 Good morning. You are now watching the live coverage of the setting of the House of the Standing. The Speaker of the House just walked in, which means that the House has officially begun. We now turn you over to the Speaker. Let us pray, Almighty God, by whom alone kings reign and princes decree justice, and from whom alone cometh all counsel, wisdom and understanding. We, thine unworthy servants, here gathered together, in thy name to do humbly beseech thee, to send down thy heavenly wisdom from above, to direct and guide us in all our consultations. And grant that we, having thy fear always before our eyes, and lane aside all private interests, prejudices and partial affections, the result of all our counsel may be to the glory and thy blessed name, the maintenance of thy true religion and justice, the safety, honour and happiness of the Queen, the public will, peace and tranquility of St. Lucia, and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same. In the true Christian love and charity, one towards another, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with us forevermore. Amen. Announcements by the Honourable Madam Speaker. I am sure, though late, we are all aware that the month of October is observed internationally as breast cancer when it's month. In that regard, I wish to plead my support for such a worthy cause, and perhaps in the future as we encourage all parliamentarians to do whatever part they can in the observation of October as breast cancer when it's month. This month, we come to the end of, as well, Creole Heritage Month, and I am sure most persons have an enjoyable weekend and enjoy much Creole food. I wish to remind Honourable Members that in the continuing effort to help our displaced brothers and sisters in the neighbouring island of Dominica, I appeal to Honourable Members for what is dubbed the Bucket Drive for Dominica, the Dominica Bucket Drive. I appeal to Members that they contribute $50 so that the staff of parliament can put together buckets of cleaning supplies, much needed cleaning supplies. It is a small gesture, but nonetheless a very notable one and a welcome one for the people of Dominica. So I am encouraging Parliament members and Honourable Members who are here present to ensure that you make the contribution so that we can purchase all the necessary supplies and put the buckets together. And I thank those who have already made the contribution and encourage those who are yet to make the contribution. I am in receipt of an apology from the Honourable Member for Viewfort North who has indicated that he is unable to be with us today because he is out of state. Another apology was also received recently from the Honourable Member for Library who has indicated that although he will be here, he will nonetheless be late. I wish to report to Honourable Members that Mr President and myself returned just about a week ago from a visit to Taiwan where we were invited to participate in Taiwan's observation of the 106th National Day. It was indeed a very good visit. One of our first official visits were to the Legislative Yuan, which is their parliament and it's not to scare Honourable Members but this is a beautiful gift from the Honourable President of the Legislative Yuan in the form both to myself and Mr President, a gavel. So this beautiful gavel is actually as a present from President Su, the President of Legislative Yuan in Taiwan. Following our trip to Taiwan, we also participated in the 137th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is the oldest and largest parliamentary union, notably so. It's been in existence since 1887 with headquarters in Geneva. We attended the 137th Assembly in St. Petersburg, Russia and St. Lucia was welcomed because St. Lucia is one of the small jurisdictions or legislatures that the President of the IPU would like to welcome to the IPU family. One of the principal tenets of the IPU is that of democracy and they hold dear to that tenet of democracy and they work very closely with the United Nations in getting Parliament's involvement around the world to help in reaching the UN's sustainable development goals. So whilst I would like, whilst I would very much like the St. Lucia Parliament to become a member of the IPU, this is something that has to be decided by the Parliament of St. Lucia and I would encourage members to, at least it's favorable, I would prepare a document whereby I can circulate to members as to the benefits of being members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Statements by ministers. Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Governmental Services. Madam Speaker, fellow Cogniz of Parliament. Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to really to report to Parliament and also to the people of St. Lucia really the occurrences over the last several weeks. I'm quoted as describing the situation that has been the perfect storm and that is the combination of Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, Hurricane Posey and Hurricane Maria and that when you then also include that with the earthquakes that were taking place simultaneously in Mexico. So although Hurricane Harvey, Madam Speaker, did not necessarily impact our region severely, I know that in St. Vincent and in Barbados in particular there were several floodings but Harvey obviously laid much damage to the state of Texas and in particular to the city of Houston and at this point I really want to express my sympathies to the many solutions who live in Houston for their losses and damage to their own personal effects. I have as Prime Minister made three attempts, Madam Speaker, to visit Houston because on two occasions recently I have been in the state of Texas and unfortunately for one reason or another that we've not been able to coordinate with the diaspora either that it was too early or in fact that they were now doing many issues themselves and for personal reasons it could not happen but my intention is to be able to visit our solution diaspora in Houston as soon as it's possible and that also applies, Madam Speaker, to our solutions who visit, who live in St. Martin, in St. Croix in particular, we all know that we have a lot of solutions who are living in St. Croix but the fact is that Houston is a critical gateway for the Caribbean, not only for airlift but obviously for cargo and that Houston was literally taken out of commission for a period of time. Following Hurricane Harvey, we had Hurricane Irma and as a disappointment, Madam Speaker, I really want to acknowledge the efforts in the work particularly of the Secretary General of the OECS, Mr. Didikos Jules who came to my office approximately two days prior to Irma hitting and fact that I am chairman of the OECS and I'm also the lead Prime Minister in CARACOM for sustainable development and disaster disasters and that we were able to work with SEDEMA in making up some of the shortfalls that we were seeing in our plan. I must really congratulate SEDEMA for the works that they've been doing and particularly with some very limited resources but the fact is the plans that we had were really concentrated on the emergency situations that existed within the countries and what we saw was a lack of coordination on a regional level so in fact when Irma was first coming it was proposed or it was projected that Irma was going to hit antigens and kits and so automatically in our minds that that brought more unique and solution to play, Madam Speaker and that's why we immediately had meetings with here in St. Lucia and again I want to thank the Chamber of Commerce, the Hotels Association, the Manufacturers Association, the Employers Federation and the Unions and in particular I want to thank the staff of SWASPA for moving so quickly to be able to do a quick audit of space here in St. Lucia and Madam Speaker, that space really had more to do with if in fact we had to have St. Lucia being used as an evacuation point meaning that if in fact jets could not arrive into Antigua, Antisan kits and that they had to extract people who were either hurt or tourists or nationals that needed to be evacuated that they would not be able to do so, Madam Speaker and so we immediately sent out notices to all the relevant airlines that St. Lucia would waive all landing fees and that our air traffic controllers would remain open for 24 hours a day as long as it was necessary. We also were able to find how much space we had at the airports in terms of cargo and we did the same thing at the seaports. So I was very appreciative of the work that Didicus Jules had done and in terms of the anticipation of what was going to take place. Fortunately, Madam Speaker, fortunately for Antigua and St. Kits, the impact of Hurricane Irma wasn't as severe as it was on Barbuda as it was on Anguilla as it was on the BVI and certainly as it was on the Virgin Islands. Irma then continued a path up northwards and we saw that Puerto Rico was shut down while Irma was passing by and that preparations were being made very much in advance to be able to shut down Miami. So here it was, Madam Speaker, that this region was literally at the mercy of Irma because Irma by herself was going to shut down Miami and we already saw that we had Houston already shut down. So it meant that rescue and resources had to come from the South, Madam Speaker. And I think that the help of Venezuela, the help of the Panamanians and many of the other countries in the South are to be commended for what they did, particularly in helping with the evacuation of over 1,800 people in Barbuda as well as being able to provide eventually supplies to Dominica. Immediately following Irma, Madam Speaker, was Jose, which initially was following the exact same track as Irma. So many of us were shuddering at the thought that countries that were already severely impacted. And I have to say to you, Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to go to the BVI and to Anguilla and I am still trying to understand in my mind what would have caused that level of devastation. Literally every leaf on every tree was gone. Boats were literally picked up as toys and spread all throughout the country. In fact, at one location I would say to you there was over 300 boats literally piled on top of each other. That every single vehicle that we saw had either broken windshields or damaged cars. And the country looked absolutely paralyzed. It was just incredible. And when you spoke to the people, and this was almost six days after the fact, Madam Speaker, that many people were still shivering. And many people said that this was not just a hurricane but it was a tornado. And how terrified most of them were. And literally you could see that most people's homes were damaged. Anguilla was equally as damaged. And then we had the opportunity to go up to Turks and Caicos. But Madam Speaker, then came Maria. And I want us in St. Lucia to truly appreciate how close Maria came to coming to St. Lucia. In fact, it was on track to go between St. Lucia and Martinique. And the other terrifying thing about Maria, Madam Speaker, was that it became, went from a thunderstorm to a category hurricane five within ten hours. In fact, in speaking to some people in Dominica, who went to their home thinking that they were going to be confronting a thunderstorm. And then all of a sudden, within three hours that it had been upgraded to a category three hurricane. Of which at that point they could do nothing. And then for coming into Dominica and coming in as a category five hurricane. And the fact is that the hurricane took a path where it affected everybody in Dominica. It literally went right down the spine of Dominica, from north to south. And when you went to Dominica, Madam Speaker, and saw the level of devastation, it is heartbreaking. Literally every house that we saw, it was out without a roof. Dominica, which is fondly referred to us as the nature island, had no rainforest. The trees laid bare. In fact, the trees had been bleached almost white, which was from the salt water in the ear that had taken place. That almost three weeks after the fact, Madam Speaker, the town itself was still not operational. In fact, the ministry, the treasury was operating out of the prime minister's office, because that's where there was a generator. But the rest of government was not functional. That the only works in clearing the roads was the works of the different military forces from the caracom that had come in and cleared those roads. And no work had even commenced on putting back the electrical wires. We already see and we see today that the port itself was congested in being able to handle the amount of aid, and clearly benevolence that was being brought to the doorsteps of Dominica. But Madam Speaker, I had at every moment to be reminded how easily this could have been solution. And I'm not so sure, Madam Speaker, that the infrastructure that we have today here in San Lucia would in itself have offered us any further protection than what I saw in Dominica. The agricultural sector, the rivers, the landslides, people's homes. It was devastating. It was truly devastating. And while we were trying to get assistance from our good friends in Mexico, Madam Speaker, they themselves were affected by not one earthquake, but two, in which over 500 people lost their lives. And so we truly understood that our Mexican neighbors who wanted so desperately to help us, and I think that the evidence of Mexico's support to this region is there to speak for itself, but they themselves could not do it in their state of crisis. In addition to obviously devastating Dominica, obviously Maria took aim on Puerto Rico. And I think today we still see the results of that on TV, where in fact suggestions are, Madam Speaker, that it may take by Christmas in order for at least half the people to get their electricity back. I had the opportunity to meet with my colleagues in San Martin and also my colleagues in the Virgin Islands. And every attempt to just get business open is what people are focusing on. Where is it that you've heard that literally a country comes to a grinding halt and basically put on hiatus and hopefully to reopen for business in January? And Madam Speaker, while we are very grateful that the Lord spared us, but at the same time we must recognize the impact that this has had on even St. Lucia. The number of St. Lucia's who live and worked in those islands that were repatriating funds back to us. The opportunities for agriculture in terms of our farmers were sending stuff to those northern islands, Madam Speaker. And no one knows when those countries are going to open up for business. But even more impactful, Madam Speaker, was what was happening with the cruise industry. The fact is that Puerto Rico is a major hub for us in the southern part of the Caribbean. While Barbados is a hub for the cruise ships coming out of Europe, Puerto Rico is the hub for the ships coming out of the north. And what I mean by that, Madam Speaker, is if they cannot use Puerto Rico, it means the ships would have to originated out of Miami. And the only countries that could be benefiting from that on what we call a seven day cruise would be, some kids would be the furthest south that they could go to. So it means that the numbers of arrivals that we would be getting could potentially be thwarted by Puerto Rico not being open. And the situation in Puerto Rico, Madam Speaker, is very delicate. Puerto Rico finds itself in a major debt. In fact, people have described Puerto Rico literally being bankrupt, that they have $85 billion worth of debt, which they cannot pay. And given the regulatory framework in Puerto Rico, they cannot declare bankruptcy. And so they're stymied. So even before the U.S. government looks to try to assist Puerto Rico with the infrastructure, they have to resolve what they're going to be doing with the debt. And I say that to say to you, Madam Speaker, that Puerto Rico has managed to get the airport open, but in terms of the majority of hotels and certainly the attractions that existed in Puerto Rico, those are not open. And also the fact is Puerto Rico acts as a hub for some of the northern islands, and those northern islands are not open. So it means the volume of business going through the Puerto Rico airport, Madam Speaker, has been diminished significantly. Madam Speaker, I take my time to say all of this in order for us to truly appreciate what is it that we're facing. And this is a situation that there should be no political divide. And I certainly want to thank the leader of the opposition for his support when I've reached out to him in terms of keeping him abreast and certainly his commitment to say that this is not about politics. But we also must be equally supportive and focused on how we're going to build resilience in San Juan. And I say this to you, Madam Speaker, that when I sat in my office and we started putting these efforts together, that we recognized that there was going to be a small window of opportunity for us in the Caribbean. The leader of the opposition hopefully would support me in saying that we in the Caribbean have been crying in the wind for a long time. We've been complaining of the fact that the OECD and the ODA, which is the Organization of Development Agencies, have basically classified countries into low-income, middle-income and high-income and have used only one indicator to make that determination. And that indicator has been per capita income. That's it. So because the Caribbean islands have a higher per capita income, we have been classified as middle-income countries. In fact, Antigua's on the verge of being graduated to becoming a higher income country. And we have been arguing both sides and everybody in the Caribbean that this is unfair. And that we as SIDS, as small developing states, ought to be classified by what we call a vulnerability index. In fact, I must commend the work that was done by the Commonwealth Secretariat in trying to put this vulnerability index together. So if I give an example, Madam Speaker, if you take the British Virgin Islands as an example, prior to the hurricane they had a credit rating of A-minus. In fact, if you went to the World Bank and the IMF, they would probably hold them up as model countries that you ought to follow. But that financial security offered no resilience to the hurricane. So in fact, you went from a GDP of over a billion dollars U.S. And I dare say that the BVI would be struggling to have a GDP of 250 million dollars in eight hours. So when we say that you can't use just one classification, one indicator to make that determination, we have gone to meeting after meeting after meeting. Madam Speaker, many solutions would have heard the name COP. And again, the world came together in Paris, I think it was in 2016, Madam Speaker. And there was a huge euphoria at the fact that we were able to sign this agreement. And this agreement, basically, Madam Speaker, was really two components. One, that the world had given a commitment to try to prevent the warming of the earth to exceed one and a half degrees. So the cry was one and a half to stay alive. And the second part was that we were going to put together a fund of $100 billion, Madam Speaker. And that that fund would be divided into two parts. One was called mitigation and the other one was called adaptation. And I want to take this time, Madam Speaker, to define what those are. Mitigation, Madam Speaker, is to do things that are going to reduce the emissions into the hemisphere. The things that we would physically undertake to be able to prevent the warming of the globe by more than one and a half degrees. Adaptation, on the other hand, Madam Speaker, is accepting the fact that we are going to see some global warming. And as a result of it, there is going to be a rise in the acidity in the water. There's going to be a rise in the water levels and that more than likely we're going to see stronger and more frequent storms. And so therefore, those monies would be used to assist countries in being able to build resilience. So building resilience, Madam Speaker, would be things like, I think it isn't accepted now that we must put all of our cables underground. Our communication lines, our electricity lines, all must go underground. This is not an option anymore. That we must build bigger drains in order to be able to capture the water. That we now need to strengthen the banks of our rivers and we have to raise the height of our bridges. Because if we don't strengthen the banks of our rivers and we don't raise the height of our bridges, what happens, Madam Speaker, is the same thing that we see take place every year. In fact, Malgratut in Miku is a classic example, Madam Speaker, in which the water will come down the river. It gets blocked by the bridge. The sea level rises coming from the ocean and so between the water now departing from the banks of the river and the water coming back up from the ocean, you end up creating a whirlpool. So that's why you'll go there and you'll see trees bent one direction on one side of the farm and bent in a completely opposite direction on the other side of the farm. And you ask yourself, how is that physically possible? But more importantly, it is the water coming out of those river banks that truly causes the irreparable damage to our environment. Our banana trees break. But if they just break within four to five months, they're re-spouted. And so therefore, you lose the income for those four or five months and it's easy to say that we can get an insurance program in place, Madam Speaker, to cover that loss. But when now the water comes out of the river and it literally rips out the roofs of the banana tree, we're now talking about 14 to 15 months. And we're talking about a substantial amount of more money in order to be able to recover the situation. So resilience is critical. We have argued on both sides, on the global arena, that for us as small developing states, the only solution is resilience. Because it doesn't matter what level of mitigation that we take, Madam Speaker, we can never be in control of our own destiny. It is only the larger countries of the world that have to make that commitment, Madam Speaker. So we have continues to argue that the only way moving forward is we must get funds available to be able to build resilience. The dilemma that we faced prior to this perfect storm, Madam Speaker, was that while there was recognition, what we were seeing was correct. The $100 billion has not been manifested. In fact, it remains a number on a piece of paper, a wish list, a hopeful number that we might be able to get. But we've seen no indication or no signs that the world is committed to this. In fact, the United States' withdrawal from the COP agreement is a proper, another indication that the likelihood of us making $100 billion is not very strong. So I say this to you, Madam Speaker, that when we sat there as Irma was coming, we recognized that there was an opportunity. An opportunity to go one more time because now not only did we have the empirical evidence, we now had the physical evidence of the impact of these storms on our region. And in the fall, Madam Speaker, there are a series of meetings that take place. There is what we call UN General Assembly meetings. Weeks afterwards, there is the World Bank and the IMF meetings. And then in November, we have COP. And I used my position both as chairman of the OECS as well as the chairman of the sustainability portfolio to now put together a strategy for us when we attended the UN. And I really want to thank, in particular, Prime Minister Gaston Brown and Prime Minister Roosevelt Scarrett and the countries of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Prime Minister of Grenada for the work that they did. And basically, if you listen to the speeches that we all delivered at the UN, we repeated the same things. That there needs to be and we need to address the OECD and ODA classifications to us as countries. That we need to find funds that we can put together that we can have access to and that we must focus our efforts on how we're going to draw down on those funds. Because that's the next problem. If you look at Haiti over the years as to how many billions of dollars was made available to Haiti to deal with their earthquake, how long has it taken for those funds to be drawn down to actually be spent to resolve the problem? And as solutions, and this is where the common sense comes in. So here we are prior to a hurricane going through a very methodical process to get projects approved, but once the hurricane hits, there's no rules. If we have to do excavation, nobody's looking at people who want to solve the problem now. And our message to the world is that we are in crisis. Our message to the world benefit speaker is that time is our enemy. We see time being our enemy in three critical ways. One, the opportunity costs that are lost every day because of the impact of the hurricane. How much money has been lost by our farmers? How much money has been lost by Liat? How much money is lost by all the different businesses in this region who were doing business with all those islands? How much money has been lost on those islands because they have been closed? And the sad part about the monies I'm speaking about, there is no potential for those funds to be funded, Madam Speaker. So that's why we say it's opportunity costs that are lost. The second one, Madam Speaker, which is a very harmful one, is migration. We've now seen it in all the islands, Puerto Rico, Saint Martin, the Virgin Islands, and Dominica, where people feel a sense of hopelessness. People have their children to take care of, and they have to make a choice. And while Antigua and St. Lucia and many of the other islands have opened up their doors to allow those kids to come in, and all kinds of facilitations have been made, the parents themselves question why they're staying here. And Madam Speaker, there is an invisible, I call it an invisible and maybe unappreciated asset that all countries have. And that's our middle class. These are the people that are the leaders in our communities, that volunteer their time, that are members of boards. And once these people leave, Madam Speaker, how do you replace them? And maybe even a more descriptive example is when you lose the rainforest in Dominica. Is there a store that you can go to and buy a rainforest that you can have it back tomorrow? So that I can go to the hardware store and fix up your roof or fix up your home, or you can fix up the road? Okay? It is impossible to replace a rainforest without waiting time. And the same thing applies to when you have migration. Is only once that country begins to recover and people see hope again, and that once people have moved and may have gotten comfortable where they are, whether in fact they ever come back. The third one, Madam Speaker, is that within nine months the next hurricane season begins. That's the reality. So there was a movie in the States called Groundhog Day, repeating the same story over and over. And that is what we find ourselves in, Madam Speaker. So when I say that time is against us, time is against us. The next one that we have, Madam Speaker, is what is the cost of resilience. So whereas we're going to borrow money very soon, $150 million U.S., to be able to upgrade our existing roads, not build any new roads, Madam Speaker, to upgrade the existing roads. Without a doubt now, we have to put all of the cables and everything on the ground, which is going to come at an extra cost. We have to build bigger drains. And what I'm saying is that we're making this capital investment, which is absolutely necessary. We have no choice but to make this capital investment. But in terms of improving the capacity of our country, it doesn't. A bridge that you have to raise its height doesn't carry any more cars than it was carrying before. Putting down wires only helps build resilience, meaning that you have a storm that you can get up and recovered on a quicker pace. But the fact is that you're taking monies to be able to do that. So let me put this in context now. Clearly, climate change is real. And while some countries in the world may not want to call it climate change, but may be willing to accept that there is a global warming taking place, the two produce the same results. That more than likely, we're going to see more hurricanes and we're going to see stronger hurricanes in the foreseeable future. That we have to now build resilience. Let me give you another example, Madam Speaker. We have for many years been using the schools as our shelters. We've now seen example after example where we should not do that. So in the case of a Dominica today in which you have 80% of the homes that were damaged and people are still living in the shelter, how do you now coincide that with getting your schools back up and running? So there's a general recognition that we have to now build separate shelters for the people. So how much money are we talking about that we have to spend, Madam Speaker? The problem I have, Madam Speaker, is that when we look at the finances of our country, there is no money. Not only there's no money, Madam Speaker, the fiscal space, the amount of money that we can borrow is being restricted by the current level of debt that we have and the level of confidence that people would have in our economy if we make no changes. And the result of that, and because we are now classified as a middle income country, that when we do have to borrow money, we're having to borrow them at commercial rates. And that's our dilemma. And so it becomes now a self-defeating prophecy, Madam Speaker. That on one hand you recognize the urgency of nine months' time and the need to go and make this necessary investment and it almost wants to say at any cost, because how do you put a value on people's lives? Who's to say one solution is life is worth $10 million? Who's to say that? Who's going to make that judgment? And clearly if we don't build the resilience, that is what we've done. We've put people's lives at stake, far less people's livelihoods. So Madam Speaker, after attending the UN meeting, and I really want to also thank the governments of the United Kingdom, the governments of the Netherlands, the French, for a very fruitful and frank meeting that we had. Because what was interesting at that meeting, Madam Speaker, which was all the ministers of foreign affairs for those countries, was the UK was being hampered by the same problem. The UK government was not able to send ODA funding to the BVI in Anguilla because of the same categorization, because they were perceived to be middle income and high income countries. And they recognized first hand the absurdity of what was taking place. And Madam Speaker, that certain countries did not see that the other Caribbean islands were their first source of support. So when you look at the Dutch, and I can say this because we've had this discussion with them, I'm not being negatively critical, I'm just being objectively critical, that they were trying to give support to the Dutch outside of St. Martin from Kira South. Whereas Guadalupe is 15 miles away. The rest of the islands were here to give support. And this is why in many ways, Madam Speaker, that St. Lucia offered the assistance to be able to bring prisoners to St. Lucia, was to reinforce the point that we can be of help, that we have to be part of your plans. We indicated that we have a vested interest to see those countries back up and running again, because many of our own citizens live and benefit from those economies. So does St. Lucia have no responsibility for the solutions who are in the BVI in their safety if there was something that we could do? But I know that the vast majority of solutions understood the need to do what we did and would understand that our government would never put the safety of solutions at risk. But I say all of this, Madam Speaker, that when we went to the UN, the Secretary General of the UN, who is the former Minister of Finance and Foreign Affairs from Portugal, and who was instrumental, Madam Speaker, it works out, that when Jordan and Lebanon were having difficulties when the Syrian War broke out and millions of people were migrating to those two countries, that he helped negotiate with the OECD and the ODA that a special dispensation be made for them to allow them to borrow monies at a concessional rate because they saw that that migration problem was not of their doing, that this was a migration of a global magnitude and therefore that concession was made. And it's when we presented our case to him that he truly recognized what we were facing. But more importantly, Madam Speaker, he didn't stay in his office in New York. He traveled to Barbuda and he traveled to Dominica and I know how grateful Prime Minister Gaston Brown and Prime Minister Roosevelt Scarrett were for his visit. And I would say to you, Madam Speaker, it was his visiting those countries, his influence on other international leaders around the world that produced the results that we saw at the World Bank and the IMF meeting. And I want to go on record, Madam Speaker, to truly thank the staff of the World Bank and the IMF for the work that they put into those meetings and the high-level meetings that were orchestrated to deal specifically with this issue of climate change and the impact it was having on CID countries. And so exactly what we were hoping is that if we went to the UN, made collectively enough noise and brought to the table real solutions, that that now would carry over into the World Bank and the IMF meetings. And I have to say to you that that strategy played off very, very well. In addition to meeting those entities, Madam Speaker, we had scheduled prior to the hurricanes a trip to Canada. And the purpose of the trip to Canada, Madam Speaker, was to meet with the Canadian banks with regards to correspondent banking and the risking and their overall business in the Caribbean. Because I think that we've all seen a drawback by those Canadian banks and their involvement in this region. And we were accompanied by Prime Minister Timothy Harris. We brought up the chairpersons of several of the CIP programs. And we also brought up the governor of the central bank. So because of the storms, we quickly moved to be able to get a meeting with Justin Trudeau. And again, I want to put on record where I thank the high commissioner of Canadian High Commissioner based out of Barbados for assistance in facilitating that meeting. And we had a very good meeting with the Prime Minister. And talked about the fact that he is on the G7. The G7 is the seven largest economies of the world. And so he plays a very influential role on global policy. And that we needed for him to be the big brother. We talked about the fact that there has been a vacuum in this region of brotherhood. The Canadians, the British, the French and the Americans have literally left this region to their own devices since the collapse of the Berlin Wall or the demise of the Cold War. And we asked for his support to be able to re-engage into the Caribbean. And we said that we have a huge opportunity because coming in April, Madam Speaker, there is a very large meeting to do with the Commonwealth. And we're hoping that we can come up with a new framework for the Commonwealth as we know it. And now that England is leaving Europe, clearly I think that England wants to play a more significant role. And I have to say that the reception by the Prime Minister was very heartwarming. In fact, he arranged for me to meet with his Minister of Investment. And I also met with an organization called the CCC at the same time. Madam Speaker, it would also be well documented that I had arranged to go to a state visit to Mexico. And again, the timing of that visit was fortuitous. Fortuitous in that we were able to also engage President Peña Nieto on being a big brother. Because Mexico is part of the G20, 20 of the largest economies in the world. So one of the largest economies in our hemisphere. But more importantly, Madam Speaker, they existed before a policy that was called the Three Borders, which was Canada, Caracom, and Mexico. In which the United States had policies to support the economic development of those countries in recognizing that in doing so that you would strengthen the borders of America. But again, with NAFTA, the demise of the Cold War, that seemed to have fallen on deaf ears, and many of the benefits that we had been receiving we lost. So in part what we did was had a meeting with Canada and also with Mexico to encourage them to reconsider having a Caribbean, Mexico, Canadian summit. So I'm very happy to say to you, Madam Speaker, at the Caracom, Mexico summit that we had in Belize, that President Peña Nieto has agreed to put that forward. I know that we have gotten a verbal commitment from the Canadians. And I know that my colleague, Prime Ministers in the Caracom, we're very happy to hear that this is a direction of going. But as a first step, we're going to have a meeting with the Governors of the Central Banks of Canada, Mexico and Caracom, hopefully as early as January, to meet, to figure out how we can try to resolve this corresponding bank and de-risking situation. I say this all the same, Madam Speaker, that again, all of this came about because there was an opportunity where the world's attention was on the Caribbean. And again, in addition to the empirical evidence, we now have the factual evidence of the impact of what these hurricanes were on us. And the inability of our countries to be able to move forward without changing their thinking. So we have two meetings that are left for the rest of the year, Madam Speaker, that are very critical. One is we have the COP meeting which is taking place in Bonn. There are several proposals that are being put on the table. One of them, Madam Speaker, is that we're participating in the development of what's called a white paper, a discussion paper, to look at the possibility of creating what we call a resilience bond. Because we don't believe that there's enough money available in the public sector to solve the Caribbean's long-term problems. That we believe that we have to find a way to be able to attract private sector funds into it. There are trillions of dollars that are in either negative bonds around the world or in non-yielding deposits. So the question becomes what's the framework that you have to create in order to allow the private sector to want to put their monies into the bonds in the hopes that their monies will be secure and could produce a positive return. And that is the challenge that we've given to the authors of this white paper. We're then going, as I said, to follow up with Canada, Mexico and Chile. And I'm also happy to report, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary General of the UN has commissioned a major donor conference in New York on November 22nd. And the purpose of this conference is to bring together world leaders, international organizations, on how we can get funds available now. So we talked about getting the monies available and also to discuss the mechanism on how we're going to draw down on these funds. What's going to be the conditionality to be able to draw down on these funds? Because there's no point telling us the money is there. The Leader of the Opposition and I were joking because I said the CDB is the most politically correct organization in the Caribbean. Because one government starts the project and another government comes in and gets to either finish it. So it takes too long. And we've got to be able to resolve that. And we've got to recognize that time is against us if we have the will to be able to resolve that problem. So Madam Speaker, the last one I want to say that in addition to Canada and Mexico is that we also had a state visit by the President of Chile. And in a recent meeting that the Minister of Foreign Affairs attended with the Lima Group that we saw that Mexico, Canada and Chile were able to very aptly present our case to some of the larger countries that were there. And to understand more of what's taking place in the Caribbean. And what we're trying to stop is this level of criticism that sometimes is laid upon us in terms of why we make certain decisions. And the fact is that we as a region have had to make decisions based on survival. And that sometimes some of the more loftier goals have to be set aside because you can't get funds elsewhere. And so I'm never going to be critical of any of my colleagues for some of the decisions they may make that I may either support or don't support because I understand the predicament that they're all in. So I want to report that to Parliament Madam Speaker and to say that we're going to continue to be able to fight very hard to bring a practical solution in real time to the island of Seleucia and hopefully to the wider Caribbean. Just before I recognize the mic of the Honourable Minister for Agriculture, but just before that I wish to inform Honourable Members that I'm in receipt of information that the Honourable Bradley Felix Member for Seleucia is unable to be here with us today because he's out of state on government business. Honourable Minister for Agriculture. Thank you very much Madam Speaker and I want to say good morning to Parliament and my parliamentary colleagues. Madam Speaker, please permit me to make a statement which of course will be circulated in this Honourable House on the status of the banana industry in Seleucia. Madam Speaker is unfortunate that my good friend from North is not here today to hear of the accomplishments that we have made over the past few months as it pertains to this industry. But I'm sure he will get a copy of the statement and at some point in time he will give his own input as to how we can improve the programme and the policies that we are articulating. Although I heard in recent times Madam Speaker he said he's wearing three hats but it's not agriculture is health. So now he has moved from agriculture to health but I'm sure he would at some point in time give some input as to agriculture. Madam Speaker, despite the many challenges facing the banana industry, the Government of Sanction by extension, the Ministry of Agriculture considers that the banana industry is a critical and important component in our agricultural development for us. The Ministry believes that this commodity can continue to play a vital role in the economic development of our country, generate employment and ensure food security for thousands of households who resides in our rural communities. Madam Speaker, in 2017-2018 the Prime Minister, Drenis Betit, addressed, made mention of a banana productivity improvement project and approved finances for the implementation of that project. That project seeks to, Madam Speaker, help in the short term to restore and improve the quality of livelihoods of our rural folks to bring stability in the banana industry and ensure that it's viable in the short to medium term. That project, Madam Speaker, is get to return confidence in the banana industry and confidence of our farmers to get involved in banana production. And of course our target, Madam Speaker, over the next three to four years is to increase the acreage from 1,400 acres. Of course, by accomplishing all the above, Madam Speaker, we are expected to see a decline in productivity and an improvement of production from its current levels. Madam Speaker, one of the objectives again of the project is to establish a financial mechanism where farmers can get finances to be able to undertake the rehabilitation of their fields. And of course you heard the Prime Minister spoke about the impact of climate change and one of the objectives is to see how we can develop the agriculture and specifically the banana industry to a level where it can be resilient to climate change. Madam Speaker, this project envisages an industry that is streamlined to meet the many requirements that provide opportunities as far as market is concerned. We know of opportunities in the UK. And I want to report here, Madam Speaker, since we came back, the Prime Minister and myself have met with a number of organizations in the UK who have confirmed to us that they're interested in windwood island bananas. We have opened up market opportunities in France, Madam Speaker, and not in ethnic. I want to make that clarification. We're not speaking of ethnic. We say that we are going to the French market and referring to France. And of course the domestic market provides opportunities. Madam Speaker, another area of opportunities for us as it pertains to the banana industry is the regional markets and the cruise ship industry. We believe that if we can produce consistency in supplies, we can tap into the cruise ship industry. So what have we put in place, Madam Speaker, to enable us to be able to capitalize on these respective markets? One, we're going to give support for farmers to establish new fields and to expand their fields. We're going to provide support in land development, fertilizer, gas and business control. We're going to provide support, Madam Speaker, in drainage works and land development for the establishment of new fields. And of course, reduce the price of fertilizer by 50%. So Madam Speaker, some Nukai fair, Nukai bi-sepoir performers, Puyosa plated briefing. Nukai bi-sepoir Puyosa tilted a plete of a fig. Nukai bi-sepoir, a cell guano. Nukai bi-sepoir, a chemical spot. Nukai bi-sepoir Puyosa plated field kinesp. And for support in drainage, we are looking at 300 acres, $300 an acre. And for land development for new fields, $500 per acre. Madam Speaker, least spot control is also important. And as a ministry, we're going to give support to our farmers at 50% of the costs as it pertains to the control of black sticker toker and yellow sticker toker. I want to say, Madam Speaker, that we have transformed the black sticker toker unit. We have transformed it to be a technical unit with the capacity to support our farmers and enable our farmers to have proper least spot control. Work will continue with CIRAD and the Taiwanese technical mission. And I say continue, Madam Speaker, because when it came in, we found that they worked, that have started before our time and I want to recognize the effort of the previous government as it pertains to this. Work will continue in assisting farmers with black sticker toker and demonstrating resistant varieties as it pertains to managing the black sticker toker program. Madam Speaker, one of the greatest challenges that we face in this industry is the reliable supply of inputs. And I refer to inputs, I refer to fertilizer, oil and chemicals to help the farmers with their post harvesting activities. Like I said earlier, we shall provide funding where farmers will be able to get the resources so that they can procure on a timely basis the inputs that are required so at least we can accomplish the objective of increasing productivity and production. Madam Speaker, the project will cost 16.166 million dollars. Of that total, Madam Speaker, the government of Taiwan will provide 7.5 million dollars and the government of St. Lucia will provide the balance and I want to express our appreciation to the Minister of Finance and my cabinet for the support as it pertains to this. Madam Speaker, over the past few months we have seen that we have rehabilitated new fields, 113 acres of new planting since April 2017. We have seen a number of young persons getting involved in the industry and you're providing support to these young persons, especially in the Mabuya Valley. We have opened up drains in Tomaso, Miku, Mabuya Valley and Cronland and that has impacted positively on our banana farmers. Madam Speaker, I remember saying that we had the opportunity to sell in the French market and initially we were looking at starting commencing a trial in January of 2017. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, because of the passage of Tropical Storm Matthew, we could not have started the trial. I want to report in this Honourable House today, Madam Speaker, that we are going to start the trial in December 2017. Whilst we are the grid with the French company in France that we have started in January of 2018, but Madam Speaker, because of the production level that we are experiencing right now and because of the impact of the programme that we established and implemented for our farmers, I can report here in this Honourable House, Madam Speaker, that we are commencing the shipment to France much earlier than we anticipated and that is an accomplishment, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Government of Taiwan, I want to thank my Cabinet Ministers, my peers and the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture for the support and I am looking forward to making more prolongments in this Honourable House. I thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Papers to be laid. Honourable Prime Minister and Leader of Government Business. Madam Speaker, I beg to lay the following papers standing in my name. Statutory instrument number 93A of 2017, excise tax amendment of schedule one, number six order. Statutory instrument number 94 of 2017, Finance Administration Act, resolution of parliament to borrow for capital expenditure, youth empowerment project. Statutory instrument number 95 of 2017, Investment Lucia, Derriere Mourne, Viewfort, Vesting Order. Statutory instrument number 96 of 2017, Investment Lucia, Palm Auger, Villefort, Vesting Order. Statutory instrument number 101 of 2017, excise tax amendment of schedule number one, schedule one, number seven order. Citizenship by Investment Unit SIU report on the financial statements for the year ended March 31st, 2017 and CIP St Lucia annual report 2016-2017. Honourable Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, Physical Planning, Natural Resources and Cooperative. Madam Speaker, I would like to present to this Honourable House the following papers standing in my name. Statutory instrument number 90 of 2017, Fisheries Amendment Regulation. Honourable Minister for Equity, Social Justice, Empowerment, Youth Development, Culture and Local Government. Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like on behalf of the Honourable Minister and the Office of the Prime Minister with responsibility for Commerce, Industry, Enterprise, Enterprise Development and Consumer Affairs to lay the following papers. Statutory instrument number 93 of 2017, Price Control Amendment number 14, Order. Statutory instrument number 97 of 2017, Fiscal Incentives, Rambali Blocks Limited Order. Statutory instrument number 98 of 2017, Fiscal Incentives, Nationwide Concrete Suppliers Limited Order. Statutory instrument number 99 of 2017, Price Control Amendment number 15, Order. Statutory instrument number 100 of 2017, Price Control Amendment number 16, Order. Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business. Madam Speaker, I would like to also lay the following statutory instruments that should be in my name. The statutory instrument number 91 of 2017, Tourism Duty Free Shopping System Cox Building Order. And also the statutory instrument number 92 of 2017, Tourist Duty Free Shopping System Block and Parcel Number 00316482, Order. Motions. Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business. Madam Speaker, I beg to lay the following motions standing in my name. Whereas it is provided by section 391 of the Finance Administration Act, CAP 15.01, that the minister responsible for finance may, by resolution of parliament, borrow money from a bank or other financial institution for the capital expenditure of government. And whereas it is further provided by section 42.1 of the Finance Administration Act, CAP 15.01, that there shall be charged upon and paid out of the consolidated fund debt charges for which the government is liable. And whereas minister responsible for finance considers it necessary to borrow EC $15 million by the way of credit in the resolution referred to as the credit from First National Bank Solution Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget. And whereas interest on the principal amount of the credit is repayable at a rate of 6% per annum due one month after the full drawdown. And whereas the principal amount of the credit is repayable in the amount of EC $126,579 per month, inclusive of interest for 180 months. Be it resolved that the parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow EC $15 million by way of credit, in this resolution referred to as the credit from First National Bank Solution Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget. Be it further resolved that interest on the principal amount of the credit is payable at a rate of 6% per annum due one month after the full drawdown. And the principal amount of the credit is repayable in the amount of EC $126,579 per month, inclusive of interest for 180 months. So Madam Speaker, the next two motions really are tied together, so I'm going to give explanatory notes and explain the motion. So first of all Madam Speaker, the Parliament by resolution authorized the minister of finance to raise the sum of EC $365 million under the National Savings and Development Bond Act by the issue of saving bonds for the financing of the 2017-2018 budget, and for debt refinancing as follows. EC $103 million for financing capital expenditure in the 2017-2018 estimate expenditure. EC $262 million for the rolling over of existing debt, so it means that bonds and treasury bills that we had that we would roll those over. I now seek by resolution Madam Speaker, the parliamentary approval to authorize the minister of finance to borrow EC $40 million, which is the $15 million in this motion and the $25 million coming in the next motion, but obviously we have to approve them separately and understand that. So this is only for explanatory purposes. Then we're going to borrow EC $40 million in loans from the two indigenous banks of St. Lucia, the Bank of St. Lucia Limited, and also the First National Bank of St. Lucia Limited. Given that these two are loan financing authority, it sought pursuant to section 39 of the Finance Administration Act, which governs borrowing by means of loans. Madam Speaker, the Department of Finance invited proposals from the Bank of St. Lucia and the First National Bank to borrow EC $25 million and $15 million respectively for 15-year loans under the following terms and conditions. Under the First National Bank, it's $15 million, an interest rate of 6%, that the interest and principle is $1,518,948 per year, and the arrangement fee is 0.5%, and the tenure is 15 years, and the repayment structure is amortized. These resolutions before Prowland is seek to prove the government to St. Lucia to raise the sum of $40 million through demand loans from the Bank of St. Lucia and First National Bank. The proposals submitted by the Bank of St. Lucia and the First National Bank Limited are attractive options, particularly when viewed in context of current market conditions and in rising interest rates on the international financial market. As part of the preparation for assessing funding for the regional market, a preliminary market analysis had indicated that interest rates on government of St. Lucia's 15-year security will be in the vicinity of 7.95%. The interest rate offered by the banks is 6%, is more attractive than rates on the regional bond market with corresponding maturities. Furthermore, a bond-specific credit rating is required when assessing funds through the regional market, and this tends to yield a higher transaction cost. In addition, when compared to other multilateral creditors like the Caribbean Development Bank, the bank's terms and conditions are concessionary. Additionally, the bank's proposal gave the government an alternative avenue to source these funds. From a cash flow perspective, Madam Speaker, this is important. The monthly payment profile is in keeping with the debt strategy of amortizing a greater proportion of our debt stock. Currently, 57% of our debt is structured as bullet payments. Let me explain that, Madam Speaker, that we've long gone back and forth and had discussions about the necessity of a sinking fund. So what in not having a sinking fund means that when the debt comes to its end and all you've been doing is paying the interest of the loan, you still have to pay the principal. So the bullet payment is when you allow yourself to borrow money under those terms and you don't either have the discipline to have a sinking fund or to do it in a manner in which we're paying, included on a monthly basis, the payments to repay the principal. So what happens is that when you have that bullet payment, more than likely what governments have done is to just turn over the debt. So it means that you're continuing to pay the interest on that same amount that you've borrowed but you've done nothing to be able to reduce your overall debt. So in built into this payments, Madam Speaker, it's very important to note that we also have the principal payments that are built into it. In the absence of a sinking fund, this structure increases the roll over risk and places added pressure on the cash flow. So if you don't pay the principal on a monthly basis and you have to make a bullet payment, it has a more severe impact on your cash flow and particularly since that the former government discarded the need for a sinking fund. It means that now you have to extract money from your cash flow to make this big payment or what they have normally done is just turned over the debt. So it means the cost of borrowing that money in the first place actually becomes much more expensive. So Madam Speaker, for the reasons stated above, these resolutions presents opportunities for assessing credit at more cost-effective terms and hence reduces the requirement to be borrowed under the National Savings and Development Bond Act for the 2017-18 estimates. So Madam Speaker, I submit the resolutions for the consideration of this House and just add the fact, Madam Speaker, that we have achieved a couple of things here. One, that we're getting a 6% interest rate, that the period for repayments is 15 years. So right now if we are to get a competitive rate out in the market we would have to get Treasury bills, which would be for a much shorter period of time. And in fact that that is our problem right now, Madam Speaker, is that a lot of our debt is being rolled over too frequently. We've gone from rolling over our debt on average every 10 years to now just at 4 years. So just this year alone we've had to roll over almost a billion dollars in debt. So Madam Speaker, I put this to the House for your support. Honourable Members, the question is that Parliament authorises the Minister responsible for finance to borrow EC $15 million by way of credit. In this resolution referred to as the credit from First National Bank's Inflution Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget. And that a, interest on the principal amount of the credit is repayable at the rate of 6% per annum due one month after the full drawdown and B, the principal amount of the credit is repayable in the amount of EC $126,579 per month, inclusive of interest for 118 months. Honourable Leader of the Opposition, Member for Castery System. Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I just want to place on the record the fact that we are called to this meeting with only four days notice and the volume of stuff on the other paper including borrowing of nearly 45 million dollars necessitated the fact that we needed some time to discuss and talk about it but not to be starting the fact that we were not offered the normal time which is usually seven days to be able to have a look at the other paper. We thought it's important that we behead this morning to debate what is not really a simple matter. Madam Speaker, you may recall in the meeting of Parliament of the 27th of June on the other paper was a resolution by the Minister of Finance and the resolution read as follows. We'd resolve that Parliament for Rise the Minister of Finance to raise a sum of 103 million for financing of the 2017-2018 budget and a sum of 262 million for refinancing the existing debts on the regional government security market or through private placements at a maximum rate of 7.5%. At that time, Madam Speaker, in my contribution I made the point that that could not be enough money to conduct the finance of the country and as usual I was attacked by the Prime Minister and his surrogates in and out of the house because I said that was not enough. All the Prime Minister had to say is if you want some more, we'll come back by resolution. But no, there was the usual, Madam Speaker, attack, attack, attack, attack. You only made a mess of the economy. You did this, you did that. Madam Speaker, I just want to read for you from the Economic and Social Review. Page 50, financing, and it reads, financing pressure eased in 2016-2017 as investors appetite for government debt instruments showed signs of improvement. This resulted in government raising 139.9 million in foreign financing, 43.2 million above their approved amounts. That was in 2016. But Madam Speaker, you hear it's because the government changed, confidence has returned and the bonds are selling because of confidence, Madam Speaker. But this is a social and economic review. I want to go further, Madam Speaker, and read from page 56, monetary and financial sector. The 2016 monetary accounts of St. Lucia present a mixed picture with the stock of outstanding domestic credit falling for the third consecutive year. While both monetary liabilities and net foreign assets continue to increase relative to balances in 2015, the growth in net foreign assets will particularly large growing by 67.5 percent, 181.1 million to 449.5 million. The growth both in magnitude and direction reflects a continuation of developments in 2015, where in that year net foreign assets moved from a liability position of 305.2 to an asset position of 268.4 million. The reversal in 2015 marked the first asset position since 2007. Data for 2016 show that the positive growth which is underpinned by commercial bank activity has continued from the trend established in 2015. Madam Speaker, that was prepared when we were out of government. So when you hear that this liable party left the economy in a mess, as soon as we return, confidence is back, business is flourishing, bonds are selling because United Workers Party is in power. That's really, Madam Speaker. It does not, the facts do not say that. But having said so, we always made the point that the economy of Saint Lucia is, it has some issues, that economy needs restructuring, that the debt profile is too high. We always made that point. That was never a point we hit. We always made that point. But Madam Speaker, at the time, and I've said in this House that you cannot talk economics away. Economics is based on figures. Figures, you can't talk it away. And at some point, all the talk and the bravado will come down to basic figures, dollars and cents, figures. And Madam Speaker, history will prove me right. When the Prime Minister read his budget, I made the point also that the budget was reckless. It was reckless because the recurrent deficit was increasing by 109 percent to 7.6 percent from the previous position of 3.4 percent. And that was not the correct trajectory. I also said that the primary deficit was coming from a surplus of 50.7 percent to a negative of 102 million dollars, Madam Speaker. I also said that the overall deficit was increasing to 4.7 percent from a position of 1.4 percent in the previous year. And that was not the correct trajectory for the economy. But as usual, Madam Speaker, instead of the government this understanding that something structurally is wrong, and let us find a way to solve it, the attack, economic tariffs, all sorts of things, Madam Speaker, because I have stated facts. Not words, facts, Madam Speaker. So we are here this morning to borrow, in effect, 40 million dollars from local banks. And you may recall that I said that the 103 million dollars for financing the budget could not be enough. All the permits I had to say was let us start with that, and we'll come by resolution if we need some more. No, we attacked. We attacked. Let me give you, Madam Speaker, the facts as it relates to borrowing from this by this government since it got into power. On the 27th of June, they borrowed 11.2 million dollars, U.S. dollars, or 40 million E.C. dollars for the January water supply. On that same day, they borrowed 15 million U.S. dollars for the tourism competitiveness project. They borrowed, today, we're going to borrow 1.62 million for the DVRP. And last time we were here, we borrowed 2.8 million U.S. for the youth empowerment project. In total, this government has borrowed 86.6 million dollars, E.C. And today, we are borrowing 40 million E.C. equivalent to 122.6 million dollars. But you may recall that in the resolution, Madam Speaker, what the resolution spoke to is 103 million dollars for financing the 2017-2018 budget. But today, we have borrowed 122.6 million dollars. Is the Prime Minister breaking the law? Is the Prime Minister breaking the law, Madam Speaker? What is happening is the confidence which the budget needs to give the public 103 million dollars for financing the 2017-2018 budget. That is what the motion says on the 27th of June. And today, the fact is, we have borrowed 122.6 million dollars. Whether the borrowing is justified, of course, you need to borrow for the Denver water supply. You need to borrow for tariff. Of course you need to. But, Madam Speaker, what my point of departure is the attacking and the trying to talk, trying to influence people when the facts are clear. Fact is, Madam Speaker, we have borrowed 122 million dollars. Whether it's necessary, it may be, but we borrowed it. So when I made that point, Madam Speaker, and I was attacked and ridiculed, tried to ridicule, by people who think they know better. Sarah gets in inside of this house, Madam Speaker. The facts speak to themselves, for themselves, Madam Speaker. But, Madam Speaker, I'm going to go a little further into the very heart of this government. How the government doesn't stick to reality. And I heard the Prime Minister this morning, he had some, he delved into some sort of reality, the reality of the situation that we face in this country. Not the talk and the attacking and the vindictiveness and the make them cry and the CDP project not going to members of the opposition of Madam Speaker. The government, the members on this side, we have not been told how one cent of the Taiwanese CDP project will be spent on our constituencies. But these things are happening in my constituency, Madam Speaker. In all of our constituencies, CDP projects have happened and they will happen, Madam Speaker, because the government's official policy is to make them cry. That's official policy, make them cry. So what they do is that these projects will continue in our constituencies and hoping that they will get political advantage. So Madam Speaker, we get back to the Prime Minister's budget speech and I go to page 44 of the budget speech and that already is a documented house. Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks to financing of the budget and he says, and I quote page 44, other loans, other loans totaling 84.8 million comprising 43.1 million from the Caribbean Development Bank, 24.9 million from the World Bank, 13.6 million from the Republic of China, Taiwan, 1 million from the National Insurance Corporation and 2.2 million from the Arab Economic Development. 84.4 million, Madam Speaker, making a total of $342 million. That's how the budget will be financed. And out of that, Madam Speaker, 362 million would be for capital. But, Madam Speaker, nowhere in this document and I'm not calling into any question the ability of the local banks, but nowhere in this document was ever any conversation of borrowing from the local banks. I just want to make that point, Madam Speaker. I just want to make that point. Nowhere in this budget that it was ever said that loans would have come from the local banks and we can pursue it and you can find out, Madam Speaker. But that is how the Prime Minister said that he would finance his budget, Madam Speaker. But, Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister few questions. The United August Party has been government from June last year. I want to find out, Madam Speaker, what is the real state of the economy? Not statements about confidence, facts, figures. I want to find out what is the recurring deficit. I want to find out, Madam Speaker, what are the growth projections? What has been the growth profile for this year? Figures, not gut feeling, not what you think. What has been the growth trajectory for this country for the last six months? The budget was in April. We have another budget coming up in April, Madam Speaker. I want to find, Madam Speaker, what are the revenue projections? How much money have you collected from VATs? What has been the impact of the reduction of VAT on the revenue of the country? What has been the impact of the reduction of VAT on the cash flow of the country? Figures, figures. Not bland statements of hope, of bland statements for the press. Figures, Madam Speaker. What has been the impact of the reduction of VATs? I want to find, Madam Speaker, how much money has the fuel tax collected? And where is the lock box account in which lock and in which box? Where is the lock box account for the fuel that the government increased by 60% the tax on fuel? And they made a big story of it, but I said so, a big story. 60%, Madam Speaker, and they said it would go in a lock box. Now, government ministers all over the world saying we'll borrow because we have a lock box. All the money for fuel will go in the lock box and we'll fix all the roads in the country. How much is in the lock box? How much money is in that lock box account since you changed the excise tax for fuel? How much is in the lock box account? I want to find, Madam Speaker, that you have CIP projections of revenue of $43 million. A document in this house from the CIP report says that up to March 2017, only $5 million of revenue had been collected from the CIP up to March 2017 for the year. But in your revenue projections, and again, Madam Speaker, that can be a documented house. It's the estimates of expenditure. You will see, Madam Speaker, that the estimates of expenditure see in financing the budget on page 509, CIP revenue $43 million. I don't need to make a document house because you're making a document house, $45 million. But up to March, you've collected $5 million. What are the CIP projections for revenue? How are you financing the government expenditure if all these revenue sources have gone down? You promise to increase the fuel tax by $150, a bunch of $1.50, but you put a cap on fuel. So your revenue projections must be less. How will that impact the overall revenue of the country? I'm not asking for a tax. I'm asking for facts, figures. How will, if you project for the $3 million in CIP revenue, you've only collected $4 million up to March, the year we are in October, you have a few moments. How much revenue do you project to come from the CIP and how will that impact on the financing of your country, Madam Speaker? I want to ask, how much is in the thinking fund? The Prime Minister is very fond of attacking me on the thinking fund. I still have my position on the thinking fund. How much revenue, how much money do you have in the thinking fund? How much have you put aside in the thinking fund to do all the noble things you spoke about? Facts, not fake news, not attacks, facts, figures, how many dollars? $2 million, $3 million, $4 million. How much money do you have in the thinking fund, Madam Speaker? I want to find out what are the growth projections for the economy? What growth are you predicting? 2%, 3%, 4%? We said that we wanted the United States party manifesto said they are projecting growth of 15% for the next three years. How you set these targets, how have you reached there? What are the growth figures? Figures, facts, percentages, you can find out Madam Speaker. I want to find out Madam Speaker. What are the government's economic policies that will create the growth? Ojo Labs? The only investment that this government has worked on fervently is Ojo Labs. And you know the cost of Ojo Labs, $4 million to refit the building and pay the salaries. All the other government investments, they have not come to bear. They just talk. But I know what you stopped. I know you stopped a building if you thought. I know you stopped the highway in Grossly. I know you stopped that. I know you stopped the PPP on the airport. And the airport is a big story. The airport, that airport is something by when the story starts on the airport. It's going to be a big story, the airport. I know you stopped it. I know you stopped the IFC from doing a PPP for the airport. And when the debate comes on the airport and make the point, Madam Speaker, you stopped it. But the point I'm making, what the government projections are talk. You'll learn the range, pass what money, at 2%. And you see the bill of hotel. Not one block on the ground yet. Not one block. Not one block. I hope it comes. I really hope it comes. Look, I talk. I heard somebody on the radio there already saying the opposition is happy when there's crime. You think somebody can say that? You think a young person can go in public and say the opposition is happy when there's crime? Why would an opposition be happy when there's crime? It's our country. We intend to run it at some point. Why would it be happy when there's crime? Why? But Madam Speaker, when you're in opposition, your words are used to hunt you. You will recall very well who said solution would be made safe. We all know who said it. But that's not our position. Why would I want a solution of crime? Why? Why would I want a hotel to be built in St. Lucia? Because Madam Speaker, and that must go to what the government is doing. When you victimize people, when you stop people from getting work because you perceive them to be supporters of the Labour Party, you know what to do? You're not only victimizing the person themselves. Because they employ people. People they employ may be UDAIP supporters. In one house, you have UDAIP supporters, Labour Party supporters. In one house, you have different people. So when you victimize somebody, when you say on over your dead body these people get work in the country, when you say that, you know what you're doing? You're not only affecting the person. You're affecting the people that will be employed. So when you starve Cassius East of CDP projects and you starve it, and you believe that Philip J Pierre will lose his seat, a dream. When you start doing these things, what you do is you affect other people in the constituency, not me, other people who may be your supporters. So this victimization is the vindictive kick of the government. They must stop, settle on, settle. So Madam Speaker, what are the projects that the government has taken to cause any significant growth in the country? Tomorrow, DigiCell is opening its head office. Very good. No, but it came at a cost. It came at a cost, Madam Speaker. It came at a cost. We had to forego endless taxes, forego endless revenue. Of course it will create employment. We, the idea of having offices, head offices, it's not a novel idea. It started under us. We did the IBC Act to cause companies to incorporate in San Lucia. Nothing novel. That didn't come from high science, but these things come at a cost. The country loses revenue. So you have to weigh the cost as against the benefits. So only two projects that this government can boost all. One, Ojo Labs at a great cost, and two, the DigiCell opening tomorrow. Two projects. All the rest, talk. What was there, you stopped. You can imagine how your government would have benefited if you didn't allow that pettiness, that vindictive streak. That streak made them cry. Even allowed that streak in your government. You can imagine where you would be today. You stopped all the projects. You stopped everything that was called San Lucia to move. You stopped it. And now, right now, Madam Speaker, you have to pay for it. You're paying for it. You know how you pay for it? You pay for it by being able to just dream of projects that will come on stream. They will. They will. You pay for it by having to give generous, generous tax concessions. You pay for it by having to sometimes pay people's salaries. You pay the salaries for Ojo Labs. That's how you pay for it to create employment. Because you stopped projects that could have moved the country forward. And you would benefit. You would benefit, but you stopped it. Vindictiveness. Make them cry. That's the price you pay for that, Madam Madam Speaker. And time. I said here in this honorable house, there's one thing the government can't stop is time. We are in October. We are in November 2017. Time. One thing you can't stop. So when you go along with that vindictive streak. That streak of make them cry. You pay for it. And you see, nothing's happening. There was a silver in the country. Go to the streets. And as a man in the streets, how is the economy doing? You know what I tell you? Boss man, nothing is running. Nothing is running, boss man. Nothing is running. That's what they'll tell you. Because it's all in your mind. All in your mind, you think things are running. Because you believe. You believe that when the time comes, you'll know what you have to do. But Madam Speaker, I want to get back to the point, Madam Speaker. That this government, and in that borrowing profile. Nothing about fresh start yet. And $15 million. In this order paper. There was. In an order paper. In this house, the previous order paper. $15 million by DFC for fresh start. That is not yet in the debt profile. It's not there yet. You have to come back there. So that's $122 plus 15. That's $137. I'm just asking a question. Are you going to pay fresh start from the $40 million that is borrowing today? Are you going to pay fresh start for the roads in Miku from the $40 million that you're borrowing today? Because the DFC, the motion that you had for fresh start, it has just disappeared from the order paper. Where are you going to pay fresh start from? You need the roads, Mr. Prime Minister. Of course you need the roads. But you had a motion of $15 million from fresh start, it disappeared. I'd like to find out how are you going to pay fresh start? I know some time ago a member of your cabinet said fresh start is so nice that they don't always sell a broken forest there. You have to pay the money here. It's such a great company. They did all the roads in forest there and you haven't paid them. Fresh start. Yes. Have you paid them? Is the money you're borrowing today to pay fresh start for the forest there roads? The forest there housing scheme. You remember you said that one of your surrogates said that fresh start is such a great company that they did all the work at forest here in the forest hours and you haven't paid them one cent. And anybody who could have done the work cheaper come to him and he would employ them. Mr. Prime Minister, that's the kind of government you preside over. A minister going in public saying to people, come to me and I'll employ you for a contract worth. Because the whole thing has gone out of the window. Mr. Prime Minister, that's public knowledge you know. That's what the minister said, it's public. If you can find somebody who can do the job cheaper, come to me. That's him. But Mr. Prime Minister, you must call a halt to that. You must call a halt to that. So I want to find out how are we paying fresh start? Is the 15 million dollars coming back? Have you paid for the road works in forest here? Have you paid for it? The housing in forest here, the housing on the road works and the houses coming in forest here. Have you paid for it? How are you paying that? Where is that in the debt profile? Further, the airport, we're speaking of borrowing. I know and the government has denied it that the government has cancelled the PPP for the airport. They've cancelled it. The government hasn't said that's not true. But in terms of revenue, we're going to be coming for airport development tax, but that's for another show. I know that the cost of the airport is about 150 million US dollars. So you're going to include that on the debt profile again. Questions, I'll wait for the answer. So Madam Speaker, reality has hit this government. This government must come to grips with the real situation and stop believing they can talk and they can victimize the problems of the country away. They cannot. I have made this point here many times. The opposition will never go away. We will never go away. Never. When I leave, somebody else will come. This Labour Party is the oldest party in St Lucia. We will never die. So it's no use you believe that you can run us away or you can victimize us away or you can be vindictive and you can't. So what you have to do is you have to look at the problems in this country. Look at it in a way that will put you in a favourable way in the history of St Lucia. Don't look at it in the eyes of people who are only interested in making people cry. Don't put it in the eyes of people who every time they open their mouth, it's victimize them. Get canik, get pier. Don't look at it that way. Look at it that way. Look at it in a way that will benefit the children of St Lucia. Do not look at it in a way where you will increase the burden on the children of St Lucia because you want to get at Kenny. Don't look at it that way. Leave Kenny alone. Kenny's gone. Look at the country. He's gone. He's gone. He's not Prime Minister again. Not Minister of Finance. Look at the country. You see it's them tricks you're trying. Them things that go wrong. You've been trying these things all your life. These things are working. This party is more united than ever was before. Don't try them tricks. That's not working. That's not working. And let me advise you. I won my nomination by more votes than you. There was 70 against you. There was only 60 against me. So I won't burden you. I did burden you. So go try that. You understand? I did burden you. Inside there are at least two people who run against you. And they won. So don't try this thing. Don't try that. There are at least two people who run against you. And in that running, one of them had the worst thing to say about you. One of them had the worst thing about you in that running process. So don't try that. You see, when you're going down that track, you're going to get lost. That's not your business. And especially the fact, you had fellas around. You know what? So don't try that. So, Madam Speaker. She was a campaign manager. So, Madam Speaker. Five times. Five. So, Madam Speaker. This government, this government, this government. Madam Speaker. This government is leading the country down a dangerous track. This government is not facing reality. This government is living a world of dreams, a world of make-belief. This government is living hoping and praying that somebody will come from somewhere with a magic wand and create employment. Five thousand people hoping that some big investor will just land. That will not happen. This government has to bring the confidence, has to take the privacy of solution in the confidence. This government has to look at different models to develop this country. The idea of tax and spend. The idea of giving the country away with incentives, hoping that something will happen. The idea of jobs at all costs, Madam Speaker. This government must rethink its position. This government must look towards small and medium-sized enterprises. This government must look to the resilience of the people of Celusia. Do not divide the people. Do not victimize business people who you perceive are not supporting you. Do not use incentives as a weapon. Don't use it. Look at the country as a whole. Because if you do not do that, you'll have to come back here again and again to borrow, borrow, borrow. And you know why you can borrow? The reason why you can borrow is simply because, simply because, Madam Speaker, and I want to refer to a document to the social and economic review. Public debt. You see, they hide all these things. They give the impression that since they came into power, everything is good. Debt has refused. Confidence has returned. Public debt. Page 51. At the end of 2016, at the end of 2016, six months into the rule. Six months, eh? The official stock of public debt, which includes central government liabilities, government guarantee and public non-guaranteed debt, grew by 2.6% to 2.9 million. This represents a slowdown in the rate of debt accumulation, which in the last decade has grown at an average of 6.8%. Consequently, the debt-to-GDP ratio increased to 66.4% in 2016 from 65.4% in 2015. So if they continue on this trajectory, if they continue, Madam Speaker, because you must understand, they have to come back here and borrow 15 million for fresh start. They have to borrow 150 million for the airport. The Prime Minister said today he has to borrow 150 million to fix roads. The Prime Minister hasn't told us so that's 200 million plus 15 million. He has to borrow 250 million. That will take the debt profile back up to the 90s, where it's not supposed to be. So Madam Speaker, I urge this government to let good sense prevail. I urge this government to understand that this country doesn't belong to them. It doesn't belong to UWPs. It doesn't belong to their party people. It belongs to the people of St. Lucia. And stop the pettiness. Stop the vindictiveness. Stop it. Because you may believe that because today you are in power, you can make people cry and make people suffer. But power is elusive. It comes and it goes. It's very elusive. It comes and it goes. So this debt issue or this borrowing is something that we must watch. We must watch it closely. Because if you continue, Madam Speaker, very shortly, based on what I said before, I said that 102 million dollars was not enough. We have reached 122 million dollars in October. The Prime Minister spoke about 300,000 dollars more. 300 million dollars more. If you continue on that trajectory, this country is going on a very, very fast track down to the international monetary fund. I thank you, Madam Speaker. Honourable Members, the question is that Parliament authorizes the Minister with Responsibility for Finance to borrow EC 15 million dollars by way of credit. In this resolution referred to as the credit from first national banks in Lusia Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget. And that A, interest on the principal's amount of the credit is repayable at the rate of 6% per annum due one month after the full drawdown. And B, the principal amount of the credit is repayable in the amount of EC 126,579 dollars per month, inclusive of interest for 180 months. I now put the question. As many as of that opinion say aye. Aye. As many as of a contrary opinion say no. I think... That's a clever division, please. Madam Deputy Clerk, the revision is called for. Please proceed. Honourable Alan Shasne, how do you vote? Yes. Honourable Sean Edward, how do you vote? No. Honourable Dominic Fede, how do you vote? Honourable Sarah Flood, Bobrae, how do you vote? Aye. Honourable Ernest Hiller, how do you vote? No. Honourable Izikal Joseph, how do you vote? Aye. Honourable Guy Joseph, how do you vote? Aye. Honourable Stevenson King, how do you vote? Aye. Honourable Philip J. Pierre, how do you vote? Aye. Honourable Harold Stanislaus, how do you vote? Aye. Honourable members, the division been, haven't been called for. There are currently ten members present in the chamber. Seven ayes and three noes, the ayes have it. Honourable Prime Minister, leader of government business, Minister for Finance, member for Miku South. Madam Speaker, I beg to lay the following motion standing in my name. And whereas it is provided by section 39.1 of the Finance Administrative Act, Cap 1501, that the minister responsible for finance, made by resolution of parliament, borrow money from the bank or the financial institution for the capital expenditure of government. And whereas it is further provided by section to the Finance Administration Act, Cap 1501, that they shall be charged upon and paid out of the consolidated fund, debt charges for which the government is liable. And whereas the minister responsible for finance considers it necessary to borrow 25 million by the way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from the bank of San Lucia Limited for the capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget. And whereas the interest on the principal amount of the credit is repable at a rate of 6% per annum, and whereas the principal amount of the credit is repable in the amount of EC210,964.21 per month, inclusive of interest for 180 months. Be it resolved that the parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow 25 million by the way of credit in the resolution referred to as the credit from the bank of San Lucia Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget. Be it further resolved that the interest payment of the principal amount of the credit is repable at a rate of 6% per annum, and the principal amount of the credit is repable in the amount of EC210,964.21 per month, inclusive of interest at 180 months. Madam Speaker, as I explained in the previous bill, and hopefully I didn't think I would have to educate or enlighten my colleague, member from Castery's East, given his level of experience in the parliament, and certainly that his proclam, his announcements on a regular basis of his understanding of accounting and also of economics, that we're not coming here to seek any additional monies. All we have done is come here and changed where we're going to borrow the money from. And we explained ourselves. Talks about the confidence. There is an increased confidence in the government assembly. In fact, we could have floated the bonds, and the bonds would have gotten 7.65, 95% interest. There's no reason for that. And when he talked about the increase in debt over the last decade, right, that side of the house, that lever party he talks about, when they came in 1997, Madam Speaker, the debt of the country is about $400 million. They added over $2 billion of debt to this country. $2 billion. And he's boasting about the fact that in the last year he was able to reduce the primary deficit. He had no choice. Because nobody would lend him any money. The fact is, is when in 2003, Madam Speaker, we had about $30 million in Treasury bills, today we have about $450 million in Treasury bills because of the policies of the Labour government, that everybody had lost confidence in what they were doing. I mean, to come to this house and to try to parade and suggest that we're borrowing any extra money, the Minister knows how it works. I'm not becoming here for a supplementary budget. The total amount of borrowings was approved in the appropriations bill. We were living within that. All we've decided to do is instead of taking bonds, we've decided to borrow the money from the banks. And cheaper. And for a longer period of time. Not only that, that we've included in the payments the principal amounts on a monthly basis. So we don't find ourselves in the irresponsible policies of the Labour government who took debt, spent the sinking fund, and when the debt came available, complained they didn't have the bullet amount to pay for it, and simply turned over the debt. So it means the cost of that original debt keeps, we keep paying for it. Because you still have it on your books in the interest payments. I listen to my colleague. And I'm confused, Madam Speaker. I'm absolutely confused. When he talks about irresponsible statements. Look at the statements they made about the CIP. Knowing how the democratic process works, that the changes to the CIP were made in Parliament, which is the highest authority in this country. But know that they go out publicly and say that they're not going to honour the decision made in Parliament and make it retroactive backwards. You don't think that that's any irresponsible statement, Madam Speaker? That how can a party that calls itself a party make that kind of statements? Reckless statements? Who made the statement there will be no rest? Who made the statement there will be no rest? And is that a fair statement to make? That in fact if you cannot get your way that you're going to have protests and you're going to destroy things? That's how reasonable people think? You know, Madam Speaker. The Labour Party, and in particularly my colleague from Castries East, has one strategy. And that strategy is to be the victim. We're all supposed to feel sorry for him. Because he's the victim. Right? And the allegations he's making about us and the Labour Party themselves have never put into practice those methods. Because I know that when it came to the distribution of CDP funds the Labour Party was a shining beacon in fairness. I know that. Talking about borrowing money. So when you were doing the bulk programmes, where was it on the debt? Where was it on the debt? The other thing that's very interesting, Madam Speaker, that you would have expected of my learned colleague who is so experienced in parliamentary procedures that if he genuinely wanted to know the answers to the questions that he was asking there is a prescribed mythology to do so. So maybe Madam Speaker I would suggest that he is short on them and maybe when we go on recess that you can take the opportunity and remind him of what that process is in order to be able to ask his questions. And I'll be very happy once he goes through that method to answer the questions that he has asked. But again we have a social and economic review that is done independently of politicians in which gives an annual report on where we are. But any of the questions that he asks there is a prescribed way to be able to do that. But suffice to say Madam Speaker that the borrowings that we're making are within the context of what we requested in the appropriations bill. There's no change. All that we've changed is instead of borrowing the money through bonds we've agreed to borrow the money through the banks and that the reason for doing so Madam Speaker is because now it's 6% instead of 7.65% and we're getting it for 15 years. And that in the payments we've also included the payments of the principal so at the same time Madam Speaker we're paying off the debt that we have. In terms of the performance of the economy I'm very satisfied that we're making significant strides in digging ourselves out of the hole that was left by the Labour Party. Madam Speaker I only give it as an example of what we inherited. Imagine when we came in to find out that none of the Coast Guard boats were working. None. Zero. Zero. That in addition to the Coast Guard's boat not working Madam Speaker the forensic lab was closed. We had no DPP. In fact simple things like photocopiers and ink and materials within the DPP's office did not exist. And the full complement of lawyers did not exist. Madam Speaker hopefully there are many of the lawyers and the judges who are practicing in the judicial system. Where are our courts? That here we are in 2016 when we came into office. That judges did not have chambers. Magistrates are working out of vehicles as their office. That we have some offices that we've put together called a makeshift courts. You go and you look at the condition of the schools Madam Speaker. No monies being set aside. Look at the condition of our roads. And this is a government that wants to be celebrated that they're being victimized. The only people in this country who have been crying Madam Speaker have been the people. And the people who did not even recognize that those people were crying was the Labour Party. And in particular the people that they say that they're the champions of. So when you look at the level of taxation that the government put in there was no sensitivity to the man on the ground. There was no sensitivity of the fact that the economy was not growing and you were expecting that that man on the ground was going to make the payment. That when you put a 15% that rate on and the small businesses now had to pay an increase in the amount of rent you couldn't understand that. Where was the sensitivity then? That you spent $118 million on St. Jude's Hospital and we have nothing other than concrete to show for it. And they have three members on the other side who live in the south who had no voice for five years Madam Speaker. And today they want to speak. Today they want to go and march to go and see the hospital. Are you really? Is that real? And you want people to genuinely believe that you cared? How can that be Madam Speaker? How can that be? And I can go down the list of things in this government that we found not working. You have an agricultural sector, an education sector. I went down to see the traffic department. No air conditioning, mold infested, broken down furniture. An audit report came out Madam Speaker that of all the tickets that are issued to the police stations we only collect 5%. So even the accounting system within the government is broken. I have to ask myself, what was the government doing? They cared so much. Better days. Where were they? And that's why we have to make the statement. Better days through whom? But you know Madam Speaker it is not long before we find out who the better days were for. Because there's a lot of information that's going to be coming out in which the people of San Lucia will be able to judge for themselves as to who the better days were for. Well you know Madam Speaker I'm proud of my government. I'm proud of my government that my government came in and while we could have gone on a soapbox and made more light of all these issues that we've chosen to take the limited hours that we have and the energy we have to resolve the problems. I want to congratulate my minister of tourism. Despite everything going on that San Lucia now has grown the second fastest in the Caribbean region. That we had real growth. 10% increase in arrivals. I heard the other minister, oh that's not so good because that is what you call the hotel, Royalty. But you know what? Royalty could have come in, discounted the prices and if there wasn't the demand it would have affected the other hotels. But we've not seen that. I want to congratulate you. I want to congratulate you on the work that you've been doing in the cruise industry. Despite the fact that there's been construction taking place. That we've seen a 14% increase in arrivals and my understanding is every single day we're seeing new ships coming into San Lucia. I want to thank you for that. I want to thank my minister of agriculture who has made a commitment to help the rural areas. I understand. When we talked about putting that extra ching ching ching in people's pockets, that's where it comes from. One step at a time, one policy at a time. We reduced the VAT by 12.5%. What did the other side say? Oh, nobody's seen the benefit. So how are you telling me if you're paying rent and you're paying 15% VAT on the rent and then you're paying 12.5% on the VAT on the rent? Who benefited? Who benefited? Who benefited? So what? It was better to leave the VAT at the 15% because people would have been better off if the VAT was at 15%. Is that what you're trying to say? I don't understand. You lower the tax. And there's so many people in the country who benefited from it. You know, the other thing that's interesting and we've said it to you, Madam Speaker, always brings this up. Every time we have to have a borrowing bill that talks about, oh, you said you were never going to borrow. That's not what I never said. But guess what? Yeah, go and see my manifesto. Go and see the manifesto. It says that we will not borrow any money off of the existing recurrent revenue. And that any additional major borrowing that we're going to do has to come with its own revenue stream. So the money to do the roads came from by taking the step of putting on $1.50 tax on gas and putting in a lock box in order for us to be able to secure a loan. Does the way of asking the question? No, no, you ask the question. You do it the right way. And I'll give you the answer. You know there's a way to do it. That's not the way to do it. Being a bad example for the people of St. Lucia, there's a discipline and a right way to do it, go and do it. We're going to have a discussion on the airport. You can be telling me that you want to go and give a third party in international organization the ability to manage our airport trust. And to add insult on injury that we have to pay them to do it. So it's not the $35 to be able to construct the airport. The tax that they were proposing was $55. And the $20 extra was to pay for an international organization to manage the airport force. Are you a manager speaker? I know exactly what will happen. I've been there. The international organization will come in, will fire the solutions who are working hard every day to make a bad airport work. And instead of us celebrating what they have achieved and I go there and I pass through and I see what they're going through. No. They're going to get fired and they're going to bring in international people and pay them maybe the same salary if not higher in US dollars. That's what's going to happen. Because that's where that money is going to go. But no. What we want to do is you have the tax so there's a revenue stream for that money and nobody's going to come and convince me or anybody on this side that we're irresponsibly increasing the debt because there's a revenue stream for that money. And we're going to build up the strength of the people that are there. We're going to give them more training. We're now going to give them a world-class airport that they can be proud of. And I want to see how well solutions can do now that they have a proper airport. That's the difference, you know. We believe in the people of solution. You don't. You don't. All you know how to do, Madam Speaker, is to cry. Cry victimization. Cry this. Cry that. It's amazing. And the things that he's alleging on this side. He knows that these are the things that he himself was doing. And what I'm proud about my party is my party and my colleagues that we don't share in that. We believe that we're a government for the people of solution. We've said it repeatedly. There's no reason that you're going to have 50% of the people benefiting one time and 50% of the people benefiting next time. We must have policies in which all solutions benefit all the time. We believe in a tax system that is progressive. If you make more money, you should be able to pay more money. Talked about DigiSell. I'm proud about what we've done about DigiSell, but it's not only DigiSell. We have six companies that are coming in. Is it those people if it were not for the incentives that we provided under the headquarters act would not come to solution? I give you an example. I went to Geneva. I know that you all have been. I know particularly the former minister of foreign affairs would have been to Geneva. 34,000 people work at the UN. All of them who are working there, tax-free. But what has it done for Geneva? They go out to restaurants. They go to the airports. They go to the grocery stores. They're paying their VAT. They're paying their consumption. And that's what we've already started seeing happen here, Madam Speaker. Because he talks about how do you create confidence? You create confidence by making tough decisions. You create confidence in understanding that you try to create confidence in what people are doing. So right now we've seen now that the volume of vacant apartments and homes has literally been evaporated. And I know that in very short time that business people will now start building homes because they recognize that the demand is there. And it's in the building of those homes and those apartments that you now start stimulating the economy. Because that is expenditure that is taking place, not using government resources. And we're realizing that what we need to do is to become a more efficient government in order to be able to allow the private sector and small businesses of this country to be the ones to make the investment. And we have to resolve the situation with the banks. We have to resolve the situation with the debt of our country. We have to resolve the situation with the inefficiencies within government. How can I complain and chastise anyone in the civil service when we go and see the physical facilities that people are working on? Look at the Parliament building we're in. Look at the offices you work out of, Madam Speaker. Look at where the Parliament staff work. How many times do you have to move? Every day is another mold infestation. And where does that mold infestation come from, Madam Speaker? The lack of proper maintenance. And why do we have a lack of proper maintenance? Because there has been no money. And you're taking a little piece of money and you're trying to pay off as many things as you want as possible. So, Madam Speaker, I stop at this point but also to add one last thing. I cannot believe that an opposition, even though they were not successful, would vote against borrowing monies from indigenous banks at 6% in 15 years. And that, as the other side knows, they have already approved the appropriations bill. So this is not any extra borrowing that we're doing. So I have to say to you that this is the type of gamanship and dirty politics in sincerity that really we need to depart from. And really now to be able to address the real issues that we have in our country. Honourable members, the question is that Parliament authorizes the Minister responsible for finance to borrow EC 25 million dollars by way of credit. In this resolution referred to as the credit from the Bank of St. Lucian Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget. And that, A, interest on the principal amount of the credit is repairable at the rate of 6% per annum and B, that the principal amount of the credit is repairable in the amount of EC 210,964 dollars and 21 cents per month, inclusive of interest for 180 months. Honourable members, the Prime Minister nearly boosts his brain so excited I thought he would start to cry. I thought he would start to cry. The Prime Minister is out of place. First of all, he cannot tell me where and how to ask questions. I ask questions in this honourable house where I was elected by the people of Castries East more times than him. I ask questions in this honourable house. In the Prime Minister's response he hasn't answered one question. He hasn't said how much is in the sinking fund. He hasn't said how much is in the lock box for fuel. He has not said what are the growth prospects of the economy. He's just coming with a big charade grand charge trying to threaten people the Prime Minister will not threaten me. Neither will he ever threaten anybody on this side. I come back to the points that I ask and I request answers from the Prime Minister. Number one, the Prime Minister last week said that the citizens cannot think but today he's lamenting that they work under conditions. He said they couldn't think this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that the repayments of interest and principal together is because the banks have confidence. The opposite. The banks want their money. The banks want you to pay interest and principal together so they can bear reduction of the loan. They could ask you to pay interest on one side and principal on the other side. That's how most banks do it. But to ensure that they get repayments they have put both capital and interest together in the repayments. That is why it's not because of any confidence they had or any macroeconomic policy that you are speaking about. The Prime Minister has not said how much is in the lock box account for fuel. He has not said it. I need to know how much is in the lock box account for fuel. There is no standing order that can say that an elected member cannot ask questions of the Minister of Finance. Not a formal question time. In the course of a debate I am asking for responses to some of the things you said. Responding to what you said. The Prime Minister speaks about the reduction of that. The Prime Minister knows very well that businesses that get, that earn less than $400,000 per month gross income to not pay that. So when you come and you speak about rent the regular person who is renting a house doesn't pay any that on his rental income. Because you know to pay that your income must be $400,000 per month or more. So if you do not earn $400,000 a month you do not a year you do not pay any that. So if you pay $2,000 rent you don't pay that on $2,000 rent. That is again trying to fool people with talk the people who benefit are those who their income in rent is more than $400,000 per year. These are the people who benefit not those who get less than $400,000 per year in rent. The Prime Minister speaks about a few minutes ago he was in his pyre self the hotels and the cruise ships can come because Puerto Rico is down now he says is because of the means of tourism cruise ships cruise ship numbers are increasing. A few minutes ago he said that because of the situation in Puerto Rico that cruise ships have issues now a few minutes after he says is because of the means of tourism cruise ships are coming. A few minutes ago he said so but you see in one hand he plays the same way he refused to tell his ministers not to say that opposition members must cry he supports it and he supports that man's speaker and he comes and plays as if he wants to cry because he likes to lose so much the Prime Minister the Prime Minister speaks about the conditions of police stations and prisons the Prime Minister wasn't involved in politics when we built the Marsha police station when we built the Viewford police station when we built the police stations in Dennery when we built the Marigold police station when we repaired the Souffre police station the Rousseau police station he wasn't in politics he was somewhere else he's just arrived recently so now he speaks about police stations when was the Prime Minister when we were building fire stations when was the Prime Minister when the policemen in Marigold and Souffre had to share toilets particularly in Marigold where was the Prime Minister he wasn't there he was arrived so he doesn't know anything about the conditions of police stations he doesn't know anything about it some members of the cabinet know don't talk about police stations fire stations I agree there needs to have improvements in police stations but we don't come here and grand charge and pretend as if police stations you are the ones who have to repair police stations say what you found improved the physical conditions and built new police stations and new fire stations this government this government then he speaks about he speaks about prisons who built the bodily prison who built the bodily prison and I want to go back in the borrowing profile because you talk about borrowing 400 million dollars 1997 what happened now what we borrowed for I'll take you back we were the ones who had to build the bodily prison and some of your own ministers were very happy when the bodily prison was being built we built it we were the ones who had to borrow to build 5 new secondary schools to get the children of Saint Lucia give them at least an opportunity to go to secondary school we had to borrow for that we had to borrow for that we had to borrow to build the police stations the fire stations we had to borrow for that and I'll tell you something you speak about bonds man speaker the prime minister he knows very well he knows extremely well or you should know that the situation in the bond market was caused because of two countries in the region that were going through IMF structural adjustment programs and each one of them had to take a cut in the bond rate and then since bonds fell because these two countries were on the IMF programs so the whole region was seen as a region of high risk because of the IMF because of the issues with bonds in these two countries now these two countries they have swallowed the IMF medicine so there is renewed confidence in the region Saint Lucia doesn't borrow as itself Saint Lucia borrows in the regional securities market so what affects the entire region so the only reason why your bonds may be selling better now is because two of three countries in the region went through an IMF structural adjustment program so the situation has improved so that is what has changed the level of confidence in the bonds not because of any policy of your government the prime minister comes here and speaks about marching this prime minister when he's in a position he said there were dialysis machines at the hospital and he will march to the hospital and stay there until they open these dialysis machines the same prime minister don't try that the same prime minister said he would march to the ongoing hospital and we would remain there and he said in part don't pretend this is pious pretence as if you are all holy and then you like the people in the region so much you said you would march you talk about CIP you wrote letters when CIP was coming into place you wrote letters all over the region all over you said that you would form a body that would be made up of the private sector of people from it and you created the CIP bond the same way you made no changes you were the one who started the dot in the CIP you, not us what we said because of the changes in the CIP program because of the fact that you and only yesterday the prime minister and kids said he's not following you he will not reduce the prices he said so you were the one who began the dot in the CIP by your letters and your petty politics you were the one in opposition so don't try and pretend as now that is us you started it you were the one who spoke who spoke about marching to the oinking hospital you started, you were the one and I'm happy, I want you to go into send you to the hospital I want you to go into send you to the hospital you must go there you must go into the airports you always come and threaten people go into it, do what you have to do go into send you to the hospital go threaten people, go into it you were the one and you spoke at forensic lab you were the one who said that the minister should not have a forensic lab that the forensic lab should go regionally you said so when you were in opposition and you know very well that the forensic lab got damaged because of the earthquake and you know very well the problems at the forensic lab and you also know that when you came into power an audit of the forensic lab had been done and you know very well that all you are doing is you are just following the results of the audit of that forensic lab you know very well so again do not come in this honorable house and try to play on people's emotions you know very well you know then you speak about you speak about courts you speak about the courts again you know again you are very you should know that getting money these cannibalism are very difficult getting concessionary finance finance is very difficult you prime minister you ought to know that and you also know that when you came into government you found well advanced plans to begin the construction of a hall of justice on the Milenium Highway you know that very well if it was to change it, that's your fault but you know that you know that you speak about taxation you speak about taxation and you know the present thing about this government is in the face of all the facts and the reality they still believe they can talk themselves away or they can threaten somebody or they can say something that will call somebody to be afraid oh we coming for you come for us so man speaker the prime minister in the face of all the facts you borrowed 40 million dollars for the denry water supply you borrowed 30 million dollars you borrowed 40 million dollars for the tourism project you borrowed 30 million dollars for the denry water supply you are borrowing 4.3 million dollars for the DVRP you borrowed 7.5 million dollars for the youth empowerment if you add that, if you can it's 86.6 million and if you add the 40 million dollars you're borrowing today it will come to 122.6 million dollars and the document you have in front of this honorable house is you want to have 103 million dollars for financing of the 2017 budget that is a fact I'm not saying you can't borrow more but it's a fact you are borrowing more when you came to this honorable house on the 27th of June and you said you needed 103 million dollars for financing of 2017-2018 budget that's a fact and you also said in that resolution that you want 262 million dollars for refinancing of the existing debt and I said to you that what you were doing was wrong because you would have to come back to this honorable house to borrow more money because 103 million dollars would not be enough for whatever you see the facts are the facts that is the money that you borrowed and you came in this honorable house with a resolution for 103 million dollars and at that time I told you that you would have to borrow more and you are borrowing more so Madam Speaker all this grand charge and this emotion and this thing about how we found the country you must understand when you came to improve when we came in 2011 when you came to government in 2016 all the facts show it the IMF reports you you commissioned you commissioned a report from the the CDB you commissioned a report you commissioned a report on don't interfere in that you commissioned a report by the Eastern Kyman Social Bank on the economy and if you look at that report they will tell you first page executive summary notwithstanding the improvement in fiscal performance in the past four years see appendix one first page we always make the point that the economy needed some structural changes we always agree to that but do not give people the impression that when you came to government you found an economy that was in such dire straits that you could do nothing and it's you and your people and the hard work and the way you can go outside and travel and give us time to improve you are the one you found an economy that was improving it was not where it ought to be but it was improving then you talk about tourism growth I want to put it to you I want to put it to you that most hotels in this country most hotels in this country have shown a decrease in arrivals most of them do not speak about the small hotels do not talk about the small hotels in the guest house do not speak about them the reason why and the facts will prove me right the reason why this country has shown an improvement in tourism numbers and I'm not vexed about that you pretend as if I'm annoyed because tourism numbers increase I'll be in my constituency working at Royal Town why if I want to not to work but it's where your mind is it's where the mind you understand why would I be annoyed if you work in the hotels the reason why there is an increase in the hotel visitor arrivals is because the Royal Town hotel brought in 500 new rooms into the room into the room store that's a fact I'm not saying arrivals have not increased but they've increased because of the 500 rooms that have come in to stop from the Royal Town and because two or three other hotels have higher occupancies but I mean that is not something you can change then you can't change it that's a fact and you ask the questions the right place is the arrogance that has seeped into you so soon how can you tell a member of parliament when to ask questions this is the parliament of the people this is where the people elected us to policy and government we have a right to ask anything you want here we have a right to ask anything you want here so you can't tell us when to ask or what to ask we are going to ask questions in the parliament about the performance of the economy of solution so Madam Speaker Madam Speaker on a point of order on the section 14 of the standing orders yes standing order 14 nature of questions and then on the section 15 15 1 and 2 highlights the method of asking questions Madam Speaker it is clear on this that a question shall not be asked without prior notice unless it is of urgent character or relates to the business of the day now Madam Speaker if the member for castries is is going to accuse the prime minister or the member for me could south of saying that he is disrespecting him by telling him how to answer or when to ask questions then the member is not following the rules established in the question and on the section of the standing orders that explains how questions can be asked and the member should from persisting along that line of saying that you cannot ask me questions or you cannot tell me I cannot ask you a question if the standing orders makes it very clear as to the method and procedures of asking questions the minister and member for castries south east whilst I take the point that you raise this refers to questions in general when a member would ask any minister for questions regarding questions so you are correct to state that there is a procedure for asking questions however this is the procedure for asking questions generally for example the point that the honourable leader of the opposition is asking the prime minister questions which he believes pertinent to the prime minister's portfolio in respect of a motion for borrow in which he puts on the floor and that is currently being debated the honourable leader of the opposition has the right to put questions to the prime minister in that regard the point that I wish to clarify is with respect to the general general the general point on questions the nature of questions it is if for example a member of the opposition wishes to put questions to the minister for agriculture or yourself for example not on a matter currently being debated on the floor are you understanding my point so this is in respect to the interpretation of the point on questions, how questions are put not it is not in regard or in respect to questions put by a member in response to whether it's a motion or a bill being currently debated on the floor so the honourable leader of the opposition is correct to ask the prime minister to please the minister with responsibility for finance to ask him questions regarding financial matters as regards borrowing and the motion on the floor I have so ruled honourable prime minister honourable leader of the opposition can I take the intervention please Madam Speaker while I clearly understand what you are saying the fact the fact is is that if in fact the kinds of questions he wants to ask are questions that must be put to me in the right they have absolutely nothing to do with the bill honourable prime minister can I have a moment please honourable prime minister honourable leader of the opposition I clearly said that I would want I would want the prime minister to be heard so I did I requested and I said that I would want the prime minister to be heard honourable prime minister Thank you Madam Speaker I don't want to be accused of not wanting to answer questions Madam Speaker and I just want to clarity on the point that you made if the honourable member wants to ask me questions that are factual questions about the state of the economy my understanding is that those are the questions that can be put to me if in fact he is raising questions the questions he is asking have nothing to do with the bill that we are passing and in fact I am under no obligation to answer any question that he puts in that format versus if he puts a written request to me I am obligated to answer those questions so I am saying to my my learned colleague Madam Speaker if he wants me to answer those questions put it in the form of writing and I will be very happy to answer those questions but if he is going to put it and try to phrase it in the maybe he is not I have no obligation to answer him in those circumstances Prime Minister and I will respond and say to you that you are incorrect in your interpretation of it in that when we are talking about borrowing which is a motion that you have on the floor and that you have put and is being debated all of this forms part of the debate Madam Speaker again I am going to rise to disagree with you because what I am asking Madam Speaker did we not have an appropriations bill did the amount that we were going to borrow not approving appropriations bill and I am at pains to say to everybody again including my my learned colleague that we are not borrowing any money outside of what we have been approving appropriations bill and so therefore I don't understand how what he is asking comes into play but there are relevant questions and if he wants me to answer those questions on the economy there is a process for him to do so and that is man he can write and I will take those and I will come to the house and I am obligated to answer what he writes I wish to remind honourable members of this house that as speaker of this house I am the authority on the rules and I am not going to say that I am not I may not be wrong but I wish to remind honourable members that this recognises and is the symbol of my authority of this house and if I rule on a point members are duty bound to understand that I have so ruled this is all I am going to say on this matter at this moment honourable leader of the opposition please proceed I want to bring the member of cast she is back to the meeting of the 8th December 2015 if you can go and go and answer you will see the amount of questions he asked and no one stopped him this is that is the problem we have the prime minister got up and he asked me endless questions he accused me everything I said he accused me he said I was misleading and now he wants to tell me the form in which I am going to debate for to borrow 40 million dollars which the taxpayers have to pay I cannot ask what is the state of the economy I have to write you to ask you that what country we are living in so and I repeat the document I have in my hands says 103 million dollars for financing June that 27 2017 we have bought 122.6 million dollars I am not saying it is illegal I am saying it is a fact it never said bonze it does not say bonze it said for financing and if you go back to the budget and if you go back to the prime minister's budget statement on page 44 here is what he said as the loans totaling 43.1 million from the caravan development bank 24.9 million from the whole bank 13.6 million from the Republic of China Taiwan 1 million from the national insurance corporation 2.2 million from the creative fund for arable economic development and he goes further government instruments that is where it is government instruments including bonze 208 million and treasury bills of 50 million that is what he said and he said loans budget statement says that is what it says I am not saying what he is doing is illegal I am saying that I said that you have to come back here to borrow more and he is coming back to borrow more that is a fact because you bought 122 million dollars and here you have 102 million dollars that is what he said the facts speak for themselves the facts speak for themselves so government so I want to put it to you Madam Speaker that the impression that the prime minister is giving is that he found this country in a state of disrepair I am saying that when the prime minister became prime minister the country all was in the country we admitted that but we said that the country was on the verge there was a sense of improvement for many reasons reason number one the regional and international situation was changing I have made the point that because of the bond situation where I don't want to mention any country's name free countries were under structural adjustment these countries had to take a haircut on their bonds that means that if the bond was worth 20 dollars they had to go to the credit and say listen to me I will pay you 15 so the whole confidence in the regional market was lacking these countries have come out of the problems because the IMF structural adjustment so the entire region is benefitting from that change because we buy our bonds on the regional security market so to come into grand stand and to say because of you in government there's more confidence that isn't true that's all I'm saying so Mr Speaker regardless of what will be said regardless of the grand standing regardless of the appearance of piousness and self-righteousness the point is this country right now is not experiencing the people of the country are not feeling the sense of economic development or economic growth they are not feeling the so called development or the growth is not being felt in the pockets of the people of St. Lucia and the people of St. Lucia the people of St. Lucia the Chamber of Commerce said that sales have increased they never said profits have increased the Chamber of Commerce said and the reason why sales have increased sales can increase for several reasons because the cost of goods imported are higher and if you go in fact when you spoke about confidence the cost of imported goods are higher when you went somebody told me I got an email from someone and they said to me that they had bought butter for a particular price and when they went back to the supermarket the butter had gone by two dollars and if you speak to the regular housewife they tell you that prices in the store market have gone up not because of you I'm not blaming you for that but I'm saying and when the price of these goods go up the volume of sales will increase because they pay more for the goods if they had said profit increase it doesn't say profit increase but I'm not querying that I'm not querying that so what I'm saying to you don't come and take credit for that the Chamber of Commerce said sales have increased the Chamber of Commerce never said that profits have increased and a measure of business is profit so if the sales increase if the sales increase and the cost of sales increase if the sales increase and the cost of sales increase also there is no effect on profit if the sales increase and the cost of sales increase there is no effect on profit When the Chamber of Commerce says sales increase, they never said profits have increased. So look at me and boast about it. Don't boast about it. You're on track. Madam Speaker, I intended this morning, I intended this morning as I started to have a civil debate on the boring. But when the Prime Minister gets up and is in his normal style and believe that he's speaking to school children and believes he can attack members of the side and believe he's a master that he says things that people must shut up. I have to, I have to, I have to get on. If the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister can't believe that he can shut me up, he can't. And he can't threaten me either. And I'm saying to the Prime Minister, I reserve the right to speak in this parliament. I reserve the right within the standing orders to obey the standing orders. And all you can do is victimizing me. I thank you. I need the minister in the office of the Prime Minister with responsibility for tourism, information and broadcasting. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. You know, Madam Speaker, when I woke up this morning, I thought that we would be here discussing the business of the people. And Madam Speaker, we would try to come up with common sense solutions to the many problems affecting our country at this time. But Madam Speaker, we came into the house and what we got was the usual opposition petty politics, the usual opposition misrepresentation of the facts and the coating of figures conveniently to send a certain message that they would want to suit their political agenda. Madam Speaker, I think that it's important that I clarify a few things. And they relate to how we met the economy when we came in and when the people of St. Lucia entrusted this government with their hopes and their aspirations of prosperity and employment and a better life, Madam Speaker. We met unemployment, Madam Speaker, hovering for most of the four years well over 20%. And all the genius that the leader of the opposition has just subscribed to the tenure of his government. Madam Speaker, youth unemployment was at 40%. Madam Speaker, in some cases, it was almost twice in one in every two youth that you find in the country were unemployed. It was almost 50% in many instances. Madam Speaker, the debt levels were high. The Prime Minister mentioned that the growth figures were extremely low. In fact, the social economic review stated that in the last 10 years, the economy grew by a mere 1.3%, Madam Speaker, merely not enough for us to use this kind of surplus or opportunity and create the kind of development thrust that we would need in the country. Madam Speaker, many businesses close as a result of some of the failed policies of the St. Lucia Labor Party Administration. And Madam Speaker, more fundamentally, there was a lack of hope. There was despair, Madam Speaker, in the people of this country in the tenure and the leadership of the previous St. Lucia Labor Party Administration. Madam Speaker, I heard much was said about the hotel numbers which grew. And I am happy to say that St. Lucia is, the Prime Minister is correct, the second fastest growing tourist destination in the Caribbean. And that is not good news for everyone. You see, the people who are genuinely interested in St. Lucia going forward and the people who are genuinely interested in seeing this country and the livelihoods of its people improve, those people, Madam Speaker, will find that to be good news. But when there are politicians who have agendas and who are constantly trying to destabilize the progress of the country, I call them enemies of progress, Madam Speaker, those people who will try to create scared tactics and try to send the wrong information about government policies that really what we're doing is trying to position St. Lucia on a different path. Much was said about the value added tax, about why did we reduce the tax? And we said we were gonna start reducing the tax by 2.5%, Madam Speaker, from 15 to 12.5%, which would represent a 16% decrease in the tax. Now, the opposition would like to say, we lost 52 million dollars, 52 million dollars. But they were the same people that while they were in opposition were saying that this tax was oppressive to poor people. And Madam Speaker, we share that view. A 15% rate of that is untenable. A 15% rate of that, we've had five years to measure the results. And the results has done a number of things. It has spiraled on employment, it has contracted economic growth, and it has sent a low level of confidence in this country, Madam Speaker. And so you couldn't continue with a policy just because it is a policy instituted by the St. Lucia Labour Party and continue with that same policy if you want to change this country. And the same can be said for the CIP, Madam Speaker. It was not performing. And when you look at the CIP report, Madam Speaker, it showed you that in the first eight months of the program, it was almost bankrupt. There were deficits, Madam Speaker. We came in and we saw the revenue performance of the program improving substantially as indicated, Madam Speaker, by the latest CIP report. That is progress. So when the plans and the policies are not changing, you can't be political about them. If they're not working, then you ought to change them so that you bring about development and you bring about opportunity for the people of our country. And so we spoke about the cruise lines. Of course, the cruise lines started performing well. When we came into the tourist board, it was said to me that there was ambiguity in which government agency should take the lead on the cruise strategy for the country. Relationships were lost. People didn't attend the cruise conferences with any level of frequency. There wasn't a clear marketing plan for the cruise industry. Everyone focused on the airlines and focused on filling the hotels. That's not a bad thing, that's great. But not to the expense of the many taxi drivers and the vendors and the people at the market and the various stakeholders at the sites and attractions who benefit from the hundreds of thousands of cruise passengers who come to this country. And what did we do, Madam Speaker? We went and we rebuilt old relationships. We went and we said to them that we are going to invest, Madam Speaker, in the berth at Point Seraphim. And Madam Speaker, despite the interruptions which came about with the construction during the season, we still see, Madam Speaker, improving from a 0.9% flat growth to a 22% year-to-date growth, Madam Speaker, in the cruise industry. It's not both good news and bad news. And so, Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is right. Didn't happen by accident. Some other exciting things that we're doing. We've been to the market and every travel study shows that people are looking for more experiences. They're looking for more experiential travel. And we've had the foresight. We went and we hired a company called Translation Out of the United States. And we said it is time for St. Lucia to reposition the brand, Madam Speaker. All of this happened within a short year. When we came in, there was a debt of $10 million. And I'm not just gonna mention the debt, but I want to mention the debt to show, Madam Speaker, why we weren't able to successfully market the destination because every single PR company, our stakeholders, a number of them, Madam Speaker, had canceled contracts and refused to do any marketing promotions with us because we didn't have the money to pay them to do it. St. Lucia Tourist Board had received a bad repetition in the marketplace. And, Madam Speaker, we had to come in in quick time to restructure the organization, to reduce the debt. And I'm very proud of the team. I want to say, Madam Speaker, that in a short space of time, they've reduced the debt from $10 million to $2 million Eastern Caribbean dollars. And now we are able to sign with our tour operators. Now we're able to sign with our top suppliers so that we don't compromise the tourist arrivals to our country. These are some of the things I must explain to the leader of the opposition. That has happened. It didn't just happen by accident. It was hard, dedicated, committed work that we have done. And so, Madam Speaker, much, but I just told you, I just told you, the member here would like us to continue in the old unsustainable model of spending over a third of the board's budget. That's his claim to fame of being a tourism expert. Spend 14 million out of 34 on a festival where the international press didn't and continue to dwindle in interest, Madam Speaker. The level of PR which we got from it when the prime minister was the director of tourism, a festival that would cost $3 million was now costing 14. But back in the day, Madam Speaker, he had relationships with BET. He had a television component, Madam Speaker, which showed and brought about that visibility for the jazz festival as it was, Madam Speaker, created for it to be the island's main tourism marketing event. I have said here before that the prime minister I'm proud of him because he was there in the infant stages of the jazz festival and could have said that this is my project. But he has now come to this honorable house and said that this project, which I was instrumental in helping to see its genesis, it's not working. We need to scrap it and come up with new ideas to promote the country. And that is all we're saying. But no, they want to play politics. They want to do all kinds of things and say that we're killing the jazz festival and we're not patriotic and we're giving the country a way to foreign us. It's called strategic marketing, my friend, and study the course one day. But Madam Speaker, this is the path that we're on to change this country, to come up with a range of common sense solutions so that we can address the many pitfalls that we have inherited from the previous administration. The impact on that, on the economy, we've said it. Mention was made of the Chamber of Commerce Survey. If there is increased sales, it means that consumer confidence is also increasing. People are obviously buying more. That is why, perhaps, that the Chamber members are expressing confidence. The majority of them, it's not our survey. We didn't say the Chamber of Commerce study. But you don't want to hear that. You have your people on Facebook attacking them, trying to undermine an organization that is independent from the government. And so these are the good news. Why do we always have to be bearer of bad news? Why does politics always have to be so nasty? Why does it always have to be so petty? You guys have come here over and over. And when you, when you, when you, when you, right, were in government, you came to this house and borrowed to finance your budget, right, you refused to say that it's $103 million budgeted in bonds, right? A lot of the projects you quoted, our World Bank Loans Project, so like the Tourism Competitor Project for 15 million US, that's about 40 million EC, that's from the World Bank Project. It began on the year administration. And so it is a loan, but it is not a bond. And in the budget we said that our budget for bonds are $103 million. So come on, you're supposed to know better. So don't come with convenient quotations and all kind of theatrics. This is not a play. We are here discussing serious business. How do we take the country forward? Common sense solution. Mention is being made about a primary surplus. What is a primary surplus? You've had overall deficits for all of your entire tenure in government. That is the actual picture of the accounting equation. Overall deficits. So yes, if you subtract your interest payments, of course you're going to have a surplus, but that is not the true picture of government's total liabilities. You've still got to go and pay very, very high interest rates. And this is a very serious scenario which confronts our country, one that we've inherited from you. You know, you said, I noticed you stopped saying it because we've showed that it was incorrect to suggest that the deficit which we have actually instituted in this budget is in part with what you've done in 2015. In fact, yours is 7 million more than our 2016-2017 budget. So governments running deficits is nothing abnormal about this, right? There's nothing that is rare. What is really happening is that we have abandoned your failed austerity project and we have embraced a program of growth. We're going to stimulate this economy. We've seen growth in the productive sectors and what you have to realize is where the money is being spent, right? And look at the Ministry of Agriculture and look at the budgetary allocations in agriculture. I'm so proud, you know, Ezekiel, I want to thank you on behalf of my constituents and honourable member for Babano. I want to thank you on behalf of my constituents. You are the best thing since Liesbred. They love your pharma subsidy to the subsidies, honourable member for Babano, right? Which your Ministry has instituted to reduce the fertilizer cost by two-thirds. Last year it was $100. And now it's $30-something. I am very, very proud. There's pharma confidence. And I have no surprise why you see such exponential growth within the agriculture sector. The other good thing you're doing that they're telling me is that the black sigatopa oil is the subsidy that you've made it cheaper for them to deal with pests and certain issues is going to buttress and stimulate production and stimulate economic growth and stimulate job opportunities for people in rural communities. This is what it's all about. I can't wait for you to implement the Feeder Road program which will do very, very well in the advancement of the farms to make them more productive. We will see higher yields per acreage. And this is what we have to do. Give us an idea. Give us a sensible idea that we can implement now. And I promise you we will do it. But when I come and I listen to all the theatrics, I feel that you guys are blank. And all you can do is to cost mischief in this country. All you can do is to try to scare people and come up with lies and come up with all kinds of things like the 97 vehicle dispersion, you know? He wouldn't deny it to say, well, there's a cabinet conclusion which has been circulated, showing clearly that there are four vehicles and it is normal. A former minister of tourism knows better because in his time, I'm sure that he would have extended concessions to hoteliers. The law is there. The Tourism Incentive Act is nothing new. It has been there since 1998. It benefits small hotels. It benefits people who want to do bread and breakfast and inns. It's there for everybody. It's there for tourism, recreational facilities. It's there for sites and attractions. It's there for various tourism projects. Don't make it seem like Alan Shastney and his friends are giving away the country to hoteliers. Come on, friends. Come on, come on, honorable members. You can do better than that. Let's rise to a higher level. Let's come up with solutions as to how we can take this country forward. The aspiration by the honorable member of the country's south, we're cheapening St. Lucia. But forget to tell everyone that when his CIP program came, the failed one, right, that it was below St. Kitts. St. Kitts was at 400,000, okay? The real estate component. He put St. Lucia's at 350,000. Why is that? The sugar industry diversification program in St. Kitts was at 250,000. You put St. Lucia's at 200,000. Why is that? Because you're selling the same product and you realize that if you continue at the same level, coming to the market late with well-established programs in Dominica, in St. Kitts, in Antigua, and what was the other jurisdiction? I forgot, there was another one. Grenada, then therefore, my friend, you have to do something about pricing. And that is it. You did the same thing and we're more or less doing the same thing as well. But starting where we have started does not mean that when St. Lucia establishes its program that we cannot increase the price. It's called revenue yield. It's called revenue management. And that's what we're doing on this side, making sure that we gain the interest of the CIP, make sure we establish ourselves in the market and make sure that St. Lucia's program is well-promoted before we start talking about all the things that you were talking about. So, Madam Speaker, I support the decision here. It's a very normal and all we're doing is financing the budget as stated. There's nothing complicated. We're not borrowing St. Lucia to hell. That's not what we're doing. Stop making those suggestions. We're not here trying to create a fiscal cliff for the government. No, that's not what we're doing. We're here trying to borrow money to capitalize our budget so that we can spend money in agriculture so that farmers in rural areas can benefit so that we can start our tourism project. The biggest component of that project is for the vendors of the market. Madam Speaker, a total reconstruction, a reconfiguration, a redesign, improvement and enhancement of the market in the surrounding areas so that when we have a million cruise passengers next year, and I know this is not good news for everybody because I have some honorable members to marry, right? Who just love bad news. When we have a million tourism cruise passengers next year, what you will see are vendors who are better positioned to benefit from the development, the enhancement, the training and the infrastructure that we would have put in place to ensure that the surrounding, the aesthetics of the market is improved. Madam Speaker, I thank you very much. We are a government of progress. Honourable member for Denry North. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, permit me to begin by making reference to something you cited in your opening statement when you mentioned Junet Quay All celebrations. Madam Speaker, I want to place on the record my appreciation to the people of the Mabia Valley, Larisus in particular, for hosting Junet Quay All 2017 and notwithstanding the fact, Madam Speaker, that we had thousands and thousands of people who came into our community to celebrate with us, there wasn't a single incident reported that made the work of the police more difficult than it ought to have been. I think it's a reflection of the majority of our people, Madam Speaker, and I think I should preface my short contribution to this debate with that particular comment. Madam Speaker, as a true patriot and someone who has a vested interest in the well-being of our country, I wish the situation confronting St. Lucia today was as favorable and as rosy as presented by the Prime Minister and the member for Ancillary countries. Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the reality on the ground is at variance with a lot of the pronouncements that have been made in here. A lot of forecasting, a lot of projections, Madam Speaker, and the government is trying to give hope to a population in which people, Madam Speaker, are crying for relief where people are looking for escape routes from the challenges that confront them today. Madam Speaker, I'm happy that today we had a change in this position by the member for Ancillary countries. There were no insults and you could have seen that he tried very desperately, Madam Speaker, to be constructive, even though a lot of what he said would not find favor with us on this side of the house. And so we must commend him, Madam Speaker, for the marked improvement in behavior. Madam Speaker, a point that was made earlier on by the leader of the opposition. Last night, it was drawn to my attention very late, Madam Speaker, that there were changes to the other paper and that four pieces of legislation that were down for first reading only, Madam Speaker, would be going through all three stages today. I think, Madam Speaker, that late notice is unfair and it puts the opposition in a situation where we are not able to fashion a very constructive and objective debate on those pieces of legislation, Madam Speaker. And so I want to appeal to the Prime Minister and the government that in future you give sufficient notice so that we can come in here and engage in constructive and objective debates. Madam Speaker, I came in this morning, ready to speak, ready to contribute to the debate on all the monies that will be borrowed today, Madam Speaker, to finance the capital and the recurrent expenditure programs of the government. Madam Speaker, I saw this morning or today as yet another opportunity for us as parliamentarians to raise the profile of a Parliament, Madam Speaker, that has been victimized, a Parliament, Madam Speaker, that has suffered immense damage to its reputation, Madam Speaker. A Parliament whose conventions have been violated and disrespected. A Parliament where insults and personal attacks have become the order of the day. A Parliament in which members blatantly disrespect each other with impunity. And Madam Speaker, it should not take you, as Speaker of the House, to posture as a prefect, a school prefect, or a headmaster, Madam Speaker, to quote unquote bring honorable men and women into line. We must understand the seriousness of the task that have been given to us by our constituents. We are supposed to lead by example, Madam Speaker. And in recent times, Madam Speaker, when I make the rounds from my constituency, the feedback and the general disposition that people have as it relates to our Parliament, Madam Speaker, is one that we would want to forget. But today, Madam Speaker, I think we've done fairly okay in that respect up to this point, notwithstanding, Madam Speaker, a short while ago, the Prime Minister and member for Mikut South after having clarified to him what the standing orders were saying, Madam Speaker, he assumed a very defiant posture and he insisted to you and the Honorable House that his position was correct. But it is not my place, Madam Speaker, to interpret the standing orders and to make a pronouncement as to who is correct and who isn't correct. Madam Speaker, our country is in crisis. Financially, economically, socially, we have problems. And the problems that confront St. Lucia today, Madam Speaker, cannot be solved and they cannot be addressed by the government alone. St. Lucia is in a situation today where all hands must be on deck. The government alone does not have the answers. Notwithstanding the pronouncements and all the figures that have been bandied around by the Prime Minister and the Tourism Minister, Madam Speaker, the situation on the ground in the various communities of our country, that situation is bad. And so the time has come for us on both sides of the political divide to put our politics aside and work objectively for the people of St. Lucia. Madam Speaker, the government must set the tone. They must set the pace. But how does a government set the tone for the rest of the nation? How does the government set the tone for the parliament, Madam Speaker, when they pick fights, when they pick fights with any semblance of opposition to the posture of the government? Madam Speaker, I took the order paper and it said, borrowing, Madam Speaker, in a certain amount. But where was the details to accompany the amount that is being proposed for borrowing? Madam Speaker, would it be wrong for me to, Madam Speaker, assume that just picking up a piece of paper which says standing order, motions, Madam Speaker, the order paper that the government, the money being borrowed by the government will be used for things to give members on the other side political advantage. Madam Speaker, why are we borrowing so much money today? Why is the order paper so devoid of information? We were criticized for borrowing and I remember sitting on the other side of this parliament and every time we came to parliament to borrow money to finance the programs of our government, Madam Speaker, we were chided, we were criticized and some of the most disparaging statements were made right in this parliament, Madam Speaker, to give the impression, not just to people in here but the wider community that we were reckless and we were wicked government plunging Saint Lucia into death after death after death situation. So today, Madam Speaker, the government that promised so much, the government that promised ching ching in the pocket, the government that promised that when it came, when it got into government, it was going to handle a crime situation that is doing even worse than we did, Madam Speaker. But you know what is good about our borrowing, Madam Speaker? You can go into every community in Saint Lucia and you can see projects and you can see things that were done with the money that we borrowed. You have been in government for almost two years. What do you have to show for your two years with your level of borrowing? And if we were, Madam Speaker, to extrapolate the fears and to forecast, Madam Speaker, what is coming, it will not be, Madam Speaker, long before this Prime Minister gets the unenviable tag of being the first to take Saint Lucia to the IMF. And, Madam Speaker, don't be too concerned about what you hear coming from the other side. It is a day for politics. It is a day for MPs to come, Madam Speaker, and convey a particular impression to the populace. But we know differently. And when I go into the constituency, when I drive through the different communities of Saint Lucia, the cries on the ground, Madam Speaker, reflect a reality that is not consistent with a lot of what we hear coming from the other side of this Honorable Chamber. Madam Speaker, the revenue streams are not doing well. And that is why the leader of the opposition had to ask the Prime Minister to come here and make a very categorical statement, Madam Speaker, about the state of the economy. But he refused. But instead, the Prime Minister chose to engage in semantics in terms of the methodology that should be used to put questions to him. I think Saint Lucia would have been happy today to hear the Prime Minister stand in this Honorable Chamber and tell a nation that is crying out for help, crying out for mercy, that these are the things he has in the pipeline, and these are the benefits that we are reaping today. But, Madam Speaker, again, it is politics. Again, it is an opportunity to come here and say things that are convenient to the heirs. But we know differently, Madam Speaker, and it will not be much longer before the people of Saint Lucia, whom you promised so much, will call on you to show slit for what you have done with their time when they entrusted you with the responsibility of looking after the well-being and welfare of this nation. Madam Speaker, in a time when money's not forthcoming, the government, as I alluded to, must lead from the front. We have to embrace belt-tightening measures. We have to show prudence with the finances of the nation, Madam Speaker. And when you can have ministers with phone bills in excess of $10,000, Madam Speaker, this is sending the wrong message to the rest of the population. Madam Speaker, we have a situation in Denver South where the previous administration proceeded to install lighting fixtures on the Denver playing field. Madam Speaker, close to two years, the lights cannot be connected in Denver. And the word on the street is that, the word on the street, Madam Speaker, is that the lighting fixtures in Denver are deemed inferior for that particular constituency by the line minister and that those lights have to be, Madam Speaker, transferred to another community and I'm hearing that it's supposed to go to for us all. So, Madam Speaker, here we are again in borrowing mood. Here we are again with the government that promised ching-ching in the pocket. Here we are again with the government that promised so much, Madam Speaker, for the people of St. Lucia. But all we get today, Madam Speaker, are promises of I will do and we will do and this is going to come. The people of St. Lucia cannot wait any longer. The people of St. Lucia are crying out for help. The people of St. Lucia are crying out for relief and the time has come, Madam Speaker, for this government to rise to the occasion and deliver on the promises that you made to the people of St. Lucia. Madam Speaker, with these few words, I want to thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker, and I'm hoping that in the next motion, I will have an opportunity to say a lot more with respect to the finances of the country at the moment. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Honorable Minister for Agriculture and Member for Babylon. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I suddenly listened and I'm asking myself, am I hearing correctly? Based on the presentation by my colleagues on the other side and it's unfortunate that they would have to take that direction, Madam Speaker, because like was said by my colleague from Ancillary Canaries, we'd expect them to come here and give us some recommendations as to how we can improve things. We expect them to come here and to criticize and to diagnose what we have presented and to give recommendations as to how we can make things better, Madam Speaker. But when I listened to the members on the other side, Madam Speaker, nothing substantial came out from the discussion. Nothing substantial. All we are hearing is things that happened four, five, six, seven, eight years ago. We move in forward, Madam Speaker. We move in forward. And since as a tone, they have said, Madam Speaker, please allow me to clarify some of the issues and discussions that have been presented here today. Because, Madam Speaker, when I sat and I listened, I said, let me do some research quickly to really understand and appreciate what's happening. And, Madam Speaker, I went to the Prime Minister's budget statement, paid seven, Madam Speaker, paid seven of the Prime Minister's budget statements. And not my Prime Minister, I'm referring to the Prime Minister of the previous government. The budget statement of 2015. And the document of the House, Madam Speaker, I don't have to make it a document of the House. Because the member for Cassuries East said that things were improving. We got an economy that is improving. And things was rosy. And now we have come in and they have made it worse, Madam Speaker. But I'm sure he'll remember, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I never said so. I never said, and the member must stop missing the House. I said things were improving, but the economy needed needed restructuring. But things were improving. That's what I said. I never said things were rosy. It's not the House. The point of order. I have said before that when any member rises, you speak to the standing order that you are rising on. That indicates to the person who is on the floor at the moment, whether it is a position where they can yield to you or they wish to yield to you. I have said that too many times in the House. So, in proceeding, I think unless, unless we may have two mics on at the same time, but then let the other member refer to the standing order, then the person standing on his feet can determine whether it is a point of order which to yield or a point of order for which it is just a clarification and the person standing may not yield if he or she chooses. Please proceed Honourable Minister Frager. Madam Speaker, I yield because I give a lot of respect to the member from Kastry's East. I've seen as a very experienced member in this Honourable House and I expected when he said he was standing on a point of order he would actually stand on a point of order. But as anything else, he just started standing. Madam Speaker, if I can continue. The Prime Minister is better at the address of 2015, Madam Speaker, page seven and I quote, 2.1, International Economy Development. And like I said, it's a document of the House. And I quote, in 2014, the global economy grew by 3.4%. Largely reflecting development in advanced economies. So what that is saying, Madam Speaker, heritage, we have a situation in the world where the economy is growing, where things are progressing, unlike Madam Speaker, during the period when we were there in 2006 to 2011. Let's make that comparison, unlike that period. But of course, the member from Kastry's East used the economic review, economic and social review of 2016. And conveniently, Madam Speaker, he's quoting sections that he thinks will be in his favor. But here is what we inherited, Madam Speaker. And I want to go to page three of the economic review, 2016. And page three, table one, Madam Speaker, look at the situation as far as the global economy. And what is saying that, Madam Speaker, in 2012, we saw a growth of 3.4%. In 2013, we saw a growth of 3.3%. In 2014, like the Prime Minister said in his benefit address of 2015, we saw a growth of 3.4%. In 2015, Madam Speaker, 3.2% and 2016, 2.3.1%. That is the situation as far as the world economy is concerned. That is the situation the St. Lucia Labour Party governed this country as far as when you compare to our period 2006 to 2011. Madam Speaker, let's look at the region. Let's look at the region. And that's table two of that same document, page four. And the regional situation is saying that, Madam Speaker, in bad days, in 2015, the Beijing economy realized growth of 0.88%, 2015. But what happened in 2016, we saw an increase in the performance. We saw an increase in the performance as far as Barbara is concerned. From 0.88% to 1.7% in 2015. Guyana, Madam Speaker, Guyana. In 2015, we saw 3.21% growth. And in 2016, it went up to 4.03% growth, Madam Speaker. So it is, if you want to compare St. Lucia with the rest of the world or the region, we are seeing that they are doing good. There are countries in the region doing good. Let's look at countries we will say would have the same economic development like St. Lucia, Madam Speaker. And I'm referring to countries under the ECCU, Dominica, Antigua and these countries. In 2016, Madam Speaker, Anguilla realized growth of 4.5%. Antigua, Barbuda realized growth of 4.3%. Dominica, 1.5%, Madam Speaker. Grenada, 1.7%, Montstrat, 1.3%. St. Kitt's Nervis, Madam Speaker, 2.8%. And St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 2.8%. Now I give that background, Madam Speaker, to show that what we heard from the member from CASSRIS is incorrect. It's incorrect because that same document is showing that, Madam Speaker, that same document is showing, and paid 6, Madam Speaker, that St. Lucia growth for 2016 was 0.9%. One compared to 2015 of 1.9%. So the role I'm showing, that is showing that the country is on a decline. That's what it's showing. That is what it's showing. So let me just figure, the country is on a decline. So when we came in, Madam Speaker, we got a country on a decline, despite the fact. Despite the fact, Madam Speaker, that we are seeing that all the other countries are growing. These are the facts. These are the facts. So when I heard the member from CASSRIS is talking about, we've got a country that was doing well, Madam Speaker, and maxing myself, what is he speaking about? What is he speaking about, Madam Speaker? He has that document, the document of the House, and all of them have that document, Madam Speaker. And I'm sure they would agree with me that we inherited something that is not a situation that we would like to find ourselves in. Madam Speaker, I'm still going through this document, and page 48 of the document, expenditure performance. And that's why we have to come here, this Madam Speaker, and come to the ball, and I'll come to this. That's why we have to come to continue the ball. Page 48 of the document, Madam Speaker, expenditure performance, and it reads, total expenditure, which account for 2.7% of GDP, expanded by 3.1% in 2016. Expenditure expanded, you'll spend more, you'll borrow more. Current revenue expenditure, Madam Speaker, increased by 6% to almost $100 million. That is what we inherited in 2016 when we came in, Madam Speaker. And that's why the Minister of Finance has to go and borrow. You have to go and borrow. Madam Speaker, when you look at the graph, sorry, a table in page 26 of page 52, no page 51, what we have seen, Madam Speaker, between 2005 to 2016, public debt increased under the same whichever party, the figures at page 25, look at when you came in, where was the public debt? And when you left in 2016, where it was, it has increased under y'all. And that is why we have to come here, Madam Speaker, and borrow, to pay off that debt, to pay off the interest on the loans, to pay off the interest on the bonds. That's why we have to come here, Madam Speaker. That's why we have to come here, to pay off. We have to also come here, Madam Speaker, to continue the project. They started, and I listened to the member from Cassree, from Viewfort, not from Viewfort, Denry North. I thought you would have said, thank you very much, Madam Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, for continuing the project in the Denry North water project. I thought you would have said that today. Because you come here, and talk about borrowing, and then the member from Cassree, he's talking about you have been borrowing to pay off debts. When you start up, you have said, thank you very much, and should continue thanking this government for continuing the projects, not like what y'all did, and I'm coming to you in a while, about fields. Madam Speaker, what we have seen in six months. What have we seen in this country in six months? After my Prime Minister, and our Prime Minister, Prime Minister Senbusha, presented his estimates and his policies. We have seen a reduction in unemployment. That's the fact. A reduction in unemployment. We have seen, Madam Speaker, the increase in sales in six months. That's right. The increase, you can spit it how you want. The figures are saying that there was an increase in sales. That's what the figures are saying. Madam Speaker, that's what we have seen. We have seen an increase in tourism arrivals. That's what we have seen in six months, Madam Speaker. And we have seen an increase in agricultural performance, Madam Speaker. That's what we have seen in six months. So, Madam Speaker, when you're asking questions and you want answers, Madam Speaker, let's look at what was said by my Prime Minister when he presented in this Honourable House, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, we inherited something, a situation, Madam Speaker. That was dismal. Page nine of Prime Minister Alan Sharsley's budget address, Madam Speaker, what did he reveal? He revealed to this Honourable House and the country that the ease of doing business in Senbusha went down significantly from 34 in 2008 to 86 in 2016. Who was the government during that time? Things was nice. Who was the government during that time? And, Madam Speaker, in this document, the document of my Prime Minister, he said we need four years to turn things around. That's what he said. So, we have started, Madam Speaker. Yes, we've just come onto the table. We have started and we're going to give a report at the end of this financial year. That's when we're going to give a report. So, Madam Speaker, I heard a lot about victimization. Victimization, victimization. And honestly, I wanted to stay away from that topic. I want to stay away from that topic, but I need to clear the air and that. And when I finish, Madam Speaker, I'm hoping that those on the other side do not bring this in the Honourable House. What year did victimization start, Madam Speaker? What year did victimization start? Madam Speaker, I remember the United Workers' Party running elections and members on the other side ran against the United Workers' Party. And after they lose badly, the government re-employed them. The pilgrims, the satanists, the gaskos. Re-employed them in the government service. We employed Lentico because that's how we behave as a government. We employed Lentico. What happened to Mr. Lawrence in 1997, who ran for ancillary counter is Mr. Lawrence, who was the manager of the Fisheries Complex. When he lost and he went to the Fisheries Complex, what was told to him, move from there, he ran against us. That's where victimization started, Madam Speaker. Affirmative action. Well, let me go for affirmative action yet. Siberia, who created Siberia, Madam Speaker? Who created Siberia? Move persons that believe, not supporting them and put them in a legal unit and bring in persons on the outside at top-level position in civil service. Who started that, Madam Speaker? It's not this party. Affirmative action. It's not this party. If you want to ask a question about victimization, you want to ask about victimization? Spirited fire you. Spirited fire you. Spirited fire you. You know, you're about victimization. You tried to fire him. You tried to fire him. You tried to fire him. Siberia, Madam Speaker. Affirmative action. Affirmative action, Madam Speaker. Where did it pass affirmative action? Where? You know what is woke up they're talking about. Where did it pass affirmative action, Madam Speaker? Where? Babono. And when the late George Audlum spoke against it, what did they do to him as a member of the party? Affirmative action, Madam Speaker. And you know what victimization, Madam Speaker? In recent times, Madam Speaker, the prime minister and myself went to court. Why? Because they tried to cut the head of the United Workers Party. They're about victimization. You're a settler cabinet and agreed to take the prime minister and myself to court because you'll say, we will spend constituency monies badly. And you know what's about it, Madam Speaker? They brought poor persons from Babono to court. I remember a lady who served on the constituency council, a respectable lady, cried to me. Cryed to me and tell me, look all the years you have never been in a courthouse and the solution labor party took her to the courthouse because of victimization, Madam Speaker. You know what victimization? I don't think so. But that did not break us. The workers are sitting down. That did not break us. That made us stronger. And that's why you all wear your lot today. That's why you all wear your lot today. You know about projects? You know about projects in Denrysville? You're the ministers, youth and sports. We're only about that few lights. Up to now, it's not on. We're trying to bring it on. You know about lights? You want to come here and talk about lights? You want to come and talk about unfinished projects by the United Workers Party? One and a half year in our government? Welcome to the Timon Court. Welcome to the Ballata Court, under your watch. When you're coming, be careful what you'll see. Be careful what you'll see when you come here. Welcome to the Gangwon Field. Welcome to the Gangwon Field. All these under your watch as minister of youth and sports. You know? So, Madam Speaker, when you stand up and talk about the government, you've set the tool. We have set the tool. We have given you policies which we believe and we are confident, Madam Speaker, will turn things around. You have to diagnose and analyze the policies and come here and tell us how you think you can do it better. But you know what? They have no answers. They have nothing to say. All you have to come and say is victimization and victimization and victimization. And eviction counts. You know? That's all what you have to come in and say, Madam Speaker. So I want to say, Madam Speaker, that I support this resolution. And I know that my government and the leadership of Mr. Alonnoble Alan Shasta we're in the right direction. And we have a cabinet of ministers who focuses on the job to be done. And whatever we have accomplished so far in the ministry of agriculture is not my doing. It's the doing of the government and my cabinet ministers. I'm just talking about myself. Mr. Alonnoble Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, I kindly request that we take a recess for one hour for lunch break until 3.15. Honorable members, the question is that the House do rise for lunch break until 3.15. I now put the question. As many, as of that opinion, say aye. Aye. As many, as of a contrary opinion, say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. This House stands suspended until 3.15.