Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak to Motion M-360, introduced by our colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider making employer-provided transit passes an income tax-exempt benefit.
The Bloc Quebecois will be supporting this motion. I believe it is our duty as legislators to adopt policies which make it possible to attain objectives of public interest which are of vital importance.
If the government accepted tax exemption for employer-provided transit passes, it would be exhibiting fairness, encouraging public transit, and effectively combatting pollution.
At the moment, we have a situation of flagrant inequity: employees who take public transit and receive bus passes from their employers are deemed to have received a taxable benefit. To put it clearly, this benefit is considered to be income, and therefore taxable. On the other hand, according to a Revenue Canada interpretation, those whose employer provides parking can benefit from a tax exemption. There seems to me, therefore, to be a problem of equity here.
Responsible public policy dictates that we must stop encouraging automobile use over public transit. Public transit is safer, more economical, less polluting and, most importantly, accessible to more people. They are thus perhaps more humane, certainly more cost-effective, healthier and more democratic.
When he introduced the motion, the hon. member for Kamloops. Thompson and Highland Valleys gave a detailed explanation of how the Americans implemented this system. There is no lack of precedent, therefore, on which we can build. The benefits to public transit in the U.S.A. are undeniable. Everywhere that employees were able to take advantage of this measure there was an increase in the use of public transit, and major improvements to infrastructures and services to the population.
It has become obvious in the greater Montreal area and other areas in Quebec and Canada that, when services are cut, there are fewer users. And when the demand drops, bus routes are removed. This creates a vicious circle of the worst kind. On the other hand, whenever the demand for public transit is encouraged, a virtuous circle is created, which promotes the expansion of public services.
It was no accident that the three major urban transit companies in Quebec, namely the Société de transport de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal, Société de transport de Laval and Société de transport de la rive sud de Montréal, as well as most if not all their unions and employees are asking that we support a progressive and innovative policy. In addition, it seems obvious that promoting public transit is also a matter of social fairness.
As our colleagues so aptly pointed out, and I quote:
It is unfair that low-income families have been left with less access to educational and job opportunities simply because they do not own a vehicle.
That is to say nothing of the environmental aspect. According to a Transport Canada 3000 report, it is estimated that transit passes could help reduce automobile travel by as much as 300 million kilometres over 10 years.
This would result in lower noise levels, fewer traffic jams and accidents, less congestion in parking areas as well as tremendous savings in terms of fuel and other non-renewable resources.
Finally, if approved, this proposal would assist in fulfilling Canada's Kyoto commitments. For the record, I will go over them briefly.
The Kyoto protocol calls for an average 5.2% reduction of greenhouse emissions in all industrialized countries between 2008 and 2012. This means that Canada will have to reduce its 1990 levels of emissions by 6 per cent. However, the federal government has been dragging its feet regarding this issue. It has long put off any concrete measure to help fight climate change, which is a result of the greenhouse effect.
Following the signing of the Kyoto protocol, the federal government proposed the setting up of task forces, where some 450 experts would try to devise a strategy. While the 1998 budget provided for $150 million over a three-year period, it was only on October 19 that the first initiatives were announced, and that a Canadian strategy finally seemed to be taking shape, following the Kyoto protocol.
The government will spend millions to correct this environmental mess. Therefore, some may think it will surely refuse to make transit passes an income tax-exempt benefit, since this measure would deprive the government of valuable tax revenues. This is not the case. Indeed, how do these revenues compare with the savings in the health sector and in the budgets for the construction and renovation of our infrastructures, not to mention the incentives related to employment and distributive justice?
Why does the government not cut the billions of dollars that it has been giving for years to the oil and nuclear industries? Oil consumption is the primary cause of greenhouse gases, that scourge that those in Kyoto said they wanted to fight.
As for nuclear technology, it creates more problems than it solves. For example, CANDU reactors are neither efficient nor profitable and they pose a major threat to human safety and international security, since it is possible to divert that technology and use it for military purposes. Just remember, barely a few months ago, when the Indo-Pakistani crisis brought the threat of a nuclear conflict to the whole world.
Some might accuse me of exaggerating in establishing a link between bus passes and nuclear threat. Not so, considering that cumulative short sighted policies have often led our world on the brink of disaster during the 20th century.
We are moving step by step on the road to a better world. With the 21st century just months away, let us take a measure that will promote fairness, a healthier environment, sustainable development and a more just society.
The motion of the member for Kamloops—Thompson and Highland Valleys seeks to do that, and we support it.