Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have some closing comments on this issue. We talked about how stringent the deals were and the guarantees were and research has turned up words exactly to this extent from Hansard of April 29, 1999, when then Finance Minister Dent assured Members that the terms of the loan guarantee agreement with the company negotiated at the time: "...are quite stringent. They far just short of acquiring a firstborn son, but they are extremely stringent in how they are set out to protect the interests of the government." Mr. Dent, I know, is an experienced Minister, a predecessor of yours, Mr. Roland. I quite seriously believe that we cut a good deal. However, it is in our implementation of the terms of that deal when it went wrong that is of such concern to us. I think that is amply evident.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister has done a very credible job in defending Cabinet's solidarity and decisions, even though he was not part of Cabinet that made this decision. On either this deal or others, whether they are financial or political, if they are not a good deal, I don't want to be saddled with it and I don't think this Assembly should be saddled with unpleasant or unpopular decisions made by previous governments that were just wrong.
One of the ones that come to mind most clearly for me is the North Slave Correctional Centre that is just about being completed out here at extraordinary cost overruns. If I knew at the beginning of the 14th term -- when the decisions started to come before us to approve this, approve this, approve this, and we kept on approving, approving and approving -- what I know now...The plan and deal were both made by the 13th Assembly. I have learned from that, Mr. Chairman. When I don't like a deal, although something is happening, I will not be tethered because it was a previous administration that made it. That is why I have been so adamant on this one.
Because we chose not to act to the fullest extent on behalf of the taxpayer, I have to continue to have a degree of cynicism, Mr. Chairman, about how even this Cabinet may conclude or may decide it has to deal with situations that come before it. I suppose it's one of the best arguments because of the inconsistency and the fact that decisions will be made behind Cabinet doors with little or no input from us or anyone else, is that this is still a possibility and a potential that maybe FMBS should get out of the business of loaning and guaranteeing projects at any risk. Isn't this why we already have at least two different lending arms already? If we can't assign terms, conditions and legislation solid enough for those people to make decisions on our behalf, then I really must continue to express a degree of cynicism about leaving these kinds of decisions at the political level behind closed doors.
Mr. Chairman, if this decision was before us now, there is no question that the answer would be no. We would direct the department to act for the fullest benefit of the taxpayer and cover our exposure on this.
I had prepared a motion, Mr. Chairman, to do the only thing that Committee of the Whole can do in the face of a budget and that is to delete this item. It would have caused the department then to seek the money internally. It would have not gotten new money to pay this. It would have perhaps, Mr. Chairman, only been punitive to the department to do that. The taxpayer would not benefit from any motion to delete or any further measure of censure. The decision has been made and we have to follow through with that. So I am not going to put forward this motion to delete. It's not going to do much good, but I would like to think, Mr. Chairman, after two hours of debate on this and Mr. Roland's repeated assurances that he is going to defend the taxpayer to the fullest extent possible, that I would like to recommend we close debate on this, page 2-51, and move on with the balance of this ministry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.