Serge Cardin

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was caught off guard because I thought there would be someone speaking before me.

Bill C-55 would implement the Free Trade Agreement with the European Free Trade Association. The Bloc Québécois will be in favour of Bill C-55 primarily because this agreement does not have the same flaws as some previous agreements. There is also the fact that it does not affect supply management in the agricultural sector.

Obviously, one important point has to do with shipyards, but another is the fact that what is really at stake is the European Union. I will provide some context for the Bloc's position on this agreement, or rather the supplementary opinion of the Bloc Québécois. I will conclude with a caution about free trade agreements throughout the world.

The international economy is currently in an era of globalization. Multinational companies and big businesses are practically in a mad dash to make money from situations all over the world. They are making profits from the working conditions, human rights conditions and environmental conditions in various countries.

A closer look reveals that there are plenty of multilateral agreements. The WTO has 152 member nations, while the UN has 192. In 1955, the WTO had 89 members and the UN had 76. Twenty years later, in 1975, 157 countries belonged to the WTO and 144 to the UN. Today, the UN has 192 member countries and the WTO has 152. It seems that a lot of countries have signed on to multilateral agreements.

In the current context, however, particularly in the context of WTO negotiations—the Doha round, to be precise—more and more countries are taking part in the headlong race to sign bilateral free trade agreements. Nearly 200 countries want to sign free trade agreements—bilateral ones, of course.

At some point, Canada wants to sign as many as possible. It is hoping to sign agreements with close to 200 countries, and each of those 200 countries wants to sign agreements that will benefit them. We all know that for an economic transaction to work, both parties have to win. That is not always the case, but most people try to win most of the time. In many cases, a country might have general considerations that are not industry-specific.

That is the spirit in which Canada has signed some agreements and is negotiating others. We find such agreements perplexing. For example, consider an agreement that is currently being negotiated and that Canada would like to sign as soon as possible: the agreement with Colombia, a country with a deplorable human rights record.

I would like to go back to the European Free Trade Association, which is an association of four countries: Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. We believe it is a good agreement because, for one thing, Quebec stands to benefit the most.

Take the example of Switzerland, which has a very vigorous pharmaceutical industry producing brand-name drugs. Prescription drugs account for 40% of Canadian exports to Switzerland and 50% of imports. To break into the American market, Swiss pharmaceutical companies might think about manufacturing drugs here in Quebec, or rather on the other side of the river, to be more precise.

In addiction, the mecca of brand-name drugs, with its pool of skilled researchers and advantageous tax rules, is Quebec. So a free trade agreement to facilitate trade between a corporation and its subsidiaries would likely bring new investments in the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec.

As for Norway, nickel accounts for over 80% of what we export there. The biggest mine in Canada, ranking third in the world, is in Quebec, in Ungava, owned by the Swiss company Xstrata. Our leading export to Iceland is aluminum. There again, production is concentrated in Quebec.

I was saying earlier that we were also in favour of this agreement because it did not have the same flaws as other agreements Canada has signed in the past. For example, NAFTA, the agreement with Costa Rica and the agreement with Chile all contain a bad chapter on investments that gives corporations the right to bring proceedings directly against a government if it adopts measures that reduce their profits.

There are no such provisions in the agreement with the European Free Trade Association. The agreement with that association covers only goods, and not services. So there is nothing that will mean we have to open up competition in public services, whether they are delivered by the government or not, since they are not covered. Similarly, financial services and banks will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very solid and also very discreet banking system.

Liechtenstein is a veritable paradise for the financial world because of its tax system and bank secrecy. That country, with its population of 35,000, has no fewer than 74,000 corporations, primarily financial. In fact, the Prince of Liechtenstein himself owns the largest bank in the country.

The same thing is true for government procurement. The government will continue to be completely free to give preference to procurement here, subject to the WTO agreement on public procurement. Obviously it would be somewhat ridiculous for the government to negotiate latitude for itself and then decide not to use it actively. We fervently hope that the federal government, the largest purchaser of goods and services in Canada, will give preference to suppliers here and think about the benefits that flow from its purchases.

I started out by saying we would support it because when it comes to agriculture, supply management is not affected. Bill C-55 also allows for implementation of the bilateral agricultural agreements in addition to the free trade agreement with the European association. Those agreements, which are no threat to supply management, will have no great impact on agriculture in Quebec. Milk proteins are excluded from the agreement. The tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products that are under supply management are still protected. In fact, it is mainly the west that will benefit from the agricultural agreements because they provide for freer trade in certain grains, but the impact will not be significant.

There is some concern in relation to shipyards. We know that a policy to provide for support and development in that industry is needed quickly. That is the main point on which concerns could be expressed.

Naturally, we have concerns about the future of our shipyards. At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will gradually decrease over three years and will be completely eliminated in 15 years.

However, our shipyards are far less modern and in much worse condition than Norwegian shipyards. Norway has made massive investments in modernizing its shipyards, whereas the federal government has completed abandoned ours. If our borders were opened wide tomorrow morning, our shipyards could disappear.

For economic, strategic and environmental reasons, we must have shipyards. Imagine the risks to Quebec if no shipyard could repair vessels that ran aground or broke down in the St. Lawrence, the world's foremost waterway?

For years the Bloc has been calling for a real marine policy, and for years the government has been dragging its feet. Now that the agreement has been signed, time is of the essence. A policy to support our shipyards is urgently needed. Moreover, this is the only recommendation in the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association. The committee agreed to insert the recommendation proposed by the Bloc Québécois international trade critic and deputy critic. It reads as follows:

Therefore, the Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive Maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada’s commitments at the WTO.

This is practically the only major recommendation in the report. The Conservative policy of leaving companies to fend for themselves could be disastrous for shipyards. We expect the government to give up its bad policy, and we call on it to table a real policy, by the end of the year, to support and develop the shipbuilding industry.

Given the urgency, we will not be content with fine talk, something the government specializes in. This time, we will not be content with rhetoric. We need a real policy that covers all aspects of the industry.

The four member countries of the association offer good opportunities for Canada and Quebec. They represent a total population of roughly 12 million inhabitants. These are economically sound countries. The GDP per capita is $60,000 in Switzerland, $82,000 in Norway, $62,214 in Liechtenstein and $60,000 in Iceland. Canada's is $44,389.

This is a good endeavour. Somewhere at the end of the tunnel, we can see a dim light. Does the Conservative government intend to drop the philosophy it might have had during previous negotiations? This is a good endeavour. The outlook is good, but there are far higher stakes for a number of industries in Quebec and Canada, namely the European Union.

We see the government putting its energy into free trade agreements, like the ones with the European association and Colombia. The agreement with Colombia has not been ratified by the U.S. Congress for human rights reasons, but Canada is proceeding with the negotiations. In fact, two weeks ago, we went to Colombia and Panama.

We have heard witnesses and met with government representatives, people from non governmental organizations, unions and businesspeople.

Of course there have been some improvements, but there is still a nagging doubt. Without prejudging the Bloc Québécois position in these negotiations, there are nonetheless some points that need to be considered. In today's context, as far as international agreements are concerned, whether they are multilateral or bilateral, there is a growing sense that certain elements need to be incorporated into various trade agreements.

In the context of the European Free Trade Association, there are no cases of exploitation of people or workers. As far as the environment is concerned, some countries are cited as models. Nevertheless, the international economic movement is expressing its will to include in trade agreements such elements as human rights, labour rights and environmental aspects. These elements will increasingly have to be incorporated into agreements and will have to be assessed according to the situation in each country.

A country is responsible for distributing wealth among its population. Canada has not set the best example because, in 1989, this House unanimously adopted a motion whereby Canada was committed to the elimination of poverty in 10 years. That was almost 20 years ago and we now have more poverty than at that time and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Yet, it is a governmental responsibility.

On the international scene, governments will also have to give greater consideration to this international responsibility towards countries with much bleaker economic situations than ours. This responsibility must be reflected in agreements by including provisions covering human rights, labour law and the environment, of course.

Let us return to the main issue, that is the European Union. A free trade agreement with Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein is quite positive but we must be aware of the limits of this agreement. The total population of these countries is about 12 million and they account for 1% of Canadian exports.

The real opportunity lies with the European Union. With a population of 495 million generating 31% of global GDP, the European Union is the global economic powerhouse.

Canada is far too dependent on the United States, which has accounted for more than 85% of our exports; today, that figure stands at 79%.

That is the warning I wanted to convey. We should remember the committee's recommendations contained in the Bloc Québécois Supplementary Report. I would advise the Conservative government to truly realize that it must now follow the new direction being laid out—and it is unfolding quickly—and which consists of including employment rights, human rights, environmental considerations and even, in the near future, food sovereignty in bilateral agreements. This should also be adopted by the WTO.

[Price of Petroleum Products, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to find myself speaking tonight at this late hour. But I believe that this matter is important. While we are talking about oil prices tonight, some people are still wondering how they will manage to reimburse the debts they incurred paying their oil bills last winter. With the help of organizations in Sherbrooke which help the poorest people, sometimes elders, sometimes single-parent families, I was able to see that some people were not even able to get oil because companies required a minimum purchase of $200. Some people who only had $50 or $60 to spend gathered a group to finally get some oil delivered to them.

The problem goes beyond the ability of the Conservatives to understand. We are in a situation with a fundamental problem. The problem is oil. Obviously, we would like to pay as little for it as possible. At the same time, we would rather use as little of it as possible, given the effect on the environment. In 2008, we must admit that we are caught—squeezed between the economic and environmental realities. This results from a laissez-faire attitude. For decades, governments were unable to foresee what is happening today. Who is paying the highest price? The poorest people are.

A wealthy person who owns an SUV will probably keep that SUV, even if the price of gas goes up to $2 or $2.50 a litre. However, Mr. So-and-So who works because he has to, earning just minimum wage, must drive to where he works, which is unfortunately 40 km from home. That means 80 km a day. With the rising price of oil, even if he works 40 hours a week at $8 or $9 an hour, he will have to pay to go to work. When he goes to get his groceries, he will notice that the cost of food has also gone up because oil is more expensive, which increases transportation and delivery costs.

At the end of the day, it is ordinary citizens who pay at every level. Even the Government of Quebec has told us that, as the price of oil rises, Quebec is getting poorer. It costs the Government of Quebec more to run everything it has to run using oil, despite the additional tax dollars it tries to obtain. Who will pay? Once again, it is the citizens who must pay. In the end, everyone pays, except the Conservative government's friends, the oil companies and their shareholders of course, who are pocketing huge amounts of cash.

The Conservative government's philosophy is to leave things to market forces. But who determines the market forces in the petroleum industry? Everyone knows that oil extraction is becoming more and more costly. However, the price of oil is also on the rise. As a result, the gap and the profit margin are quickly increasing, and that is how fortunes and billions of dollars in profits are being made.

The petroleum industry overall includes extraction, refining and distribution. If the Competition Bureau were ever to examine how the system operates, it would tell us that, just because the oil companies walk together hand in hand, it does not necessarily mean they are in bed together. But one would have to be a little naive not to think so. We do not usually see Esso, Shell and Ultramar representatives sitting down together to break bread and set prices or, as we heard earlier, to determine market forces. But, in the end, who decides that a barrel costs $110? Some considerations are mere technicalities and often arbitrary.

If the wind blows a little too hard in some parts of the world, the price goes up. If the Arab countries decide to cut production, the price goes up. Some may say that they would have to be crazy—and they really are—to not take advantage of the situation. But those who profit from the situation pass the bill along to the less fortunate.

As I said earlier, the problem is also knowing what we are doing. We spoke briefly about the Competition Bureau earlier. The Bureau is familiar with everything the oil industry does, including extraction, refining and distribution. In 2002, the price of a barrel was $26; in 2007, the average price was $71; now, between January and April, the price of a barrel went up to $111 or even $121. Whether the price of a barrel is $26 or $121, the cost of refining should be about the same. However, the oil companies make money because extraction is so lucrative. Then they can get a reasonable price for refining.

Thus, if the cost of extraction is low, the cost of refining increases. That is what happened in 2005. I remember very well that the price of a barrel was about $75 and the price of gas was $1.25 a litre. Not too long ago, we saw prices of $111, $112, $115, and now close to $121 per barrel. A litre of gas cost about $1 at the start, but a barrel of oil was about $100. So the prices do not correspond. The companies blame it on the stock that they had or did not have, or that they should have had, but did not think to set aside.

We are dependent on the appetite of the oil companies. The government must accept that there will be failure. None of this was thought about in advance. It was left to its own devices. Furthermore, today, the Conservative government is effectively granting tax breaks that are almost unimaginable under the circumstances.

At one point, under the Liberals, the price of heating oil went up. That is when the idea of a GST refund, $125 I think it was, came about. Everyone got $125, even those who had electric heating. The refund was intended to mitigate the price of heating oil. It made no sense. It was obvious that there was no real desire to deal with a serious problem. Untold numbers of people suffered because of that, whether they used oil heating or had to drive to their minimum-wage jobs.

At the same time, there is the issue of pollution. Some will argue, of course, that raising the price of gasoline to $2.50 a litre would certainly cause a significant reduction, but some people would go bankrupt. Moreover, any inflation associated with this is passed on to the consumer, and that often affects basic necessities.

My message tonight is primarily directed to those who, more often than not, have no voice and cannot make themselves heard. I can assure them that several of us, especially on this side of the House, care greatly about the people who are experiencing affronts which we could not describe without using unparliamentary language. Some people may not have a voice, but we are acting on their behalf. As their spokespersons, we have to do something. There is a genuine need to assist the most disadvantaged. As I said earlier, there are people who still have no idea how they will manage to pay the bills for last winter.

We know well enough that what the oil companies do is raise their prices as much as possible and then lower them just before the holidays. People may travel a bit less, but those who only have this part of the year to recharge their batteries, after having been exploited by the oil companies all year—especially during winter—can at least relax and go to the lower St. Lawrence or elsewhere to have a good time for a bit, enjoy life and, above all, forget about federal policies and the government in power today. The government is doing everything right for the oil companies. Essentially, it is the government that is benefiting the most right now.

I have not spoken about the other facet of this topic: the more use increases, the more greenhouse gas emissions increase. The government has never planned on getting too involved in energy efficiency. These same people who had a hard time paying for their heating oil are often forced to move into accommodation or housing that has almost zero energy efficiency.

The increase in the cost of oil and the energy inefficiency of their home means that their costs double. The federal Conservative government, which is profiting from all of these oil revenues, must put into place effective energy efficiency programs, effective with a capital E.

My colleague has reminded me that almost all of the Conservative speeches this evening did not talk about the real problems. They talked about the Liberals' possible plan to introduce a carbon tax. They have reached an unprecedented level of incompetence. It is true that this party was inexperienced. It is not at all like the Progressive Conservative Party of a few years ago. In my opinion, the only thing they will have in common is their next budget deficit because the Conservatives do not know how to manage. At one point, we had the Canadian Alliance and at another we had the Reform Party. However, I believe that of late the party is taking its cue from certain ministers. Experience and effectiveness are not its strengths.

We are dealing with a fundamental problem and action has to be taken. I quickly touched on the Competition Bureau and my colleagues spoke about it a fair amount. We also mentioned the monitoring agency because it is possible to monitor oil companies. I spoke a little about the distribution of activities. It would also be possible to require oil companies to separate their various activities so that extraction would be carried out by a company distinct from the one responsible for refining or the other that handles distribution. In that way, there would be three areas of activity subject to public scrutiny of competition.

How is it possible that one oil company is not more efficient than another in terms of extraction? Why is one oil company not more efficient than another when it comes to refining? Why is one company not more efficient than another in terms of distribution? These are three areas of activity where there could be competition, competitiveness and more efficiency, including the energy efficiency that I mentioned.

Today, we perhaps wanted to emphasize—at least I hope so—that the government can show some initiative and that this can be the end of the party that the oil companies and their shareholders have been having for many years. We must ensure that the oil companies make their fair contribution. Tax revenues are being lost, resulting in the impoverishment of individuals and of our communities. Quebec is also becoming poorer. It has a deficit. It is importing so much oil and the cost is so outrageous that Quebec has a trade deficit.

In addition, there is the issue of equalization. I think that the Conservatives were not quite sure what that was all about when they first took office. They have totally distorted it. The provinces will end up getting only 50% of their oil revenues, but that is lucky just the same, because at first the Conservatives wanted to take everything away.

On the one hand, for those provinces which are fortunate enough, or perhaps that is unfortunate, to have oil within their jurisdiction, the capacity to raise revenues is not even factored into the calculation of equalization payments, which makes Quebec even poorer. On the other hand, Quebec's revenues from electricity are included. Again, the provinces benefit from revenues depending on the oil companies established within their jurisdictions while Quebec has been paying for its electricity from day one. We will recall that, since 1970, big oil has benefited from approximately $70 billion in subsidies. Quebec, however, did not get one red cent when it started up its hydroelectric operations. Quebec paid an average of 25% of that $70 billion, but no one in Canada contributed to the development of hydroelectric power in Quebec.

One day or another, Quebec will also have oil and gas, it is almost certain. I dare hope—I am not sure I will still be around to see it—that Quebec will make very little use of oil. And when it is used, I hope the benefits from oil could also be used to offset all the negative aspects of using it.

Where do all these millions and billions of dollars generated by oil go today? Most of this money goes into the pockets of the shareholders, the oil companies, and, of course, the government to pay for a few whims through its policies that help its friends. This money should be used mainly for cleaning up the damage caused by greenhouse gases, but that is not what the government is doing.

The government thinks it has come up with a good solution: bury the greenhouse gases. Imagine the effort it will take to offset the production of greenhouse gases when it would be so simple to implement a host of ways to use renewable energies and clean energies, and to offset greenhouse gases and purify our planet as much as possible. We know that the air is important and that global warming is just as important. We are already seeing the harmful effects global warming is having on nature. It will necessarily have an impact on human activity.

We could go on like this for a long time. However, we have to remember who is suffering the most from this situation. We have to implement policies to at least give them the hope of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, so that they too can enjoy life a little—not as much as the oil companies, we are not asking for that much because no one knows what to do with that much money. It is the responsibility of all governments to think about sharing the wealth and not leaving everything to the simple market rules of supply and demand, where the strongest survive and the weak perish.

I am appealing to any compassion that is left in Conservatives, any remaining capacity to innovate and to implement programs that would allow everyone's life to get better and better in Quebec and Canada.

[Manufacturing Industry, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should get out more.

With more than 150,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector over five years, the Conservatives must understand that targeted measures for troubled companies are necessary.

Does the government realize that systematically refusing to implement the safeguards in trade agreements and legislation—as the United States and Europe are doing—is harmful to companies such as Shermag and Sherwood-Drolet?

[Manufacturing Industry, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the devastation continues in the manufacturing sector. In my riding, Shermag and Sherwood-Drolet have obtained creditor protection. Difficult market conditions, strong competition and the strong dollar are behind this decision. This government is sticking with its laissez-faire approach despite the crisis in the manufacturing sector.

When will the Minister of Industry realize that tax cuts are of no help to the manufacturing sector, which is not turning a profit and where many owners are faced with bankruptcy?

[Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the summit of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which was held in New Orleans last April 21 and 22, did nothing to lift the veil surrounding these discussions. There is nothing in the joint statement of April 22 to indicate what exactly came of the discussions on energy, security, health, immigration, regulations and the militarization of North America.

The discussions included compatible fuel efficiency regimes and safety standards to protect human health and the environment, efforts to protect inventors, authors, performers and other innovators through an intellectual property action strategy, and discussions on making our product and food safety standards more compatible.

There is nothing to indicate how these standards and strategies will be implemented, and most importantly, nothing about water being excluded from NAFTA. In short, there is nothing to indicate that Quebec’s interests will be protected, especially when it comes to drinking water.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I have not toured all the ridings in the region and in Quebec, but Mr. Caldwell was clear. It would seem—and I have no reason to doubt him—that the directive was that money would be sent for local expenses. What candidate could refuse substantial help from the party? Nonetheless, he realized this was not the case, that it was not for local expenses, but for national expenses. The Conservatives could not assign those expenses nationally because they had reached and exceeded the spending limit.

Mr. Caldwell says that is when he filed his report. In the end he paid back the money. If it was not for local expenses then it was for national expenses in a context where it was impossible to accept because that was not allowed. The Conservative Party did indirectly what it could not do directly. It went through the back door.

If the auditors had not paid particular attention to this matter, we would never have known. This insults the Conservatives to no end. They are not in control. They call it a matter of interpretation. They are going to battle against the Chief Electoral Officer because they think there was a misinterpretation.

In light of the few little invoices I referred to earlier, this makes sense. Obviously those invoices correspond to money that was spent. They do not correspond to local advertising expenses. They do not correspond to the allocation per constituent. I have said it before and I will say it again, this may be a hobby horse but in my view, it is one person, one elector, one vote, one expense. Nonetheless, in some regions, the Conservatives tried to multiply the expenses by two for the national level because they were unable to cut the expenses they had incurred. The expenses had been incurred well in advance and once they are incurred there needs to be a scheme to get out of that situation in order to save face. Were they aware of what would happen? I believe that someone somewhere knew. They tried this scheme and then it was made public.

Again, I am reaffirming my confidence in the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the following motion: “That the House express its full and complete confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections”. Not only do I support this motion, I personally champion it. I am championing this motion because I audited various candidates' election reports many times over the years.

I also did several stints as official agent for candidates for many years. That gave me opportunities to deal with and talk to auditors from the Chief Electoral Officer's office. I found them to be competent, professional and independent.

It seems that all of these dealings were very discreet. However, when I found out about it through the media, and through the actions of the Chief Electoral Officer, of course, I wanted to make up my own mind. I wanted my opinion to be well structured and based on facts.

In all honestly and sincerity, I am saying that the Chief Electoral Officer is right to ask these questions. Furthermore, of course he needed documentation to confirm any doubts that could remain after the Conservatives' reports had been examined. What is more, Mr. Caldwell's remarks led me to go and look deeper. Mr. Caldwell, remember, was a candidate in Compton—Stanstead against a colleague of mine who was elected without manipulating the elections laws. Mr. Caldwell claims that he trusted the party leadership when he agreed to funds being deposited into the local organization's account. He said "The money was intended for local advertising, but it was not used that way."

Clearly, that was certainly not done everywhere. I felt obliged to check two candidates at least: I looked into one in more depth, and the investigation on the other is on-going. The first is the Conservative candidate in the riding of Sherbrooke. I can mention his name because, obviously, he was not elected. He is Marc Nadeau. There is also the person who, at the time, was the Conservative candidate in Mégantic—L'Érable, now a member of this House. We can see that some large transfers were made.

In the case of Marc Nadeau, the candidate in Sherbrooke, we see a transfer of $57,531.46 that came from the Conservative Fund Canada. When we look at the financial report of the 2006 election campaign, under the heading “media advertising”, we see $51,566.46 in advertising expenses.

We know full well that when we pay election expenses—this case gets worse—we normally make a cheque out to the person or organization to whom the money is to go. There is then a confirmation and a returned cheque and documents are available. In this case, it is worse because we clearly have the invoices. The first one was paid. In response to my colleague, our party whip, who spoke previously and who addressed the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, there is an invoice from the Conservative Fund Canada for Candidate share of media buy. There is one invoice for $10,000 and a second invoice for $41,566.46. However, when we read the bank statement that provides us with the information, we see that no cheque was issued.

There were, however, cash withdrawals. It appears that another Conservative candidate did a Mulroney and carried a briefcase containing $51,000. We might ask ourselves all kinds of questions. Did the money make it to its destination? What happened? Did the party issue instructions to the effect that, whenever possible, people were supposed to make cash withdrawals and carry around the cash? What would anyone do today with $51,000 in cash to pay bills? It was to pay the Conservative Fund Canada invoices. The money had to be given to it directly. Does one ask for a receipt?

Now the Conservatives are upset that we are presenting a motion calling on the House to reaffirm its confidence. I definitely have confidence in Elections Canada officials. I am convinced they will get to the bottom of this. It is clear that the Conservative Party did not want to hand over things like that. The RCMP had to go into their offices.

I am anxious to see how the matter plays out regarding the Conservative candidate in Sherbrooke. I still wonder if it was a Conservative Party directive.

The second part of my audit, although it is unfortunately not yet complete, nevertheless raised some interesting points. We were talking about $51,000 in the first case. In that case, there were transfers from the Conservative Fund for $40,000. There was a transfer from the riding to the Conservative Fund for $23,000, an amount that was included in the advertising expenses. What could this possibly correspond to? Upon checking the other expenses, we see that there were silkscreening expenses. That was probably for signs, at least those that were paid for. It is impossible to know exactly what is going on.

We do know one thing, though: the populations of the two ridings are similar. Let us start from the following premise: one person, one vote, one expense, that expense being the national spending limit for the Conservative Party. But the Conservatives exceeded that limit. They decided to divide their spending among specific ridings. The proof is that the expenses are different in two potentially identical ridings. For one, it is $51,000, while for the other, it is $23,000. The money was therefore not allocated according to the number of voters. Even worse, that gave the Conservative Party even more flexibility, because it had reached the limit.

If the Conservative Party had wanted to make the ridings pay for national expenses, it would have acted properly and divided the expense among all 308 ridings, according to the number of voters. It did not do this. All the Conservatives wanted to do was use their surplus and keep on paying the expenses they had incurred. It is obvious.

I repeat that I have the utmost confidence in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the auditors and the investigators. I cannot wait to see what will come out of the investigation. I am especially anxious to find out what happened to the briefcase containing $51,000 in cash. Was it a party directive? These are likely some of the things we will learn.

Moreover, candidates can claim a rebate of 60% on these amounts spent over and above the election spending limit. The Conservative Party hoped to receive 60% of these expenses. What is happening to democracy?

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities mentioned that he was going to vote against the motion. Is it because he has no confidence? No, it is because the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer does not want to accept the incorrect interpretation made by the Conservative Party. It is easy to discuss interpretations, but in this case, the supporting documents will clearly show that the Conservative Party issued a directive in order to exceed the election spending limit, in addition to being reimbursed with taxpayers' money.

We must not forget this principle: one person, one vote, one expense—not two.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member, whom I worked with in the past on international trade. I am familiar with his economic policies and liberal economic values.

Three points particularly drew my attention and go against the values held by Quebeckers. He talked about the tax-free savings account. He praised the government for lowering the GST and lowering taxes. He also talked about older people who work and who are effectively entitled to receive more money from the guaranteed income supplement.

Let us begin with the first point, the tax-free savings account. Can the member tell me what the real intention is behind this new tax tool? After the budget was presented, most economists and analysts really questioned its relevance. It was even noted that the budget does nothing to encourage people to save over the long term. He referred to vehicle purchases, that is, short term purchases and the like.

First of all, can he tell me if the government's intention was not actually to create a diversion? He says it is the most important invention since the RRSP. It is simply to create a diversion. There are countless unused RRSPs, which people could start using at any time, and which would plunge the government into an enormous deficit. Thus, is it not rather to create a diversion?

Second, how is it that older people have to go to work in order to be entitled to a supplement—

[International Trade, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when the time comes to talk free trade with Colombia, the government goes full speed ahead, even though no one here wants such an agreement. However, when the time came to talk to the European Union in Davos, the minister had but a few words to say between the dessert and the cheese course.

What is preventing the government from entering into serious negotiations with Europe, as called for by the Quebec government?

[International Trade, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the NAFTA file, both candidates for the Democratic nomination have taken a position that poses a serious threat to our access to our primary export market. Since 2005, the Bloc Québécois has been urging the government to enter into discussions with the European Union in order to diversify our markets. The Quebec government fully agrees.

What is the government waiting for to begin serious discussions with the European Union in order to conclude a free trade agreement?