Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, again, Mr. Chair, this is back to, as I suggested earlier, that not yet finally knowing, A, when an election will be called; and, B, who would be elected, when they would be elected, and when they might make whatever changes they might make. The uncertainties that pile up with that, Mr. Chair, we're not going to be coming out right now and saying what we will or will not do other than to say that we'll remain in compliance at this time with the federal legislation, and, obviously, as that may vary, then we would be in a position to decide whether we want to vary ours. I mean, again, and the Member's mentioned this, that there may be some contenders who would say that they would remove the consumer portion and not the output-based system, whether the output-based system would be reasonable or relevant to us, again, to date, that's not been the response we've had from industry here. So, again, I -- and there may be variants to that -- those programs when somebody gets into office. So some unknowns but, again, happy to continue to brief on it with committee, happy to ensure that it does stay top of mind and that we monitor what different options we might be looking at. Again, I'm confident that given that it will be happening over the course of sometime and not instantly that we'll be able to manage that through the course of our fiscal year. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to pick up on one question before I go to the area I would like to explore. But one of the questions I think in my mind -- maybe it wasn't 100 percent clear, and perhaps it's -- I'll frame it this way: Is the department exploring options for a replacement carbon tax? Have they come up with scenarios or any type of framework if things change? Because I can't imagine the government sitting in complete absence of this in their mind and completely sitting on their hands while this is a live issue? So this is not more hypothetical. This is the fact that are they exploring options or in scenarios? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, again, Mr. Chair, the department does have folks who have been involved with the file and with the evolution of the federal carbon tax system for quite some time, since its early inception. They were able to respond when there were changes coming out from the federal government in the last couple of years, more than once, and those same individuals, Mr. Chair, continue to monitor what comments are being made. But until we know with some finality if we're dealing with no carbon tax, if we're dealing with a modified carbon tax, if we're dealing with only an industrial tax, or if we're moving entirely to a cap and trade system, Mr. Chair, I'm not in a position to say what response we would have here. We would certainly want to, you know, again ensure that we are responding to the situation when we know what it actually is. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it kind of perplexing, and maybe the Minister can clarify if I'm misunderstanding her point, that if she's saying we're not doing anything until someone else does it first, that seems kind of odd especially considering the conversation is very live about nobody wants this carbon tax anymore, the department isn't developing scenarios as to what's next or preparing for it. So I'm trying to get a sense, are they developing any scenarios, or are they choosing to do nothing until someone does it to us? That's really what I'm getting at.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, Mr. Chair, I mean, I'm not going to ask the public service necessarily to run theoreticals, scenarios, on things that may or may not happen in a space where they have previously done and been able to, you know, respond fairly quickly, that there's a lot of understanding within the department and our fiscal policy division of what the current circumstances are, what the current options are. They've had multiple conversations with the Department of Finance over the last couple of years every time there's been changes from the federal side. We have the option to zero out our values if it gets to a point where we are able to do that, and I would expect, again, as I've said before that that seems to be the tenor from this room that everyone would want that to be done, and we'd certainly keep folks apprised if it gets to that point. But as far as trying to figure out or read tea leaves of what -- who would get elected and whether they would actually do the snippets that are sometimes being put out as part of campaigns, which are not necessarily a full policy development, Mr. Chair, no, I'm not asking the public service to necessarily spend time trying to guess what that might look like. Thank you.

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

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the budgeted line item of $6.1 million there has been that same value for -- well, some time anyways, but it certainly -- it is an estimate, and it is ultimately a projection, and it does depend a fair bit on what the state of the resource sector is doing and how healthy it is, and there can be quite a bit of fluctuation. Thank you.

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

Given that I put, you know, say, great faith in the quality of work that probably goes into the budget, and I can't even begin to imagine how much skills and expertise it requires, other than the fact that I, you know, tip my hat to say I believe some very smart and hardworking people bring this together from top to bottom, page to page -- or cover to cover. But what worries me here is it's an estimate knowing that we're -- you know, is that really achievable especially when we're so close to the debt wall at $3.2 million. Does estimates like this that have a lot of variability not have an impact at the end of the day on the overall budget and the financial wherewithal of the GNWT? So in other words, if you overstated your number to look -- make our balance sheet look better but is that really the case here? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, so no, we're not overstating the budget to make it all look better. It doesn't have that kind of effect on it, Mr. Chair. And perhaps given that this is getting into the process of how it is actually budgeted, I might start with the deputy minister but we might turn to director of shared corporate services too. Thank you.

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if there's too much to add. So the $6.1 million has been in place for some time. That was an estimate of what the royalties -- what would be going based on 25 percent royalties to the heritage fund over the course of the fiscal year so we kept that budgeted amount over the last few years, and then in the last few years, as the Member pointed out, the actual amount of revenues going in the heritage fund have been less, so that's what the situation is. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you want me to go to the director?

No, thank you.

Okay, thank you. All right, I'm going to go back to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, by the way, I do recognize that a budget revenue is much different -- they're a different creature than the borrowing limit or the debt wall. But the thing is I'm looking at it from a bigger picture of the financial wherewithal so I'm just -- why do we keep saying $6.1 million when we know that's the placeholder number but, you know, when we're so tight on the budget on every aspect of it, it just seems -- wouldn't it seem more prudent to budget it at 3.1 as an example, being more realistic? Thank you.