Thank you, Madam Chair. The intent and the purpose of this, I think, is quite clear and it is quite justified to me that government felt it was appropriate to shoulder some of the cost and the risk associated with setting up secondary diamond operations in the NWT, and in so doing we then set out to set up appropriate business deals. Some of our research, Madam Chair, has indicated that when these arrangements were set up, or at least this particular one, I believe it was at the end of the life of the 13th Assembly, so we are going back five or six years now, and the House or committee was assured that conditions were very, very stringent, I believe is the word that was used at the time. So it would seem that if the GNWT had taken time and care and the due diligence to structure a stringent loan guarantee with lots of protection for the taxpayer so that if something did go wrong, our exposure would be covered. We have here now a decision made by, I understand, the previous Cabinet to ignore the terms of a well-structured business deal on behalf of the taxpayer, and take and $800,000 hit. Mr. Roland, I know you were not in that Cabinet at the time, but I really have some serious questions about why Cabinet would have made that decision if it had a business deal in place that would have returned to the taxpayer its exposure. Madam Chair, could the Minister offer some explanation as to why Cabinet would have chosen to ignore the terms of its own business deal and take this loss? Thank you.
Bill Braden on Committee Motion 2-14(5): Options For Measures To Stabilize Power Subsidy Costs, Carried
In the Legislative Assembly on March 22nd, 2004. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 2-14(5): Options For Measures To Stabilize Power Subsidy Costs, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
March 21st, 2004
Page 133
See context to find out what was said next.