Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2  A number of Conservatives know that. If we listen to what they have to say, many of them have deep respect for the late Jim Flaherty, the former finance minister. He put together the budget we are debating and was opposed to the income split, and he had a good solid reason. The Liberal Party agrees with the the late Conservative finance minister with respect to the income splitting program.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2  The Conservatives' proposed measure on income splitting would only benefit 15% of the wealthiest Canadians. We agree with 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. A Liberal government will pursue an agenda of jobs, growth, and investments that benefits all of society.

Taxation  Mr. Speaker, apparently, the minister did not listen to the late Jim Flaherty, who questioned whether income splitting would benefit society. Apparently, the minister does not listen to the C.D. Howe Institute, which says that it will do nothing for 86% of Canadian families.

Infrastrucure  The PBO says their employment insurance scheme actually kills 10,000 jobs, and the late Jim Flaherty said income splitting was too expensive, unfair, and anti-growth. Why such bad choices?

The Budget  Mr. Speaker, to claim a surplus in 2015 the late Jim Flaherty raised taxes in each of the past four years: payroll taxes, tariff taxes, taxes on small business owners and credit unions—billions of dollars per year. He chopped services for returning veterans, forensic labs, immigration offices, national parks, the environment, food safety, and the list goes on.

Taxation  Mr. Speaker, the late Jim Flaherty was concerned that income splitting would not benefit the vast majority of Canadians. He was right. He talked about single-parent families, families whose kids are in university and families in which both parents have similar incomes.

Taxation  That is a grand total of 40 cents a day, but if the salary is $160,000, like an MP's, for example, they will get $2,000. That is what Jim Flaherty warned against, and it has not been corrected. It is expensive, unfair, and anti-growth. Why?

Taxation  Mr. Speaker, the late Jim Flaherty said, “I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look...to see who it affects...because I'm not sure that, overall, it benefits our society”. Perhaps Mr. Flaherty was thinking about the people in his riding.

Taxation  Speaker, I saw the light and I followed the guidance of my better angels who told me that income splitting would only benefit 15% of Canada's wealthiest families. When I learned that, I knew it was wrong, as did Jim Flaherty. Beyond that, in the riding of Yellowhead one out of every five families with children is a single parent family. Why are the Conservatives taking away a $2 billion tax credit that actually helps single parent families to pay for a $2 billion income splitting scheme that leaves these vulnerable families behind?

Taxation  Mr. Speaker, Jim Flaherty did not believe that this was a progressive measure and that is why he opposed it. In fact, there are over one and a half million single-parent families in Canada. These families got help from the child tax credit, but they will not get a dime from this income splitting scheme.

Taxation  Whether they are low-income or high, single moms and dads get nothing, simply because they are single. Canada today has over 1.5 million single-parent families. In the words of Jim Flaherty, why does the government think it benefits our society overall to make those who cannot split pay for the more privileged who can?

Taxation  Speaker, I think we need to watch the level of language in the House. Many independent think tanks, and the late former Conservative minister Jim Flaherty as well, spoke out against income splitting, saying that it would benefit only the richest of the rich. The original plan was tweaked, but this is still a regressive measure. Will the Conservative government have the decency to tell Canadians that income splitting will not benefit 86% of them?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2  Howe Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to the Mowat Centre and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It was even panned by the late Jim Flaherty himself. It is being panned because, as articulated in their platform, fewer than 15% of Canadian households would benefit, most of them high-income households, at a cost of $3 billion per year to the federal treasury and another $2 billion per year to provincial governments.

Taxation  [and] denounced by every credible economic think tank, representing every shade of the political spectrum. The federation is right. Everyone from the C.D. Howe Institute to the late Jim Flaherty to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said it is bad policy. Will the Conservatives listen to the experts and drop their regressive new income splitting scheme?

Taxation  Speaker, another flawed idea is the government's proposed income splitting scheme. From the C.D. Howe Institute to the late Jim Flaherty, that scheme has been panned as too expensive and unfair to 85% of Canadians. Mr. Flaherty called it an election bauble. Federally, it will cost nearly $3 billion, but the Mowat Centre says it will also cost the provinces another $1.7 billion, taken from health care and education.