Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of this Assembly, we once again have the opportunity to look at the big picture. Let us look at the fiscal situation when we first had opportunity to look at it as Members of the 14th Legislative Assembly. We were told that 74 percent of our revenue comes from the formula financing agreement. Another seven percent in transfer payments comes from Ottawa as well. We were told that if we tried raising our own revenues through taxes and such, there is little impact on our budget.

An example given is that ten percent increase in taxes would net us only one and a half percent. Without new revenues, the next few years will be characterized by cuts and deficits, we were told. What has changed so drastically that we are now in a position of a surplus?

Once again, when we first came together as Members of the 14th Assembly, the fiscal projection stated that revenues for 2001-2002 would be $726 million. Expenditures would be in the area of $814 million and by year end, we would have a $160 million deficit. Now, the 2001-2002 total appropriation is estimated to be $878.187 million.

We were also told that we would hit our borrowing limit by year end when we first came in. I recall being told that own-source revenues and a small portion of total revenues and increases had virtually no impact on a fiscal situation.

Mr. Speaker, in the 2001-2002 Budget Address, Minister Handley states our short-term fiscal position has significantly improved over last year' s forecast from a $13 million deficit to a $23 million surplus.

In 2001-2002, he is predicting the surplus of a couple of million dollars. He states, and I quote from page 5 of his address:

"This turnaround is directly attributable to our successful efforts to constrain spending, coupled with a much more positive revenue picture."

Mr. Speaker, in the detail provided in the budget address document, this government spent $47.62 million more than what was spent by year end March 2000; $47 million more and predicting $16 million more from April 2001 to March 2002. Mr. Speaker, this is considered constrained spending?

Mr. Speaker, the one item I see as a contributing factor, as the major contributing factor, to our remarkable turnaround is the fact that we received corporate taxes as never seen before in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, corporate taxes jumped from $7.6 million in 1999-2000 to $102 million in this fiscal year. The Minister goes on to predict another banner year for 2001-2002. Estimates of $116 million in corporate taxes. If this is the case, why do we need any fee increases?

I do recall, however, a statement made when we first became aware of an increase in corporate tax revenues, the Minister stating that this was a one-time anomaly. Now we are budgeting it to grow and basing our expenditures on it. Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, we were presented with a gloomy picture. We were told that trying to raise revenues from our own sources through fees was not a good idea. Now we are banking the Highway Strategy on it. Why such a change in direction?

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to me that our need for a resource revenue sharing agreement will become critical as we set sail for another year in the so-called "Good Ship NWT."

In closing, Mr. Speaker, as I see it, this can be called a stargazer's budget. I hope Minister Handley's stars are not just someone hanging Christmas lights in the distance. Wishful thinking is not what I believe we should be budgeting on. Thank you.