opposition is onside with Elections Canada; as I said before, they're just trying to make a political case out of this. But I can't understand why the ruling came down from Elections Canada.
Mr. Chair, I've said before on many occasions that other parties and other candidates have followed exactly the same practice. Let me give one of many examples that I plan to enter into the record. We'll start with my friends in the New Democratic Party. We have again provided evidence, which will be brought forward in the Federal Court, that other parties and other candidates have engaged in the same advertising practices we have.
I'll start by giving you an example of an NDP member who engaged in this and who is in fact the House leader of the NDP, Ms. Libby Davies.
We have provided evidence in our affidavit that there is an invoice from the national office of the NDP to the official agent for Ms. Davies' campaign for “election period radio advertising paid by the federal party in the amount of $2,612”. This invoice was paid to the NDP national office by Ms. Davies' local campaign by cheque dated May 31, 2006, the same day as Ms. Davies paid over $2,000 for advertising invoiced by the national NDP office. In other words, if you're following along, it would be an eligible election expense: the NDP invoiced $2,000 to Ms. Davies, and she paid the bill.
The same day, the local campaign received a transfer of funds from the NDP national office for $2,600; in other words, virtually the same amount as the invoice—hence the in-and-out. The national campaign office of the NDP invoiced Ms. Davies for $2,600, she paid it, and the same day the national office transferred $2,600 right back to Ms. Davies: the in-and-out scheme.
The in-and-out nature of this transaction, Chair, is specifically set out in an e-mail to the campaign from the NDP national office, which states in part: “The good news is that the federal party will transfer $2,600 to the federal riding association as we agreed to pay for the ads.” Now, “we agreed to pay for the ads”; that is coming from the national office of the New Democratic Party of Canada. What they did was run a national ad, and they paid for it, but there was an exchange of transfers and invoices.
This practice that Ms. Davies followed is exactly the practice we used in many of our campaigns—not all, but many of them—and that practice is what Elections Canada says is in violation of the Elections Act, because it was clearly a national ad. If you take all of these ads in question and all the amounts, they exceeded the national cap.
Chair, the Elections Canada people didn't charge Ms. Davies. As I said before, if Ms. Davies was following exactly the same practice as we were, how can we be charged with a violation of the Elections Act and Ms. Davies not be, particularly when the practice of both Ms. Davies and the Conservative Party is completely consistent with the regulations set down by Elections Canada? They say this is okay.
Now, I know that we see in this case, Chair, Monsieur Godin, the member of the New Democratic Party, shaking his head that, no, it's not exactly the same. It is exactly the same, and this will be proven in court. And I know, Chair, I was referring through you to Mr. Godin. It is exactly the same practice.
Again, I am at a bit of a loss to try to understand, from Elections Canada's perspective, how it can be that, if two candidates did in effect exactly the same thing, followed exactly the same procedures in terms of advertising, only one of those candidates or one of those parties was found to be in violation of elections law. It can't be. They're both in violation or neither is in violation. Yet that's not the situation we have before us. That, Chair, is why we have caused this legal action to go forward, because we fundamentally disagree with the interpretation of Elections Canada.
Chair, I think back to the last meeting, when there was obviously a lot of discussion, to be kind, a lot of commotion—a lot of interruptions, to be more accurate—from the opposition when I was trying to present my case. Yet I recall, Chair, that it was Monsieur Proulx who made a comment—of course it was not through you, but it was just an interruption—a comment I heard quite clearly, when I was trying to make a case, as I am today, that we have done nothing wrong. He said, well, Elections Canada doesn't think so, and that is why we should have this investigation. He said, Elections Canada doesn't think so, and therefore Elections Canada should be the sole arbiter.
Chair, I can only interpret by that—I'm going to make a bit of an extreme case, but consequentially it makes a lot of sense—that if Monsieur Proulx takes that approach, then I suppose Monsieur Proulx is saying we have no need for a judiciary, because if one is to take as gospel an allegation or a charge from an organization, why do we need the court system? If police were to charge an individual, then apparently, according to Monsieur Proulx, we could just take that as the gospel truth. We don't have to challenge that. There's no need for a court system to defend anybody, because according to Monsieur Proulx, if someone makes a charge, you've got to accept it.
We do not. We believe that Elections Canada erred, and erred seriously, in its own interpretation of the act and in its own interpretation of our advertising practices. We look forward, Chair, to being able to prove that in court, to being able to demonstrate to all concerned that the Conservative Party of Canada did absolutely nothing wrong. I have given you but one example of a practice used by a member of the opposition, and it is exactly that practice and the same methodology that was followed by many of our candidates.
As I said just a few moments earlier, Chair, perhaps this issue, this ability of national parties and local campaigns to transfer moneys back and forth, is an issue we should be discussing. Say someone brought that forward and said, “Something doesn't seem right to me. How can you have it that a local candidate gets reimbursed but still is able to claim election expenses? That may not be right.” Well, hey, it's a legitimate argument and a legitimate point.
Let's discuss that, because all parties have followed that same practice, and for good reason, Chair—I must reiterate, for good reason—because it's allowed. It is not against the law. There's absolutely nothing wrong, according to the existing Elections Canada laws, that would prevent a candidate or a national party from engaging in that practice. Yet members opposite in this committee certainly don't see fit to investigate whether or not that practice should be continued or not.
Again, as I mentioned earlier, I would suggest that this committee has done good work before. Perhaps that's an issue that this committee should investigate, and we should advise Elections Canada of our findings. Perhaps we could call forward the head of Elections Canada and his staff to discuss this issue, to see whether or not it was appropriate to find out the genesis of that practice—whether or not it should be continued, whether or not it was a legitimate practice, whether or not it perhaps abused taxpayers' dollars.
All of those questions are questions that perhaps we could be asking, but instead, Chair, what we have here is an attempt by the opposition to say, “Because the Conservatives engaged in the same elections and advertising practices as we have, only they should be singled out for scrutiny.” And I say that's patently unfair.
I also contend, and I suggest to you, Chair, that the opposition members fully know, although they would never admit this publicly and certainly not in front of members of the media, that this is nothing more than a red herring. They are engaging in a partisan tack, a thinly concealed, thinly disguised smear campaign to try to embarrass the government.
Well, it won't work, Chair. It will not work. We have done absolutely nothing that contravenes election law.
Let's see if we can get another example. Let's turn our attention, if we can just for a moment, to a candidate from the Liberal Party of Canada. I have many, but I'll start with this one: the case of Pablo Rodriguez, member of Parliament.