Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, it's -- I think, really, these are perhaps questions almost for the Department of Infrastructure and/or ENR and, with respect to the sewage lagoons, possibly MACA, because what is happening here is the accounting standards are reflecting the value of the asset, and the value of the asset now has to reflect the fact that there's costs associated.

We're not in a position yet where we have incurred an expense or where we are even anticipating an expense, you know, say, next -- this year, next year. Some of these assets certainly will have their end of life before others. And if there does need to be some sort of remediation, then that'll have to then get accounted for and planned for. But the big $70 million is really to bring every single asset in to reflect the value of that asset knowing that there's now this additional item to account for. But it's not, in and of itself, the method by which the government would necessarily be planning for any kind of environmental damage or environmental remediation.

So like this isn't us saying this is the total amount the government will ever pay to remediate any and all assets, sewage lagoons, fuel tanks, etcetera. It's saying that there's assets that have other costs associated, and we need to reflect that in that asset.

So I know that's maybe not the most satisfying answer, but it's just that it's not the right place to dig into how we're going to pay for that. Thanks, Madam Chair.