Let us make one point. We're not asking to see the books of the parties to see how much money they have in the bank. We're just talking about documents relating to the 2000, 2004, and 2006 elections, a completely different set of books, because everyone knows that when political parties file their annual returns, there are two returns filed. One is an annual financial return, and another is an election return. We're just talking about the election returns. I'm not asking to see the books of the opposition parties other than their election books. That's all I'm asking for. That's all we've ever been asking for.
If there's any hesitation from members opposite that we're trying to use this motion to get into their day-to-day financial operations, it's absolutely not true. We're merely trying to determine the method under which these parties operated with respect to transfers of money and advertising content. That's all we're trying to do.
We contend that it's entirely appropriate for all political parties to transfer money from the federal party to the local candidate level, and after that transfer has been completed, it's entirely appropriate for the local candidate to determine what the content of their advertising should be. We further submit that it's entirely appropriate for the candidate to then claim that advertising expense as a local expense. Not only do we submit that, but Elections Canada states that is what must happen. So there's no disagreement amongst parties on that fact.
Chair, there is disagreement from Elections Canada on that fact, because that's where the rulings have come down. That's where they have stated that if you run a national advertisement at the local level and there's been a transfer of money from the national campaign to the local level, you can't claim it as a local expense; it has to be claimed as a national expense. How they came to that conclusion in light of the evidence I've entered into testimony already is beyond me. It's beyond my scope of comprehension. On one hand, I am quoting from documents issued by Elections Canada, yet the ruling from Elections Canada flies in the face of the testimony that I've already given. It flies in the face of the actual wording that Elections Canada wrote. Why the contradiction?
Again, I can only go back to what I've stated before. I think there's probably an honest mistake. I'd like to get to the bottom of it. I'd like to find out where the misinterpretation is. I've racked my brain trying to think about this. I cannot understand how they can make the ruling that they did in light of the evidence I have already quoted. This is evidence that comes from Elections Canada material. Elections Canada says it's entirely appropriate to act in the manner in which we acted, yet the ruling contradicts that. I can't understand it. I wish, Chair, that I had the opportunity to ask the appropriate questions to the appropriate officials so that I could make some sense out of this.
If the members opposite changed their minds, perhaps we could, but that appears unlikely, which takes me back once again to the question of motivation. What is the motivation of the members opposite by their abject refusal to allow this type of basic questioning to take place? What is it? Clearly it's political in nature. We have not heard anything to the contrary. We can only assume that for their own political purposes, for their own political reasons, the opposition wishes to oppose our motion and carry on with a charade, a sham, a kangaroo court type of approach to this. And that's okay. I understand that. I understand that completely. What I don't understand, in light of all of this testimony, is how they can continue to make any kind of relevant argument that we were wrong and they were right.