Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about the budget implementation bill even though on closer inspection there is very little to be pleased about. I will use my speaking time to talk about some of the issues that have progressives in this country, New Democrats in particular, concerned.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. We do not agree on everything, but we do share certain views. I would like to hear his comments on the long list of the Liberal government’s broken promises. It is a very long one, but I would like to focus on two of those promises that are not in the last budget, because I find their absence somewhat surprising.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1  Madam Speaker, I would like to quote the Liberal Party's election platform: Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government wants to tie the hands of the parliamentary budget officer under the guise of making him more independent. That is what we are seeing with Bill C-44, and it is very troubling. I would like to ask three very simple questions. Will the parliamentary budget officer still have the freedom to initiate investigations based on current events or will he be subject to an annual plan?

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, some time ago, a Liberal candidate said that he would not use omnibus bills, period. Who said that? The current Prime Minister. The budget implementation bill amends no less than 30 laws, from immigration and navigation protection to justice. At the same time, it privatizes our infrastructure, creates tolls, cuts the public transit tax credit, and keeps tax breaks for CEOs.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, even though I disagree with how my criticisms of the Conservatives have been interpreted. However, what interests me today is to see how we can all work together in the House to come up with the best laws, the best legislation, and the best budget to meet the needs of our constituents.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, what is going on here with our rules is what we would call inside baseball. Our rules are so important for our work and the quality of our democracy. I try to explain this to kids when I go to the schools. If the government is able to change the rules of the House and our Parliament by itself, it can lead to disrespect for authority.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time. Earlier, my hon. colleague from Beloeil—Chambly reminded us that as elected members we are sometimes invited to elementary or secondary schools to answer questions and explain what we do. I must admit that I am having a hard time these days explaining what we do in the House and why it is important, but it is.

Public Services and Procurement  Mr. Speaker, for months now, the federal pay services has been a complete shambles. Some people are being paid twice as much, others are not being paid at all and must borrow money to buy groceries. Normally, the managers responsible for such a mess should be rapped on the knuckles, but what do the Liberals do?

Taxation  Mr. Speaker, I guess this island was an all exclusive. People are tired of seeing the wealthy hide their money in Barbados or the Cayman Islands. If the Liberal government were serious about tax havens, we could get at least $8 billion. With that, we could offer university studies to our students or pharmacare to everyone.

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the Liberal budget just sounds like a Seinfeld show. It is about nothing. The Liberals had a choice. They could have eliminated the tax loophole that is costing us $800 million a year and benefits only the wealthiest 1%, but no, they decided not to keep that promise.

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, some of the things that are found in the Liberals' election platform are missing from their budget. It is as though they were forgotten along the way. I would like my colleague to answer the following three questions. First, why did the government not lower the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses, as promised?

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, it is rather funny to be lectured on consistency by a Liberal. I would like to remind the House why the NDP voted against their so-called middle-class tax cut. I have to laugh at that, because the Liberals have a rather odd definition of middle class. People who earn less than $45,000 did not get anything from the Liberal government.

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I completely understand his indignation over how utterly unfair it is that individuals in our society carry most of the weight and bear most of the tax burden while corporations keep getting annual gifts from successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, when I was young, we used to say that culture is like jam; the less one has, the more one spreads it out. Interestingly enough, the federal budget suggests that the less money we have, the more the government spreads it out over time. There is no money for today, but things will be great in 8 to 10 years.