Debating the HST debate
Kennedy Stewart, 778.782.7913; kennedys@sfu.ca
Carol Thorbes, PAMR, 778.782.3035; cthorbes@sfu.ca
Will British Columbians be as steamed about the harmonized sales tax (HST) next September when the provincial government holds a non-binding referendum on it, as they are now? According to a new Simon Fraser University study of who signs initiative petitions, there’s a good chance they will be.
Political science professor Kennedy Stewart conducted the study, which is a poll-based profile of who signed former premier Bill Vander Zalm’s anti-HST petition to get the tax repealed in this province.
Even though B.C. poll data historically shows that politically disinterested voters don’t sign issue-driven petitions, Stewart’s study shows quite the opposite was true with the anti-HST petition.
Stewart will share the results of his study at the HST Forum, the first in a new School for Public Policy (SPP) Community Speakers Series on Monday, Sept. 27. The free public forum takes place 7:00-9:00 p.m. in the Lohn Policy Room (7000) at SFU’S downtown Vancouver campus in Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings Street. Seating will be limited.
The new speaker series aims to engage the public in discussing SPP-generated ideas and research to broaden community understanding of high profile issues.
Stewart and two other SFU researchers, public policy expert Doug McArthur and economist Jon Kesselman, will present their thoughts before taking questions from attendees. McArthur and Kesselman have been at the forefront of media analysis of the anti-HST debate.
McArthur was an architect of B.C.’s recall and initiative law during the New Democratic Party governments of the 1990s. He hopes the forum will lead to “a better understanding of how government can go wrong on important policy matters, how the media can do its job well and how initiative legislation works.”
Kesselman, who has written extensively about the HST, will review the potential economic pros and cons of sales tax harmonization. He notes this highly controversial issue “has been addressed by partisans on both sides, so a balanced assessment by non-partisan expert scholars should be useful to the public.”
Nancy Olewiler, SPP director and an economist, will introduce the panelists.
—30—
Wayne Gray
Watching a debate on tv this past weekend, I enjoyed the refreshing perspective that Doug McArthur shared with us. I found Mr Kesselman very one-sided and often taking a position in defense of the HST that in his own words seemed to contradict his stated position [i.e. the benefits to the corporate sector will place them in a more competitive position where new jobs will be created and the consumer will reap the benefits in lower cost and increased jobs. {based on my experience, more often than not, increased operational efficiency is purposely designed to eliminate jobs and lower the cost of production. ?what is the scientific research that Mr Kesselman has to confirm the opposite? Would be interested to hear it, and the robust examples that support this position.
I was astounded when after taking the position that corporate tax concessions were good for everyone, and when Doug McArthur suggested that there were better options available that would have produced a better and economically viable option, and suggested that a more equitable postion could have been taken to more fairly share the load, [i.e. some help for the restaurant industry that is suffering significantly] Mr Kesselmen responded by saying that the general public would never agree to grant this component a tax concession.
Well isn't that the basis of the HST shifting the tax burden to the consumer for the benefit of the corporate sector, so that they can become more efficient, [or in the restaurant industry, stay in business long enough to generate some form of increased efficiency.
Anyway, I appreciated the balanced approach that Mr McArthur continued to put onto the table that we should be paying attention to