Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple other questions. At the end of the five years, the ability to pay the party will be reassessed. What criteria is the government going to be looking at when they take a look at a review of this file? What is going to be on the table after five years? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the critical areas we would look at is the ability for the parent company to be able to pay the principal plus the interest portion and keep them as a viable business operation. So we would look at those factors and decide whether or not to tack on the interest to that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That would lead me to my next question. I know we are put between a rock and a hard place on this, but maybe the decision was made because it was thought to be the best decision. But what is the structure on the repayment of this loan of the $2.6 million? Where is that going to be after five years? What will be the principal after five years?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe we would be in the area of $1.1 million. I believe that would be at the fifth year when we look at the issue again. I'm sorry; we are looking at $1.5 million. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the $800,000 represents the interest for the first five years alone. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So what is the interest to the period of five years when we will reassess this negotiated settlement?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We will do a quick addition. We will be in the area of $440,000.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It just doesn't really leave a good taste in my mouth, you know, how this transpired, but if we are going to reassess it we are going to reassess it at the end of five years. The other difficult scenario that I have with this is I don't believe the Minister believes that this is going to set a precedent for other guarantees that are out there, and I really do believe that it will and I know he has said that each debt is going to be treated differently. If we are treating this one as nice as we are, I can guarantee you that some of the other guarantees out there, if they go sour, we will be in the same situation based on the decision that was made by Cabinet on this. I would like to hear from the Minister on how he believes that no precedent is being set in this one.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, it's difficult to get into a debate about what may happen in the future, but business by business we would look at the viability of an operation. I don't believe by treating this one as such there may be some expectation by companies but not on behalf of government. We'd have to look at the whole business. If we started having the other businesses that have set up begin to fail in a row, then we would have to re-look at the whole situation as a government. If it can't stand and if more businesses than one can't stand on its own, then I think that really draws the question of whether it makes sense to then continue to try to prop up industry that doesn't have the possibility of growing and becoming stable on its own. So right now it is one business, there are three others out there. Two of them have guarantees with our government and one is standing on its own, it is set up on its own and operating here in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

One final question, Madam Chair. It goes back to the other guarantees that this government has out there. I am to believe that one of them is with one of the top five cutting and polishing producers in the world. What would necessitate this government having a guarantee with a company that large? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am unable to comment on what a decision of the 14th Assembly would have been and why they would give this guarantee out again. I can only surmise that because it is a new industry here in the Northwest Territories that the companies formed in the Northwest Territories under their own sort of banner tied to parent companies, but at the same time, I can't go back and debate their decision of the time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. I have next Mr. Hawkins.