Thank you very much, Chair.
I am pleased to be able to speak to my colleague's subamendment, which in effect calls for the investigation by this committee of the election financing practices of all political parties in this House. I think that's only appropriate, because as Madam Redman originally argued before these proceedings became televised, these proceedings should be open for Canadians to examine so that they could see how all political parties could work cooperatively in terms of analyzing, dissecting, and hopefully making improvements, if necessary, to various pieces of legislation that come forward. I think in the same fashion, in the spirit of hopefully openness and collaboration, we could agree to this subamendment, because in effect what that would do is allow all Canadians to examine the advertising practices of not just the Conservative Party of Canada but also the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, and the New Democratic Party. After all, Chair, if they have, as my colleague alluded to a little earlier, nothing to hide and they have done nothing wrong, then there should be absolutely nothing wrong in examining their practices in a side-by-side comparison with those practices of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Chair, as you well know, and as I know all members of this committee know, in response to these questions of the so-called in-and-out scheme raised by members of the Liberal Party in question period, we have quite consistently stated that not only did the Conservative Party of Canada do nothing wrong, but the practices that we followed were in fact similar to those practices of other political parties. In other words, what we have consistently stated is that we have done nothing different, certainly nothing that should be considered uncommon or illegal. We have only done what was allowed under Elections Canada rules, and every party in this House has done the same thing, which is quite legal.
We are not here to suggest that any party engaged in illegal activity. Clearly they have not. What we are contending is that our practices were similar and in fact almost identical, if not identical, to those practices of other parties, and every party in this House has followed those same practices, which are completely legal. If the Conservative Party of Canada, therefore, is being called into question--and some in the Liberal ranks would suggest that we have done something illegal in our advertising practices--then by consequence we should examine the practices of every other party and see if we have all done the same thing. We contend there is nothing wrong with what we have done. We contend that the practices of the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Liberal Party of Canada are almost identical to those practices that we have followed, and that none of us has done anything wrong.
I think most Canadians would agree with me in saying, let's then examine those practices of every political party. I think most Canadians would rightfully contend and rightfully surmise that if only one party is being singled out, if only one party is being accused of doing something illegal when it comes time to dissect and analyze election spending practices or advertising practices, if that's the case, then probably the accuser is engaging in nothing more than a political witch hunt. I've always contended that.
We have not heard any members, at least in recent memory I don't recall any member, of the Bloc Québécois accusing the Conservative Party of doing something illegal in reference to our advertising practices in the 2006 election. I can't, quite frankly, recall anyone from the New Democratic Party accusing the Conservative Party of doing anything illegal with respect to our advertising practices in the 2006 election. Why is that? Probably because they know, as we know, that we did nothing wrong. They also know, as we know, that they engaged in exactly the same practices with respect to regional advertising buys.
Mr. Chair, it's only the Liberals who are making these accusations, these baseless and false accusations. If this is the case, then the Liberal Party certainly should have nothing to fear if their practices are examined by members of this committee. If they are confident in their assertions that the Conservative Party contravened the election advertising rules and regulations in some fashion and that they are squeaky clean, as pure as the driven snow, then they should have absolutely no problems with a thorough examination of their practices.
But I would contend, Mr. Chair, that they don't want an examination of their own advertising practices. Do you know why? It's not that they did anything wrong. It's that an examination would clearly conclude that they followed exactly the same practices as we and every other party in this House did in terms of advertising during elections.
The Conservative Party of Canada, to my understanding at least...there are affidavits being submitted today in Federal Court that will prove that we have done absolutely nothing wrong. I believe as well, or at least it's my understanding, that those affidavits draw a comparison to many other members of different political parties and how they have conducted their advertising during previous elections. In fact, it is my understanding that some members of this committee are named in those affidavits as proof of the type of regional advertising buys that have been conducted from party to party.
I think it's important that Canadians try to understand exactly what we're talking about here. In fact, it's a very simple, very appropriate, and completely legal method of advertising during elections. It's simply this. From time to time, a national advertising campaign is conducted. Local candidates can choose to air those national ads if they feel it's in the best interests of their getting elected. The only caveat on that is if a national ad runs in a local campaign on behalf of a local candidate, there is identification on that ad saying that it is authorized by the local candidate and authorized by the local candidate's chief official agent. Those are in the rules of Elections Canada.
I have some knowledge of what I speak, because in a former life l was involved with a provincial political party. I was the executive director of two provincial political parties in my home province of Saskatchewan. During one of those occasions, I was our party's representative on a committee that sought to make changes to the Saskatchewan Election Act. It was an all-party committee. The changes we made basically mirrored the federal Elections Act, in other words the Canada Elections Act, in almost all substantive ways.
One of the changes we made was in dealing with regional advertising buys. We examined the federal Elections Act. We called witnesses, of course, and did a lot of research. The changes we made were almost identical to what is contained in the Canada Elections Act with respect to advertising and how the advertising between a provincial or national party and a local candidate can take effect.
Mr. Chair, I can assure you that as head of the provincial parties that I represented, prior to provincial elections being called, I consulted directly with the chief electoral officer in Saskatchewan--this was prior to any regional advertising buys being made or purchased--for complete clarification to make sure that this was above board, legal, and fully within compliance of the Saskatchewan electoral act. I was given assurances that it was. We ran those regional buys during a number of elections, as every party in Saskatchewan did, and there was no problem.
The reason I bring that forward, Chair, is to show that the relationship we had in Saskatchewan between candidates and the provincial party is the same relationship indicated in the Canada Elections Act between candidates and the national party. In other words, it's legal. There was absolutely nothing untoward that occurred in the 2006 election.
We've pointed that out consistently in the House of Commons during question period. We've pointed that out consistently during interviews with media members. And we have again, Mr. Chair, pointed that out--at least it is my understanding that we've pointed it out--in affidavits that have been filed in Federal Court today, which I'm sure all members of this committee will have a chance to examine in a day or two. Certainly members of the national media and the national press gallery will have a chance to examine those affidavits.
Then I think we can have a fulsome discussion of this very issue. And I think, Chair, that as soon as individuals, whether they be members of the media or members of this committee, have a chance to examine the documents contained in these affidavits that have been filed, they will conclude, as we have, that all political parties have engaged in exactly the same practices with respect to regional advertising buys and the relationship between the national party and its candidates.
Mr. Chair, for that very basic and fundamental reason, if all political parties have in fact been consistent in their practices, why then should only one political party be singled out for scrutiny, for examination? It doesn't make any sense.
Again, it goes back to my contention that this is nothing more than a partisan attempt on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to try to create a controversy, to try to create a scandal where none exists. Because clearly, if they have done nothing wrong--and we contend that they have done nothing wrong--they should have nothing to fear. They should be welcoming, in fact, an examination of their books, because if they are convinced that they are squeaky clean but the Conservative Party has done something wrong, they should welcome a side-by-side comparison of the practices of our party and theirs as a way of illustrating the fact that their point has been borne out under close scrutiny and examination.
Mr. Chair, every attempt we have made at this committee to bring forward an amendment to include the Liberal Party in this discussion they have rejected. I can only conclude from that, Mr. Chair, that they do not want any examination. And I'll let Canadians draw their own conclusions as to the motives behind that.
Mr. Chair, let's look at it in that context. We are saying that not only did the Conservative Party of Canada do nothing wrong, but we followed the same practices as every other party in this House. And we welcome an investigation and an examination of those practices of every party in this House to support our contention. We're not trying to block any attempt on this issue of examination--far from it. And I would welcome further scrutiny, Chair. As the affidavits we have filed today will clearly demonstrate, all the activities--the advertising expenses incurred by the Conservative Party of Canada and its candidates--were in total 100% compliance with the Canada Elections Act.
I do think an examination is required, Mr. Chair, because I know there is an interpretation in question here, and that is the interpretation that Elections Canada has made with respect to these regional advertising buys of the Conservative Party. That is very, very troubling and very disturbing to me, Chair, because there has been no change to legislation in the Canada Elections Act whatsoever. Unfortunately, it seems to be an interpretation made by some members of Elections Canada that seems to suggest that the ad buy the Conservative Party of Canada made is somehow in contravention of the Canada Elections Act. Yet the ad buy of the other political parties is not in contravention, and the practices were identical, Chair.
In fact, Chair, if I understand it correctly, the act suggests that in terms of electronic advertising, candidates are allowed to play an ad that may be national in scope as long as it again refers to and is authorized by the local candidate. That has been in effect for several years now, Chair. I think you'll find, if you examine not only the 2006 election but the 2004 and previous elections, that this is a practice that again all candidates and all parties have followed.
My understanding now, Chair, is that for some reason Elections Canada is saying that they want to change the interpretation so that if a local candidate runs an ad, that ad must refer only to the candidate himself or herself or to the candidate's opponents, and no reference whatsoever may be made to the national party.
Mr. Chair, I defy anyone in Elections Canada to come before this committee and show me where in the Elections Act it states that, because it does not. Mr. Chair, if that is the interpretation of Elections Canada, why in fact have they arbitrarily determined that the interpretation should apply only to the Conservative Party of Canada and not to the other parties? I'm not making any accusations. All I'm saying is it's a very serious question that I would like to get some answers to.
So I certainly hope that when we begin the examination of advertising practices of, hopefully, all parties, we will be able to agree to bring forward representatives from Elections Canada to answer this very basic question: why has Elections Canada changed their interpretation of the act with respect to advertising arrangements between national parties and candidates? I don't know why. The act is quite clear. It allows the things that we call regional ad buys. It allows the practice of having national advertising played in a local riding as long as the local authorization is in place. Yet my understanding is that the primary reason behind Elections Canada's disputing some of the Conservative candidate claims is that they've arbitrarily changed their interpretation of how this relationship between the national party and the local candidate should work.
Mr. Chair, I would just like to know from representatives of Elections Canada how they can arbitrarily change an interpretation when in fact they have not changed the act itself, or the legislation itself. It makes no sense to me. It defies natural law. Chair, I think that is one very primary question we should be asking members of Elections Canada. But it has to be put in context, because if all parties have engaged in a similar, or the same, or the identical practice when dealing with advertising nationally and locally, why then is only one party in question? Not only should Elections Canada answer that question, but all members of this committee should answer that question.
Hence, the subamendment by my colleague states not only that we should examine the advertising practices for the 2006 election of the Conservative Party of Canada, but that we should examine the advertising practices of all parties represented in this House for both the 2004 and 2006 elections.
Mr. Chair, I respectfully suggest to you that I will be back for further comments on the original amendment, but I know there are others around this committee table who wish to comment. I will cede my time to the next speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.