Toronto deserves more from their federal government

In retrospect, Ottawa’s latest federal budget had many interesting ideas, but very little to help Toronto. Packaged with an unprecedented public relations effort, the budget lacks any real substance when it comes to the key issues, and was a major letdown for public transit and the possibility of any action on improving the health and well-being of Aboriginal communities.

In reaction, John Ibbiston of The Globe & Mail, wrote that the budget “is as much about who is ignored as who is included. First and foremost this budget finally, tragically, buries the Kelowna Accord…The verdict can’t be escaped. The Conservatives lack the political courage to confront the overriding social policy challenge of our time: eliminating aboriginal poverty on and off reserve.”

Federal funding through the Kelowna Accord is essential to resolving the prolonged crisis facing Aboriginal communities. The Conservative government has allocated just $450 million (over two years) compared with $1.64 billion for the first two years of the previous government's commitment through the Kelowna Accord.

The incidence of Aboriginal infant mortality is almost 20 per cent higher than for the rest of Canada and Aboriginal people are also three times more likely to suffer from diabetes. Reviving the Kelowna Accord is absolutely necessary in laying the foundation for action on the health, education, and future prosperity of Aboriginal peoples. The Conservatives have once again failed to provide any action on improving the lives of Canada’s First Nations.

The budget was also a blow to public transit.

An editorial from The Toronto Star in the days after the budget was released, insisted that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget is, “out of step with Canada’s urban reality…A key area where cities had legitimately expected some movement was on a national transit strategy…Flaherty’s plans for an extended sharing of federal gasoline tax money hardly amounts to a transit strategy, because this cash is also spent on roads and other projects.”

Although it was nice to see Mr.Flaherty’s decision to borrow a plank from the Green Party platform by introducing a “feebate” tax incentive to shift drivers out of gas guzzlers and into fuel-efficient vehicles, the measure does not go nearly far enough.

According to a senior industry executive, the new fees on low-efficient vehicles will not create a great movement in reducing the amount of gas guzzlers we have on the road, telling The Globe & Mail that, “if they can afford $70,000 vehicle, they’re going to pay $72,000.”

However, the intiative can also take up to $4,000 off a Toyota Prius. But again, the impact is much too small to make a huge difference in the marketplace. As one cabbie told me, a Toyota Camry goes for about $25,000 with low maintenance and repair costs and great fuel efficiency, whereas the Prius is $40,000 with higher maintenance and repair costs and a little bit better fuel efficiency.

It’s a nice idea, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. one eye-catching intiative to reduce the amount of gas guzzlers on the road does not add up to an effective transportation strategy. Far from it.

Tackling the problem of getting people out of their cars and onto public transit is a much bigger challenge. An editorial from The Star on Feb.27 read, “Few areas of public policy are more important, on so many fronts, than transit and transportation. The fast and efficient movement of people and goods represents the lifeblood of the region's economy. And that vital circulation is being steadily squeezed by traffic gridlock. It is estimated that congestion robs the economy of more than $2 billion yearly through late deliveries and lost work time.”

Getting people out of their cars could be as simple as increasing funding to public transit. Bruce Campion-Smith of The Star, reported on March 10, “If you build it, they will come. By the tens of millions. That's the tale told by a chart showing the roller-coaster ups and downs of ridership on Toronto's streetcars, buses and subways. It marks the milestones in transit investments – and the perils of service cuts. The message behind the numbers is clear: Investments bring new riders. During the heady days of the '70s and '80s, ridership grew by almost 70 per cent, topping out in 1988.”

Getting people out of their cars and on to subways, buses and light rail not only makes good economic sense, it will also have a dramatic impact on the quality of life in our cities. Readily accessible and efficient mass transit systems address a range of environmental and social problems, including greenhouse gas emissions and air quality, congestion, urban sprawl and noise pollution.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association says that it cost $4.2 billion to operate the country’s transit systems in 2005 with fare box revenues providing only $2.6 billion. Because federal and provincial governments contribute hardly any money to operating expenses, municipalities had to make up 94% of the shortfall. In the US, 30% of the shortfall comes from federal and state governments.

The Green Party has called on the federal government to make an immediate commitment to long-term funding for the nation’s transit systems as part of a national public transportation strategy.

Toronto deserves more from their federal government.

Achieving sustainability and reducing our ecological footprint

I believe that achieving sustainability and reducing our ecological footprint is the most important thing that any of us can do. That’s why I’m in the Green Party.

To overcome the risk of major economic and social disruption ‘on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century,’ I believe we must implement ecological tax shifting, to move taxes off of income and payroll, and onto pollution and resource consumption.

In addition, we must eliminate the $1.4 billion of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and re-direct the funds to expand the use of renewable energies, including a massive re-investment in the Wind Power Production Incentive and the Renewable Power Production Incentive programs.

These are simple, but fundamental steps in addressing climate change head on.

Recently, we witnessed a turning point in Canada. Economists from the TD Bank said that governments need to attach a cost to pollution if any fundamental progress is to be made.

On March 7, the Canadian Press reported that, “the TD Bank argued that industry and consumers will not change their behaviour as long as it's cheap to pollute. They advocate a policy that combines emissions regulations, taxes, subsidies and a trading system for emissions credits – a varied approach they say would mitigate the impact on the economy.

Furthermore, the CP reported that, TD's chief economist Don Drummond stated that, “taxing those who actually pollute creates an incentive to change behaviour. He suggests that the tax should be applied when the pollution is created. Thus, the consumer would pay for car pollution, and industry would pay for pollution associated with the production process. The revenues would be shifted into cutting taxes in other areas or to finance subsidies that further help the environment. An emissions trading system would be another key component of a polluter pay system, something the TD says has proven benefits.”

Ecological tax shifting sends a clear message to consumers and industry about the need to reduce fossil fuel use. And unlike other tax cutting measures, it’s revenue neutral. We tax the things we don’t want, like greenhouse gases and pollution, and reduce taxes on things we do want, like income, payroll, and profits.

For the Green Party, a new carbon tax would mean a graduated levy applied to fossil fuels according to their greenhouse gas emissions – highest for coal, lowest for natural gas. Industry will most likely pass these costs on to consumers, but by reducing taxes elsewhere, most Canadians will see a lower overall tax burden.

On March 5, Preston Manning wrote that, “Almost 50 years ago, the president of the United States, through requests for proposals issued by NASA, initiated a process for harnessing the scientific, technological, and entrepreneurial resources of that nation to the national goal of putting a man on the moon. In the 21st century, should it not be possible for our leaders to initiate a process for harnessing the scientific, technological, and entrepreneurial resources of this nation to the goal of reconnecting 30-million Canadians to the environment of planet Earth?”

The signs are everywhere. A March 2 poll put the Green party at 13 per cent support nationally, tied with the NDP.

This is the moment.