Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very interesting debate taking place here, and I accept the fact that the government is here to perhaps invest and support businesses which are of a higher risk that wouldn't normally get off the ground. But what I'm concerned about is consistency. This was one of a number of loan guarantees that were put out there in order to encourage this secondary diamond industry. Interestingly, as my colleague from Hay River North has said, it was all concentrated in Yellowknife.
When I compare that to some of the other moves that the government has made...For example, the closure of a $3 million abattoir built with federal and territorial money in Hay River which was just on the brink of becoming self-reliant. After $3 million was invested and lots of hard work in the community, they came there and slammed the door shut on that place and sold it, I think for about $150,000 on the Hay River Reserve. When you see that kind of thing happening -- I could give examples of the sawmill in Fort Resolution and there are other risk ventures in the Northwest Territories; the government, I believe, acted in good faith and had good reasons why they embarked on these things -- it makes some of us wonder about consistency and fairness.
As my colleague from the Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya, says he hopes the government continues to recognize itself as a backer and a supporter of ventures in the North which might result in economic development which may not be particularly well-received at traditional lending institutions. So we've got quite a diversity of opinion here. But I guess I would have to say that the folks of the day who entered into these agreements did so in good faith, thinking that these were going to be ventures which produced jobs and economic activity. It's just unfortunate that they didn't have such a generous thing happening on a few other types of projects in other places.
But having said that, I think we've learned a lesson here and I have confidence in Mr. Roland's commitment to, in the future, make sure that ordinary Members are involved in these kinds of discussions. I just see it as a thing I could debate on either side. Sometimes some investment and some risk taking is necessary to get things off the ground; on the other hand, we don't want to see a cavalier kind of casual approach to these sorts of things. So we want the government to provide that kind of due diligence, because we are dealing with public funds here. There has to be some middle ground. Occasionally, I guess, things aren't going to pan out exactly the way we expected. My worst-case scenario, my worst fear is that we would ever be in a situation where decisions were made behind closed doors that would show political favouritism for the sake of favouritism, and the same kind of consideration wouldn't be extended to other types of industry, other types of activity. I guess we'll keep a close eye on things. I don't really have a question, just a comment that we will keep a close eye on things.
I do appreciate the commitment of the Minister to keep a tight rein on this sort of thing, because this is the very thing that can get a government into a lot of trouble, where it looks like one client is being treated in a different way than another client and where it looks like there is political interference. So I think this is a lesson learned for all of us to be very diligent in considering these things. Thank you.