Evidence of meeting #9 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
Executive Director, Heritage BC
Looking at the American model--we've had people come up from the States and talk about this--their model is a 20% tax share, tax return or tax relief, on the overall cost of rehabilitation.
In terms of setting priorities, it would be--
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
So there wouldn't be any funds. It would be a tax benefit to the organization or to the heritage property--
Executive Director, Heritage BC
It would be a corporation that would have to be applying. It would be corporate tax relief, yes.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Okay, great.
Just quickly, Mr. Hackler, in your brief I think you state that you believe individuals should pay a significant portion of the taxes.
Chair, Justice Subcommittee of the Social Responsibility Committee, First Unitarian Church of Victoria
Individuals versus...?
Chair, Justice Subcommittee of the Social Responsibility Committee, First Unitarian Church of Victoria
I don't think that's what I'm implying there.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
I think it's in your point number two, if I'm not mistaken.
Do you have a balance anyway? My point is this. Would you like to see corporations paying a certain amount and individuals paying another amount in perhaps consumption taxes? Have you done any of that analysis?
Chair, Justice Subcommittee of the Social Responsibility Committee, First Unitarian Church of Victoria
I don't think it's that simple.
By the way, I have the five copies of my summary here. I'm wondering what was on the five copies that I gave to the lady here, that were circulated to you folks. For some reason there was a mix-up there.
I think the point I wanted to make—
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
We would have whatever you would have submitted prior to July 31, I guess.
Chair, Justice Subcommittee of the Social Responsibility Committee, First Unitarian Church of Victoria
Fine. Okay.
Let me give you an illustration of how I think.... If we take Imperial Oil, the largest oil company in Canada, and compare it with Statoil in Norway, we notice that over the last 50 years or so, Imperial Oil has put away $10 billion or $15 billion in its reserve. Statoil has put away $100 billion. In other words, we're talking about two populations of roughly the same size, but one particular corporation has managed to do much better than the other. Now, that was because it was state-controlled.
I don't think I have a clear formula as to who pays more or less. I would think that a wealthy individual should pay considerably. By the same token, a corporation that is using natural resources and contributing a lot to pollution should pay more, say, than a company that's dealing with solar energy.
I would say that I'm not trying to work out any particular tax model according to some income level but rather what the social contribution is and what the social costs are.
December 3rd, 2007 / 11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Massimo Pacetti
Great. Thank you.
Again, thank you to all the witnesses. We appreciate your intervention in coming here to present your briefs.
The meeting is adjourned.