Where's the federal public transit money?

[rbt]

I don't think we want a national transit strategy.

Do you really want a large number of Toronto tax dollars going to installing 30 minute bus routes in Iqualiat and Whitehorse?

At very least funding would be on a per-capita basis. Taxes paid to the feds is not on a per-capita basis. This would be a mechanism for reinforcing transfers from Ontario to other provinces.

 

[LAz]

Federal government got brains... shame they put a penny into the Sheppard LRT project.

 

[Justin10000]

It's quite easy to blame Harper. Again, where's your proof that other Prime Ministers have acted differently? Chretien was in power for a decade. Where was his national transit strategy? Mulroney is widely considered one of the greenest PMs in history. Where was his national transit strategy?

I might agree that this PM is a little less inclined to fund transit at the national level, but let's not pretend that he is some kind of grand exception.

Finally, please explain where you would find the billions to fund a national transit strategy. What programs would you cut or what taxes would you raise to pay for it? It's incumbent upon anyone proposing a huge increase in public spending to say where the money would come from. Otherwise, you are no different than those who just want tax cuts but never talk about the impact of those cuts.

Harper and previous governments I am not solely blaming Harper. But he could break the trend of funding a few projects with a stable funding strategy. He would probably win a majority handily.

We cut the GST by 2% Why? One percent could have gone to infrastructure projects. There is money. Too bad we waste it with useless tax-cuts. And please do not tell me tax cuts "create jobs".

 

[kettal]

I don't think we want a national transit strategy.

Do you really want a large number of Toronto tax dollars going to installing 30 minute bus routes in Iqualiat and Whitehorse?

At very least funding would be on a per-capita basis. Taxes paid to the feds is not on a per-capita basis. This would be a mechanism for reinforcing transfers from Ontario to other provinces.

Yes.

I'd much rather the feds spent time on national issues like poverty and homelessness. A national transit strategy is nothing more than another layer of red tape.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Finally, please explain where you would find the billions to fund a national transit strategy. What programs would you cut or what taxes would you raise to pay for it? It's incumbent upon anyone proposing a huge increase in public spending to say where the money would come from. Otherwise, you are no different than those who just want tax cuts but never talk about the impact of those cuts.

Just spitballing here, but they could try cutting defense spending.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just spitballing here, but they could try cutting defense spending.

To what level? We are already well below NATO average (remarkable given that we are geographically as large as all our European NATO partners put together). And we have given up several prized NATO roles and severely diminished every other capability. Consider the Air Force for example. They went from maintaining nearly 10 active fighter squadrons in the 80s to 2 squadrons flying 20 year old aircraft, for all of Canada. You can guarantee that they will not be able to protect any major urban area from a sudden terrorist attack. The Navy doesn't have personnel to keep more than half its ships at sea. And the Army has essentially paid for the Afghan mission by chewing up years of military capital expenditure and putting 10-15 years worth of wear and tear on its vehicles in 4-6 years. It'll take years for the CF to just recapitalize itself after the war.

If you want to cut defence spending further, you might as well sign over our sovereignty to the Americans and call it a day. And you had better be willing to let the Americans have open access to Canadian territory or spend billions creating new agencies to take over roles like arctic surveillance and search and rescue provide by the CF.

The military is always an easy target, unfortunately, because most Canadians are totally ignorant about what they do, the services the provide, and/or the foreign and defence policy implications of cutbacks.

 

[Northern Magus]

Consider the Air Force for example. They went from maintaining nearly 10 active fighter squadrons in the 80s to 2 squadrons flying 20 year old aircraft, for all of Canada. You can guarantee that they will not be able to protect any major urban area from a sudden terrorist attack.

If we've learned anything since Christmas Day, it's that effective protection from sudden terrorist attacks requires good intelligence resources, not military bulk.

• 9/11
• 7/7
• Richard Reid
• Madrid Train Bombings
• 2006 Transatlantic Aircraft Plot
• Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

These kind of sudden attacks are prevented by smart, proactive, fast-responding intell. If, as you suggest, these are truly the main defence threat today, then that's where our money and manpower should be deployed.

As for our supposedly denuded airforce:

"The Canadian Forces Air Command has approximatley 391 aircraft in the fleet, which is the third largest in the Americas, after the United States Air Force and Brazilian Air Force."

That said, it's difficult to see where further military cuts could occur: it's already been consolidated over the past 20 years and essential capital expenditures have been repeatedly deferred. And it's true that further military resources will need to be deployed to demonstrate effective control of the Arctic areas we claim, whose resources may be coveted by other states. In the future, revenue from these kinds of untapped resources could very well be allocated to transit investments.

In the meantime, however, the feds arguably need to increase their tax revenues since they've fallen into a structural deficit by implementing too many tax cuts. Putting a price on pollution and carbon emissions and dedicating the revenue to public transit and green tech might therefore be the smartest way to go.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I don't think we want a national transit strategy.

Do you really want a large number of Toronto tax dollars going to installing 30 minute bus routes in Iqualiat and Whitehorse?

At very least funding would be on a per-capita basis. Taxes paid to the feds is not on a per-capita basis. This would be a mechanism for reinforcing transfers from Ontario to other provinces.

A transit system for Iqualuit would probably consist of ten drivers spread across a week of shifts and two busses. Currently, it wouldn't work well, but as cities in Nunavut and the rest of the North grow larger (Nunavut has the fastest growing cities/towns in the country and is the fastest growing Province/Territory even with a large net emigration rate,) something'll have to be done to make sure cars don't migrate up there. If that means having other provinces paying what's pennies in transit costs to them, by all means subsidize those northern cities' transit systems.

 

[kEiThZ]

If we've learned anything since Christmas Day, it's that effective protection from sudden terrorist attacks requires good intelligence resources, not military bulk.

• 9/11
• 7/7
• Richard Reid
• Madrid Train Bombings
• 2006 Transatlantic Aircraft Plot
• Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

....These kind of sudden attacks are prevented by smart, proactive, fast-responding intell. If, as you suggest, these are truly the main defence threat today, then that's where our money and manpower should be deployed.

Terrorism, of course, is best countered through the use of police and intelligence efforts not military efforts. And that's of course another area that's severely underfunded federally.

However, the CF performs vital functions as first responders and defenders. They retain the lead for counter-terrorism efforts and as responders for any nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attack. Given that the rest of our government and police forces severely lack the capability to respond to any severe incident or

As for our supposedly denuded airforce:

"The Canadian Forces Air Command has approximatley 391 aircraft in the fleet, which is the third largest in the Americas, after the United States Air Force and Brazilian Air Force."

This is the perennial problem with discussing military funding in Canada. We are a small country with a large land mass. We need a decent sized military force. However, the number above is grossly misleading. A majority of our air force is composed of transport aircraft (close to a quarter - largely composed of 30 year old Hercs), search and rescue (using nearly 40 year old Buffalos), and maritime surveillance assets (40 year old Sea Kings and 20 year old Auroras). Today, only 20% of our air force is composed of combat aviation assets (with 20 year old Hornets) and they are given the least amount of flying hours of any fleet in the CF....and that might go to zero in short order. This comes just as the tussle over the Arctic is starting to heat up.

We'll set aside the discussion of what it means to completely disarm ourselves (a direction we are slowly heading in). But, there's an old phrase to keep in mind: "There will always be a navy in your waters. Yours or somebody else's." Anybody who thinks there's more to cut in the military should really understand the sovereignty implications of such cutbacks.

Without diverting too much, let's just say there's really not much fat to cut here.

 

[kEiThZ]

In the meantime, however, the feds arguably need to increase their tax revenues since they've fallen into a structural deficit by implementing too many tax cuts. Putting a price on pollution and carbon emissions and dedicating the revenue to public transit and green tech might therefore be the smartest way to go.

And this is where there really needs to be discussion on how to raise money for transit. Treating it as one of many solutions to air pollution and global warming could open up new avenues for funding. But this does not necessarily require federal leadership. Any province could easily slap on higher gas taxes or consumption taxes to raise revenue. And really this would be the quickest path to building transit in Toronto.

 

[Second_in_pie]

And this is where there really needs to be discussion on how to raise money for transit. Treating it as one of many solutions to air pollution and global warming could open up new avenues for funding. But this does not necessarily require federal leadership. Any province could easily slap on higher gas taxes or consumption taxes to raise revenue. And really this would be the quickest path to building transit in Toronto.

A carbon tax would go towards quite a number of things, and I think that transit is low on the list. For the money it costs to build transit, there's really quite a low carbon bang for your buck. What transit-like thing that might be covered is high speed rail and rail upgrades, because those can transport large numbers of long distance travelers who pollute a lot by using airplanes.

A carbon tax is definitely needed, but it shouldn't go towards transit. If we want money for transit, just put up a congestion charge. That'd bring in huge amounts of money, which would obviously stay inside the GGH.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Carbon taxes might be a good idea. And they could just as easily be put in place by Queen's Park. When it comes to aviation though, it should be noted that Canada's aviation is the most heavily taxed or the least supported by government funding (depending on how you want to look at it). We risk crippling our own aviation sector if we go further. That would be acceptable if the alternative (HSR) was quickly coming along. But that's not the case. I think the public would be in an uproar if Toronto-Montreal starts approaching $500 just because of taxes.

 

[TOareaFan]

^ Carbon taxes might be a good idea. And they could just as easily be put in place by Queen's Park. When it comes to aviation though, it should be noted that Canada's aviation is the most heavily taxed or the least supported by government funding (depending on how you want to look at it). We risk crippling our own aviation sector if we go further. That would be acceptable if the alternative (HSR) was quickly coming along. But that's not the case. I think the public would be in an uproar if Toronto-Montreal starts approaching $500 just because of taxes.

Good point....even at the current overtaxed level, our industry already suffers from people close to the border driving to US airports (like Buffalo) to get cheaper fares. How many times have you heard people say they can't believe it is so expensive to fly from Canadian airports? Additional taxation would likely not, in the short-medium term, reduce air travel...just likely push more people to cross the border first before flying.

 

[Disparishun]

And this is where there really needs to be discussion on how to raise money for transit. Treating it as one of many solutions to air pollution and global warming could open up new avenues for funding. But this does not necessarily require federal leadership. Any province could easily slap on higher gas taxes or consumption taxes to raise revenue. And really this would be the quickest path to building transit in Toronto.

Well, if the province taxed a penny on every dollar and put the money directly to transit where it is needed, I would gladly pay it.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

A transit system for Iqualuit would probably consist of ten drivers spread across a week of shifts and two busses. Currently, it wouldn't work well, but as cities in Nunavut and the rest of the North grow larger (Nunavut has the fastest growing cities/towns in the country and is the fastest growing Province/Territory even with a large net emigration rate,) something'll have to be done to make sure cars don't migrate up there. If that means having other provinces paying what's pennies in transit costs to them, by all means subsidize those northern cities' transit systems.

Busses? They could do it with snowmobiles!