Debates of June 10th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Income Splitting

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I am sure that my hon. colleague did not mean to mislead the House when he referred to this government taking money out of the EI fund. That was the Liberals. I am certain he would like to apologize for misleading the—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I think the hon. minister of state has been here long enough to know how controversial that issue is and the various viewpoints on it. That issue clearly is one of debate, not of fact.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I take some exception to the member's concluding remarks in terms of accuracy. He needs to realize, as I am sure he does, that the New Democrats have never been in government here in Ottawa, so all we can do is judge their performance based on what they have done at the provincial level.

He says the NDP has good solutions. I wonder if he can tell me whether it was good policy when Gary Doer and then Greg Selinger, as premiers of Manitoba, reduced corporate income tax and then boasted about reducing it not once but seven times, especially when it was during the recession. That is one question.

The second question is this. The NDP in the Province of Manitoba has now increased the provincial sales tax. This is something his own leader has said he fully endorses and has Mr. Selinger's back on, in terms of the types of policies in which he believes.

Are we to draw the conclusion that this is the type of government we would see for all Canadians if the NDP were provided that opportunity?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in the riding of Trois-Rivières to work as a federal politician, so I feel perfectly comfortable answering questions about federal matters and letting provincial politicians handle their own affairs.

However, what I do know is that in 2015, the Liberals and the Conservatives will have the opportunity to see and hear what the public has to say as it chooses to direct Canada toward a more inclusive vision, where no one is left behind. Only one party is making clear proposals of that sort, and that is the New Democratic Party, which I am pleased to represent in one riding, just like many of my colleagues. I predict, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there will be even more of us in 2015.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Bourassa.

It is a real honour and a pleasure to be talking about this subject here in this House today. Rising income inequality is one of the most striking and most important new characteristics of the 21st century economy. It is a way the world economy and, particularly, the economies of the western industrialized countries have changed.

For all of us here in this House grappling with that transformation, it should be our absolute priority to understand it and work on ways to make this new economy work for all Canadians.

I would like to start with some data points. According to the IMF, since 1980, the richest 1% increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries. That is a really significant data point, because very often debates about income inequality happen in a national context, as our debate is happening here, and we lose sight of the fact that this particular story is a global story.

Of course there are national aspects, but overall the shape of what is happening is something that is happening particularly across the western industrialized countries. We must understand that in order to really understand what is going on.

This is happening in Canada as well. In 1980, the top 1% collected $8 out of every $100 earned in Canada. By 2010, that had surged 50% to $12 out of every $100. In the meantime, middle class incomes in this country have been stagnating.

In 1980, middle class families reported income of $57,000, and 30 years later they were still at $57,000. This growing income divide—and as I said, an income divide that we are seeing growing across the western industrialized countries—is also translating into a growing wealth gap.

I would like to cite one figure. This is based on some very important research that Oxfam has done, which is really important and something for us to all focus on. Oxfam calculated that if we took the richest 85 people in the world, their wealth is equal to the wealth of the bottom 50% of the whole world, 35 billion people. That is just 85 people, which is a lot fewer than it would take to fill this House. It would fill maybe a quarter of my side of the House. Let us think for one moment about what that says about our world today and about how the world economy is working.

It is important when we are talking about this, and particularly when our conversation moves to talking about political solutions, to really reflect on and acknowledge the fact that this is a new phenomenon. The world economy today is working differently from the way it did, particularly in the post-war era, when I think many of our conceptions of how the world economy works, and certainly many of our political ideas, were formed.

In the post-war era, we had a Goldilocks economy. It was a time when there was very strong economic growth across the western industrialized world, and at the same time income inequality was actually decreasing.

Starting about 30 years ago, that changed. Even as the economy grew, we started to see income inequality surging: a growing share of the income going to the very top and incomes in the middle either stagnating or actually declining, depending on which measure and which timeframe.

There is a lot of debate about what is driving this phenomenon. Inevitably that debate becomes politically tinged. All of us who approach honestly what is happening will have to agree that there are three primary drivers. One of them is in fact political.

The 30 years in which we have seen this surging income inequality across the west also coincided with the rise of neo-liberalism, what we might want to call the Thatcher-Reagan revolution. We saw a combination of weaker protections for trade unions, a culture that accepted higher compensation, particularly for executives—higher CEO compensation—a new philosophy of shareholder value in companies, lower taxes at the top, and crucially, deregulation of many industries.

Therefore there was this political element, and again that political element had national features, of course, but it was also something that happened across countries, particularly because we are living in an age when so many businesses operate internationally and there has been, in many cases, particularly on the taxation front, competition across jurisdictions.

However, there are also two other factors that are really important drivers of what is going on, and those are globalization and the technology revolution. For me, those two factors are the ones on which it is really important to focus; and it is important for all of us, particularly those who see rising income inequality as a huge problem, to acknowledge that these two drivers of rising income inequality are also very positive. That is the paradoxical nature of what is going on.

The technology revolution, bringing us so many pluses, is also a driver of increasing income inequality. The same is true of globalization. If we are blind to that paradoxical nature of what is happening, we are not going to be able to come up with good solutions. Particularly when it comes to the technology revolution, it is important for us to understand something. I will refer to one of my favourite books on the subject, The Second Machine Age by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee. They argue that there is no law in economics that provides that the technology revolution will lead to more jobs or evenly distributed rewards. That is really important to bear in mind. Changes in the economy, which are good in aggregate, may not be good for individuals, and it is going to be our job as legislators to find ways to strike that balance.

What can we do about this? I have talked about something that is big, that is new, and that is global. How can we cope with it? I would like to quickly talk about five ways in which we can approach it. The first is to do no harm, and that is why we in the Liberal Party are absolutely opposed to income splitting. At a time when there are powerful economic forces, many of them good, which are driving up income inequality, introducing changes to our own legislation, rather than pushing back against them, and increasing income inequality is absolute political and democratic malpractice.

The second absolutely important thing is to focus on equality of opportunity. A terrific Canadian economist, Miles Corak, has identified something that has been dubbed by his admirers The Great Gatsby curve, which shows that rising income inequality correlates with declining social mobility. We have to push back against that, particularly with investment in schools, families, and early childhood education.

A third area that is absolutely essential is to be open to innovation, particularly innovation for people who might not have the opportunities and networks. One thing we are seeing is that old businesses are dying. That is part of the technology revolution and of globalization. We have to be the country where it is easiest for someone with a great idea to start a new business.

Finally, and this is really crucial, we have to understand that we operate in a globally connected economy. We are living at a time when capital is global, but politics and legislation very often are not. If we want to capture the wealth that is being accumulated in the world, we are going to have to come up with some global answers. I am going to quote Larry Summers, the former U.S. secretary of the treasury, and then Pope Francis. Larry Summers stated:

The share of corporate profits taken by tax authorities around the world is probably a little more than half of what it was 40 years ago. And the reason is a basic process of competition, a basic ability to move business activity or to use accounting tricks to move income to low-tax jurisdictions.

Therefore, we are going to have to work together to push against that trend.

In conclusion, I would like to cite a higher authority on why this is so much of an issue and that is, as threatened, Pope Francis himself. He has said that increasing income inequality is the root of social evil. I really believe that. I hope that together in the House we can identify this as a major problem and work together to try to fix it for Canadians.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal colleague's speech. If I heard her correctly, the member said that the Liberals were against income splitting. However, her leader agrees with the Conservatives that income splitting is a reasonable idea.

Does the member disagree with her leader or is she against income splitting?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not misspeak. It is the position of our party that we believe, like the late minister Jim Flaherty, that income splitting would increase income inequality and we are not in favour of it.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Toronto Centre for bringing a level of decorum and expertise to the House in terms of her discourse today and her global understanding of this important issue.

Some Nordic countries, for example, have balanced robust economies, growth, and competitiveness without the commensurate growth in income inequality. I would appreciate the member's thoughts on, understanding of, and expertise in how they have done that. What combination of social policy and fiscal policy has enabled them to balance social equity and economic growth?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I think the Nordic countries provide some very important examples and lessons for us. Interestingly, if we look at market incomes before government intervention, they too have experienced an increase in income inequality among those countries, as my hon. colleague knows very well, and the IMF has cited in its research.

What they have done though to push against those tides is a few things. They have had a very great focus on social opportunity, particularly on education, and I think Finland in particular has some important lessons. They have had a very great focus on innovation and opportunity for economic innovation. There I would say we have a lot to learn from Sweden and maybe from Norway.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned she was opposed to income splitting. With regard to families, I have a question with regard to policies this government implemented for income splitting for seniors. Does she believe that is a good policy and if she does not, would the Liberals actually reverse that policy if they formed government?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today what we are talking about is future policies. As we have discussed, and we have heard some very good data cited today, income splitting has been supported and advocated by the Prime Minister, although it was opposed by the late minister of finance, Jim Flaherty. It is something that we oppose precisely because we believe, as the C.D. Howe Institute has argued, as most reputable economists have argued, that it would increase income inequality.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Toronto Centre, I appreciate her speech. In fact, her speech is very much like something I would expect to hear from the NDP because that is the position we have taken.

To hear her agree with Jim Flaherty over the musings of her own leader is kind of surprising to me. I agreed with a major part of her speech. She spoke of the period between 1980 and 2010, about the average wage and the lack of buying power of the dollar, and the fact that a dollar today buys the same as it did in 1980. As her speech went on and again, it sounded more like the NDP than Liberal to me, because in that time where there was no growth, from 1993 to 2006, who was in power?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is no dishonour in agreeing, sometimes, with my hon. colleagues in the NDP or in citing someone I think we all respected very much, the late Jim Flaherty.

As I tried to argue in my comments, this is a phenomenon that has been going on for 30 years. The IMF found income inequality increasing over 30 years in 24 of 26 countries it studied. Of course, it is our job to try to pinpoint specific moments of legislation, but this is a global trend. We have to, if we are being honest, see it that way, try to understand it that way, and try to figure out what to do about it.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to take part in this debate. First, I will read the motion:

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.

I will not get into how the NDP wrote this motion because, as usual, it is off the mark. The Liberals want to help the middle class so that it can have a better future. Income splitting is at the very heart of this motion. It is important to know how to draft a motion and set partisanship aside when the measure is this important.

The increase in income inequality is a significant source of concern in almost all developed countries, and governments of all stripes, including provincial New Democrat governments, need to do more to fight it. The Liberals are against income splitting as proposed by the Conservatives.

In their 2011 election platform, the Conservatives promised to implement income splitting, but that promise was conditional on the government being able to balance the budget in 2015.

The Conservatives are getting ready to do that in 2015, since that will be an election year, but it will be the first time, given that they squandered the surplus that we Liberals had left when they came to power.

Their proposal is clear: allow couples with children under 18 to split their income, up to $50,000, for income tax purposes. According to their platform, that measure would cost the public purse $2.5 billion, at the federal level alone, not to mention what it would cost the provincial governments, if they go along with it.

How does income splitting work? I will explain, for the people of Bourassa, why we are debating this today, so they understand the meaning of income splitting.

It is simple. Take the example of two spouses who earn $100,000 and $20,000 per year. Together, they pay $15,993 in federal income tax. By splitting their income, that is, transferring up to $50,000 from one spouse to the other, so they declare $60,000 each, they will save $1,807. However, this does not provide any benefit for a couple in Bourassa, for example, who together earn $50,000.

The Conservatives have taken the idea of income splitting even further. In fact, in the budget they presented, they gave the example of a couple with two children: Bernard and Laurence, who earn $48,000 and $72,000 respectively. Even with those incomes, that couple will get no benefit from income splitting, however.

It is therefore clear that they want to implement income splitting in order to help the wealthiest Canadians.

That is the Conservatives’ approach. In fact, there is a very clear example that tells us that if, in a family, one spouse earns $327,000 or more, the equivalent of the Prime Minister’s salary, and the other earns only $3,000 or does not work, that couple will get $6,500 per year with income splitting. There is the proof. It is clear.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister had said that income splitting should be one of our main priorities. However, as we have now seen, income splitting does nothing to benefit the middle class.

In fact, the study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives confirms that when the budget is balanced, this promise will absolutely have the opposite effect: 10% of taxpayers will cash in and 50% of the poorest Canadians will get virtually no benefit. According to that study, families with income of $50,000 or less will save only $50. There is the proof.

As well, the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report that some 85% of households will not benefit from this measure at all. According to La Presse, since this measure is aimed only at the wealthiest Canadians with children under 18, that means there are a lot of people who will not benefit from income splitting. They include single people, couples without children and single-parent families. There is nothing for families with adult children, even if they live with the parents. There is nothing for families in which both children earn relatively similar incomes, which is most often the case in Quebec. Lastly, there is nothing for parents who earn less than $42,000 per year.

In Canada, the middle class has not had any real wage increase in over 30 years, in spite of the fact that the economy has more than doubled in size.

To summarize, with this measure, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. There is nothing for single people or single-parent families. In a word, there is nothing for the middle class.

It must be said that this measure also affects women to a certain extent, because all too often women have lower incomes in couples. That is what a study by the research chair in taxation and public finance at the Université de Sherbrooke tells us. The labour force participation rate of women with children is higher in Quebec, at about 82%, compared to 78% for all of Canada. The income gap between men and women is not as wide in Quebec as it is in other provinces like Alberta, where men make on average twice as much as women.

To conclude, it is quite natural for this measure to be controversial, even among the Conservatives.

I would like to quote the late Jim Flaherty:

It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot. And other parts of the Canadian population virtually not at all. And I like to think I'm analytical as finance minister, so I will, when we discuss it eventually in cabinet, in caucus, I will present my analysis to my colleagues.

Unfortunately, I feel that he is one of the only people who could have talked some sense into the Conservatives. We, on this side of the House, are against this measure, because we want it to support the middle class instead of giving the equivalent of $5 billion to the wealthiest Canadians.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bourassa for his speech.

I have to say that I do not really understand why he thinks our motion was badly written because his entire argument sounds a whole lot like ours and his conclusion is the same.

However, I have one burning question. Maybe we do not know how to write, but does his leader have some trouble saying what he means? I ask because it seems like the Liberals are staunchly opposed to this, but their leader said that income splitting is a good idea.

I am having a hard time squaring those two positions, unless of course there are divisions in the Liberal ranks. If that is the case, can the member clarify?

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are against income splitting. This is such an important debate, that I do not understand why the NDP is bent on creating division. I said that the wording of the motion was fine because it says that the drastic increase in income inequality under recent Liberal and Conservative government harms Canadian society. Income splitting, as presented, is not good. In other provinces, people know the NDP's position. They know that the NDP is part of that inequality. That is not the issue.

A motion has been moved, and we really hope that the Conservatives will listen to reason and not go ahead with this measure. I hope they will understand.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question by my NDP colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières.

I am astounded that, in light of the Liberals' support for this motion, the NDP is unable to accept the fact that we too are against income splitting. We made that very clear, and I have no idea how they came up with their take on our leader's position on this issue. The fact is that we are against income splitting, as was the late Mr. Flaherty. We have said so clearly from the start, but unfortunately the NDP does not seem to understand what should be a pretty simple idea.

Can my colleague from Bourassa explain why the NDP is unable to accept a “yes”?

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

As I said, the NDP wants to deal with the Liberals. It is looking at what we are doing. For us, the goal is clear and that is to work for the middle class. I do not want to waste my time analyzing the NDP's position because it is nonsense.

The motion was moved and we very much hope that the Conservative government will reconsider, just as the late Jim Flaherty wanted to in caucus. Unfortunately, we know what happened. All members of Parliament are mourning the passing of Mr. Flaherty.

The question is simple. Let us reject this income splitting approach because it does nothing to help the middle class. Instead, the most affluent Canadians will get richer.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will take less than 10 seconds. It is simple and I would ask my colleague to be just as straightforward and clear in his answer.

How can he talk about income splitting and being concerned about the less fortunate when he accepted compensation upon leaving his seat at the National Assembly after holding it for such a short time? I find it rather odd that he is talking to us about this issue in the House today. I would like to know what he has to say about that.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be clear and straightforward, like the question that was put to me.

Perhaps the member could ask her leader why he accepted his bonus when he left the National Assembly of Quebec. Why would I not be entitled to it after sitting as a member of the National Assembly of Quebec for six years?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

I stand in support of the motion by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which states:

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.

Income splitting would have no benefit for 86% of Canadians, but it would be a benefit to 14% of Canadians. What 14% of the Canadian population would that be? It would be the wealthiest, the best off, those in the highest income level. Members probably already knew that, because income splitting is a plan pitched by the Prime Minister and the Conservatives, and the Conservative Party is all about big business, big money and big tax breaks for the wealthy. There is a big gap between the have and the have-not, a gap that is growing.

I will stop right there and shift gears. Let me talk about the 86% of the population that would not benefit from income splitting in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are everyday Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They are policemen, firefighters, teachers, nurses, government workers, waiters, fishermen, small business owners, single moms, single dads, construction workers, hairdressers, and so on. Members get the picture. Most ordinary people would not benefit from income splitting. They are the people that the Conservative government has forgotten, or left further and further behind or has no interest in helping.

That does not go for all levels of government. There is hope out there. Take St. John's city council, for example. It is going where the Conservative government refuses to tread.

While the Conservative government will not have anything to do with the national housing strategy and voted against a New Democrat proposal for just that and the Liberals, under Paul Martin, killed their national housing strategy, the city council in St. John's adopted an affordable housing plan this week that promises 500 homes by 2017.

The plan targets rental housing, home ownership, energy efficiency and age-friendly homes. The plan is about affordability for “the people in the middle”, as one councillor put it. Again, they are the people, the Canadians, that the Conservative government has forgotten. They are the people in the middle. Well done, St. John's city council. It is so fabulous. It is so inspiring to see a level of government picking up where the Conservatives so desperately fail.

Who exactly is left completely left out of the Conservatives' income splitting plan? People making under $44,000 a year would receive no benefit. A couple that makes above $44,000 a year but where both people are in the same tax bracket would receive no benefit. Single people, couples with children and couples with kids who are grown up would receive no benefit. Parents who are divorced would receive no benefit.

Someone must benefit. Income splitting would cost the federal government $3 billion a year. That figure is from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Who exactly would benefit from that $3 billion? It is none other than the best friends of the Conservatives. It is the wealthy.

Income inequality in our country is spiralling out of control. The incomes of the top 1% are surging, while the average Canadian family has seen its income free fall over the last 35 years. About 94% of the increases in the inequality over the last 35 years occurred under federal Liberal governments.

The latest Liberal leader paints himself as a champion of the middle class. He infers it in half of the questions he asks in the House during question period. We heard it today during question period.

However, the current Liberal leader cannot relate to the middle class, because he had nothing to do with the middle class. He could no more relate to the middle class than the Prime Minister could relate to a fisherman on the northeast coast of Newfoundland, or a housekeeper at the Delta Hotel in St. John's, or a farmer in the Goulds, or a waitress in Quidi Vitty, or a fisherman in Petty Harbour, or a street cleaner in Mount Pearl. The Prime Minister cannot relate to those people, keeping in mind that he has turned his back on Newfoundland and Labrador.

Income splitting will cost the Canadian treasury $3 billion, which will stay in the pockets of the wealthiest. At the same time, we are asking middle- and lower-income earners to pay more than their share. The Conservative government has done nothing to address or reduce growing inequality.

This country is desperate for affordable child care, like the seven-dollar-a-day Quebec model. This country is crying out for pharmacare so that people do not have to make a desperate choice between food and medication.

This country has been shamed by how our government treats the veterans who fought for us, while the Conservative government refuses to fight for them. Their services are reduced and mental health problems are ignored.

The current Conservative government is failing our seniors, who do not have enough money to live on. It is failing students who are entering the workforce with massive anchors of debt. It is failing fishermen. I cannot leave them out. They are being squeezed out of an industry by a government that favours big business licence holders. Fishermen have had to choose between not paying federal licence fees and not paying bank loans.

The current government is failing the middle class, yet it has the time to draw up tax schemes that only help the wealthiest 40% of Canadians. With so much to do, and I am not talking about pipelines, it is clear where the current Conservative government's priorities lie. Its priorities do not lie with ordinary people.

As the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives put it: “Income splitting creates a tax loophole big enough to drive a Rolls Royce through. It’s pitched as a program for the middle class but in reality it’s an expensive tax gift for the rich”.

The Broadbent Institute said, “It would increase inequality and is skewed heavily toward a Mad Men-style family with a high-income earner and a stay-at-home spouse.... Income splitting fails the fairness test”.

I will bring this back to the beginning. The motion reads: “That, in the opinion of the House, the drastic increase in income inequality under recent Liberal and Conservative governments harms Canadian society....”

The words that stick with me are “harms Canadian society”. I have a message for the Conservative government, and the message is this: seniors matter, veterans matter, workers matter, students matter, middle- and lower-income earners matter, the environment matters, our fishermen matter, the east coast matters, and the 86% of Canadians who do not benefit from income splitting also matter.

It seems that the only ones who get support from the Conservative government are those who sign cheques payable to the Conservative Party of Canada. This country has to do better than that. This country must do better than that.

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

Mr. Speaker, nearly 1.4 million fewer Canadians are living in poverty under the Conservative government now than under the previous Liberal government. Tax cuts overall mean that over one million low-income Canadians do not pay any federal income tax at all. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer commented on the 180 different reductions in taxes we have made. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says: “Cumulative tax changes since 2005 have been progressive overall and most greatly impact low-middle income earners...”.

Of the 180 reductions to various taxes the Conservative government has brought in, I wonder if the member would kindly name just one that he actually supported.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my immediate answer is that it is hard to tell what to support when the government throws so many omnibus budgets at us, with dozens and dozens of changes to laws. Half the time there are so many things in the omnibus budgets, one cannot tell what one is supporting and is not supporting. That is the problem with the government.

The minister just threw a whole bunch of numbers out there, but there are only two numbers Canadians need to keep in mind. First is that 86% of Canadians do not qualify for income splitting. Remember that number. Second, only 14% do. What 14% are they? They are the wealthiest people in Canada. We have 86% and 14%.

The other thing I want to point out is that the late Jim Flaherty also had his doubts about income splitting. If I have this correct, he spoke out against it before he, unfortunately, passed away. Maybe the Conservative government can learn from how Mr. Flaherty saw the light before he passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has indicated that we will be supporting the motion. The members goes to great lengths to portray how bad the Liberals are, then he focuses his attention on the current federal leader of the Liberal Party. One begins to think that the NDP is very nervous about the Liberal Party. Viewers should be aware that this is just as much an attack on the Liberal Party as it is raising an issue on the floor of the House of Commons.

Citizens of Canada are aware of the inequalities and the need to address some of those inequalities. The leader of the Liberal Party has addressed that issue and will continue to push hard for the middle class.

I take exception when the member makes reference to the leader of the Liberal Party. I question whether he is attempting to pass judgment when he says that someone cannot identify with the middle class. In fact, what I have witnessed is that the leader of the Liberal Party, no matter where he goes in our great country of Canada, is well received and respected by many as someone who identifies with the middle class. There is not a politician in this chamber who has been fighting harder for the middle class than the leader of the Liberal Party. I wonder if he might want to comment.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what I simply pointed out in my speech was that the growing gap between the rich and poor, that ever increasing gap, began under consecutive Liberal governments. That is what I pointed out.

I think the hon. member asked whether I was concerned about the Liberals. The Liberals should be very concerned, especially with 2015 being an election year. They should be very concerned about the words that come out of their leader's mouth. He is not clear. He is all over the map. That is where their concerns should lie.