These comments were made over 30 years ago, but they just go to show, Chair, that these are exactly the types of issues that were debated in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, and now in the new millennium.
But how can we have a fulsome debate on these very fundamental issues so important to all of us as candidates without all of the information being provided? Again, that's the crux and genesis of my motion, that is, to allow this type of debate to take place at this committee. If this committee, Chair, is allowed to enter into that debate with all of the appropriate information provided to us, I would suggest that we would be providing a very valuable service, not only to parliamentarians but also to registered parties, candidates, and to Elections Canada itself.
But I suggest, as I've suggested before, Chair, that the denial of the information we need for a fulsome debate contradicts the sense of democracy we supposedly all share.
I again implore my colleagues opposite to reconsider their position with respect to this debate and the study. Once again, if they have done nothing wrong—and I see in my investigation that they have done nothing wrong, at least that's my interpretation—they should have no problem allowing their election books to be examined. The problem as I see it, however, is a political one. They are fearful that by their very books they will be reinforcing our argument that we did nothing wrong. I have to admit they're right. Their books would prove our innocence, if you want to phrase it in that manner—