Yesterday, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce released a report advocating for the business owner’s perspective on how to fund The Big Move — you know, that transit mess from last week. With input from proprietors out of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton areas, the OCC report aggregates the opinions of over twenty business boards and chambers regarding new taxes devoted to transit expansion. The results are a product of 10 consultations, ranked into three categories of ascending appeal — it’s similar to the Toronto Board of Trade’s public appeal for more taxes. However, a broader business base is behind this, and they also weigh in on specific tax and revenue schemes. The report is fascinating.
I decided there was no better time to get word from sources promoting real solutions, so I got down to, well, business with Josh Hjartarson, OCC vice president of policy and government relations, to talk about what’s necessary to make The Big Move a big reality. Hjartarson is also associated with the Mowat Centre, an independent, non-partisan public policy research centre located at the School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Toronto. After reading a report he co-authored entitled “Putting Canada on Track: A Blueprint for a National Transit Framework,” I was grateful that such a sensible and uniquely informed voice guides this crucial stage of infrastructure expansion. I hope his voice is far louder than the rabid chirping from both sides of council that makes a bog of what must be a nuanced, lucid conversation. If groups like the Mowat Centre aren’t sufficiently heard and politicians prevail in their usual fashion, you — more importantly, future Torontonians — will be real losers. (Sadly, I was sent this report shortly after the interview; I wish I had read it before.) What you can appreciate about Hjartarson is that he really has something to say that doesn’t reduce the conversation to playground antics.
Jeff Halperin (JH): This OCC report opposes payroll taxes because they will disproportionately affect small-medium sized businesses in a tough economic climate. What about businesses that aren’t at all economically fragile? Is there a mechanism to make a distinction?
Josh Hjartarson: It wouldn’t be one that’s very easy to administer, that’s for sure. It’s in the context — with youth unemployment and with unemployment at large — do you really want to create a disincentive for employers to either hire or locate in the GTHA? We heard such a pushback from our membership, we felt we could go out and not support this one. It’s a global economy, and it is hard now, and you don’t want to send [this] message to businesses: “Don’t invest here.”
JH: The report targets businesses that provide parking spots and targets drivers. Can this lead businesses to change their culture? And, is there an actual fear that businesses will leave the GTHA because they need to pay for parking?
Hjartarson: The commercial parking levy is a medium-potential tool. We proposed some design parameters, and in theory the parking levy would change the incentives and involvement for how shopping malls are developed. Some of our members recognize the merit of the proposal, others were less supportive. Opinion was fairly split. And — just for clarification — the commercial parking levy is on all commercial parking, so outside a Loblaw’s store and at a mall. Would you push big retail stores outside Toronto because they need to pay this base tax?
JH: Increasing transit fare is considered a “medium-starter,” and the report says the people who use it ought to be paying. But the report also says everyone–businesses, people–benefits from improved transit. The TTC already relies more heavily on user fees for development than any other major city in the world. Is there a contradiction there?
Hjartarson: Yes, there is. The report is a consultation, so some people took that into account, the broad benefits. Some said that those who will now get shorter commute times to work should pay more. A lot of the people against the transit fare increase were concerned about the regressive nature of it. The idea that low-income people would pay more, and that you’re defeating the purpose–the cost of transit might dissuade people from using transit, precisely the behaviour we want to discourage.
JH: I imagine the Ontario Chamber of Commerce was not encouraged by Toronto city council’s decision last week to endorse no new taxes for transit expansion. Why couldn’t the report come out this time last week, before their meeting?
Hjartarson: No, it wasn’t encouraging. But, as for the timing, this process started in February or March, so it’s something we were planning to do anyway. The timing is an accident. Running this many consultations at this many locations involving this many players — it’s a difficult challenge. It would have been nice to have the report a month ago, but I think we only finished consultations ten days ago. Out of concern for due process, making sure that we took everyone’s opinion to account, we really had to wait until we got a full grasp of everything.
JH: Is citing Metrolinx in the report problematic when preparing a report to Metrolinx?
Hjartarson: No, I don’t think so! Metrolinx has done an incredible amount of due diligence. On their website, they’ve got thousands of pages of analysis, third-party analysis. If you want to look at this issue in a constructive way, you can’t help but use their stats. I don’t feel there’s a problem there at all. Nobody reading our paper could accuse us of being influenced by Metrolinx.
JH: The report states that all three levels of government provide funding, but it’s only sixteen out of fifty billion needed. Fourteen billion is provincial…
Hjartarson: Ya, the federal government needs to get in the game in a more deliberate way.
JH: I was going to say: are you resigned from the outset to receive nothing from them?
Josh: No, not at all. In a publication I authored three months ago, we make a specific request for it.
JH: I hear there should be an integrated plan, not just for Toronto or GTHA, but also across the province and across the country. Everyone takes that for granted, but it makes no sense to me that they don’t pay more.
Hjartarson: Exactly. A national strategy on infrastructure is certainly necessary. It’s an important talk, but not for this report. Right now, like it or not, we have to raise two billion dollars, so how do we do that?
Read the OCC report in full here.
—-
Jeff Halperin is a Toronto-based writer. You can follow him on Twitter @JDhalperin.
For more, follow us on Twitter @TorontoStandard and subscribe to our newsletter.
