Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of Bill 12, Write-off of Debts Act, 1998-99, is to authorize the write-off of debts listed in the schedule to the act, pursuant to section 24 of the Financial Administration Act. Write-off of government assets or debts exceeding $20,000 must receive Legislative Assembly approval. Pursuant to section 82 of the Financial Administration Act, write-off of debts owed to a public agency exceeding $20,000 must also receive Legislative Assembly approval. The write-off of debts owed to the Workers' Compensation Board exceeding $50,000 must receive Legislative Assembly approval. The write-off being proposed in this act will not require a new appropriation. The write-off will be charged against allowances for bad debts which were established in the department budget at the time it was determined that the collection of the debt would be unlikely.

I wish to emphasize that the write-off of a debt does not relieve a debtor of the liability for repayment or mean that the government will not continue to attempt to collect the outstanding amount through continued reviews by my staff. Future recovery of the debt may still be achieved. In addition, in the case of debts owed by companies, we track down the principals in each company or firm for future credit references. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. The purpose of the Write-off of Assets Act, 1998-99, is to authorize the write-off of the granular program revolving fund assets listed in the schedule to the act. Pursuant to section 24 of the Financial Administration Act, the write-off of government assets or debts exceeding $20,000 must receive Legislative Assembly approval.

The write-off being proposed in this act would not require an increase in appropriation. The write-off would be charged against Public Works and Services appropriations and will not result in an over expenditure to that department. This write-off is comprised of two components. The first is to reduce the book value of the granular material on hand to the actual surveyed value. The second one is to account for the deterioration of the value of the granular material where there is no market due to lack of requirement or protocol in material where the stock value is too small to monitor on a cost-effective basis, or whether the remaining material is contaminated.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, I have with me the Mr. Lew Voytilla, deputy minister of the FMBS.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the Forgiveness of Debts Act, 1998-99, is to authorize the forgiveness of certain debts listed in the schedule to the act. Pursuant to section 25(1) of the Financial Administration Act, the forgiveness of a debt or obligation of the government exceeding $1,000 must receive Legislative Assembly approval. When a debt is forgiven or made, no further collection action shall be pursued. The forgiveness being proposed in this act will not require any appropriation. Allowances for doubtful account were charged to an appropriation at the time it was determined that the collection of the debts was considered unlikely.

The account has been recommended for forgiveness as a result of bankruptcies, compromised settlements, and/or in the public interest. In cases where a compromised settlement is reached, the following factors are considered, possibility of future recoveries, the cost of continued legal action and the value of the security. For example, do the personal guarantees hold a reasonable worth? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While I concur with my honourable colleague that special warrants, you have to be careful that they are not abused, and I think I have demonstrated over the last four years that has not taken place. This particular expenditure came about because the lease was expiring on the aircraft and it was determined it was more cost-effective to purchase the aircraft rather than continue with the lease. This was at the request of the RCMP and when we did the analysis, we determined that there were significant fiscal savings to that.

For the record, for Mr. Ootes' benefit, we did purchase a new aircraft, but we sold a twin otter and we used those proceeds against the aircraft and the net cost to the government was $1.6 million. There was a leasing agreement that was costing us somewhere in the region of about $26,000 per month. That is the particular reason for the special warrant. I concur with him entirely, special warrants should be done as a last resort and, in this particular case, it was because the lease was expiring and it had to be done. It was determined that in the long run, this would in fact, save us money. Thank you.

I think that would probably be a question better asked in question period to the Minister of Justice. All I am saying is that it does not relate to this $80,000 expenditure and I think that is where I would suggest the Member takes it. I do not have the answer so, as I said, my point I was trying, I was not trying to be a smart alec, I was just saying it has no relationship, I do not think whatsoever, to the $80,000 which we are debating today. My advice to him would be to ask the question to the Minister of Justice tomorrow.

I do not know where that relates to this $80,000, but I will look into the matter and report back to the Member.

As Mr. Henry indicated earlier, the government's position is to oppose the Firearms Program. We had to do some work on it, we are recovering the dollars. We have transferred it back to the federal government and we no longer have a role in it. Period. Time up. It may be that there were some people gone, I would have to look into it, but I am not aware of it.

Employees? I am not aware of any employees being seconded from the RCMP, not in any of the notes that I have.