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.