Vancouver Sun
By Vaughn Palmer
June 3, 2010
With former premier Bill Vander Zalm back in the headlines, turns out another populist ex-premier has something to say about the harmonized sales tax.
"The HST, I'm not going there," said former New Democratic Party premier Glen Clark, during a recent Web interview with NDP MLA Guy Gentner.
Then, in the characteristic fashion of a guy who couldn't resist controversy during his dozen years in public office, he did go there.
"The HST does not create more revenue," said Clark, who served as finance minister in the early 1990s and as premier later in the decade.
"The HST is a shift in the tax burden away from business and onto individuals and it's revenue-neutral. It's a great irony that a government would take this huge political shift away from business onto individuals and not gain, really, any more revenue ... The HST is a little bit more ideological than it is a tax policy."
An ideological tax shift. Clark's take on the HST echoes that of Carole Taylor, the former B.C. Liberal finance minister. He appeared to be singing from her song sheet in a subsequent comment as well.
"Forgetting the debate about whether the HST is a good thing or a bad thing, a lot of the debate has to do with the fact that there was no discussion or process that [they] went through before they arrived at that decision.
"Of course I did some of that as well," he added, for those who might recall the Jurassic Clark nickname bestowed on him by one of the interest groups he trampled.
The full interview with Clark was broadcast over two days last month on Progressive Talk Radio, Gentner's Internet show. Both are available for replay at www.guygentner.ca.
Worth listening to, and not just for Clark's dabbling in controversy on the HST. His charm is also on display, as when he remarked on the onerous travel associated with his job as executive vice-president of the Jim Pattison Group. "I was joking with my wife that we've been married for 30 years, but really, it's only been 10 because I'm not home that much."
But for me, the most noteworthy parts were his comments, guarded but still insightful, on matters political.
On the need to accept globalization: "The question for anybody on the progressive side is how do you grow a more egalitarian place and a growing wealth community in a global environment? In the past, governments had more tools at their disposal. There were tariffs to stop imports. There was government intervention. Many of those things are actually illegal under the free trade agreement. It's a mistake to pretend that you can still do that. For those on the progressive side, you have to accept that globalization is a reality."
Productivity is one way to meet the challenge: "People think it means working harder. It doesn't mean that at all. It just means getting more output per person-hour of employment, and what that means is you need smarter workers. You need smarter and more innovative businesses."
Smarter government too: "Not to sound like a right-winger, but one of the challenges of bureaucracy is they're also judged by how best they can grow or how best they can get money from governments, as opposed to how best they can deliver service. If you believe in a positive role for government, then you have a real obligation to try to make government work better and smarter and more efficiently."
Education is one key: "We're not going to compete with China on the wage level. If we do, God help us. You want to compete in a world of innovation where our education system becomes critical. The only way we can maintain our standard of living in a global environment is to have a more educated workforce and more productive industries."
Smarter tax policies is another: "People don't invest in B.C. because we have the lowest taxes. They don't invest in B.C. because we had higher taxes. They invest in B.C. if they can make money. So the trick is for tax policy to try to be smart about it....
What's really required is a much more sophisticated analysis of how we stack up. Frankly, right now, I think we're a very competitive place and have been for quite a long time."
On the third-party threat: "A lot depends probably on leaderships of the two big parties. If the party has a big-tent attitude -- to try to represent a broader range of issues, then they'll be successful. If you start catering only to your base, then eventually you only have your base. So someone else will come and fill the void. ... It's really up to the two major parties whether or not there's a third party."
On political success: "If you go into politics saying I just want to be nicer than the other guy, you're not going to be very effective. If you have strongly held values, and you stick to those values, you can make a big difference ... Don't pay as much attention to party solidarity. Don't pay as much attention to the media."
Don't pay attention to the media! Where does he get these notions? Best to end it before he says something really obnoxious.