Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't going to say anything on this because I think, as some Members have mentioned, it's a dead horse or maybe an issue that's done and over with and we're stuck into this agreement. But the more I think about it, the more I have to put it on record by saying that the Minister talks about protecting the public interest and he mentions the banks that were leery about getting into this type of a business. I don't think that what we've done here does anything to assure the banks that this is a viable business to get into and support in the future.
One thing that I brought up in the last Assembly on a number of occasions and tried to get more clarification on from the government at that time, was the fact that when some of these deals were put together and the government gave loan guarantees, I heard that there were proponents out there that had business deals with the government that didn't require any government funding, no loan guarantees. They had all the money, public money, to put into setting up a business. But it wasn't in Yellowknife. It brings to mind the question of was it a good business deal on the government's part to support these businesses over ones that didn't need government guarantees, or was it just political favouritism? The government is not even admitting now that they made a bad deal. Even if the Minister could at least come forward and say we made a bad deal, but what does it say to the ones that put the money together without even having loan guarantees to put a business case together? This one business was put forward and supported from the government before one that didn't need any government money. So would the government at least admit that they made a bad deal? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.