Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. No, and, Mr. Chair, happy to spend a bit more time on it. I think this is actually an important -- quite an important concept that happens across different line items, and this is a good one to use as any.
So we -- the 2023-2024 number that you see there is actuals. We don't get that until much later in the budget cycle. Obviously, we're filing public accounts, you know, after the fact when the fiscal year is well over and we're already well into the next cycle, so the budget would have already been established in 2024-2025 and would have stayed at 13.088 unless we had, through this process, decided to increase the budget. So we wouldn't have had the actuals at the time of preparing the 2024-2025 Main Estimates.
A revised number happens, as we're seeing, you know, with the supplementary estimates that we dealt with earlier this week and starting in last week. Sometimes there's supplementary estimates that have only, you know, a specific one-time amount, but you may see that there are ongoing adjustments to a budget and then that can show up in, you know -- if there's a budget change, it would show up in the revised, and the -- sometimes it's a one-time change, but sometimes, again, then you can bring a forced growth submission which is when -- or other submission and you may see a change in the 2025-2026 estimates. Little time on the clock, so I'll stop there, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go back to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's helpful. I do want to touch on one other line item in the comptroller general, and it's a very dramatic swing but in the other way. It would be environmental liabilities which in 2023-2024 actuals were $31 million approximately and now are down to $2 million. Can the Minister tell the story or substantiate those numbers? Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Mr. Chair, if I could start with the director -- the deputy, please.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the reason that the actuals for 2023-2024 are so much higher than our budgeted amounts for the year 2025-2026 is because we recorded several liabilities in that year. So I can list off which those are. So it was a Cameron Hills environmental liability, and that was about $22 million. Norman Wells, there was an environmental liability there related to hydro carbons and metals, and that was about an $8 million liability. And then Fort Resolution, also underground historical pipeline, $3.6 million. And then finally, Fort Simpson, there was a highway maintenance facility, so that's $1.7 million. So that is why that's much higher than the other budgeted amounts. So we basically took a lot of liabilities that -- or took -- recorded those liabilities in that year, so that's why it went up so much. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I'm going to -- did you have a follow-up? Member from Great Slave.
Quite very grateful for that, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So can you explain how taking on a liability one year and the cost of that liability goes from a big cost to a not very big cost? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll start with the deputy.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The environmental liabilities are reported when we realize that it is a liability, and it's an estimate, so it is very hard to budget for what environmental liabilities exist until we discover that it is an existing liability. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Next on my list I have is the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I appreciated the inquiries from the Member for Yellowknife Centre also. I just wanted to note that I, too, have a number of constituents who have had difficulties in this area. So not to repeat any questions, but I did just want a clarification.
I believe I heard the Finance Minister say that she's added staff to this area that deals with this area. I'm hoping that the idea with that is that they are going to help to alleviate some of the burden and help to ensure that we're meeting that 30-day timeline more consistently. Is that -- can the Minister just confirm that and maybe tell us -- give us some details about that. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, two staff are being added to FESS, so that is the division that supports public servants with -- including with medical travel assistance. And, you know, definitely the intent there being with two additional people on that that will be an opportunity to help ensure that people are having more timely assistance. You know, again, Mr. Chair, there's -- I will say there's also work happening in the Department of Health and Social Services. We do rely on referrals from them to come over to us, to FESS, and, you know, have had some conversations around wanting to ensure that there's no barriers between that process. So that is also in the works and, yeah, I'll just stop there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is certainly good news, and it's something that I've been advocating for, mostly by email of course, outside of session, and so it is really nice to -- it is nice to hear that. I have some constituents that will be very pleased to hear about that so appreciate that information from the Minister and encourage the department to keep working with the department of health on coordination and certainly hope that those extra staff help to alleviate the burden a bit.
To turn back to the line of questioning that the Member for Great Slave brought up, that Cameron Hills information is interesting, and I appreciate that from staff. So can the Minister and her staff explain to me a little bit when we're talking about environmental liabilities, what are we referring to here? Are these liabilities that have come about for the government as the result of, you know, permanent operations from a company going into receivership and the department -- the government ends up having to take on that liability, or is there something else going on here; is it related to government activity? Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it would be an estimate of what a clean-up might be. There is a statement within the financial administration manual here and under public accounting standards. I'll direct that to the director and see if she happens to have that one handy. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the director.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The environmental liabilities are a requirement under PSEVs for us to record an estimate into, I guess, the cost of potential environmental remediation or clean-up if it is a deemed a liability, if it is a liability that belongs to the government, if it's an asset that we own. And then once that liability's determined, then we have to book the estimate of the clean-up or the remediation and then it is treated with accounting standards that report it according to the present value of the future environmental remediation or clean-up for when that asset is either retired or when the clean-up is required. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I'm going to go back to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I guess the next question for me -- I mean, I'll focus on the Cameron Hills one. Can the department explain for me kind of what exactly they're talking about there? Like, how did the department end up with a $21.2 million environmental liability in Cameron Hills, and can they maybe explain to us a little bit, you know, how do we end up with a liability and is this something that the government's now responsible for and actively working to clean up? What is being captured under this $21.2 million, the activity. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a detail, I don't believe, in terms of what -- like, specifically the kind of remediation that would be involved, like, the -- you know, for example, I know if it's -- yes, the specific type of remediation activity itself. Can certainly -- because that would be a lead that would sit over with ECC so happy to take that away and can provide a follow-up. The liability that we book is an estimate of what the cost would be but not necessarily the experts in the Department of Finance that determine what the remediation costs itself would be, simply what we are accounting for it under the Office of the Comptroller General. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I'm going back to the Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess, yeah, is the Minister able to provide us any detail, though, on like what exactly -- you know, it seems like the department has some information. They were able to give us kind of a high level idea Cameron Hills was $21.2 million, but can we know kind of what project are we talking about? How did the government end up with this liability? I'm just seeking to understand a bit better, you know, something that just appears as a line item in a budget and, you know, once the narrative starts to emerge, one wants to know more about it. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, some years ago, had a briefing note on Cameron Hills and how it wound up with us. I don't have that here now. The Department of Finance has the role of holding all of the costs, all of the budget for environmental liabilities as a total. Cameron Hills is one that went into a CCAA proceeding, and we then went out with the receiver to try to have it sold and if I recall, there may have been some activity in that space, some not, and I believe, again, that it was the receiver that did some of the estimates here in conjunction with ECC. But, really, beyond that level of detail, we, again, as the Department of Finance under, because we have the risk management portfolio, hold this liability. We also hold other -- you know, so we hold that as a -- or as the budget item, but, again, the details of what would be involved is not going to be one that our folks would be best place to speak to. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask the same question about the Norman Wells. What in Norman Wells is costing us $8 million?
Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, there are sites along the Canol Trail that we have some responsibility for. There are other sites that are still with the federal government, but this is some -- a liability for the sites that are already transferred over to the GNWT. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding of anything related to Canol is those would have been federal contaminated sites. I'm just curious how the GNWT ended up with them.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The GNWT only has a portion of the Canol Trail, actually in fact I think a fairly small portion of the Canol Trail. The majority is still sitting with the federal government. And the last time I was updated on this there was some ongoing conversations with the federal government seeking to have them bring their portions up to a level so that this could, frankly, be an area that may well have a future tourism opportunity. But at this point, the majority of the trail is still federal responsibility. We have our smaller, much smaller portion of it.
I would say, Mr. Chair, there is a dashboard that was created, I think kind of late in the last government, and a bit of a plug for our Office of Chief Information Officer that we've just gone through. So I would refer to that environmental liabilities dashboard. Hopefully people can Google it, it's available online, and it would break down some of this information with the granular detail coming from other departments that I don't have for -- from the main estimates right now. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly I'm looking forward to checking that dashboard out. If the Minister wants to shoot me a message on Teams or email, I'd love to have a link to that. And, yeah, I have a lot of curiosity around this item, but I'm out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from the Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was looking at that clock, and I thought maybe we were out of time from asking more questions. But anyways, NWT power, territorial power subsidy program. It says it's for all the NWT communities outside of Yellowknife? Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For all of the thermal communities; in other words, communities that rely on exclusive diesel generation for power supply. They are brought down to the power rate that is in Yellowknife so it does -- it would benefit -- yes, it brings the power rates down for those communities. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Deh Cho.
Can the Minister tell me how much -- so I guess it would vary by community so -- or is it zones or districts that say? Because I'm not sure which communities -- I know Fort Providence still runs on diesel. So how much are we being subsidized, do you know, in Fort Providence? Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe I have seen charts setting out specifically what each community does get for the territorial power support program. I don't have it here. I don't think we're pulling it up quite quickly. I'm more than happy to provide that, Mr. Chair, so that folks do know exactly the difference between what they would pay versus what they are benefitting here. It is -- in fact, I think it's on the Northwest Territories Power Corporation website. And, again, I can certainly -- I'll make sure that we provide a link so that that information can be had. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Deh Cho.
