Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, every company that came forward to this government came forward on its own basis, on its own merit, and with a business plan that wasn't identical to the next party and it has operated in that fashion. Number one, it does not set a legal precedent and, number two, Cabinet would take each one case by case and go forward on that basis.

Madam Chair, even if we decide as this government -- the 15th Legislative Assembly has a different appetite than that of previous governments -- well, we have changed directions, previous governments had a different philosophy about how to do things and how to proceed. We now, as the 15th Assembly, have adopted our own style and are going forward on that basis. The agreement was signed and if the wish of Members is to have this removed, all that would cause is for us to eat it internally. The agreement is signed, we did it internally, and it would be spent. It still wouldn't provide any further money than is already established in our budget. So it is unfortunate we find ourselves at this time going forward with this initiative, but it is something that is signed and in place, and we are going to have to deal with it and proceed on that basis. If the Assembly feels that it is not wise to go forward on this and didn't want this, we would have to try to find it internally somehow to keep paying this and see what options were available to us before the five-year period and the time came for us to review the whole agreement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. I still have some significant difficulty with this. Why are we not chasing the parent company on this? Why are we not calling in something? By renegotiating I think we are negotiating with our own money by negotiating backwards by saying well if you can't come up with this we will come up with this lower number. Now we are down in the principal being thankful. Are there steps being taken to chase the parent company? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We in fact did go to the parent company and that is who is making payments on the principal amount. So we have gone beyond the actual business itself, gone to the parent company because they did provide a cross-guarantee, and we've taken them up on the offer that was put forward. So we've done that. The agreement is signed and we're committed to that. Whether there's acceptance or not, the fact is it has been signed and we're tied to at least the first five years of this agreement and we're going to go forward on that basis. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If the parent company is willing to recognize that they are in default or in a position where they can default on the interest payment as we've re-skewed it, and made the payments strictly on the principal...What is the cross-guarantee and why do they not recognize the whole amount, interest included with the principal? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The settlement that was negotiated was negotiated with the parent company. Again, the government of the day decided that was the best option to go forward with. They signed the agreement; it is now in year three of that agreement, and we have a couple more years before we can revisit it and reopen it to see if we want to try to collect the amount. It goes back to the parent company if we feel that we can gain all of the resources that we think are required, or if it's best to get the principal back and go forward on that basis. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Does the Minister know how many employees are employed by this company, and is it operating today?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am aware that the parent company is still in operation; I'm not aware of the actual number of employees who are still with the outfit and doing the duties that were part of this agreement initially. I am aware that the parent company is involved and is still in operation. I could work on getting the numbers for the Member; the number of employees working in this section of the diamond cutting and polishing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Clarification on the earlier question, we will try to get that information, but part of the deal was the parent company bought the shares out from us for the $2.6 million. So it would be on their good graces that they would provide that additional information. Yes, we are legally bound to the agreement to year five until we can possibly renegotiate that agreement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess with all the bellyaching, we're in a position of accepting it, regardless of the situation. So whether we like it or not, we have to forego this interest. The Minister had indicated one is standing on its own. He said that at least two or three times. I'm not about to pull the official transcripts to reference what that meant, but I would like to know what "one is standing on its own" means. Does that mean the other diamond cutting plants are in a position where they may be in a critical position? Could the Minister elaborate on what is "one is standing on its own"? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To get it in the proper context, I said there are three other facilities operating. Two have guarantees with our government. One is standing on its own. It did not require any assistance or guarantees. They had the resources to establish on their own and they are working on their own. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If three out of four diamond cutting plants -- if I understood that correctly and don't hesitate to correct me -- are in some situation where they are receiving guarantees or assistance in some way, how many have outstanding loan payments? Thank you, Madam Chair.