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

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister is happy to go back to Members, I certainly welcome that. Does that also mean that she would be comfortable if Members deferred the specific line item but approved the overall supp appropriation respecting that we are waiting for that further detail? I'm curious on her thoughts and impacts of that particular decision. We still have several days ahead of us in this session so that line item specifically can come back once we have that clarity. So would she feel comfortable with that approach knowing that it sounds like a lot of questions are still outstanding?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the PUB is already doing their work. The proposal is seeking to bring down the proposed rate increase to a number that is lower than the 24 percent that would, you know, bring the number -- bring the final estimate down. Yes, I guess if the Member wants to check the math and doesn't like the decision that was made to bring it to this number, I'm not in a position to say whether we should defer or not. I obviously prefer to not defer this decision. I would obviously prefer to see that this is done so that the letter can go to the PUB to confirm that will, in fact, be a rate subsidy for the members of the public. Again, I can pull up all the materials that were sent to Members back in October and see what was there and what wasn't. I believe I appeared at that time. I, of course, since appeared again on these supps and just simply did not, based on those meetings, anticipate this level of inquiry. So I'll be in the Member's hands, I guess. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Officially, I am not asking the Minister to be in any of my hands. In truth, I'm saying we have at least 16 days on the clock, so over three weeks, if not four weeks, something to that effect, of this Assembly sitting for the current budget, and I was just asking, basically, given the fact that we still have so many days and so many weeks in advance of this, if this specific line item was delayed, are we concerned about impacts or issues? And this way we can get back to this particular specific line item to close it off. Thank you -- later. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the Members of the accountability and oversight committee schedule the timing of the supplementary estimates reviews, and this one was scheduled for today. The PUB is already reviewing this. The $12 million was landed on, 12 over four as a number that was deemed reasonable to bring the costs down to a rate level that would, while still impactful, obviously would be one that could be managed. There was numerical consideration given to what those potential outcomes would be. You know, again, Mr. Chair, had I anticipated that that would be the questioning today or had I had that sort of heads up, I would have come with that. I have that detail elsewhere; I just didn't bring it as the Minister of Finance sitting on a supp today. If Members choose to defer this today, Members choose to defer this today, that's part of the process, and I'll then go back, and if it wasn't in the original October materials we'll see what we can do to provide more detail on why we are looking to bring the proposed [inaudible] down by $12 million over four. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there any further questions? Okay, thank you. Seeing no further questions.

Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2024-2025, Department of Finance, operations expenditures, directorate, not previously authorized, $11,950,000. Does committee agree? Oh, sorry. I had a hand up from a Member I didn't see. Okay, go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move a motion that we don't have planned, so we need to take time with staff. Essentially, I move that the activity directorate under the finance operational expenditures be deferred until a later date. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, thank you, to the Member from Range Lake. What I'll do is we'll take five minutes; we'll just prepare a motion. We'll take a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

I call committee back to order. I want to go to the Member from Range Lake to his motion.

Thank you. To the motion. Members -- the motion's in order. To the motion. I'm going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, it's just not clear to me what the merit or intent of the motion is so can the mover explain to committee why we need to defer this, what is the -- what's the ultimate purpose here?

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

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was planning to speak to this, which I will do now, I suppose, so if the Member will kindly give me his -- yes, his time.

So the -- during the course of debate on this line item, the Minister offered to -- I think the quote my learned friend has written down, happy to bring it back to Members. So some questions were raised to the Minister around the power rate subsidy. There are a few questions, and her own evidence before the committee or words in the committee where we can work more with Members, you know, we can take some more time to get more information forward. And when those kinds of things happen in -- over the course of debate, if there's an opportunity to wait, I think that's better. We do have time to further consider these estimates and -- yeah, and I think the expectation is that there's a certain amount of preparation for this level of detail when Members ask, and maybe that wasn't clearly communicated in the in-camera portion when we reviewed these supplementary estimates. It would give everyone time to bring all -- the full level of detail to the chamber to properly understand Members' questions and given that we don't have make this decision today, we can defer this until a later date until those questions are resolved because I think it's -- if there are outstanding questions, it's more prudent to wait to approve the expenditure until we have answers. And I think there are some substantive questions here as well, not to mention that perhaps there's more money we can put into the subsidy and take the edge off consumers, which I would absolutely support if there's room to make those arrangements.

So I think, given all that and given that the Minister herself was saying, you know, she's happy to work with Members on this and provide more information, let's give her the time to do that and to continue this discussion once all the answers are available. So that's the intent of the motion.

Certainly, we don't like to move things that are unprepared but sometimes, through the course of debate, there's an opportunity to just put the brakes on and take a little more time with things. And that's the intention here. It certainly isn't to delay the process. If I don't want to support this, I'll just vote against it, but this is to get more information in the hands of the public and in the hands of Members who ultimately are representing their constituents in this chamber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to -- well, I guess I can't answer any questions but I'm happy to speak to this further if you give me -- afford me the time to do so. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I guess -- I mean, the Member for Yellowknife Centre was speaking to this a fair bit. I wasn't paying perfectly close attention to what he was asking for, but I guess I'm just trying to understand here, like, what exactly is the information being sought? What's the intention to do something with it? Are we actually going to change something here? You know, I've heard Members raise a lot of concern about the cost of this appropriation to begin with so are we really considering changing anything here, or are we just gathering a bunch of information? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you. I'm sorry, amused at the process but I'm happy to continue to answer Members' questions. Thank you for the question.

So I think that the intent here is if there's outstanding questions that Members want answered, that we should, again, put a pause on it. We are spending 12 million -- like, the proposal here is to spend $12 million of taxpayer money and if we're not completely satisfied that that's a prudent expenditure, we shouldn't approve it. So the idea here is to pause until we can gather all the information. And if even one Member has concerns, I think we ought to give that Member the benefit of the doubt because, again, this is not the last day of the sitting. This does not have to be approved today. We still have time over the course of this sitting to approve this if it is deferred today, and that is the intention here. So, I mean, I don't think that there's a significant amount of urgency that we need to get this done today anyway. And, unfortunately, we do have to move on to other matters and call the page, so to speak. So it was either approve it today and just wait for more information or I think, again, more prudently, get the information before we approve the money. Because I've always found it uncomfortable when you have these kind of outstanding questions about an expenditure and the Minister commits to getting the information, typically we get it, but in the moment when you're considering it, if you don't have that on hand -- and we do have opportunities to ask these questions in other committees and other processes, but if -- so we have plenty of time to gather that information. If we still don't have it on the floor for the public, that is problematic in my -- in my assessment. So that is -- again, the reason for the deferral is just to give time. There's still plenty of time to debate this. There's plenty of time to approve it. And, again, maybe that number does change but that's up for the Members to decide. And once we have the information available to the House to consider, we can make that determination at this time, either by, you know, the Minister bringing forward an amendment or new supplementary appropriation or a deletion or whatever. But I think until we have that information, we can't make those -- we cannot make those considerations. And, again, if we're going to be prudent stewards of the public purse, we should be able to answer any questions Members have here before we move along with approving expenditures. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other Members that wish to speak to the motion. Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, we're here at this particular moment because some of the -- the round of questions I had for the Minister and the staff, and essentially what boils down to it is trying to get the essence of what the $12 million is, what it does. I mean, I know what money does, but what -- how it's targeted in the sense of what it does. I mean, there were a few other questions -- I'm trying to wrap it up as simply as possible for the Member of Frame Lake so he appreciates that. I also sought the advice or thought of the Minister in the sense of the impacts of the delay. I mean, it sounds like a lot of moving parts are -- a lot of moving things, parts, yes, are happening here. But in the sense of that, time is always of the essence, but there is plenty of time on the clock. We may have, I think, approximately 16 days of session. You don't leave these things for the last minute. That wasn't the intention in any form. So we have at least - at least - 14 days of session days, including a week-break in between. So we have a lot of days over a particular line item to get further clarity. With respect to clarity on -- for one Member or all Members, I would say, similarly as the Member for Range Lake had just pointed out, it's $12 million. It deserves a little extra scrutiny. We're not talking about $20, a discretionary thousand dollars or, you know, a hundred thousand. It's $12 million. Yeah, it's bigger than some community budgets, whole budgets for the year. So it's a lot of money. And, you know, I'm worried and think the specific targeted money needs some more transparency. And that's all I'm asking for, and that's all the intent of the motion is. In the end, I think the Member for Range Lake's right. If you don't like it, vote against it. You like it, vote for it. Yeah, but I think it's a little more than that. It's about coming to the clarity of decisions and the process of compromise. The process here of compromises, let's just wait on this one line item through this process, and we'll get the clarity, and then those still against it can vote against it, and those who can vote for it will. So, ultimately, Mr. Chairman, the issue is not to stop this, but it's rather to have good reflection as to why we're passing $12 million. Now, in -- as a side note, which is very relevant, Mr. Chairman, my experience with $12 million personally is obviously zero, but on paper, quite often, and what I found and when it comes to budgeting and budget talks is the smaller the dollar amount, the more energy we put into something. So in other words, we talk about it, tear it apart, demand better accountability, etcetera. But the larger the number is, the less transparency and discussion we get. We just go, Well, we need 12 million bucks. You can't argue with that. But if someone said we needed $10,000 for an outhouse repair job, we'd be talking about that all day. And it's funny, the mechanism of dialogue of democracy. I've seen that on roads. I've seen that on fence repairs, mobile vehicles, etcetera, etcetera. The smaller the dollar amount, the longer we weigh in on something. So that's all it's asking for, Mr. Chairman, is just a little transparency to help Members fully understand so when the public comes to us, we want to feel our public dollars are going in a robust but an efficient way. And by all means, may be right. Maybe the number is too small. Maybe the number is too high. I don't know. But, I mean, we want to help give cost of living breaks as much as we can to our constituents and all Northerners. I mean, it matters because this is the day-to-day stuff that upsets people. These are the phone calls we get from people because they have difficulties getting by. So just saying, oh, we just approved $12 million, and it's only done a little, they'd ask me why we didn't do a little more. So, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to use all the time on my clock for no necessary reason, but I felt it was important to elaborate a little further because I think the Member for Frame Lake had some questions. I wanted him to understand the cornerstones of the issues. And it's not against the 12. I just feel transparency on the detail needs to be there. And maybe the last thing is the Minister was correct. I want to say that she didn't come prepared with that level of detail. Yeah, most of the time this probably is not necessary. And perhaps the Member for Range Lake was right. We should have given them a better head's up as well so -- on this type of level. So sometimes that's how it works. You get emotional and stirred on the floor on an issue. So that will be all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. To the motion. Next I have on my list is the Member from Monfwi.

Okay. I just want to ask the Minister, so how many -- okay. NTPC, how many communities do we represent? Thank you.