If opposition parties are of the view that only the Conservatives have somehow breached elections campaign financing laws and they then have nothing to hide, they should then welcome the fact and the opportunity to begin an investigation immediately. Yet that's clearly not the case.
I kept asking in Tuesday's meeting, Mr. Chair, what the opposition has to hide, because I had stated on several occasions that I believed that none of the opposition parties had done anything wrong, from what I could see. In all the election documents I've examined, I can see nothing that would suggest to me that any of the opposition parties had done anything wrong. Yet if that is the case, Mr. Chair, then why do they not just summarily and voluntarily say “Hey, let's get this investigation going. Here are our books; come on, let's get the witness list going and let's start the investigation.” They would probably, I would suggest, also recommend—and that might even end up with a vote on this matter—that we start with the Conservative Party. Well, if that's what it came to, they obviously have the numbers. I'm sure that would be the order in which these investigations took place.
But they didn't even get to that point, Chair, and again, it has to raise the question of what they are afraid of. What are they hiding? I note with great interest yesterday's news conference. These are quotes, rather than paraphrases, from Monsieur LeBlanc, who states: “We're also wondering what the Conservatives are so afraid of.”
Mr. Chair, once again, let me remind not only Monsieur LeBlanc but also all members of this committee, all members of the media, and all who are observing these proceedings and listening to these proceedings that we do not have anything to hide—well, Mr. Godin might have something to hide, since he is being investigated by Elections Canada, Chair. I wanted to clarify my position there; perhaps Mr. Godin does have something to hide—perhaps that's why he's not volunteering his election campaigns—but the fact is that Mr. LeBlanc stated that in the news conference yesterday.
I would contend that simply the reverse is true. We are the only party that has voluntarily offered to have all our books and all our officials present at this committee for a full and thorough examination and discussion of our advertising practices in not only the 2006 election but also in the 2004 and 2000 elections.
Why are we the only party that has offered to do so? Why haven't the opposition members voluntarily and with great dispatch said they have nothing to hide, that their books are open and transparent, and that they want to begin the committee work? According to statements made in yesterday's news conference, they say they want to get to work.
I'll see if I can get the exact reference, Chair. I believe this comes from my friend Mr. Godin, who says, and I quote, “I'm very pleased to be with the two other parties this morning to show the solidarity of the opposition that we don't believe in a minority government”—well, that's interesting in itself—“that the Conservatives should take over the way that they have been trying to do it by using tactics that they're using now to stop us to do our work.”
It's quite apparent, Chair, to anybody who is paying attention to these proceedings that the only parties that don't want to do the work are the opposition parties. They perhaps want to do partial work, at best, by investigating one party but not the others. I think one could even make an argument, Chair, that should Monsieur Godin be under investigation by Elections Canada, perhaps there are others in the New Democratic Party who are in a similar position. Perhaps the party itself has employed practices similar to those of Monsieur Godin, and they may ultimately be placed under investigation by Elections Canada.
I would think, Chair, that they would want to clear the air and try to give confidence not only to the political parties themselves but also to the general electorate and general public that all candidates in all parties are above reproach and conduct themselves in an appropriate and entirely legal manner.
One would think that the only way to do that—to truly inspire that level of confidence, Chair, and provide the public and others, including aspiring politicians and those who may someday wish to seek public office, with the confidence that their elected representatives and the political process in Canada are working well and working in a fashion that is true to the democratic principles of this country and true to the guidelines as established by Elections Canada—would be to be fully transparent when talking about advertising and advertising expenses.
There is much confusion, Chair, in the minds of Canadian voters and the Canadian public as to how this whole party-versus-candidates, national-versus-local expense thing works. What are these caps all about? What's the discussion about? Well, I can understand why members of the general public would be confused over this, because Elections Canada has presented a pretty complex set of rules. In fact, I think there could certainly be an argument that the rules themselves—the guidelines surrounding election spending by parties and by candidates—should be examined and perhaps changed, and I think that would be a worthy discussion for this committee.
In other words, Chair—and I'll certainly read this into the record in a few hours—the attitudes of some, and perhaps the comments I will read into the record, reflect those of a journalist who covers the political scene. Perhaps they are reflective of the views of many, if not most, of the Canadian public, and those views deal with the possible need for a change in the way Elections Canada administers election spending.