Debates of June 10th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Income Splitting

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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, Conservative, 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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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.

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?

Yet 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. Yet 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

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?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The NDP doing that in a federal—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Be quiet.

Mr. Speaker, they hand out $100 billion at the—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, 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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

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, Conservative, 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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

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.

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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

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.