Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1  It is a very costly plan, which is just not necessary. Even the former minister of finance, the late Jim Flaherty, agreed that it was a bad idea, that it was not fair. Yet, the Prime Minister has seen fit to bring forward an income splitting program at a substantial cost. We believe that is wrong.

Pensions  The Canadian Association of Retired Persons says that the voluntary approach has not worked. Sixty percent of Canadians want the Canada pension plan to be expanded, like Jim Flaherty recommended. Fragmented, optional schemes, mostly designed for tax planning, simply do not get the job done. Why does the Conservative government keep insisting on failure?

Pensions  At least 60% of Canadians want to build on that success. The provinces want to do the same thing. Jim Flaherty said it is the right thing to do, so why not?

Pensions  Mr. Speaker, the late Jim Flaherty said “the Canada Pension Plan plays a central role in our government-supported retirement system”, and should be “enhanced”. The current Minister of Finance has confirmed that CPP premiums are not payroll taxes.

Pensions  The CPP Investment Board gets impressive results, he said. The finance minister must agree with the late Jim Flaherty, who reported: ...strong support for the Canada Pension Plan and the central role that it plays in our government-supported retirement income system. Why not work with the provinces on a strong, comprehensive CPP?

Pensions  Canadians want a comprehensive solution. Will the government take the advice of the late Jim Flaherty and begin a modest, phased in, fully funded expansion of the Canada pension plan?

Business of Supply  Speaker, many of the Conservative members who rise to talk about the motion today infer that they will be supporting the motion, which is great, and then they go on to talk about the economic action plan. I am reflecting on what the late Jim Flaherty said in regard to income splitting, which is a major platform for the government and is part of that economic action plan. Mr. Flaherty said that less than 15% of the Canadian population would benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars annually that it would cost to support that initiative.

Pensions  Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. In 2010, the minister's predecessor, Jim Flaherty, said the following: “...we should consider a modest, phased-in and fully funded enhancement to defined benefits under the CPP..”. Now, there is a good idea. Why is the current finance minister ignoring the advice of his predecessor, and, in the words of the Ottawa Citizen, offering “nothing more than a naked attempt to siphon votes from parties that are offering a thought-through alternative”?

Business of Supply  Mr. Chair, does the minister agree with his predecessor, the late Jim Flaherty, who said, “I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look…to see who it affects and to what degree, because I’m not sure that overall, it benefits our society.”?

Business of Supply  The facts have changed, and when I read the C.D. Howe report, I changed my mind on income splitting, as did the Hon. Jim Flaherty. When given the choice between being consistent and right, I think it is better to be right, and income splitting is wrong for the 85% of Canadians who do not benefit from it. Is the minister concerned that income splitting does nothing to help single parents or low-income families?

Taxation  Speaker, when the economy is so weak, the risk of worsening inequality becomes more severe. By everyone from the Parliamentary Budget Officer to the late Jim Flaherty, the government has been warned about disparities getting worse, but still it is giving a $2,000 tax break to those making a quarter of a million dollars, with no break at all for single moms.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2  The measure completely overlooks single parents and parents who happen to both make similar incomes. The late Jim Flaherty had doubts about it, and he expressed them clearly. These are the words of the late Jim Flaherty: I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look...to see who it affects and to what degree, because I’m not sure that overall, it benefits our society.

Business of Supply  Speaker, the member spoke a lot about the federal budget, but I am inclined to believe Jim Flaherty over the current government. In fact, the tax breaks that the Conservatives are talking about are in essence tax breaks for Canada's wealthiest people. It is not a fair budget. They can contrast that to what the Liberal Party is talking about, such as the middle-class tax break of 7%, and so forth.

The Budget  They have heard what has been said in terms of the number of Canadians who would benefit from this and they are realizing that this was not a good measure to put in the budget. As their former finance minister, the late Jim Flaherty, said, this is not a good initiative. In fact, he spoke extensively about that and tried to convince his colleagues that it was not the right thing to do. What happened? Because the Prime Minister had committed to it and had committed to those who deserve it least so they could benefit from this high tax break, of course they went ahead with it, much to the chagrin of most Canadians who are now realizing that they will not benefit from this.

The Budget  Speaker, there are many aspects of the budget that one can talk about, and I have attempted as much as possible to emphasize the importance of just how unfair the budget is. To give an example, we all know the position of the late Jim Flaherty, the former finance minister, in regard to the income split. He argued while he was a Conservative minister of finance that the income split was not a good idea. The reason it was not a good idea was that only a select few, Canada's wealthiest, would actually benefit by literally hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks going to that 15% or less.