Thank you, Mr. Chair. I may have had this information, but if I did I lost it. The rather dramatic drop in contract services seemed to be a one-time thing, but I’m wondering if I could get some background on that.

Thank you,

Mr. Bromley. Minister Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reason there’s — if you look at the past — a large increase and then back down again is that we had to account for one-time dollars to account for environmental liabilities. This is the way we recorded it.

Was it a one-time environmental event, or was it something more general than that?

It wasn’t an environmental event. One of the things we’ve had to do over the years, and we’ve started to do it, is to account for our liabilities out there. This is across departments. When a number of departments come up with an accounting of the different liabilities out there, we come forward in this manner. This is where we ended up accounting for the last the fiscal year.

Would we anticipate that this would happen every so often?

We would do, from time to time. As we come up with the accounting in different areas, and the liabilities, we will account for them in this manner. Right now we’re up to a total amount of almost $34 million.

Perhaps one last final one. Would there be an accumulated amount like this coming up? Would we know when that would occur in the next few years, in the millions?

A number of years ago, the government initiated this action, in part working with the Auditor General’s office, if my memory serves me correctly. We started to account for our liabilities across the Northwest Territories — for example, tank farms that are out there, other examples like that. So we would, from time to time, see this. We have, I believe, three years left in that program to come up with our accounting and evaluations.

I guess we could anticipate, perhaps, in the last year of this 16th Assembly or

the first year of the next Assembly a rather large expenditure, as happened last year?

I guess one of the reasons you see it come, for example, under the Revised Main Estimates, is that, as the work is accruing throughout the year, it’s difficult to come up with an actual number at this budget planning time. We may see in 2008–09, once we’ve come up with some of our evaluations and are prepared to move them forward, we may have to adjust it coming forward. It would have to be through a supp at that time.

Thank you, Minister Roland. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister mentioned tank farms and so on. I wondered if this environmental liability is calculated only for

government-owned assets or facilities, or does it take into account things like mines, which might have an environmental liability.

Thank you,

Ms. Bisaro. Minister Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is government-owned assets or when we do have a transfer over to the GNWT from previous federal government properties and so on. There is a portion of the Giant Mine agreement — an above-ground portion — we signed with the federal government. We’ve had to make it count for that as well.

One further question. I just wanted to confirm with the Minister that as far as I know, there is no current financial security for leases of Commissioner’s land with regard to any kind of environmental liability that might occur from a land lease.

Mr. Chairman, as leases are given out and will be in an existing environment, a number of things kick in place outside of our process. That is, for example, if it’s in a land claim area — a settled claim area — and if it’s on land that’s been claimed, processes that would kick in, whether it’s MVRMA — Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act — or specific criteria within the claims area.

The Member’s correct; we wouldn’t make a count for it, unless it was to be with our assets or, for example, the Giant Mine facility where we had an agreement with the federal government on that.

Just a quick follow-up question. I just would like to ask the Minister whether or not there’s any consideration to require those that lease Commissioner’s land to provide some sort of financial security, should they default on their obligations to clean up the site they are leasing, so we don’t get stuck with another Giant Mine bill.

Mr. Chairman, in this area, because it covers a number of departments, we’d have to work with other departments — for example, ENR or even ITI in a number of areas. I guess, depending on the leases and what could be incorporated — if it is a lease for residential area or cottage area, or if it’s a lease for actual development and exploration or further development of resources — those, again, would fall under different areas and different acts. Under this piece of how we do our accounting, as we work with the Auditor General’s office it is for areas of direct responsibility. That’s where we go to our own assets and having to deal with that.

Thank you, Minister Roland. Are there any further questions on page 2-123? Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to follow up on my colleague’s questions a little bit, seeking a bit more clarity. I think most — perhaps all — jurisdictions except for the Northwest Territories have ensured that in their lands acts they have the ability for financial security on leases for developments. Of course, the absence of that for us led to a very large expenditure a few years ago: $26 million or $27 million. I believe we’re paying $1 million a year on that.

If I’m right, my colleague’s concern is the same as mine: we could get some protection from that. I don’t know what role FMBS plays here, but I would think they would at least be a consultant, if not an important part of resolving this. Right now we’re unable to levy that condition for leases so we can recover financial costs not covered by a company that leaves a large environmental liability behind.

Within FMBS, what you find here is that we’re accounting for all the departments’ areas of environmental liabilities out there. We work with the departments in getting the information and then doing the accounting for it and establishing that on our books. We would go back to the different departments in those specific areas to work with the different areas of concern or the matters that need to be dealt with.

In that area, the Managing This Land initiative would fall into how we manage our land and the different pieces that come together. That would probably fall under as we move forward and look at how we develop that piece. Within FMBS all we’re doing is the accounting of all the departments’ established liabilities out there.

I’m appreciating these remarks. Just to be sure I’ve got it right: FMBS would not initiate an activity to ensure that we minimize the cost of environmental liability; they would only assist the department that initiates that. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, as a central agency for government, we work with departments ensuring that, for example…. Once a policy is put in place and legislation’s in place and it comes to the expenditures of dollars, we can be directly involved in that accounting. In that sense, that’s why you see this; we’re doing the overall accounting for the government departments. If they’re not following the rules, then we can become involved in another matter, and that’s where, for example, our audit function comes in, in ensuring that the rules in place are being followed.

We’d also work with departments in developing potential new areas of involvement to ensure we’re working in areas that are similar to other jurisdictions. Our legislation would match, for example, our relationship with the federal

government or, in the North here, with land claims and self-government as well.