I'm very flattered, Mr. Godin. I'll do my best to provide louder commentary. I'm sorry; I guess I get reflective sometimes. As one waxes a little philosophical in expanding on all the relevant and necessary details, one sometimes drops the tone of one's voice, so I'll do my best to keep it up. I'm now positioned closer to the microphone.
What I was saying is that with regard to the subcommittee my concern had been to ensure that the subcommittee could accurately reflect the point of view of all the parties. Obviously it's simplistic to say that there are two points of view—the opposition view and the government's—because I would be the last one to suggest that the New Democrats and the Bloc and the Liberals agree on everything. But certainly there are occasions where the government point of view is genuinely distinct—and this would be one of those cases—from the point of view that's being presented by the opposition parties.
This is particularly the case when one looks at the nature of the amendments that have been put forward. They now make reference to all of the opposition parties and the practices of all of the opposition parties.
I note, Mr. Chairman, that all of the opposition parties have engaged, as we now know from court filings that have been presented in the court case between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada that's going on parallel to our proceedings.... We know that the other parties engaged in similar practices. Of course, this is something we had contended all along, but there's now confirmation that what we were asserting is correct. We don't have an exhaustive list of all the cases in which this was done, but certainly a very extensive list of cases in which regional ad buys were engaged in by the other parties.
This is the sort of thing that a subcommittee in which only opposition members are present and participating in the debate might overlook—not that people aren't aware of the fact that this is the case, but it not being in their interest to raise it, they would tend not to raise it.
I can understand why that would be. It's the job of each of us to represent our party and our party's point of view and the interests of our party, including the interest in having the practices of some parties looked into but not necessarily the practices of other parties, and more particularly not the practices of our own party, especially after we've begun the process of making the assertion that the practices of the other parties are illegitimate.
And of course the word “illegitimate” is used here. So if it comes out—