BC Referendum on HST

[Smallc]

The people definately are not always right but government is still there to represent their wishes. It is certainly not government's duty to say one thing then do the opposite.

Sometimes, it is.

[Wilber]

Sometimes, it is.

Not when you are planning on doing the opposite of what you are saying at the time. We call those people liars.

[Smallc]

Not when you are planning on doing the opposite of what you are saying at the time. We call those people liars.

We don't know what they were planning to do at the time. We're far to quick to label the people in our governments (who have, by and large, done a good job over the last few decades) liars, cheaters, thieves, and criminals without any actual evidence of any kind.

[eyeball]

Not when you are planning on doing the opposite of what you are saying at the time. We call those people liars.

Especially when we know they've said it to win an election.

If the public is supposed to believe this sort of self-serving lying is to our benefit, the Liberals should just come out and say so and why.

[Wilber]

We don't know what they were planning to do at the time. We're far to quick to label the people in our governments (who have, by and large, done a good job over the last few decades) liars, cheaters, thieves, and criminals without any actual evidence of any kind.

Actually, I am quite reluctant to accuse anyone of dishonesty without proof but this was so blatant, it just plain insulted the crap out of me. Jeez Louise, you think they could have waited a few weeks before they ran off to Ottawa so at least they would have a bit of credibility. No need it would seem.

It makes it worse when it comes from someone of whom you expected better.

[Smallc]

Perhaps it wasn't them that initiated everything? Perhaps the federal government was simply waiting to find out how the election would end before the got the ball rolling? We really don't know.

[TimG]

It's two year old news now but was all over the media at the time.

You are making a claim that depends on some rather precise timing. If you can't produce a cite you can't know if it is true or if it was simply lies spread by the anti-HST people. Claiming 'it was in the media' does not allow one to distinguish.

The case I am making is that I don't trust these people to do anything that isn't binding. You can believe what you want.

It is a different leader who was not even in government at the time. Why do you assume that she would be less trust worthy than any other politician?

[Wilber]

By Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver Sun September 2, 2010

VICTORIA — The B.C. Liberal government pushed ahead with the harmonized sales tax despite warnings from high-level officials that it could lead to at least five years of increased unemployment, lower wages and depressed productivity.

“While the long-term economic gain [of the HST] is relatively clear, harmonization will cause a short-term loss in GDP and unemployment,” says a briefing note prepared by the top official in B.C.’s tax policy branch for Finance Minister Colin Hansen.

“[A C.D. Howe Institute] study suggests that it may take five or more years before the impact on GDP is positive and even longer for real wages and job numbers to recover,” the note said.

“Given current economic conditions, this could be a concern.”

The revelation came Wednesday in documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

It prompted NDP leader Carole James to say the government had not been honest with British Columbians about when it began considering the HST.

The documents reveal that top bureaucrats in Victoria were discussing a possible move to the HST as early as March 2009 — a month and a half before the provincial election and far earlier than the Liberal government has ever acknowledged.

Premier Gordon Campbell and Hansen have repeatedly said the HST was not on the government’s “radar screen” until after the May 12, 2009 provincial election.

Campbell told the legislature that officials in Victoria were not authorized to begin negotiations until late May 2009, after Hansen first discussed the issue with federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

“We couldn’t even launch into that discussion ... at the officials level until we’d informed the federal minister of finance that was taking place,” Campbell told the legislature last November.

“Only when that notification had been made were our officials in a position where they could even start to discuss it,” Campbell said.

Hansen made similar remarks about when discussions began, and told the legislature in response to a question by NDP finance critic Bruce Ralston last Nov. 23 that there was absolutely no discussion on the tax until the end of May.

“By discussion,” Ralston told Hansen, “I mean personal contact, face-to-face, or any exchange of memos at the deputy minister level or through the e-mail network or anything. There’s simply no discussion at any level between the minister of finance, his officials and the premier and his office and his officials about the HST between January, when it was first raised publicly in Ontario, and the end of May.

“Is that the minister’s position?”

“That is correct,” Hansen answered.

The documents released Wednesday show high-level bureaucrats in Victoria and Ottawa spoke about the HST on March 26 of last year, the day Ontario formally announced its intention to move to a harmonized tax.

It was not clear from the documents exactly what was discussed.

Hansen said Wednesday he did not know at the time he answered Ralston that those communications had taken place.

“I was actually surprised when I read through this just how much back and forth there is at the officials level,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

“I was surprised to go through and read the extent of a lot of the back and forth with Ottawa that was obviously there.”

James said that “from the start the premier, the finance minister, B.C. Liberal MLAs, have been saying over and over to the public the HST was not on the radar screen before the election.

“It’s very clear from these documents it was on their radar screen. They were looking at options, they were exploring the HST. It’s another betrayal of trust for the public,” she said.

James said the government wasn’t being honest with British Columbia, and that the information about a possible short-term hit to the economy shows it was wrong to bring in the HST during a recession.

“In reading that information it was pretty clear it was going to have a damaging impact on our economy,” James said.

“I don’t think an HST — a tax that’s going to slow down our economy — is any kind of good economic management when you want to get yourself out of a recession.”

Hansen insisted that the discussions reflected in the documents were initiated by bureaucrats, and were not directed by the political level of government.

“None of these inquiries were undertaken at the request of anybody at the political level,” he said.

“Ministry officials took it upon themselves to make these inquiries ... as they have done over the years going back to the mid-1990s,” Hansen said.

The documents include a briefing note prepared by the B.C. government for Campbell’s meeting with provincial premiers on Jan. 16, 2009.

“British Columbia recognizes the potential economic benefits of harmonization but continues to have concerns,” that document concluded.

A more comprehensive briefing note was prepared for Hansen on March 12 of last year, just ahead of Ontario’s official announcement of a move to the HST.

“In light of Ontario’s recent public statements regarding harmonization ... the British Columbia government will likely be asked about its position on harmonization,” the briefing note says.

“Government may wish to consider how to respond to these questions.”

Hansen said Wednesday he recalled skimming the briefing note, but insisted he did not seriously consider the HST until after the election.

“The ministry was obviously looking at HST related issues but it is not something that ever went forward,” he said.

“It obviously came to my desk. It never went any farther because it was not something that was part of what we were looking at.”

That same briefing note also outlined the concerns about the potential short-term economic consequences of the HST on B.C.’s GDP, wages and levels of unemployment.

It cited a C.D. Howe study of the possible effects of an HST in Ontario, which concluded that GDP could dip for five years as a result of the new tax, and that employment could fall for even longer.

Hansen said Wednesday that was old information, and that B.C. was able to negotiate better terms for the HST that lessen the impacts of potential short-term pain.

“Given what we were able to negotiate in terms of the increased flexibility and the increased benefits for British Columbia, the benefits significantly outweigh the downsides,” he said.

“It’s not as big an issue,” he said, adding that tax policy specialist Jack Mintz, a former head of the C.D. Howe Institute who worked on the study, had told B.C. the benefits would come much quicker than the institute had projected.

The documents show that on May 11, 2009 — the day before the provincial election — the executive director of B.C.’s tax policy branch wrote to his counterpart in Ottawa asking if B.C. could implement an HST with a provincial rate other than eight per cent.

“Am I correct in assuming a province could now start at a rate other than 8%?” Glen Armstrong wrote in an e-mail to Louise Levonian, assistant deputy minister in the federal tax policy branch.

The provincial government has said one of the reasons it moved to the HST was the new flexibility to set the provincial portion of the rate at seven per cent, as opposed to the higher level previously proposed by Ottawa.

[email protected]

[Smallc]

So it's a good idea...and it was proposed by Ottawa originally (in the 90s). That seems to say that this federal government offered the provincial government a different proposal....probably after the election by the look of things.

[Wilber]

So it's a good idea...and it was proposed by Ottawa originally (in the 90s). That seems to say that this federal government offered the provincial government a different proposal....probably after the election by the look of things.

The point is, discussions were going on at a departmental level even regarding the tax rate while the government was denying their existence. Do you really think they were initated without the government's knowledge or direction?

Edited May 28, 2011 by Wilber

[Smallc]

The point is, discussions were going on at a departmental level even regarding the tax rate while the government was denying their existence. Do you really think they were initated without the government's knowledge or direction?

Do you really think that Ottawa was negotiating in a very serious way with a government that might not even have been there after the election and that couldn't possibly push the tax through?

[Wilber]

Do you really think that Ottawa was negotiating in a very serious way with a government that might not even have been there after the election and that couldn't possibly push the tax through?

The point is, the provincial government was into serious discussions about the posibility of instituting an HST while claiming it "wasn't on their radar". Do you think the Feds would just say "don't bother us until the election is over"?

[Smallc]

Do you think the Feds would just say "don't bother us until the election is over"?

Yes, quite probably. Ottawa may very well have approached Victoria AFTER the election. We simply don't know, and that's the point. We have one unsubstantiated report that is shaky at best.

[Wilber]

Yes, quite probably. Ottawa may very well have approached Victoria AFTER the election. We simply don't know, and that's the point. We have one unsubstantiated report that is shaky at best.

What do you mean unsubstantiated and shaky, they were government documents.

[Smallc]

What do you mean unsubstantiated and shaky, they were government documents.

Because we don't really know what was going on. There was a question asked. That's all there was. Maybe there were negotiations going on, but they wouldn't have become serious until after the election.

[Wilber]

Because we don't really know what was going on. There was a question asked. That's all there was. Maybe there were negotiations going on, but they wouldn't have become serious until after the election.

Now there's a leap of faith. Pray tell why wouldn't they?

[Smallc]

Now there's a leap of faith. Pray tell why wouldn't they?

Because they didn't have an answer before the election, and because Ottawa wouldn't start negotiating with a province in the middle of an election campaign.

[fellowtraveller]

The people definately are not always right but government is still there to represent their wishes. It is certainly not government's duty to say one thing then do the opposite.

What a load of confused thinking.

Governments ate elected to govern, and that very much includes making decisions that are unpopular but judged correct by those given that responsibility by the people. It has little to do with 'wishes'. Unless your name is Tinkerbelle.

[Wilber]

Because they didn't have an answer before the election, and because Ottawa wouldn't start negotiating with a province in the middle of an election campaign.

I'm not saying Ottawa started the negotiations. I am saying they would not refuse to negotiate.

So you are saying that governments never plan or enter into negotiations on anything that might not happen until after the next election.

[Wilber]

What a load of confused thinking.

Governments ate elected to govern, and that very much includes making decisions that are unpopular but judged correct by those given that responsibility by the people. It has little to do with 'wishes'. Unless your name is Tinkerbelle.

I'm not the one who is confused. Governments are elected to govern but that doesn't give them a cart blanch to do anything they damn well want while telling people they are going to do something else. It is not a license for dishonesty.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Wilber

[TimG]

The documents show that on May 11, 2009 — the day before the provincial election — the executive director of B.C.’s tax policy branch wrote to his counterpart in Ottawa asking if B.C. could implement an HST with a provincial rate other than eight per cent.

This is no smoking gun. This is bureaucrats doing their job and exploring options. It does not show that Campbell was seriously considering it as a policy option at the time.

[Wilber]

This is no smoking gun. This is bureaucrats doing their job and exploring options. It does not show that Campbell was seriously considering it as a policy option at the time.

The documents reveal that top bureaucrats in Victoria were discussing a possible move to the HST as early as March 2009 — a month and a half before the provincial election and far earlier than the Liberal government has ever acknowledged.

Premier Gordon Campbell and Hansen have repeatedly said the HST was not on the government’s “radar screen” until after the May 12, 2009 provincial election.

Campbell told the legislature that officials in Victoria were not authorized to begin negotiations until late May 2009, after Hansen first discussed the issue with federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

“We couldn’t even launch into that discussion ... at the officials level until we’d informed the federal minister of finance that was taking place,” Campbell told the legislature last November.

“Only when that notification had been made were our officials in a position where they could even start to discuss it,” Campbell said.

A more comprehensive briefing note was prepared for Hansen on March 12 of last year, just ahead of Ontario’s official announcement of a move to the HST.

“In light of Ontario’s recent public statements regarding harmonization ... the British Columbia government will likely be asked about its position on harmonization,” the briefing note says.

“Government may wish to consider how to respond to these questions.”

Looks very much to me like they entered into negotiations at the bureaucratic level right after Ontario made its announcement.

Again

“We couldn’t even launch into that discussion ... at the officials level until we’d informed the federal minister of finance that was taking place,” Campbell told the legislature last November.

“Only when that notification had been made were our officials in a position where they could even start to discuss it,” Campbell said.

[msj]

I reject your claim that compensation for the costs of adopting the HST represents a bribe. Based on your definition of bribe any money given by the governments to change behaviour constitutes a bribe including:

1) Home renovation tax credits

2) Feed in tariff programs

3) R&D tax credits

4) Scholarships

I could go on. What you are doing is debasing the meaning of "bribe" by conflating it with things which are not really bribes.

These are mostly bribes.

And the R&D tax credits are extraordinary corrupt, to boot.

[TimG]

And the R&D tax credits are extraordinary corrupt, to boot.

Ok. You apply your definition consistently but we will have to agree to disagree. I think what you are doing is what they have done with rape by labelling everything from unwanted touching to violent rape as 'sexual assualt'. It renders the words meaningless and always leaves people wondering what was actually meant when they hear it. It is an excercise in propoganda rather than communication.

In any case, it is rather rediculous to expect other people to buy into your idosyncratic definition of a 'bribe'.

Edited May 29, 2011 by TimG

[msj]

Ok. You apply your definition consistently but we will have to agree to disagree. I think what you are doing is what they have done with rape by labelling everything from unwanted touching to violent rape as 'sexual assualt'. It renders the words meaningless and always leaves people wondering what was actually meant when they hear it. It is an excercise in propoganda rather than communication.

In any case, it is rather rediculous to expect other people to buy into your idosyncratic definition of a 'bribe'.

Your analogy fails.

Sexual assault has a very clear legal definition that includes everything from unwanted touching to violent rape.

It is then up to a judge to apply the conditions upon sentencing (the "punishment" if you will).

A violent rape may get 3 or 4 years (or whatever absurdly low number that it really is) whereas a guy who sticks a dildo up his common wife's butt while she is unconscious may get 18 months (as is recently in the news) whereas a guy (and it's almost always a guy) who touches his co-workers boobs may get very little.

IOW, there are degrees when one opens his eyes to examine the details.

The feds bribery of the provinces for the HST implementation is more like a violent rape rather than an unwanted grope through six layers of winter clothing.