I'm not a fan of that. I remain a fan of individual taxation, however, with the following exceptions. We have these attribution rules that I actually think don't respect individual taxation. Individual taxation treats individual ownership and entitlement to property and income seriously, and the attribution rules actually reject that. If you've actually transferred property to a lower-income spouse--I think you still need them for kids--the income is the spouse's income and it should be taxed in the spouse's hands. So I think the attribution rules for spouses are relative of an earlier era that we could do away with. It would make the system simpler.
I would actually encourage transfers of property between spouses. Now, that's only going to advantage high-income couples, and so lots of folks might reject it on that basis, but I think it takes individual taxation seriously.
The other thing that I think is not a bad idea is on the child care expense deduction. You're only able to get it if the child care is provided by someone other than a spouse or one of the parents. In fact, I think the dynamics of lots of child care arrangements are that it's a division of labour between spouses. It would be a reasonable thing to allow one spouse to income split with the other, up to the limits of the child care expense deduction, by paying the other spouse for the child care expense, which would do some income-splitting and actually allow the stay-at-home parent to earn income that could qualify for Canada Pension Plan, RSP contributions, etc.