Ryan Turnbull

In response to a question from Kelly McCauley

“Conservatives say our spending causes inflation, but they never say which spending causes it. Feeding hungry children, cutting taxes for 22 million people, helping with fuel costs, and funding defence and big projects do not cause inflation. They help our economy grow.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are always short on details. They keep saying that somehow government spending and investments in the Canadian economy are inflationary, but they never indicate what specifically is inflationary about that spending. Is it inflationary to feed hungry children? Is it inflationary to cut taxes for 22 million Canadians on their income? Is it inflationary to help with the cost of fuel? Is it inflationary to invest in our defence or get major projects built in this country? What is inflationary about those investments in a growing, prosperous Canadian economy?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 26 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 89 of 100

  Of this answer, 92% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kelly McCauley

“Conservatives are just trying to scare people. Canada has the strongest financial position in the G7. Our government is helping people with high costs and building a strong economy. Conservatives should stop complaining and start celebrating Canada's strengths.”

“Mr. Speaker, this Halloween, Conservatives are doing their very best to try to spook Canadians, but Canadians know that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We have a stable democracy and a government that cares about them, a government that is investing in them, is supporting them through affordability challenges, is investing in a stronger economy, is diversifying trade and is laser focused on building the strongest, most resilient economy in the G7. All this member can do is cast doubt on that plan. Every moment of every day in the House, that is all we hear from the Conservatives. When will they start celebrating all that Canada has to offer?”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 24 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Philip Lawrence

“We know Canadians are facing hard times, and our spending helps them. We sent money for groceries to 12 million people. We cut business taxes, made 20 new trade deals, and made building permits faster. This created more jobs and business growth.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is not news to us that the country is facing headwinds and that Canadians are being impacted. That is exactly why we stepped up with a plan to support them. We introduced the groceries and essentials benefit, and it delivered 12 million Canadians a cheque to help with the cost of living. We cut taxes on new business investment and saw an immediate spike of 8.9% in activity. We rapidly signed 20 new trade and security agreements, and we saw the highest level of non-U.S. trade this last summer. We streamlined permitting processes, and we have seen more jobs and shovels in the ground. Those are the results of this government.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 41 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×29

  A repeated line

  “We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”

  Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Philip Lawrence

“I want the Conservatives to explain how feeding hungry kids, funding the military, and cutting taxes on income, housing, and fuel causes inflation. Their leader does not understand basic economics.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives this Halloween are handing out tricks and calling them treats. Nobody is fooled by this. Let me ask the members opposite to tell us how feeding hungry kids is inflationary, tell us how investing in our defence capabilities is inflationary and tell us how cutting taxes on income, housing and fuel is inflationary. Maybe they need a basic economics tutorial over in the Conservative caucus. It is clear that their leader has no economic credentials. If they need a lesson, please let us know.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 24 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Signal 40 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 →

In response to a question from Luc Berthold

“What the member said is not true. Canada's finances are the strongest in the G7. We have the lowest debt compared to our economy and had the highest growth in the G7 last quarter. We also have record business investment and strong trade outside the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth than what the member utters in the House. Conservatives like to try to instill doubt. There is no denying that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio and the highest second quarter growth in the G7. That is well-recognized. We are using that strength to focus on what we can control to counteract the headwinds that the country faces. We have seen record numbers in new business investment and foreign direct investment, and further domestic commitments, reaching nearly half a trillion dollars. We have seen the highest level of non-U.S. trade and much—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 35 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Clarity 46 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Pat Kelly

“Our spending is not causing inflation. The war in the Middle East is driving inflation. We have cut taxes on income, housing, fuel, and business investments. We have also increased benefits and are creating jobs to help Canadians with the cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, we believe in the independence of monetary policy in our central bank, and we know that inflation is being driven by the war in the Middle East. Unlike the Conservatives, we are stepping up every single day in this House to offer more affordability supports for Canadians when they need it most. We have cut taxes on income, housing, fuel and new business investment. We have enhanced and increased access to federal benefits, like the groceries and essentials benefit, and we are investing to create tens of thousands of new jobs all across Canada. That is how we build Canada strong. That is how we support Canadians.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 33 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×20

  A repeated line

  “That is how we build Canada strong.”

  Said 20 times by 14 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Jacob Mantle

“We are working to protect Canada's financial system from fraud. We gave the RCMP more resources, and we are creating a new agency to fight financial crime. The Conservatives should support this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, again, our government is committed to protecting and safeguarding the integrity of Canada’s financial system. We have taken concrete steps to develop an anti-fraud strategy in collaboration with many partners. We are in the process of creating the financial crimes agency that will lead the fight against ever more sophisticated financial crimes. We have given the RCMP additional resources to help coordinate these efforts. If the Conservatives are concerned about this issue, they should support our bill, Bill C-29.”

• Answered
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jacob Mantle

“We are working on a national plan to stop fraud and setting up a new agency to fight money crimes. I want the Conservatives to vote for this bill to help stop money laundering.”

“Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to protecting the integrity of Canada’s financial system and supporting the institutions that safeguard it. We are taking concrete steps to develop a national anti-fraud strategy in collaboration with industry partners and agencies. We are also creating the financial crimes agency, which will lead the fight against sophisticated financial crimes with increased RCMP resources. If the Conservatives are concerned about combatting money laundering, we encourage them to support Bill C-29.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Government answer in Question Period

  Relevance 36 of 100

  None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  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 →

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“Our fund is $3.2 billion, not just one billion. We are giving money directly to local charities and groups that feed people in our communities. To really stop hunger, people need good incomes. Wages in Canada are now growing faster than prices, and we are creating many jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, again, it is more than just a billion-dollar fund. It is $3.2 billion. The local food infrastructure fund has already made a significant difference in my community. There are organizations, mostly non-profits and charities, in my community that offer solutions at a community scale to the food insecurity challenges we see rising in our communities. They are doing a great job. What we are doing is boosting their efforts by offering more financing and support directly from the federal government, which arguably is something we have not had before and is probably the missing piece to really addressing the root causes of food insecurity. Every expert in the country will tell us that food insecurity is the direct result of income insecurity. Therefore, really, the long-term solution to food insecurity is to make sure we have high-paying jobs in Canada. Wages have been outpacing inflation in Canada. The Canadian economy has added twice the number of jobs—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“High energy prices are driving up the cost of food. We are helping people right now by making the school food program permanent and giving families emergency relief. Conservatives are wrong to call the school food program garbage, because it feeds children. We are also spending $3.2 billion to fix deeper problems in the food system. This money will help local communities build better storage and supply chains, which increases competition and keeps food prices steady.”

“Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. Of course, we also know that the oil price shock is what is driving the consumer price index up. The consumer price index would be at 2.4% if it were not for the rise in energy prices that has driven it up to 3.1%. That directly impacts the cost of food over time, and we see that the inflation of food prices is significant and elevated. That is exactly why we have given families a boost today and a bridge to tomorrow. That includes helping both with more emergency or immediate relief and support, which includes a billion-dollar investment, and making the national school food program permanent. It also includes the groceries and essentials benefit. I am glad to hear the member opposite acknowledge that those programs really help people. Often we hear from the Conservatives that they do not acknowledge them. They call the national school food program “garbage” or claim that it does not serve any food to children, when we know in fact that is false. I have witnessed it with my own eyes when I have toured food programs in my riding. We have also moved forward on a national food security strategy, which is significant at $3.2 billion. Previously, we never had what I would say is a medium- to long-term strategy to address the structural problems in the food system. We have had numerous reports done by the Competition Bureau that looked at corporate consolidation within the food system all along the supply chains. The reality is that this leaves our food system vulnerable to shocks in the global market. Commodity prices affect the input costs for our farmers, the cost of transportation and distribution, and the costs for our retailers, all of whom assume some of those costs and eventually pass them down to consumers in raised prices at the grocery store. Therefore, over time, having a food system that is vulnerable and highly dependent upon global supply chains is not the most resilient strategy. What we are doing is investing in the infrastructure that communities need in order to be able to distribute food and to develop shorter supply chains and more sustainable regional food systems that have cold storage and distribution, that do value added. On Vancouver Island, in Victoria and the surrounding areas, there is much activity in the food system. I have toured it and met with many of the groups in the past. Before I was in politics, I served on the board of Food Secure Canada, an organization that has advocated for sustainable local food systems. This national food security strategy is something I have advocated for since entering politics seven years ago. I am very proud to stand with a government that is making a $3.2-billion investment into the structural challenges in the food system, to develop the infrastructure and capacity at the community scale, to develop more resilience and essentially create competition so independent grocery stores would be able to get access to local food and do it in a more affordable way that is somewhat insulated from the commodity price fluctuations that have made our food system quite vulnerable to shocks.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 91 of 100

  Of this reply, 92% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes clear rules for online platforms to have safety plans and take down harmful images, and it sets up a commission to watch over them. Even though we will need to update the rules as technology changes, this is an important step to keep young people safe online.”

“Mr. Speaker, the bill would put in place obligations, which would be very clear, to have online safety plans. It would put in place a digital safety commission, which would oversee and monitor things, look for any infractions and understand that there are obligations for platforms to take down or make inaccessible images that are harmful. The bill would also codify the types of online harms in many ways. From multiple perspectives, it would create a framework that would be useful in regulating online platforms. These platforms are innovating, developing quickly and continuing to evolve, so I imagine we would have to continue amending this legislation in the future. However, it is a significant step forward from where we are at today, where I fear for young people’s safety online every single day.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Wade Grant

“I want this bill passed to protect children online. Right now, social media companies have no real rules to follow, and parents cannot protect their kids alone. This bill will hold those platforms accountable and keep children safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said, we really want assurances. My wife and I have had many conversations about how to keep our daughter safe online. We have found it challenging to keep her off these devices and platforms. With no real regulatory framework in place in Canada, it just seems like it is the wild west of online engagement. For my daughter’s digital safety, we have had to take extreme measures to try to protect her, from taking away her devices to monitoring all online activity. She can be doing her homework late at night on a laptop, but she is really online on Snapchat or some other platform. The things we see that she has been exposed to make us really concerned. Some of her friends have been exposed to intimate images, which they have been encouraged to share, and that has created problems in her friend group. This bill would hold the social media platforms accountable. It would put in place a mechanism and a set of responsibilities that would ensure my daughter’s safety in the future.”