Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

So for the layperson, then, a prorogued parliament is not going to delay this at all, so we should be able to move forward on this regardless of what happens in the House of Commons; is that an accurate summation of where we're at? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

That is accurate, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you. So I mean, I think it's impossible not to draw the inevitable comparison to the other two territories which are at $700 million and their borrowing limit at $600 million and, you know, if everything goes as planned, we'll be at $3.1 billion. Has the Minister had any -- well, I guess we have a lot of smart people at that table. Is there, beyond the historic infrastructure deficit and all of that, is there a reason why they've been able to kind of stick to their borrowing limits without requiring an increase versus our circumstances where we keep running up the credit card? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Mr. Chair, I can say it is my understanding that the others may also be in some process right now. Obviously, that's not mine to speak to or to confirm one way or the other, but I gather there may be other requests being made. And as a broad brushstroke, you know, again, there's differences on a number of different fronts, whether it's the connectivity issues in the Yukon being less pronounced compared to here, both in terms of transportation as well as energy infrastructures, and what that often does to cost overages that we see here or whether it's, you know, in relation to, you know, the level of wildfire impacts that we have seen here which were certainly not present in Nunavut, for example, or as perhaps as quite as acute in the Yukon. So, Mr. Chair, I mean, I think that would be a very long analysis to get into. I'm certainly conscious of it so I don't want to discount the comparison, but just to say that there's -- again, there's a number of factors that contribute to the situation we find ourselves in and, again, happy to speak to that further. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you. I mean, I have issues with, like, the debt ceiling in the first place. I think it's a -- it makes sense -- if you're a territory it makes -- an autonomous governing territory, it makes a lot of sense if you're basically a province, which we are. So anyway, we have to do what we have to do.

Is this going to affect -- we currently have the -- the GNWT has a double A minus credit rating from Fitch and an AA2 from Moody's. Is this going to impact our credit rating at all? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the -- some of the things that contribute to the credit rating, and the credit rating is what then allows us to then borrow at a good rate, have been things that have been cited, when I review them every -- whenever they come up with their updates, is the existence of the territorial formula financing from which we receive 70 percent of our revenues, so the fact that that exists and is relatively stable. And, you know, add to that the fact that another 10 or so percent of our revenues continue to also come from federal pots. Obviously, a little more variability, for example, in the Canada health transfer but at the same time fairly stable that we will be receiving something if it does vary a bit year to year. Also another factor that is considered, Mr. Chair, is our ability to service our debts so we have been consistently, certainly in the last five years, even with all of the challenges, sitting at around 1.5 to 2 percent of total revenues is where our debt is, so it's actually an amount that is on the lower end as compared to other provinces and territories. And in addition, Mr. Chair, I believe last year, after the announcement of the Restoring Balance initiative, mention was made of the fact that there's an ongoing effort to keep an eye on total expenditures and revenues and to try to bring that more in line with our total revenues and the fact that we have a fiscal responsibility policy that creates some transparency on markers such as when we hit the -- that 120 cushion, such as the -- you know, not putting our royalties towards operations, so on and so forth. So there's more than just the fact of hitting the debt limit.

Can I crystal ball what might be seen here overall? No. At the same time, Mr. Chair, we are in a situation where with this -- you know, with the current budget, that we have already progressed to finding $106.6 million in savings so -- and we are doing that even in the context of significant variation year to year of challenges. So we're managing and weathering some pretty significant challenges. We're doing so by finding reductions. I guess maybe I should be giving my pitch to Fitch and to Moody's right now and not to the Member, but all of which is to say I'm hopeful that we won't see change. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.

I think that's a very optimistic pitch, and I'm sure our -- the agencies would like that. I might disagree on some of the finer points. So let's say worst case scenario, we don't get the increase for whatever reason, you know, there's a bizarre snap election, treasury board doesn't get their stuff done, we got to wait until there's a new government and a new election -- national election. What happens if we hit that debt wall; what's the process that happens afterwards? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, Mr. Chair, Ministers continue to be Ministers so if there is some new uncertainty, the first thing that I'm doing is phoning the Minister and asking why this isn't getting done a little faster. And so my hope is that we are not going to be in that situation. We are still projecting to be under our limit at the end of this fiscal year so we have, you know -- and then we are still -- would then beginning the April 1st year with a new appropriation. So, again, expecting to remain fine and going into the next year as well as of April 1st. It's just that we don't -- we wind up not having the cushion for flexibility, so I'm not concerned about running into that wall right at this moment. And, again, there's some other levers, in particular speaking to the federal government about the timing of the issuance of the Order in Council, before we need worry about running into the wall. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you. Well, that gives comfort around the borrowing limit. But, I mean, we blew through this supplementary appropriation to the tune of $188 million, so I think planning to stay with that $3.2 million wiggle room we have is probably not going to happen. I don't think there's -- the evidence will tell us that it's not, so. But anyway, I'm confident that things are going to go through. On a personal level, I'm not worried about this. I think it just adds extra steps and makes it harder to do our jobs here if we hit that wall; it doesn't make it impossible. So I do thank the Minister for answering these questions and hopefully giving comfort to anyone who's curious about these processes, that they are well in hand and we should have a higher borrowing limit soon. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just the question I have around this, I know that the fiscal responsibility policy or the finding balance -- I always mix those two up -- has kind of policies related to the supplementary reserve but I'm just wondering are there policies that govern supplementary appropriations generally, what can come forward, what can't, and have we -- yeah, that's my first question, funding policies.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

There are, Mr. Chair. It's in the financial administration manual. I would suggest directing that to the deputy minister for some detail, please.

Thank you. I'll go to the deputy minister.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So as the Minister mentioned, we do have the financial administration manual which outlines for departments what is -- properly falls within as the definition of supplementary appropriation. So that has to be something that isn't forced growth. It's emergent or unforeseen expenditures and the costs cannot be offset with -- internally within the budget. So they have to meet those conditions in order to go forward. And I would also note that all of those go to management board secretariat which analyzes the submission, taking into account the supplementary appropriation that is -- or supplementary estimates that are appropriated for at the beginning of the budget, so in this case it's $35 million, as well as that definition. So there's pretty rigorous oversight over whether they fit that supplementary appropriation definition before they go to FMB with the MBS recommendation. Thank you.