Government Advertising  Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is going on and on saying all the right things but doing exactly the opposite. Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board introduced rules to prevent elected officials from using government advertising for partisan purposes. What do you know?

Government Advertising  Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister this: she knows a lot about advertising. She said the same thing three times, but that does not make it true. This is clear as day. Yesterday, the government clearly said that advertising must be “devoid of any name, voice or image of a minister, Member of Parliament or senator”.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, I too would like to thank and commend my colleague for his openness, particularly since he reminded us of certain historical realities, including dealings with the first nations in the fur trade and the other countries that wanted to reap the benefits of Canada's great riches.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address my question to my hon. colleague who was a member of cabinet when the deal was made and was negotiated. Let me first remind the House that a few moments ago a Liberal MP said that the Liberal Party was always for international treaties, which is all wrong.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, will the government tell us how much that trip cost taxpayers? From the beginning, the Liberals have been saying that it cost $25,000 for 44 people. However, yesterday, TVA was clear: it cost $13,000 for five people. What did you do with the other 39 people? Did you stash them in your suitcases so that the trip would be cheaper?

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, in your case, when you travel, you properly assume your responsibilities. Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons set the record straight for Canadians? How many people were there and how much did it cost? When they say that it cost $25,000, they are taking Canadians for fools.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not proud of the fact that the Prime Minister chose to take his Liberal Party bagman with him to the White House, rather than ministers who lead important departments, ministers whose duty and responsibility it was to attend. What happened in Washington is simple.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made choices. When he went to the White House in Washington, he chose who to bring with him. He chose the president of the Liberal Party and the party's chief fundraiser, but the Minister of Natural Resources, whose job it was to be there, was left behind in Ottawa.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.  Mr. Speaker, to be clear, and for all the people who are listening to understand, how could they imagine someone who has $50,000 as an income spending $55,000? That person will never achieve that balance. Year after year, spending more money than we have is irresponsible. Anyone can understand that.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.  Mr. Speaker, the reason why the markets reacted positively is that we have the best debt-to-GDP ratio, which was generated by the previous Conservative government. That is why it is too bad that the current government is squandering the financial legacy that we left. I would like to remind the government of that because it is important that we compare ourselves to the best and not just to two or three other countries.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I will not forget the name this time. I have had the great pleasure of working with her on Bill C-14. Six months ago, Canadians had their say. We are democratic and we respect their choice. If we had been perfect, we would not be on this side of the House.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1.  Mr. Speaker, I salute all my colleagues in the House and everyone watching us debate the budget. We are extremely disappointed with the turn of events. The government wants to muzzle the House and parliamentarians in this very important debate. I will come back to that at the end of my speech.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, natural resources are very important to Canada's economic development, whether we are talking about oil for the west or the Plan Nord for Quebec. When the time came to meet the President of the United States, where was the Minister of Natural Resources? He was here in Ottawa.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem. If it was so important, if this was the first time this had happened since 1997, then why did you leave the Minister of Natural Resources here in Ottawa? Why did you choose—

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, I trust your judgment. The question is simple. I can see the Minister of Foreign Affairs, so I would like him to answer me directly. Does he think that it was more important for the Liberal Party's bagman to go to Washington, rather than the Minister of Natural Resources, who stayed in Ottawa when he should have been in Washington speaking out on behalf of petroleum producers and natural resource industries across Canada?