Nelson Riis

[Petitions, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from constituents of the Kamloops area who believe that our tax system is grossly unfair for a whole number of reasons which they outline in their petition.

They are simply asking the federal government to consider a major overhaul of our taxation system.

[Petitions, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from a number of elderly citizens of the city of Kamloops.

The petitioners are concerned with what they see as a diminishing ability by the federal government to protect Canada's sovereignty on a number of issues as a result of the signing of a number of our international trade agreements.

They are asking the government not to proceed with any more of these agreements until we come to grips with this kind of issue.

[Petitions, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present three petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first petition is signed by young people from a number of schools in Kamloops who are concerned about cruelty toward animals.

The petitioners are asking the judges of Canada to make more of an effort to assign appropriate sentences to those people who behave in a manner that could be identified as being cruel toward animals.

[Committees Of The House, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there is anyone on the government benches who could indicate when the government would bring forward any legislation regarding the introduction of the Nisga'a treaty, assuming it is agreed upon by the Nisga'a people in the next few days.

[Transit Passes, November 4th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider making employer-provided transit passes an income tax-exempt benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member who seconded this motion which does not reflect a new request. The Canadian Urban Transit Association and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have been lobbying for this policy change for many years.

In 1997 they were joined in their quest by the Amalgamated Transit Union Canadian Council, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Ontario Lung Association and Pollution Probe. These groups together have now formed a national task force to promote this issue.

I would be remiss if I did not give special mention and recognition to the two project managers for the national task force, Amelia Shaw and Donna-Lynn Ahee. These two individuals turned this initiative into a national grassroots campaign. I speak from personal experience when I say that if anyone had the opportunity to meet with these two exceptionally committed people they could not help but be convinced of the absolute need, the extreme importance and the widespread support for this initiative.

We all pay tax on our earnings. Some benefits we receive from our employer must also be declared as income and are therefore income taxable. Employer provided parking and employer provided transit passes are both examples of benefits that are considered taxable under the federal Income Tax Act.

However, Revenue Canada's interpretation of this act provides loopholes allowing most employees to receive their free parking income tax free. Workers with this benefit save approximately $1,722 annually. This is an incentive for commuters to drive and represents a significant loss of income tax revenue.

The government can address this bias by making employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit. This change would provide a rare opportunity for the federal government to seriously affect public policy at the local level.

I would say, if nobody in the House minds, that employer provided tax exempt transit passes is a form of linguistic juggling so I will refer to it by the acronym many of its supporters use, TEI

In the United States TEI became available under the deficit reduction act, 1984, and the tax reform act, 1986. While both the amounts and the manner in which a transit subsidy could be offered were limited, transit use increased on average 25% among employees offered this benefit. Obviously it was a significant change in emphasis.

In San Francisco, for example, transit use among participating employees increased by 31%, removing an estimated 17 million vehicles miles from the Bay area, avoiding 61 million tons of pollutants and generating $1.6 million of new transit revenue.

More recently American highway policy legislation known as the ISTEA bill is expected to further promote the use of public transit. Employers will be able to offer up to $100 per month of transit benefits and some of the barriers that discourage many employers from participating have now been eliminated.

Canada is the only OECD nation where the national government is not involved in funding urban transit. Why should the government be interested in promoting public transit? Because, by almost every measure, transportation in Canada is heading on an unsustainable path. Transportation is the largest single sector source of Canada's carbon emissions at 32%, accounting for 30% of energy used and 65% of all petroleum consumed. Half these emissions occur by cars and light trucks in cities where public transit is available.

Transportation emissions are expected to rise 52% between the years 1991 and 2020. If we are serious about reducing our greenhouse gas emissions we must find a way to promote the use of public transportation. Making employer provided transit passes a tax exempt benefit would be a good first step.

If we do not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we will face a long term set of consequences. No Canadians have been able to escape the consequences of global warming. In Canada our average temperature for the first six months of 1998 was 2.7° above normal and 5° above normal in parts of the Northwest Territories. Our first eight months have been the hottest in 600 years. We are beginning to see the impact our actions in urban settings are having on ourselves and on our rural neighbours.

We were all shocked by the graphic images of the devastation that occurred as a result of the floods in the Saguenay and Winnipeg. The cleanup of the ice storms that hit eastern Ontario and Quebec has cost more than both floods with rural communities and farmers bearing the brunt of the disaster. The frequency of hail storms in Calgary has increased from one every four years in the 1980s to two every year in the 1990s. There has been a twofold increase in Canadian forest fires and pest outbreaks to the cost of $210 million each year.

A 10% to 30% reduction in crop yields across the prairies is being predicted by Environment Canada's environmental adaptation research group. The range of disease carrying insects, in other words the number of Canadians contacting malaria in foreign countries, has doubled. In 1998 a Toronto woman became the first Canadian to contract malaria from a local mosquito. We have yet to examine the cost of introducing new diseases to our country.

Canadians are quickly realizing the seriousness of the challenge before them. Any incentive encouraging the use of public transport is an important step in our struggle to meet the Kyoto protocol.

The same increases in auto use that have profoundly contributed to our greenhouse gas emissions also affect Canadians locally both in terms of health and the infrastructure needed to support vehicular use. Despite tighter vehicle emissions regulations and reductions in some pollutants, smog increased by 20% over the past decade in Canada largely because of an increase in the number of vehicles and the distance these vehicles were driven.

The Minister of Transport made this observation in a recent address in the city of Toronto:

You don't need to see the seat belt sign to know you are coming into Toronto. You recognize it by the brown haze of smog.

Therein is a very telling tale. As we approach most significant urban areas of our country we are well aware of the advancing city by the haze hanging over it.

Transportation related air pollution is particularly harmful to people at risk, meaning young children, the elderly and those with asthma or chronic lung and heart disease. Hospitalization for young Canadian children with asthma increased 28% among boys and 18% among girls between the years 1980 and 1990.

In greater Vancouver, part of the world with which I am most familiar, air is killing 900 people each year. Air pollution wipes out 2,100 people across the province of British Columbia and 16,000 people across Canada each year. For each death 100 more received expensive medical treatment. If nothing else, these statistics speak for themselves. We are dealing with a major killer component in our environment as a result of pollution.

Provincial governments are struggling in their own ways to deliver the health services required by our aging population while preventable pollution related illnesses escalate. Hundreds of millions of dollars can be saved by reducing smog. TEI is a proven incentive to get many people from using their cars and back into public transit of one kind or another.

Municipalities have been asking for this tax exemption for many years to promote their public transit systems. In the greater Toronto area commuter growth of 50% is expected within the GTA and 100% outside the GTA in the next 25 years. I think we all agree that with every visit to the greater Toronto metropolitan area we are reminded of the increasing traffic flow in that part of the country.

We ought to acknowledge that traffic congestion increases the travel time required by individuals, vehicle costs, pollution of the area, and demand for parking and other forms of vehicular infrastructure. Improving transit service is a less expensive alternative than adding lanes, widening bridges and intersections, and increasing parking availability.

The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton estimates that taxes devoted to transportation will triple if it cannot achieve its target to reduce rush hour car traffic. Municipal governments do not have the resources, that is the taxes, to maintain and expand their transportation infrastructure. In many cities such as Vancouver and Montreal expansion of highway systems is limited by geographic location.

Canadians can no longer afford to support indefinite increases in automobile use. Implementing the TEI would provide the incentive necessary for many commuters to switch to a mode of transportation with lower costs to society as a whole.

I have heard several comments being made as an excuse for inaction on this suggestion. It would cost too much in revenue loss. There would be a perceived inequity between those using public transport and others. There is the question of whether or not taxation is an appropriate or an effective tool to motivate people's behaviour, the question about subsidies to public transportation, and the question about it setting a precedent for excluding other benefits from taxation. I would like to take a moment or two in the time remaining to address each of these major concerns.

Can we afford the revenue loss? The Canadian Urban Transit Association estimates revenue loss to be between $18 million and $28 million based on U.S. data that 10% of employees will be offered $40 per month as the average benefit. This is potential loss as few Canadian employers currently provide transit passes. Real losses can only occur when employers substitute transit benefits for currently taxed wages.

Transit benefits are generally cheaper to provide than parking benefits. Employees who trade a parking spot for a transit pass increase their employer's taxable corporate profits or their own taxable income. This would result in a new tax revenue. A net gain is expected with higher modal shifts to transit. As well, for reasons previously cited it could save hundreds of millions of dollars in health care and municipal infrastructure costs should the TEI be implemented.

There is only one taxpayer. As we all know, an investment from one level of government that results in reduced cost or new revenues at other levels of government ultimately benefits the individual taxpayer. We cannot afford any further inaction in this sector.

Would this create inequities within the tax system? Some equity concerns provide a convenient although rather ludicrous argument in my judgment. I have heard critics say that allowing this income tax exemption would be unfair to employees with bosses that would not provide this benefit. I cannot believe that any Canadian thinks it is unfair that different jobs pay different wages and benefits even though we may be underpaid for the work we do as a rule. What Canadians think is unfair is discrimination, when an employer is paying a different wage or benefit to two employees at the same company doing exactly the same job.

Sixty-two per cent of Canadian commuters enjoy free or heavily subsidized parking while less than five per cent pay income taxes on this benefit. Co-workers without a car receive no comparable benefit. Tax losses from this benefit are estimated at $260 million.

By the year 2000, 80% of the Canadian population will live in urban centres with access to public transportation. Incentives that result in increased public transit use benefits all transit users, lower income families, women, students and the elderly, by increasing transit revenues and transit service.

All taxpayers benefit from decreased congestion. They also benefit from health care savings, reduced infrastructure costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Very few tax policies impact so favourably on so many Canadians.

It is unfair that cuts to transit service have occurred in order to deal with unstable funding. 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. It is grossly unfair that hospital emergency rooms fill on “smog” days with young children who cannot breathe properly.

Would TEI be an effective and appropriate tool for increasing transit ridership? Taxation is already effectively used to manipulate behaviours. We increase taxes on alcohol and cigarette use. We give tax credits to oil companies for land reclamation costs. We allow tax deductions for charitable donations, political donations and RRSPs.

In the United States this tax exemption is a proven incentive to increase transit use. The Department of Finance, quoting the U.S. general accounting office study, concurs that ridership will increase about 25%.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of TEI is its potential to interact with other transportation demand management measures to increase the effectiveness of both. While local and provincial governments can develop transit systems and control land use, fiscal incentives are essential to maximize the results.

The Victoria Institute for Transportation Policy, a research facility in British Columbia, suggests that any transportation demand management policies implemented at the local and provincial level will be approximately 20% less effective without this incentive.

The other question is transit properties constantly hear that higher excise taxes on gasoline and substantial subsidies from provincial and local governments currently favour the use of public transport.

Most provincial subsidies have been slashed. When they did exist, the hidden subsidies of car drivers almost equalled per passenger per kilometre the more visible transit subsidies.

Our taxes pay for road construction, road maintenance, policing, health care for pollution areas and accidents. Car drivers tend to travel more miles than transit users which increases their individual subsidy substantially. A 1993 study showed that Ottawa-Carleton residents paid $425 annually to support each car user and only $121 to support transit users.

The finance department is concerned that promotion of this initiative would be precedent setting. The red book claimed a Liberal government would establish a framework in which environmental and economic policy point in the same direction. What better way to green the hill then to provide our employees with transit passes in lieu of parking?

We need many precedent setting strategies to fulfill our Kyoto commitment to combat climate change and to reduce traffic congestion. Implementing the TEI would be a sign of good faith that this government is interested in working toward a sustainable economic future.

Reducing congestion, pollution and the environmental and health impacts requires a number of strategies. One easily implementable first step the federal government could take is to make employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit. This is a win-win situation. Implementation requires only a policy change from the federal government. It is the responsibility of individual transit properties to successfully market this service. Potential revenue losses are an insignificant investment compared to the long term social, economic, environmental and health benefits of supporting sustainable transportation use.

It is interesting that both the Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce and the Toronto Board of Trade are now calling on the government to allow this tax exemption to proceed. Businesses are voicing their concern over the impact and high cost of congestion. This is viewed as an important demonstration of the government's commitment to achieving emission reduction targets. We need proactive policies providing long term savings and avoidance of tax impacts as we plan our society for the new millennium.

Supporting public transit is not solely a transit issue. It is a health issue. It is a social issue. It is a pollution issue. It is an environmental issue. It surely is an economic issue as well. It is a solid foot forward in the battle to meet our Kyoto obligations. It makes sense. It is cost effective. It has proven to be effective in other jurisdictions.

If we cannot agree to provide an incentive for Canadians to use public transportation when so many groups and organizations are supportive and we have no clear opposition, how will we ever be able to make that much bolder and controversial step necessary to create a sustainable future? It is time to make employer provided transit passes as tax exempt benefit.

[Petitions, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on another matter the petitioners are concerned about the lack of any serious sentences regarding individuals who inflict pain upon animals or carry out some cruelty against animals. I know this is an issue of concern for yourself as well, Mr. Speaker.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to educate judges more about this area and to impose more appropriate sentences for those who carry out these terrible crimes against animals.

[Petitions, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on another matter from a number of Canadians, namely Cam Murray and Robina McLaren.

They are concerned about the unfair tax system of Canada and point out a number of reasons why they feel our tax system is biased and unfair. They are calling for a complete remaking of our tax system with a reminder of the Carter commission as a guideline.

[Petitions, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present three petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first one deals with Canada's signing of a number of international trade agreements. The petitioners from Kamloops are particularly concerned about the fact that this restricts the ability of the federal government as well as other governments to promote economic growth and pass legislation to protect the health and well-being of Canadians.

They feel that we should be careful in terms of signing any further agreements, particularly some form of the MAI.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by young people from various schools and others in the Kamloops region who are concerned about the lack of proper sentencing against people who commit offences against animals. They point out a number of offences against animals.

The petitioners feel that the judges simply do not understand that people who inflict cruelty upon animals ought to be receiving a good smack, or perhaps more than that. They do not elaborate.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on an unrelated topic, the petitioners again from throughout British Columbia are calling upon the government to consider international trade agreements like NAFTA that make it difficult for governments to pass legislation to protect the health of Canadians.

They specifically imply the MMT and the PCB issues facing the government.