Thank you, Mr. Handley. To the motion. I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I will start my comments with stating that I guess my definition of real money is a bit different than the Premier's definition of real money. To me, $120,000, whether you are in a surplus or not, is $120,000. The reason that I am moving this motion today is I think we have to send a clear message that taxpayers aren't going to accept the way some of these deals are brokered. They are not going to take the favouritism and the political friends of certain people. There are those types of things that the taxpayer, the guy on the street, is just not going to accept, Madam Chair, and that's why I am moving this motion. I think there are other lending agencies in place. We have two lending agencies in our own government, there are the banks. I don't understand some of the comments that the Premier mentioned. We have a loan guarantee with one of the top five diamond polishing and cutting organizations in the world. For the life of me I don't understand that. There are other ways to do this and I think at the end of the day, we have to protect the taxpayer, we have to protect the public person, that is what this motion is set out to do. I am not sitting here saying we don't want big business, we don't want economic development, we do want that but we want it to be upfront and we don't want it to happen by other means or in back rooms or whatever the case is. I think this motion was set to make a point, and to make a clear point to the government, to the Cabinet, and also to the people out on the street that don't have a voice in this Assembly. They have a voice through us and that is what this is for. We will put it forward and I don't know what is going to happen with it, it will probably get defeated, but, hey, at least we tried and at least we are making the point that we are keeping an eye on the way that this government is operating. It has to be transparent, it has to be accountable to the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. Next I have Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, when I put my hand up to speak to this motion, I was in the position that I was not going to support the motion. After hearing the Premier speak, I don't know. I certainly think that there is every bit of reason why we should support this motion. I don't agree with the way this deal was brokered with the companies. I think there were other avenues, and for the Premier to say that if we hadn't have done this and we don't do this there wouldn't be a cutting and polishing industry in the North, I cannot believe that, knowing full well that there were companies willing to set up cutting and polishing plants in the North that didn't need any loan guarantees from the government. I am not convinced that we wouldn't have a cutting and polishing plant. So I think those are kind of scary tactics to be using.

I know that we are into this deal and we are probably going to have to pay anyway. The money is going to have to come from somewhere, and that is really unfortunate. I

am not going to support the motion, but I am certainly in full support of sending a very strong message to government that we don't support these kinds of deals and that we are going to be watching very closely, and that the Members on this side should have been involved. I think if we were notified and involved somewhat in setting the loan guarantees, then we should have been involved somewhat in coming to some kind of agreement that we are going to forgive $800,000 in interest payments.

So I have to state for the record that I really don't appreciate some of the comments that were made, it is kind of scaring us to try and support this thing. I don't believe that we would not have a cutting and polishing industry simply because of this deal. Having said all of that, I am not going to support the motion, but I hope that the government does get the message. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Delorey. To the motion, next I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess the government does have the message here on this side. I just want you to know that in small communities and in the regions and the joint ventures, that our communities look to this government for some leadership, and it is risky. The degree of risk is we don't know; we do our best estimates. In small communities they do a risk analysis, they look at the possibilities, they don't know what is going to happen, but they forecast the best they can and sometimes those banks do not even want to deal with you unless you have some kind of guarantee. All of those little communities and organizations are pretty risky in dealing with the banks, and some people have some good ideas where they just need some support from this government. Sometimes they get turned down by this government, and they get turned down by banks, and they come to us and say how come this and how come that. I have been in some of the communities and I think from this side here, we have to bite the bullet on this one.

In this 15th Legislative Assembly as you start looking at how deals are made within this government and how we are working towards some fiscal responsibility; unfortunately, for whatever reason, the 13th or 14th Assembly made this deal. I think from this side there is some flexibility and there are some things that can be salvaged from this deal in how we do things. I think really strongly to the degree of risk that the communities take that this government needs to be there for us in the small communities and small organizations and ventures. Some of those businesses in the small communities go bankrupt really quickly, and they look for help, and sometimes this government doesn't help them. Believe me, I was there. Sometimes the government does help some of our organizations in the communities, we need the support. For this, I am not going to support this motion. I have my reasons, and I just want to make sure that the message goes to communities that we are there to some degree to help the communities out in some of their joint ventures and some of their venture projects that are being looked at in the regions that the government said that there is mechanisms along the way that say yes or no, and that we keep a tight rope that the process that they get the answer from in this government. So for myself, I just want to make sure that there is a process set in place when you get into these kinds of deals again, because the communities will also ask us about how the government is supporting them in their joint ventures and in business right down the Mackenzie Valley, and what are they doing to help us. For me I guess we should bite the bullet on this one, Madam Chair, and knowing that we heard enough from this side and the government will take notice of these things. That is all I want to say, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Any further discussion to the motion? Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, there was a couple of comments or questions asked. One, it is within our own accounting exercise that we account for this, our own policies as a government so that it is registered that we are giving a grant-in-kind by foregoing this interest. So we are following our own rules and procedures by accounting for this. That is how Members are aware of this grant-in-kind. As stated, as well, the guarantee has been exercised. So in the future, the only thing we have to go on is this agreement signed by our previous government. We are going on it. It is a 10-year agreement revisited within five years. So that is the thing, there is no more $10 million out there on this agreement. This one was worth $2.6 million and we are going to get that principal repaid. Again, the accounting exercise to show the foregone interest as a grant-in-kind is part of the rules and procedures that we follow as a government so that is why it is highlighted the way it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion.

Question is being called. There has been a recorded vote requested so I would ask that all those in favour stand and remain standing in favour of the motion.

All those opposed, please stand.

All those abstaining?

Thank you, colleagues. The results of the motion are two in favour, 12 opposed, two abstentions. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

---Applause

Referring back again to page 2-51, budgeting and evaluation, grants and contributions, total grants, $120,000.

Thank you. Now onto page 2-56, information item, technology service centre, chargebacks. Ms. Lee.

Just a question on that, Madam Chair. Why is this page being called information item? Do they not have to follow the regular budget documenting process? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The reason it's accounted for the way it is, is because it's a chargeback scenario where they receive money from departments not appropriated by this government. The funding comes out of each department which will have its amount appropriated, so this one is an accounting exercise that shows it's a chargeback centre much like the Liquor Commission or a few of those other ones that you have as information items not funded through a direct appropriation of this government.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Does that mean this section can only spend what they bring back in a chargeback? What happens to surplus funds?