My colleague just asked what they're hiding. I don't know what they're hiding. I don't know if they're hiding anything. I certainly don't think they did anything wrong. Based on the examples that I've already given—and I've many more to give—I don't think they did anything wrong. Elections Canada apparently agrees, because they didn't find any fault with the election returns of the parties who are represented by these members opposite.
So why would they object to an examination of their books if that allowed them to finally examine ours? That's what they say they want. Their allegations are that the Conservatives and only the Conservatives did something wrong. It would seem to me that the quickest way to prove that, if they can, is to get our books on the table, compare them to theirs, have everyone witness and examine all of the election practices—all of the reporting, all of the financial information, all of the disclosure—and then point to the world and say, “You see? We proved our case. We were right, they were wrong.”
You would think they would welcome that opportunity. You'd think they would rush to that opportunity.
In fact, Chair, it seems odd to me that they didn't even raise that motion on their own volition. If they were truly convinced that we had somehow violated the Canada Elections Act and that they had not, why didn't they bring a motion forward to say that they would gladly open up their books for examination as long as they could see the Conservatives' books? Why didn't they voluntarily say, “My motion says that we want to examine the books of the NDP, the books of the Bloc Québécois, and the books of the Liberal Party, but only if the Conservatives allow their books to be examined, as well”, and then force us to make a decision? If we said, “No, no, no, no”, then they would really have something. Then they would have this media attention, with the media saying the Conservatives were backing off and were refusing to allow their books to be examined. But it isn't that way. It's just the reverse. We are the only party, Chair, that has voluntarily put forward a motion to examine our own books. The opposition members have not.
I think any reasoned opinion that could be gained from this, Chair, is that the opposition doesn't really want an examination to find out the facts. They want an examination strictly for partisan purposes to try to spin the media to say “Committee Investigates Tories”. Those are the headlines they want. That's all they want.
Even if, at the end of the day—and I'm sure the results would reflect this—the committee said we couldn't find anything, that wouldn't be a story as big as the initial story, which they hope would say “Committee Investigates Tories”. That's what they're trying for here.
Mr. Chair, while it's clear to members of my party at this committee and to me that this is the motivation behind the opposition, I think it will become readily apparent to members of the general public as well, because, Chair, finally, for the record, we will have information that I have been providing in this testimony that proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that there has been nothing untoward happening in terms of our reporting relationship with Elections Canada.
I will continue to read into the record, Chair, example upon example upon example of how the other parties, whose members are sitting at this table, have engaged in the same in-and-out advertising schemes, which they allege the Conservatives entered into and which they also allege are not only inappropriate but are against elections law.
I know they don't want to hear this, Chair, but we will enter into the record all these examples. At the end of the day, Chair, whenever that day is, we will be able to bring out this record of testimony and submit that to the ultimate arbiter of who did what that was right and what maybe was wrong, and that is the Canadian public.
I know that members opposite don't like it when I keep entering into the record examples of members of their own parties who did exactly the type of thing they contend we did and what they also contend was against the law. They don't like it when I point out that they did exactly the same thing as Conservative candidates.
We're going to continue to do that, Chair, because that's the only way I can determine that the truth will get out.
Well, let me back up a little. There's another way, and that is simply for the members of this committee to vote to accept this motion that I put forward, pure and simple. All they have to do is indicate that they are willing to accept this motion. As the saying goes in western Canada, Mr. Chairman, “pit or pat, or we'll get at it”. We'll get this examination going right away, I can guarantee that.
But I don't see any willingness from the other side. I see continued stonewalling of truth and justice by the members opposite. They continue to sit back and try to take what they consider to be the pious and moral high ground by saying, you know, we have to make sure we investigate those darn Tories, because if they were doing something wrong we'd better get to the bottom of it. Yet when we willingly offer to open up our books if they would do they same, they backtrack, refuse, or object.
What does that tell Canadians? I know what it tells me. And I think if any Canadian has the ability to read the testimony of this committee, Chair, they'll quickly come to the same conclusions I have, that there's absolutely no basis for the arguments or contentions of the members opposite—absolutely none. This is purely and simply a partisan attempt to smear the Conservatives, nothing more.
If they say absolutely and without political motivation, we only want to get to the bottom of this, we only want the truth, why do they then not join with us in an attempt to do that very thing? Why have they not agreed to let the court case proceed and let a court of law decide, ultimately, whether there were any violations? No, to them, that's not good enough; they want a kangaroo court established here so they can pick and choose the information they present. They don't want to let an impartial judge examine all of the relevant information and documentation, which would include, I might suggest, Chair, information and documentation and financial disclosures of the members opposite and their parties. They don't want that to happen. They're not interested in that because, in all likelihood, the judge will agree with our assertions that under the Elections Canada guidelines of the day, there was no violation in the 2006 election, that there was absolutely nothing inappropriate or in contravention of election laws. That's what the opposition doesn't want to hear.
God forbid, Chair, if we ever had this court case concluded prior to a general election and we were completely exonerated, as I believe we will be. How would the opposition take that? It would be yet another example that Canadians could point to and say, geez, is that all these guys have? They keep trying to create scandals, but these keep blowing up in their face. They don't want that, Chair. It would be better for them politically if there were an unresolved issue about which they could allege there was a scandal than actually to have the truth come out.
If we were able to proceed expeditiously at this committee with an examination of all parties' books, I don't think we'd need more than, probably, a week or two of meetings before the truth would be determined, or a consensus reached by this committee, that there had been no inappropriate behaviour or illegal activity in the advertising practices of the Tories. They don't want that. They would rather sit back and just make unfounded allegations.
Well, Chair, I have to admit that's part of the game, part of politics, right? We all know that. We all admit that. I would suggest there's not a person here at this table who hasn't engaged in some form of political attack on their opponents based on allegations—in some form.
We've seen examples, even in the national media, where there'd be stories the Globe and Mail would publish. The opposition would automatically say, “Well, it was in the Globe”, and then a week later, or sooner than that, the Globe had to retract itself, saying, “The allegations we printed weren't really true.” That didn't stop opposition members from grabbing onto that and trying to make a political point, or score some cheap political points. Everyone's done it. I understand that; I accept that. It's part of the political process.
The point is we've heard only the talk of the opposition, saying, “No, that's not the case. We're holier than thou. We really want this examination, this investigation, because we think there was something wrong.”
Frankly, Chair, I would suggest that it comes close to violating the mandate of this committee to enter into such an investigation. That being said, nonetheless, that's open for debate and argument, I suppose.
I would strongly suggest, Chair, that if we were to truly try to examine the advertising practices of all parties, that discussion wouldn't last very long. Do you know why? The perceived political advantage the opponents think they would get by examining only the Tory books would be gone. It would vanish. There would be no political scandal there. There would be nothing to point to, to say, “You see? Only the Tories are being investigated here. Clearly that says something. They're the only ones who did anything wrong.” Well, that political tool would be gone from the tool case. They wouldn't be able to use that. So that's why they continue to resist my motion.
Frankly, Chair, I don't think Canadians have much time for the antics of the opposition when it comes to this type of thing. I sincerely hope this recorded testimony will filter its way down, and maybe not even filter but directly make its way down, unfiltered, to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I believe even a cursory examination of the testimony I've brought forward today will certainly prove and underscore my contention that this is nothing more than a political exercise brought forward by members of the opposition—nothing more; that's it.
I know the opposition members don't want to hear that, so perhaps let's take a look at another example, with the NDP. I'll now go to what we call exhibit 58, and this will be a candidate, not an elected member—this NDP candidate didn't get elected. The name is—and I hope I don't mispronounce this, but I probably will—Rodolphe Martin. It's the same sort of in-and-out transfer scheme.
The NDP central party, national party, invoiced this candidate $8,333.36, dated September 29, 2005. About 20 days later there was a transfer from the NDP national campaign back to the candidate for $8,340. Well, this is a good one, because the candidate actually gained money on this one. He made $7 on the transfer. The NDP actually transferred more money in than it invoiced him—