Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just going to leave this now. I do probably have some other questions, and I'll think on it. If I have any more questions, I'll submit in writing. Marsi cho.

Thank you, Member. Are there any other questions, comments, under Asset Management on pages 42 and 43? Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is: of this $167 million here, I notice there is a lot of federal funding and a lot of 75-cent dollars, but of that total figure, how much of this is federal money? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to send the question to Mr. Loutitt.

Thank you, Minister. Deputy Minister Loutitt.

Thank you, deputy minister. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. I would appreciate, on this area, getting a sense of that. When we pass $167 million, it's usually not us actually passing that because there is a bunch of federal dollars attached, so I would just like to have that figure. In question period today, I heard that, essentially, our deferred maintenance was at $465 million on all of our assets, and we're spending about $5 million a year. By my calculation, it will take us 93 years to catch up on all of our deferred maintenance. Can somebody just help me understand that figure? I would like a little bit more explanation. Essentially, is it us taking all of the infrastructure we have, doing a needs assessment, and seeing what needs to be repaired and replaced, and that comes to $465 million? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The breakdown for the cost of $465,728,561, it is a backlog. We recognize that, but we don't have that kind of money just laying around, especially if we have priorities here within our mandate. We are already working with such a low amount of millions of dollars to complete our mandate in the next three more years. I talked earlier about how the priority one critical breakdown is $11 million. Each year, we are allocated $5 million for deferred maintenance. Some of the potentially critical is about $18 million, just over $18 million, and some of the necessary but not critical is about $436 million. We have broken it down into three categories of what is our priority, what is our potential priority, and our necessary but not needed right now. That is the breakdown that I have, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps I could just understand: could I get a sense of what is in deferred maintenance? I understand it's all of our assets. Does it include roads or bridges? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The deferred maintenance funding is used to address some of the deferred maintenance issues, primarily consisting of some of the structural failures, building code issues related to life safety. There are roof and exterior envelope failures. There are additional issues related to building and fire codes; building mechanical, electrical, and structural components; and accessibility. Those are some of the areas that the deferred maintenance is used for. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In that list, I didn't hear roads and bridges. My understanding is that this is a giant figure, but if we also included all the maintenance and the O and M on our roads and bridges over the next decade and our needs assessments, our total infrastructure gap would be well beyond this. It is what it is. I think we're all aware of our infrastructure needs, and that we are one of the lowest and most behind in Canada. My specific question, though, is: deferred maintenance is on assets, and when we're doing O and M budgets, the Department of Finance has a formula for amortization such that every asset automatically has an amount of money, the values decrease, that we must the put toward capital. Can I just have an understanding of the relationship between amortization and deferred maintenance? Because, to me, they should just line up. Is there something wrong in how we're doing that, or is there just something I don't understand? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's a very technical question that I just can't find the right page for, so I'm going to go and look out to the expertise of David Moore. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Moore.

Thank you, Mr. Moore. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just getting to my lack of not really understanding the Fiscal Responsibility Policy and the way things are going. I struggle that we amortize certain assets, and we make sure that we are kind of calculating what the needs assessment is. I get that. It's giant, and it's going to get out of whack. I am wondering if there is a way that the Department of Infrastructure can work with the Department of Finance such that we have a policy where we don't have $11 million in this first priority that comes before us and we're not funding it. To me, it just seems like we're building infrastructure and not building in a financial responsibility policy that requires that we maintain it. I know I'm not going to get that "yes," but is that a conversation that can happen such that we don't continually get budgets that have things that don't meet code, that are just going to cost us more money in the long run? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.