Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate that information and that reassurance. The reason I bring the point up is just that, you know, overall looking at this, it is difficult seeing sups of this level come forward year after year and just knowing that we're hitting our debt limit. I mean, I heard one Member kind of suggest they were going to maybe make a protest vote related to this. I mean, I'm not suggesting I'm going to do the same but it -- I do want to kind of register a concern about some of the trends that I'm seeing. And, I mean, I'm guessing that all the sups that came forward met the policies, but there were concerns raised by a number of Members, you know, through a review of these supplementary estimates, that it seems like we're just kind of underbudgeting and we're making up for it with sups and that's a trend that's going on. And so I'm wondering if the Minister or her staff could comment on what we might be able to do going forward to tighten things up and to try and budget appropriately and certainly reduce this as much as possible. Maybe we need new policies, and that's something I could look into. Or stronger policies.

Okay, thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I did, after some of the discussions last week, just over the weekend, ask to look at how the two supplementary appropriations have come forward, if we could sort of categorize them to have some data that helps us better understand, I'm certainly happy to take this to Members and share with them on a go-forward basis and with any future supplementary appropriations that may be sought over the life of this government, just to help understand what is driving the different supplementary requests. I can say that we wound up about -- over a hundred million of it really is in what's contractual negotiations, and so that would be the conclusion of the collective agreement because it would be off cycle and would not necessarily have been built in to the departments' budgets. It does get built into the fiscal framework which is a little different. So when we plan on how much borrowing needs to happen, we can plan around what we anticipate the conclusion of that agreement to be, not necessarily knowing exactly what the amounts might be year to year. So there will be some variance there. But that's a significant amount, obviously, of the changes here. And that's not the only one. If there's lease changes over the course of the year, that's another one that might be a contractual agreement. And anyways, as I say, Mr. Chair, I'm very happy to share this kind of analysis with the Members. It might just help give a sense of what is driving some of the change.

The other big one, Mr. Chair, is the idea of emergent issues. So this is, you know, impacts from low water, impacts from fire suppression activities, impacts in past years from floods, impacts from -- on winter roads. So some of those quite distinct and unique items that come up, that makes up $87.3 million. So that's a significant cost driver that is leading to supplementary appropriations being very high.

Budget shortfalls, I agree I'd be much more concerned about. We do monitor variation -- variances at the department level as well as at the Department of Finance level and then up to the management board -- or financial management board. But, yes, certainly always happy to consider if there's other ways to do that, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, no, I'm not going to hound the department on it further or belabour the point, but we really do need to tighten things up. I mean, times are -- we're right at the debt ceiling. I actually -- I mean, it is -- as the previous Member spoke to, I mean, it seems like it's necessary to raise the debt ceiling at this time but you have to start asking the question how long are we going to keep doing this. We can -- like, the more deeper and deeper and deeper we go into debt, the more that we spend our money servicing debt and, you know, I don't need to lecture accountants and financial experts about this but just wanted to kind of register the concern, and I do hope that we can start to tighten this up, reduce this, follow finding balance as much as possible -- or is it restoring balance? Restoring Balance, I'm sorry. There's a lot of policies papers, and it's hard to keep track of them all. But, yeah, Restoring Balance is definitely a good goal. I hope we can do better next year. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Next on my list I have is Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of things I wanted to pick up where my colleague for Range Lake had left off.

With respect to the $1.3 billion request, because essentially that's the package of request if we're -- if I understood it correctly, the debt wall is at $1.8 billion and I believe the finance Minister wishes to get us to the $3.1 billion level, which in their about way, the math must be $1.3 billion. Can you explain on what the pitch is on that? And I'm not looking for the 20-hour presentation, I'm literally looking for it as what are you asking for? Is it a one-sentence email saying, dear national finance Minister, please raise my debt limit to $3.1 billion? I mean, it must say something a little deeper than that, some substantiation. Maybe if you could elaborate what the package in essence is or how the request goes about. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, it is a formal letter that is written. I don't have it here since I was not anticipating necessarily to speak to that with respect to the contents of the supplementary appropriation requests. I can say we did identify some of the key pressure points that we've seen over the last five years, the wildfires, for instance, flooding two years in a row, wildfires over the course of multiple years, the costs of those that are incurred often have to get carried and carried over while we are waiting for DFAA funding to come back in, and some of those costs are born entirely by the GNWT. Pointing obviously, as well, to the health care sector which is one that is being seen as a pressure point across Canada, but we don't, then, as has been pointed out, have that flexibility that other jurisdictions -- provinces might have. And, you know, pointing also, too, to when there are cost changes that, again, inflation and an interest rate -- well interest rates and then inflation and then interest rates and what that did to projects, again, across the country. There were multiple provinces that have seen cost overruns and challenges. When we see them, we see them often particularly acutely, so pointing to all of those things. And then, Mr. Chair, speaking to the sort of -- what sort of the upcoming needs might be and that would be, you know, essentially what the pitch becomes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do believe in the concept of Restoring Balance. In other words, I don't factually flike what they're -- the policy is, per se, but I do believe fiscal prudent management is important which is, in other words, why spending of money, an evaluation of what we're doing. Does it become irrelevant if the government was to receive the additional $1.3 billion extension to our borrowing limit, seeing how that exercise should be embedded in every element of government but those targets and principles aligned in that initial letter, does it become moot? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope I understood correctly whether or not fiscal -- the attempt to have a fiscal strategy that is premised on balance is moot, if we get a borrowing limit increase. If that's so, Mr. Chair, I would say no. The fiscal strategy is really how we propose to manage the available revenues of government over the course of the four years balanced against projected expenses over the four years. And, Mr. Chair, it's certainly been -- you know, we can look back over the course of 20 years and see that sort of slow steady growth of the debt and its little spikes and then, you know, resulting increase to the debt limit. What we are seeing right now, and projected for the life of this government, is that that debt growth does seem to flatten out and that if we get an increase to the debt limit, while that gives us flexibility, flattening out the increase on debt means that we are not then putting, you know, $60 million towards servicing that debt.

We do have some long-term debt built in. The Deh Cho Bridge, for instance, is a big one, and it -- you know, we have a bridge that is contributing significantly to the transportation sector in the Northwest Territories. When the debt was taken on, it was tied to CPI. For a long time, it was low. These last few years, it has not been low. And so we have been paying more there.

All of which is to say, Mr. Chair, that we want to continue to provide all of the services and programs that we have. We want to be doing that from within an envelope of revenues that is fairly predictable. If we look at TFF and if you consider that our own source revenues are not very predictable and not very great in terms of how much we get, we want to provide those services over the long-term to do it with what we have and to do that in a long-term, sustainable way, which is what the Restoring Balance fiscal strategy is premised on. The borrowing limit increase gives us flexibility for the last couple of years, we think have an operating surplus, and then some crisis or another befalls us, and we want to ensure that we have that flexibility built in. I'll stop there, Mr. Chair. I'm conscious of time. Thanks.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to reaffirm around the $1.3 billion further request, I'm wondering is there -- again, just for clarity, is there any project built into this number; so in other words, is the number $1.3 billion predicated on saying this is our contribution towards the Taltson Expansion; this number is being used for furthering the Mackenzie Valley Highway; this number is based on us continuing or building a foothold into the infrastructure that will start the Slave Geological Province Road up toward the Bathurst -- our side of the Bathurst direction? So curious on that. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, and it's not. I think that that's actually -- it's a good question, and it's one that -- it's important, actually, that they not be conflated, I'd suggest, in that we still want to be able to go to the federal government, particularly with the nation building scale work, the kind of infrastructure that provinces, you know, arguably not taken for granted in an expressed way but have and have at their avail that were built, whether it's a national railway, whether it's a national highway, whether it's capital level airports, ports, you know, pipelines, whatever it might be, the North as a whole has significantly of it, and what we have was built 60 years ago and hasn't necessarily been maintained. And some of the responsibility for that gets downloaded to the GNWT over time while still not necessarily having the front end of revenues available to us to do the upkeep and with -- and now morphs perhaps into a bit of a conversation about territorial formula financing and just how much of that upkeep is built into that or not, but it's definitely not the idea of having a borrowing limit to take on a reasonable and manageable amount of debt, which, again, we are still servicing that debt in a reasonable comparison to revenues. That is different from going to the federal government to say we have nation scale projects that we want you to be involved in at the table. So I definitely want to keep the two of them separate. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm curious on how our debt management will change in the context of borrowing. So in other words, if we borrow money we have to pay more. So I'm just curious on how that strategy's been developed and laid out and would it be part of the business case proposal of the additional $1.3 billion request on top of the $1.8 billion debt limit? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, if we borrow more, we have to pay more but, Mr. Chair, the limit is just the maximum amount that we can borrow, not necessarily money that we are, in fact, borrowing, so that -- what would be proposed for -- to be available for borrowing comes through in the budget every year so you will see the -- that there's -- in the main estimates, one of the front end pages has the proposed borrowing plan and that is what's -- where it is reflecting amounts that are anticipated year to year, long-term debt and short-term debt. That's the portion that we would see potentially, in fact, being borrowed, not the borrowing limit itself. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the member from Yellowknife Centre.

Seeing my time is ticking away, what I'd do is I'll point into two areas. The first is that it does seem risky that we're almost -- almost, I know not exactly so I'm not trying to give you that impression, but almost doubling our current debt with the addition. That does sound scary by any means. Risky, if not. The other thing is is the other aspect of concern that if we're not borrowing it based on principles of us becoming active partners in our business case, I'm surprised we're asking for so much. And the last piece I'll say, Mr. Chairman, is that while memory doesn't serve me very well on this particular point, in the sense of nostalgia I seem to remember my first GNWT budget was in the range of $800 million and change. So we're borrowing more than the first budget I remember with a $300 million debt limit at that time. So a lot has changed in just over 20 years. Thank you.

Thank you. I take that as a comment. I'm going to go back to the Member from Range Lake -- or sorry?