Thank you, Madam Chair. I fully understand that this deal is done, there is no annulment going on here. But clearly what I and committee Members are seeking out here is application at the Cabinet level, the FMB level, of its discretion to give over on business deals that it has already made. It was the rule at the time -- and I'm assuming it was followed, I wasn't here -- that when FMBS makes a guarantee that exceeds, I believe, $500,000, Members are given notice and have a couple of weeks in which to comment or confirm such a deal. If I am correct on that, Madam Chair, I've seen this kind of thing.
I guess as an MLA, when I do see that kind of thing, I would look at it with the assumption that this is a business deal and we're taking a risk along with our partners, but we're taking that risk with taxpayers' money. If the deal is not going to work, if that is its fate, that's too bad. But the taxpayer should not have to take that kind of loss if we've structured the deal in such a way that there is adequate collateral and a guarantee so the taxpayer can go back in and recover its exposure.
So in this situation, we had what we were assured was a stringent deal, brokered by the Minister of the day of the 13th Assembly; stringent deal, Madam Chair, and then all sorts of other conditions that were followed through. At the end of the day, Cabinet said we don't think we need to fully protect the taxpayer on this deal, we're going to swallow $800,000. What guarantees can this government give me that if another deal comes along, it's not going to be subject to some kind of discretion behind closed doors? I don't think the rules call for permission to come to us if the deal goes sideways. So there are some inconsistencies here and some things that could go on in the future. I need some assurance that we're not going to be left in the dark and the taxpayer won't be unduly exposed. Thank you, Madam Chair.