Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, thanks to the Minister for that. Yeah, I'm interested in having that meeting or discussion at some point, because the mines, they have water licenses. That's where the closure obligations are set out. They have a closure plan, standards are developed. I've seen, you know, reclamation calculations using spreadsheets. ENR actually maintains that spreadsheet.

I don't know why our system should be much different. In fact, some of our assets probably have water licenses, or should have water licenses. The sewage lagoons and so on. And they're going to have get closed at some point. We're going to have to deal with the closure of those and make sure we have the money to do it. So, yeah, I'm interested in that conversation.

So like my colleague, though, how do we actually fund this? I know that we have contaminated sites, big backlog of contaminated sites that we actually have an environment fund to basically put some money aside to deal with those contaminated sites, at least the ones that seem to be causing some kind of risk. So there's money that is going into that fund to help with remediation.

We're not going to have set up some kind of a fund to take care of these asset retirement obligations? It just gets rolled into our O and M at an annual rate of $8.5 million a year; is that how this is going to work? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.

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.

Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.

Madam Chair, well, if it's not the right place to dig into it, where -- when do we start that?

We've got $70 million that's being booked here, that we're supposed to approve, and there's at least a couple of Regular MLAs on this side that can't figure out how we're actually going to pay for this over time. Yeah, I think there's a problem here.

But, look, maybe the meeting is probably -- or briefing or something is the best way to try to figure this out. But as I said, I just find it really hard to understand how $70 million is really going to cut it for all of our assets that are out there right now, especially the sewage lagoons, fuel tanks.

You have to take big fuel tanks down in Ulukhaktok or Sachs Harbour or sea lifting the stuff out, power washing it, properly disposing of asbestos from those communities is going to get sea lifted out. You got to take it to an engineered landfill. If it's hazardous stuff, you might even have to take it to Swan Hills. I'm just not sure that $70 million is really going to cover all that.

Any ways, happy to get the briefing from the Minister on this and really understand how this was calculated, whether it's really going to cover all of the obligations we have in terms of our assets, and how we're going to pay for this over time. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, we're happy to do that, I mean - but, again, it's -- the accountants of the Finance can come in and explain how this was done to comply with the accounting standards. But I'm going to be speaking to my colleagues about the departments that are actually responsible when the time comes to incur the costs, because this is reflective of an asset -- the asset's value as it's -- considers the fact of having to have it retired at some point. Yeah, there's a different conversation to be had that's Infrastructure, and I say, again, I suspect ENR.

I certainly wasn't expecting this to be the direction of the accounting standards discussion. So I'll have to talk to my colleagues about what their department's role in terms of, you know, remediation and remediation liabilities, which is not necessarily the same thing as an account - as meeting an accounting standard. But we'll arrange the briefing, and we'll see who all we can bring together for that purpose. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake. No more questions. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize to the Minister, but I am going to ask a little bit further along this but just because I think I have an understanding, but I want to make sure I do. And if we can't answer it here, I'd welcome the briefing and maybe it'll direct some of that, how that briefing going.

So in the past, we've seen amortization of of assets that have been accounted for. And now from what I can gather, you're saying is this amount is the extra amount, like technically sort of the amortization if we knew that we were going to have to pay for the removal of asbestos, etcetera when we first set the amounts.

So to me, I'm curious if this is right, that this is the adjustment for what we now see in the scientific world as liabilities that we didn't know 20 years ago were going to be liabilities so that, you know, municipalities and governments cannot get behind so far that they don't have the money there, or they're not already preparing.

So this to me, seems to just be a proactive accounting number in order to say, governments, you need to start thinking about these extra liabilities that are already being somewhat accounted for in amortization but not fully. Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Madam Chair, that sounds pretty good. I'm going to go with 'yes', thanks.

Thank you. Member for Great Slave.

I'm going to look at Hansard so even I can remember what I just said.

So I guess my question is around -- and I get that this might be department by department, but around the derivative of this number.

So to me, there are already projects and certain assets that we have that are already being handled by different accounting areas of our budget. So this is just all the incidental extras that were not maybe accounted for. So, for example, contaminated sites were brought up. Well, a lot of those would be accounted for under federal funding, under other pots, Infrastructure, ENR is dealing with them in different ways.

So is it fair to say that this $70 million is all those additional small items that the government has not, in the past, accounted for, that they're perhaps, with respect to my colleagues' questions, they may have already been in the budget areas that we're accounting for the liabilities with our other assets, in the past. Thank you.

Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I wish I could just go "yeah," again. Not quite.

Contaminated sites, for example, are accounted for differently. I think other -- it's just that -- yeah, and maybe that actually does go to the -- it does go to some of the questions that the MLA for Frame Lake was asking, is that there are different standards that attach to different sites depending on the nature of the site. But here what we have is just, you know, assets that didn't previously have accounted for the fact that there's a legal liability at some point to, you know, retire the asset.

So this is now meant to capture that and just the value that is reflected in the budget for the fact that the government has an asset that has a different actual value associated to it given the cost associated when it's -- comes to its end of life.

So accounting adjustment, yeah, but not -- it's not that it's only to certain types, if I was understanding that correctly. Thanks.

Thank you. Member.

Thank you. I actually do think I understand what this is. So I do really appreciate that.

I guess my next question, then, and again it could be something for the briefing or in the detailed dive with the departments but is -- how much validity or certainty is there around this number?

So, for example, using your own example of asbestos, oftentimes when the government is dealing with the decommissioning of a building, they don't know what they have until there's a time that they come into that building and start assessing it. And as any consultant in the environmental world will tell you, and that's why we love to caveat our reports, is that there are unknown conditions and therefore they -- those types of projects can really spiral.

So I guess I'm just curious to know -- and I don't need to know today, but what is the certainty of this number, really, when we look at the uncertainty in assessing environmental issues and liabilities. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have sort of a percentage of accuracy in my information in front of me. I think this is probably best answered by having the folks in the room doing a briefing. But if I can just turn it over to the deputy minister, maybe he has a sense from the team as to their level of certainty or comfort with this number. Thanks.

Thank you. Deputy minister MacKay.

Thank you. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, yeah, that does explain it. So I appreciate that.

I guess, then, my question is when do we recalculate that $8 million a year? Is that expected to be a changing number, or is that literally just to keep us on track with where we're going? And then as we add more assets, yes, will that number change. Thank you.