Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the last Assembly, I was the only Member to reply to the budget, and I did so on four occasions. I intend to do the same thing over the next three years, Mr. Speaker.
My major concern this year, has been that it is almost a year now since legislators were elected, and this is an unusual thing to happen. It is the kind of thing that does not happen in democracies. Usually what happens is that the public is aware of government options that are available to it. They decide to vote on the kind of government they think would best serve the people of their society. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in our system, the public is not involved at all, really, in deciding what kind of government we have. We do not have any kind of platform which has to be translated to a budget, so that people know politicians are being straight and honest in what they intend to do.
That is one of the weaknesses of our system, Mr. Speaker, although I admit that it has other strengths to compensate to some degree. It has been a very frustrating year for many of us who really feel that we are dealing with a phantom. We do not really know what it is doing, or what it is trying to do, as they decide how many chips should go there, and whether this constituency should have this, or whether this constituency should have that.
It is almost like a game of dividing the pie, after we have been elected, we sit down to decide where all of the bits and pieces should fall. I appreciate that Mr. Pollard, our new Minister of Finance, has inherited a difficult fiscal position, Mr. Speaker, and he deserves credit for planning a return to a balanced budget over the next two years.
However, I would like to say something about the whole issue of balanced budgets. One of the big weaknesses of governments in our time, is that they have responded to peoples' needs in a way that was beyond their capacity to raise the revenue to meet those needs. As a result, we have got governments all over the world that are deeply in debt. I believe that there are many, many occasions when you should go to the banks and borrow money, and there are times when we say, "well, we do not have the resources to do it." If we do not do this then, we are not being responsible, because these are needs that just have to be met.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we can liken the whole issue of balanced budgets, to something that I used to do when I was very young. It was called rock climbing. What you did was, you looked for a hold, before you put your weight on that little ledge, once you had committed yourself, whether you could put your weight back on the foot that you just left. You have to be sure that you can make the next step after that.
I would like those governments, Mr. Speaker, that have borrowed too much money to the guy who has committed himself to putting his weight on one foot, he can not go forward, he can not go back, and he needs help. He needs to be rescued. There are occasions, I think if we plan properly, that we can say, "well, we need to do this" but we have to be sure that when we make that decision, we know a way of getting out of it.
Canada, I believe, has reached a position now where everything we do we still stay in the same position because we have over-borrowed. We have lived far beyond our means, and we cannot get back on that foot that we were on before we began to borrow. The debt of the United States is so huge that it will never get back on that foot, it will always be in debt, and most economists believe that.
So, although I am very pleased to know that in two years we can get back to a balanced budget, I think as a rule of thumb, any Legislature in our kind of system should plan in such a way that if it is going to borrow, they know that within the four years of its mandate it can get back to a balanced budget. That, I think, should be the rule of thumb, not to borrow so much that you are never, ever going to be able to pay it back. We should plan it in such a way that you know that you can get back to a responsible, balanced budget, within a definite timeframe, with proper planning.
I would suggest that is the kind of thing that we may have to do, as it relates to housing, and I will get to that when I reply to the Commissioner's address. Mr. Speaker, I no longer serve on the Finance Committee, but I did help Mr. Pollard for a four year period, and recognize that when you are a Member of that committee, you do get first-hand information, and insights, on the current fiscal position of the government.
However, having listened to everything that has gone on over the last few days, things do not change much. We are dealing with the same issues now, as we were dealing with in the last four years, and if you read Hansard, for the four years before that, many of the problems remain. The world looks very, very similar through the pair of glasses I am wearing today.
Mr. Speaker, there have been some concerns about the burden that the Minister of Finance has in running two departments. I have looked at the nature of his responsibilities, and find that the departments that he is responsible for, consumes 5.8 percent of the territorial budget. That is not a big management job, to manage that kind of budget. I agree that he has responsibilities that are all-encompassing, but in terms of a management responsibility, it is not huge.
I also do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is a conflict between a Minister of Finance carrying the economic development portfolio. The biggest challenge to any government in this generation, Mr. Speaker, is that we need revenue, and everybody knows that one of the ways of getting revenue is to make sure that you get all kinds of economic activity taking place. The more of it that happens, the greater the opportunities to generate the kinds of monies that governments need to provide the services to people.
So, I think that it does provide the flexibility, and insights, and gives the Minister a responsibility, which is not incompatible, I believe. Mr. Speaker, in this budget, one of the controversies has been the one percent increase in taxes. Many people, in the public services feel that they have already gone to the wall, they have cooperated fully with government by asking for a zero percent increase, or agreeing to a zero percent increase, and a 1.8 percent increase in the second year of the contract.
This means, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that some people consider that an extra imposition of a one percent tax, is a bit of a betrayal of the trust that they have placed in this spirit of cooperation. Despite the fact that many of constituents, Mr. Speaker, have indicated to me that they are not happy, and not pleased to see the government take this position. I believe that the payroll tax that is being proposed in this budget to capture employees who do not live in the Northwest Territories, but who are employed here is, in fact, a good move.
Simply applying that tax to that group only, makes no sense economically, Mr. Speaker, because you cannot justify setting up a tax regime just to capture that group of people, and not everybody else. I support it, despite the opposition some of my constituents have indicated that I should make today.
There are disappointments obviously, Mr. Speaker. One of the concerns that I have had for some time is the amount of investment money that is available in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, in this budget address the Minister has indicated that he has a very, very rosy outlook, as it relates to investment in the future. Yet, this Minister has decided that the $8 million, will be sufficient for the Economic Development Corporation.
In fact, it has been reduced every year since we started it, and that, to me, is an anomaly. Investment is a big problem, yet, our own instrument to invest money was reduced, and we expect the Metis, the Dene, and the southern investors, to pour money into this area when our government does not do it. I think that is a shame. Investment is critical, Mr. Speaker, and as I said, I will deal with the issue at a later date when I respond to the Commissioner's address.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, because I did promise to be brief today, a disappointment to me has been the removal of several government functions from Yellowknife. I never made a huge fuss about it, because we are all grown up people, and we know that sacrifices have to be made here and there.
However, I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that several Members, and they know who they are, who wanted to be in the Cabinet last fall, went around talking to individuals and pledged how much they would fight to make sure that Yellowknife would not suffer, that Yellowknife's interests would be protected, and that people like myself, Mr. Ballantyne, Mr. Dent, and Mr. Whitford, would never have to worry about anything, because all of these talks that you hear about really wanting to devastate the place is really garbage. We really would do our best to make sure that this city does not suffer.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, when you look at this budget, that is exactly what did happen, and I did not see much scrabbling and fighting to live up to those commitments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
---Applause