Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance presented his budget address. It was a dynamic presentation by the Minister of Finance. In his statement, he mentioned that this government went through some difficult downsizing and streamlining and went on to say, on page 8 of his address, that in 1994-95, this government eliminated 86 person years. When I take that statement and look at the main estimates book under the schedule under viii, which shows a summary of continuing person year requirements, I note that there has only been a reduction of 52 PYs from the 1994 revised forecast to the 1995-96 main estimates. So there is a difference of 34 person years. Tonight I would like to sleep easy, rest and put my mind at ease. So can the Minister explain why this difference in person years from his statement from what the book says?

Minister of Finance, Mr. Pollard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when we say we eliminated the jobs, that is exactly what we did. We took the jobs out of the departments or the boards and they were jobs stricken from the record. The difference between the two numbers, Mr. Speaker, is in each year, we also have forced growth. We see most of that in teachers. As our young population gets into schools, we need more teachers. So the difference between the two is the forced growth, the extra positions we had to put on to meet the needs of the boards. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Supplementary, Mr. Koe.

The Minister really hasn't convinced me with his arguments. Where were the majority of these reductions in PYs? I am referring to PYs because that is what the Minister said in his statement, not jobs. Where were the majority of the reductions made? Were they made at headquarters or at regional levels?

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, that gets complicated. Some of them are half positions and so on. So I will table a comprehensive document that shows the positions that were eliminated, the forced growth that took place and -- I know that Mr. Koe is an expert in numbers -- I will make sure the numbers balance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Supplementary, Mr. Koe.

Mahsi. I have to buy a new calculator. The Minister didn't really answer my question as to whether the majority of these reductions are made at headquarters, which I assume they were. They were supposed to be made at headquarters or be transferred into regions. What was the impact on the growth in the Government of the Northwest Territories public service in Yellowknife?

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, when I table the document that I just mentioned, it will be by community. So the impact upon Yellowknife will be visible in that document. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 6, oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you. Minister of Finance, Mr. Pollard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday -- and forecasting is not a very good science, Mr. Speaker -- we believe there have been 1,000 jobs created this year. We are seeing a volume growth in the amount of taxation that we are receiving. That affects the personal income tax, the number of jobs in the Northwest Territories and the payroll tax. Salaries are creeping along and there is some growth in salaries. So we get a bit more of an increase in taxation in that regard.

With regard to corporate taxes, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to predict. Individuals living in the Northwest Territories declare tax in the NWT, personally. People working in the NWT must pay the payroll tax in the Northwest Territories. Corporations have a little bit more leeway. They can declare taxation where they can get it the lowest. As I said on the radio this morning, Newfoundland has reduced their taxation down to 14 per cent corporately. So it is difficult to really forecast exactly what is going to happen, but we believe there are going to be some increases in corporate income tax declared in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Item 6, oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell, supplementary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the Minister to provide to this House the amounts of increases over the past two years of estimated revenues, to see whether or not they were the estimations predicted initially? Would he provide that information to the House? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Pollard.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will provide the information to the House. But as I said earlier...For instance, at the last Finance Ministers' meeting, there was agreement around the table that with today's volatile economy and interest rates, the kinds of five-year forecasting people used to do is out the window. You are lucky if you can forecast for a year. I will provide the information, but it is only as good as the indicators that we have. Thank you.

Thank you. Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I asked that question because of the fact that when we initially implemented a payroll tax, the actuals and the projected revenues were $7.8 million. However, the actual revenue received by the government was to the tune of $11.8 million, when you look at the 1994-95 budget. This year, with the revenue estimated, they anticipate to receive anywhere from $12.4 million in payroll taxes. Having said that, the Minister's budget, as we all know, is presented as a deficit budget. But looking at where these revenues are going to be coming in from, it would be helpful to the Members of this House -- we all know that liquor revenues are going up, as well as goods and services revenues -- if the Department of Finance could advise their projected revenues so we may determine the cause for the increased projected amounts placed in the budget book. Thank you.

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, I will provide the information. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Ballantyne.