Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. So I guess Department of Finance has launched this online -- I think it's an inventory, really, rather than a data base of contaminated sites, and that's a step forward. At least they've identified where these sites are and there's a little bit of background information. But there's no cost figures; there's no real tracking of progress in terms of assessing the risk at those sites and whether any remediation needs to take place. And, you know, if you go to the federal contaminated sites inventory, it's maintained by the federal, the treasury board. There's a remarkable level of detail for sites all across Canada that are the responsibility of various different agencies and you can sort is the data by region or by the authority that is responsible for the site, by time. It's an amazing database. And I'm not saying that we need to get there right away but I've been raising this issue for seven years. And at least we have some sort of an online database now but it needs to be populated with actual details of information. So that's what this recommendation is aimed towards, and it's really about greater transparency and accountability and making sure that these kind of liabilities are properly tracked and the public knows about them. So I look forward to a response from the department on how they're going to improve that database over time to get us up closer to where the federal government has been for years and other jurisdictions as well. The Yukon has their own inventory that contains significantly more information and data than ours. So we can and should be doing a lot better. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

All right. No further questions on this? The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Mr. Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends the Department of Finance provide more detailed resource revenue data on gross amounts received and calculations of amounts retained;

And further, this enhanced reporting should separate annual aggregate values from petroleum, mineral resources, and each other type of resource revenues. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi, Mr. Johnson. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Nokleby.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess this one I think gets a little bit close to a big conversation we've been having around royalty disclosures and whether or not this would include private information of private businesses. I guess that would lead me to want more information on exactly what "detailed resource revenue data" means and therefore I will not support this part of the motions. Thank you.

Mahsi, Ms. Nokleby. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. So if you actually read the report from the committee, it provides the rationale for this recommendation. You know, the public accounts indicate that in 2020-2021, the GNWT collected $66 million in resource revenues but there's no note with that line item. There's a bit of a break down between minerals gross money -- its gross amount of minerals, oil, and gas royalties, licenses, rentals, and other fees, and then quarry fees. So it doesn't even indicate through a note that this is actually a gross amount. This is not very transparent reporting of revenues to our government. And that's what this recommendation is actually aimed at, is making sure that people actually understand what the government revenues are from the resources that are taken away from here. And, you know, I've had an ongoing exchange with the Minister of Finance and her staff about what that line item actually includes, and as I understand it, there was federal money that we get from the royalties collected at Norman Wells that are included in this amount, half the revenues actually go back to the federal government according to the devolution agreement, then, you know, a quarter of the remaining amount goes to the Indigenous governments that signed on to the devolution agreement. This is pretty complicated stuff, Mr. Chair.

So, you know, the public, they see this figure of $66 million and think well, that's great, that's what we get from resource revenues. That's not, and it's not a net amount either. So what this is really aimed at is improving the transparency of this reporting so that the public actually sees what the gross amount is, and there's a calculation of what the net amount is. This is not about what individual companies report or how they file their royalty returns with the Minister of ITI. This is about the transparency of revenues to government. So I -- you know, it's done a lot better in many other jurisdictions, and that's what this is aimed at doing, is making sure that the residents of the Northwest Territories, when they pick up the public accounts they actually understand what those figures really mean. So I fully support this and look forward to a response from the Minister of Finance on how we can improve this. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi, Mr. O'Reilly. The motion is in order. Ms. Martselos.

I'm just going to speak for -- I just want clarity on the motion. The revenue -- the resource revenue sharing with intergovernmental council that signed on to devolution, is that part of this motion? Because there's an agreement with intergovernmental council of the Indigenous groups that signed on to devolution. That's a situation that was privately done with the federal government and with territorial before devolution took place, and I don't think that is something that has to be shared with the public. It was because it was part of devolution, and the Indigenous governments had a right to that. And so I'm just wondering for clarity is that part of what is being discussed in this particular part of this committee motion?

Mahsi, Ms. Martselos. Mr. Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess -- so I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding is that it is already public how much each Indigenous government is currently getting of royalties under the devolution agreement. I believe that is already disclosed. But I should clarify that this committee report, regardless, is not asking the public accounts to break that down by Indigenous government and is not asking us to break down the number by what individual mining companies or oil and gas companies or quarry companies pay. That is a separate debate, and it's not our intention. The intention was simply to show that 25 percent of 50 percent is what goes to Indigenous governments and that the GNWT takes that remaining amount. So just a note clarifying how the formula works. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi, Mr. Johnson. Ms. Martselos, anything further?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean I know that -- I know for a fact that it's not reported now what each Indigenous government receives, and that's an agreement with the Indigenous governments with intergovernmental council. So I just want to make that very clear. I'll be supporting the motion. I just wanted clarity, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi for that. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining?

---Carried

Mr. Johnson.

Mahsi, Mr. Johnson. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Johnson.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to explain what this is actually asking. We just want a piece of information, which is presently when all GNWT's tangible capital assets are amortized over their expected life cycle, and in theory what that means is that you know when you have to replace it and then you budget accordingly. But it's quite clear that -- well, we all know that our infrastructure's in pretty rough shape so a lot of it has been completely amortized and is noted on our books as being "worth" zero dollars, and I would like to know what that total figure is, or committee thinks it would be a helpful figure to know. And in theory what that number means is that if it's a billion dollars, you have $1 billion worth of infrastructure that is overdue or that is passed its expected life cycle. And I imagine that if you took all of the Power Corp's infrastructure and all the GNWT's infrastructure, it's probably over a billion, but that number is not disclosed. So committee is recommending that be included. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi, Mr. Johnson. The motion is in order. To the motion?

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? All those abstaining? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Mr. Johnson.