Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the revised main estimates include literally hundreds of changes and adjustments that are made throughout the year. A detail of exactly what all of those changes are that resulted in the revised main estimates would require a long list. In order to compare apples to apples, we need to work from main estimates to main estimates. There are a lot of changes in and out that result in the revised mains. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Miltenberger.

Mr. Chairman, Thank you. I do not want to seem as though I am being deliberately obtuse here. I have gone through the figures, the $3.8 million. I just want you to tell me why there is a $300,000 increase from the revised main estimates, and you are telling me you cannot do that because it is too detailed and I should work off of the $4.4 million. Which is in fact, as you say, a $300,000 decrease.

I am interested to know, last year, after all was said and done, we ended up with $3.8 million in the revised main estimates. This year, you are back up to $4.1 million, which is a $300,000 increase. What constituted that increase? Thank you.

Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the $3.8 million in the revised main estimates as compared to the $4.1 million in the 2000-2001 main estimates, there is a difference of $300,000, which is a net effect of a lot of adjustments that are made. That is what resulted in the $3.8 million revised estimates. There are a number of things in here. It is not one or two or three main things. It is a whole lot of adjustments, some in and some out.

So, as I said, if we want to be consistent, looking at one budget to another budget, we have to work main estimates to main estimates. If we try to do it from the revised main estimates, it includes too many changes made throughout the year that make it impossible to try and track it back and forth. Thank you.

-- Interjection

Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to be difficult about this. The revised main estimates are made up of many ins and outs. It is really hard to describe it. There are hundreds of pieces in there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could the Minister just give me some examples of what would be included in the $300,000? I am working off of the revised main estimates, the $300,000 increase. What would be some of the other expenses, $300,000 worth, that contributed to that overall figure? Can you just give me an idea, given that other expenses can cover a multitude of sins, so to speak?

Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I will ask Mr. Kennedy to give us some examples of the changes that have been made from the main estimates to the revised main estimates.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Ms. Kennedy.

Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are talking about different ends of the horse here. I am not interested in the back end where we talk about the 1999-2000 main estimates and how you got to the revised main estimates. All I want to know at this point are some examples of what your anticipated expenses were that would account for a $300,000 increase from $3.8 million up to $4.1 million. I am interested in the front end of the horse here. The budget that we are currently talking about, not the back end of last year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Just for Members' sake, we are on page 11-9, corporate management. We are dealing with operational expenses. Mr. Kennedy.

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to my original question, I think they did answer it, but answered it to Mr. Miltenberger. The first response that I received to the increase of $2 million from the revised 1999-2000 main estimates to the main estimates for 2000-2001, I was told a pension adjustment of $1.1 million and, $1.3 million a transfer of ongoing maintenance, I believe Mr. Kennedy answered to my colleague Mr. Miltenberger that it was a $1.3 million pension adjustment and some $700,000 in salary changes. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There would be probably four areas that would result in the difference of roughly $2.5 million from main estimates to main estimates. One is the pension adjustment, which is roughly $1.1 million. The salaries were under-funded, in that there were more positions and more salaries, so an adjustment was made there. There was, for information systems, a $196,000 adjustment that is in there. The Mackenzie Valley project, $217,000, making up that $2.5 million difference. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I guess for clarification, I am using, as Mr. Miltenberger was, the revised main estimates. The revised estimates are the ones that had approval. The changes had approval through supps and so on. That is the area we are using. I do not want to rehash what happened last year, especially if it has already gone through the previous Assembly.

What I am interested in are the changes from what was revised, the finished numbers, or the numbers that are more clear with previous changes already going through supps, to what is now.

Now that we have that, hopefully we are clear where I am coming from on this one. The Minister stated that around $700,000 was in the area of under-funded positions. Can he elaborate more on that area of under-funded positions?

Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of positions in there. I might add that the department makes adjustments as well, within the limits that are available to them, to move money around. Not everything in the revised main estimates will be exactly the total of supps and so on that are approved through that process.

In terms of salaries, there was a shortfall on casual salaries. There was a shortfall on information systems. Most of that $196,000 is a result of salary shortfalls. On the Mackenzie Valley, there is a position there as well. Thank you.