Page: 39 Conservative Party of Canada. They asserted that the Council was profiting by these applications in that it was conducting fund-raising activities in support of the applicants and benefited from [99] The respondent MPs claim that the Council has an advantage as it is not subject to the rules on political party financing. While that may be true, the applicants reply, the Council is not a registered charity and contributions in its hands are fully taxed whereas contributions to the Conservative Party, which may be used to pay the respondent MPs’ costs for this litigation, are subsidized by as much as 75% by the taxpayer (Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp), s 127(3); Canada Elections Act, s 438(3)). [100] In support of the motion, the respondent MPs filed the affidavit of Peter J. Henein, a lawyer with the firm that is counsel to the respondent MPs in these proceedings, to which were attached 84 exhibits consisting of some 700 pages of documentary material taken from the Council’s website, news reports, press releases and other sources. Much of the content of the 118 paragraphs of the affidavit consists of statements alleging political motivations on the part of Maude Barlow, the Council’s National Chairperson, and Steven Shrybman, counsel for the applicants in these proceedings and of record for the Council in other proceedings. It is alleged, among other things, that the litigation in this case was motivated by animus against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada and that the Council was closely associated with the New Democratic Party and labour unions. (a) Is Mr. Henein’s affidavit admissible? 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) the increased profile that it had gained from this case.