My point is simply this. We seem to have two different standards here. You mentioned in some of your remarks earlier that it's quite obvious that we do have two different standards here, one for the opposition and one for the government.
As the opposition contends, investigation must mean you're guilty. Yet when the situation is reversed, if an investigation takes place of either an opposition party or an opposition member, that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they are guilty. It just means there is an investigation. You can't have it both ways, Chair. You cannot have it both ways.
At the risk of repeating myself, but it certainly bears repeating once again, the only reason this discussion is taking place is because there is a political vendetta and a political smear campaign being orchestrated by all opposition parties. Why shouldn't they? It's certainly good politics if they can get the attention of the national media. It's certainly good politics back at their home ridings to be able to point fingers at the Conservative Party and say, “You see? They're under investigation; we always told you they were corrupt.” But that's all it is, Chair, is good politics. There is no basis in fact. There's no basis in fairness. It is only politics at its purest and most partisan sense.
That's why, Chair, we need to take the approach as offered by my motion. If in fact the Conservative Party of Canada has done anything untoward in the 2006 election, we're more than willing to allow that study, that examination, to take place, but on one condition: that all parties offer their books for examination themselves. It was apparent in the words of the opposition members in yesterday's news conference that they don't think they did anything wrong. They continually stated that since only the Conservative Party is under investigation--