Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the TSC, when we have it fully functional and operational, will be transferred to Public Works and Services. We are expecting that to happen in 2005. We want to get one year of complete operation to do that. As for its setup and existence within the Financial Management Board Secretariat, I don't have the detail available of why it was established. In my understanding, there were a number of other factors of how to get it established, set up and going, but the intention is to have this moved over to Public Works and Services for the 2005 year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Okay. Thank you. That's a piece of information I wasn't aware of. I appreciate that. One of the areas that I would like to get as much information on is in terms of performance measurement. Are we really meeting the objectives that are assigned? Are we making progress? If not, why? What are we doing to correct our approach? Under FMBS, there is a budget of about $5.4 million and 29 active positions. In Public Works, there is a budget of $6.3 million and another 17 active positions. So all told here, we are looking at almost $12 million and 47 people assigned to technology. Does the government have a set of performance measures and indicators that will help tell us are we getting good value and reaching the objectives that we need to reach in this technology area? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the TSC, there are standards and service agreements established with all departments. So the TSC has criteria that it has to meet because of those agreements that are signed and service levels provided. As well, with the one year and all departments part of the bundle, that's when we will be able to do an accurate accounting of how things have worked out, what was planned and the result of the work that's done informing the TSC. So we are hoping that within this year of operation, we will be able to show the differences that are made. Like any other system, when you have a central agency service or function and departments have become accustomed to doing it on their own and calling their own staff and having people readily available, it takes them getting accustomed to taking out of their budgets to pay for the services. It is not considered as an easy move. After a year of having everyone into the system and bundled up, we would hope to be able to do some proper assessments and going forward to see how much in fact it has been a benefit. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden, any further general comments? Technology service centre, chargebacks, 2-55.

Technology service centre, chargebacks, 2-56. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to if I could go back to 2-51.

Does the committee agree to go back to 2-51?

Mr. Ramsay.

There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I request a recorded vote on this? Thank you.

There has been a request to record the vote. To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, I stated a few minutes ago that my thinking is that we could certainly delete this, but it would not serve the interest of the taxpayer to do so. We are past that point; we are beyond that point. We could send a punitive message to the department that it can't play fast and loose with taxpayers' money. I think that would unnecessarily hurt the department itself or the FMBS shop. The real message is to Cabinet, Mr. Chairman. There are two Members of today's Cabinet who are on the one that approved this measure. I guess I

would like to give the benefit of the doubt to at least those two Members and the five new ones to pay attention to what this committee, at least some Members on this committee are saying is that when it comes to exercising our options on a business deal, that if Cabinet has discretion it has to act to the fullest extent possible on behalf of those taxpayers' dollars that are put at risk. So I will not be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. I have Mr. Hawkins, to the motion. Technically, Mr. Hawkins, you have already spoken to the motion when you asked for a recorded vote, but since you are new we are going to give you a buy this time, so go ahead. But normally at the end of your comments to the motion, that is when you would ask for a recorded vote, so for next time. Mr. Hawkins.

What a good Chair. May I start out by saying thank you, Madam Chair. As I see it, this has two main issues. The first issue is it sends a message to industry that this side of the House cannot stand for something like that. I do stress, as I said earlier, that side of the House negotiated an agreement, and I suspect it was probably in good faith in the Assembly as well as all of the territory, but I do want it recorded because I want people out there to realize that this side of the House does not necessarily agree with this method. We don't want this to become a precedent-setting case. The last point, and I will leave the floor, is the fact that this does save money. This says that we do not borrow $45 million; this says we borrow $44.888 million. The bottom line here is I see it does save taxpayer money. I don't think this is going to break the government in finding the money and I think we can do this. I think this says that we care about the bottom line on this side of the Assembly, just as that side of the Assembly does. So I think it sends a strong message. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I have Mr. Menicoche. To the motion.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My comment specifically is that I am not quite sure if we are actually expending $120,000 to some financial authority or otherwise, or is this line item just an accounting measure that even if we deleted it, it still has to show up somewhere in our budget? I am not too clear, and I am not quite sure if I can ask a question or not but that is where I am at right now.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. There isn't actually a provision to ask questions when you are speaking to the motion. However, you did pose a question in there and the Minister could speak to the motion if he wished to, and could respond to that question when it is his turn to speak to the motion. To the motion, Ms. Lee and then Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to put on record my position on this, which I'm not sure is very clear at the moment because I am still in the process of thinking about it. I think it is very clear from the debate today that the Members on this side are very concerned about the risk that the government enters itself into and the risk that that poses on the taxpayers' dollars. In providing guarantees to an industry, especially when we know that these companies are quite large and some of them have diamond cutting and polishing operations around the world, their business practices should be done in a way where they make the investments and they obtain the profits from therein. At the same time, I do understand that not too long ago, five years ago, the diamond industry was quite new and it was at a very embryonic stage, and there was interest on the part of the government to show its enthusiasm and support an incentive to these industries so that they would come, and that they would anchor themselves here and create an industry in Yellowknife. I am a strong supporter of the diamond industry and the cutting and polishing industry, and I think it says a lot that we have a diamond row outside of the airport, something that wasn't in existence not too long ago.

The concern here is that the government previously, I think it was the 13th Assembly that entered into this, and that government took a risk and that risk has come back to hatch an egg. In our briefings we were told that government provides these guarantees as an incentive in hoping that it wouldn't have to be ratified and realized, but we are in a situation where it has come back to be realized. I don't know if anybody has read this text from our briefing information that the Minister sitting on the other side has said that the conditions on the contract were so stringent that it falls just short of requiring a firstborn son, and now we are being asked to provide that. That is the risk we take, and I think there is a larger question about what the role of government should be in its haste and its enthusiasm, and its desire to attract an industry here that we should realize very intimately right now that these agreements that government enters into have deep meaning, and it has financial implications for all of us. I am quite concerned about the financial future of this company that has now been placed in a position where it can only make principal payments. Long-term, 10-year viability; we will be asked to absorb $10 million that we have guaranteed over the next 10 years. Those are the questions that remain.

Having said that, I am not going to support the motion because I think under these circumstances it just might be too late. But I think there is a very clear indication from this side of the floor that I would like to encourage government not to get into this kind of incentive. The problem is that when governments do get into them, they make the negotiations, they are all signed, and they assure us that they require our firstborn son. Then five years later when the time comes to pay up, we suffer as a consequence. This should serve as an example that we can show as something where guaranteeing projects have tremendous risks and that government should be very hesitant in getting into those. So those are my points on this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. I have Mr. Handley next. To the motion.