A visitor from Mars, or perhaps even Michigan, might find it hard to differentiate the economic policies of Canada’s three main political parties.

Tom Mulcair’s New Democrats, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and Justin Trudeau’s Liberals support balanced budgets, tax cuts for small business and subsidies for families.

They support building pipelines to move oil and gas to market, although they differ on which ones should get the nod.

All three parties are fans of free trade in general. The Liberals and Conservatives support a trade and investment pact with the European Union. The NDP hasn’t yet made up its mind on that one, although it does back free trade with South Korea.

Those differences that do exist might surprise visiting Martians.

Mulcair’s New Democrats, who are viewed as left-wing, agree with Stephen Harper’s right-wing Conservatives that, by and large, the rich pay enough in personal income tax (although the NDP would crack down on high-income earners who receive stock options.)

The New Democrats also support Harper’s so-called Universal Child Care Benefit, which provides the same per-child subsidy to paupers and millionaires.

Strangely enough, it is the centre-of-the-road Liberals who are promising to soak the rich.

Which brings me to Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s much-publicized announcement Monday on taxes and family subsidies.

Trudeau promised that his party, if elected, would scrap the Conservatives’ universal child benefit. He would replace it by expanding and enriching an existing means-tested scheme for families with kids.

He also said his Liberals would cut taxes for the middle class and hike taxes on the rich.

This is not as dramatic as it might sound. Trudeau’s definition of middle class is broad. Under his plan, anyone whose earnings fall roughly between $50,000 and $200,000 would see an income tax cut of $670.

The Liberals say the $3 billion cost of this would be made up for by raising taxes on Canadians who make more than $200,000.

But since the rich are usually adept at avoiding taxes, that countervailing $3 billion may not entirely materialize.

The Liberals’ proposed child benefit is also strikingly broad. Unlike the existing universal benefit, it would not go to all families with children under 18. Instead, it would be means-tested, giving more money to those with lower incomes and less to the well-to-do.

The Liberals claim it would provide a net gain for families with children whose household income is as high as $150,000.

Even families with household incomes of $190,000 could receive some money under the Liberal plan.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

In short, Trudeau’s pitch to the middle class, in terms of tax cuts and subsidies, is different from Harper’s. But it is not radically different.

Unlike Harper, Trudeau would exclude the very rich from receiving government largesse.

But as with the Conservatives, that big chunk of voters in the middle — the ones who decide elections — would get the gravy.

None of this is to say that Canada’s political parties are identical. The New Democrats may no longer wish to nationalize the commanding heights of the economy. But they are the only party committed to boosting corporate taxes.

So far, they are also the only party calling for a national child-care scheme — in effect promising to reprise a program that the Liberals tried and failed to deliver.

Still, there is an eerie similarity among all of these sworn political enemies.

At times, Mulcair’s NDP is reminiscent of the Liberals of past decades.

At times, Trudeau seems to be advocating Harperism with a human face.

The Liberal leader’s announcement this week demonstrated where his party differs from the prime minister’s Conservatives in matters of tax and family policy.

But it also demonstrated, particularly for those not caught up in the Sturm und Drang of Canadian politics, how close the two are.

Thomas Walkom’s column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.

Read more about: