Questions on the Order Paper  With regard to travel and relocation for public service employees and parliamentary staff, and the independent review recently ordered by the President of the Treasury Board: (a) has any policy been created since September 23, 2016, concerning reimbursement for relocation expenses; (b) what criteria are used to calculate reasonable expenses; (c) what criteria are used to define reasonable expenses; (d) what new requirements must an employee meet in order to receive reimbursement for reasonable expenses; (e) what is the cap, if any, on reimbursable reasonable expenses; (f) which departments, if any, other than the Treasury Board, were involved in creating this new policy; (g) has the policy in (f) been finalized; and (h) if the answer in (g) is negative, when will it be finalized?

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure what to make of that intervention and what it seems to be telling us. As my colleague said before, I have a strange admiration for the member for Winnipeg North and his ability to stand in the House and defend anything, including this budget. After many members of the Liberal caucus specifically campaigned to oppose any and all oil and gas activity, especially pipelines to the west coast, and sent out signals to the international market about phasing out oil sands, the hostility of many members of the Liberal caucus to that industry cannot be denied.

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, the extent to which we find agreement across these opposition benches is indeed unusual, but such is the budget at hand that it seems to bring everybody but the Liberals together. I am not actually surprised that the Liberals did not include that. This is the same Liberal government that has repealed all kinds of useful tax credits in a variety of fields, including the public transit tax credit.

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, just as budget 2016 was a budget built of broken promises, so budget 2017 is an insubstantial rehashing and doubling down on last year's bad ideas, replete with the shameless repetition of catchphrases rendered meaningless by the government's actions to date. It is no secret that this budget was widely panned.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, the member had a lengthy speech. He is well versed in parliamentary process and knows the material very well. In his experience, he mentioned understanding fully the importance of parliamentary privilege for members, having sat on both sides of the House, and the importance of each member who has won an election representing her or his constituents.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister's family travelled to billionaire island for a vacation, they spent $1,700 on food and drink on a three-hour flight and stuck taxpayers with the bill. Of course, that does not include the cost of the first-ever ethics investigation of a sitting prime minister for violating the Conflict of Interest Act.

Interim Supply  Mr. Chair, I ask if the President of the Treasury Board can assure the House that the bill is in its normal form.

Supplementary Estimates (C), 2016-17  Mr. Chair, can the President of the Treasury Board please assure the House that the bill is in its normal form?

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act  Mr. Speaker, it was nice to hear the largely motherhood section on the intersection of freedom and security, and the desirability of freedom. However, this is at the same time the government has again invoked closure on a bill to which many parliamentarians wish to speak. When one says that 40 members have spoken on this bill fast enough, it sounds like a lot of people, but that is just barely 10% of the people who were elected to the House and who wish to address issues in the House on behalf of their constituents.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return  With regard to the proposals for reforming the Business of Supply put forward in the President of the Treasury Board’s discussion paper entitled “Empowering Parliamentarians through Better Information: The Government’s Vision for Estimates Reform”: (a) what evidence does the President of the Treasury Board rely on in determining that the procedure for the Business of Supply needs modification; (b) if the changes mentioned in the discussion paper are implemented, how much time does the government plan Parliament will have to scrutinize the Estimates; (c) if the changes mentioned in the discussion paper are implemented, what acess does the government plan, if any, that parliamentary committees will have to Ministers to question them on record concerning spending for departments and agencies within their portfolios before the same is approved or denied; (d) what steps, if any, does the government plan to take to streamline internal processes for more efficient Treasury Board approval of spending initiatives in order to allow alignment of the Main Estimates and Budget release dates; (e) which steps mentioned in (d) are currently under consideration and what progress in implementation has been made thereon; (f) with the proposal to appropriate funds on a level of core responsibilities of departments is implemented, what steps does the government anticipate will be required to link approval for the same to precise spending items; (g) what steps, if any, are under consideration to increase parliamentary committees’ ability to amend spending proposed in the Estimates and what progress in implementation has been made thereon; and (h) what were the findings or results of the evidence mentioned in (a) through (g)?

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act  Madam Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the debate on the time allocation motion that was moved this morning, and I am a little confused. Well, I am not so much confused as bothered by the characterization of time allocation that the government House leader made in response to the question from my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

Finance  Mr. Speaker, the government is stating that it is concerned about the affordability of housing for Canadians; yet the measures the Liberals have taken have done absolutely nothing to address this issue in the pockets of concern that they have identified in Vancouver and Toronto, according to the experts who have testified at the finance committee; and they are taking the dream of home ownership away from a substantial number of would-be first-time homebuyers in markets like Calgary, Victoria, cities of southern Ontario outside of the GTA, and especially Atlantic Canada, as was put very forcefully at the finance committee by the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association.

Finance  Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government likes to boast about supposedly unprecedented consultation with Canadians but exactly who did the finance minister consult before changing insured mortgage rules? I can tell the House who he did not consult. He did not consult the mortgage or the housing industries.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the recitation of the strict rules that exist, and for the aspiration for even greater transparency and accountability. It is absolutely incredible, though, to hear the member talk about how the rules are set up so that, for example, as he said, citizens only can participate in fundraising activities and in our democratic processes, when the Prime Minister attends fundraisers with foreign nationals.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, the opposition has raised numerous questions about the government's habit of creating real or apparent conflicts of interest when cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister attend cash for access fundraisers. The Liberal Party of Canada organized fundraisers, exclusively invited wealthy donors, used search engine protocols to hide them from Google search results, and specifically mentioned that ministers like the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, or the Prime Minister himself would be available for an intimate talk.