UPDATE: Scott Brison's motion for a study on income inequality in Canada passed in the House of Commons on Wednesday. The motion was supported by opposition members as well as a number of government MPs.

The growing gap between rich and poor Canadians has caught the attention of a Liberal MP.

Scott Brison, the Liberal’s critic for finance and national revenue, is concerned an increasing numbers of Canadians are being left with less and that those being sidelined could end up causing big problems for businesses if the income gap isn’t addressed.

Brison wants a parliamentary committee to study the issue and report back with solutions. The Nova Scotia MP for Kings-Hants sat down with The Huffington Post Canada this week to talk about his motion, M-315, before MPs vote on it Wednesday.

Q: What is your motion about?

A: My motion simply asks that the finance committee of the House of Commons to study the issue of income inequality. It is a growing issue. We have seen in Canada over the last 30 years, under different governments of different political stripes, both federally and provincially, a growth in income inequality and in the gap between rich and poor. We are also seeing this as part of a global issue. It's notable, however, that income inequality in Canada is growing faster in recent years than it is growing in the U.S. and that is troubling.

We want the finance committee to study the issue to identify some of the causes for that growth in income inequality, to understand what the impact is socially and economically in Canada and to also make recommendations that we should consider. We should look at the Canadian tax system and consider whether or not we need some level of tax reform to build not just a fairer tax system but also potentially a more competitive tax system.

My fear is that if income inequality gets too great, and when citizens lose hope, that they may be drawn towards economic policies and politicians offering economic policies that are anti-market. If people lose faith in the system, that can lead to a rejection of the entire market-based economy and ultimately, that would be really bad for business. We can make a compelling case to business leaders that it is actually in their interest and in the interest of investors to ensure there is good social cohesion and equality of opportunity.

If there becomes a huge gap between, for instance, the level of early learning and childcare available to more well-off people and low-income people, well that is a direct hit on equality of opportunity. It is proven also that when social cohesion is eroded, when income inequality grows, that it affects everything from health outcomes to crime outcomes. You know, the Conservatives want to spend billions on new prisons, it is quite possible that if we spent more money on early learning and childcare right now we may not need the new prisons in ten years or twenty years.

The other issue is Aboriginal and First Nations communities. The biggest gap in Canada is really between Aboriginal and First Nations communities and the rest of Canadians. And I think that is as much of an economic issue as a social issue. When the fastest growing population in Canada and the youngest population is also the most socially disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged, that is a demographic, economic, and social time bomb. If we don’t address it now, we are going to pay for big time later in terms of social and economic costs.

Finally, in terms of inequality and the growth of inequality, if we have people fall through the cracks and we’re not able to harness their talents and their abilities to the fullest extent that is an economic costs that reduces our competitiveness, that reduces our productivity so I want to make the case not just to Canadians that this is a compelling social issue and that we need to address income inequality but that this is a case where good innovative social policy can be good for the economy and good for business.

And again, if people lose faith in the system and if they turn against the market based economy and they elect politicians who preach socialist anti-market policies, and in some cases pretty bad policies, that ultimately would be pretty bad for business. I think that this is an issue that Conservatives ought to be concerned, Liberals ought to be concerned, NDP ought to be concerned about ensuring that this issue is address through sound public policy. We want to avoid class warfare and that kind of thing. That is not constructive. Simply saying we want to tax the heck out of the rich doesn’t really address the problem because it doesn’t raise a whole lot of money but there are innovative, creative social policy investments we can make that can help reduce income inequality and inequality of opportunity. The real focus ought to be on inequality of opportunity as we move forward in ensuring that that is not eroded over time.

Q:You mentioned class warfare, a ticking time bomb related to Aboriginal and First Nations people, are we really at that point where the situation is that acute?

A: I come at it from a different perspective. I’ve been a business person, an investment banker, and I’m still partner in a private equity firm. I’m not some left-wing, rabid anti-business guy or some global-phobic-socialist luddite. I actually believe strongly in the market-based economy but I don’t believe in a market-based society. I think you need to have a level playing field in terms of, particularly, equality of opportunity. I fear that is being threatened now and I think that one of the contributing factors to that is this growth in income inequality.

If politicians don’t take this seriously, once the genie is out of the bottle, once people have lost faith in the system, I think it is then going to be very difficult and it may be too late to bring people back to a point where they do have faith in the system.

For generations, particularly since the Second World War, the strength of the American economy has been that people have had the sense that regardless of what station you are born into in the U.S. that you actually have a shot at it. You actually can succeed. I think that one of the reasons why growth in the U.S. is predicted to be very slow for the foreseeable future is that a lot of Americans have lost hope. They just don’t see what is in it for them. They just don’t believe they can make it. They just don’t have the same level of optimism that their parents had/ I think that when people lose hope that has very significant economic costs, and social costs, and implications even in terms of crime.

Q: How far are we from that point?

A: Income inequality is growing faster in Canada than it is in the U.S. I still believe that we are more socially cohesive in Canada. We have not become part of the gated community model to the extent the Americans have. I think there are more Americans who will say "Hey I pay for my kids private school, I pay for my family’s private health care, I pay for my private security and my private gated community, so I don’t want to pay taxes anymore."

I don’t have kids, but I don’t mind paying for education because I benefit from my neighbours’ kids being able to go to school. Canada benefits. It’s not just about helping your kids and helping your grandchildren, it’s about ensuring your neighbours’ kids and their grandchildren have a shot at it too. And you benefit from it.

So I think it is very important that we don’t go down that road of "What’s in it for me?" and we think, "What’s in it for everybody?" It is a cultural shift I fear is happening in Canada.

Q: So you don’t just want to study the tax code, you are looking at all types of solutions to address this problem?

A: I think we should consider some countries that do a better job on early learning and childcare, I think the Scandinavian countries do a better job of that. I think that the Germans do a better job of training and retraining and lifelong learning. I think that we need to restore the honour of the trades. I think that is just as important as the tax system to be honest.

So when I’m talking about learning, and the trades and early learning and childcare, I’m talking about narrowing the equality of opportunity gap and I think that is a far more constructive discussion then saying let’s tax the heck out of the rich people and turn it into some silly class warfare thing because it is more complex than that.

Q: The Conservative government doesn’t support your motion. They also don’t seem to acknowledge the problem is that severe. Does that concern you?

A: When I talk to Conservative members of Parliament as individuals, many of them understand that this is an issue, they see it in their own ridings. I’m confident and I’m hopeful, maybe I should say that I’m hopeful that the government may commission its own study perhaps at some point in the future or that there may be sufficient numbers of members of Parliament that support my motion.

Again, no single party can be blamed for having created this trend in Canada or any other country and no party has a monopoly on virtue or ideas to address it. So I just want to have a mature, adult discussion where we have open minds and open hearts and are prepared to take a look at what some provinces are doing better than other provinces, what some countries are doing better than other countries and learn.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

Related on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • 10 Amazing Facts About Inequality From Richard Wilkinson

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>

  • Health and Social Problems Are Worse In More Unequal Countries

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>

  • Less Trust In Unequal Countries

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>

  • Child Well-Being Better In Equal Countries

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>

  • More Inequality, More Murder

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>

  • More Inequality, More Jailbirds

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>

  • More Inequality, More Teenage Moms

  • The American Dream Is Toughest In America

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>

  • Everyone Benefits From Greater Equality

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>

  • Inequality In Canada Growing Since Early 90s

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>

  • Top 1% Has Greatest Share Of Income Since 30s

    Source: <a href="http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence" target="_hplink">Equality Trust</a>



Loading Slideshow...
  • 10. New Zealand

    > Gini coefficient: 0.330<br> > Change in income inequality: +21.8%<br> > Employment rate: 72.3% (6th highest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +2.5% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: +1.1% per year New Zealand performs well by a number of economic indicators, including employment, where it ranks sixth highest out of the 27 OECD countries in the study. Income in New Zealand has increased across the board since the 1980s, but the percentage annual increase among the top decile was more than twice as great as among the bottom decile. Among OECD nations, capital income in New Zealand as a percentage of total household income grew the most for the richest group and decreased substantially for the poorest group.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>

  • 9. Australia

    > Gini coefficient: 0.336<br> > Change in income inequality: +8.7%<br> > Employment rate: 72.4% (5th highest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +4.5% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: +3% per year The difference in the annual increase in income between the richest and the poorest in Australia from the mid-1980s to 2008 is one of the largest among all countries in the study. The average annual change in income for the bottom decile was 3%, compared with the top decile's 4.5%. This caused the Gini coefficient to increase 8.7% over those years. Australia has one of the highest minimum wages, as a percentage of average wages, of all the G-20 countries. The country also has a fairly high employment rate.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>

  • 8. Italy

    > Gini coefficient: 0.337<br> > Change in income inequality: +9.0%<br> > Employment rate: 56.9% (3rd lowest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +1.1% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: +0.2% per year In Italy, income inequality increased 9% between 1985 and 2008. According to the OECD, earnings for the wealthiest 10% increased an average of 1.1% each year, while earnings for the poorest 10% grew just 0.2% annually. Italy has the third-lowest employment rate among the 27 nations in the study, with just 56.9% of working-age adults holding jobs in 2008. Since 1985, unemployment benefits declined by more than 50% to one of the lowest recipient rates in the OECD.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>

  • 7. United Kingdom

    > Gini coefficient: 0.345<br> > Change in income inequality: +7.9%<br> > Employment rate: 70.3% (10th highest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +2.5% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: +0.9% per year The UK had one of the biggest increases in the income gap between the wealthy and the poor over the past two and a half decades. On average, the income of the bottom 10% increased 0.9%, while income for the top 10% grew 2.5% per year. After Israel and Australia, the UK had the third-largest difference between the top decile's annual income increase and the bottom decile's increase. The income ratio of the wealthiest citizens to the poorest citizens is 10 to one.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>

  • 6. Portugal

    > Gini coefficient: 0.353<br> > Change in income inequality: n/a<br> > Employment rate: 65.6% (14th highest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +1.1% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: +3.6% per year Despite its high Gini coefficient, Portugal's income inequality has been improving. From the mid-1980s to the late 2000s, the incomes of the country's poorest increased an average 3.6% each year. The incomes of the richest grew only 1.1% annually. The country has increased its efforts to redistribute income since the mid-1980s, such as through benefits for the unemployed.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>

  • 5. Israel

    > Gini coefficient: 0.371<br> > Change in income inequality: +13.8%<br> > Employment rate: 60.2% (7th lowest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +2.4% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: -1.1% per year In Israel, the average income of the bottom 10% actually decreased between 1985 and 2008. On average, income of the top 10% increased 2.4% per year. During the same period, income of the poorest 10% declined 1.1% each year -- the worst rate of decline among the 27 nations studied. Only one other country, Japan, saw its bottom decile's income fall as well. According to the OECD, the top 10% of Israel's residents make 14 times more than the poorest 10%.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>

  • 4. United States

    > Gini coefficient: 0.378<br> > Change in income inequality: +12.1%<br> > Employment rate: 66.7% (13th highest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +1.9% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: +0.5% per year Inequality in the United States increased significantly from 1985 to 2008, putting it in the fourth-worst spot in the study. As with many other countries in which income inequality has increased, average income has gone up across all income groups since the mid-1980s, but not equally. The income of the wealthiest 10% has greatly outpaced the poorest 10%. The share enjoyed by the top 0.1% in total pretax income quadrupled in the 30 years to 2008.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>

  • 3. Turkey

    > Gini coefficient: 0.409<br> > Change in income inequality: -5.8%<br> > Employment rate: 46.3% (the lowest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +0.1% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: +0.8% per year Turkey was one of the few OECD countries to experience a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor, with income inequality improving 5.8% between 1985 and 2008. However, it still has the third-highest income inequality among the countries in this study. Part of Turkey's problem is a relatively low number of government programs to aid the poorest citizens. The average government social expenditure among OECD nations is close to 20% of GDP, while it spends just above 10% -- the third-lowest percentage. The wealthiest 10% of Turkey's residents make 14 times more, on average, than the poorest 10%.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>

  • 2. Mexico

    > Gini coefficient: 0.476<br> > Change in income inequality: +5.1%<br> > Employment rate: 60.4% (8th lowest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +1.7% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: +0.8% per year Mexico has one of the highest rates of income inequality. Among all OECD countries, Mexico has the lowest amount of public social expenditure as a percentage of GDP. It also has the lowest unemployment benefit recipient rates. Finally, the country has the lowest minimum wages as a percentage of average wages.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>

  • 1. Chile

    > Gini coefficient: 0.494<br> > Change in income inequality: n/a<br> > Employment rate: 59.3% (4th lowest)<br> > Change in income of the rich: +1.2% per year<br> > Change in income of the poor: +2.4% per year Chile is one of the few countries where the income of the poor increased at a higher annual rate than the income of the wealthy, 2.4% to 1.2%. Nevertheless, the South American nation has the worst income inequality among the 27 OECD nations examined. Chile has a particularly high rate of self-employed individuals, primarily because of its large farming class. The income ratio of the top 10% to the bottom 10% is 27 to one.<br> <a href="http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/3/" target="_hplink">Read the entire post at 24/7 Wall St. </a>