Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, that Bill 20, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures and Borrowing Authorization), No. 2, 2024-2025, be read for the third time. Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's rare that we speak to routine business of supply such as supplementary estimates but in this case, I feel compelled to raise a protest to our continued pattern of expenditures well exceeding our revenues despite things like the fiscal strategy put in place to control them. We continue to fail to meet our targets. The messaging is very mixed in public and in this House as to whether or not we have a very solid foundation for our finances or one that's incredibly shaky, and I think that confusion resonates outside of this institution as well.
So I said when we debated these in the Committee of the Whole that I wasn't going to write any blank cheques to the government on this one, and I intend to keep my word on that one. We went through the detail of that document and many -- you know, probed the questions that needed to be -- answer the questions that needed to be -- or asked the questions that needed to be asked and ultimately reviewed that spending but, at the same time, as substantiated as it is, it still represents significant overruns from where the main estimates put the government's proposed spending, especially around health care. And now we have new information on hand where appropriations for health care are being approved before we actually see the budget, and perhaps that's why we see these overruns.
We have a lot of work to do in this Assembly to get our fiscal house in order. I've listened, I've heard clearly from our Finance Minister that that needs to be a goal that's priority. If fact, I urged this government to make it a priority of the 20th Assembly. And that unfortunately was not the case. So we were spending an inordinate amount of time talking about this and -- because it is a -- or it is -- there's a great need, but it not being a political priority makes it much more difficult to address because it has to take a backseat to everything else we do and this is what I mean about the confusion. You know, we need -- we have four priorities and fiscal restraint is not one of them, and it should be, because it is increasingly becoming a topic of subject and debate in this House.
So all that being said, I do not feel like I can support this budget at this time until we have clarity on our fiscal priorities and a real plan to get our finances in order. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Range Lake. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Similarly, I want to say, and independently -- I want to stress that as well. I've come to similar conclusions that I'm worried about the overall foundation we're building. First of all, we didn't -- Members at large weren't involved in the edict issued over a year ago saying this is how we're going to control and manage our finances, and now we hear how close we are to our debt wall. It sends a weird message back to we have spending freezes, but it doesn't sound like we have the authorities to follow through on them. They're just suggestions. It's not that I don't think the Minister's trying, the bureaucracy's trying, but eventually someone's going to have to just try harder by sending that type of clear direction by saying we cannot get all of what we want this time around, and we have to wait.
I mean, this government has the essence, as I was speaking to some people on the weekend, their perception is is that it's funded largely on the good wills of our future, and I worry that debt will become the solution to our future. And even when we heard about expanding the debt limit, you know, we hear the message of we don't have a plan for it, we just want it, and we want it to back our future. But my view is it's not good debt. If I'd gone to the bank and said I just want more debt potential, they'd be saying, and? And so if they said if you were buying something of infrastructure such as a highway, such as a Taltson expansion, something that created tangible investments and good results, you know, it would make sound sense.
Anyway, I am going to vote against this, and hence I just wanted to put it officially on record. And I did speak to it in Committee of the Whole as well, but I don't see any reason to go too long at length. I've already made my point. Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. To the motion.
Question.
