Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)
“The member cannot demand that we cut spending and then complain when we make cuts. We are reviewing our spending to save $60 billion. We also lowered our deficit by $11 billion and cut taxes on income, housing, fuel, and business investments. Our plan is responsible and helps Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I fully acknowledge that Jasper National Park and Banff National Park are real treasures in our country. I have visited Banff National Park and absolutely love Parks Canada and the work that it does to preserve natural spaces, and allow people to enjoy those spaces and experience the outdoors in Canada. Canada has so much to offer the world and visitors, as well as the people who live in our great country. In terms of geography and natural wonders, we have unlimited experiences for people to take advantage of. I am glad to hear the member opposite advocate for something that he is passionate about. I empathize with him. At the same time, the member cannot have it both ways. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, the member opposite has said he wants fiscal discipline, but then he disagrees with the comprehensive expenditure review that our government has done. I think it was a demonstration of fiscal responsibility. We went through a pretty comprehensive exercise to look at ways to reduce government operational spending. It was a $60-billion savings exercise to achieve optimization within government operations, and that includes reductions that the member opposite is pointing to. He just does not like where those decisions are being made. However, I think he would agree that it is important for governments to do vertical and horizontal reviews, to review where there can be savings made and where government operations can be optimized, and that is a good practice for us to undertake. Simultaneously, to demonstrate fiscal discipline, we have reported $11 billion less of a deficit in the spring economic update. We just recently announced that we will be meeting the target for one of our fiscal anchors a year in advance, which is to balance our operational budget or spending with revenues. That is significant progress. I understand that there is more work to do on that, but it has created some fiscal room as well for the government to take some of these tax measures and make cuts that we have made. Significantly, we have cut taxes on income, housing, fuel and new business investment. Surely the member opposite can understand the significance of those things, given his many speeches and interventions on the cost of living challenges and affordability challenges that Canadians are going through, not to mention the Conservative Party’s repeated requests for cutting taxes. I am sure that he supports those measures. Is he saying, on the one hand, that we should cut and exercise fiscal discipline but not do it in a way that impacts anybody in his riding, or is he broadly supportive of those? I cannot understand the logic here. I think that we are demonstrating fiscal discipline. We are strategically investing in the economy. We are putting in place measures that give Canadians a boost today and a bridge to tomorrow, which is how we think about it. People need to get through the challenges they are facing today with the economic shocks that we are under, but really have hope for a future where they know that the government is working hard to create prosperity for Canadians for generations to come. That is exactly what we will stay focused on.”
-
Reply to a debate question
Signal 43 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysis
Mr. Speaker, I fully acknowledge that Jasper National Park and Banff National Park are real treasures in our country. I have visited Banff National Park and absolutely love Parks Canada and the work that it does to preserve natural spaces, and allow people to enjoy those spaces and experience the outdoors in Canada. Canada has so much to offer the world and visitors, as well as the people who live in our great country. In terms of geography and natural wonders, we have unlimited experiences for people to take advantage of. I am glad to hear the member opposite advocate for something that he is passionate about. I empathize with him. At the same time, the member cannot have it both ways. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, the member opposite has said he wants fiscal discipline, but then he disagrees with the comprehensive expenditure review that our government has done. I think it was a demonstration of fiscal responsibility. We went through a pretty comprehensive exercise to look at ways to reduce government operational spending. It was a $60-billion savings exercise to achieve optimization within government operations, and that includes reductions that the member opposite is pointing to. He just does not like where those decisions are being made. However, I think he would agree that it is important for governments to do vertical and horizontal reviews, to review where there can be savings made and where government operations can be optimized, and that is a good practice for us to undertake. Simultaneously, to demonstrate fiscal discipline, we have reported $11 billion less of a deficit in the spring economic update. We just recently announced that we will be meeting the target for one of our fiscal anchors a year in advance, which is to balance our operational budget or spending with revenues. That is significant progress. I understand that there is more work to do on that, but it has created some fiscal room as well for the government to take some of these tax measures and make cuts that we have made. Significantly, we have cut taxes on income, housing, fuel and new business investment. Surely the member opposite can understand the significance of those things, given his many speeches and interventions on the cost of living challenges and affordability challenges that Canadians are going through, not to mention the Conservative Party’s repeated requests for cutting taxes. I am sure that he supports those measures. Is he saying, on the one hand, that we should cut and exercise fiscal discipline but not do it in a way that impacts anybody in his riding, or is he broadly supportive of those? I cannot understand the logic here. I think that we are demonstrating fiscal discipline. We are strategically investing in the economy. We are putting in place measures that give Canadians a boost today and a bridge to tomorrow, which is how we think about it. People need to get through the challenges they are facing today with the economic shocks that we are under, but really have hope for a future where they know that the government is working hard to create prosperity for Canadians for generations to come. That is exactly what we will stay focused on.