Thank you, Madam Chair. These are guarantees and none of the other guarantees have been called, so it's not a matter of loan payments. The only reason this comes up as it is structured is because a settlement was negotiated and it has to be recorded in this fashion, because we're foregoing the interest. But all the other guarantees are in place, they haven't been called so there are no payments that are outstanding. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you for recognizing me, Madam Chair. If the Minister could provide a little further clarity on

that. Do we still have outstanding money on these? I didn't quite understand his reply. I think I understood it as we're not expecting annual payments or monthly payments on that, or maybe he could clear up the answer a little better for me. How much in total is outstanding on all guarantees at this present time? Thank you.

Thank you for your final supplementary question, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The only time a loan guarantee comes into effect is when a company does have problems and there's a call on the actual guarantee from a financial institution or another company that is directly involved. That's why there are no loan payments. It's not a loan with the government. The only reason this shows up as it does is because there was an agreement signed that broke it down into payments over a 10-year period.

The amount we have outstanding in the two other guarantees totals approximately $17 million. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A question I would have for the Minister is how does the treatment of this interest debt compare with practices by government with respect to other clients who fell on hard times? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would seek a little bit more clarity. In some cases, are we referring to other sorts of financial arrangements of guarantees, or are we referring to normal practice, government business ongoing, student financial assistance or things of that nature? I'm not sure. Could I get more clarity? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess what I'm getting at is the issue of fairness and transparency. Has the government put companies out of business for less than this? At first glance at this situation, Madam Chair, it does depend on who you are. That shouldn't be an issue here, but apparently, by the looks of this, it does depend on who you are. I think that's the question I have for the Minister, is does it depend who you are and where you're at when you fall on hard times, whether or not the government is going to be there to help you out.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, each case would be reviewed on its own merits. I can't speak for previous governments, but there have probably been decisions where the government has gone after what it feels is its right to do. But there also have been numerous negotiated settlements, depending on the case of the day, the atmosphere of the day, what the government felt it could get out of it and go forward from there. We're in the early days in our government and this is an agreement that is already existing. As part of our budget process and being transparent, this is highlighted so that Members are aware of this situation ongoing and going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on the list I have Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I fully understand that this deal is done, there is no annulment going on here. But clearly what I and committee Members are seeking out here is application at the Cabinet level, the FMB level, of its discretion to give over on business deals that it has already made. It was the rule at the time -- and I'm assuming it was followed, I wasn't here -- that when FMBS makes a guarantee that exceeds, I believe, $500,000, Members are given notice and have a couple of weeks in which to comment or confirm such a deal. If I am correct on that, Madam Chair, I've seen this kind of thing.

I guess as an MLA, when I do see that kind of thing, I would look at it with the assumption that this is a business deal and we're taking a risk along with our partners, but we're taking that risk with taxpayers' money. If the deal is not going to work, if that is its fate, that's too bad. But the taxpayer should not have to take that kind of loss if we've structured the deal in such a way that there is adequate collateral and a guarantee so the taxpayer can go back in and recover its exposure.

So in this situation, we had what we were assured was a stringent deal, brokered by the Minister of the day of the 13th Assembly; stringent deal, Madam Chair, and then all sorts of other conditions that were followed through. At the end of the day, Cabinet said we don't think we need to fully protect the taxpayer on this deal, we're going to swallow $800,000. What guarantees can this government give me that if another deal comes along, it's not going to be subject to some kind of discretion behind closed doors? I don't think the rules call for permission to come to us if the deal goes sideways. So there are some inconsistencies here and some things that could go on in the future. I need some assurance that we're not going to be left in the dark and the taxpayer won't be unduly exposed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Number one, I would have to disagree with the Member's comment about the government not doing its duty on behalf of protecting the taxpayer. As Cabinet is sworn in, we take an oath. Every government, every Assembly has taken an oath to do its part and do the business of governing in a way that follows the rules of governing. If there are occasions that that hasn't been followed, then we as Members of the Assembly have to pull that into question and possibly take someone out with non-confidence. Let me assure the Member that I don't intend to put myself and my Cabinet colleagues in a position of having to be questioned in that manner. We will do our work with due diligence to ensure the best decision is being made on behalf of residents of the Northwest Territories.

I can't speak for past governments and what they've worked on and why they arrived at a final decision, but my duty here for the 15th Assembly is to ensure that the deals

we do have are deals that are viable going forward. From this discussion that we've had on this amount of the budget, I would take to my Cabinet colleagues that we must be very wary of any deal going forward, whether or not the debenture being looked at is a risky one. But I also have to remind Members that we have a number of lending agencies within this government that do not have a very good record of its loans. We have examples of the Business Credit Corporation, the NWT Development Corporation, which has built in subsidies for salaries and so on. So we do have programs within the Government of the Northwest Territories and we know there are going to be some losses and we account for that.

In this case, because it was a new industry -- diamonds in Canada, never mind the Northwest Territories -- governments decided this was the avenue to take. We will continue to honour the process of informing Members of any new commitments or guarantees that will be provided. We will continue to honour those things and I'll commit to the Member if any case comes forward to myself as Minister and to the FMB, we will be using due diligence to ensure that the taxpayer is protected in this whole exercise. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As FMBS is required to come back and seek our concurrence if it makes such a loan or undertakes such a guarantee, would the Minister then agree to come back and seek our concurrence if indeed an extraordinary deal has to be made? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope when the Members elected me into this position that they trusted me enough to be able to act in accordance with the rules we have established in protecting the interests of the people of the Northwest Territories. I would commit to informing the committee of potential situations that might occur, and inform Members as events might occur. But Cabinet would have the ultimate decision as to what would happen there. That's the way I would go forward. Before a decision was made, I would do my bit and inform Members of a potential situation that is out there. I hope that I don't end up in that situation, but in case it does arise, I will be prepared to go to the committee and inform them of a potential situation. But then I would also go back to my Cabinet colleagues who would have to make that decision. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Madam Chair, we are in the third year of a 10-year agreement to see some $2.6 million in principal paid back to us to satisfy this deal. I'm assuming here that we have again another stringent deal in place and that we're going to be covered. Given the history of this particular account, if there are some further difficulties here, is the Minister going to have any hesitation at all about moving on this? I'm assuming we have $2.6 million worth of security in place that we could act on if there are any further difficulties. Will we do so if there are future difficulties? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.