OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 100 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, June 10, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 10, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 100 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 100 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 100 (Version officielle) 147 100 10 06 2014 2014/06/10 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Public Sector Integrity Commissioner The Speaker : I have the honour, pursuant to

section 38 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, to lay upon the table the report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014. [ Translation ] This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

[ English ] Export Development Canada The Speaker : I have the honour to lay upon the table the Auditor General's report on the design and implementation of Export Development Canada's environmental review directive and other environmental review processes. Pursuant to Standing 108(3)( g ), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 29 petitions.

Committees of the House Liaison Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two reports today. Pursuant to Standing Order 107(3), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Liaison Committee, entitled “Committee Activities and Expenditures, April 1, 2013 - March 31, 2014”. This report highlights the work and accomplishments of each committee and includes as well a detailed budget that funds the activities of the committee members. In addition, this is the final report for 2013-14 fiscal year. The information has been included to facilitate comparisons between fiscal years.

Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence of the 15th report later today.

[ Translation ] Auditor General Act Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) Bill C-612. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-612,

An Act to amend the Auditor General Act and the Federal Sustainable Development Act (port authorities) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for Québec for seconding this bill. I will keep my speech short. Currently, neither the Auditor General nor the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development oversees the country's 18 port authorities. My bill simply aims to correct that situation because although port authorities function independently, they manage crown property, which is therefore public property. That is the purpose of this bill.

Again, I would like to thank the hon. member for Québec for seconding this bill, and I would ask that all of my colleagues examine it very closely in the coming months. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ English ] Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier today, be concurred in. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Emergency Protection Order Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present the fourth petition from my constituents regarding the amended recovery strategy for the greater sage grouse in Canada. The petitioners are calling on the government to rescind this strategy.

Impaired Driving Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by citizens of Canada who acknowledge that current impaired driving laws are too lenient. The petitioners are calling on the government for tougher laws and implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. The petitioners are also calling on the government to change the Criminal Code of Canada to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Agriculture Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by nearly 60 residents from across Ontario who call on the government to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18 , the agricultural growth act. The proposed change would further restrict farmers' rights and add to farmers' costs. The group calls on Parliament to create legislation that will maintain the rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.

Impaired Driving Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions from citizens of Canada pointing out that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. The petitioners want to see tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Rail Transportation Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that there has been a temporary reprieve for VIA Rail through the Maritimes, I am still receiving petitions saying that service cuts in northern New Brunswick and the Maritimes would pose a real hardship on the residents there, that they would have a serious and detrimental effect on the economy, and that rail is the most environmentally friendly and economical means of transportation. The petitioners are seeking investments in rail infrastructure to allow VIA Rail to continue.

Agriculture Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning. The first one calls on Parliament to refrain from making any changes to the Seeds Act or the Plant Breeders' Rights Act.

(1010) Abortion Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition says that,

whereas Canada is the only nation in the western world, in the company of China and North Korea, without any laws restricting abortion; therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.

Pensions Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from residents of Winnipeg North who believe that people should be able to continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65, and they ask that the government not in any way diminish the importance and the value of Canada's three major seniors' programs: our old age security, our guaranteed income supplement, and the Canada pension plan. It is with pleasure that I bring this to the attention of the Prime Minister and the government of the day.

Agriculture Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a couple of petitions. The first one is from constituents asking the government to refrain from making changes to the Seeds Act and the Plant Breeders' Rights Act through Bill C-18 ,

an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food.

Impaired Driving Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the two other petitions have to do with the leniency of Canada's impaired driving laws; and in the interests of public safety, the petitioners are asking that the government seek tougher laws and the implementation of new mandatory minimum sentencing for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Canada Post Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition that was collected in Prince Edward Island, so it is signed largely by Prince Edward Islanders but also by visitors to our fair province. These are Canadians who are concerned about the cuts to Canada Post. They are concerned about the job losses associated with these cuts, the impact they will have on seniors and the disabled, and the lack of consultation that led to the cuts. They call on the government to reverse the cuts to services announced by Canada Post and look instead for ways to innovate in areas such as postal banking.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 477 and 481. [ Text ]

Question No. 477--

Mr. Dan Harris :

With regard to ex gratia payments by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, based on Order in Council 2012-0861 issued in June 2013 which provides the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) with the authority to approve ex gratia payments of up to $250,000 in his adjudication of grievances: what is the number of instances where the CDS used that authority, broken down by (

i) total number, (ii) rank of grievor, (iii) type of grievance, (iv) amount paid?

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff did not exercise his authority to approve ex gratia payments of up to $250,000 in his adjudication of grievances based on Order in Council 2012-0861, issued in June 2013.

Question No. 481--

Mr. Philip Toone :

With regard to the streamlining and consolidation of offices and jobs in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (including the Canadian Coast Guard): (

a) what offices, branches and service centres have been restructured since 2006, (

i) how many jobs have been affected, (ii) among these jobs, how many have been reallocated elsewhere in the Department, (iii) to what programs or sub-programs and to what locations have these jobs been reallocated; (

b) what departmental programs have been restructured in terms of jobs since 2006, (

i) what programs or sub-programs have been affected, (ii) among these jobs, how many have been reallocated elsewhere in the Department, (iii) to what programs or sub-programs have these jobs been reallocated; and (

c) how many science-related jobs have been affected since 2006?

Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including the Canadian Coast Guard, does not track information related to the streamlining and consolidation of offices and jobs.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 470, 473, 474, 475, 476, 478, 479, 480, and 482 could be made orders for return, the returns would be tabled immediately. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 470--

Mr. Scott Simms :

With regard to government records on the Manolis L. since its construction in 1980, what are the details of documents, memos, correspondence, reports, or any other forms of information that exist, broken down by (

i) department, (ii) date, (iii) file or reference numbers, (iv) type of record, (vi) purpose, (vii) title, (viii)

summary, (ix) contents, (

x) availability?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 473--

Mr. Peter Stoffer :

With regard to disabled RCMP veterans who are trying to end the reduction of long-term disability benefits by the amount of their Veterans Affairs Canada disability pension: (

a) how many Members of Parliament (MP) wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to the issue identified above for each of the years from 2010 to 2014; (

b) how many Conservative MPs wrote to the Minister with respect to the above issue for each of the years from 2010 to 2014; (

c) what was the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies on the disabled RCMP members' class action lawsuit, including outside legal counsel; and (

d) what is the estimated cost for settling the RCMP class action lawsuit?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 474--

Mr. Peter Stoffer :

With regard to disabled Canadian Forces veterans who are trying to obtain fair compensation with settlements under the New Veterans Charter (NVC): (

a) how many Members of Parliament wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs with respect to fair compensation for injured veterans under the NVC, for each of the years from 2006 to 2014 inclusive; (

b) what is the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies, excluding the Department of Justice, from October 2013 to the present, on the Equitas Society class action lawsuit, that is, the defence against disabled Canadian Forces veterans trying to obtain fair compensation with settlements under the NVC; (

c) what is the total amount of money spent by the government to hire outside legal counsel from October 2013 to the present on the Equitas Society class action lawsuit; and (

d) what is the total amount of money spent by all government departments and agencies on the Equitas Society class action lawsuit from October 2012 to the present, including all costs associated with the work of Department of Justice?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 475--

Mr. Peter Stoffer :

With regard to homeless veterans: (

a) what programs from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) are in place to assist homeless veterans; (

b) what programs are in place by other government departments, if applicable, to assist homeless veterans; (

c) what organizations are working in partnership with VAC to provide support to homeless veterans, broken down by province; (

d) what is the annual breakdown of contributions issued to organizations working in partnership with VAC on veterans homelessness from 2009 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by province; (

e) how much did VAC spend on veterans homelessness annually from 2009 to 2013 inclusively; (

f) what are the details of VAC's evaluation of the effectiveness of their financial contribution and program delivery for the partnership defined in ( c ); (

g) is VAC considering a plan for a national coordinated effort to support homeless veterans and, if so, what are the details; (

h) how many homeless veterans have been identified annually by VAC, from 2009 to 2013 inclusively; (

i) how many homeless veterans have been identified by organizations working in partnership with VAC annually from 2009 to 2013 inclusively, broken down by province; (

j) how many homeless veterans identified in (

h) and (

i) are now in receipt of departmental benefits or services; (

k) what is the breakdown of the type of departmental benefits or services the homeless veterans received from 2009 to 2013; (

l) what are the planned expenditures by VAC for homeless veterans for the next five years; and (

m) what are the planned expenditures by VAC for organizations working in partnership with VAC to provide support to homeless veterans?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 476--

Mr. Rodger Cuzner :

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province of Alberta, providing for each (

i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (

v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file-number of the press release?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 478--

Mr. Jack Harris :

With regard to the Canadian Forces' Cadet Program, for the years 2008 to 2014, broken down by region: (

a) what is the overall budget allotment per year for the program; (

b) what is the full breakdown of the costs of the program, broken down by cadets and officers, including but not limited to, information on capital expenditures, administration and support, uniforms and equipment, and travel; (

c) what is the full breakdown of the costs of staffing the program, including the breakdown of costs by intermediary staff, support staff, and military staff; (

d) how much of the program's budget is spent per cadet and what is the amount directly delivered to the local squadrons and corps, excluding uniforms and salaries for squadron and corps staff; and (

e) how much of the program's budget is spent on administration, broken down by the following rank level and category, (

i) part-time primary Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS) and Cadet Instructors Cadre (CIC) reservists, (ii) full-time primary COATS and CIC reservists, (iii) civilian employees?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 479--

Mr. Philip Toone :

With regard to government funding allocated to the constituency of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine: (

a) what is the total amount of funding allocated from fiscal year 1993-1994 to fiscal year 2001-2002, broken down by year, department or agency, initiative, and amount; and (

b) if any of the amounts requested in (

a) are not available, why not?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 480--

Mr. Philip Toone :

With regard to government funding allocated to the constituency of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia: (

a) what is the total amount of funding allocated from fiscal year 1993-1994 to the present date, broken down by year, department or agency, initiative, and amount; and (

b) if any of the amounts requested in (

a) are not available, why not?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 482--

Ms. Judy Foote :

With regard to the accounts of the former Canadian International Development Agency for 2012-2013, compared to those of 2011-2012: (

a) what was the total amount of increased funding for multilateral programs; (

b) what sectors within the multilateral programs have seen an increase in funding; (

c) what sectors within the bilateral programs have seen a decrease in funding; (

d) was multilateral spending increased for maternal, newborn and child health; (

e) has funding for education decreased or increased, and for which Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Assistance Committee codes; (

f) why was there an unused balance of the Crisis Pool Quick Release mechanism; and (

g) can the balance of a certain mechanism’s unused funds be reallocated to different programs?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, finally, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Business of Supply [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Income Splitting Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) Motion moved: That, in the opinion of the House, the drastic increase in income inequality under recent Liberal and Conservative governments harms Canadian society; and that the House express its opposition to the Conservative income splitting proposal which will make this problem worse and provide no benefit to 86% of Canadians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Before we begin, since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Translation ] Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues. Clearly, this issue is of particular importance to the NDP. It is a question of the inequality created by the Conservatives, and the Liberals as well.

Today we will be dealing specifically with the plan the Conservatives presented to Canadians during the 2011 election campaign. We will talk about the concerns it raises because it is quite possible, under the current circumstances, that this plan will be implemented. We will explain exactly what the plan entails and why it is totally wrong for Canadians. (1015) [ English ] Let me start with the basics of what the Conservatives have proposed, and this goes back to a 2011 campaign promise.

I suppose in the midst of a campaign, politicians from time to time get excited or in some cases desperate to gain power, as the Prime Minister was. In that desperation and excitement they make promises that are very bad promises with respect to a policy that they would actually want to invoke one day. That is exactly what this is. This is a $5-billion income-splitting scheme that the Conservatives have proposed that would not help upwards of 85% of Canadians. Let us pause for a moment. It is a $5-billion scheme that 85% of Canadians would see no benefit whatsoever from.

That fact is actually increasing with recent reports. We have one report out today from the Broadbent Institute, called “The Big Split”, that says the number of Canadians who will miss out on this particular program might be quite a bit higher. It is not just from progressive think tanks; it is also from groups like C.D. Howe. It is also from very conservative economists across the country who have come out and said that the proposal as offered by the Conservatives is one that would increase income inequality in this country.

It would further push the tax burden onto the middle- and working-class Canadians and away from those who are earning the most. We know that over the last 30 to 35 years income inequality has increased dramatically in Canada. Some 90% or more of that was experienced under Liberal regimes, which is, I suppose, telling of the traditional Liberal way of campaigning, which is to campaign to the left but govern to the right. A massive amount of inequality went on under the Liberals but the Conservatives picked up that bad tradition and have continued it. We see income inequality increasing.

A recent Parliamentary Budget Office report showed that of the recent tax breaks that came, those people in the 20% top-earning tax bracket took home $11 billion in benefits, fully 36% of all that was offered. The bottom 20%, those we would think they would be most interested in helping out, took home a little less than $2 billion of what was offered, so less than 6%. The top 20% get more than one-third of the benefit, and the bottom 20% get around 6% of the benefit. That is the Conservative ideology. We understand that.

We disagree with it fundamentally as New Democrats, and we see increasing disagreement about the Conservative ideology and plans because income inequality hurts the economy broadly. It does not just hurt those who are most impacted and affected. We have also seen a second tax shift that has gone on and it is not just increasing the burden to the middle and lower incomes in Canada. We have also seen a tax shift away from corporations under the Conservatives.

Just since the Conservatives' taking power, the corporate tax burden has dropped by almost $4.5 billion while personal income tax has increased by $15 billion. When they ask who is paying for all the services that Canadians rely upon, such as the police and the fire and the health and education services, all of those things, and they wonder who is picking up the tab, they see that under a Conservative world view they do not believe corporations should have any

part in that. The Conservatives do not think that corporations derive any benefit, I suppose, so why should they pay for it? We know that good transportation systems, good urban transit, good health care, and good education support not just those who are directly implicated but help the entire economy more broadly, because healthy and smart workers make for a profitable and prosperous economy. However, the Conservative world view says that corporations should not have to pay for any of that, that individuals should pay more and more, and we see that in the numbers.

The Conservatives are entitled to their own opinion on this issue, but they are not entitled to their own facts. The facts speak clearly and loudly that there have been increasing shifts in the burden of taxes away from the rich to the middle class and lower incomes and away from corporations to the individual. Those two shifts have been very destructive to millions of Canadian families and, I would argue, have hindered the Canadian economy writ large.

We wish that the Conservatives would at least take the Hippocratic oath and just promise to please do no harm, because they have made things bad and they now propose to make things worse. They somehow believe that the answer to income inequality is to have more income inequality. The suggestion from the current finance minister is that this type of income-splitting scheme, which is going to cost the treasury upward of $5 billion and only benefit less than 15% of Canadians, and will only benefit the 15% of Canadians who least need the help, is a good plan for Canada. I will give the Conservatives credit for this.

They have somehow managed to unify right- and left-thinking economists in this country. This is a rare feat. This is kind of hard to do, because if we put three economists in a room, we end up with five opinions, but on income splitting the Conservatives have managed to bring all the economists to one side, whether they are progressive or more conservative thinkers. As the C.D. Howe Institute said, this policy does more harm than good. It has also garnered a certain amount of attention from Canada's leading papers. Let me read a couple of quotes.

The first one is in the Ottawa Citizen , which states: Income splitting is a tax cut for the rich.... There are many ways in which Canada could spend [this money].... We could come up with tax policies to help low and middle-income citizens. We could cut taxes across the board, for all taxpayers, instead of using the tax system to make value judgments about which kinds of families should get tax breaks. Let us talk about which kinds of families those are. Who would benefit is a relatively short list that one can quickly and easily define. As the Broadbent Institute calls it, it is the Mad Men family.

It takes us back to the 1950s, maybe the 1960s, where there was one income earner who was earning quite a bit of money and the spouse earning very little. That is who would benefit from this. Who would not benefit is a long list, and we should go through it. There will probably be a bunch of Conservative ads on this, if history is any teacher, and a lot of Canadians might think that they can see themselves benefiting, maybe it applies to them and will help out their families. This would not help people whose kids are over 18. It would not help people who do not have kids. Imagine that.

It would not help people who are not married and with kids under 18. It would not help people who are married with kids under 18, but are in the same income bracket. All of the people I just listed would get no benefit from this scheme whatsoever. When we start to whittle it down to find out who it would actually benefit, more and more we see that it would benefit people who do not actually need it. (1020) [ Translation ] This is not just a question of economics; it is a question of morality. After years of deficits, we will finally have a surplus of approximately $5 billion to $6 billion.

Now the question is: how does the government want to use this money to help Canadians? The Conservatives made a promise during the 2011 election campaign. However, all of the facts are contrary to what the Conservatives claim their intentions are. The new Minister of Finance is saying it is an excellent idea. [ English ] There is something in government that we should all adhere to that talks about evidence-based decision-making, but with Conservatives, more and more there is decision-based evidence-making.

What they do is make a decision based on their ideology or some hope in the midst of an election to gain a few more votes and pull the wool over Canadians' eyes, and then they reverse themselves and try to find some evidence to support that ideology, even if it does not exist.

I understand that the Conservatives are unlikely to listen to the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen or perhaps The Globe and Mail that says income splitting needs to be reconsidered or abandoned in favour of a better use of surpluses, that if the government wants to cut taxes, this is not the way to do it, or that the Tory proposal was ill-considered from the start. Maybe they would listen to the C.D.

Howe Institute, as they are strong supporters of it, who said: The splitting proposal would significantly raise marginal effective tax rates for most lower-earning spouses, thus imposing barriers for working or returning to work; this would make married women more vulnerable by reducing their work experience. And if the objective is to provide support to families in raising children, it would distribute most benefits where they are least likely to be needed. The C.D. Howe Institute said that if this is the target for the Conservatives, if this is who they are trying to help, then this policy will not help.

There is something in the midst of that quotation that is important, another inequality that would be perpetrated by the Conservatives, that is: ...thus imposing barriers for working or returning to work; this would make married women more vulnerable by reducing their work experience. This would put further pressure on women to not enter or re-enter the workforce.

Why would the Conservatives want to do that when all we hear from economists, the banks through the progressive side, from the manufacturers association, from basically every key group in the Canadian economy, is that we need more women in the workforce, we need women who have left the workforce to come back in and to have that choice? The Conservatives knowingly would invoke a policy that would resist that and would say no to that. We know that women on average earn 16% less than men in Canada. That is a deplorable fact, but that fact should have some bearing on the way the Conservatives design tax policy.

If women are earning a significant amount less than their male counterparts on average and they are married and may even possibly benefit and fall into that rare 14% of this category, the pressure would be on them to stay home because they are earning less on average. The Conservatives know this. They may have a Leave it to Beaver kind of world view, a throwback to Ward and June Cleaver and that all things will be good, and that is how the world ought to be oriented. I know there are some Conservatives who believe that. This is 2014.

This is an idea that most right-thinking people, most progressive people, have long since left behind. The Conservatives say that maybe the only place for a woman is in the home or something. We believe a woman's place is in the House of Commons. This policy explicitly supports the Conservative world view, which we think is wrong. They are trying to do some social engineering here, through the tax code, and we know that the Conservatives love their boutique tax credits. They like to tell Canadians how to think and shop and what programs to put their kids into and little incentives here.

They love to put their hand in the market and put their hand on the scale. They like some free market but not all free market. They like to intervene on mortgage rates and all sorts of things and interfere. I often imagine what it would be like if a New Democrat finance minister phoned up the banks and asked them to change their mortgage rates. Let me quote my departed friend because I think the voice of Mr. Flaherty, God rest his soul, is important in this debate. Before he left the finance minister's office Mr.

Flaherty had some strong opinions about this particular policy we are talking about today, about income splitting. If nothing else, if none of the facts give any of my Conservative colleagues pause or none of the opinions held by the leading economists in this country about how bad this policy is, maybe the words of Mr. Flaherty might. He said: It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot. And other parts of the Canadian population...not at all. What he was talking about is that 86% number, the fact that this policy is so directed at so few as to not be worth the $5-billion price tag.

I know the Conservatives feel like they somehow are entitled to their position in government and that the next election, within a year, cannot come too soon. We see this with governments. Governments age very badly, the current government being a great example. The arrogance and entitlement seems to be something that almost inherently is affected in this place.

The fact that the Conservatives would go into that election saying that they are going to wed themselves to this particular policy, as bad as it is, as unequal as it is, as ineffective as it is at helping Canadians but simply out of hubris and pride, shows just how far they have fallen away from their roots of responsible and accountable government.

(1025) If the government has some sort of assessment of what this program would do for Canadians, that is much more than the 14% or 15% of Canadian households that would benefit by the income-splitting scheme or that it has not been skewed to the most wealthy of Canadians, then I look forward to the debate today. I know my colleagues, the New Democrats, look forward to hearing the evidence as to why this is such a great scheme and why spending $5 billion at the federal and provincial levels is a great idea. It is remarkable that so many Canadians would be excluded.

When Conservatives are on the doorsteps in the next election telling people that they have a plan for them, if they are talking to a person who is not married, then I guess they will have to move on to the next door. If they come to a door where the household has children older than 18 who have moved on, then they have to move on to the next doorstep. If at the next door there is a single parent, and I was raised singly by my mom, that parent will not benefit from this.

I would think that if we were to spend this kind of money to try to target and help families, which is what the Conservatives are claiming to do with this policy, then we would try to help those families that are struggling to make ends meet. We would try to help those families that, for more than 30 years, have suffered through growing inequality and that, under the Conservatives, have seen so much less of the benefits. I have listed the statistics before, but I will do it again. Out of the Conservative tax breaks, the bottom 20% got around 6% of the benefit, and the top 20% got 36% of the benefit.

Maybe that is another golf membership or jacuzzi in the backyard for some, but for those families struggling to pay the bills, it is offensive that the Conservative government keeps ignoring the basic needs of families trying to get their kids to school and offer their children better hope. For the first time in many generations in our country, all the evidence is pointing to the generation following having a lower quality of life than what we are experiencing right now. If there is any wish parents have for their children, it is that they will have equal or better opportunities than the parent did.

However, the opportunity gap grows with the income gap. The gap in opportunity that is afforded to middle-class and working-class Canadians and their children is growing. The gap in accessing better education and training, to that first job, to get that first business loan to start that new enterprise, is growing. As was once said by an American politician, it becomes a society of the haves and the have mores. Under this policy, that is something the government is going to promote.

The government will say that those who already have great resources, who have benefited greatly by living in this society and prospering through their own hard work or through some endowment are going to get more under the Conservatives because they feel they deserve more for just being who they are. However, those in the middle and lower incomes will get less. They will access less and their services will be cut because we know what the Conservative government has been doing. It is lowering expectations, lowering services, reducing health transfers and gutting environmental policies.

It is doing all of this in some nefarious scheme to say to Canadians that they should not expect much from government, particularly if one is so unlucky to have been born into the middle or lower classes. One of the concerns that economists are expressing to us is what they call a “stratification” of the economy. Canada, for many generations, has enjoyed the possibility that, regardless of where or at what income level one was born, there was a possibility that one could improve one's lot through hard work and dedication. To take that hope away from people is more than discouraging; it is despicable.

This is something that no government should promote. However, we hear it time and again from across the political spectrum, from economists to the C.D. Howe Institute to the Broadbent Institute to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives to Conservative economists and left-wing economists. They agree that this program, this $5 billion income-splitting scheme will offer benefit to very few people. The New Democrats oppose this proposal because it disproportionately helps those who do not need it and hurts those who need a hand.

As New Democrats, there is nothing more fundamental for us, it goes to our DNA, we believe the role of government is the thing that we do when we come together to accomplish that which we cannot accomplish alone.

(1030) We look to help our neighbours. We look to care for our neighbour's children, not cast them aside. We do not invoke policies based on pure ideology to gain a couple of points in an election poll, rather than design government as it should be, based on sound evidence. A progressive government, in perhaps a year or even a little less, will have the opportunity to offer Canadians just that.

(1035) Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member opposite. I am not surprised that the NDP will vote against yet another way to give Canadians some of their money back. What I would like the member to try to understand, if possible, is that doctors do not make a diagnosis based on one test or by looking at one cell. It is based on the collective assessment of all the tests.

What I mean by this is that this is just one additional way the Conservative government can give Canadians more of their money back. We have brought in tax reductions for farmers, families, students, businesses and seniors. In fact, we have brought in 160 different tax reduction policies. This is yet one. The NDP voted against all the other 160 reductions. Why would it vote against yet another reason to give Canadians back more of their hard earned tax dollars? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Conservative cabinet, the largest one in Canadian history. Did he know that?

For the penny pinching Conservatives, they found space for just about everybody in the Conservative caucus in the cabinet and are handing out this little perks and baubles, but not when it comes to Canadians and the services that they want. My friend omitted something from his question when he talked about giving Canadians money back through this policy. He did not say which Canadians, did he? He did not say that only 14% of Canadians would benefit from this policy and that it would be skewed toward the wealthiest Canadians. He did not say that. He just said “Canadians” broadly.

This is how the Conservatives approach these questions. They hope Canadians are not paying any attention. They hope Canadians will somehow see themselves in a program for which they do not qualify. That is a total of 86% of people who are listening to this broadcast, 86% of people who are going to vote in the next election. They are smarter than that. We have confidence in the intelligence of Canadians to see through this charade, that they would not benefit. This is for the haves, not everybody else, and my friend across the way absolutely knows it. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, in reading the motion, one cannot help but think why the NDP has chosen to bring a motion that would incorporate the Liberals, as if the NDP is on a high horse. I would suggest that it needs to get off that high horse. I come from Manitoba, where there has been an NDP administration for a decade now. Income inequality has continued to grow under the New Democratic government in Manitoba. When the member talks about giving corporate tax breaks, I would suggest that it is likely that the Manitoba NDP has given more corporate tax breaks than any other provincial government.

I would like to quote the Premier of Manitoba. He said, “The general Corporation Income Tax rate will drop to 12%...This tax was 17% when we took office and our reductions since then are the first in half a century.” He is glowing about the number of corporate tax breaks. This is from an NDP government. Does the federal NDP and the Leader of the Opposition still endorse the NDP government in Manitoba to the degree that he has stated? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I often wonder what my friend is doing here because he spends most of his time talking about the Manitoba legislature.

I know he was there for a number of years. He misses it and that is fair enough. We all miss things that we used to love and had a modicum of success in, but were rejected overwhelmingly. So be it. The Liberals hand out $100 billion in corporate taxes at the federal level, in the federal House, which is what we are talking about— Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : The NDP doing that in a federal— Mr. Nathan Cullen : Be quiet. Mr. Speaker, they hand out $100 billion at the— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please.

I can tell the subject today is of great interest to the hon. members who are in the House today. However, it is important that all hon. members have the chance to hear the commentary. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will finish up and then we will go to the next question. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, here is what happens. When the Manitoba NDP, if he wants to talk provincial politics, reduces the small business income tax rate to zero, it is to stimulate small businesses— An hon. member: To what?

(1040) Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, it is zero. It is to help create jobs, which they do. When the federal Liberals, under Paul Martin, handed out $100 billion of income tax breaks to the largest and most profitable corporations, it came without any strings attached. As Mr. Flaherty said to corporate Canada, which is sitting on $500 billion of what economists call “dead money”, that money went out the door without the jobs being created. We see that in the evidence in the 7% unemployment rate and a youth unemployment rate that is still stuck at recession levels.

If my friend wants to talk facts, absolutely, let us talk about them. Is he supporting this scheme? That would be an even more curious question for the Liberals to answer today. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for leading off this very important, indeed historic, debate, putting the issue of income splitting in the broader context of the growing inequality in our country. I would like to ask my colleague for his comments on a quote from the late finance minister, our friend, Mr. Flaherty. On February 12, he was quoted in The Globe and Mail .

He said: You know, it’s an interesting idea. I’m just one voice. It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot and other parts of the Canadian population virtually not at all. And I’d like to think I’m analytical as finance minister, so when we discuss it eventually in cabinet and caucus I will present my analysis to my colleagues. Why does my colleague expect the former finance minister would have indicated that this policy would not assist some part of the population at all and, as an analysis, was not well founded? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr.

Speaker, the quote is quite insightful because what we know is the finance department has done a study on income splitting and has come to some conclusions. We have asked the new Minister of Finance several times for a copy of that taxpayer funded report, but he will not offer it. Mr. Flaherty referenced it many times, and it was the source of his consternation and concern about the inequality of the scheme.

One would think the Conservatives would at least have something here today that would say this was in fact a much more equal program that would help a certain number of Canadian families, that they thought it was a great program and worth the $5 billion. I am doubtful, but hope springs eternal in this place. One always imagines that the Conservatives might use evidence one day to justify their tax policies. Maybe that day is today. Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I was interested in hearing how gloomy things were back in the 1960s and 1970s when my colleague was growing up and how bad the family structure was back then. However, he spent most of his time pointing out all of the Canadians who would not benefit from this tax proposal. I wonder if my colleague would point out how many Canadians did not benefit from the investment of taxpayer dollars into the satellite offices that my colleague and his friends set up.

How many Canadians did not benefit from those mailings that went out in franked envelopes paid for by the taxpayers, which had NDP partisan material inserted in them? It is important to realize that those tax dollars could have easily helped to reduce the tax burden on Canadians across Canada, including those who are trying to raise children under 18, who this policy would definitely benefit. It would help them with clothing allowances, education, sports and the things that all of us in the House think are important for young families to give to their children.

Could he point out the big savings that would have occurred if the members of the NDP would not have spent those millions of dollars on those partisan activities? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : I appreciate the member for Kitchener—Conestoga's reference to a comparison on this point. As has been raised on other occasions, especially during questions and comments, we do try to keep the questions relevant to the matter that is before the House. I am not so sure that area is relevant to this question, but I will certainly let the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley field the question if he so wishes. Mr.

Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives spent $170 million on economic action plan ads. What a fantastic waste of taxpayer money. I am a bit disappointed in my friend. Usually when Conservatives run out of any arguments or evidence, they quickly grab on to some fictitious carbon tax. I am disappointed that this is not the talking point anymore because that was always fun to refute and to ask them why they were so angry at the Alberta government, or the B.C. government for that matter, for its policies.

To his point about helping Canadians, that is the entire point of this day, talking about how few Canadians would benefit from this $5 billion scheme that the Conservatives have proposed. If my friend actually had contrary evidence, if he had a list of Canadians who would benefit, that it was much more than the 14% of predominantly wealthy Canadians who would get this and that it was some other group of Canadians, then so be it. However, he does not present facts. The Conservatives do not present facts; they present the ad hominem attacks. That is fine. That is their way.

We will go to Canadians with evidence, facts and numbers that are supported across the political spectrum. We feel confident with our position on this. The Conservatives use personal attacks showing their lack of confidence in their policy.

(1045) Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would first like to clarify that it is my absolute pleasure to split my time with the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women . I am pleased to respond to the extremely misguided motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley in regard to income equality. In his earlier comments, it seemed that he was putting women in the kitchen. I am proud to say that I am a woman. I am a member of the House of Commons. I am a chartered accountant, and I am a mother. I am proud of all of these roles.

Apparently, the hon. member is not comfortable with that kind of diversity in our caucuses. Today I would like to reassure the hon. member that our government's top priority remains focused on creating jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for future generations, for our children. At the same time, we are ensuring that all Canadians have the opportunity to share in the benefits of a strong economy. That is progressive. I would like to highlight what our government's economic action plan has done to reduce taxes for Canadian families like members' families and mine, since taking office in 2006.

I am not surprised that the NDP is against a tax cut to put money in the pockets of Canadians. Everyone in the House is well aware of that party's record for opposing tax relief for Canadians. This attitude is precisely why the NDP, in all of its socialist wisdom, knows how to spend money better than those who earn it. We disagree. I would like to talk about our government's strong record of tax relief for Canadians, both low income and middle income. Since we have formed government, Canadians have benefited from significant broad-based tax cuts.

These tax reductions have given individuals and families more flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. The average Canadian family of four will pay close to $3,400 less in taxes, this year and every year to come. These significant savings come from a variety of sources, such as a reduction in the GST rate to 5% from 7%, a tax cut that the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted is progressive and that significantly helps lower-income families. Of course, the opposition voted against this significant relief for low-income Canadians.

We also increased the amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal tax, a measure that has helped low and middle-income Canadians across the spectrum. Again, it was opposed. We took 380,000 Canadian seniors off the tax roll completely because they no longer have to pay federal taxes. I am sorry to say that, at least in my province, they still pay significant provincial tax. Our government introduced the working income tax benefit to help low-income Canadians over the welfare wall. Yet again, this was opposed by the opposition.

We have also introduced the universal child care benefit, which is helping young families across the spectrum. Again, it was opposed, with the Liberals famously saying that all it would do is to allow families to buy more beer and popcorn. That is not what families do in my riding. They invest in their children and their children's future. It boggles the mind just how ideologically opposed the opposition is to allowing Canadian families to have more money and to make the decisions that are right for them. However, that is just the beginning.

Our Conservative government has also introduced numerous targeted tax reduction measures. For example, we have helped families by introducing the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit. We have introduced the registered disability savings plan to help individuals with severe disabilities and their families save for their children's long-term financial security. We have enhanced support to caregivers of infirm, dependent family members by introducing the family caregiver tax credit.

We have provided annual targeted tax relief for seniors and pensioners by increasing the age credit and the pension income credit amounts.

(1050) We have provided further support to students, especially to their families, because a lot of families help their children to get through university. We have now exempted scholarship income from taxation. That was a big change. We have introduced a textbook tax credit, and we are making registered education savings plans more responsive to changing needs.

We have introduced pension income splitting for seniors, which has had a huge and helpful impact on so many seniors, and we have introduced the public transit tax credit, to encourage public transit use and again put more money in the pockets of the people who use it. We have introduced the tax-free savings account, the most significant change to taxation since the introduction of RRSPs, in 1957. In total, our government will have provided almost $160 billion in tax relief for Canadian families and individuals over the last six-year period.

Let me point out to the opposition that Canadians, at all income levels, are benefiting from tax relief introduced by our government, with low-income and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief than higher-income Canadians. In fact, the federal tax burden is the lowest that it has been for all Canadians in 50 years. More than one million low-income Canadians have been completely removed from the tax rolls as a result of the tax relief provided by our government. That leads to real income equality.

Canadian families, in all major income groups, have seen increases of about 10% or more in their real after-tax, after-transfer income, since we, the Conservative Party of Canada, have formed government. Canadian families in the lowest income group have seen a 14% increase in real income. Moreover, Canadian families in all major income groups had higher income, after taxes, transfers, and inflation, in 2011, than they had prior to the recession. That is great news for Canadians. The share of Canadians living in low-income families has also fallen to its lowest level in three decades.

Canadian children from poor families have a higher probability of moving up the income scale than similar children in such countries as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, or Sweden. This confirms that our low-tax plan for job creation, economic growth, and long-term prosperity is in fact working. Going forward, the government will keep taxes low and will examine ways to provide further tax relief for Canadians, while returning to balanced budgets. Of course, the leader of the NDP claims that the average Canadian family earns 7% less than they did 35 years ago.

This figure is wrong and is based on median market income of Canadians before tax, before transfer income. This is not new math; this is bad math. We have to take all of the factors into account when we do any kind of calculation. This figure does not adjust for the fact that the average number of people in Canadian families has actually declined over the last three decades, and overlooks the impact of taxes and transfers. Controlling for the changing composition of Canadian families and accounting for the impact of taxes and transfers, the income of middle-income families has increased by 31%, since 1976.

Our government has shown that we are providing the support that hard-working Canadian families need. Our recent budgets have built upon our record of supporting families and communities while establishing a path for returning to balanced budgets. Economic action plan 2014 supports families by keeping taxes low; better recognizing the costs of adopting a child; helping to lower the prices of consumer goods; better protecting financial consumers, including seniors; and promoting low-cost and secure pension options. Our approach is working.

I am very optimistic about our prospects as a nation, and I am very optimistic about the opportunities that will be available because of economic action plan 2014, for our children, for the future, for our seniors, and for Canadian families, who now have more money in their pockets. Conservatives believe that Canadian families know how to spend their money. They do not need the NDP to spend it for them.

(1055) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech. However, I am a bit confused, in that she did not talk about the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme, which is today's topic. She could perhaps clarify if she is in support of the $5-billion income-splitting scheme, as has been suggested by the finance minister as being a good policy. We know Mr. Flaherty thought it was a worrisome policy. I know she has been given direction from her friend across the way to say that this is a universal conversation.

However, this is just a very clear, simple, and respectful question. Is she in favour of the income-splitting scheme, as has been suggested by the current finance minister , the $5-billion program that Conservatives talked about in the 2011 election? It is not a new thing. It is not unknown. The Conservatives have talked about it. The finance minister says he is supportive. I wonder if my friend is supportive as well. Ms. Joyce Bateman : Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member evoked the name of the late Jim Flaherty in this House today, he did not listen to what Jim Flaherty said.

Jim Flaherty was perfectly clear when he delivered economic action plan 2014. Number one, we are going to reduce the budget. We are going to reduce the deficit so we do not mortgage the future of our children. That was number one. Number two, the late minister Flaherty was perfectly clear that we are going to look at all kinds of tax reductions. Contrary to the opposition, we believe that Canadian families can do a better job of spending money on their children and investing where they believe it matters than having the NDP spend it for them. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, my question for the member is with regard to the income inequality that exists today. We have a growing number of wealthy people who are getting wealthier, versus those at the other end of the spectrum. My question for the member is this. Does she foresee where the Conservatives will try to narrow the gap so that we would be enhancing life for the middle class in Canada? If so, when does she anticipate that we will be seeing such actions that would provide a tangible result? Ms. Joyce Bateman : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and questions from my hon. colleague from Winnipeg.

He made a very interesting point in his questions to the previous speaker. He made the comment that the NDP government in Manitoba has not put in tax cuts for seniors. We have taken 380,000 senior citizens in Canada off of the tax roll. In Manitoba, those senior citizens who pay no federal income tax do pay provincial income tax. That is a scandal. As for the middle class, we have received a commendation from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He indicated that the middle class has never been better off, and The New York Times says the same.

(1100) Hon. Gary Goodyear (Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for what I see as a great speech. I want to congratulate her for bringing together the bigger picture that this government is attempting to do, which is to create a very efficient way of running the country, keeping health care transfers at the highest level ever, social transfers to the provinces, but also reducing taxes in every area we can think of. She makes a valid point that people know how to spend their money better than any government.

In Ontario, for example, we have a provincial government which has tax rates that are out of control. Electricity rates are the highest in North America. People are taxed to death and see money wasted every day. I wonder if the member would comment on all of the tax initiatives that this government brings forward, and not just this one. It is about the whole picture of making Canadians lives much better. Ms. Joyce Bateman : Mr. Speaker, even if I had all day, I could not possibly speak to all the tax cuts, in detail, the government has delivered.

Yesterday, and throughout the week, the Minister of State for Finance has made it clear that we are in a leadership position in terms of reducing taxes. We are asking all other levels of government to reduce taxes on Canadian citizens as well. That is our plan, and it is going to work. Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the motion before us. I would like to take my time today to describe how our government's economic policies have strengthened Canada's middle class.

We all know that a strong middle class is vital for Canada's economy. However, while the NDP and Liberals claim to advocate on behalf of the middle class, it is our government that is delivering results. Consider the following: a recent Statistics Canada study revealed that since this government has taken office, the middle class has flourished significantly, and I quote: The median net worth of Canadian family units was $243,800 in 2012, up 44.5% from 2005 and almost 80% more than the 1999 median of $137,000, adjusted for inflation.

Another study, one from The New York Times , indicates that Canada's middle class is better off financially than that of the U.S.: After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada—substantially behind in 2000—now appear to be higher than in the United States. Further, since 2006, Canadian families in all major income groups have seen increases of about 10% or more in the take-home incomes. These statistics are remarkable in their own right, but they are even more impressive when we consider the global economic challenges Canada has navigated during this period.

Indeed, we experienced the worst global recession since the Second World War, yet our economic performance during both the recession and the recovery is among the strongest in the world. Over one million net new jobs have been added since the height of the recession, the vast majority of which are full-time and in the private sector. This is one of the strongest job creation records in the G7. At a time when Canada's financial systems were brought to the brink of bankruptcy, Canada's banks remained the soundest in the world. When other countries increased taxes, our government kept taxes at record lows.

In fact, the federal tax burden is at its lowest level in 50 years. Unlike the opposition, we believe that leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families is a good thing. That extra money provides flexibility to make the choices that are best for them. It also helps build a solid foundation for future economic growth, more jobs, and living standards for all Canadians. That is why our Conservative government has proudly introduced close to 180 tax relief measures since taking office, reducing taxes in every way the government collects them.

What is more, Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from tax relief, with low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently confirmed. Indeed, Canadian families in all income groups have seen increases of about 10% or more in their take-home pay since 2006. In 2014, the average Canadian family is saving close to $3,400 in taxes, while one million low-income Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls altogether. This is historic tax relief.

Unfortunately, the tax-and-spend opposition continues to oppose each and every one of our tax cuts. Let me take this opportunity to remind it of some of the tax reductions it voted against: cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%; increasing the amount Canadians can earn tax free; reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, putting more than $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family of four in 2014; and establishing the landmark tax-free savings account, the most significant advance in the tax treatment of personal savings since the RRSP.

In addition, the opposition has opposed a variety of tax credits that recognize the costs borne by hard-working Canadian families, credits like the child tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the family caregiver tax credit, and the first-time home buyers' tax credit. They were against other target measures to help Canadian families, including the home buyers' plan, the adoption expense tax credit, and the medical expense tax credit. We have also enhanced benefits for families and individuals, which the opposition also voted against.

These include the universal child care benefit, which offers families more choice in child care by providing up to $1,200 a year for each child under age six, and the working income tax benefit. More recently, in economic action plan 2014, our government proposed a number of measures to expand tax relief for health care services. These included exempting the professional services of acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors from the GST and HST. To support people with disabilities, our government introduced the registered disability savings plan, or RDSP, in budget 2007.

The RDSP is widely regarded as a major policy innovation and positive development in helping to ensure the long-term financial security of those with severe disabilities. Since becoming available in 2008, over 81,000 RDSPs have been opened. These important measures are a handful of examples illustrating how our government has responded to the needs of Canadian families and has helped Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money.

(1105) However, as we frequently see, the opposition members reject our efforts to lower taxes for Canadians. They prefer that we adopt dangerous economic policies such as a carbon tax that could kill businesses, investment, and jobs and hurt Canadian families to further their own misguided agenda. We will not engage in reckless spending that would inevitably be paid for by middle-class families. Unlike the opposition, we believe in spending taxpayer dollars efficiently, effectively, and only when necessary.

After all, Canadian families know the importance of living within their means, and they expect governments to do the same. That leads me to my final point. Perhaps one of the most profound ways we are helping Canadians is by making sure that future generations will not be paying for past obligations of their parents and grandparents by returning to balanced budgets in 2015. By returning to surplus, we would ensure solid, stable prosperity for all Canadians well into the future.

Indeed, balancing the budget and reducing debt would ensure that taxpayer dollars would be used to support important social services such as health care rather than for paying interest costs. It would preserve Canada's low-tax plan and allow for further tax reductions, fostering growth and the creation of jobs for the benefit of all Canadians. It would also strengthen the country's ability to respond to longer-term challenges, such as population aging and unexpected global economic shocks.

This government understands the importance of middle-class Canadians, and as our actions have shown, we have listened and we have ensured a middle class for this country that will continue to lead the world. We will continue with our low-tax plan, unlike the tax-and-spend Liberals and New Democrats, whose high-tax, high-spending agenda would threaten jobs and set working families back. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, we have a debate today on income splitting as proposed by the Conservative government: a $5-billion scheme the Conservatives have said they campaigned on and that they are going to bring in next year. Is it the Conservatives' plan to actually not talk about income splitting all day? We have had two speeches so far, 10 minutes each, with lots of opportunity for my friend across the way who just spoke, and the one prior, and maybe future Conservatives, to actually say what they think about income splitting, because that is the debate today.

They can talk about all sorts of things, and they can use all the political rhetoric they want. However, this is the question I have for my friend. As is currently proposed by the Conservative government, is she in favour of income splitting, yes or no? That is all. Mrs. Susan Truppe : Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the comments of the member opposite sort of crack me up, especially in his speech earlier. Those members stand here and rhyme off numbers.

They pretend they want to help Canadians, but then the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned something about a woman's place being in her home. For the record, I just want to say that this government has done more for women and girls in Canada than any other government. Fortunately for Canadians, those members will not see this side of the House. As I mentioned earlier, the average Canadian family is saving close to $3,400 in taxes, while one million low-income Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls.

That is what tax relief is about, and that is what we want for Canadians, but then, the member opposite continues to oppose each and every one of our tax cuts. Let me remind members of some of the tax reductions they voted against: cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%—

(1110) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Order, please. I am just going to take some time for more questions and comments. The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul. Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her very insightful speech, because it listed all the things our government has done to help all families, including middle-class families, with middle-class families now prospering more than ever before in this country. I would like the member to please tell us what has been done for seniors and for those who are disabled, because I did not hear that in the speech.

Mrs. Susan Truppe : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul , who does an outstanding job for her constituents and for women across Canada. In terms of seniors, the government introduced pension income splitting and doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for a pension income credit to $2,000. We increased the maximum guaranteed income supplement earnings exemption to $3,500 and introduced the largest increase for the lowest-income GIS recipients in a generation in our economic action plan 2011. We also removed 380,000 senior citizens from the tax rolls completely.

In response to persons with disabilities, the enabling accessibility fund has funded over 1,300 community-based projects, totalling over $89 million, since its inception. In our economic action plan 2014, we propose to connect persons with disabilities with jobs by providing $50 million over three years to the ready, willing and able initiative of the Canadian Association for Community Living and $11.4 million over four years to support the expansion of vocational training programs for persons with autism spectrum disorder, led by the Sinneave Family Foundation and Autism Speaks Canada. Hon.

Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, given that we are talking about tax policy and whether a particular tax policy is regressive or progressive, and we believe that income splitting, as designed in the Conservative platform, is a regressive tax policy, would she agree that making the non-refundable tax credits such as the caregiver tax credit, the children's activity tax credit, the volunteer firefighters tax credit, and all those tax credits that currently do not benefit low-income Canadian families, fully refundable, thus enabling low-income families to benefit from them as well, would render our tax system more progressive? Mrs.

Susan Truppe : Mr. Speaker, the tax credits the member opposite mentioned are a measure welcomed by many Canadians. I would like to provide some statistics from a report on financial security from Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada found out that the median net worth of Canadian families was up 44.5% from 2005 and almost 80% more than the 1999 median, adjusted for inflation. This is a significant improvement in the wealth of Canadian families, which are benefiting from the policies and tax credits of our Conservative government.

Income inequality has not increased in Canada since 2006, and the proof is in the numbers. We have cut taxes 160 times, saving the average Canadian family over $3,400 a year, and poverty is at a record low for all Canadians, including children and seniors. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak on this NDP motion on income inequality and income splitting. [ Translation ] This is a two-part motion. The first

part is a statement that acknowledges the harmful effect of the increase in inequality on Canadian society and tries to assign blame solely to the Conservative and Liberal governments. The second

part is a condemnation of the Conservatives' election promise on income splitting. (1115) [ English ] I would like to address these two parts in order. First, in terms of income inequality, I agree with my colleagues in the NDP that rising income inequality is a crucial issue for Canadian families. I also agree that it is harmful to our society and that as members of Parliament, we ought to address it. That is why two years ago, I moved a private member's motion directing the House of Commons finance committee to conduct an in-depth study of income inequality.

In the wording of that motion and in my speeches in this place I avoided partisanship and as such obtained support from members of Parliament from all political parties, including sufficient support from Conservative members to actually pass that motion. The purpose of that study was to identify solutions and to put Parliament on a path of progress toward greater equality of opportunity in Canada. At the time, I asked that all members of the House put partisanship aside and work together on this issue, and we were successful in having the finance committee conduct a study.

In the end, the finance committee spent just a small fraction of its time on income inequality compared to its other studies. Despite that, the committee's report to the House identified a number of credible solutions that would improve equality of opportunity for Canadians across the country.

It included solutions such as increasing the availability of affordable early child education and care programs, a recommendation that was supported by a variety of witnesses, including the Canadian Medical Association, Canada 2020, TD Economics, and the Canadian Council on Social Development. [ Translation ] The report also showed the extent of the problem. It showed that income inequality and equality of opportunity have worsened in Canada over the last generation.

The fact is that they have deteriorated under the federal and provincial governments of all parties. [ English ] Let us be clear that federal and provincial governments have a shared responsibility for social investment and tax policy and have a responsibility to create conditions for social equity and economic growth and opportunity. This shared responsibility includes all governments, federally and provincially, including NDP governments, although the motion specifically chooses to say “Liberal and Conservative governments” without acknowledging that in fact this is not a partisan issue.

If we are going to deal with this issue effectively, we need to accept that income inequality has grown in Canada, just as it has grown in most of the industrialized world. There are a number of reasons, but some countries are doing a better job than others in maintaining equality of income and equality of opportunity, and those best practices and ideas are what we should be looking at. If we look at Canada's record of rising income inequality, we see that our colleagues in the NDP have taken a selective view of the facts.

I encourage them to avoid this temptation, because if we look at the evidence available to us, we get a different perspective. We can look at Canada's provincial Gini coefficients. StatsCan tracks the annual Gini coefficients for every province back to 1976. Members of the House will already know that the Gini coefficient is the most common way to measure income inequality, with zero representing a completely equal society in which everyone receives the same income and one representing a society in which all the income would go to one person or family.

When the New Democrats look at these Gini coefficients, they want to focus on total after-tax income. This measurement looks at the inequality that remains after governments have redistributed income through taxes and transfers. The drafters of today's motion and anyone else who wants to follow along at home can find provincial Gini coefficients for total after-tax income on the StatsCan website in CANSIM Table 202-07051. The data show us that when the NDP was most recently in government in B.C., from 1991 to 2001, income inequality among B.C. families went up by more than 15%.

That is a drastic increase, to borrow a phrase from today's motion. That is after taxes and transfers are factored in. For individuals living in B.C., the Gini coefficient went up by more than 12%. That is a drastic increase. Ten years of NDP rule left B.C. with the highest rate of income inequality of any province in Canada. That is despite the fact that the NDP inherited the fourth-lowest rate of income inequality when it took office in B.C. Today B.C.'s Gini coefficient sits slightly lower than it did when the NDP left office.

Thankfully, I guess, if we were in the blaming business, which I do not think we ought to be, the current Liberal government has been able to undo some of that damage when it comes to income inequality. The NDP record on income inequality is not much better in Saskatchewan. After 16 years of NDP rule, the Gini coefficient for Saskatchewan households climbed by more than 8%, which is another drastic increase. Even in Manitoba, the most recent data show that income inequality for households is up by 2.5% since the NDP have taken office.

I am only using these examples to point out that the NDP ought not try to make this a partisan issue, because by doing so we distract this House from dealing with the issue itself. The NDP has intentionally tried to prevent a consensus in this House on the issue of income inequality by playing politics and partisanship with us. The Conservatives would say that income inequality is not an issue. They are wrong. The NDP will try to make it an issue of class warfare and try to divide it along party lines. I think that is also wrong if we are serious about the issue.

The issues of rising income inequality and inequality of opportunity are too important and the consequences of inaction too dire for us to be engaged purely in partisan bickering. Canadians will be better off if we work together to understand how we can reduce income inequality and strengthen equality of opportunity. Therefore, I encourage all members of this House to accept the record of their respective parties and let us focus on the future and develop the best public policy responses to this important issue. We need to move on together and work on solutions that can strengthen equality of opportunity.

We also need to address what is probably the worst example of inequality in our country, aboriginal and first nations Canadians. There is a demographic, social, and economic time bomb represented by, among other things, the fact that 400,000 young aboriginal and first nations members will be entering the workforce in the next 10 years. If they have the skills they need to compete and succeed, it would be a good thing for our economy. If they do not, which is the case with many, it will be of dire consequences to our economy and our society.

We need to close the first nations and aboriginal non-first nations education system funding gap. That is something we ought to all agree on across party lines. These are important issues, and the cost of inaction is significantly high. We have heard from the Conference Board of Canada and from the former dean of the Rotman School of Management, Roger Martin. We have heard from the former governor of the Bank of Canada, now Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney.

All have said that those who say income inequality is not an issue are wrong and that those who want to make it an issue of class warfare are wrong. We have to focus on equality of opportunity. They have all warned us that rising income inequality and inequality of opportunity will limit economic growth and prosperity and that rising inequality will tear at our social fabric. It causes future generations to lose hope, and it is notable that for the first time a majority of Canadians now believe that today's generation will be worse off than their parents.

Rising inequality weakens the public trust in our institutions. As parliamentarians, we must be careful and avoid policies that would lessen equality of opportunity or deepen inequality.

(1120) Inequality can rise when governments lose sight of how their policies affect equality of opportunity. For example, the proliferation of non-refundable tax credits is contributing to greater inequality. These tax credits exclude low-income Canadians from any benefit. Another example of a measure that will increase income inequality is the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme, which is, of course, the subject of the second part of today's motion. In the last general election, the Conservatives vowed to bring in income splitting as soon as the budget was balanced.

It was a cornerstone of their 2011 election platform. Some estimate its cost at $3 billion per year, and I have heard potentially $5 billion. It is clearly the Conservatives' biggest election promise so far. During the election, the Prime Minister said that once the budget is balanced, income splitting “...should be one of our highest priorities”. According to the fine print, couples with children under 18 would be allowed to split up to $50,000 of income each year for tax purposes. However, since the election, both the C.D.

Howe Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have published thorough reports showing massive flaws in the Conservatives' plan. They have shown how the Conservatives' promise to bring in income splitting would disproportionately benefit high-income earners at the expense of the middle class and low-income earners. The C.D. Howe Institute has called the Conservatives' income splitting a flawed idea that excludes 85% of Canadian households from any benefit whatsoever.

However, it is not that these low- and middle-income Canadians would be just completely left out of the deal; worse than that, they would end up having to pick up the tab through reductions in social investments that could benefit them, and ultimately they would pay higher taxes in other ways. In the words of the C.D. Howe Institute report, the Conservatives' promise: ...would offer no tax reduction for the great majority of Canadian households, while the government revenue loss would lead to either a curtailment of public services or an increase in their tax burden to make up the shortfall.

In other words, most Canadians will pay for this expensive Conservative tax cut through higher taxes or reduced services or both. Let us look at some examples of how a family might or might not benefit under the Conservative scheme. In the Conservatives' budget, they like to give examples of how a family might be impacted by their plan. They even give these family members names. In fact, if we flip to page 190 of the latest budget, we will see that Blake earns $48,000 and Laurie earns $72,000. Blake and Laurie and their two children represent the Conservatives' idea of an average middle-class family.

In fact, they are on the higher end of the average, and the Conservatives' claim about their savings from previous budgets are a bit skewed. However, even in the Conservatives' idyllic vision of the middle-class family, Blake and Laurie would not get a penny from the Conservatives' expensive promise to bring in income splitting. Even the fictitious family that the Conservatives cite in their budget would not benefit from income splitting. If Blake and Laurie would not get anything under the Conservatives' scheme, and the scheme costs $3 billion per year or more, then who would benefit?

Well, under this scheme, the Prime Minister , who earns $320,000 per year and has a stay-at-home spouse, would actually save $6,500 per year. Meanwhile, a Canadian who has a stay-at-home spouse and who earns the average industrial wage would save less than $10 per week. Most households would get absolutely nothing, including households run by a single parent, a person who is struggling to make ends meet, who has no one else to rely on, and who cannot access good-quality child care and early learning.

Former finance minister Jim Flaherty understood the shortcomings of this plan when he said in February that income splitting needed a long, hard analytical look to see who it affects and to what degree, because he was not sure that overall it would benefit our society. Shortly after Mr. Flaherty made this statement, The Globe and Mail agreed. It published an editorial against the idea, saying: But Mr. Flaherty is right. Income-splitting needs to be reconsidered, or abandoned in favour of a better use for the federal surpluses that should begin to appear next year.

If the government wants to cut taxes, this isn't the way to do it. The Tory proposal was ill-considered from the start.

(1125) With their income-splitting scheme, the Conservatives made a major campaign promise that just was not thought through at the time. Today, with the resources of government and the Department of Finance, the whole government approach, and the capacity of government to research the best practice approaches from around the world and develop sound policy, there is no excuse for the Conservatives not to step back from this and develop a better way to reform our tax system to render it more progressive. We are not in the heat of an election right now.

We have not had a significant study of our personal tax system since 1971 with the Carter commission. Everything has changed in the decades that have ensued in terms of both the global economy and the Canadian economy. Surely there is room for a thorough study of our tax system so as to create a tax system that is fairer, more progressive, and potentially even more globally competitive. We can look at some examples. Germany has a robust economy, but at the same time, it does not have the same levels of income inequality that we have seen grow in Canada. What is it doing in terms of apprenticeship?

What is it doing in terms of skilled trades? What is it doing in its tax system that we could learn from? The Nordic countries are other examples. Scandinavian countries are sound economic models. They have good growth, and even competitive corporate tax rates in many cases. They also make good investments in progressive social policy, like early learning and child care, as examples. The Liberal Party is open to supporting tax changes that would benefit middle income Canadians.

We introduced the working income tax benefit in the last mini-budget in the autumn of 2005 when the member for Wascana was finance minister. That was an example of progressive social policy that helps people get over the welfare wall. The child tax benefit was introduced by a Liberal government but continued and expanded under the Conservative government. It is another example of a progressive tax policy that has benefited a lot of Canadian families. Compare those with the non-refundable tax credits that I mentioned earlier that do not benefit low income Canadians and do not change people's behaviour.

If high income earners have children in hockey, they are going to benefit, but even if they do not receive it, their children would still be in hockey. We ought to be thinking about the low income families for whom a direct benefit might make the difference toward their children being in an activity that could change their lives and improve not just their childhood but put them on track to a productive and healthy life.

These are the people we ought to be most concerned about, because they are falling through the cracks, and that comes at a huge social and economic cost, not just to those families but to all of us. We cannot support an income-splitting scheme that would help high income earners and shift the burden to the already struggling middle-class and low-income families who are having trouble making ends meet. We cannot support a tax cut that would so clearly lead to greater income inequality and inequality of opportunity. This brings me to the motion before the House today.

We agree that increasing income inequality and a growing inequality of opportunity is harmful to Canadian society. We agree that the Conservatives' income-splitting scheme excludes the vast majority of Canadians from any benefit whatsoever and that it could lead to greater income inequality. Finally, the fact is that Canada has seen a drastic increase in income inequality under federal and provincial governments of all stripes. This debate ought not be simply about assigning blame but instead be about recognizing the problem and working together across party lines to find solutions.

Therefore, the Liberal Party supports the motion.

(1130) Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I was on tenterhooks waiting to find out if the Liberals were going to support the motion. I understand that there are, perhaps, some hurt feelings, because the motion, as it reads, talks about how recent Liberal and Conservative governments have increased income inequality in Canada. My friend from the Liberal Party wants to debate whether that is a partisan attack or a statement of fact.

The statement of fact is that income inequality has increased dramatically under successive Liberal and Conservative governments. The member then went on in his speech to say that it was more the fault of the provinces, when the Liberals were in power, I suppose. It was not at all connected, in the Liberals' view, to the fact that the Liberal federal government cut transfer payments by as much as 40% to those same provinces. Maybe there is a connection. We argue that there is.

I am very glad that the member was declarative about the Liberals' support for the NDP motion to say that the $5-billion price tag to this income-splitting scheme would be unfair. We have heard from two Conservative speakers so far who have yet to declare the Conservative position on income splitting at all. I wonder if my friend could add to the debate and speculate as to why my Conservative colleagues have such a hard time making their opinions known about whether this $5-billion scheme is supportable or not.

(1135) Hon. Scott Brison : Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points on this. I really wish that the New Democrats would actually focus on the issue at hand, which is dealing with income inequality and creating public policy to do that. This motion could have been amended to add “and NDP governments” and it would have been perfectly legitimate, but the question is how productive that is when we ought to be seeking consensus across party lines on this and dealing with the issues that are important. The member took a swipe at the Conservatives.

The Conservatives have not been definitive here today, but I know there were more than 20 Conservatives who voted for my motion to study income inequality at committee. I know that many members of the Conservative Party have a sense that there is a growing inequality of opportunity, that it is wrong, and that we need to do something about it. In the wording of motions and in our conduct in the House, we should try to appeal to people's better angels from time to time, as opposed to driving divisive wedges between the parties, and actually work together to develop solutions.

There is a lot of common ground between the NDP, the Conservatives, and the Liberals when it comes to equality of opportunity. If we frame it as such, we can gain better consensus and build better public policy that respects all parties but, more importantly, deals with an important issue facing Canadians. Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party believes in family tax fairness and choice for parents. That is why we brought in the universal child care benefit.

Instead of giving money to bureaucrats, researchers, and activists who failed to create daycare spaces for years, we give it directly to parents so that they can choose what kind of child care they want. That is the fundamental debate we have. On the question of income splitting, more popularly known as family tax fairness, I support it. I believe it is fair that a single-income family earning $60,000 should pay roughly the same taxes as a dual-income family earning $60,000.

We know from the public opinion data that, overwhelmingly, parents favour the option, if they have a choice, of having one parent in the home in the very early years. However, right now it is difficult for people to afford to do that, except for the very rich. We want to make that a possibility for all of those families who would choose it, regardless of their income. I wonder if the member across will support family tax fairness and support the Conservative proposal for that fairness. Hon. Scott Brison : Mr.

Speaker, sometimes, what really frustrates me on issues like this is that we have the occupiers in the NDP and the tea partiers in the Conservatives, without the capacity of actually working together on some of these issues. The minister referred to early learning and child care. I remember being in the House when he used to call it a national babysitting program. The reality is that early learning and child care are important social investments that create more competitive economies in places like the Nordic countries, for example. He may dismiss these wild-eyed activists, like Margie McCain or Dr.

Fraser Mustard, but the reality is that the quantifiable data demonstrates that investments in early learning and child care not only create more social equity but create a more competitive economy. It is fine to demonize, marginalize, and stigmatize that type of research, but there are just as many economic advantages to those kinds of progressive investments as there are social advantages. Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague on his long-time focus on the issue of income inequality.

The hon. member has been talking about income inequality since before the issue started to rise in awareness and started to make headlines. My question is this. Would the hon. member not agree that income inequality is bad not only for the economy but for democracy? If there is not a strong middle class with purchasing power, then that slows economic growth. That is the importance of reducing income inequality for the economy. However, it is also important for our democracy, because if income inequality grows, people become very skeptical about whether their government has their best interests at stake.

Therefore, there is a double whammy when there is increasing inequality. One is on the economic front and the other on the democratic front.

(1140) Hon. Scott Brison : Mr. Speaker, the member, my colleague and friend, raises an important issue and that is that, if people feel that the system is broken, that there is no way they can benefit from the system, not only can they give up on the economic system but they can choose political alternatives or opt out completely from the whole political system. We see disfranchisement today with a lot of young people, and the fact that only 22% of first-time eligible voters actually vote may be related to the economic challenges young people face today.

They do not hear enough discussion in this place and other legislatures across the country on actually dealing with the issues they face, whether it is their education or their capacity to find work. The issue of unpaid internships is one that we have dealt with at various points in the House. The fact is that a privileged child from a wealthy family can have a swish unpaid internship when a middle-class or low-income child or adolescent has to go to work at whatever they can do. That deepening of inequality of opportunity at that stage in their lives is really bad for both the economy and society.

I can go further as well. Later today, the Liberal member for Toronto Centre will be speaking. She is a global expert on the whole issue of inequality and the author of the book Plutocrats . She will bring her particular insight, which comes from an international perspective on the issue. I would urge all members of Parliament to be here to listen to her discourse later today.

It will provide an international perspective and apply it to Canada, as we consider what are the best ways forward and what countries are doing a better job combining robust pro-growth economic policy with good social and progressive tax policies. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am on the Standing Committee on Finance with my colleague from Kings—Hants , and I would not want to leave out an important point, which is that the Conservatives blame the provincial governments for income inequality.

If the motion states that it is the federal Liberal and Conservative governments, that is because the Liberal government reduced spending in the 1990s by 40% for transfers like the Canada social transfer, which includes health care and social assistance. I know that my colleague was not there, but the Liberal government at the time must take responsibility, which is why it is included in the motion.

However, when he spoke about common ground between the Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Liberals in the House on the issue of income inequality, it is clear that in committee the Conservatives denied the perception that we had of income inequality. Would my colleague like to comment on the findings in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and also on this perception that the Conservative government has of income inequality, which differs from ours and even from that of the Liberals? Hon. Scott Brison : Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal government under Jean Chrétien inherited the largest deficit in history. At the time, some difficult, but necessary decisions had to be made. We take responsibility for that. We are not here to blame any party. Every federal and provincial government has to take responsibility for the decisions it makes and do its job by creating progressive policies for the future. Today, I am a bit disappointed with this NDP motion because it is not necessary to be so divisive on an issue as important as inequality.

(1145) Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to an extremely important issue that I think is going to be one of the election issues in 2015. We know that this was a Conservative promise, one that was made without much regard for reality or the social impacts of income splitting. I want to briefly summarize what income splitting is, even though other MPs are generally doing the same. Nonetheless, it is good to go over the basics and the reasoning.

In their 2011 election platform, the Conservatives proposed allowing individuals to transfer a portion of their income to their spouse, to a maximum of $50,000, in order to put themselves in a lower tax bracket. This applies to families with children, of course. There are several problems with such a measure. At first glance, it seems like a good idea. I think the government is currently trying to rebrand this measure and find a different name for it. We heard the minister of state talk about justice or fairness for families. On the contrary, this measure is unfair to families.

If we look beyond the issue of whether up to $50,000 can be transferred, we see that this measure mostly benefits people with high incomes. A number of studies—the most notable of which are those conducted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the C.D. Howe Institute—clearly showed that 85% to 86% of families will not benefit at all from this measure. It will benefit only 14% or 15% of Canadian families. How is that fair? It is not. Clearly, this is an extremely costly measure for the federal government. It will be extremely costly in terms of the public services that will eventually be lost.

The government is responsible for providing adequate funding, but the Conservatives have exactly the opposite philosophy in how they govern. According to the two organizations' estimates, the measure will cost the various levels of government about $5 billion—$3 billion for the federal government and about $2 billion for the provincial governments. However these measures will benefit less than 15% of Canadians. Why are only 15% of Canadians benefiting? Let us look at those who will not benefit from this measure. I have a whole list.

Clearly, income splitting will not do anything for single people because it affects families with children. It will not do anything for couples who do not have any children. It will not do anything for single-parent families, even though they could use a break, because the measure pertains to couples. Clearly, if a person does not have a spouse, income cannot be transferred. This measure will not do anything for families with children over the age of majority, even if those children are still dependants because they are going to school or they have a disability, for example.

The taxation system provides for some tax credits in that regard, but the income splitting measure will not do anything for those individuals. Income splitting will not do anything for families where the parents have similar incomes. A family where both spouses are working and earning about $30,000 will not benefit from this measure at all. This measure does not do anything for parents who earn less than about $42,000 because they are in the lowest tax bracket. We can therefore see that the list of couples who will benefit from this measure is extremely small.

As a blatant example of inequity, consider the members of this House who have minor children and whose spouses or common-law partners are stay-at-home parents. We are people who would benefit from that. Here in the House, there are a number of members who are still young enough to have minor children. With our salary and a stay-at-home partner, if we can transfer up to a maximum of $50,000, we would personally benefit from about $5,000 in tax cuts. Do we want the $5,000? In society, that might benefit us personally.

However, ultimately, we need the money far less than couples who, for instance, have trouble making ends meet and where each person has a salary of $20,000 or $25,000. Both must work to provide for their family. We therefore must think of the example we have here in this House. In terms of the list of exceptions, I will move on to the question of good governance.

(1150) As I mentioned, income splitting would increase income inequality, since the wealthiest families would be the ones benefiting from it, as only one spouse needs to work and earns a salary that is high enough to provide for the family. We are also wondering whether, after balancing the budget, the Conservatives are prepared to do without $3 billion in revenue. The Conservative government often talks about the late Jim Flaherty, former finance minister. However, before he died, Mr.

Flaherty had given the Conservative government a serious warning that this measure was extremely risky and that it had to be studied because it would only benefit a few segments of society, leaving out many families who would have far greater need of it. In our view, this measure is completely inappropriate. At the time, Mr. Flaherty had warned the government that this measure was risky because, if the government wanted to balance its budget eventually, it had to make choices.

Does the government want to throw the country back into deficit right away by providing additional tax cuts once it balances the budget, or does it want to use the surplus for other things such as debt reduction? Since the Conservatives took power—so since the 2005 public accounts were released—Canada's debt has increased from $421 billion to $667 billion. That figure will be even higher this year. That is an increase of $256 billion—or over 60%—since the Conservatives took power. Do the Conservatives want to use the future surplus to pay down the debt?

No, they are talking about offering tax cuts, which will create an even bigger deficit. That is what happened when they lowered the GST from 7% to 5% and we saw our revenues drop by $8 billion a year. In 2008, even before the recession, the Conservatives had started running a deficit as a result of this measure and the additional corporate tax cuts. The Conservatives brag about being good managers, but at the end of the day, they are the ones who put us in a deficit situation.

Aside from the period between 2006 and 2008, when they came to power and eliminated the federal government's fiscal space, the last time a Conservative government introduced a balanced budget was in 1912—yet they brag about being good managers. My colleague from Kings—Hants mentioned the provinces and income inequality, but he ignored the fact that transfers to the provinces were cut by 40%. These cuts obviously made things tough for the provinces. He blames the provinces for the increase in income inequality.

He also blames Liberal, Conservative and New Democrat governments for a situation they inherited from the federal Liberal government at the time. The NDP has a better record on balancing budgets than provincial and federal Conservative governments. The governments of Tommy Douglas, Gary Doer and Roy Romanow introduced balanced budgets for over 10 to 15 years, and meanwhile, the federal government was running deficits under the Liberals and Conservatives.

The NDP is, without a doubt, the party that is most likely to properly manage public finances for the public good and is considered as the party that properly manages taxpayers' money. After assessing the situation, the Department of Finance agrees with us. The United States has income splitting, and I am certain a Conservative member will point this out. In fact, it is not so much that the U.S. has adopted income splitting, but rather that it has adopted a basic unit of taxation. Unlike Canada, where the individual is the basic unit of taxation, the family is the basic unit of taxation in the U.S.

There are historical reasons for that approach. In the mid-20th century, the United States needed to unify its taxation policies. A number of states considered the individual as the basic unit of taxation, while others considered it to be the family. Eventually, they had to simplify matters. A broad debate on taxation was held, and the outcome was a more or less simplified taxation system.

(1155) The process involved defining the basic unit of taxation. The U.S. decided that it should be the family. A number of commissions, including the Carter commission, and several committees studied the issue. The Carter commission was the last great commission to undertake a reform of the taxation system. After two years criss-crossing the country, the commission produced a report, which was greatly watered down by the subsequent Liberal government, this being the 1970s after all, but widely hailed by academics and tax experts.

The report recommended that the individual be considered as the basic unit of taxation. This provision allows for a simpler tax system that everyone can agree on. Now the government wants to allow people to use the family as the basic unit of taxation in some cases and the individual in others. This will further complicate the taxation system, and if only for that reason, this is not a desirable policy option. The government boasts of having already introduced pension income splitting. The tax cost of this initiative is already higher that originally forecast.

At the end of the day, as a result of pension income splitting, Canada will lose $1.2 billion in tax revenues while the provinces overall stand to lose about $500 million. This example gives us a pretty good idea of what income inequality would look like. Let us consider for a moment how this measure affects seniors. If we divide pensioners into two groups, one-half having the lowest incomes and the other half having the highest, we see that the half with the lowest incomes benefited from only 2% of the tax cuts as a result of pension income splitting.

That means that the half with the highest incomes benefited from 98% of the tax cuts. What is more, the 10% of pensioners with the highest incomes benefited from 31% of the tax cuts. The example of pension income splitting illustrates the scope of the problem and how the income gap will widen, not only as a result of this measure, but also as a result of the Conservatives’ proposed initiative. Now then, will the government move forward with this initiative? It will be included in the next election platform.

However, if we are to believe the current Minister of Finance and certain MPs, it is clear the government appears intent on moving forward. Moreover, instead of addressing additional income inequality issues, it is starting to rebrand to economists, journalists, the media and society as a whole the totally unfair policy of income splitting, which has now acquired a bad reputation. It will rebrand it as an exceedingly fair policy. I am truly flabbergasted to see how blind this government is to such clear facts and figures.

I am far less hopeful than my colleague from Kings—Hants , who spoke just before me, as to the will of the parties in the House to find some common ground for dealing with income inequality. It is clear that the Conservatives are turning a blind eye to this reality. For them, it is a matter of facilitating access to education and training. We are not opposed to that, but it will not be a cure-all. Initiatives have been taken in the past, and continue to be taken by this Conservative government and by various provincial governments, that increase the effects of income inequality.

Some of the proposed initiatives, such as income splitting, will increase the problems, even exponentially. When I talk about economists, it is quite interesting to see where these negative comments about income splitting are coming from. It is rare to see the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the C.D. Howe Institute agree, not only on the fact that this policy is harmful but also on the fact that it would have some financial ramifications.

(1200) I have a question for my colleagues who always boast of their sound management. Do they really want to take action that will once again put the federal government in a deficit situation, for the sole reason of bringing in a tax break that will benefit only 15% of Canadian households? Would they not rather show good governance and start tackling urgent issues? We do not have any problem whatsoever with tax cuts for middle-class families, for families that need a break.

However, such measures must be reconciled with measures to reduce the debt, which, may I remind you, has ballooned by 60% since the Conservative government was elected in 2006. Steps will also have to be taken after that to rebuild public services that have been devastated in recent years, especially since 2006. Consider R and D, the environment and immigration, to name a few areas. All of these services to Canadians have been drastically cut, jeopardizing in the process services for which Canadians pay taxes and to which ultimately they are entitled.

I suspect that one of strategies of the Conservative government, and of Conservatives in general, is to ensure a mismatch between the taxes paid to different levels of government and the services that Canadians receive for their tax dollars. I know that a debate on immigration took place in the House until very late last night. I was astounded by a statistic I learned of during the 2013 holidays—if I am not mistaken— regarding a call centre in Montreal that was set up to respond to Canadians requiring a visa or experiencing immigration problems.

The number of employees at the call centre was so drastically cut that 91% of telephone calls in December 2013 were lost in the system and never got through to an agent. In other words, only 9% of calls were answered by an agent. How about we talk about the cuts to science made by the Conservative government? I know what the ramifications of these cuts are because there are a lot of scientists in my riding. Some scientists work at the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute. Others work at the Institut des sciences de la mer, ISMER, at UQAR.

Still others work in a number of private sector companies that come under the umbrella of the Technopole maritime du Québec. A hub of expertise has sprung up in Rimouski and the lower Saint Lawrence valley in marine biotechnologies and maritime technologies in general. The cuts made by the government to the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute have resulted in an exodus of scientists from the region. This has hurt not only the region's economy, but also Canada’s reputation in the sciences.

Additionally, there were a number of measures imposed as part of the overhaul of the employment insurance system that are having a major impact on regions where the economy still relies heavily on seasonal employment. These measures are intended to diversify the economy, but that takes time. In reality, the measures imposed by the Conservative government are making the regions in question poorer. Ironically, the Conservatives’ slogan in 2011, at least in Quebec, was “Our regions in power”. Almost every measure imposed by the Conservative government has ended up hurting the regions and making them poorer.

I know that this issue will be a core plank of our election platform in 2015 in the lead-up to the next election. If what we are seeking is good governance, every measure to do with budget surpluses should be divided between logical tax cuts that benefit a broad cross-section of society rather than simply 15% of people, as income splitting would do, paying down the debt and reinvesting in a number of public services that have suffered considerably as a result of this Conservative government’s cutbacks.

This, therefore, is the principle of good governance that we espouse, and it corresponds to the good governance models of our New Democratic governments in the provinces. I hope that the government will listen to reason and scrap this ill-advised policy of income splitting in favour of adopting fiscal and economic policies that will benefit all Canadians and not just a small segment of the population.

(1205) Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech and for the work he does on the Standing Committee on Finance. [ English ] I would like to address the income inequality issue that we studied at the finance committee. We issued a report and we talked about the need for support for general measures like health care, education, and social services that our government has funded at 6% year over year and 3% year over year.

We also talked about targeted measures like the working income tax benefit, which I believe has not been mentioned on the other side of the House. I would like members opposite to comment on the benefit of that program that specifically targets low-income working families and individuals to ensure that they get ahead. I do want to focus my remarks and ask the member opposite to comment on pension income splitting. If I understood him correctly, he was in fact quite critical of the measure brought in by our government in 2006 to allow pensioners to split their income.

In fact, he said this was sort of a foreshadowing of what would happen under income splitting generally. Pension income splitting has been a resounding success. I have certainly heard it across the country. Pensioners come up and say that they have been able to keep much more of their income in their pockets. I would just ask the member to clarify NDP policy on this. The NDP opposed it at the time, but does the NDP still oppose pension income splitting, and would it reverse that policy if it were given the opportunity? [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc , who is a highly respected member of the Standing Committee on Finance. His work is greatly appreciated by members of all the parties. His question is relevant, but this is not necessarily about whether we would support it or not. My argument about pension income splitting focused on program logistics. Generally speaking, pensioners do not have as much income. Therefo