Debates of June 7th, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on employment insurance, I would like to know the member's thoughts on the fact that, due to an oversight on the part of the government, three additional regions were added to the list of 12 regions initially determined to be eligible to receive an extra five weeks of employment insurance benefits.

Quebec, however, seems to have been left out, even though it has many jobs in the agriculture and tourism industries, and some of its teachers and nurses have very precarious jobs.

In my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, many workers would certainly appreciate five extra weeks of benefits, as they have families to care for and are part of the middle class. They will not benefit from this EI program, which is totally unfair. We are left with a two-tier system based on the area where workers live.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is something I am sure many Canadians are asking themselves, so I am going to do my best to try to put in a frame.

Obviously, we have a challenge in our economy, at the moment, and certain areas are more challenged than others and have had precipitous drops in employment. The intent here is to support those areas that have had an unexpected high drop in the employment rate because it is obvious this is a support to get a person to their next job. If those jobs are not available in the area, it is going to take longer and it is obviously difficult for people to be able to bridge that gap to the next job.

We really identified areas based on the assessments done on the employment rates and the drop in employment rates. Where we saw a change, we have amended. I am sure that the government is going to continue looking at this across Canada and see where Canadians need the most help and try to be there for them.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister went all across Canada talking about change. Over the last seven months, as evidenced by budget 2016, Canadians have received change but unfortunately it is not the change that was promised and it certainly is not change for the better.

During the election the Liberals made a commitment to run a $10-billion deficit, which they characterized as modest. They promised that by 2019-20, the budget would be returned to balance. Barely after the ballots were counted, the finance minister was trotted out and he admitted that they would not be able to bring in just a $10-billion deficit, that it would be many billions of dollars more. Boy did it ever turn out to be billions and billions of dollars more, $30 billion, more than three times what the Liberals committed to.

What about that commitment to balance the budget by 2019-20? Much like the Liberal promise to run a $10-billion deficit in 2016-17, that promise was another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken. Now the government admits that in 2019 instead of a balanced budget, it is going to deliver a $17.9-billion deficit. No wonder, because over the next four years the Liberal government plans to borrow an unprecedented $113 billion, that is $113 billion that Canadians do not have.

Taking a step back one might ask why it is that the Liberals, during the election campaign, promised to take the $1-billion surplus that they inherited from our Conservative government and turn that into a $10-billion deficit. The answer is that the Liberals said there needed to be some short-term spending in some critical areas such as infrastructure.

What do the Liberals have to show for not a $10-billion deficit but a $30-billion deficit in infrastructure? Budget 2016 would provide no new funds for roads, bridges, railways, ports, and highways. Aside from some new funding for public transit, all of the new infrastructure spending in budget 2016 is dedicated to ill-defined green and social infrastructure.

More significantly, much of the $30-billion deficit is not attributable to increased spending on public transit or even spending in green and social infrastructure. Rather, much of this $30-billion deficit is attributable to a 7.6% increase in discretionary spending that would do absolutely nothing to create jobs and growth but would do plenty to saddle Canadians with more debt.

Much of the spending in budget 2016-17 is permanent and ongoing rather than temporary and cyclical. As a result, budget 2016 would set Canada on a path to long-term structural deficits.

While there was no plan in the budget to create jobs, growth, and prosperity, there is a plan in the budget to tax job creators, particularly small businesses that constitute the backbone of the Canadian economy. The government wants to eliminate and is going to eliminate a hiring tax credit and the student tax credit. What about the reduction of the small business tax rate to 9% that the previous Conservative government introduced and that the Liberals during the election campaign said that they would implement? Another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken, because now the government has announced that it is reversing the small business tax cut.

Then what about that middle-class tax cut that the Liberals touted with such enthusiasm during the election campaign, the revenue-neutral middle-class tax cut? Well it turns out the revenue neutral part of it is just another Liberal promise made and another Liberal promise broken. It turns out it is not revenue neutral at all. That is just the beginning because what we begin to find out is that the Liberal middle-class tax cut is actually a Liberal middle-class tax cut fraud. Why is that? Because average middle-class Canadians, if they are lucky, would receive $1 a day under the Liberal middle-class tax cut. What do they lose as a result? The talk about eliminating the textbook tax credit, the sports tax credit, the arts tax credit, income-splitting for families, and on and on, is part of the Liberal middle-class tax cut shell game that is making more Canadians worse off than better off.

The Prime Minister talked about change, the government has brought about change, unfortunately, it is not change for the better. Regretfully, it is change for the worse and it is why budget 2016 and Bill C-15 must be defeated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a great deal about the issue of deficit and his concerns regarding deficits. Many Canadians are concerned about how tax dollars are spent, justifiably so, but what I have a difficult time with and would ask the member to reflect on, is that the Conservatives are in no position whatsoever to give advice on deficits. They inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. They converted it into a multi-billion dollar deficit and that was prior to the recession taking place. Then they left us with a deficit, contrary to what members might like to think. The reality is that they created a deficit, they ended in deficit, their total deficit of over $150 billion of debt added by the Conservatives.

My question is very specific. Why does the Conservative Party believe that this government should take advice from a government that failed miserably in terms of the issue of debt?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has nothing to apologize for when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Indeed, when the Conservative Party formed government in 2006, it set out to pay back the largest amount of debt in Canadian history. It was the sum of $38 billion in the repayment of the national debt.

There was, of course, the recession of 2008-09 and my hon. friend is correct, there were deficits run at that time, but they were short-term deficits based upon short-term stimulus spending that allowed the Canadian economy to recover at a faster rate with stronger growth than any country in the G7.

We then returned the budget not only to balance in 2015, but in fact there was a surplus. That is what has been confirmed by the PBO and it has also been confirmed by the Department of Finance. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, but again, we certainly have nothing to apologize for on this side of the House when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like him to comment on one of the Liberals' broken promises, which the Canadian Federation of Independent Business called a betrayal.

The Liberals went back on their campaign promise. They said numerous times that they would reduce the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses from 11% to 9%. However, once in power, they changed their tune and went back on the promise they had made to the Canadians who elected them.

Could the hon. member comment on this particular broken promise? There are many others, but, for now, I am asking him about this one specifically.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the Liberals ran around Canada saying they were committed to a small business tax reduction and then quite simply broke their promise, just like so many other promises they have broken since the election. Every single day seems to bring about another new Liberal broken promise from the election.

This is going to cost small businesses. The finance department estimates it is going to cost small businesses some $2.2 billion over the next four years. I should remind hon. members that small businesses constitute 40% of Canada's GDP and represent 98% of companies in Canada. Those are precisely the job creators that need support. Instead, at this time, the government is penalizing them with tax increases.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today is June 7, a day to celebrate, according to the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute says today is tax freedom day, although those in Quebec will have to wait just a little longer, at least a week.

If it sounds as if we are paying a lot of taxes in this country, we do. We pay income tax, payroll tax, health tax, sales tax, property tax, fuel tax, vehicle tax, profit tax, import tax, along with various sin taxes. We will see next year if the Liberals have increased all our levels of tax.

Provinces like Ontario and Newfoundland, run by Liberal governments, are running massive deficits right now, so with the election of these Liberals to run our country, we are seeing that trend continue. It is called spend, spend, spend.

In reality, this budget is all about spending. After they broke their major election promises, including capping the deficit at $10 billion, why should we trust the Liberals? The Liberal budget is a plan for reckless spending that offers higher taxes and billions of dollars in new debt, and yet we have no real plan in this country for jobs.

At the recent G7 meetings in Japan, the Prime Minister was determined to sell the merits of deficits to grow the economy. Fortunately, that was met with major resistance. Large-scale deficits and debts are weakening investor confidence. Other countries have chosen to cut their deficits. Many countries in the G7 have been rewarded for their efforts, but the Prime Minister sought to promote deficits backed by growth at the recent G7 meeting. Many around that table did not buy it.

Many saw first hand the positive effects of curbing the spending, in fact, reducing their deficit, as did the previous government here. There was no appetite around the world for adding the deficits, so why then is the Prime Minister promoting deficits to the G7? Stimulus requires international co-operation. Stimulus spending will have a marginal impact on the open Canadian economy when dealing with our trading partners. The result, though, will be bigger deficits and certainly more debt.

The point I am making is that it appears Canada is on an island all by itself when it comes to spending and adding more debt. The G7 meetings recently in Japan showed that this government has little or no respect among our trading partners.

The Liberals have also picked winners and losers with the EI program. Twelve regions qualified, including my city of Saskatoon, along with northern Saskatchewan, but south Saskatchewan, where the resource sector suffered tremendous pressure with job losses, was not included. Weeks later, because of our relentless pressure, the government then decided to include south Saskatchewan along with the Edmonton area for improved EI benefits.

I have said in this House before and I will say again that Canadians want to work. In Saskatchewan, where I come from, people are known for their work ethic. They want to wake up in the morning with a job and with a purpose. They want to provide a future for their families.

Unemployment rates in Saskatchewan and our neighbouring province, Alberta, have spiked since the Liberals have taken office. We should be reminded that Canadians need more job support, not simply longer periods of EI benefits. When will the government, for example, support the oil and gas sector? Pipelines are needed to move product safety, yet we constantly see delays, every day in this House. This is costing us jobs. Evraz in Regina, which manufacturers pipelines, was forced to lay off workers in February. It laid off another 50 workers just last month.

Cameco, the largest uranium manufacturer in the world, suspended its Rabbit Lake mining, putting another 500 people out of work. This mine was an economic engine for northern Saskatchewan, employing many first nations people. These positions were very well paying jobs, creating wealth in our northern region of Saskatchewan.

However, the Liberals have taken their frustration out entirely on small businesses. It is unfortunate, really, that 700,000 middle-class small business owners who employ about 95% of working Canadians are the target of the government in the recent budget.

The Liberals have ended the hiring credit for small businesses. They have cancelled their planned youth employment hiring credit. The Liberals have broken their clear promise to small businesses in this country to proceed with just that small tax rate reduction to 9%. Plans for any small tax cuts, in fact, will now be deferred, maybe forever with the government.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the decision will cost small firms over $900 million per year to 2019. The finance department has estimated that this broken promise will actually cost the small business sector $2.2 billion over the next four years. All signs point to trouble for Canadians.

The Minister of Finance is planning another hit to Canada's small businesses by increasing the CPP premiums. This would, in my estimation, send more people to the unemployment lines in this country.

An employer with, let us just say, one employee would see an increase in the CPP to $880 a year. Imagine, let us say, if there were 15 employees. The employer would end up paying over $13,000 per year. For small business, this is a direct payroll tax. The self-employed would be paying an additional $1,700 a year. That would certainly be a big hit for those who have decided to be entrepreneurs and do business on their own.

This spells big trouble for our economy: higher labour costs with little or no productivity. This would lead to more job losses, possibly wage cuts, or even freezes, putting everyone at risk.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is also very concerned. It stated recently that the importance of businesses has really plummeted in this budget. As we all know, during the election, the Liberals said publicly that small businesses are just tax havens for the wealthy. Well, business owners are middle-class people. Far more make less than $40,000 per year than what the Liberals think they make, $200,000-plus a year.

By increasing taxes on job-creation, the Liberals are destroying success, and they are really not promoting entrepreneurship or even innovation in this country. As we all know, saddling businesses with higher taxes will not create jobs.

Previous tax breaks for middle-income families have been taken away, for the arts community and for fitness, which included sports, and even the most popular family income splitting, as well as the reduction of the TFSA limit, where hard-working Canadians actually had an opportunity to prepare for retirement.

In fact, when I was home this past weekend for a barbecue, many came up to me asking what they could do about unnecessary spending leading to a greater deficit, which this country will share. We should always try to run our country as we run our households: live within our means, especially when the circumstances do not justify the spending. We are really not in a recession, yet the government is determined to run up huge deficits.

The former Conservative government created jobs. During the worst economic downturn and this great recession, Canada, it should be noted, had the best job creation for economic growth among the G7 countries. We balanced the budget. In fact, we left the Liberals with a surplus of over $3 million at the end of 2015. We lowered taxes for Canadians, to their lowest point in 50 years. A typical family of four saved $7,000 a year.

Finally, Canadians have just heard the buzzwords in this budget. Soon they will realize that it is not what it is cracked up to be.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member, who was saying the government is spending and not creating jobs, that he must correct himself to say that the government is investing in order to create jobs.

If all of those huge investments in infrastructure, in green technology, in protecting the environment, in supporting middle-class families, in lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and in social housing do not create jobs, could my colleague tell us what other elements or means would create jobs in Canada?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that in the city of Saskatoon, there are two infrastructure projects that were promised by the Conservative government. They were shovel ready. There were overpasses at Boychuck and McOrmond. The money was sitting there. The infrastructure minister came to the city about two weeks ago and delivered the message. Why? Because it was the Conservative government that promised those two overpasses. There are no other plans in Saskatchewan with the Liberal government. That is the infrastructure in my city, a population of 250,000.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell us about the Liberals' improvisation with regard to the selection of the 12 and now 15 regions that were chosen to receive enhancements to employment insurance?

He mentioned his province of Saskatchewan, and I was wondering if he could expand a bit. Were there specific factors or reasons why the government chose certain regions? On what facts was this decision based? Why were similar regions excluded from this regionally-based enhancement of the employment insurance system?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. That was asked at the original news conference at Saskatchewan Polytechnic, when the minister started to talk about the 12 regions. During the new conference, the minister did not know that region 42 existed, which is Saskatoon, and region 43, which is northern Saskatchewan. It was just simply picking winners and losers.

I had toured the province and knew that Estevan, Weyburn, and even Regina were in serious trouble because of the oil price and, then, of course, Edmonton, the hub of Alberta, along with Fort McMurray. A lot of people work in Fort McMurray but live in Edmonton. They were excluded from this. A lot of people who live in my city and work in Fort McMurray were also excluded. I do not know why.

Obviously the Liberals realized their mistake because they included south Saskatchewan and the Edmonton area after hours of debate in the House, led by my side of the House. It is too bad they selected winners and losers.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberals say that they would not take any lessons from anyone. It is unwise not to take lessons, especially from such a fiscally responsible side of the House, like the Conservatives.

If a government wants to borrow money and has no plan to pay it back, what is that called economically and fiscally?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this will affect me. My first grandchild was born in August, during the campaign. Not only are my two kids going to have this debt heaped on them, but so is my new grandchild. I am appalled by what will happen with this Liberal budget. It will not saddle me as much, but it will my kids and now my grandchild. That is the story all Canadians will have to face four years from now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I think if you seek it, you would unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the third reading of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, may be taken up in the same sitting during which the report stage of the said Bill is disposed of.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to)

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the budget implementation bill and, of course, a number of things that are particularly important for my riding, including the mineral exploration tax credit. I think it is worthwhile at this point for me to sketch a portrait of what Abitibi-Témiscamingue represents in terms of mineral exploration.

In my riding, one in six people is connected to the mining industry. That is 16% of jobs, both direct and indirect. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, investments in mining exceeded $1 billion in 2011, but dropped to about $780 million in 2014 because of the economic downturn.

In addition, 370 businesses are active in the mining industry either as product manufacturers or mining companies. Clearly, this sector is huge in my riding. That is why I want to talk about the mineral exploration tax credit.

The budget implementation bill renews the mineral exploration tax credit, which helps junior mining companies using flow-through shares. Of course, we support the mineral exploration tax credit, but unfortunately, the Liberals missed this opportunity to make it permanent. I think it is very important to make this tax credit permanent in order to make life easier for mining companies.

The fact that the tax credit is not permanent and that no one knows whether it will come back has a serious impact when firms try to plan their exploration activities. They can try to hurry, but they do not know whether it will happen.

It is important to understand the mining cycle. When it comes to mining, if companies wait for metal prices to go up before they explore, by the time they go through all the steps to eventually get to a mine in production, metal prices will have dropped again. It would be much better to promote exploration when metal prices are low, so that when the price of gold, for instance, goes up, the mines are ready to go into production quickly, within two or three years. That is the logic that must be applied to the mining sector. That is why this tax credit must be permanent, if we want to promote the development of our mining sector in a much more intelligent manner.

When it comes to prospecting, that is, when a company thinks there is a deposit somewhere, it takes about five years to do the research, get some core samples, and analyze them. The delimitation also has to be completed, in order to find out exactly where the deposit is located.

Ideally, this five-year period would coincide with the down cycle in ore prices. That way, when the price starts rising again, the next phases can begin. It is currently a good time to undertake mining exploration. We cannot abandon our mining companies, especially those who are just starting up. They need help now. Unfortunately, when metal prices are low, it is harder to find investors to back up these companies. That is another argument in favour of supporting our mining startups in their exploration activities.

When we talk about the development phase, which encompasses pre-production preparations, the setting of every technical and economic parameter, and all feasibility studies and environmental assessments, we talk about a three- to eight-year period.

For installation and production, we are talking about a 10-year timeframe, give or take, during which the mine will actually be in production.

That is the mining cycle. Afterwards, of course, there is everything related to closure and rehabilitation, which can take a year or two. Environmental monitoring can last for several years, depending on the situation.

That was one of the especially important aspects of the mineral exploration tax credit. The other important aspect that was brought to my attention several times had to do with eligible expenses.

At the exploration phase, mining companies are increasingly responsible for consulting the public to notify them of their activities, and they are on board with that. Sometimes, they also conduct environmental assessments or studies on the fauna before even beginning with the exploration, to ensure, for example, that they are not disturbing the habitat of animals such as moose or other wild animals.

Before exploration even begins, there are expenses for consultations or environmental assessments. Unfortunately, since these are not expenses for extracting core samples, for instance, where the work is actually done on the ground, these expenses do not count as eligible exploration expenses.

It might be a good idea to include these expenses with those that are incurred for mining exploration because they go hand in hand with ensuring that the projects unfold seamlessly. The purpose of all these expenses is truly to ensure that the approach taken by the mining companies is much more respectful of the communities. I think that the Liberal government could also take a look at this as part of the budget.

I would also like to take the time to talk about other measures. For example, feminine hygiene products have been added to the list of tax-free products. I believe that it is a good measure that can be primarily attributed to the NDP, which proposed this measure in the previous parliament. It has now been implemented. We can be proud of what we accomplished.

I would like to remind the government that I introduced a bill to eliminate the tax on basic baby supplies. These products are zero-rated in most provinces that do not have a harmonized tax. In all provinces where the provincial tax is not harmonized, these products are considered zero-rated supplies.

I believe that we should consider taking action to ensure better coordination between the provinces and the federal government. We do not have to wait for my bill to reach second reading stage. I have many other interesting bills. Therefore, I would not be upset if the problem were to be solved before we reach my bill. The government is completely free to implement the measures contained in my bill before it is debated. I would be pleased if it wanted to do so.

I also think that it will make life easier for a lot of parents who buy basic baby products. The bill provides a list of products that are absolutely essential when caring for a baby. I also think that many parents would be grateful to the Liberal government for taking action on this.

Another important point is that the Liberals have gone back on their promise to lower the small businesses tax rate to 9%. Small and medium-sized businesses in my riding will be particularly disappointed, especially when you consider that they provide the vast majority of jobs there. They are the heart of our communities.

Some communities rely solely on a local SME, which enables people to earn a living. For example, in La Reine, where I am from, Les Aciers JP manufactures metal products. It hires welders and people who work on the cutting tables. Without this business, there would be nothing left in town, aside from a few service businesses.

When the government chooses not to support these businesses and lower their taxes, it is adopting measures that hurt rural ridings like mine. It is important to support these businesses. These are local jobs that help keep people from leaving many of these towns. I think that is particularly important.

Since I am out of time, I thank my colleagues for listening. I would be happy to take questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the member's last comments in regard to the importance of small business being the backbone of Canada's potential job growth. I would just provide assurances to the member and others who might be listening that this government takes it very seriously. They talk about the middle-class tax break, where we would inject literally hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of Canada's middle class. They would see higher disposable income that would help small businesses in all regions. It would also directly support those franchise owners, the small companies that the member made reference to because they too would be getting a direct tax break.

Whether it is indirect or direct, this budget in several ways would support small businesses. Would the member at the very least acknowledge the fact that there are both direct and indirect advantages for small businesses in this budget?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of my constituents do not make enough money to take advantage of the much talked about middle-class tax cut. They had hoped to be part of the middle class as defined by the Liberals, but it seems that they were wrong. There are many people in my riding who do not earn the $45,000 a year it takes to get a single dollar back in tax relief.

Thank goodness that the cost of living remains low in many of the towns I represent. Houses can be bought much cheaper than in Toronto, for example. There are perfectly decent houses for less than $100,000. Perhaps Toronto is a different world. That said, most of my constituents will not be benefiting from the middle-class tax cut because their low annual incomes do not meet the income eligibility threshold.

People are left feeling like we have failed them, which is a shame. If the tax cut had been applied to the lowest tax bracket, as the NDP suggested, the vast majority of people would have benefited. However, the Liberals held firm, and as a result, most of my constituents will not make enough money to receive a single dollar in tax relief.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her articulate and well-researched speech about the realities of these people and the economic benefits. She made constructive arguments about supporting entrepreneurs, small and medium-sized businesses and people from her region.

I agree with my colleague on the disconnect between the great expectations created by that party during the campaign, when everyone agreed that small and medium-sized businesses needed a lower tax rate, and what actually followed.

Does the member not find even more disappointing that the great expectations of small and medium-sized businesses, Quebec and the aerospace sector were not met?

Does she not find deplorable that this election campaign turned out to be such a complete fraud? The Liberals made promises and announced a humongous deficit, and yet people will not even get what they were promised during the campaign.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for the question.

That is a real problem. In 2015, I ran in my fourth campaign. I have been a candidate since 2006. People are sick of being lied to. They want the truth. They do not want any surprises.

Being honest with Canadians is how we score points. People have had enough of politicians promising them to fix everything and doing nothing once elected. They simply want the truth. Is that so hard?

When I worked as a nurse, it was the same thing. Patients do not want to be told that everything is fine, that they still have 10 years ahead of them. They want to be told the truth when things are not going well so they can plan for what comes next. They do not want reality to be sugar-coated; they want us to tell it like it is and stop springing surprises on them. That is how they can make informed choices.

When politicians promise one thing and do the opposite or fall short of expectations, people are disappointed. That is unfortunate, because it reflects badly on all of us.