Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we do five-year reviews in regards to the escalation costs, but I'd just like to point out we are getting away from leasing units and building more of our own units. So with regards to the leases that are in place, there is the five-year review in regards to the escalation costs where we look at that. But I think also realizing that we are getting out of being involved in long-term lease commitments in which we are becoming more involved in our own property management and not depending on the third parties.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Braden.

Madam Chair, thank you. That was not quite my question, though. I want to know, when we look at leasing or renting a building, does the Housing Corporation have a way of analyzing the long-term operating costs of buildings? I guess to illustrate this very briefly, Madam Chair, if I'm going out to lease a building and one landlord offers me a 20-year-old building with a lease cost of $10 a square foot, and then I'm looking at a newer building that's going to cost $20 a square foot, over the long-term cost of that I know that the older building is going to cost me more to operate than the newer building. Are we calculating this into our decision about who to lease with? That's the point. Have we got a way of assessing long-term operating costs and is the corporation factoring that into its negotiations?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Koe. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to address my questions to page 8-39. I was reading leasing commitments infrastructure under the North Slave district and I noticed under office space, Yellowknife...Sorry. I thought we were on that page.

Oh, sorry. I can withdraw my question and wait until we're on that page. I thought we were on that page.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. We are on page 8-38, information item, Public Housing Program funding, grants and contributions.

Agreed. Okay. Thank you. Page 8-39, information item, lease commitments, infrastructure. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will now direct my questions to page 8-39. Under the leasing commitments under the North Slave district, there is office space, it says Yellowknife headquarters. If the Minister can explain the anomaly of why under the main estimates, we have a number of $350,000, but future lease payments are only $60,000. That's actually five-sixths of what is being spent this year versus next year's commitments. Is there going to be a dramatic change or negotiation in the lease? Are we talking about one or two months only? Could I get some detail on that relevance? Why is the number significantly changed? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, our lease expires May of this year and that's why it's only up to May. We do have to either buy a new lease or go out for lease commitments. Our lease expires in May, so that's why that amount's only set to the May expiry date.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I understood the Minister correctly, he said the headquarters lease expires in May. Then if I'm understanding him correctly, he says we're now paying, for two months, $358,000. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is that the expectation that we're just...That's the whole year fee no matter where we go? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in the arrangement we have in our lease, we do have a month-to-month availability where we can carry on month to month until we have made the renewal or we make a decision on where we're going to lease. That's the reason it's in there is because it's based on a month-to-month allocation once our lease expires.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm only just surprised because, maybe it's only me concerned with this, but if we're acknowledging that a volume of space needs to be required for a year and that volume of space, even though we have a lease running out here in two months, but the typical volume of space for 12 months will cost us $358,000, why wouldn't we acknowledge that any year going forward would still require that type of volume of space, which would be relatively the same amount? I'm sure it's just an accounting reason. It just seems like an anomaly that, I don't know. Because, I mean, we're going to have to lease from somewhere else or we're going to have to buy it from somewhere else. So there must be some plan why the lease rate drops to the floor. Are they planning to build a new building, which would then be structured under some different mathematical category, or is it just an accounting, is it just a way to account for this? I'm not an accountant, so I'll respect it if that's the way you have to account for this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Anderson.

I'll let the accountant answer.