Ryan Turnbull

In response to a question from Michael Cooper

“Our government cut income taxes, ended the consumer carbon tax, cut the gas tax, and increased grocery rebates. I want to know why Conservatives keep voting against this tax relief.”

“Mr. Speaker, my empathy goes out to Justin and all families that may be struggling with the cost of living across Canada. Our government has been committed to ensuring that Canadians can keep more of what they earn. We cut income tax for 22 million Canadians. We eliminated the consumer carbon tax. We extended relief at the pumps through the suspension of the fuel excise tax, which is now extended to January 2027. We enhanced the GST rebate, called the groceries and essentials benefit, and introduced the largest deduction of new business investment in 50 years. My question is this: Why do Conservatives keep voting against tax relief?”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “We cut the consumer carbon tax.”

  Said 7 times by 2 members since April 29.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Dan Mazier

“We are already having independent experts review Canada Health Infoway. They are checking its spending, leadership pay, and how it is run. The Auditor General agreed that this review is enough, so the Conservatives should let it happen without political interference.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Riding Mountain for giving me a chance to reiterate the statement that the Minister of Health made on this topic in June. Since it was the last day before the House rose, he might have missed what she said, so I will repeat it now. She said: Canada Health Infoway (“Infoway”) was established in 2001 with a mandate to break down silos in our healthcare system, modernise health data infrastructure, and improve access, quality and productivity of care for all Canadians. While many Canadians have benefitted from Infoway’s work, important questions have been raised in recent months about accountability and value-for-money. To ensure Infoway is best positioned to fulfill its mandate effectively and efficiently while delivering value to Canadians, the Minister of Health has directed the launch of a multi-phase review. The review will include an independent, third-party audit, complemented by a comprehensive strategic review of the organisation’s governance structures and operations. Phase one will assess Infoway’s compliance with the terms and conditions of its contribution agreement, followed by a wider strategic review that includes but is not limited to examining the organisation’s funding model, program delivery, effectiveness, mandate, bylaws, corporate policies, governance framework, executive leadership and compensation practices, and reporting mechanisms. Stakeholder consultations will also be undertaken to provide insight on Infoway’s strengths, opportunities for improvement, and role within Canada’s health ecosystem. As our government works to break down silos in our healthcare system, this review will ensure that Infoway is adopting best practices and that all available steps are taken to build a modern, accountable, health data system that improves care for all Canadians. The review process will commence immediately and continue over the coming months. Upon completion, the Government of Canada will publish key findings and outline next steps. Is that enough? I will let the Auditor General respond to that, because just over a week after the minister made that statement, the Auditor General said, “We have been informed by Health Canada that they are planning a review of Canada Health Infoway. I am of the view that conducting a performance audit at this time would be duplicative and therefore of limited added value for Parliamentarians and Canadians.” Seeing as the member for Riding Mountain was a member of the health committee when it asked the Auditor General to look into the matter, I would hope that the Auditor General’s response is enough for the member. There are third party reviews of the program taking place right now. We should allow this important work to take place free of the kind of political interference that the Conservatives are calling for and are known for.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 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 Warren Steinley

“Our economy is growing even though we face trade challenges. The economy grew by 3.3% last quarter, and we added 217,000 new jobs. Wages are growing faster than inflation. We also signed 20 new trade deals, and big funds have promised $500 billion to invest in Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that we are in a trade war. The country is facing significant headwinds, and we have used the fiscal capacity we have responsibly to invest in the Canadian economy, which is growing. There was 3.3% GDP growth in the last quarter, which is significant. The government diversified trade by signing 20 new trade agreements. Jobs have grown at twice the pace they have in the United States, with 217,000 net new jobs in Canada. Wages have outpaced inflation. We have had two consecutive months of real GDP per capita growth. That is not to mention the $500 billion in new commitments from Canadian financial institutions and pension funds to deploy their capital here in Canada to help that capital build the infrastructure and grow the economy that all Canadians need so they can have a better standard of living.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 7 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 Warren Steinley

“Our government has made life more affordable by giving families more money, raising pensions, cutting income taxes, and pausing fuel taxes. The Conservative member keeps voting against these supports. He should explain to the people who voted for him why he opposes tax cuts and help for families.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan and I have enjoyed some good partisan sparring, which is part of the sport of the House. I know that the member opposite is a good sport in that regard. We have had many disagreements, but we both respect one another at the end of the day, and I appreciate him for that. Our government understands that we are strongest when we take care of one another and we ensure that everyone has a chance to get ahead. That includes our seniors, but it also includes all of the population, and our government is really working to make life more affordable for all Canadians. I cite the groceries and essentials benefit that is helping 12 million Canadians with payments. It was the GST rebate, as members will note, but it has been significantly increased. It pays out an average of $1,890 for a dual-income family, the average family, so that is not insignificant support. It is actually quite significant for many families. The amount to be paid is going to increase 25% over five years, beginning in July, and the top-up is indexed to inflation. This means payments will go out every year to match future increases in the consumer price index. This is just one of many things we have done. There is also the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit, the guaranteed income supplement and many more. The member opposite mentioned dental care. We also increased OAS by 10% for our seniors in a previous iteration of our party. Those are significant changes that have improved the social safety net in Canada and helped families right across the country. Let us talk about tax cuts. The first thing the government did under the current Prime Minister was an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians. We eliminated the consumer carbon tax. We suspended the fuel excise tax over the summer, and just recently we tabled legislation to extend that for another five months until January 2027. I am sure the member opposite can agree that those are tangible, cost-saving measures. I know that his constituents did not send him here to vote against those types of measures and then stand up the next moment and claim that the Liberals are not doing enough for vulnerable people in this country. Can the member opposite explain to his constituents why he votes against every affordability measure that enhances support for seniors, for families, for single mothers and for all Canadians, with broad-based measures that are cutting taxes for Canadians? It seems to me that tax relief is something the Conservatives have advocated for. We have only eliminated, suspended, cut and reduced taxes under the Prime Minister’s leadership. Why would the member opposite oppose tax relief for his constituents?”

• Echo ×7

  A repeated line

  “Is it the Canada child benefit?”

  Said 7 times by 3 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Greg McLean

“Our government manages money well. Canada has the lowest debt ratio and top credit rating among major economies, and our economy is growing fast. We cut spending where we could and cut business taxes to bring in huge new investments. This will bring in more tax revenue and lower our deficit.”

“Madam Speaker, it is great to be here tonight to answer my colleague’s question. Let us put this in perspective. Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. It has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio. It has a AAA credit rating, which only one other country in the G7 enjoys, which is Germany. This gives it a relatively low debt service cost. The IMF has confirmed that Canada is projected to have the second-strongest growth in the G7. When the current government came into power under the Prime Minister’s leadership, we launched a comprehensive expenditure review, which found $60 billion in savings in terms of optimizing operational budgets and looking for ways to optimize the way the government operates. It was a significant savings exercise. We are focused on a capital budgeting framework, which we developed, and capital formation in the economy is really why the government has moved forward with generational investments in housing, infrastructure and defence, as well as innovation- and productivity-boosting tax measures. This is all to create a virtuous circle within the economy of investment, higher growth and additional tax revenues, which can move us down the path toward reducing our deficit. An “investment supercycle” is what TD Bank has called it recently. I think RBC also called it the same, which is a positive feedback loop of additional investment. We are seeing that working. Canada has added 217,000 jobs, which is twice the rate of the United States. We have had 3.3% second-quarter growth of GDP, the fastest in the G7. Per capita GDP grew by 3.9% in Q2 as real GDP increased and population continued to decline in Canada. Business investment grew at 8.9%, and foreign direct investment is at a nearly 20-year high at $97 billion. We also saw, out of the Prime Minister’s investment summit just recently, that our government attracted from domestic investors, our major financial institutions and pension plans, commitments of almost $500 billion of new investment. Obviously now we have to work to ensure that there is a project pipeline of viable, bankable projects that can be financed by domestic and global investors, but these signs are good news. At the investment summit, as I am sure the member opposite can agree, the Prime Minister announced that we are reducing, cutting in half, our marginal effective tax rate on new business investment, making Canada the most tax-competitive advanced economy in the entire world. That is from a 13% marginal effective tax rate to a 6.4% marginal effective tax rate. That is 10% lower than in the United States, one-third of the OECD average and one-quarter of the G7 average, and it now will apply from 15% of capital assets to 65% of capital assets in our economy. That is going to bring more investment into this country and allow, again, that investment supercycle in Canada to take place. This is responsible fiscal management from our government. I understand the member opposite’s concerns, but I think we have this.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 98 of 100

  Of this reply, 99% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×14

  A repeated line

  “Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7.”

  Said 14 times by 7 members since May 1.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“Our government is committed to public health care rules. We work with the provinces to improve health care, but they must follow the law and be accountable for federal health money.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his acknowledgement and respect for me as a member of Parliament, which I share with him and reciprocate completely. We can have disagreements in the House, but on this I do not think we disagree. In fact, what I am saying is that the Government of Canada is deeply committed to preserving the principles that are embedded in the Canada Health Act. We are working hand in hand with provincial and territorial partners to strengthen our health care system at a time when we know we need that strong health care system to lift Canadians up, to make sure that we can build a strong Canada and a strong economy, and to assert our sovereignty. It is essential to the country. We all take pride in the universal health care system. I have had many debates and issues with the Province of Ontario and how it manages our health care system. I share some of my colleagues’ concerns about making sure that we uphold the Canada Health Act and ensuring that provinces and territories are accountable to that and accountable for the funding that is transferred from the federal government.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Clarity 45 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 Gord Johns

“Our government will always defend public health care. People should get care based on need, not ability to pay. Provinces deliver health care, and we are working with them as they try new ways to fix their systems. But provinces cannot break the rules of our public health care law. We are working closely with Alberta right now to make sure they follow those rules.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for the collaborative working relationship that we have had for quite a number of years. He is a great guy and a great representative for his community. I understand his question, and just for the record, I was not dragged here. I volunteered to stay to answer his question this evening. Our public health care system is a point of pride, that is for sure, for all Canadians, including all Albertans. Our government will always work to defend our health care system because we understand that access to care should be based on someone’s need, not someone’s ability to pay. Furthermore, we recognize that our universal health care system underpins our economic strength. To build Canada strong, we need healthy Canadians. However, at the same time, all of us can see that our health care system is under strain. While provinces and territories are responsible for delivering health care, we all know that the federal government plays a key role in supporting the provinces. All of us need to work together to make sure that Canadians have the strong health care system they need and deserve. We have seen how provinces and territories are responding to these challenges with new ideas and determination. They are finding new ways to bring care closer to Canadians, by expanding the roles of nurse practitioners, pharmacists and midwives; embracing virtual care; and even training the health care professionals we will need for the future. There is no doubt that this is important work, which is why we have taken a collaborative approach with all provinces and territories, including Alberta, that respects their jurisdiction to explore innovative ways to improve access and care while strengthening the public universal health care system that we all take pride in. That does not mean that provinces and territories have free reign to ignore the principles of the Canada Health Act. As the Minister of Health has said repeatedly, she has been in close contact with Minister LaGrange, as she has been with all her provincial and territorial counterparts, to talk about how we can best support Alberta in strengthening our health care system and not eroding it. Likewise, as the minister has noted, Health Canada officials are working closely with Government of Alberta officials to ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act are fully respected. A collaborative approach between our government and the Government of Alberta has always produced stronger results, and we will continue to work in that direction to benefit all Albertans and all Canadians.”

In response to a question from Jacob Mantle

“Farmers struggle to pass their farms to the next generation. Our recent bill helps owners sell businesses to their workers without paying capital gains tax. This model could help farmers too, and the government is open to exploring that.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here in the very last moments before the House rises for the summer. I know that there are a large number of farms in the member opposite’s riding. There are farm succession plans all across this country, and farmers do struggle with succession, so I understand the issue the member is speaking about. We have done some things recently, in the spring economic update implementation act, on this front with capital gains exemption. It applies only to employee ownership trusts and worker co-operatives, but I think it highlights where the government is open to looking at options for succession to make it easier to hand down businesses. In this case, the one I am referencing is employee ownership trusts, which is a model I have advocated for. Worker-owned co-operatives will get the same tax treatment. It is a measure I have supported from day one because it offers owners of businesses that are small- to medium-sized, or they could be larger, the opportunity, when they want to sell the business, to protect those businesses and also to hand them down to workers. This creates wealth-building opportunities for frontline workers in a grocery chain, for example. There are many examples in the U.K. For example, Waitrose is a company run by John Lewis Partnership. It is a good example of how employee ownership trusts can create a shared equity model where frontline workers get to participate in the proceeds of the company. I think it is similar to a model that could be applied to farms in this country, although I do not know of any workup of the details on that at this point. I thank the member for bringing this up. I think it is an important consideration.”

In response to a question from Steeve Lavoie

“The Conservatives wasted 25 hours stalling this bill. Now they claim they need more time to study it, even though we followed the schedule they asked for.”

“Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I felt sort of embarrassed for the Conservatives because they were on camera in public meetings, embarrassing themselves as they were filibustering a bill and wasting parliamentary resources. They then stood up in this House and claimed they needed more time for debate as those bills had not been studied. Again, the programming motion was from the Conservatives. We agreed to the time frame and the process of how we were going to study Bill C-30, and then they wasted 25 hours of time to block Bill C-30 in times—”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“The Conservatives proposed the plan for studying this bill in committee. Everyone agreed on how many hours to spend and which witnesses would speak. We followed that exact plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, I definitely sympathize with the member’s predicament. The motion that was used to program our time at the finance committee came from the Conservatives. We agreed to a programming motion. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Ryan Turnbull: No, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is the truth, which is that the motion that we agreed to to program our time at the finance committee to study Bill C-30 was proposed by the Conservatives. The committee came to consensus on how many hours it was going to spend on how much witness testimony, what ministers were going to come. That is exactly what we followed through with.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 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 Mel Arnold

“Our economic problems are caused by global events, not this government. Other countries are facing the exact same troubles. We are helping Canadians afford life and responsibly investing in our economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member opposite lives exactly or what world he is living in, but to say that global shocks to the Canadian economy that put challenges on Canadian families are the government’s fault is just lunacy, since he asked me. I think Canadians out there know the reality is that the world is going through a number of global shocks. Every single country that I have talked to at the OECD is going through exactly the same things. Our government is stepping up to help Canadians, to meet them where they are at, to offer affordability measures and supports while we boost the Canadian economy with new investment within our fiscal capacity, which is the responsible thing to do.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 82 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “what world he is living in”.

  See full analysis →