Many Canadian’s pine for the halcyon days of Lester Pearson and the diplomatic heavy hitting of the 1950’s and 60’s.  These were in many people’s minds the glory days for Canada in the world, when we stood for and led the world as advocates for multi-nationalism,  peace-keeping and third world development.  Alas, the 1970’s were largely a disappointment as Canada shifted its emphasis to trade rather than diplomacy under the cool rationalism of Trudeau, who accepted that Canada was destined to be an also ran in a world where size and power determined a country’s place in the world councils.  We had to look after ourselves and trade was what mattered.

Mulroney largely followed, but unlike Trudeau, concentrated almost solely on the United States and its large market for trade goods.  The rest of the world was almost irrelevant.  However Mulroney does deserve recognition for what might be called a turn toward opportunistic initiatives that permit Canada selectively to step forward and rise above its place as a small player on world issues.  This was most notably done by assuming a leadership role in opposing South African apartheid, to Canada’s honour and continuing credit.  He stood apart from both Reagan and Margaret Thatcher on this issue long before they saw how the wind was blowing and gave a tremendous boost to international efforts to end the inglorious rule of white supremacists.  Canada stood tall at the time as a principled and forward looking nation, in keeping with its earlier reputation, although action was pretty much limited to this one important issue.

The 1990’s saw Canada shift to a much greater emphasis on multi-nationalism, with a focus largely on economic matters, with some considerable success.  A major accomplishment was the increased emphasis on and increasing respect for Canada at the summit of industrialized countries, the G8.  The key industrialized nations more and more came to terms with the fact that with globalization, they needed to work together to set the agenda and oversee strategic directions and crisis interventions.  It was by no means clear that Canada should or would have any significant role in this august body, which was to be kept small and manageable. To Canada’s credit, Chretien and his foreign policy advisors recognized the potential importance of international cooperation and opportunistically saw this forum as a place where Canada could rise above its small state status and, as Canadian diplomats love to say, “punch above its weight class”.  And they succeeded to some considerable degree.  But while the G8 is still a prestigious forum, as can be seen by the splash being made about its meeting in Canada next year, as the present decade progressed more and more questions have been raised about its relevance given the absence of a number of world economic heavy hitters, including China, India, Korea and Australasia.

In many respects the last five years of this decade have seen Canada shift its international focus to Afghanistan and fighting al Queda.  I have argued elsewhere that his was the right thing to do, but that it has been executed in completely the wrong way.  Canada has earned its stripes it is true but largely through fruitless fire-fights and wild west pursuits of Taliban insurgents, which have done little if anything to put Afghanistan back on its feet and to keep the loyalty of the Afghan people.  My arguments are not simply a matter of convenient hind sight – I have been making them right from the time that Canada first committed forces to Kandahar. * Now it appears that the Afghanistan effort is pretty much lost and Canada will have gained little from this brief opportunistic attempt to be a tall poppy in the world community.  It could have been otherwise but Canadian diplomats and politicians failed by not having the courage to separate themselves from the failing American strategy.  Canada was in a perfect position to take the lead in developing a new strategy that could have saved the day in Afghanistan, but unfortunately did not have the diplomatic talent and courage needed.  It is rather sad to see Chris Alexander, a key actor in this failure, attempting to become a political celebrity back in Canada today.

With the G8 becoming obsolete and Afghanistan looking hopeless, we see the Prime Minister turning his attention to the possibilities for the larger G20 Leaders Summit.  This shifts the focus of Canada back onto economics.  It is clear to all that the G8 has to expand or be restructured to include the emerging economic powers not now in the G8.  A continuing worry has been whether Canada can retain a seat at the table in any new elite forum of world leaders. If a modified G8 or some new slightly expanded G10 were created there would really be no place for Canada, given the need to include the new economic powers. Until 2008, the G20 was a Finance Ministers forum.  The first Leaders Summit was held that year, with follow up meetings in London in April 2009 and in Pittsburgh in September 2009. Obama will signal at the Pittsburgh meeting that the G20 Leaders Summit will replace the G8 for all intents and purposes.   That could be a big disappointment for Canada, given all the hype about Canada hosting it in 2010.  But if the G20 takes hold as the pre-eminent world leaders forum and Canada is a leading part of it on a continuing basis, that would under the circumstances be a win for Canada.

Harper has been doing a good job of keeping Canada in the game.  He has the good luck of being the host of the 2010 G8 meetings based on the established rotation.  He is using that soap box to promote the G20, with Canada as a full member and a key leader in its further development.  He has also used his position as G8 chair to work to set up and announce a G20 Leaders Summit in Canada in 2010, with Canada co-chairing with South Korea.  Clearly Harper has successfully worked to establish himself as a key leader in the transition.  He is quite obviously opportunistically using his position as this year’s chair of the G8 to give it a respectful burial and to push the transition to the G20 under Canada’s leadership.  With the disastrous international fall out of the recession, it is likely that the real international power and muscle for the next while will be directed at economic issues and problems.  One key forum will assume the central place in international efforts, and the G20 looks to be the best bet.  Harper is not letting the opportunity pass him by.  And he appears to be succeeding with full honours.  Perhaps even voters will notice.

*  Doug McArthur, “Don’t leave Afghanistan in American hands.” Inroads 20 Winter/Spring 2007: 42-52.   (http://www.inroadsjournal.ca/archives/inroads_20/Inroads_20_afghanistan_nepal.pdf p. 42).  Simon Fraser University Professor McArthur puts the common criticism of insufficient efforts in governance and development into a Canadian context.  He suggests Canada’s relatively large contribution in Afghanistan puts it in a position of leadership.  Canadian efforts to reform development assistance and governance structures could lead others, particularly the US, to follow. (http://pom.peacebuild.ca/Afghanistanopinions.shtml accessed September 25, 2009)

Municipal governments all across the province are busily developing their budgets for the next tax year, which starts January 1, 2009.  Most will be trying hard to restrain their budgets.  The affects of the recession are now being felt full force and one can bet that taxpayers are not going to be receptive to paying substantially higher taxes.  Many city and local councils can expect vigorous public opposition to tax increases imposed to help close the revenue-expenditure gap.

But what is a responsible council supposed to do? After potential cuts reach a certain pain threshold, there will be tremendous pressure to raise tax rates.  But it is doubtful citizens are going to be as receptive to tax increases of the magnitude they swallowed last year. For instance in 2008 Vancouver residential taxpayers were stuck with an increase of almost 8%, almost 6% points higher than the rate of inflation. It doesn’t seem very likely that homeowners will have much appetite for a similar increase this year.

Part of the challenge for councils is to distribute the tax burden among different tax categories or property classes in a sensible and fair way.  The property classes each have their own tax rates or mill rates set by the councils as a percentage of market value of properties.  Getting the right balance of rates is challenging both politically and in terms of good policy.  There has been intense political lobbying over the past few years about differences in tax rates across classes of property. In particular business and industrial taxpayers have been active in protesting the fact that they typically pay tax rates that are significantly higher than homeowners as a % of the value of property.  These differences in most municipalities reflect a long standing view about fairness, responsibility and balance.

Last year Vancouver Council responded to this pressure by setting a lower rate of increase of taxes paid for business properties compared to residential properties. There was little public discussion about it, no doubt in part because the traditional anti-tax lobby, dominated by business, accepted it as a business friendly move.

While it is not clear what will happen this year if the same thing is done, it will not be surprising if there is a fairly strong negative reaction from homeowners, particularly if some vocal critics are inspired to take the lead.

An important question to ask is whether these differing rates of increases in property taxes are  the best way to help the business sector, if business needs or deserves a break.  The amount of tax paid by business depends on two things – the market value or sales price of business property and the tax or mill rate for business properties.  The market value of all business properties increases each year in response to the increase in the value of the small number actually sold.  This value is determined by the British Columbia Assessment Authority using formulae that relate properties that have not changed hands to comparable properties sold in the market.  Market values depend upon the revenue and costs including property taxes of businesses actually sold on the market.  The lower the taxes the higher the market values of properties actually sold, and the higher the value of all business properties on the tax rolls.

One of the clear results of a property tax break for business is that the market value of business properties increases in response to the lower tax rate. Indeed, based on the iron law of economics, the increase in property values will exactly offset a tax decrease.  In other words a tax cut or a lower rate of increase is in a short time translated into an offsetting increase in business property values.  Of course other things may affect property values as well, but that doesn’t change the argument about tax changes taken separately.

In part to deal with this potential erosion of tax changes, changes in property values are determined ahead of tax changes because assessments are done the year previous to the tax year.  In this way the municipality can shelter the property taxpayer from immediately having the gains of lower tax rates being undermined as a result of direct consequent increases in property values.  The municipality sets a target revenue number for business properties as a class each year, based on a rate against last year’s assessed values.  But what should be the basis for determining the share of revenue attributed to each class of property? Typically the question is approached by looking at the relative share by class of aggregate assessed values.  For instance, should business share of the change in the overall tax bill be proportionate to its share of the increase in total assessed values for all classes of property?  Or proportionate to its share of residential and business property values in aggregate?  Or a lower proportion, as the tax shift advocates propose? But because the tax rate will be an important factor in determining the following year’s assessed values, relative assessed values do not provide a fixed continuing basis for determining how much of the burden each class of property should bear.   Objectively, the relative shares can only be determined by drawing on some other means upon which to base the appropriate proportionate share of the tax load by class.

If the share is to be shifted in favour of a particular class, upon what underlying  principle is the proportion to be based?  If it is based on the relative aggregate assessed values for each class, changes in this proportion will be driven to a considerable degree by the relative changes in tax rates themselves.  Indeed it must be that the aggregate value of business properties is increasing more rapidly under this scenario so far as the affects of taxes are concerned, undermining in part through time the argument for tax relief.  There is something odd about following a principle for these purposes that has, as one of its major impacts, changes in assessed values through time that work against the principle.

There is also an important question about who really gains.  Since relative tax relief increases the market value of business properties over time, the cost of acquiring properties goes up and so too does the cost of doing business, eroding the benefit of the tax relief.  And this erosion falls immediately and most heavily upon new, usually young start-ups who are purchasing or renting property.  Indeed the supposedly preferred tax treatment puts the new and younger business operators at a competitive disadvantage, which is the opposite of what most people would want to see.

Of course factors other than taxes affect increases in aggregate market values in each class as well.  If prices of residences rise more rapidly than business properties because of demand, there will be a more rapid growth in assessed values of residential properties compared to business properties without any additional servicing costs.  But we can also ask, is this a good reason to increase the share of taxes paid by homeowners? Perhaps, but then the opposite should hold when business properties in aggregate increase in market value at the same rate or more rapidly than home prices, as could very well be the case in a number of municipalities over the next few years.  Will there then be a pause in the shifting of the tax burden when this happens?

It is time for a principled discussion by councils and their taxpayers about the reasons for and affects of the tax shifts that some are pursuing away from business and to homeowners, and for transparency about the shifts.  Otherwise tax changes go to those who push the hardest and who are most successful at winning the lobby game.  This never a good basis for setting tax rates but it is a particular concern now when homeowners and new start-up businesses are under financial pressure and thus very vulnerable to tax burdens.

And if business needs special help, it might be better to look at things that will be more effective in terms of results, like targetted support for young start ups, as well as high growth and high value sectors, knowledge dependent hubs and small independent business.  Or to lobby hard for a lower corporate tax rate for small business.  More on this last point another time. But these arguably make a lot more sense than blanket property tax shifts from business to residential taxpayers.

Saturday, September 19, saw rallies all across BC against the HST. Predictably organizers claimed they were a great success, brining together the leaders of the opposition parties and Bill Vander Zalm in common opposition to the Liberal Government’s plan.

However, one has to wonder whether something more than 1,000 people at the largest of the rallies held in Vancouver really represents a passionate and deep rooted feeling of outrage.  While a good turnout, it hardly suggests that people are prepared to go out of their way to invest in this fight.

As I have said before, the opposition parties including the NDP are right in fighting this tax, mainly because the Liberals had a clear obligation to make the plan  known in the recent election.  Their claim to have not seriously considered it until after the election is either disingenious or suggests a degree of incompetence that is hardly believable.

However it is not clear where this fight is going.  In particular is it the intention of the NDP to make it the major focus of its legislative and public efforts to dislodge the Liberals in the next election?  That appears to be the case to many.  If so has it anticipated the implications of that?  And what is the plan to achieve that?

Mixed messages were given at the Vancouver meeting about what the present coalition of opponents intend.  Bill Vander Zalm said the goal is a referendum of voters on the issue.  BC is the only province that has legislation making a referendum possible thanks to legislation passed by the NDP in the mid-1990’s.  This requires signing up 10% of voters in each constituency, after which a campaign and a vote must take place.  Carol James suggested something quite different.  She called upon the public to put pressure on Liberal MLA’s suggesting that up to 7 can be pressured to vote against the HST.  This would mean that they would have to cross the floor to sit under some other label.  Others have suggested using the recall legislation to go after vulnerable Liberal MLA’s who had small margins of victory in the last election.

Each of these strategies has its vulnerabilities.  Both referendum and recall require massive organization in order to be successful.  Vast amounts of money are required, as well as the marshaling of vast platoons of volunteer organizers and foot soldiers.   This would suck away resources from virtually all other political organizing.  Both recall and referendum are all or nothing propositions.  They either work and the government is blocked, or they fail and the government gets its way.  Of course the government may suffer a lot of damage along the way, but it is not clear that these expensive and difficult processes are the best way to inflict that damage.

The biggest risk of this concentration of effort and resources is to the NDP.  It is in the best position to raise money and contribute organizers and foot soldiers.  But it is also the Official Opposition in the Legislature.  It needs to have a four year plan that carries it into the next election as the clear alternative to the Liberals.  Is the HST really the right platform to carry an extended fight?  Or this best treated as an opening salvo in a fight that will move on from increased taxation, not natural ground for the NDP, to a broader critique of the government and a plan for the future.

The NDP is not known for spending huge amounts of money on campaigns mounted outside of the official election campaign.  Indeed in the period running up to the last two elections, the NDP badly under performed, apparently because it wanted to preserve resources for the official campaign.  Is it now planning to commit to extremely expensive recall and referendum campaigns on a single issue?  And expensive they will be. The major business leaders and organizations will commit their almost limitless resources to oppose any recall or referendum.  The apparent business support for the opposition to HST from some sectors affected is already weakening and will virtually disappear in any organized campaigns that require real money and commitment.

And the Liberals themselves are not to be underestimated.  They claim to already have had success in selling the tax as a shift rather than an increase that will be good for jobs, productivity and investment.  They have most of the tax experts speaking out in the media on their side.  And Campbell has in the past showed that he can best his opponents with his “Nixon to China” moves, where he embraces positions, this time a tax increase, most commonly associated with the NDP.

There is of course another possibility.  A high profile fight over the next few months could help a new party of the right gain popularity, taking votes away from the Liberals.  Perhaps that is why Carol James suggests lobbying MLA’s as her preferred strategy.  Perhaps she feels that enough pressure on them could drive some to a new party like the fledgling provincial Conservative.  Perhaps this is a signal that the NDP will not be embracing referendum and recall to fight this battle. It may be happy to have other chase this elusive goal, while conserving its resources and organizers for fights yet to come.