Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve been practicing fiscal discipline, the use of passive restraint. We’ve capped forced growth at very low levels, and those levels might, in fact, be required to drop further as we move forward. With the passive restraint targets, we’ve done things like Finance has done, which is gone through its own operation to make sure our house was in order and things like the Territorial Power Support Program. We’ve laid it all out in the main estimates and all the other documents that are going to be coming out of public accounts.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Dolynny, your time has expired. I will ask committee, are there any other general comments on Bill 43? Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The discussion has raised one other question I have. When we pay off this short-term debt on the 1st of April, it puts us into a surplus positon, and I saw in the Minister’s budget address we’re in a surplus position for the next fiscal year. It’s predicted to be a surplus of I forget the amount. But just for clarity there, does that mean we will have a surplus until we take advantage of our short-term borrowing capacity at which time our net position will be debt of some amount? Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Aumond.

Just for my clarity, that means we are no longer in a surplus position at some point to the three-quarters of the way through the year or whatever. Is that correct?

So our Fiscal Responsibility Policy and the infrastructure principle of having 50 percent surplus available doesn’t happen. It’s not true at the end of the year until midnight on the 31st. A second later then we have that 50 percent available. Is my understanding of that correct?

Then there’s the understanding that we would have surplus. Perhaps it’s not in the Fiscal Responsibility Policy. Fifty percent of our infrastructure budget would be based on surplus. If I could just get the deputy minister or the Minister to fill in that part of the equation for me.

Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Next on the list I had Mr. Dolynny, but could I go to Ms. Bisaro who hasn’t made general comments yet. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of comments and questions here. I appreciate the need for this bill to come before us, but it is somewhat concerning for me. We have encountered a number of expenditures which have been unforeseen. The fire season expenditure is the biggest one and the one that we were most unable to control. The $20 million for the low water surcharge, that was a conscious decision to undertake that payment, which put us into this situation, partly put us into this situation. The other one that was a conscious decision was accelerating the payments of the Inuvik-Tuk highway, because that project was moving faster, I guess, than we had anticipated. But at the time when FMB discusses these expenditures and discusses these payments that we will enter into, is consideration given to the impact that it’s going to have on our finances in terms of short-term borrowing?

For instance, with the Inuvik-Tuk highway, at the time that the decision was made to advance the payments, in that discussion, was part of that discussion the impact that advancing those payments would have on our short-term borrowing and did you look forward to this point of the year knowing that this bill was going to have to be amended because we were going to be over our borrowing limit?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. The impact on the borrowing limit at the time was considered along with what would be the longer term cost if we shut the project down and didn’t start it up again or try to start it up later in the season or lose half of a building season. It was determined that it would make far more sense for us to advance the money, keep the project going, keep the 400 people or 500 people employed, and have that benefit up in the Beaufort-Delta plus keep the project on target and on time.

At the time as well, that predated what we knew later to be the worst fire season in our history as well as an accompanying consequential effect of the fourth year of the drought, which was the low water.

Thanks to the Minister for that. It gives me some comfort, but I am concerned that we are seemingly taking on more and more expenditures and basically just saying, well, that’s fine, we can borrow the money. I can say that I’m not sure if you’re considering everything and, you know, do we really have to go this much into short-term debt. But I do have faith in the Department of Finance and I do have faith in the Minister, so to ask that question, I’m going to get a rhetorical answer. So I will say it out loud but not expect an answer.

If we pass this bill it will then increase our limit to $300 million for short-term borrowing. I would hope that we are going to be reducing our short-term borrowing over the next number of years as we hopefully manage our finances and reduce these extraordinary expenditures that we have been incurring. So is it conceivable that this bill would be amended to reduce our borrowing limit to try and get us back to a situation where we are potentially, it’s all in the eye of the beholder, but potentially better off by having a lower borrowing limit? Something that would kind of keep us down to spending the money we have as opposed to borrowing to pay our bills. Thank you.

As I indicated as clearly as I could in the budget address – I thank the Member for raising the issue – on a go-forward basis it’s going to be absolutely imperative that our expenditures don’t exceed our revenues and that we are putting in place the pieces that we need to have to ensure that everything we do keeps us under that operational ceiling. The short-term borrowing limit is something we want to free up as well. Three hundred million, $275 million, I mean, if we are able to hit our fiscal plan, we’ll have it, but we won’t be necessarily required to use it, barring more catastrophic events that cost us money that no one could have anticipated.

Like the borrowing limit on a credit card that I have, I have a ceiling on it, a borrowing limit. I very rarely get there, but it’s nice to know that I have it if I need it. Very similar in this case, but we’re going to take the steps and we are taking the steps to in fact do the things that the Members talked about. It’s going to be not without some challenge to do that, but I think everybody recognizes the need that we are at that point where we need to do those things to ensure that our expenditures and our revenues don’t exceed each other. Thank you.

Thanks to the Minister. I have no further questions.

Thank you. General comments. Next I have Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to continue my questions regarding looking at every possibility of re-profiling some of the money that is currently in our departments. Can the department indicate to me, when I use the term “vacant, unfilled positions,” these are jobs that we’ve put money aside for. These are jobs where the government has said, you know what, thank you very much for allowing us to fill these positions. We’re going to set aside money for these positions and these are vacant, unfilled positions.

Can the department indicate to us what happens to that money during the course of the year? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s all accounted through the variance process. There’s ability to move money between activities in a department, so the money is always all accounted for at year-end. Some cases, like in capital, will have carry-overs. I will ask the deputy if he wants to add anything further on that particular issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Aumond.