 Mr. Speaker, I'm just sorry we got sidetracked by the little theater a few moments ago. It was about shaping up with a kind of contest that I was looking forward to. I was from the time I heard the presentation of the member of the Fort North. I said to myself, well, it looks like we're going to be shaping up an interesting debate and contest. But the theater that we saw a while ago, I'm flutating that. However, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to put the amendment in context. Because anybody listening to the presentations we have had would somehow believe that St. Jude could have raised money at any time. But the major problem with the legislation that there was no provision for guarantee, which is not really correct, actually. But I remember these provisions very clearly. The trouble sometimes is that when you see you have amending legislation, you often don't refer to what the actual act says, what you're amending. So that you contrast what is in the legislation and what the amendment is actually saying. The original section 20 does in fact make provision if the government, the Minister of Finance, so decides to get a guarantee for a loan. It says in the original section 20 that the Minister of Finance made it set whatever terms and conditions for any money that is raised by St. Jude. Because in the original conception of St. Jude, the thinking was that St. Jude would have been capitalized, including, of course, making available to St. Jude the land on which the original St. Jude was constructed. So that it would have had a very independent or semi-independent existence. So, for example, if he decided that it would want to mortgage two acres or a acre of that land to raise the money, it could have done so. And it may have been possible for a bank to say, well, listen, since we are getting the land as a security, then there's no need to go to Parliament to get Parliament to approve such lending. We get a guarantee. That was the objective. Of course, all of that went up in smoke because of what happened with that historic fire and subsequent problems. So it was not essentially correct to think that a guarantee was not necessary. Under the old section 20, it was for the Minister of Finance to set the terms and conditions and it was for the Minister of Finance to say, listen, well, I'm agreeing that you need a loan, but I'm not letting you go and get that loan unless we go to Parliament to get a guarantee. That's what it meant. What this does, this amendment does, however, is to say that in all circumstances you need a guarantee, so the Minister of Finance has to come. Now, of course, why would you do this? Simple. You now have a public finance management act that compels you to do things like this. Because other than the terms of the new public finance management act where you are required to provide that guarantees for the slightest amount of money you borrow, then you have to come and do it. So the larger imperative is that act because you would run afoul of it. So the reality is that the government has been obedient to this new public finance, this new minister called the Public Finance Management Act that is insisting on this. But it is incorrect to suggest or to imply that somehow there was a deficiency that would not have allowed St. Jude's Bowl to go to Parliament. But of course, these things are strange. When the government takes the step to do this, quite correctly in obedience to its Public Finance Management Act, then when we in this world of guarantees, we can't be lukewarm to insist to get a guarantee so that you can get an overdraft to pay staff at St. Jude. But all the loans that were raised for persons to build the new hospital and conduct other work, those can stay at large, those have to be brought here too. I've always said repeatedly that you can't go and give loans or allow investment by direct purchase orders and they don't come here because it is a liability on the government. So I'm hoping that the day will come when all the money that was made available to fresh start will reach the floor of this house for full debate. And I'm thinking that perhaps this is just a tip of the iceberg for that debate to commence because if fresh start expects to be paid for the work that it has done in constructing that boxing view for, then it has to be legitimized and there has to be a debate in this house over how it got that money, how it was possible for the Ministry of Infrastructure to have estimated No, no, no, no, Ministry of Infrastructure to have estimated that preparing a site would cost 3 million and the Ministry of Economic Development allowed a contract for 9 million. And I raised this in this house when I was in opposition and I sought an explanation at the time. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm just saying that we have to, yes, we have to bring the thing to its natural conclusion that if you're going to ask and do it together, I guarantee to raise money from the bank so that you can pay staff and deal with overdraft to legitimize that. No problem. But look for my part, from my point of view, Section 20, as it was, could have done the job. But in the circumstances, as I said, you have a new public finance management back, you have no choice but to come to Parliament and do this because it is compelling you to do this. But at the same time you're doing all of those things that you did with St. Jude, we have to make sure we come full circle and that the monies that were made available by direct purchase to do the construction, etc. I hope that they come to Parliament as well so that we can cast judgment and cast opinion on these matters. Because I have always stayed in my position very frankly. If you see ever you come to a situation that you have fiscal difficulty, the first thing that the government will have to do is to decide whether it is paid any of those bills, any of those monies, any of those investments by direct purchase, by contracts of direct purchase. Because they are not secured by Parliament as a solution. I have always said so, that has always been my position on these matters. As I said, Mr Speaker, I am not here to repudiate what I have believed before and what I have said before. I will honor those things unless I have compelling reason to change. And nothing has made me change. So I am suggesting and making clear that if you are going to be acting in obedience to do this, then I would want very soon sometime in Parliament so that we can open a can of worm zones and for all, that we have a full debate on the monies that were made available to construct the box in view of thought. That is an eyesore, that is a problem for the people of view of thought and that has to be resolved. We need a very full debate, Mr Speaker. I am not going to waste too much energy on this because as I have said, Mr Speaker, it is very clear what this is all about. Not that it could not have been done before, but of course you do have to be here in obedience to the legislation you passed. So that is it. But the addendum to that, time to have this debate on the financing of that box in view of thought, how it happened, who made your money available, how much money. Let us get to the root of this matter and a public debate is vital and necessary. I thank you, Mr Speaker.