Whitehorse, Yukon

        Thursday, November 4, 2004 — 1:00 p.m.

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:    We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Tributes.

TRIBUTES  

In recognition of Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask all members of this House to recognize Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day, which will be officially recognized on November 5 — tomorrow. And I ask you all to join me in paying tribute to our early childhood educators, who are the unsung heroes who care for and teach our children.

Mr. Speaker, joining us in the visitor gallery today are three of a group of very dedicated Yukon early childhood educators, and I would ask all members to welcome them here today: Jasbir Randhawa, Cindi Desharnais, and Judy Wengzynowski.

Applause

002a

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   This day is used to celebrate and recognize the tireless efforts of educators who care for the children of working parents. In the Yukon alone, there are several hundred individuals who earn their livelihood by teaching and caring for our young children, and this need is ever increasing. It is important that we know who is looking after and teaching our children in daycare centres and family day homes. We need to know them as individuals rather than just the women and men who take care of our children between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.. We all need to take the time to appreciate the importance of early childhood educators in our society.

I am pleased that our government has increased its contribution to the childcare field, and through a four-year plan we will continue to support and improve the working conditions of our early childhood educators.

003a

There are many initiatives underway by the federal Liberal government through the Hon. Ken Dryden that may assist in this field, and we look forward to receiving these funds on other than a per capita basis. It takes very special people to work in the childcare field, and the contribution these people make to the quality of life for Yukon families often goes unnoticed. I would ask that my colleagues in the House join me in thanking them all for their efforts on behalf of our children.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, ladies.

Mr. McRobb:   I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to our early childhood educators. This is a day to recognize the valuable contribution made by early childhood educators and childcare workers to our lives and to the lives of our children. Without these devoted people, our children would not have the foundation we hope to give them. These workers are not simply babysitters who keep our children busy while we work. Quality care assumes that our children will receive a similar level of guidance, love and attention provided by parents and guardians.

004a

Quality care in early childhood depends on adequate funding for daycare centres. It depends on wages that recognize the contributions made by these educators and workers in our society. It depends on our workers being fully trained, and it depends on the evaluation and change in systems that support early childhood education. None of these qualities are free. In Europe the goal for early childhood learning is for governments to spend one percent of their GDP on early childhood care and education. Some European countries exceed that amount. It is heartening to know that our federal government is again talking about a national system of childcare. Parents in the Yukon hope they won’t be let down this time.

We urge the federal government to draft legislation resulting in action on this most important front in our education systems. In closing, we salute all of the daycare and early education workers across the territory. They are professionals who give, every day, to all of society. Thank you from our children who may someday be parents themselves, putting into practice the knowledge learned from their early childhood experiences.

005a

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Ms. Taylor:     Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming our visitors in the gallery today, who are new government employees participating in an orientation to the Government of Yukon. Having learned about the operations of the Legislative Assembly, they are here to briefly witness the work of the elected members. Thank you and welcome.

Applause

Speaker:   Are there any further introductions of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

 Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I have for tabling a brochure of information outlining the VictimLINK service that has been established for Yukoners.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling both the Yukon Public Service Staff Relations Board 34^th annual report, as well as the Yukon Teachers Staff Relations Board 2^nd annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.

006a

Speaker:   Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

 Mr. Hardy:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon Party government no longer enjoys the confidence of the Members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly due to its failure to honour the commitments made to Yukon people during the campaign leading to the territorial election on November 4, 2002.

Ms. Duncan:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to examine the feasibility of establishing territory-wide cell service and territory-wide 911 service as part of the current redevelopment of the multi-departmental mobile radio system, (MDMRS).

007a

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re:    Election commitments

Mr. Hardy:   Today is a very noteworthy day, Mr. Speaker. It has been two years since the last territorial election; two years since the Yukon Party was elected on a platform of very stirring words; two years of words with no deeds to match. Let’s look at some of the unfinished business: Education Act review — nothing; Workers’ Compensation Act review — nothing; replacement of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre — nothing; Liquor Act amendments — nothing; and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now that this government is halfway to retirement, when does the Premier plan to start matching actions to his stirring words?

008a

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member opposite for this opportunity. Yes, this is a significant moment in any government’s mandate. It is the 24-month mark. I can say with the greatest of confidence that this government, this Yukon Party team, the government departments and their employees, have been diligently working over the last two years delivering on our commitments to the Yukon public during the election of November 2002. The list is much too long to recite here today, but I will go over some generalities.

Our financial situation has improved. We have the biggest budget in the history of the Yukon this year, investing in Yukoners and building a better and brighter future.

Our resource sector is coming back and growing. Tourism is growing. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Our population is growing. We’ve increased investments in education. We’ve increased investments in health care. We are living up to the main commitment of making the lives of Yukoners better. We are proud of it and we are going to continue our good work throughout the rest of this mandate.

009a

Mr. Hardy:   Boy, they’re a noisy bunch today, aren’t they, Mr. Speaker.

Now, what a surprise: more words from the Premier. What was it that Shakespeare said about words: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

Now let’s have another look at this wonderful platform. The title was “Together We Will Do Better” — stirring words signifying nothing. Oh, I’m sure the Premier will brag about all the jobs, all the construction, all the new money from Ottawa, et cetera — he just did it already — but what about achieving a balance between the economy and the environment, from the platform? What about practising good government? We don’t have to look around very far to see a problem there. What about the other title? Achieving a better quality of life — out of the platform. Now when does the Premier intend to start turning those words into action?

010a

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   That’s a difficult question to answer, because we already have turned our platform commitments into action. The difference between this side of the House and the members opposite is fairly clear. We, the government, are delivering tangible product. That’s what’s going on in today’s Yukon, whether it is a better quality of life, whether it be engaging the private sector, whether it be achieving a balance in the economy and the environment. Under the former NDP government and the former Liberal government, the pendulum was skewed far toward stagnation of any economic growth — not the case under this government. The pendulum is now back in a very balanced manner.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is an old adage, “Empty barrels make the most noise.” Our side of the House is delivering and speaking not through words but product. I ask you, what about the other side of the House on this matter?

011a

Mr. Hardy:   Well, we all know that the Premier loves to blame former governments for everything that they do wrong. Now, let’s turn to the first page of this wonderful platform. The Premier’s letter to Yukoners promised “a new, inclusive team approach to governing the territory.” His own words. Two sentences later: “This new, inclusive style of governing will be based on consensus building, consultation, collaboration and compromise, not on confrontation and unilateral action.” I can hardly wait to see when it’s going to materialize, but what everything comes right down to is words, words, words. Another word: “Restoring investor confidence in the territory is dependent upon the successful resolution of land claims, devolution and the Yukon protected areas strategy.” Will the Premier now join us in saluting one of the best examples of dramatic irony in Yukon literary history, his own 2002 election platform? Will he do that now?

012a

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, I must say that the 2002 election platform must have been a good platform. It was a good vision and a good plan and Yukoners agreed. They voted and they elected a Yukon Party government by the biggest majority in the history of this territory.

 Secondly, this government is not bragging. We’re merely stating the facts, Mr. Speaker, and we acknowledge that it is not the government entirely that has produced these results. It is because of our cooperative approach in team building. We couldn’t have done this ourselves and we openly admit that. We are successful in this territory because we have created a team spirit. Together we will do better. Together we are doing better. The facts bear that out.

013a

Question re:  Election commitments

 Mr. Hardy:   Well, we have to remember the other words: “Team Yukon.” I think most of the team is made up of people from Outside, though. Mr. Speaker, I’m curious to hear the Premier explain why his government has failed to deliver on some very specific campaign promises he made two years ago. For example: the all-party committee on appointments to boards and committees; an all-party agreement on a code of conduct and decorum for Members of the Legislative Assembly; enhanced opportunities for public employees to provide input on Yukon government decisions individually and collectively; whistle-blower legislation; an independent commission of citizens to hold public consultations on electoral reform — fine words —two years — nothing, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier provide a timeline of when he intends to turn those words into deeds?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Speaker, as the government continues on through this mandate, growing our economy, addressing our social fabric, dealing with our education system, building relationships and partnerships, not only internally but externally — and the member opposite has a problem with people from Outside. Where does the member opposite think investment comes from? It doesn’t fall out of the sky. We have to engage with those outside of the territory. Our vision is beyond the Yukon borders in building the Yukon’s future. The NDP’s vision is very insular. It doesn’t see very far, and that is why they’re there and we’re here. It’s all about vision; it’s all about plan; it’s all about delivery. The contrast is evident. We deliver; they talk about it.

Mr. Hardy:   Now, Mr. Speaker, there are too many F’s on the Premier’s mid-term report card. Maybe he should spend less time on airplanes and maybe more time down on the ground, doing the hard work of government. There is one very serious area where this government is getting a failing grade, and I’m talking about government-to-government relations with Yukon First Nations. The Premier said it was a top priority, but there are growing signs that the wheels have come off on this.

014a

What is the Premier’s response to yesterday’s very clear warning from the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations that there could be a concerted effort at the next election to punish this government for what the Grand Chief calls its “ultimatum” decisions?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The Grand Chief, in representing the First Nation members of the Council of Yukon First Nations, has an obligation to speak out on behalf of First Nation people. However, the government is not concerned at all about the next election. The government is focused not on trying to get votes but on trying to create a better Yukon and build a brighter future. And we are doing that with First Nations — whether it be through governance — and the areas that we’ve agreed to and pursued, such as a child act review, corrections reform, education reform — examples of governance and partnership. In the economy, the bilateral with the Kaska: producing results, we’re drilling for gas, we’re exploring for minerals. We are now having timber permits made available. And the list goes on and on: partnerships in the north Yukon with an economic development accord; investment in the Vuntut Gwitchin’s capital planning to create an economic base and cash flow in the community of Old Crow; and the list continues.

We have to also reflect on another fact: partnerships are a two-way street. We all have an obligation to give and to take. This government is a give-and-take government, but we also have to represent the public interest in all cases. That’s what we’re doing and we have every confidence that the public will judge accordingly in the next election.

Mr. Hardy:   I heard one word over there repeated quite a bit, and I know that members opposite are very attached to the word “reform”. Now, ministers who ignore mandated advisory bodies, ministers who don’t consult or don’t listen, is one of the problems. Agreements that are not honoured: the Grand Chief is right. These are the things that can bring down a government.

015a

The Yukon Party platform said that this government would work with First Nations that have settled to implement their agreement. It said that this government would work cooperatively with First Nation governments to coordinate the management of settlement lands and public lands.

If the Premier isn’t prepared to honour these commitments, is he prepared to spend the second half of this term in office defending court challenges from First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:          First Nations and any Yukoner can access the court system to present a challenge if they feel that they have been wronged. I can assure you that the government of today has no problem with those kinds of challenges, because we are confident that what we have done is within the context of our obligations — whether it be final agreements, our obligation to consult, and our obligation to deal with the public in a fair and equitable manner. Nothing that this government has done would contravene those very principles.

I don’t impede or preclude anyone from challenging issues in the courts that they feel are necessary. We will present our case; they will present their case and the courts will rule. We have not got a problem with that. That will never diminish our effort and our commitment to work in partnership with the First Nations of this territory and indeed all Yukoners. That’s what we’re doing; that’s why we are achieving results.

Question re:   Liquor Act changes

016a

Ms. Duncan:   The minister proudly announced yesterday that the government had covered off 17 recommendations from the Liquor Act review. When does the minister plan to deal with the other 32 recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Liquor Board continues to review and to work with the Liquor Act review and regulations. It’s on an ongoing basis, as it will continue through the mandate, and we will deal with problems as they come up. At this time, we do not see any reason to open up the Liquor Act or any reason to make liquor more accessible to Yukoners. We’re just very confused by the member opposite’s approach.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, what the minister just stood on his feet and said is, “We don’t see any reason to listen to over 2,000 completed questionnaires returned from Yukoners from throughout the territory.” He doesn’t see any reason to listen to the people who attended the territory’s meetings — 56 meetings in total. He doesn’t see any reason to listen to the individuals from Yukon communities, from First Nations, from social service organizations, from the RCMP, from licensees, from the hospitality industry, from other interested parties who all contributed to the Liquor Act review. The number one, first and foremost recommendation of all these individuals was that the Liquor Act required an overhaul; the Liquor Act has to be rewritten. That act, not the regulations, has to come before this House.

When is the minister going to do the hard work of government and listen to these Yukoners and bring that act forward?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member opposite prefaces her original comments by talking about accounting principles, and an accounting principle that is common in every business that I have ever seen. I did check, and Yukon College does offer some very good accounting courses, and I suggest that the member opposite take them.

017a

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   Order please. It’s out of order that you are intimating that the member needs education. Each member has the fair right to ask questions and receive the answers the government chooses to give them. That’s the right of each member. I would ask the member not to diminish the questioner.

Please carry on.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Liquor Act review showed one thing very clearly. It clearly showed a good consultation; it showed very well the fact that Yukoners were very polarized on this issue. It does not show, in my mind, and in this government’s mind, that the Liquor Act needs an immediate opening. We need to evaluate the regulations. We need to make sure that it’s a legislation-right — not legislation-light — agenda.

We have higher priorities, and it’s disappointing that members opposite have priorities like this when there are so many more important things to do in this territory.

Ms. Duncan:   For the benefit of the member opposite, I would remind him that there were 2,000 questionnaires, 56 public meetings throughout the territory — every organization the minister could name was consulted on this piece of legislation, which dates back to 1977.

The minister should be aware that one of the key recommendations, first and foremost, was that the Yukon Liquor Act and regulations should be rewritten. The act has to be rewritten.

The minister also has the responsibility for Economic Development. Another recommendation covered licence types. It said the government should modernize, streamline and reduce the number of types of liquor licence classifications. The business community is asking for these changes.

Yukoners are asking the government to do the hard work. Why? What’s the minister’s excuse for not doing the hard work of government in bringing forward a new act that Yukoners overwhelmingly asked for? What’s his excuse?

018a

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Once again, I think our platform was very clear in the last election, that we did not consider the Liquor Act a high priority, that there were many other, larger priorities. And therefore, the amendment to the Liquor Act really isn’t a priority at this time.

Mr. Speaker, during the election — perhaps Porter Creek North is different from Porter Creek South — but I can say that I’ve knocked on virtually every available door in that riding, and the number of times that the Liquor Act came up? Zero, not one. Constituents and Yukoners want jobs. We have the lowest unemployment rate since they have kept statistics in the Yukon, and one of the lowest in the country. They wanted to bring population back. We have brought back nearly 1,000 people. They want increased training in trades, better education, better childcare, better health care. That is this government’s priority, not reopening the Liquor Act.

Question re:  Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

 Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the Minister of Environment how he planned to make the new administration in Washington aware of the Yukon’s position on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The minister’s lukewarm response was not a surprise to many, considering he didn’t even bother to attend a recent environment ministers meeting on a subject as important as climate change. Now, the election is over. I’ll put my question to the Premier.

I’m grateful to the Premier for providing financial support for the Gwich’in people in the Yukon and their lobbying efforts, but I would like to see the Premier stand up and be counted on this issue. With a stronger Republican presence in Congress and the White House, will the Premier agree to visit Washington to help put the Yukon’s position on the public record there?

019a

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:  Mr. Speaker, our government was asked by the Vuntut Gwitchin government to take the lead. They want to take the lead on this initiative and we agreed. We have provided assistance. Our position has not changed. Our position has not changed one iota on the protection of the critical habitat of the caribou herd in the northern part of Alaska, Yukon and Northwest Territories. 

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, yesterday the newly elected senator from Alaska, who is also the governor’s daughter, outlined her post-election priorities. Those priorities are to build a gas pipeline, to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, open new mines and fast-track the logging and fishing industries. Not a word about the environment.

The Porcupine caribou herd is essential to the Gwich’in people and our way of life. Once again, we see a direct threat looming over the core calving ground of this herd. This is top priority as of today, and Chief Linklater is leaving for Washington in a few days. Yukoners must stand together, and the Premier must show leadership.

If the Premier won’t go to Washington, will he at least go to Juneau and tell the Alaskan state legislators that the Yukon government is opposed to drilling in the wildlife refuge?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member opposite made mention of the involvement and the development potential in the State of Alaska. It must be pointed out that the State of Alaska, in their development, is doing so in cooperation with quite a number of aboriginal corporations in that state. To that end, the fiscal reports for last year clearly indicated that these corporations realized benefits in the billions of dollars; I believe it was $3.2 billion dollars. They are investing it back into that state for resource development, so the First Nations in that state, the aboriginal population, is well involved in development and concur to a great extent.

To the issue that the member spoke to, of the protection of the caribou herd and their involvement, we are very cognizant of that issue. We are supportive of the position and this House has moved two motions supporting that issue, and they were passed unanimously.

020a

The Vuntut Gwitchin had asked to be the lead on this and to take the lead, and they have done so with this government’s support.

Mrs. Peter:   The minister and the Premier are not answering the question. We’ve had two years of talk from this government with very little action. It’s time for the Premier to turn his words into deeds. I would like the Premier to make a commitment to take action and follow up on the intergovernmental agreement with Alaska that he signed last year.

Will the Premier agree to go to his office right after Question Period today, pick up the phone and tell Senator Murkowski and Governor Murkowski that the Yukon government and opposition do not want to see any drilling in the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That message has been conveyed to the government of the State of Alaska, to the governor of that state, to Ottawa, to Washington, not on one occasion, but on a number of occasions. The last time I’m aware that it was conveyed to the Governor of the State of Alaska was when he had occasion to visit this capital city of Whitehorse.

The Vuntut Gwitchin asked to be the lead on this area and, rightly so, we agreed with their position as a government and we are supportive of their position in this area.

Question re:  Alaska Highway pipeline

 Mr. McRobb:   Recent developments are signalling that an Alaska Highway pipeline may not be far away. Oil prices are near record highs. The U.S. Senate recently approved an incentive package pushed by the major gas producers backing the proposed $20 billion project. Tuesday’s U.S. election has given the Republicans not only the U.S. presidency but a majority in Congress and in the Senate and, it would appear, another Alaskan senator in addition to the existing governor of the state.

021a

With such full control and little to hold it back, American politicians will be anxious to start the Alaska Highway pipeline ahead of the N.W.T. pipeline proposal.

Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources aware of any other indicators that signal this major project is being fast-tracked, and what are his latest expectations in terms of timelines?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I certainly am aware that there is interest in the Alaska Highway pipeline. As far as timelines are concerned, we aren’t privy to that information. We work on a daily/weekly basis with the producers. He is correct — the president-elect of the United States, Mr. George Bush, a Republican, brought with him a majority in the House and the Senate and also a Republican senator in Alaska and a Republican governor. That bodes well for the Alaska Highway pipeline, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister failed to answer the question. The Northwest Territories has lost its battle to fight U.S. Senate attempts to aid the Alaska Highway pipeline. It is now facing delays while it conducts environmental assessments and sorts through other issues. The demands of these two projects are so massive in terms of workers, equipment and materials that only one can be built at a time. We need to know if ours will be first in order to be pipeline-ready.

This past March, the minister said the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition will be opening an office very soon in Whitehorse. Can he tell this House when we might expect it to open and how much of the $155,000 allocated from the supplementary budget will help this group establish its office?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   In answering the question from the member opposite, we certainly are in agreement with both pipelines proceeding. We have no problem at all with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. That pipeline will be decided by producers, as will the Alaska Highway pipeline.

As to whether they can build two pipelines at one time, I’m not going to get into that debate, Mr. Speaker. That will not be my decision.

022a

My decision as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is to get the Yukon ready, border to border, so that we have pipeline regulations in place. We work with the federal government to make sure that the environment is addressed, and we certainly work with the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition. Again, the member opposite is correct; we have gone out and informed the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition. It’s alive and well and working daily with the issues that they have on their plate. So we are working in a progressive way to move this pipeline forward when the decision for the pipeline is made.

Mr. McRobb:   Again, this minister failed to answer the question. It’s no wonder this Yukon Party government has failed its mid-term report card. The minister has also failed to bring all nine Yukon First Nations whose territories are affected by this project into the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition. This Yukon Party government has focused too much attention on supporting the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. It hasn’t lived up to its promises or responsibilities with respect to ensuring our territory is pipeline ready. What will the minister now do to refocus his attention on the Yukon to ensure our territory is fully prepared to deal with this fast-tracked megaproject?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, to correct the member opposite, to fast-track the Mackenzie pipeline — that is not one of our issues. The Mackenzie pipeline is in the jurisdiction, if he hasn’t noticed, of Northwest Territories. We certainly are not competing with the Northwest Territories on any level. And are we doing something to get the Yukon ready for a pipeline? Certainly we are. We’re working with the producers. We have the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition up and running. They have seven members at the moment; they are hopeful to build into nine. That is going to be decided by the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition in conversation and discussion with the aboriginal people of the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead with the hope of a pipeline in the future, and we’re very positive that the pipeline eventually will come down the Alaska Highway.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

023a

Speaker’s ruling — question of privilege

Speaker:    As the time for Question Period has now elapsed, the Chair will now rule on a question of privilege raised yesterday by the Member for Mayo-Tatchun. The Member for Mayo-Tatchun met the notice requirement found in Standing Order 7(1)(b) by submitting a written notice to the Office of the Speaker by 11:00 a.m. yesterday. Standing Order 7(4) states that the Speaker must rule on (a) whether there appears, on the face of it, to be a case of breach of privilege, and (b) whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.

The normal practice of this House has been that, to meet the “earliest opportunity” requirement, a question of privilege must be raised at the time the event occurred or on the next sitting day. In this matter, the event took place on Tuesday, November 2, 2004. It meets, therefore, the “earliest opportunity” requirement by being raised as a question of privilege on the following day.

The question for the Chair to decide on, then, is whether the Member for Mayo-Tatchun has raised a question that appears, on the face of it, to be a breach of privilege.

During his presentation, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun raised a number of concerns. At the core of his concern were words uttered by the Minister of Education during Question Period on November 2, 2004. These comments were made in response to questions from the Member for Mayo-Tatchun regarding the proposal to build a new school in Carmacks with a Yukon College campus attached to it. The words that offended the Member for Mayo-Tatchun included a reference by the Minister of Education that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun needed to “look in the mirror to understand where some of the dissension (in the community of Carmacks) is coming from” and the minister’s assertion that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun “probably” gave notice to the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation that it could “build a school anywhere they want in the country.”

The Member for Mayo-Tatchun argued that the minister’s statements were “inaccurate” and “inappropriate” and taken together and separately constituted a breach of the member’s privileges. As a remedy the Member for Mayo-Tatchun asked that the Chair require that the minister withdraw those remarks and apologize for them.

According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the term ‘Parliamentary Privilege’ “refers... to the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its members, as representatives of the electorate to fulfil their functions. It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its members, and its procedures from undue interference, so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to inquire, to debate and to legislate. In that sense parliamentary privilege can be viewed as special advantages, which Parliament and its members need to function unimpeded.”

House of Commons Procedure and Practice also informs us that “[T]he rights and immunities accorded to Members individually are generally categorized under the following headings: freedom of speech; freedom from arrest in civil actions; exemption from jury duty; exemption from attendance as a witness.” Of these, the primary privilege of members — and the one at issue in this case — is freedom of speech in the Assembly.

The Chair finds that there is no apparent question of privilege in this case. In raising the question of privilege, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun explained in detail the words he found to be offensive and why he found them offensive. However, the member did not demonstrate how the utterance of such words by the Minister of Education negatively affected his ability to exercise his freedom of speech in this Assembly. The Chair notes that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun raised a supplementary question on the Carmacks school issue immediately after the minister’s response.

Offensive words, no matter how offensive, do not constitute a breach of privilege. They may constitute a point of order. Raising a point of order on the basis of offensive language should be done at the time the offensive words are uttered.

Without attempting to rule retroactively on the words uttered by the Minister of Education, the Chair would nonetheless remind the House that he did advise members against the use of similar expressions on November 1, 2004, during an exchange involving the Premier and the leader of the official opposition.

The Chair hopes that all members will, in future, keep in mind the kind of disorder that can occur in the House when accusations such as these are made.

The House will now proceed to the Orders of the Day.

024a

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 54: Second Reading

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 54, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Fentie.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:    I move that Bill No. 54, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 54, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I rise today to introduce an income tax bill, the substance of which the government announced in the spring Budget Address.

First, by means of this legislation, and as earlier promised by us, the government, this bill reduces the corporate small business tax rate from six percent to four percent, effective January 1, 2005.

This two point reduction represents a 33-percent decrease in the small business tax rate, and it is significant by anyone’s standards. Also, the government is very pleased to say that since the introduction of the small business tax rate in 1983, this is the first time that it has been reduced. Furthermore, this bill provides for a small business tax rate that will be at its lowest level since it was introduced.

Secondly, as also stated in my Budget Address, this bill increases the small business tax deduction limit to $400,000, effective January 1, 2007. The small business tax deduction limit represents the amount of business income that is eligible for the reduced small business tax rate. This limit is currently at $250,000. Effective January 1, 2005, the limit is scheduled to increase to $275,000, and on January 1, 2006, it will increase a further $25,000 to $300,000. This bill will increase the limit a further $100,000 to $400,000 in total, effective January 1, 2007.

These two initiatives will reduce taxes for many of the corporations operating in the Yukon. Lower taxes stimulate growth and initiative, both of which I am certain all members wish to encourage in this House.

025a

Lower taxes mean more income is available to the business owners to reinvest and, furthermore, it encourages new businesses to establish a presence here in the Yukon Territory.

With this growth comes increased employment opportunity. This measure is not without some cost, however, Mr. Speaker. When both these tax reduction measures are fully implemented, our revenues will be some $885,000 less per year. That is to say that in every year, going forward, the government is putting $885,000 more in Yukoners’ pockets to help stimulate economic growth. However, we know this is a good investment in our future, and the cost is very, very worthwhile. This is an investment in our small business community. These are foregone revenues that certainly are not lost to Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, these income tax changes are a reflection of our commitment to economic growth that will result in the betterment of our citizens’ lives, and I look forward to the support of all the Members of the Legislative Assembly for this piece of legislation.

Mr. Hardy:   We have had discussions around this before. As usual, it takes a long time for this government to bring forward anything, and what they do bring forward is generally somebody else’s work — which is so true. It has become very obvious that they’ve been picking up a lot of what former governments have done and repackaging it and then saying that it’s their initiative or their idea.

But even saying that, there are some questions I think need to be asked about this, and I would be remiss to not ask them. For instance, what other initiatives have this government considered around income tax reform? Is there such a thing as a tax round table with this government?

I do know of another government that did have a tax round table, and it did involve people from around the Yukon, from businesses, input from other organizations. It was to come up with ideas that would help make a more progressive tax system that would stimulate the economy, create growth and so on.

Does this government have that? Is this government reaching out to small business? Have they been reaching out to larger businesses? Have they been reaching out to the unions or the First Nations? Or the NGOs or people who are not within organizations, such as the chambers? They may be business people, have very legitimate businesses, but may not belong to an organization. What have they offered to the people of this territory to be engaged in a debate about any kind of tax changes?

026a

 I haven’t necessarily seen any of that yet. One of things that comes for me to question is where something like this comes from and how people get the ear of this government to forward their own initiatives, what they feel would be good for themselves or good for the economy. I’d like the minister to explain that because I don’t see any coalition. I didn’t hear how this came about. The minister did not give an explanation or very in-depth history of tax changes throughout the territory historically, what governments have been proactive, have done round tables, such as I mentioned earlier. All it was was patting themselves on the back for this one little section, one change, which of course is the small business corporate income tax rate, a reduction from six percent to four percent, and to increase the small business deduction limit from $300,000 to $400,000. That of course comes in in 2007. So I do have questions about that. Again it comes down to how people are able to engage this government in constructive consultation about issues that face them daily, about issues around the tax that they have to pay. What about individuals?

It’s interesting that we’re debating this today because, two days ago at the supper table with my daughter, she was arguing to me that she felt she paid too much tax. As a young person she pays far too much tax. Now she doesn’t have a business. She is a working person. She pays her taxes. She contributes to the economy. She feels she’s part of the economy. She feels she’s part of the society, the community of the Yukon. What has the government done in regard to that? I’m just putting it out to the Premier to give him an opportunity to respond to that. She’s a young person. I think it’s a question that many young people ask. They don’t understand why they pay this portion of tax and where the monies go.

There’s a lot of initiative throughout the country, throughout the world, in regard to progressive tax regimes — changes to the tax structures. Some are designed where there is an extra tax attached to create a change within our society.

027a

It could be a change in the spending habits, it could be a change in the accumulation of material goods, to try to have some kind of influence on what people spend their money on, and it could be a tax put in place that would go toward environmental rehabilitation or improvement of the air quality. It could be taxes put in place for water usage by corporations or businesses that may have a direct impact on water or air or land. Those taxes are in existence today. They are to try to put in place a fund or monies to offset the damage that is done. Many people call those green taxes.

Has this been considered by this government? I haven’t heard a word along the lines of a green tax or even an open debate about it from that side. It’s not put out. I have concerns about that.

Now, as I said, there are progressive tax regimes. This could be considered in some viewpoints as a progressive tax, meaning, as the minister indicated, that it was going to cost the government $885,000 in lost revenue. The minister took that concept and said that it goes into the pockets of Yukoners. Now, that could be accurate, but it could also be inaccurate. Giving a tax break to a small business does not necessarily mean that the small business is able to hire somebody else, and it does not necessarily mean that that money immediately gets spread throughout our society.

We have in Canada — it is becoming a growing problem — a country that is changing, in which we have a growing lower class, lower income, and greater wealth going into what they call a higher class, wealthy bracket, and a shrinking middle class. Now, this is what the United States has. This has happened over the last 20 years in the United States. They have seen a contraction of their middle class, and they have seen a growth in the two other areas. And the inequalities are getting bigger and bigger and bigger: a lot more wealth in fewer hands, a lot more poor.

028a

The middle class — what many people consider the bedrock of a society, the foundation of a society in wealth — is shrinking. We are witnessing the same thing happening in Canada now. It has been happening from federal initiatives and we’ve watched it for the last 10 years. It’s a huge concern. It’s a huge concern for any community or society because it’s not a direction that is going to necessarily create equality within our society, or strengthen our economy. It’s not a direction that ensures that wealth is distributed in a manner that ensures people have equality of life.

Any time you make an adjustment to the tax regime you should consider what kind of an impact it’s really going to have and you need hard data. You honestly need hard data. It’s not good enough to stand up and say there is going to be $885,000 left that the government can invest in the people of this territory, that they can spread throughout the economy and stimulate, that they can ensure gets into the hands of the people who need it. But we believe that it’s going to immediately do the same thing in a different area. There is no hard fact. That’s what bothers me.

If the minister has the facts to show that there is a direct correlation, that the money is withdrawn from the territorial government and directed to one group — which is small business, which do work very hard and contribute a lot — and we guarantee that that money would be distributed throughout the economy again and on a fairly reasonable and equal basis would get into the hands of the people of the territory, then fine. But show me that.

From what the minister said, there are no studies that he has to put on the table so that we can see that. There is no proof.

Making a change like this is fine. I will not be voting against this. I’m not against this. But I do not necessarily like to hear positions taken without some facts to back them.

029a

I don’t think it serves the public good to make an assumption that this is what will happen when you have no statistical analysis done, that that actually will happen. If anything, I think it’s incorrect to do that. Does it stimulate growth? Does it increase employment opportunities? Will it increase innovation within our society? The jury is out on that and this amount. There’s a lot of debate about this. Does the Yukon Party government plan to also make some adjustments to the other tax brackets? There is a variety of them that they do have the ability to do. Do they plan to do that? Let’s have that debate. Let’s put it on the floor. Let’s put it out in the public, like the NDP government did with the round table. Let’s have that debate. Let’s see if there’s opportunity to stimulate the economy through the tax regime. But to pick and choose is not fair, and it’s not the way to go.

There’s no guarantee that this is going to flow into the hands of a large group of people. There’s no guarantee that it’s going to create more employment. I haven’t seen any guarantees yet. Truthfully, I was actually under the impression that the cost to the government was going to be a little bit less. The figure the Premier has come out with — $885,000 — is substantially larger than I thought it was going to be.

I do know a lot of small business owners, and I do know that this is a benefit to them. I know many of them are struggling, but they’re struggling for a variety of reasons. This may be just one piece that assists them. I also, as I said earlier, do know a lot of people on an individual basis who are struggling. Is this government going to reach out to them? Are there going to be adjustments on their tax? Are we going to see people who are at a certain tax bracket — say a young family that is working two, three jobs to make ends meet, trying to get by, they only make $25,000 a year. Are we going to be eliminating the tax on them? Has there been any consideration of an elimination of tax for those or on adjustments for that? How about the seniors with fixed incomes? Are there ways to assist them?

Now the Member for Klondike just said that they did it.

030a

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect; that is incorrect. He is obviously referring to the changes they made to the pioneer utility grant, which I feel was in direct response to an initiative that we encouraged, although they did not go very far on it. But it doesn’t necessarily —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order

 Speaker:   Member for Klondike, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 19(g), the member opposite is imputing false or unavowed motives to me. Our government is firmly committed to increasing the pioneer utility grant by 25 percent, indexing it against inflation, and that has been done. And we have further increased that by another 10 percent. The members opposite want to take credit for this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:   On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, clearly there isn’t one. The Member for Klondike couldn’t refrain from getting up and giving another commercial on his government’s progress, which we know represents his perspective only.

Speaker’s ruling

 Speaker:    The Chair feels there is no point of order. It is a dispute among members. Please carry on.

Mr. Hardy:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the Member for Klondike had referenced it, we had suggested, very clearly, changes to the pioneer utility grant, which benefits seniors but not all seniors. It’s not across the board. They don’t all get an increase. It benefits a category of seniors — those who are in their own homes, who have to pay their heating fuels and costs. As the member opposite is saying, or rent pay — supposedly, there is a slight flow through there.

Our recommendation, again, is based upon the real cost that the senior would inherit as the changes to what the fuel cost would have been. They didn’t go far enough; that’s fine. That’s their choice. But what we’re talking about, of course, is the Income Tax Act, the small business corporate income tax. What I am asking is this: what work has been done to address the many other people in the Yukon in regard to their tax bracket? Has there been any work done in that area? I’m very serious about this, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite thinks that I’m just talking because the camera’s on. That’s foolishness. I care very deeply about the taxes that people pay. I care very deeply about the opportunity to bring a progressive tax regime that would be reflective of, for instance, the impact on the environment based upon certain types of industry.

 031a

I care about taxes, possibly in some form that would ensure that, when a mine closes, for instance, there was money left behind to ensure there would be a proper clean-up.

I care very deeply about the air, the water, and the land for the future generations, and there are ways to make an impact through changes like this.

My concern is how people or organizations get to this government to have changes like this done, because obviously there had to be some kind of initiative that created this? I would like to tell all the people out there what it takes to sway this government so that they will make adjustments for their problems, for their taxes, for their issues. It would be nice to know. I think the people of the territory would like to know.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, by the mid-point of this government’s mandate, we have seen a complete inability to do the heavy lifting required: the hard work of government. Fortunately for this government, some of that hard work was done for them when they were elected two years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, Bill No. 54, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, to reduce the small business tax rate from six to four percent, was able to be brought forward in this House because, during the Liberal government mandate, we changed the tax regime and brought forward tax legislation to this House that enabled future governments to make these kinds of changes more easily.

We also, of course, included changing the rate from six to four percent as part of our platform. It was part of a motion that I brought forward in this House. It was also part of the constructive suggestions that I offered the Premier when he was first elected, the current Finance minister.

Now, I appreciate that this bill has finally been brought forward and I’m sure that, in the spirit of consensus and collaboration that the side opposition professes, the Premier just simply forgot to mention the credit where credit is due, that this was done for them and this bill was ready to go. I’ve pushed them for this bill, lobbied for this bill and argued long and hard that the small business tax rate should be reduced.

032a

I’m sure the Finance minister just forgot to mention that in his second reading speech, and to give the credit where the credit was due.

I noticed he also forgot to mention that what this reduction of the rate does is it keeps pace with the Northwest Territories. We are not keeping pace with Alberta; their financial situation is quite significantly better than ours. British Columbia, I have noticed, made other tax provisions and reductions in their sales taxes; however, they haven’t brought forward a reduction in the small business tax rate.

The Finance minister mentioned foregone revenues; however, he didn’t indicate, depending upon where the formula negotiations are and the vagaries of the formula, whether in fact just keeping pace with the Northwest Territories will end up with that kind of a cost to the taxpayers.

While we are on the subject of the government dealing with tax provisions and innovations, I would also suggest very strongly, and I look forward to the government bringing forward another suggestion that I have lobbied for and put forward, and that is a teacher tax supply credit, which could also be done reasonably easily by the government. The Member for Klondike seems to think that bringing forward a teacher supply credit — the off-microphone comment  was “bunk.” I’m sure the 800 teachers who have asked me about that in the hallways of the schools do not refer to it as “bunk”. Having watched them and spoken with them, they have made a number of expenditures in support of their classrooms and in support of early childhood education and learning in our classrooms. Teachers spend far more than $500.

The cost to the government of introducing a teacher tax supply credit is minimal. It could be done thanks to the previous administration bringing forward the changes to the tax regime that enables the government to bring forward this bill. I’m glad the Yukon Party has finally brought forward some of the hard work that was done for them in this income tax act. It’s a platform commitment that we made. It’s a motion that I brought forward. It’s a suggestion that I made in writing to the Premier, and it has finally come forward.

033a

I’m pleased to see it. I support it. I would like to see and would urge the government to give full and fair consideration, recognizing that there are other ideas out there worthy of consideration. I would strongly recommend and look forward to them bringing forward other innovative tax suggestions, such as a teacher tax supply credit. And that’s not the only one. There are other innovative tax measures that could be examined that would help middle class families. There are a number of programs that help lower income families with respect to some of the expenses associated with children and childcare. There are some federal initiatives. We do have the kids recreation fund. We do have the dental health care plan. But an issue that was just raised with me last evening — and I’ve heard at other school council meetings — is the government has instituted voluntary vision screening; however, there is no follow up and no assistance readily available for the middle class families in dealing with vision care for children and in assisting the education system in that regard.

So I would encourage the government to meet with the tax round table. I understand from the some of the members of the tax round table that that has not happened to date under this administration. I would encourage them to meet with them. I would encourage them to listen to what the business community has to say. And I would look forward to other innovative measures coming forward and recognition that good ideas can come from all sides of this Legislature. I look forward to line-by-line debate of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I rise in support of Bill No. 54, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. Our government campaigned on restoring investor confidence, rebuilding the Yukon economy and putting into place the necessary incentives to encourage the development of industry and to encourage the repopulation of the Yukon and to encourage an increase and a betterment and enhancement of the standard of living here in the Yukon, and I’m proud to say that our government has accomplished a tremendous amount in this area.

We campaigned on no new taxes. We’ve met that campaign commitment. This area, a reduction in the small business tax, is something that was duly considered and agreed to by our party,and it’s predicated on our understanding and our knowledge that small business is the driver of the Canadian economy.

034a

Small businesses — those are businesses with a gross under $2 million a year — are well-defined and well known for their tremendous contribution to the economy of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the members in the official opposition and the leader of the third party to get some of the reading from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that defines clearly the benefits that accrue to economies from small business in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we only have to look at the package before us amending the Income Tax Act to lower the tax rate from six percent to four percent. Probably with the strides we’re making in restoring investor confidence in Yukon and rebuilding the economy and creating employment and creating jobs and attracting new businesses, at the end we will be revenue neutral, because with the many new people who have chosen to come to the Yukon and our youth who are going through our educational systems and who will end up being very positive contributors to the Yukon economy, that will all stimulate. We have to have incentives. We have to have opportunities. There has to be something there. And the previous two administrations destroyed the incentive for business to come to the Yukon; they destroyed opportunities. And it has taken awhile to restore that investor confidence in the resource extraction industries and the mining sector and the oil and gas sector and the forestry sector, Mr. Speaker, but they’re coming.

One only has to look at the last budget that this government tabled: $740 million. That is the largest budget ever, when you add in the original amount tabled in the supplementary — $740 million. That is the largest amount on capital and O&M ever spent here in the Yukon. And when you look at the previous financial statements as to the revenue from our own sources, it is only some $80 million.

Mr. Speaker, it is broken down with personal income tax, corporate income tax, property tax, fuel oil tax on diesel — which is $2.5 million, an all-time low — gasoline, $3.9 million. It is so much per litre, unlike the federal GST, which is a percentage of the total amount.

035a

Mr. Speaker, there’s the insurance premium tax, tobacco tax and liquor tax. There are licences for fees and registration permits for motor vehicles, campgrounds, businesses, professionals, gaming machine revenues, oil and gas resource revenues that, to a large part, flow back to our partners in rebuilding the Yukon economy — our First Nations. We have the land and mineral leases and royalties, fines, sale of land, aviation operation, and there’s a small amount under miscellaneous, but $80 million under some $740 million is revenue-owned sources.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at 32,000 as being the approximate population, and we extrapolate that, that’s approximately $23,000 for every man, woman and child in the Yukon that is being spent by this government this last fiscal cycle, and we’re still into it.

Mr. Speaker, this tax credit is another encouragement to small business to develop and locate here and set up a head office here in that it will supply additional incentives. And yes, we have to keep pace with our neighbouring jurisdictions, and yes, Alberta has the lowest tax rates in Canada across the board, but we’re right up there. We keep track of what is going on across Canada, and the incentives we provide here in the Yukon are coming back into play. This is just another opportunity for businesses here to choose the Yukon to locate here, to develop here, work here and employ Yukoners here. Many of these new businesses and established businesses are owned and operated by Yukoners, handed down from family to family. A number of the businesses are being passed on — we’re into the third generation and fourth generation here in the Yukon, and that bodes well and says a lot, but the opportunity is dictated to a large extent by the tax regime.

Money knows no boundaries, Mr. Speaker. Money will just move around to where it gets the best rate of return and, when we have, like the previous past two administrations in the Yukon, barriers to entering the Yukon and really no incentive to do anything here, it scares all those businesses away; it scares people away.

036a

For awhile here in the Yukon, about the only business to be in was the U-Haul rental business; but it was all one way: it was all south. That has changed; people are coming back. That is, to a large part, through the efforts of this government, and I’m very proud to say that I’m a part of this government. With my Cabinet and caucus colleagues, we have worked very, very hard to implement our party platform. This is just another commitment that we are following through on and implementing. I recommend it to the House; it’s a very, very positive benefit that will accrue. I look forward to unanimous support on this piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I too would like to speak in support of this bill and moving ahead with it. Listening to the leader of the official opposition, I find it interesting that he’s debating on taxes and small business and the innuendo that government knows best. Being a small business person all my life, I understand what taxes do to a small business. Taxes are the biggest part of a small business. We pay taxes on every level.

The member from the third party is right. There are all sorts of taxes and small business bears the brunt of all of those taxes. My fellow colleague, the Minister of Health, said the majority of the businesses in Canada are small businesses. For us to give an incentive to small business — the businessman will always spend the money more wisely than the government will. The money in the hands of the business individual is always better placed than in the hands of the government.

To listen to the members opposite — and I understand their constituency, and I appreciate that constituency, but we on this side of the House think that government isn’t everything to everybody. Government has a place and government is very important, but if we can put more money into the hands of the small business people, you will see them investing in their businesses and expanding.

I think that this bill is very important. I find it interesting when the member from the third party stands up and touts the fact that it was her idea. Ideas are good and I think that everybody has ideas. I think it’s very progressive of us on this side of the House to act on our ideas.

037a

That’s where I think the third party fell down. In their short tenure in office there were lots of ideas, but at the end of the day there wasn’t much action. That’s what the people of the Yukon said when they went to the polls. So as far as us stealing ideas, we certainly are open to ideas, and we certainly will act on those ideas.

As interesting as it may seem, in the last two years’ report card, I’m very optimistic for the Yukon. I’m very proud of my colleagues on this side of the House, proud of the work that every individual one of these people has done to benefit the Yukon as a whole. We in Energy, Mines and Resources have taken a look at the Yukon and taken a look at all the responsibilities we have in Energy, Mines and Resources. It talks about agriculture. What have we done in the last two years in agriculture? Well, certainly, to the benefit of the people in the agriculture industry, we’ve moved ahead with massive improvements in partnerships with the federal government, partnerships with the industry to bring them together. We have taken a look at not only our game farmers’ issues, but we’ve taken a look at organic agriculture. We’ve looked at an overview of the whole industry, and we’ve done that in two years. I think that agriculture in the Yukon is alive and well, and I think we as a government have encouraged it, and in two years we’ve moved massively forward.

As far as other issues in Energy, Mines and Resources, as far as forestry is concerned, when we as a government took over two years ago — and of course devolution came along — we had issues in forestry. The fact was that there was no forestry. In two years in the forestry department, we have moved that ahead. We’ve got the first disposition of timber out there that has been done in the last three to four years, and we’re moving ahead with more dispositions and looking very positively at forestry in the Yukon. At the end of the day, Yukoners will have access to wood. We’ve done that in 24 months. We went from nothing to what we have today.

So when we talk about taxes, we talk about small business, — why I go through this is because we’re taking about forestry, we’re talking about agriculture. All those people are small business people. All those people are contributing to the Yukon economy in a small way, so we’re not just talking about companies with 50 employees; we’re talking about people out there in the forest industry that have a small disposition, and they’re looking at 10, 20 people, and we’re going to give them a little bit of a tax break. It’s not a lot of money when you add the whole thing up. The Finance minister talked about $800,000 back in the hands of the producers in this country. I know the members opposite think that the government knows best and that the money should be given out to, I guess, whomever they decide to give it out to. This way — a very fair way of doing it — is giving it back to the people who contribute.

 038a

Let them decide how they’re going to spend it. The members opposite have an idea about how they would spend it. Of course, Mr. Speaker, they didn’t make it, so it’s easy to spend it if you didn’t make it. The little businessman is the one who made it, and they will spend it wiser than the ones who didn’t make it. Those people are going to be recognized with this act, with this two percent.

Moving along in industry and small business, we’re looking at other issues like the mining sector. When we took over two years ago, there was very little mining going on in the Yukon — $6.5 million worth of investment in the Yukon to maintain the claims that corporations had in the Yukon — $2.5 million. In two years, we’re looking at $25 million or $30 million worth of exploration money spent in our territory — a massive increase over 18 months.

Prospects of mines: in the last 10 years there haven’t been any mines on the radar screen. In two years, with our enhanced jurisdictional powers, we have enticed a group of mining companies to come back to the Yukon and look at our natural resources and work with them in a balanced fashion to, at the end of the day, put our people in the Yukon back to work. Is that bad? Is that not what we as government are here to do?

We certainly have to take into consideration not only mining exploration, but we have responsibility for the environment. We have responsibility to our citizens. Certainly we have to consider all of those. But at the end of the day, I think looking at a $100 million mine somewhere, with prospects of work for all Yukoners — that’s a plus for all Yukoners.

So this tax thing is a small thing, and certainly the member for the third party talked — there is a maze of taxes out there that are a burden on our society. But at the end of the day, this is just a small thing that we’re looking at. We’re looking at it from a way that will benefit small business. We appreciate small business. I hope that the whole House is unanimous on this bill, because this bill makes a statement to small business that we recognize that they pay taxes. We also recognize where we can help them.

039a

So, at the end of the day, the tax rate in the Yukon is a question for small business. We can burden them with enough taxes that they move out. We can burden them with the responsibility so they go somewhere else. We as a territory and as part of Canada look at this as if we are in a little pod and have something that other areas don’t have.

Mr. Speaker, as you know and as we all know, hopefully, the world is shrinking. The invested dollars can go all over the world. We’re competing in the mining industry, but not with Sudbury, Ontario. We’re competing with Kurdistan. We’re competing with Australia. We’re competing with Central America. We’re competing with South America.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, probably in our universities, our grads in geology and all the mining — the Haileybury School of Mines — I would say probably over the last 10 years, 80 percent of those people who graduated from Canadian schools are working elsewhere in the world. They’re working where work is available. We in the Yukon have a need for that kind of expertise. We have a need in the mining community for an expectation that we can put our families back to work, that we can put Canadians back to work.

The leader of the official opposition was talking about Outside money — outside money like it’s some kind of thing, but does anybody across there realize that we live on Outside money? Eighty percent of the money that this government spends comes from somewhere else, comes from Outside, Mr. Speaker, from that dreadful place called “Outside”. We create only 20 percent of our wealth. The Yukon is a basket case. Anywhere else in the world, we —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order

Speaker:   The Member for Kluane, on a point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is going too far. The Yukon is not a basket case. Let us, in the official opposition, put that on the record, contrary to the Yukon Party’s belief that it is.

Speaker:   On the point of order, or does the member wish to carry on?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I’ll carry on, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker’s ruling

Speaker:   Then let me rule on the point of order first.

There is no point of order. It’s simply a dispute among members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, I can read your mind, and I knew there was no point of order. I didn’t mean anything to Yukon itself — I’m talking about financially, and the results of many years of chasing money out of the Yukon by whatever government of the day was in power.

040a

Taxes are a burden we all pay. The average person working on the street who gets their paycheque every two weeks and looks at it, only looks at the end, saying, “I cleared $408.” But if he were to look at the beginning of what he earned, and at the taxes that were taken back from him, there is a huge burden of tax on the working class and the business class of Canada.

We pay lots of taxes and we pay lots of taxes because we want this standard of living. We want the Yukon to be a successful place; we want to live in Toronto at a certain standard; and we want to be able to take care of the less fortunate in our society. That bodes well for our society because any society that doesn’t do that is not doing their job.

At the end of the day this bill, in a small way, will recognize that we, as Yukoners, respect the small business community. We give them this two percent and the $800,000. I think, by giving that back to small business, we are putting the money back in the hands of the people who made the money; we’re giving it back to them. I would say to you, as an ex-small business person, that they will spend that money in the Yukon. That money will be well spent in the Yukon because it will enhance their business. Businesses will grow, they’ll employ more people and, at the end of the day, we’ll have a more solid core of small business.

I hope, I think, that probably we as a group in here can sit down, vote unanimously on this thing, move it ahead, and get the money back into the hands of the people who earned it. That’s who we’re talking about today. We’re talking about small business. Let’s get that money back into their hands and move forward.

Mr. McRobb:   I would like to put a few comments on record with respect to Bill No. 54, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. Earlier today we heard about the mid-term report card for this Yukon Party government and the miserable failing grade it has received.

This bill indicates, really, no work on the part of this government. This bill simply follows through on initiatives from previous governments.

041a

The Liberal government did the same. It was in fact the previous Piers McDonald government that first brought in reductions to small business taxes. Now, some members across the way find this humorous. I invite them to check the public record, and they too will become knowledgeable on the history of tax reductions in the Yukon Territory. Perhaps they’re not aware. Obviously the reaction indicates they are not familiar with recent political history in the territory and achievements by previous governments, because some of them have been told it was their government that deserves all the credit for this undertaking, and obviously they believe it. Well, that’s wrong. That’s simply wrong. It was also the Piers McDonald government from 1996 to 2000 that created the tax round table. These members should know, because their leader and Premier was part of that government. It’s their duty to know.

Now that previous government created this process of the tax round table, and it was comprised of stakeholders from business and labour and other constituencies from around the territory. They consulted the government as well as among themselves, and they generated a host of good ideas. Those ideas were tabulated in a report stemming out of the tax round table’s work. Well, what other good ideas are hidden away in that report? Where is that report? Is it sitting on a dusty shelf somewhere? What other ideas could be implemented from within that report? Is this government prepared to neglect the good work of previous governments, or will it live up to one of its promises to build on the efforts of those who have governed before it for the full advantage to Yukoners? Unfortunately, it appears as though we have another broken promise, because this government is trying to rewrite the history books and take credit for something started by previous governments. This is another good example of that.

I suggest that we pull out the report and examine it and have a discussion in this Legislature at some point about what other recommendations can be brought in to assist small businesses and others in the territory.

042a

It has been awhile since I have had an opportunity to review the report, but I recall some initiatives that were identified within it. One was suggested by our leader earlier this afternoon in regard to green tax breaks, to encourage green business and green undertakings in the territory. Well, that is an important area that deserves our attention. I recall some energy-related tax incentives that are equally as worthy, yet we hear nothing from this government in terms of initiatives or undertakings with respect to the environment. Instead, all we hear are concerns and bad news on that front.

This government has nothing on its agenda with respect to the environment and generating new ideas to protect the territory’s air, land, water and wildlife. Instead, there is a general fear out there in the environment community that this government represents a real threat to all those resources in the territory. That is why our job as the official opposition in this Legislature is very important, because it is our responsibility to investigate matters and find out from the government about undertakings that are not in the public eye, and to follow up on them and provide checks and balances to whatever scheme the government has on its agenda. And that is a huge undertaking, because this government has a lot of things on the burner. Unfortunately, not a lot of them are in its election campaign booklet, and not all of them are known to people across the territory. Look at some of the issues lately: the Fish Lake land development and how the policy to not release land within 30 kilometres of a community was changed willy-nilly, by the government without public consultation or any public notice whatsoever.

043a

Mr. Speaker, it smacks of an agenda that doesn’t see the light of day until, obviously, Yukoners become concerned to the point where they object to what this government does in the public interest. So I would submit we investigate other incentives and initiatives that were identified by the hardworking members of the tax round table from about five years ago and see what we can do to further that agenda. Once again, this bill is simply a housekeeping item. It is just designed to follow through on undertakings and promises from previous governments, and I don’t see a problem in voting for this bill, and I’ll look forward to the vote.

Mr. Rouble:   Again, it is my honour and my pleasure to speak here today, and I will be brief in my support for this bill. I think it is only prudent, though, that we go over some economic fundamentals. I would just like to remind the opposition that the government doesn’t build an economy; the private sector builds an economy. Government has its responsibilities to create legislation, to prevent us from living in anarchy and to work collectively and efficiently to supply communal needs, things like roads, education and health. But, Mr. Speaker, the private sector builds wealth. Government doesn’t build wealth. And I would like to again remind the opposition that government exists to serve the needs of people. It isn’t the other way around.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I can’t believe the opposition is against putting money back in the hands of those who earned it. I believe we have identified another significant difference in philosophies, another reason why people voted the Yukon Party in. And I fail to recognize how you can call changing the tax rate, a bill that will put more money in the hands of Yukoners, a housekeeping bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has accused this government of not collaborating. Then, in the same breath, we have been accused of stealing ideas. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have just heard that this bill is breaking a promise with Yukoners.

044a

I don’t think this is anything but political games and political gobbledegook.

People work hard to earn their income, and I believe in leaving as much as we can in their pockets. They are the ones who have invested in this territory; they are the ones who have built the economy; they are the ones who are building the wealth. Leaving more money in their pockets is a good thing, especially since they are likely to reinvest it and make our economy grow even larger.

We are restoring investor confidence. Just look at the front page of yesterday’s newspaper. That project wouldn’t be going forward if there wasn’t confidence out there.

Again, we heard from the opposition earlier today that they are looking for a cure-all magic wand — one piece of legislation that can simply be waved and it will solve all the problems in the community. In one fell swoop, it will restore fair taxation to everyone: to youth, to seniors and elders in their community. They will treat people fairly; they will provide for every possible service and need and desire of people.

I don’t believe that that one magic wand exists out there. What it takes is hard work and steps in the right direction. This piece of legislation today is one more step in the right direction.

I support this bill; I believe in what it is doing. I believe in leaving more money in the hands of Yukoners. I believe that they have the wisdom, the intelligence, that they will spend it effectively and efficiently. They’ll use it for the betterment of their own life. I have enough faith in Yukoners that I believe it’s better off in their hands than it is in the hands of government. I would encourage — nay, implore — all Members of the Legislative Assembly to stand up and unanimously support this bill, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cardiff:   I’d like to immediately pick up on the comments of the Member for Southern Lakes. It is a beautiful country, and I often travel out that way to visit friends and colleagues and some of the constituents of the Member for Southern Lakes. I listen to their concerns about taxation as well.

045a

But what the Member for Southern Lakes — and I believe the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources — said is that the money is better off in the hands of Yukoners. They don’t think that money in the hands of the government is a good idea. Given the government’s performance, their two-year report card, I would say that they’re probably right. The government doesn’t spend its money well.

Now, they talk about small business being the engine of the economy. I can sit here, stand here, sit in my office, listen to the radio and not one word have I heard in relation to Bill No. 54, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, related to the people who actually do the work. I would like to remind them that it’s the workers who generate wealth. I’m not disputing the fact that small businesses contribute to the economy. I’m not suggesting that corporations don’t contribute to the economy, but it is the working person. How many small businesses go out and buy textbooks or school supplies in the stores? How many of them go out and shop at Shoppers Drug Mart? There are a lot more people out there than small business. There are a lot of working people. They work in Shoppers Drug Mart. They work here in this building. They work at Food Fair. They work in automobile dealerships selling cars, repairing cars and sweeping the floors. And they also fall under the taxation system and they have a burden and, sometimes I think, an unfair burden to bear when it comes to taxes.

046a

Now, my colleagues who have spoken previously have mentioned the tax round table. I freely admit that I’m not totally familiar with it. I remember reading about it in the newspaper, hearing about it in the media. I’m not totally familiar with the ideas that came out of that, but I’m going to actually go and do some research. I’m going to go and look into some of those ideas.

You look across the floor, Mr. Speaker, at the puzzled looks from the members opposite sometimes — they don’t like looking at work done by previous governments. And there are lots of examples of that. They don’t like the fact that this is actually part of something that was started several years ago. They don’t like the work that has been done by previous governments, and there are lots of examples of it. There is the Liquor Act review, the recommendations that they like and the recommendations that they don’t like. There’s the Education Act review and how they stalled that. They’ve done absolutely nothing for two years, and then all of a sudden they’re going to revive it. There’s the Workers’ Compensation Act review, which — go to the Web site, Mr. Speaker, and on the timelines, if you look at the timelines that were on the Web site given to the Workers’ Compensation Act review, they’re pretty much a year behind schedule. Nothing is happening.

There are other examples, as well, of work that has been done in relation to the Workers’ Compensation Act review — you have a Workers’ Compensation Act review that is a year behind schedule. You have occupational health and safety regulations that have been sitting on the minister’s desk for two years gathering dust. The only time he opened it was to pull out the oil and gas portion of the regulations and have the Commissioner pass them. But the rest of them — workers’ safety is not an issue for the minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Act. And that is pretty evident in Bill No. 54.

047a

They’re not concerned with the taxation of workers. We talked a little while ago in this Legislature about reducing fuel tax on heating fuel. That would help small business; that would help the person who’s sweeping the floor in the service station or at Food Fair putting the food on the shelves, but the government doesn’t want to do that.

I’d like to go back just for a minute again to the members opposite and their assertion that money in the hands of small business and Yukoners is better spent and that the decisions made by Yukoners and small business are often better than those of government. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources touched on agriculture as being a small business and how this was going to help the agriculture industry and be a boon to the agriculture industry and how the agriculture industry was thriving.

Maybe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and hence agriculture, should talk to his colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services, who also has a role to play in this. It’s my understanding that agriculture producers can’t even get their product into government institutions, and the Minister of Health and Social Services could play a direct role in that. We could have Yukon-grown agricultural products being served. They’re more nutritious; they’re grown closer to where they’re consumed; there’s an economic benefit that would be there for the producers, but this government can’t make a decision to do that. Maybe they don’t want the tax break. Maybe they’d just like to be able to sell their product to the government. Wouldn’t that be fantastic if they could do that?

Maybe they’re right. Maybe decisions made by Yukoners are often better than the decisions that are made by this government.

Now, I’m not saying that I don’t support this bill. I agree, as has been stated previously, that this is something that was worked on by previous governments — the government prior to this and the government prior to that.

048a

 I just think that the government across the way could have gone a lot further. They could do more work that would benefit Yukoners. I think this was probably pretty simple to put together. The work has been done previously. It took them two years to bring it forward.

There are a lot of other things. They basically pulled this off the shelf. There was a lot of other work that could have been done out there — like I’ve said previously — about making sure that small business products in the Yukon, like the agricultural products, are bought and purchased by government so there’s an economic benefit and those small businesses can expand, sell their products, hire more people. A recognition somewhere — I have to go back to a recognition of the people who work, who toil every day to put food on the table, pay their rent, pay their mortgage, and in a lot of cases they struggle and there are a lot of things that the government on the other side could do to make it easier for people.

So I will support this bill, but my reservations are that the government still has miles and miles and miles to go. They should try walking a mile in some of the less fortunate people’s shoes and just see what it’s like and give consideration. Show that faith in those people and the struggles that they have and let them make decisions. Put a few more shekels in their pockets and let them make those decisions. Again, there’s the statement about having faith in Yukoners. Let’s have faith in Yukoners who don’t have so much. Let them make decisions about how they spend money and where they spend it. I guarantee that they won’t be travelling anywhere too far to spend it. They’ll be going to Food Fair, they’ll be going to Shoppers Drug Mart, they’ll be going to the bookstore on Main Street. They’ll be using the transit system.

049a

That improves our economy. That’s all part of our economy.  I think we need to take those things into consideration when we do things like amending the Income Tax Act and think at the same time as we do this of people who aren’t in small business. They may be employed by small business; they may be employed by corporations, or whatever. In a lot of cases it's a struggle. In some cases you have people who are working two or three jobs. The unfortunate part about workers who work two or three jobs is that they are taxed at a rate that doesn’t add up at the end of the year.

I’ll give you an example: you may have a worker who works 50 hours a week at three different jobs. If their income is at such a level that they are taxed at a certain rate and the income tax is deducted off their paycheques, when you go to do the income tax return and you add their income up and you add the amount of tax they paid, at the end of the year a lot of these people are only making $1,000 a month but they are working three jobs. Maybe they are making $1,500 a month, but what we’re talking about is people who make between $12,000 and $18,000 a year working three jobs and, at the end of the year, they get a bill. They don’t get a tax return because of the way that they’re taxed.

I know this isn’t all a territorial tax issue. A lot of it is a federal tax issue, but it’s something that we as legislators can address and we should be working hard on behalf of those people to address those issues.  The problem arises, basically, at the end of the tax year. These people who made between $12,000 and $18,000 a year, worked 50 hours a week in a lot of cases, working three jobs, at the end of the year, instead of getting a tax return, they are faced with a bill from between $600 and $1,500. If you’re only making between $12,000 and $18,000 a year, where do you get the money?

050a

So why don’t we think, why don’t we do something — this is a good idea, but why don’t we do something to address the concerns of those people? I think that that would be a boon to our economy, to put that money in the hands of those people. They would be less of a burden to government, and they would be able to make decisions around how they spend their money and actually give them some purchasing power to go in to small businesses and spend it and become generators, contributors to the economy as well. But they can’t do that when they’re forced, because of economic hardships, to stay at home or to in some cases sleep on the streets or couch surf, because they don’t have the income to be able to pay the rent and to always put food on their table. So we need to make those people contributors to the economy as well, and to give them opportunities. Yes, a lot of those opportunities lie in small business. Small businesses will hire those people, but unless we do something to address the unfairness of the tax system that they face, so that they don’t get the bill at the end of the tax year, then we’re not doing our job. And I believe we’re actually doing a disservice to small business in that case, because we’re not trying to give them that hand up to actually play a role in the economy.

So I will support this, but I certainly hope that the members opposite have been listening to what our ideas are with respect to this bill and the hard work that lies ahead of any government that is on that side, that is in that position to make decisions. I hope that they will think about those decisions and give consideration to them. I know I’m going to go away, and I’m going to do some reading. It’s not like I don’t have enough already, but I think that this is important. After listening to the debate today, it makes me want to go and learn a little bit more about what it was that the Yukoners said five years ago, when there was a tax round table that allowed Yukoners to speak to government, to the bureaucrats and the citizens who were involved in that tax round table.

051a

I’m going to learn something and the next time we have an opportunity to discuss issues around taxation, I hope to have more to contribute to the conversation than I have today.

I trust that the members opposite will listen to what has been said from this side of the Legislature and they will actually hear something that has been said, take some of those ideas and put them to good use, and go out, as well, and do some of that research that I intend to do and learn something as well. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this bill, and I look forward to hearing from other members.

Mr. Hassard:   I hadn’t originally intended to speak to this, but after listening to some of the debate going on I can’t help but feel that maybe I should get on record and add a few comments. It’s interesting coming from a background of small business and listening to family members, especially my parents, for the last 38 years talk about taxes — quite often the remark was that two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. I will certainly support this bill in the fact that it does reduce that tax for small business.

It’s unfortunate that everybody couldn’t have had a chance to see my father today to see the hat he was wearing. It said: “Tax me, I’m Canadian”. While I’m sure it was a little jab at the federal Liberal government, it does in my mind fit a little bit with some of the members opposite as well.

Over the years I’ve heard discussions that it’s too bad that we don’t, as Canadians, get our full paycheque to see how much money we really make and then walk around from institution to institution and pay our tax at the point of where the tax is then disbursed back to the people. I think as Canadians we’re too passive and we don’t necessarily care. As long as we’re getting by and we’ve got money in our pocket, we’re not overly worried about taxes. That’s unfortunate because I think we could have a better country if we took a little more interest in where our tax dollars were going. I think it would be quite an eye opener if people actually had to walk and pay at each institution, if we had to go and pay our school tax.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hassard:    We’d never be done. You’re probably right.

052a

What an eye opener it really would be. I agree there are taxes we need to pay, because we do get services for them, but at the same time I really don’t think that we all understand where our tax dollars go, so it’s fitting that we’re talking about this today.

Some of the comments that I’ve heard were that we need to improve tax breaks for employees rather than the employer, and there’s no doubt that we all want to pay less tax. But something that perhaps the members opposite don’t understand, if they haven’t been in business, is the risk of being in business, and there’s a price you pay for taking a risk. I would encourage members opposite to think about that risk because I know every day I was in business there was something happening where there was always a shortfall because of some unforeseen risk. I appreciate the concerns of looking out for the employee but it’s also important to look out for the employer.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will turn the floor over to anyone else who wishes to speak.

Speaker:   The Chair awaits your pleasure.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve been sitting here taking notes on some of the things I’ve been hearing. There have been a lot of interesting things said and that, of course, is the whole reason for these debates — a lot of good things, for instance, and a lot of things that really do quite concern and scare me.

The previous member made the comment about paying tax at that point where it’s used, and I have to agree with him on that. It ends up with a rather interesting scenario. One of the best scenarios was an article that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly back in the 1970s, called “Curmudgeon College”. It still, to this day, remains one of my favourite articles or essays. Curmudgeon College is a university, and a university with a difference. You pay at the door for each lecture, which ensures that a professor who is boring or doesn’t give proper information is very soon unemployed. Good instructors, good teachers, good lecturers would have the benefits. It goes on in a lot of different ways, though. It also says dormitories — we don’t have them. We’re a university. We’re not a housing authority. Athletics — want to play sports? Go somewhere else, join a sports team. We’re a university.

The concept in some sense is good but, of course, there is always a limitation to it because there’s always the point where you have to say, yes, there are essential services necessary for society and they have to be done one way or another.

053a

One of the things that I heard that really does concern me, however, is the simple statement by the Member for Mount Lorne. He said that basically only working persons contribute to the economy. Who in the world do these people work for? They work for small business. Gosh, I think if you have any experience in small business, you’d quite know that you’d have more money for amenities, more money for employee benefits and more money for RSPs or better conditions for the workers.

They come out of profit, and profit is not a nasty word. It is necessary to an operation. The member who said that actually referred to places like Shoppers and Food Fair and auto dealers. These are all examples of small businesses. If they don’t have the tax break and the ability to provide for their workers, then the workers aren’t going to get that money. It’s a blend; it’s not simply the working person. I think that’s a very tubular view of the world.

There has been a lot of discussion today about previous governments and previous groups coming up with a lot of these ideas. I think that’s a good point. I think that’s a very good point. Again, another speaker along the line mentioned that it’s very difficult to say, “You don’t consult; you don’t look at our views; you’re not willing to share opinions and develop our views.” Then when we do, we’re criticized for it. I don’t know, maybe the primary job of opposition, I guess, is to oppose even good ideas. Again, that adds to our frustration on this side. It’s difficult to have meaningful debate when you’re criticized no matter what you do.

Another comment that was made by the Member for Kluane is that this is a housekeeping bill. $800,000 for a housekeeping bill. I’m certainly glad that that member isn’t in charge of our budget if $800,000 is simply housekeeping. The Member for Mount Lorne makes a statement on the way out the door.  I’ve got some real problems with —

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   The minister cannot mention if a member is in or not in the House. Please carry on.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I’m sorry about that, Mr. Speaker, although the member did himself make statements in his own speech — I’m assuming that ruling includes reference to you as opposed to other members as well.

054a

A lot of these tax issues are big for small businesses. It was taxes that brought me here; it was taxes that brought me to the Yukon. When I came up for a holiday and I found out that the Yukon has the lowest tax rate in the nation, the lowest corporate tax rates, it was a place at that point in time that had a lot of potential for small business. It did change, I have to admit, but at the time, it had a lot of potential for that. That was something that brought me up here.

I think that we have to look at the overall picture of that. A tax incentive, or lowering the tax rate to stimulate business, gives a small business the opportunity to pay tax on increased amounts or get that benefit on increased amounts of business. In other words, we’re not simply giving the money, but we’re saying if you make more money we’ll tax you at that lower rate and will allow you to develop your business more quickly. That’s the whole idea. Profit isn’t a nasty word. Even non-profit associations understand that. Even not-for-profit organizations know that if they can keep their costs down they can have more on the income side, including lower taxes for other organizations, and that they have more money to put out on the other side. A not-for-profit charity is going to have more money to put into that charity if they can keep their profits — in quotation marks — up. It is not a difficult concept.

The other concept that bothers me is a number of references have been made to “We did it,” “Our government did it,” “Our party did it.” And we applaud that. They did come up with good ideas; they did come up with some things that made a lot of sense. What didn’t make sense to me was why didn’t they do something like this? They criticize us for waiting two years to do it; well, they waited a lot more than two years. Why didn’t they do it when they were in power? Why leave it to us to do it? I have to ask that question.

The whole thing — we can just go on and on, on some of these things on taxes. I can get into the GST and the fact that this was supposed to be a tax that would be abolished. It was in the federal Liberal platform that it would be abolished. But that was a section that somehow must have been torn out when it was published. We can go right back to the income tax since the World War I days. It was a tax to pay certain debts that would be abolished as soon as those bills were paid. But here we are, working our way up to 100 years later, and it is still there, and probably has to be, unfortunately.

055a

But it’s a lack of understanding of economics by the side opposite that bothers me the most, I suppose, when you look at all these things. The leader of the official opposition in his speech the other day went on and on that he didn’t see any mines. It was pretty good when it was announced the next day on the front page of the newspaper. But, granted, it was published a day after he gave his speech. Things are coming; things are moving; things are building. The economy is rebounding. If this isn’t doing our job, then, boy, I’m glad we’re not doing it, because we’re having great success in doing everything exactly the way we said we would do it.

The Member for Mount Lorne also started a quote. He said, “… and miles to go”, and I’m very suspicious that what he’s referring to is a very famous poem by Robert Frost: “Miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.” Maybe his knowledge of poetry is limited, and maybe he would also confuse Robert Burns with George Burns. Maybe he has already gone those miles. It’s hard to say. The lack of understanding of economics is unfortunate, but it is good to hear that some of these members opposite — perhaps all, we hope — will support the bill, will give small business a chance to get that kind of a tax break and to get the opportunity to have more money to develop their business and support their own employees, because the working person isn’t the only one who supports the economy. Small business does, and we firmly believe, and I firmly believe, that money in the hands and in the pockets of the general public is going to be better spent. It’s going to be an extra waiter or a waitress at a restaurant. There are going to be a couple of extra clerks on at a hardware store, and so on and so forth. There is going to be more money in that economy, and that’s what this bill does. It’s exactly what this bill does.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    It is indeed my pleasure to also rise to speak to second reading of Bill No. 54, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. There have been a lot of comments made by members opposite, as well as by the members on our side of the House, and many of the comments were worthwhile. Many comments I certainly question. But at the end of the day, I think we’re in agreement that this particular bill is a good bill. At the end of the day, no matter which way you cut it, it will put more money into Yukoners’ pockets, whether that be in the hands of our own employees or employers. It’s a good initiative, and I certainly wholeheartedly support this particular bill.

 056a

As the Premier mentioned earlier in his second reading remarks, since the introduction of the small business tax rate in 1983, this is the first time that it has actually been reduced. As my counterpart from Porter Creek North just mentioned, it’s pretty good for our government to come in here in two years’ time to initiate these tax reductions and make progress on this particular front. The previous governments didn’t do it,