Furtive Trudeau still easy to read
Waiting to strike on income-splitting
Whenever I hear the word “infrastructure,” I reach for my metaphorical revolver. Of course it’s worthy and important — it’s sewers and roads and bridges, which politicians are always promising to build, even when there’s no river.
But it is not exciting or inspirational, and it’s certainly not going to win anyone a general election.
All these thoughts crossed my mind as I sat in the Parliamentary Press Gallery on Wednesday and listened to the leader of the third party bang on about the need for more spending on ... infrastructure. Was Justin Trudeau reining in his theatrical tendencies and trying to be as beige as possible?
The answer is, yes he was. Abiding by Napoleon’s doctrine that you don’t interrupt when your opponent is making a mistake, the Liberals were keen not to knock the story about the NDP’s $2.7-million bill for misusing parliamentary funds f or partisan purposes from the headlines.
But there was more to it than that — he appears to be keeping a deliberately low profile, in order to maximize the impact when the Liberals finally decide to share with Canadians how they propose to kick-start an economy that is barely chugging along.
Mr. Trudeau is keeping his powder dry on his campaign platform but we know he plans to revoke the Conservatives’ income-splitting plan — what he calls a “tax break for the wealthy.”
It’s true that the free-market CD Howe Institute thinks it’s an inefficient tax break that gives 85% of all households nothing at all. Its study suggests 40% of benefits would go to families with income over $125,000.
Even the late finance minister, Jim Flaherty, said he wasn’t sure that it would benefit society.
But how would Mr. Trudeau spend the $2 billion saved on income-splitting?
A close read of his recent speeches on helping the middle class offer some clues. “We don’t need Mr. Harper’s income-splitting scheme for wealthy Canadians. Canada needs a plan that invests in the middle class, and those who are working hard to join it,” he said in London, Ont., last month.
That suggests some kind of broad-based relief for the middle band of taxpayers — $44$89,000.
Mr. Trudeau has been vague on whether he would keep the Tories’ extension to the Universal Child Care benefit that now gives parents with children under six years old $160 a month, and those with kids aged six to 17 an additional $60 a month.
Yet the fact that he has said he would cancel income splitting but has not followed suit on the child-care benefit suggests he would retain it.
The Prime Minister has already made one campaign speech in which he claimed the Liberals and NDP would take away child-care cheques that will start landing this summer.
NDP leader Tom Mulcair has already committed to keeping the enhanced benefit and it seems likely Mr. Trudeau will do likewise.
If this is how it plays out, the battleground for the 2015 general election will be set-and the Liberals will be able to claim they are occupying the moral high ground.
All three parties will argue they are making life more affordable for the middle classes.
Yet NDP plans to introduce $15-a-day daycare across the country, not to mention its tax cut for small businesses, are vulnerable to accusations that they are not progressive measures. The Quebec experience is that subsidized daycare spaces have been taken up by better off families, while the beneficiaries of the small business tax cut are likely to be owners who are already well off.
As noted already, the Conservative income-splitting plan is skewed toward higher earners.
If the Liberals do commit to billions of dollars in tax cuts that really would help the $45$89K wage bracket, they will be able to claim with some justification that they are the true champions of the middle class.
It would certainly blunt attacks from the Prime Minister, such as the one made in Question Period Wednesday, alleging the Liberals plan to hike taxes on families to fund infrastructure.
You don’t interrupt when your opponent is making a mistake