That's an excellent question. I would say a couple of things on contaminated sites. The size of the liability, which the member has mentioned, is important. Understand that when we look at public accounts—and we do have to compare these two numbers—when we get a sense of the environmental liability and agree that the government is responsible or has assumed responsibility, we put a liability on the public accounts. That's important information for the public. So $11 billion is the right number.
I would highlight for members that some of our biggest liabilities were not actually caused by the government. They're liabilities the government has assumed because the private sector may have walked away. Giant mine or Faro mine up north are two of our biggest. There's an interesting history around those ones. When we look at supplementary estimates (B), this is an additional amount that's being spent across nine departments, and there's a mix of what will be accomplished by that. One is actual remediation. You'll appreciate that the remediation occurs largely during fair weather seasons. It's hard to remediate sites in winter in some of our more northern climates, but there are also ongoing assessments. I will highlight for members that when we book environmental liabilities, they can fluctuate as we get more information. So part of that $80 million goes to assessing sites that have been identified but for which we haven't really landed on a detailed plan about how it's going to be cleaned up.
To give you an example, if you're in a remote area—