Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, during my two years in this House I have attempted to bring common sense in a business perspective to various issues and initiatives. For example, initiatives such as the proposed amalgamation of Housing, Public Works and Transportation. Just because we looked at it, considered it and spent a bunch of effort on it does not mean that we had to proceed with it, and we did not, Footprints clearly presented a different direction and we abandoned the plan.
Then there was the long and protracted debate over the privatization of petroleum products division. How much time, energy and money have we expended on an initiative, the rationale for which is weak at best given timing and feasibility considerations which I have previously expounded on in this House. We have had to make some profound changes to the way in which we do government. Most of these changes were related to the elimination of the deficit prior to April 1, 1999. The elimination of the deficit was necessary to facilitate the smooth, orderly and business like division of assets and liabilities giving each new territory the best financial footing possible as they embark on creating their own new governments.
My colleague from Nunakput raised the ire of some Members in this House recently when he, in reference to the Transition Action Plan for the Creation of Two New Territories, brought up the issue of who is actually planning Nunavut. Is this lifelong dream of an Arctic people, driven by the desire for self-determination which is going to be mapped out by the Government of Nunavut or the Government of the Northwest Territories? The subtle reality is that the extent of this self-determination, by either new government will be seriously impacted by the amount of baggage they are saddled with at division. Baggage in the form of long-range commitments, contracts, initiatives, decided by the 13th Assembly prior to April 1, 1999. Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act which was proposed in committee last week is another example of a very profound change to the way in which this government operates, which could have far reaching ramifications in terms of long-range financial commitments.
The bill proposed the cap on loans guaranteed by this government be raised from $500,000 to anything less than the approximate $170 million which represents the gap between our present outstanding guarantees and the legislated $400 million. Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement. Thank you.