Thanks, Madam Chair. I want to put some questions about the revenue somewhere because this is the only place revenues show up for this department. There are a couple of ducks here that need to be flushed out. The line on 204, licenses, rental, and other fees, the main estimates for last year showed $2.4 million, but the revised estimates actually show $47.7 million. Is this a typo? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Madam Chair, it is not a typo. It is a license forfeiture from Husky Oil that I would be happy to provide in some finer detail, Madam Chair. I'm just not getting back there fast enough. Perhaps I could suggest that Deputy Minister Strand can speak to it, or it may go over to our director of finance, please.

Thank you. Deputy Minister Strand.

Thank you. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. This is good news, but there is no explanation whatsoever of what this amount is. I'm kind of surprised that it's just kind of dropped in here, no footnote, nothing, so any member of the public wouldn't know what this is. Is there not a better way to present this for future main estimates? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. It's obviously a significant bid deposit forfeiture. It's much higher than what we would often see in a particular year. I think I'm certainly happy to say that, though I don't know what threshold there might be or if there should be a threshold of at what point a footnote is offered, but the point is well-made. I accept that, yes, it certainly shows as being a number that seems unusual, and yet there is actually a very clear explanation available for it. The commitment would be that, if there is going to be another significant variance of that nature, we find a way to report that publicly so that it's more clear. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yes. I appreciate that. I just want to get a little bit more clarification of what this work bid forfeiture actually is. Does this mean that Husky has surrendered its exploration licence and that they are not going to be carrying out I think it was over $300 million worth of work that they were required to carry out to keep their exploration licence in good standing? Is that what has happened here? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Madam Chair, no. It's not like that, Madam Chair. I'm going to suggest, though, that this go to Deputy Minister Strand.

Deputy Minister Strand.

Thank you. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. The company, though, has applied for a significant discovery licence. This means, though, that they don't have to carry out the other commitment of, I guess it would have been another $50 million, total of $94 million worth of exploration work? That's not going to take place now? Is that correct? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Madam Chair, I'll direct it to the deputy minister, please.

Thank you. Deputy Minister.

Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. That's not good news. That's almost $100 million worth of work that could and should have been done in the Sahtu. It's great that we get a $45 million cash windfall, but in converting this to a significant discovery licence, is that being done under the old legislation or the new legislation? Is there any requirement for even one cent to be spent under a significant discovery licence? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.