Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, we do have a supplementary reserve that we set at $35 million and, obviously, this one alone would certainly put us over that. We do -- sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to see where -- anyways, it is obviously going to put us over that we -- oh, there we are. Thank you.

So, Mr. Chair, the net impact here, we are going to end up at a total impact of $64,717 million in this case, obviously significantly beyond a $35 million target that we would have set. And, yes, I guess that's the answer to start, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you. And this is the Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, the impact -- I mean, I have the numbers here. But the impact of Supplementary Appropriation No. 1 which we already proved was 160 -- a little over $160 million. So the net impact of all this -- and members of the public can find this on the back of the document but it's $188 million -- just over $188 million in the red. So is this -- why -- I mean, and these costs, some of them are certainly things you can't control due to fire and things like that but some -- again, some of these costs I think reflect -- could reflect something else. They could reflect, you know, controls -- or sustainability controls, let's call them, that aren't being applied or aren't being followed but, you know, it seems like this government either has a message that's spend no money, like a flat out freeze, which we see time to time, or it's spend as normal. So there's got to be a more balanced way that can get these supplementary estimates under control. So is there -- and not counting new revenue. I always want to see new revenue, but is there a way that the Minister can think of, or the Minister's working on, to find a way to limit supplementary appropriations to the reserve for example, or some other mechanism, that would better align expenditures to -- or better align the operations of the GNWT to the main estimates, especially around health. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I appreciate that question. So first just -- I know there's been sort of chatter, if you will, around the idea of a freeze. So we did put out that there would be some -- we wanted departments to engage in fiscal restraint which is not the same necessarily as a freeze and that was -- is likely to probably arise in the discussions over the course of today. But the idea is as we come to the idea of the fiscal year, we are saying -- you know, departments do have budgets. If they are under a certain amount then they can -- you know, for example, if there's an unfunded position and there is funding there, they may be able to utilize funding if it's not restricted. We're saying, look, don't utilize funding. It's not going to lapse. You're not losing your budgets, which sometimes is a narrative that gets out there that people can just use this money that -- before it gets used up, and we're trying to impose more of a rigor around, you know, ensuring that money is, in fact, being used for what this Assembly is approving it for, so for ones, but there's certainly not a freeze per se. As far as mechanisms, so that is -- for starters, that's why we impose the $35 million as a target for the supplementary reserve fully anticipating that we are likely to go over that in the course of any given year because a lot happens in the course of a year that you cannot budget for or that you don't necessarily know what the actual costs may be. The vehicles that we saw were an example of that -- sorry, in the last -- in the infrastructure supplementary appropriation that we just dealt with. So that is one part of it.

Another part, Mr. Chair, is the processes that take place at the financial management board table where you have a process whereby every department who wants to come and says, look, I need a supplementary estimate, has to go through a process of analysis. It includes determining whether or not it's even appropriate, whether it falls within the definition of something that could reasonably have been considered an unforeseen expense. Departments are often turned away and told, no, you're going to have to come back through the budgeting process, the usual process, because what you're asking for isn't unexpected, didn't arise unexpectedly, isn't urgent or essential at this moment. So there certainly are times where they get turned away. So, again, there's that analysis that takes place there.

Last, but not least, Mr. Chair, with respect to health specifically, again, you know, there's significant -- this is frankly one of the most significant fiscal challenges that we are facing. It's such an essential area of services that we provide to the public, and it is 30 percent of our budget, and there are continuous cost overages and significant supplementary estimates here.

So work happening there is two-fold. We do have the health system sustainability unit that's resting within the executive and Indigenous affairs, as well as the public administrator who is doing significant work to try to determine what those right sizing of budgets are, and the two of them will, I'm confident, be coming forward with some suggestions and proposals of how to better budget in a way that provides the services without ending up, for example, here in the cost overage. Thank you

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When is the last time the supplementary reserve was not exceeded from what it was initially budgeted at in the mains? Like, is there any time in -- that the officials probably -- because I don't expect the Minister to know this. But is there any time that it hasn't -- that it's been kept to what we've -- what the ledge has voted it at? So right now it's $35 million. Has there ever been a time when supplementary expenditures have been kept underneath the limit that's set by the main estimates? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, madam -- sorry, not Madam Chair; I'm so used to the last government. Sorry, Mr. Chair. No, I mean those of us sitting here haven't necessarily occupied these positions, any of us, for, you know, ten years of history, but to the best of all of our knowledge, it does -- we do tend to typically go over. Again, I will be frank, Mr. Chair, I have often asked why we put it at 35, and I'm promptly reminded that raising it doesn't necessarily create the kind of fiscal barriers that we are discussing now. So I'm happy to go back and ask the department if they can look back in time. But, again, our knowledge right now is it's certainly not in the last sort of five or six years.

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

Thank you. No, I appreciate the offer from the Minister but I don't -- I think the point is made. This is -- and it's not like -- I get it if it was like, well, we went to $40 million and we budgeted for $35 million, or $38 million or $50 million or even $60 million, but it's $188 million, and we're suppose -- we budgeted $35, right, so like this is -- I think -- you got to think of what the average reader who is looking at these documents sees and thinks about our financial process. And, again, when they hear we've got to belt tighten because we can't -- our expenditures are exceeding our revenues and they see us blowing past our supplementary reserve, maybe it's time to rethink how we budget that supplementary reserve so these don't look like shocks. Because it's fine to say all the smart people in this room understand this process, and it's -- and we have all the in-camera meetings at committee which, again, the public doesn't get to see to really tease this information out, so we need to do a better job of explaining this. And we also, quite frankly, need a plan to cover expenditures. We'll have more discussions as we go on through this process, but this is not a blank cheque for supplementary appropriations, not this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Is there any further general comments? Okay, seeing no further general comments.

Does the committee agree to proceed to the detail contained in the tabled documents? Committee? Agreed?

Committee, we will begin on page 3 with the Legislative Assembly. Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2024-2025, Legislative Assembly, operations expenditures, Office of the Clerk, not previously authorized, $20,000. Are there any questions? Seeing no further questions.

Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2024-2025, Legislative Assembly, operations expenditures, Office of the Clerk, not previously authorized, $20,000. Does the committee agree?

Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2024-2025, Legislative Assembly, operations expenditures, total Legislative Assembly not previously authorized, $20,000. Does the committee agree?

Committee, we will now turn to page 4 for the Department of Education, Culture and Employment.

Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2024-2025, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, education, not previously authorized, $4,138,000. Are there any questions? I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North. No, sorry, yes, Yellowknife North, and I'm going to come back over here. I seen her hand go up first. Sorry about that, I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering whether the Minister can explain why the $1.869 million increase to the school funding framework. I'm hoping that perhaps it's related to increased attendance in schools and therefore increased transfers according to the school funding formula, but maybe the Minister can explain. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is, indeed, relating to the school funding framework requirements and -- so, yes, there's an increase in this case -- yes, I'm definitely not going to be the right Minister to necessarily get into explaining exactly how that calculation gets made. But there is -- the good news is that yes, indeed, it does tend to be impacted by determination of attendance or a determinance of the number of students that are attending, and it gets adjusted in the year because our fiscal year and their school year don't necessarily quite align. But in this case, we did -- yes -- sorry, an enrolment. I keep saying attendance. It's enrolment, not attendance, but with the enrolment numbers up now, we are able to adjust through the year. It's actually a good example of why a supp does come through, because of the timing of it. But yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's certainly promising, and I would just like to perhaps follow up afterwards with the Minister of education to better understand higher enrolment numbers and what this means for the territory, but I'll leave that here for now. Thank you.

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