Income Splitting Tag

24 Jul 2015 Highs and Lows of the 41st Canadian Parliament

On June 18th, the House of Commons adjourned, setting the stage for an election campaign that will end the 41st session of Parliament. This is an appropriate time to look back on the past four years and see what was accomplished, especially through the lens of ARPA Canada and the issues that we focus on. Pre-born Human Rights: When the Conservatives were handed a majority in the last federal election, many Christians hoped that pre-born human rights would finally be addressed. These hopes were in vain. Although some courageous MPs stood up for the pre-born, the leadership of all the political parties in the House of Commons did their utmost to suppress these efforts.   Motion 312, championed by MP Stephen Woodworth, was the first motion that held promise. It asked that “a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth.” Local ARPA chapters hosted presentations by Mr. Woodworth on this motion and many ARPA supporters encouraged MPs to support it. But with the party leaders all vocally opposed, the motion died in the House by a vote of 203 to 91. Yet Motion 312 reignited a discussion that was quiet for too long. Momentum for addressing this injustice was building.
Read More

02 Jul 2014 Report Card: Assessing Canada’s Conservative Government

The following article, "Report Card: Assessing Canada's Conservative Government on 10 Key Issues" was originally published in the Reformed Perspective magazine. It has been updated and included here as a reference item for our readers. You can download a PDF of the updated version, linked at the bottom of the text if you wish to print a copy. By Mark Penninga (Updated July, 2014) In a June 2011 article for Reformed Perspective I detailed 10 realistic goals that could be accomplished for our nation under this Conservative government if our leaders have the courage to lead and if citizens give them the encouragement and accountability to do so. Now that we are about halfway through this government’s mandate, how are we faring on these issues? 1. Give Aboriginals the responsibility and hope that belongs to all Canadians Grade: B+ Not long after ARPA published a policy report on this issue in 2012, we were very encouraged to see the federal government announce a number of bills and policies to increase accountability, equality, and opportunity for Canada's Aboriginal peoples. In June 2013, the First Nations Financial Transparency Act became law. Aboriginal MP Rob Clarke has also introduced a private member's bill C-428 entitled the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act. And the government has also taken steps towards allowing private property ownership on reserves and increasing parental responsibility in education. As encouraging as these changes are, they are small steps in light of the enormity of the problem. And given that the issue crosses into provincial responsibility, much more can also be done in having the provinces and federal government work towards a common vision. 2. Reform the Canadian Human Rights Commission Grade: C- In light of all the opposition from all sides of the political spectrum to problematic sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is striking that it took a private member's bill (Brian Storseth's C-304) to finally abolish Section 13 in the summer of 2013. This was a huge victory, but the current government can't take much credit for it, apart from not actively opposing it. Much more can be done to reform or even abolish the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Read More

14 Feb 2014 Take Action: Income Splitting and Tax Fairness for Families

Take Action Today: Use Easymail below to your MP (CC'd to Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Harper). It just takes a few minutes. {easymail 77} There is an apparent rift in Conservative ranks these days. According to this Financial Post article, Canada's finance minister Jim Flaherty sounds like he doesn't like the idea of income-splitting for families. He says, "It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot and other parts . . . not at all." Such a statement seems a little odd coming from a finance minister who has...

Read More

10 Sep 2008 Are Canada’s politicians talking about what Canadians want to hear?

eReview #50 - By Dave Quist, Executive Director, Institute of Marriage and Family CanadaSo it begins. Canadians are now in the midst of a federal election. Over the next 35 days, we will be inundated with information—email, “demon-dialers”, TV, radio, newspapers, even at the front door of our homes. It won’t end until voting day, Tuesday, October 14. For some of us, it will be policy wonk heaven – debates, policy announcements and political rhetoric every day. For others, it will be the longest five weeks imaginable.If pundits are correct, we are going to hear a lot about leadership, economic indicators, the environment, jobs and healthcare. These are important issues. However, there are several other topics that should also be part of public discourse. This is true whether they receive any serious consideration this election cycle or not. Here are some of the issues that we would like to see discussed during this federal campaign and subsequently, the 40th Parliament:
Read More

24 Oct 2007 Income Splitting – A Good Idea for Families

By Marvin Van Maanen Currently in Canada, all wage earners are taxed as individuals. Canada has a progressive income tax system. As one’s income increases, they move up the ladder to a higher tax bracket, allowing the government to take a larger percentage of their income. This current system is biased against single-income families and biased towards dual-income families. For example, a family in which one spouse works and brings home $70,000, and the other spouse stays home to care for the family will pay almost $1700 more in 2007 than a family in which both spouses work and bring in $35,000 each. In both cases, the total family income is the same, yet one family pays significantly more in federal taxes yearly.
Read More