For me, I keep coming back to the fact that this is so inconsistent with what Conservatives have been saying in the House of Commons every single day, ad nauseam. We hear them say that the government should be spending less. They're essentially proposing to forgo tax revenue at a scale that would significantly and negatively impact the government's ability to spend in other areas. I think what we're proposing is a very balanced approach. I think Canadians knew what they were voting for in our platform. Again, I think the Conservatives may have forgotten that they did not form government and that they actually lost the last election. Maybe they have forgotten that. We'll remind them every day as we govern.
For me, it's so hard to understand how they square this with the things they say on a daily basis in the House of Commons. It's just really inconsistent with what we see here in this place. I will be using this as an example in the House of Commons in every speech I give and in every response in question period that I have the opportunity to deliver in the future: While the Conservatives are saying that we need to decrease government spending and essentially be more fiscally responsible, they're at the same time in committee asking us to forgo tens of billions of dollars' worth of revenue that can be invested into the economy.
Our government, in its new capital budgeting framework and our new budget cycle, is taking a really responsible approach. We're going to bring down government operating expenses, and we're going to increase a focus on capital formation in the economy. To me, we have the fiscal space to do that within the AAA credit rating we enjoy in this country.
We had recent comments from the head of the International Monetary Fund, I believe just last weekend. I think the minister read that out in question period recently. These statements basically indicate that the IMF agrees with both the changes to the capital budgeting framework and the budget cycle, and also has said that our approach, which is to diversify trade, invest in infrastructure, and invest in special projects in housing, infrastructure, energy, etc., will help boost productivity.
I think the counterbalance to this is to say, well, we're reasonably offering a tax cut to Canadians, which they voted for in the last election, and simultaneously we're balancing that. We understand that there is a fiscal hit to that forgone revenue. When we stimulate the economy and focus on capital formation, we'll have additional revenues come in that counterbalance those tax measures. That's why it's a balanced approach. We know right now that if we don't pivot and don't adapt to the changing environment that the world is in due to what has traditionally and historically been our most trusted trade partner, we run the risk of a declining GDP. We run the risk of a lack of opportunities for our workers and Canadian citizens, and we'll see a diminished economy. We're interested in growing the economy, and I think we're balancing that with a tax cut.
What I find so strange is that on the one hand, the Conservatives say they want us to essentially decrease spending. On the other hand, they're proposing to essentially take a fiscal hit that would be in the tens of billions of dollars to the fiscal framework.
I really think this would compromise the stability of Canada's economy. It would compromise our ability to invest in a growing economy, because we would have less fiscal room within our balanced approach to actually work with.
That concerns me. I find it very surprising. I won't say “despicable”, even though I know that's a word that's been used recently in the House of Commons. Actually, it was said outside of the House of Commons by the Leader of the Opposition when referring to our RCMP. It is really a shame that he would say such a thing.
I will just say that I find it hard to believe that the Conservatives are the ones proposing this, even though I get that it was in their platform. I kind of understand that we shouldn't be that shocked, perhaps, because it was in their platform.
Unfortunately, you lost the election. I'm sure you can acknowledge that at this point, given that you're still sitting in the opposition benches after 10 years. I'm not meaning to rub that in, in any way. I just think it's important for us to recognize who is actually in the driver's seat governing the country, which is us. Unfortunately for you, Canadians sided with our tax measures and our balanced approach. That's what we're implementing.
I go back to the ways and means motion that we passed in the House of Commons, which was extremely clear in terms of the summary and the recommendation about the tax cut that we voted on. I think this is a fundamental change to what we were elected to deliver on. I think it exceeds the scope. I know I asked the question already, and it's been determined that this was actually in scope, but because of the fiscal hit that this would have and the fact that it exceeds the scope, I really can't understand how we can support this. We certainly can't.
I know my other colleagues have asked questions and spoken to this. I agree with their sentiments entirely. It's strange to see this coming from the Conservatives. I don't know what they would cut. If they were governing this country and they offered this tax break, they would cut indiscriminately like they've done in the past, which we saw under Stephen Harper. We saw it under other Conservative governments, when there was this cut to Veterans Affairs offices; there were cuts to defence spending and cuts to everything. It just seemed like it was a really significant, deep effort to cut, which does remind us of Liz Truss. I think my colleague mentioned Liz Truss. I have nothing against her personally, but certainly the U.K. economy did tank shortly after she got into power. I think she was the shortest-serving prime minister in U.K. history, if I'm not mistaken. I think the Conservatives are adopting pages from her approach, which will, it seems to me, compromise the stability of our economy and hinder the government's ability to make other investments.
Those are my concerns with this particular amendment. I thought I would get some more of those on the record. I'm sure my other colleagues will have some more thoughts to contribute to the debate.
Thanks.