Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It appears that I'm going to have to play the lonely role of a contrarian here. I am not going to support this tax bill either, on the basis of many things that I've said. I do believe that we have had a break from the federal government for $50 million. I do believe it is unreasonable to go from a deficit position of $47 million and the federal government gives us $50 million that we were not expecting, and we go into a surplus of $3 million but still pursue an increase in taxation.
Mr. Chairman, I should state -- I think everybody here understands but I just want to make it clear -- that we have, as Members, to state our position and argue on an issue-by-issue basis and present our justification for the way we take our positions. I don't think it means any disrespect to the work of the Finance Minister. I know that the Minister of Finance, since becoming the Minister of Finance, has not I don't think given thought to anything but his budget. I'm sure he speaks this formula financing and rebasing and tax effort adjustment and all those jargons in his sleep. So I know that he is constantly crunching the numbers. But I am just very resistant to this taking the box again that I was fed in the last Assembly, where not only did we increase the spending, as the Minister's of Finance budget address suggested, our spending grew by $220 million in the years between 1999 and 2000 since division, where our revenue only went by $140 million. We spent way more than we got. At the same time, we reduced the personal tax credit, we reduced corporate tax, all in the name of justification that the Finance Minister of the day told us.
So I think Members could understand that I have a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism when I'm presented with a completely 360 degree backwards on another set of assumptions. I'll be watching the Minister's work over the next while and once I've had a chance to go through the business planning process, not as a new Member but as a returning Member to this Assembly, maybe I'll feel that I could actually have an input into the way that we make our priorities by the way we set our budgets. After all, when we pass a budget that is setting our priorities. So far I feel like I've had zero input into how we spend our money, what assumptions we expect, how we accept and how we interpret those assumptions. I guess I live my life where I don't mind making mistakes, but I don't like making mistakes twice and I'm not going to sit here and accept everything that is told to me.
Another reason, Mr. Chairman, is that I think anyone who walks down to Tim Horton's, not only to buy a box of Tim Horton's doughnuts with, well, I guess extra money we will have to spend once this is passed, anyone who walks down there will hear from the people that the biggest problem we have in the North is the cost of living. Everything about living here is high. Even the government acknowledges that it's too high to buy here that they're going to go south to buy where it's cheapest. Not only that, Members that come here have gotten themselves a housing allowance increase because they can see with eyes open how expensive it is to live in Yellowknife, and it applies to all the communities in the North.
This taxation would affect the top two tax brackets, but it would affect about 3,500 taxpayers. We have only been here for four months, we have not had a chance to look at what we can do better. I'm telling you we had lots and lots of spending stuff last time that I haven't seen, and I'm not speaking for cuts in programs, I'm talking about what we
can do to better use our dollars before we go out and reach into the pockets of the people out there. It's not their problem that we have spent out of control and spent like drunken sailors, which is a quote that I gave to this Assembly.
Perhaps in a year's time I may be willing to support something like this, but I think this is way too new in this Assembly and I am going to exercise my right to flex my healthy dose of skepticism and cynicism and I'm going to not give support to the Minister's of Finance initiative just because. I know he's good and willing and he operates under good faith and he's certainly working hard to put some fiscal discipline into our work, but I do believe the picture is incomplete and I do believe that if somebody came to me and said they're going to pay off my mortgage and I owed the amount of $47 million and somebody gave me a $50 million cheque, I think somebody could get a break here and not respond to that by a tax increase. In the House I fought and fought and fought hard to save some of our programs and none of that happened. So I'm thinking why should I be doing everything that the government wants if the government is not prepared to listen to any of the suggestions we make on this side of the House. So on that principle and all the reasons that I have given already, for that reason I am not prepared to support this bill. Thank you.