Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

HST debate not over

It probably won't come as a surprise to anyone that I was on the debating team in high school. Minister Pat Bell was not. I know this because Minister Bell and I went to the same high school, albeit at slightly different times.

It probably won't come as a surprise to anyone that I was on the debating team in high school. Minister Pat Bell was not. I know this because Minister Bell and I went to the same high school, albeit at slightly different times.

Over the past nine years, though, Minister Bell has learned many of the rudimentary tricks designed to win debates.

A little over a week ago, the UNBC Economics Student Association hosted a debate on the issue of the HST. In one corner, Minister Bell. In the other, Ms. Iglika Ivanova from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The winner? Minister Bell. By a landslide.

Does that mean that we should have the HST? Hell, no.

Minister Bell - speaking for the "pro" side - was afforded the opportunity to speak first and started by redefining the proposition of the debate. "It is not whether or not we should implement an HST. We both agree on that." he said "It is how it should be implemented that is at question."

Those weren't his exact words but close enough. He then played the "compliment your opponent" card telling her how impressed he is with her thinking. He threw in "an appeal to the audience" to get them on his side - talking to the audience as though they are your friends is one way to co-opt their opinions. And he followed up by introducing some "red

herrings" and framing his opponents arguments.

He finished, during the question period, by the time honoured technique of agreeing with some of his opponents points so that he could re-define them for his own argument. Yes, he won the debate. Clearly and cleanly.

But the government should lose the argument.

If I may, I would like to simplify the discussion as much as possible so that I can be very clear on why I think that is the case. I am not trying to use another debating trick here but just trying to simplify the debate down to what I feel are the essentials.

Before the debate, Minister Bell asked me why I disagree with the HST. I

said that it is a tax shift - that it is removing taxes from corporations

and businesses and transferring that tax burden to the working people of

this province.

His response? "Exactly!" and that IS a direct quote.

The policy issue that this governments seems to be enacting is that business must not pay taxes, period. It is people that must pay taxes. The working people of this province must bear the tax burden so that Corporations and businesses will not have the burden of taxation and, therefore, will be more competitive on the international playing field.

I think that this government has its priorities wrong. Or, at the very least, partially wrong. That is, I understand that some of our export business are not competing on a level playing field internationally. For example, there is no question that the forest industry has been particularly hard hit by a combination of factors - including the softwood lumber agreement, the world wide recession, and the pine beetle kill.

But Corporations operating in Canada do have other advantages that are not present elsewhere. For example, they have an inherent advantage over American firms because they do not have to carry the burden of health insurance. The Canadian health care system affords a competitive advantage. The level playing field is inherently a myth. Every jurisdiction has its strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe more to the point, the present financial meltdown will pass, and some of the difficulties that the forest, mining, and other export oriented industries will be facing will disappear. Or will transform into other problems. But fixing short term problems with a long term strategy, such as the HST, is not - in my opinion - the best approach to take.

Here are a couple of other numbers in the whole debate. The government is proposing that as far as it is concerned, the HST will be "revenue neutral". The $2 billion that it will lose in taxation from industry will be made up in taxation of the working people of this province. There are 2.269 million working people which gives an annual average tax hike of

$881.

Further, by their own numbers, some 17% of the working people in the province will not pay the HST or only pay a portion. That means that the remaining 83% are going to be paying more - closer to $1000 per year.

And the benefit? Many of the "pro-HST' letters have pointed out that the cost savings accrued by industry will be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices.

There are two problems with this. The first is that the HST is primarily designed to help make our exporting industries more competitive. These are not companies that sell into our domestic market.

Second, by Minister Bell's own admission, the savings will be "on the order of one or two pennies." One can only hope that he mean per dollar spent and not per item.

Yes, Minister Bell won the debate but the government should definitely lose this argument.


For the complete "smart-version" of the Prince George Citizen visit our Digital Edition