 Honourable members, I wish to remind you that when the House last rose, the question before it was that Parliament authorizes the minister with responsibility for finance to borrow $25 million by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from Bank of St. Lucie Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget and that interest on the principal amount of the credit is repayable at a rate of 6% per annum and the principal amount of the credit is repayable in the amount of EC $210,964.21 per month inclusive of interest for 180 months. Honourable Minister for Economic Planning, Minister, Member for Castle Southeastern. Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I have been following the debate on these two motions before the House from morning. I was hoping that this would be one of the days when I could sit down Madam Speaker and listen to the discussions taking place. Yes Madam Speaker, we are here in this debate today trying to establish some very basic things in relation to implementation of the budget. But listening to some of the contributions Madam Speaker, it begs the question as to why we are having that level of debate. Madam Speaker, often in the past when I have stood up in this honourable House and have spoken on these issues, I have been accused of bringing in things in the past of raising all kinds of issues. So I decided today Madam Speaker, I would sit by and listen to the discussion. But what are we hearing Madam Speaker? We are coming to this honourable House to debate a simple motion, a motion to finance the budget which is already passed through the Appropriations Bill and we hear the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and Member for Castle Southeastern. Madam Speaker, speak as if, now he always shows me five. I don't know if it's because five can block a hole or I don't know if it's because he's referring to his five terms. Now Madam Speaker, I respect anybody and everybody who sits in this honourable House but at the same time Madam Speaker, there is a responsibility upon all members of this House if we are going to have a debate to have an intelligent debate, if we are going to present information to present information that is factual. Madam Speaker, the issue of borrowing and the 103 million that the member for Castle Street is talking about or he's not saying we are doing anything illegal but if you add the 40 million to that then it takes you beyond the 103 million, is that illegal? So on one hand they are telling you, well I'm not saying it's illegal but is there something wrong with this? Madam Speaker, the facts are clear that the issue in question is not the amount of borrowing but the source of borrowing. Budget is financed through various means, through grants, loans, bonds, treasury bills. All we are coming to do Madam Speaker, in the honourable House today, is to say look here, you are borrowing at seven and seven and a half percent treasury bills and I don't want to go back down that road Madam Speaker because they know what happened with treasury bills and with long-term bonds under their watch but when you listen to the member for Castle Street you would think it's five days he has been in the house because his behaviour, his interpretation, his understanding is less than that of a five-year-old Madam Speaker in terms of the procedures of the House. Madam Speaker, how can you come without a supplementary budget and borrow more than the main budget or the appropriation bill allows you to? So if we were in breach of what the mandate of the appropriation bill is I would expect the members opposite to come and highlight, look here, you are in breach, you need a supplementary budget but you see that's political games, that's political games that they are coming to play here Madam Speaker and to raise questions in the minds of the people about what is happening in the House. Madam Speaker, I heard so many things. So here we are, we could have floated the bonds on the market and maybe fetch seven or seven and a half percent. We were able as a prudent government to negotiate loans with the banks, the local banks to get the interest rate at six percent Madam Speaker and to be able to raise the necessary revenue through the local sources. Now I listened to the member and apparently he didn't know what was happening when he was in government. Madam Speaker, I sat over there on that side of the house where they are now and I saw bills that were approved for one set of borrowing and they came back to the house and said look here, we are not using the bonds market, we are going to use treasury bills or we are taking loans. That has happened before, that's nothing new in the House. Either the member was sleeping when that was going on or he was not part of the government. Apparently he didn't know what was happening in his own government but he seemed to know what is happening in this government. Madam Speaker, if we are going to debate on issues and I heard the member for Dennery North talk about well look here, let's pass that stage on. A simple bill like this, you voting against it. These same members you know Madam Speaker who said that if the Dennery water project was costing a hundred million dollars, even though the price of it was forty million, if we had come to borrow a hundred million they would have approved because they know about projects and these kind of prices. So they know when a project should cost thirty million and it costs a hundred million, they know about that. They know about that. So Madam Speaker today conveniently, so when it was the Dennery water project, we are going to vote, could be a hundred million you want but today forty million to carry out the affairs of the state, they will call for a division in the House to vote against the bill and then you talk about we need all hands on deck. Is that how all hands come on deck? Now Madam Speaker, I know papers were circulated lit but at least papers were circulated when I sat on that side of the House Madam Speaker and I came to Parliament and I had no papers. You know what the leader of government business then the member for view for south what he told me? He told me if it's any comfort to you I didn't get my papers either but he was the one presenting it you know but he didn't get his papers either. Madam Speaker these things happen time and again in the Parliament and I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying it's good but to make it look like oh we are so underprepared because the papers didn't come at a particular point in time. Many times I walked into the Parliament Madam Speaker and then there were no papers. I didn't even receive the papers beforehand when I come in the other paper changed. You see a whole set of things that were never there. These men so I'm not complaining and I'm not condoning I'm not saying it's right but don't make it look like because this government is in office these things just started happening. Madam Speaker I heard so much you know I heard the member for castries is talk about economics is figures economics is figures how could economics be figures Madam Speaker. There are so many dimensions of economics that we need to be able to deal with and when you heard if the member had said maybe accounting deals more with figures I could understand but the economic policies of a government what you're going to derive is based on the decisions that you have made the economic decisions you make today may bear fruit five ten fifteen years down the road but you see it was a game of numbers for them but they never get the numbers right. I heard the member for I heard the member for Denry South said Denry North he said we've been in office for two years that's what he said by his mathematical calculation two years we've been in government I wonder if that's how he was calculating the returns on the minister's account if it's by that same formula he used to calculate how long we've been in government but Madam Speaker coming back to the key issues so I want to tell the member for castries is economics is not just numbers it is policy decisions it is where we position this country and that is what the UWP government has always been better at than what the Labour Party is and you can measure I heard him talk about two billion when when the prime minister raised the issue of two billion in expenditure he started talking about the prison the police station that is that so should he talk about Rosoda and should he talk about Rodney Bay marina and he talked about five schools madam speaker five secondary schools was built you know how the secondary schools came in to be you know what they presented madam speaker they presented that the schools were too far apart and children had to travel too far the part of it they're not telling us about is they cut off the school transport subsidy that was helping children to travel to schools outside of the areas and these additional revenues the government was saving was supposed to be what was used to build the schools you cut off the transport subsidy this UWP government when we return to office were the ones who reintroduced the school transport for the children of this country so when you go into balance your figures balance it well show what you gave up what it caused the people and madam speaker remember for castries he spoke about he won by a bigger margin than the leader of the united workers party you run against yourself you almost lose you run against yourself tell me who was challenging you and you still had people voting against you is that how you do your maths is that how you calculate what what you are doing so so madam speaker when when it comes to understanding what is before us today the money issues that affect this country the borrow in madam speaker and we have a task on our hands to turn around this economy madam speaker is no easy task I don't expect the members opposite to understand that because they don't understand the value of money they just spent money they spent it because they were not the ones paying for on this side we will account for what we do we will account for what we do in government madam speaker so I heard the members speak about the CIP program and the government budgeting 43 million dollars on the CIP madam speaker in the last budget of the labor party before they had passed all the regulations for CIP they already had 12 million dollars in the budget for revenue from CIP so I want to ask them was the 12 million dollars ever realized in the budget because don't come don't come to this house and make the people believe it could be one month you budgeted it in your budget it was in your budget it was in your budget don't miss the point don't miss the point yes I want you to answer me and you answer me about you fairly too you know yes when you're ready madam speaker my apologies madam speaker madam speaker in terms of the the discussion when it comes to when it comes to what has happened with the CIP program madam speaker we raise the concerns the members opposite white government they said they would bring the regulations to the house as I stand here today where the regulations that you all brought to the house on on the CIP why didn't I bring it because I was not the one who committed to bringing it to the house you are the ones who committed to bringing it to the house but that is your that's the gamesmanship that you all have that is how you all play games because you think that the people of St. Lucia cannot read through what you are doing and I'm coming there's still a long way to go there's still a long way to go a long way my my colleague from Barbondo spoke about affirmative action every time the member for castries is come to this honorable house madam speaker every time he comes victimization victimization he must be the king of victimization madam speaker when we talk about victimization I know about that madam speaker you see I can speak madam speaker you know I can speak I was there at the convention in Barbondo when the vote of affirmative action was taken and I walked out there was a vote there was a vote there was a vote I have said it several times your leader did not support it your leader did not support it when the decision for affirmative action was taken it was taken in Barbondo madam speaker yes our time now you want to talk about victimization you want to talk about the city council workers that you all fired when you all came in conveniently conveniently conveniently the labor party madam speaker when we can go down to the level when we can go down to the level of firing people at that level and you know madam speaker it was not just firing them you know it was refusing to pay them what was due to them you know that imagine imagine these people had to take the imagine our people had to take the people you want to talk about don ahi that you have his check after five years you didn't pay him you cancelled the check that he was paid for a job that he did have a copy of the check still I still have a copy of the check never been cashed but madam speaker that is why they will come in the house and cry victimization because they know what they have done have done madam speaker the level of victimization by the labor party is unprecedented in this country no other government no other government in this country has victimized people more than the labor party madam speaker nothing nothing madam speaker they can do once you I have gone on project sites that is under my ministry that is on that's under my ministry and I see trucks working there with labor I love labor stickers on it and I smile I can tell you what happened after the trough in Bexon when the people were flooded and everything was happening I went to the engineers and I said to them you need to hire a few more people look the equipment all over the place there the people who lived in Bexon whose equipment was right there and ready to work they were not given a job you know what they did they paid to haul equipment from forestry to bring down to Bexon and on the way down the equipment stuck in one of the poles by the quarry in general and broke the pole and saw the little places that had electricity lose the electricity who was the minister the member for castries is when I spoke to the engineers on ground they tell me I cannot hire anybody except I get a directing that is what happened that is what happened madam speaker that is what happened after the trough madam speaker I was madam speaker I was the parliamentary rep for castries east they came in with their crew they passed me on the road they did not even acknowledge me they're right here madam speaker and the people in Bexon knows that they passed there they did not even acknowledge me as the parliamentary rep for castries southeast today you want to come and talk about victimization I've told you everything you all gave me I've given you all double I've thrown out that challenge and I'm saying it in the parliament of St. Lucia bring the projects that you all did through me in my constituency bring the records and everything you did I'm doing double for you and hold me to task to what I say in the parliament of St. Lucia because bring the CDP projects that you all did through me and I'm doubling the amount for you madam speaker imagine a constituency with 33 major communities madam speaker 33 the second largest constituency both geographically and population wise in St. Lucia every time step came around they would give me to choose 25 workers listen to this madam speaker 25 workers out of 33 communities not even each community I could hire one person to cut grass for 350 dollars you want to talk about victimization and somebody else was hiring another 75 people in my constituency that I represent and we want to talk about victimization you want to come to this honorable house and make people believe that somebody have done something to you all so you didn't realize that when you are doing that I can tell you you issued caretaker contracts for cutting the grass on the side of the road you cut on the side of castries east and the side of castries southeast was not cut and all the records are there to show that when you're going from the morn from green parot to forest here from chef harry dry the right hand side of the road is castries southeast the left hand side is castries east the grass was cut on castries east side never cut on castries southeast side tell me what you call that tell me what you call that you think that was all we go down from the morn the gas station by the morn and we go down to marigold moving in this direction one side of the road is castries the east side of the road the buckeye side is castries south the other side is castries southeast they cut the grass on castries south and go and show me one contractor that was cutting the grass on that side on my side of the constituency as minister of infrastructure as a deputy political leader of your party you didn't have a voice then to say that's not fair and that's not right i came to the honorable house i said every time there was constituency allocations i made allocations to the opposition and to the government i said give me a quarter of what your i was giving you one quarter and i would be happy not even that i got today i don't repay evil for evil i'm not like you i'm not like the labor party we are government for all the people and i can show you i can show you the labor party people who compend against me who have worked since the uwp came into office so don't come and preach victimization you all are the biggest victimizers of people in this country and the labor party has a phd in victimization and if there's any degree above that you above it so don't come and preach that here that is that is the reality of what i face madam speaker some people did not understand that they will not always be in government madam speaker we have a country to run we got an economy that was in shambles and they don't want to hear that where was the economy bright you move treasury bills from just about 34 million to over 300 million dollars in five years that is what caused our debt roll over to move from 10 years to four and a half years you couldn't raise money on the bond market whatever the reasons why you could not so what did you do you resorted to short-term instruments for raising money to finance your budget we were in the house we never called for a division to vote against the budget today a simple thing borrowing money from the local economy from our indigenous banks that would help them to perform even better because they get a return on the money that they're learning out to the government you come and you as leader of the opposition call for a division to vote against a simple bill like this because you know what your intention is to cripple the economy to reduce the government to a point of not being able to function because the labor party believes that if there's chaos there's a better chance of them coming back into government that is what a vote like that signals madam speaker that is the signal that is sent to us that you're going to come here and vote against and you know madam speaker is the mischief they know the vote is going to be defeated but you see he can help himself he has to show that he's leader of the opposition because they have some people on his court tales and he realized he ran against himself and he almost lose so i know he's concerned if somebody runs against him what is going to happen so he has to show i'm calling for a division to call in for a division then he wants the prime minister to report to him madam speaker madam speaker there are questions that you have to prepare to answer i never knew in this country and for the years this year is my 12th year in parliament i have never come to the parliament and heard any government give a midterm report of the performance of the economy this is where we are i know at the end of the budget year you come and you give a report this is what we said this is what it is today i'm hearing well tell us where things are at give it to us now give it to us now so when you are there why you didn't give it to the people of central sure is that how you want to score points as leader it doesn't burn me that's how you want to score points as leader you have to come better than that this cheap politics nobody will have respect for you then madam speaker i heard i heard maybe the statement of this year that the chamber of commerce reporting that there's greater activity in the economy and here's the explanation because of the increase in the price of goods sold or cost of goods sold to use the proper terminology of madam speaker i want to know if the chamber had a sidebar meeting with the leader of the opposition to give him that kind of information because if the chamber reports that there is more activity in the economy there are higher sales usually when you talk about higher sales if you do not mention revenue you mean items that are sold and i can agree with them if they had said to me look here there's more sale but that doesn't mean there's more profit that may be so because i would expect for a man in the line of business that he would understand that when you sell a certain number of products you can run a sale reduce price and you can have increased sales but not increased profit although if there's a profit margin madam speaker on any goods that any good that is sold once there is a profit margin you can realize higher revenues because of volume rather than just if you keep the price up there you may sell two products and make five dollars on it so that's ten dollars if you drop the price you may make a dollar fifty profit but you may sell 12 items that's increased revenue i heard the member for castries he said you know to undermine the positive news of the economy because he cannot understand after five years with all that they know they couldn't do anything to turn around the economy six less than six months after we pass a budget we have begun to see the signs of major improvement in the performance of the economy so he has to invent something that is worse than five dollars can fool a hole so here is his explanation if a pound of butter was costing two dollars yesterday and today you go to the supermarket and the pound of butter costs four dollars it means that there's increased sales there's increased revenue madam speaker that does not mean that there's increased sales increased sales has to do with the number of items that have changed hands is that what is that what i'm supposed to come and listen to you that's all the explanation you can give for what is happening in the economy madam speaker the minister of agriculture touch on a number of the issues you know madam speaker i heard him talk about the forestry housing project let me tell him who was in charge of the forestry housing project your former candidate a former candidate of the labor party who run against me so he was good when he was running for labor party so he's not good now is that how you determine whether people are good or whether they are bad when they belong to the labor party they are good but when they belong to the uwp they're not good well you should go and ask him what was the arrangement i'm sure you had a relationship with him go and ask him what was the arrangement on the forestry housing development project go and ask him i'm sure he can give you answers and i'm sure he'll give you honest answers at the end of the day some of these members behave i don't know if they were in government or if they were not in government madam speaker but i want to make it clear today that this government is on the path to grow this economy and madam speaker we have said it several times it is not going to be an easy task it is not going to be easy madam speaker we have to put in more than we have ever put in before to turn things around in this economy madam speaker when you look at what we inherited for financing they know that they took the economy when the national debt to GDP was about 34 percent between 34 36 percent back in 1997 today madam speaker i heard him quote in the social and economic review why he didn't say why they rebase the economy that makes us 66 percent why was it rebased who commissioned the rebase of the economy now do i believe that may be an accurate figure huh madam speaker these members i see they are clueless as to what happened under their watch and i can well understand why st lucha is in the state that it is today madam speaker they are the ones who complain about everything i heard him talk about the airport and all of these things madam speaker i've made this a document of the house before that i will tell him cabinet conclusion 384 of 2015 an increase of the airport service charge in the amount of 30 us dollars per passenger the new airport service charge will be 55 dollars and the minister of finance will determine the effective date of the new airport service charge so airport service charge is something new when we were in government previously we increased the airport fees by 45 dollars to build an airport madam speaker you know what they did when they came they scrap it and they brought it to zero say no work and done we are building we have not started any airport you know what happened they turned around in 2015 and the rate so they complained that our airport was too expensive and why would we pay 35 dollars but you know what they did they increased it to 55 dollars themselves that's the dishonesty that happens in this house madam speaker that is how people come with all kinds of bogus information to try and mislead the people of st lucer because apparently they forget what they have written they forget that they have documents to highlight their behavior and their actions and then when we said we were going to increase the airport service charge they said all people will stop coming to the country so when you introduce when you increase it to 55 dollars people didn't stop coming but if it happens on the uwp that's when people will stop coming why are you trying to scare the people of st lucer into believing you had your time as you indicated five terms how have you changed the lives of the people of castries is that should be your legacy what are the changes that i see in marsha from a child growing up i'm walking up and down the road i'm driving up and down that road what are the changes i have seen how have you improved the life of the people that is what we are elected to do we are elected to make a difference in the life of the people that we represent what is your claim to fame in the politics what are your accomplishments in your own constituency i'm attacking impersonal lindo i'm asking a question i'm asking a question yes i'm asking a question what is it that you have accomplished in your constituency because i'm not even checking the five elections three times you've been in government 15 years or 14 years you've been in the position to make a change in the lives of the people that you represent that is how we ought to be measured as politicians not by the speeches that we give here not by the things we say we think that is okay not the things we do to try and get people's votes but go and look at the people we represent and see how their lives have been impacted madame speaker this country was on a verge of a total breakdown thank god the people of st lusia saw the light madame speaker and they voted a government that can rescue this country but the rescue mission is not an easy one we can't change things around we show you all the good signs six months after our budget double digitalism arrivals agriculture on a major rebound the private sector and i will close on this point madame speaker the same convention that he ran against himself the member for cast resist and he almost lose you know what they said madame speaker they said that we have taken we have deprived the government of 52 million dollars of revenue now that is the intellectual dishonesty that happens where did this 52 million dollars they said oh you removed two and a half percent on that that does not amount to anything that does not amount to anything at your own convention you know that the government revenue is short by 200 by 52 million dollars you know what you all said to me when we were in government and we were dealing with the fuel tax you know what you all said leave the people's money in the pockets they are better placed to spend their money that is what that was the advice that you all gave us on the fuel tax as in the previous term in government today the united workers party government in fulfilling the mandate of the promises that we made to the people of st lucer reduced that by two and a half percent and the labor party is crying about that that the government did not collect in fact remained in the pockets of the people of seclusion what will you not be vexed about what is it we can do if we eliminate that you all will crucify us because we we said you said in opposition that was an oppressive tax and do i believe that is an oppressive tax of course i believe that but you see i don't say that with my mouth and act differently you all said that but you all came and you all implemented that at 15 percent the uwp government came amidst all the challenges you all said the economy is going to collapse on us tell us what we've not been able to do we've paid the salaries our deficit is not higher than your deficit we've met all our obligations and we've reduced that by two and a half percent increase the allowance for the school transport we've increased the school feeding program the five to stay alive was implemented by this government and almost 18 months later we are solid and we are on a path of rising out of the situation that we are in you love the people of st lucer so much the prime minister you all said who did not understand the plight of the poor people removed two and a half percent of that rather than applauding him for that you all criticize him for that and you love the people you love them so keep that at 15 percent because you love them under the united workers party that's not where that ought to be that ought to be lower than that but it will take us time but we will get there people understood why they voted for us you know you have not understood why they didn't vote for you but we understand why they voted for us we have a responsibility towards them not by word of mouth action speaks louder than words your words say one thing but your action is contrary to the people of st lucer the united workers party more young people madam speaker and even dealing with the unemployment numbers because personally as a government i don't believe we have done enough to reduce unemployment for us to start talking about if it was your all would say look at unemployment was about 24.6 percent in the last review by the statistics department it was down to about 21 percent they've not come and boasted about that because we set high standards for ourselves we don't play with little figures like three percent we want to bring unemployment to much lower numbers when it has gone down to 15 and 16 and 12 then we can come in and we can begin to say as a government we are now accomplishing the things that we want to accomplish for the people of st lucer we all used to employ a hundred people in my constituency the last cleanup i did in my constituency you know how many people i employed 500 and i paid them 500 dollars you all were employing a hundred and paying them 350 you think the people don't understand that the people understand that they know the benefits of having the united workers party in office you said you left all the roads in good condition as the minister of infrastructure now how many roads we've had to fix since we came into office ask him how much pot hole in his had to do for the time period that he's been in office and there are still so many bad roads so you mean in the one year we came into government all these roads got so bad and he all said you all left the road network in the best condition that it had ever been that's how you measure yourself you always think you're so good at what you do but the people don't see it and every time we come back to the same situation madam speaker this united workers party government we were elected to do a job and i think with all the challenges we are on course to deliver what we promise that we would deliver for the people of sentlos and while we are not where we want to be while we are not where we want to be i want to tell you not a dollar of taiwanese funds have been spent on the ground as we speak so i can well understand why some people come to me but the people need to know why a dollar has not been spent because you in your recklessness the labor party in its reckless behavior in government around election time went and spent about 15 million dollars that we have not even received yet they spent it to try and win the elections madam speaker and today we are still paying the debts of that expenditure that they mean you want to talk about expenditure you want to talk about the roads in me could you know how much money we are paying most of the roads you did was on the design finance construct you're not the one paying for this government is the one paying for all of the bridges and the roads and everything you did so outside of the loan portfolio that you had chose to highlight the next time you come to the honorable house you are the minister of infrastructure tell us how many road projects was done on the design finance construct take the bans road as an example i have the document here still i still want to debate it one of these days the one the other speaker had not allowed me to speak about i will speak about it in time 30 plus million dollars they have lots of them all of them are there we didn't come into government and complain oh you gave all of these road contracts and we have to pay for it when you come into government you come into government understanding that whatever is there you inherit it and you have to deal with it so we're not a government of excuses we are government of performance and the people of st lucer four years from now will have the opportunity to judge this government on its performance and make a determination as to who they want to continue leading this country i thank you madam senator honorable member for castry south thank you madam speaker madam speaker just before i continue i'm not sure the correct procedure for doing this matter but i noted on the order paper for documents which will lead this morning it refers to the citizenship by investment unit the report on the financial statements for the end of March 21st 2017 but the document that was actually circulated is 2016 i'm not sure whether or not you would be minded to correct the order paper because it will record that the statements for 2017 has already been tabled and i you could double check from the document which was circulated it said 2016 and 2016 the audited financial statements were not circulated in this house this morning the financial statements which are circulated is 2016 there were two annual reports for the last two years but the financial statements they want to have as to 16 26 yours are 2017 here mine says 2016 the prime minister says this is 2017 no no no your mic your mic honorable prime minister and honorable members the point raised by the honorable member for castry south is that the order paper refers to yeah ended are we talking about a citizenship by investment unit financial statement it says 20 mine says 2017 honorable members what i'm some clarification just bear with me there is some clarification to be made apparently the documents circulated to the parliament some of them actually have 2016 some have 2017 the documents the in the reports by the honorable prime minister documents papers to be laid this morning they were prime minister in his list of papers so madam speaker i'm now being given a copy of 2017 so if 2017 is also available then the standard order should say for the years 2016 and 2017 because it only says 2017 the order paper yeah so i've now been given a copy for 2017 you see i'm the prime minister laid 2017 and he does not have 2016 but how did i get 2016 in my package i am just explaining to you that when documents were forwarded to the parliament it was only it was not only one cent so parliament received a batch of 2016 and a batch of 2017 two different batches so at the end it inadvertently they believe that all of the documents were supposed to be for 2017 am i correct prime minister okay if members who members here who are ministers you would not be given a copy from the office of the parliament because these are documents emanating subsequent to a cabinet meeting where you all would have discussed it and it would have been circulated to you prior you all would have had discussions on it so what happens is if you are not a member of cabinet only members who are not members of cabinet parliamentarians or not members of cabinet of ministers would receive the reports because cabinet would have already discussed those reports beforehand before it gets to the parliament so one of the things that you will need to be mindful of honorable ministers is that the documents circulated in cabinet and discuss you will not be receiving a subsequent copy from the parliament with your papers so your because you would have already have cited and have had discussions on these documents are we okay with that you understand that and that makes sense so some of these reports that are coming in you all would have already had discussions regarding that and you all would have had copies so the office of the parliament does not make copies available for the cabinet of ministers that being said the the there was an error some some some miss some mishap there and the documents to have been circulated were the 2017 reports 2017 not 16 so there was no 16 circulated previously 2016 would have already been circulated I would have thought pardon ma'am well I mean I got six 2016 and now parliament has provided me for copy for 2017 but is for the sake of kept having the records rights what was actually table the odd Sunday order says 2017 and we have to decide whether it is both 2016 and 2017 and for all members to have the correct documents otherwise what the odd Sunday order reflects is not what we got the other people so I thought I should bring that to your attention so there can be some rectification I want to ask members of the opposition do all of you have 2016 and not 2017 Madam Clark and Miss Monta okay okay but it was supposed to be what is on the order people 2017 please proceed honorable member for cast yourself Madam Speaker and of course I trust my time starts now having asked for your your guidance on for the record Madam Clark is is is informing me for the record it ought to have been for 2016 and 17 and so you're supposed to have two of them and honorable prime minister you should have laid two of them so we want to we want to note that the order paper is to be corrected to reflect that the citizenship by investment unit financial statements was supposed to be for the financial years ending 2016 and 2017 okay Madam Speaker I rise with a sense of trepidation Madam Speaker because I've heard a lot today Madam Speaker and with the absence of the honorable member from Srozel Salty bus and the newest member or the member from ancillary can raise is here but of course Madam Speaker we we all know Madam Speaker that we are the newest members in the parliament and Madam Speaker I always thought that the role of the opposition was to be a check and balance on the functioning of the government side to oppose Madam Speaker not for the sake of opposing but to criticize whichever policy we the loyal opposition believes is not in the best interests of the people of Saint Lucia we are also responsible Madam Speaker to hold the government accountable for its policies and for its actions today Madam Speaker I'm hearing members from the other side saying to us what they really want from us our recommendations on how to solve the problems of this country the member for Babono said it the member from country southeast said it and the member from ancillary can raise they were all speaking about our posture that we were critical of borrowing and that they felt we should be different in our posture that we should instead come up with ideas Madam Speaker on how it is they can solve the problems now Madam Speaker when you listen to the members Madam Speaker on a point of order Madam Speaker 34b 34a rather standing order 34a Madam Speaker I would just like to make a correction the honourable member for Castries South is again misrepresenting the facts Madam Speaker what we're saying is that if you're going to criticize be constructive but don't criticize the same policies or don't criticize things that you have had to endure yourself and what we have said Madam Speaker is that the criticism that we have seen from the opposition has been politically motivated they lack substance and there are no specifics and you will see the same mode in his presentation carry on and you'll prove me right Madam Speaker the reasonness of the member from ancillary canaries is unbelievable Madam Speaker this is an honourable member who has been referred to the privilege committee for his conduct in the last sitting of the parliament Madam Speaker but Madam Speaker let us move on history has a way of judging all of us Madam Speaker Madam Speaker the point of correction again standing order 34a Madam Speaker Madam Speaker on a point of order again Madam Speaker on a point of order 34a standing order 34a Madam Speaker again this is misleading Madam Speaker as far as I know no motion has been brought to this house to take me to any disciplinary committee and so I am not aware of what the member for Castree South is talking about and so any suggestions that are contrary to that to suggest to the public on television that I have been hauled before a disciplinary committee is in fact very incorrect and I suggest you withdraw it and I continue Madam Speaker because Madam Speaker has now become fashionable to interrupt and to try to grant some vulnerable member let us proceed Madam Speaker Madam Speaker if I ask that he withdraw the statement that I've been hauled before a disciplinary committee because I am not aware that a motion was brought to the house Madam Speaker and the house has has not voted on any motion in accordance with standing order 126 Madam Speaker I'm sure you would recall when this as the statement we withdrawn by which a member is and and the honourable member the honourable member was as I recall cited and the suggestion on the floor was that he be brought to be brought before the privileges committee okay is cited to be brought before the committee of privileges okay in respect for my understanding of two two issues now the in respect of the privileges committee I wish to refer members to section seven and to stunning order 71 there shall be referred to the committee of privileges any matter which affairs to affect the powers or privileges of the house and it shall be the duty of the committee to consider any matter so referred to it and to report there on to the house and sub to the speaker shall be the member and shall be a member and chairs the committee of privileges that is with respect to members privileges within the house and the member was cited for being brought to the to the privileges committee and I think it has been played out that he has to be disciplined with the public the media that he has to be disciplined and and this is very this is incorrect and so when he says he is he is correct to say that it is a matter that should be withdrawn in terms of that he is before the privileges committee he was cited the honourable member for castries south for view for south and also the honourable leader of the opposition cited issues if I recall correctly the honourable leader of the opposition withdrew when the honourable member put forward he said about the correction of the document which he presented to the house which was not what he intended to present to the house and the honourable member for of the leader of the honourable leader of the opposition did in fact accept that people make errors and it was for him and he withdrew it from what I understood I remember that one clearly however there was the other issue of of of there was the other issue of the what the honourable member stated in terms of not receiving DC approval and not receiving DC approval and it is an honourable honourable member for for ancillary canneries I need you to pay attention to this one whilst the member for view for south cited that you should be brought before the privileges committee the manner in which you are brought before the privileges committee and you know the point which was raised I was at that time attempting to avoid having a privileges committee meeting sit to deal with the issue since I also chaired at committee and that requires investigation and that is why at the time I rose and went to the back to try to establish what exactly was said to bring that matter to a to an amicable resolution and clues right there and then now since that seems to be hanging I would suggest that documents pertaining to that which is still hanging be brought in so that this matter the meeting may be called and this matter is all okay Madam Speaker um with your permission no if I can just comment on the but Madam Speaker I'm a bit confused about the procedure because Madam Speaker it says in um standing order standing order standing order what 26 and it speaks about privileged emotions and it says that a motion has to be brought and Madam Speaker as far as I was aware no member of the House brought a motion the House did not vote on any motion to to bring this to the privilege committee so I'm asking now whether the procedure is um whether it is the Speaker's role or whether it is the motions are brought by the House as far as I'm aware and so Madam Speaker um I think that I'm just asking for your guidance and the procedure as to whether standing order 26 uh one is indeed we will depart from that um the other the other point Madam Speaker is that the documents that we have to bring to the House is that the honourable member for Castree South who was proving that the said development had DC approval never brought his document for documents for you to see but he just waived them as a traditional politician bluffing the country that he had a document and there was no proof of them so I hope that he's going to bring those documents as well so those are the two points I want to make I wanted clarification on the um standing order 26 one Madam Speaker where it's clearly states that a motion directly concerning the privileges of the House shall take precedence over all the other public business but Madam Speaker implies here that um if during the sitting of the House in two a matter suddenly arises which appears to involve the privileges of the House um it goes on to state that it has to be brought by a motion and so Madam Speaker standing order 26 two I'm asking whether this is in fact relevant to this specific procedure and if Madam Speaker you would wish to take a vote in it um then I am happy to do so but I just want to make sure that um you know we're all clear on the procedures honourable member minister and member for ancillary canaries in terms of procedure you are correct because the procedure was not followed in terms of the privilege our member is brought before the privileges committee in terms of motion now honourable member for castry south you cannot assert that it has no bearing before here because he rose on a point of order regarding something you you said whilst you were on your feet regarding that same incident and he's correct Madam Speaker the honourable member says that I said he was held before a disciplinary committee I never said so I said the honourable member is the one who has been referred to the privileges committee yes so he's in the first place quoting me incorrectly secondly Madam Speaker and I'm sure you may recall we actually took a break during the sitting of the house you walked up to this enclosure to listen to the tips to ensure that you got the recording right the leader of government business and the leader the opposition converse and they agreed that the house proceedings are to continue honourable leader the opposition remember and then Madam Speaker you were up in the enclosure do you recall you'd come in back down and we proceeded with the house because we agreed it will be referred to a committee of privileges because it was said by yourself Madam Speaker the matter shall be referred to a committee of privileges Madam Speaker now Madam Speaker I'm not going to say you were wrong but if you deem that on that occasion what you had done was an incorrect procedure can you kindly indicate to us what is the correct procedure so we can ensure that the appropriate action is taken against the honourable member but Madam Speaker the business of this house has to continue and you know you can go back and read Hansad and find out the exact wording of what transpired on that day because that's why Hansad exists so that there can be verbatim recording of what happened on that day but Madam Speaker if you deem what was done on that day was incorrect kindly indicate to us what is the correct procedure so that we may follow it and the business of this house can continue today or Madam Speaker if you will write then Madam Speaker can you so indicate to the honourable member that I need to proceed Madam Speaker it's getting late and there's a lot more to talk about this evening. Thank you so honourable members the correct procedure to bring a member before the committee of privileges and to deal with an issue of privilege motion is as contain understanding order 26 in that case at the last sitting when this episode occurred and we or I agreed to move with the business of the house the issue remain in sort of hanging and it was incorrect in that now if that issue still remains an issue of contention and wish and then the honourable opposition wishes to proceed with it please I refer you to standing orders 26 okay to follow the correct procedure. So Madam Speaker I shall continue where I stopped off in my my presentation I'm sure now that you've provided us some guidance on what should be done the appropriate action will follow. Madam Speaker on a point of order Madam Speaker I really this is not fair to me and the honourable member has asserted that I'm being hauled before our committee and now we're saying that the correct procedure was not followed and we're asking the opposition if they're going to drop it then at least withdraw the statement that I'm being taken before our committee until that happens so if you want to bring a motion to the house go ahead we will vote on it okay but if you don't want to go ahead with it don't cast aspersions to people that I am being hauled before our committee because that is what you're insinuating as you continue to speak. Honourable member for Castery South the issue now is you you have perhaps you may redirect your statement because he was referred the the the statement was made that he be referred to the committee of privileges right now that as we stand today it is yet to be done it has not been done in the correct manner. Madam Speaker English you are to be referred to a committee it does not mean you have been sent to the committee you are to be referred to a committee it says that it will be done Madam Speaker but how does Madam Speaker Madam Speaker this is almost becoming faster than Madam Speaker I said the honourable member is the member who will be referred to the committee I'm not even sure what you're saying to me I thought you had given us clear guidance Madam Speaker I thought you had given us clear guidance that the wrong procedure was followed when we last met as as parliament and that you indicated to us what the correct procedure is I am saying to you Madam Speaker we can move on you have now indicated to us the correct procedure we shall do it the right way when we last met as Madam Speaker you said as presiding officer yes I agree it will be referred to the committee of privileges we've all accepted that may not have been the right procedure you've now clarified to us the right procedure so Madam Speaker we will follow the right procedure yes we will ask that a member be referred to the committee of privileges so can we why can't we do that but that's what a motion will do Honourable Prime Minister but we're not doing it now because we we're debating a particular motion now he is to be order order order it was said in the in the chamber that the member be referred to the committee of privileges it was it was stated in the so if Honourable Member for Anceleray Canaries if your bone of contention is a that you um the Honourable Member for Castery South is stating that you've been referred to or has been cited has been referred to the committee of privileges that in itself is not erroneous if he said you are being hauled to if he says that you are being taken before the committee of privileges that is erroneous there are two different these two things are different I am I am resolving that we move on and the Honourable Member proceed on the debate on the floor but so Madam Speaker I was making the point that the members opposite were asking us to make recommendations and in the words of a particular member that when we criticize we should do so constructively and objectively and with facts Madam Speaker I'd like to believe when I stand in this house that I use facts I try to argue logically and Madam Speaker I try as best as I can to hold the government accountable so Madam Speaker you can understand how we feel when the Prime Minister says that is under no obligation to answer questions that are asked seeking clarification on motions before this house because in his view those questions should be asked and the question time as provided for in the standing orders and the order paper and I think Madam Speaker you pointed out what was the correct in fact procedure that questions can be asked during the course of a debate and one would expect in rebuttal answers are provided to those questions well the speaker rule that that is the correct procedure you may decide not to answer the questions that's your prerogative as the leader of government business and you saying thank you because Madam Speaker that is a kind of arrogance that we've seen manifested in just about 18 months in government in Madam Speaker it is that arrogance that arrogance Madam Speaker that led to the backing dog statement and is that arrogance Madam Speaker that it led to the behavior of the member from ancillary today Madam Speaker is that disdain for the people of this country as the opposition we come in this honourable house and members opposite when they were in opposition did the same thing you hold the government to accountable you ask the difficult questions Madam Speaker the people of country south please spend this house for me to ask questions I took an oath don't worry honourable member your time will come your time will come honourable member don't worry don't worry Madam Speaker the people of country south please spend this house to ask questions the persons you find in old cemetery in Fuashu in Monkitong in Marigou in Bassa Joseph they expect me to come in here and ask the difficult questions Madam Speaker they don't expect me to come in to shy away and not hold the government accountable so Madam Speaker I am under no obligation either to come into this house to offer our recommendations to the government or simply to be nice and pat them on the back and tell them all as well we are here to hold the government accountable and we are here to act as a check and balance on the performance of the government so Madam Speaker honourable member I'd always ask you to answer Richard Federick you never did and watch what happened to you today but let's leave that for another day Madam Speaker so Madam Speaker no you well you before me at least let's go on Madam Speaker the Prime Minister you've come before me Madam Speaker the Prime Minister Madam Speaker this morning and we had a debate that started off Madam Speaker in usual fashion the honourable Prime Minister presented his motion the leader the opposition stood up and the leader the opposition responded asking putting on questions Madam Speaker and then of course we move on to the second bill the second motion and the Prime Minister sought Madam Speaker to go down a road which I thought was very unfortunate Madam Speaker Madam Speaker there's a gentleman called Mario Cuomo who was governor of state of New York and he made a very profound statement that you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose you campaign in poetry but you campaign you govern in prose meaning that on in campaigns there's a lot of flair there's a lot of drama you say things that are beautiful but when you govern there must be the attention to detail to be accountable to be able to respond to questions when you are asked questions and the Prime Minister Madam Speaker is starting to understand what it is to campaign in poetry and to govern in prose Madam Speaker because this morning Madam Speaker the Prime Minister stood here during statements by ministers and spoke for about 50 minutes Madam Speaker and Madam Speaker when the Prime Minister stood up to issue his statement you know what I thought the Prime Minister would do he would explain to this country why we had four deaths in the last four days to give an account to the people of this country what has been done to make them feel more secure in their homes Madam Speaker but the Prime Minister the Prime Minister stood up he told us about hurricanes affecting Dominica and Madam Speaker we are in solidarity for our brothers in the other Caribbean islands the Prime Minister spoke about his trips to Houston to Toronto to Cayman to Canada to Mexico he never said anything about the spiraling murder in this country the Prime Minister did not say anything and I will go there the Prime Minister did not say anything about documents circulating about a minister in his government facing investigation Madam Speaker you would have expected a Prime Minister to stand up in this honorable house and he's never even done it Madam Speaker when an earlier another minister of his cabinet had to resign so the Prime Minister does not come into this house to account to the people of St Lucia but instead he spends 50 minutes Madam Speaker saying all sorts of things but you know what was most remarkable about everything he said Madam Speaker it led me to the conclusion that the Prime Minister has not been taken seriously internationally because there is no confidence in this Prime Minister now this Prime Minister I'll tell you something Madam Speaker and we'll come to it later on giving investors everything they ask for of this country doesn't mean there is confidence in the Prime Minister it doesn't mean when the Prime Minister goes to the World Bank IMF guess who he takes with him as his advisors Honorable Guy Joseph who is his lead economist Dr Eubolus Rimon who the member from Kastri's north called a Bush doctor and he would never trust him to give him economic advice and Madam Speaker when this Prime Minister goes anywhere to represent this country Madam Speaker do you really believe they have confidence in him Madam Speaker the last time Cope was hosted do you know who was the co-chair of Cope's James Fletcher we've moved from having a member of the solution government as a co-chair of Cope's to total insignificance in the Cope's process that's when your country has not been taken seriously anymore Madam Speaker now I have friends who work at the IMF at the World Bank Madam Speaker and Madam Speaker I can tell you if Honorable Guy Joseph is the one given economic advice to the Prime Minister Madam Speaker oppose smoke our pipe Madam Speaker so Madam Speaker the Prime Minister show you what Madam Speaker in all in all serious matters what have I done that makes me successful in life Madam Speaker the Prime Minister made a comment this morning about CIP and wanted to chastise us because in the context of borrowing when the leader of the opposition referred to an allocation in the budget of 40 million dollars of CIP he said we were trying to destroy CIP because statements have been made that we're going to review the operations of the CIP Madam Speaker I want to repeat it here that when we get into government we will review all the persons who have granted citizenship under the CIP program Madam Speaker and there's a simple reason why we had said so then and we'll say so again persons had been rejected under the CIP because they failed due diligence and the Prime Minister overturned it and they have been granted citizenship in St Lucia now now if the Prime Minister as a sole individual can overturn an entire due diligence process where somebody had been rejected and now grant them citizenship Madam Speaker just in that one instance tells us there is a tendency and a disposition to interfere in the process in CIP Madam Speaker and that raises issues for us Madam Speaker so we hold to our position that as long as there seem to be in evidence of interference in the process we will have to review the applications Madam Speaker Madam Speaker the Prime Minister said that we want to protest that what we want to do is protest and he repeated it who said there will be no peace Madam Speaker who led two matches against the price of fuel who said that there was a heating tax of 850 imposed by Kenyans on the price of fuel Madam Speaker and two matches were held Madam Speaker they were called orange matches and we all remember that famous poster what NICE stands for remember it Madam Speaker Madam Speaker who said he was going to protest to open the hospitals but Madam Speaker the Prime Minister said he would protest to open the hospitals he did not do it but we will protest to make sure that the hospitals are open if the Prime Minister thought it was necessary to hold the government accountable and to force them into action by doing so it is equally good for us Madam Speaker and we shall do it Madam Speaker Madam Speaker you know the Prime Minister speaks about who's got boats were not working when he came into office why Madam Speaker we all know why impacts Madam Speaker the Prime Minister promised that he would do away operation restore confidence Madam Speaker operation restore confidence Madam Speaker and the Prime Minister promised the police of St. Lucia that he should get their support because he will do away with the matter he will do away with it watch what's happening now Madam Speaker is he doing away with it Madam Speaker is he doing away with it Madam Speaker Madam Speaker this morning the Prime Minister said he was proud of his government Madam Speaker he is proud of his government Madam Speaker the Prime Minister has to be proud and if that is his standards of pride Madam Speaker it says a lot about how the core of this government has degenerated Madam Speaker the Prime Minister is proud of a minister in his government exposing his private parts to school children Madam Speaker and I almost said his cock-a-locks Madam Speaker but I won't say he referred to it Madam Speaker Madam Speaker he is proud of that Madam Speaker he's proud of the fact that a member of his cabinet had to resign Madam Speaker a former senator and the Prime Minister up to this day has not addressed this nation and explained why it happened and Madam Speaker he's proud of his minister of economic development where there are documents all over indicating that there's an investigation ongoing against allegations of bribery this same minister who it has been publicly stated by a talk show who's attempted to bribe him and attempted to bribe a former prime minister and he's never denied it and the documents are there Madam Speaker and he said he's proud of his government his minister and the minister minister of finance his minister in the ministry of agriculture and his minister of economic development and he's proud of his government Madam Speaker Madam Speaker this morning the leader the opposition was making a very simple point simple point and the prime minister reacted the leader the opposition was saying when the budget was passed the parliament authorized the borrowing of a hundred and three million dollars he didn't say in bonds he didn't say in bonds he didn't and I can I read the document it was a document of the house it doesn't say in bonds bid resolve that parliament authorizes the minister of finance who reads is some of a hundred and three million for finance in the twenty seven twenty eight in budget that's what it says that's what it says and the prime minister was being told by the leader the opposition that if you add all the borrowing through loans that you've come to this house for it exceeds what parliament had authorized you to do that's what he was saying and the prime minister could not understand that and they said those of us on this side have limited understanding and Honourable Bem on the other side said we have a paucity of understanding or whatever Madam Speaker that was a simple point been made Madam Speaker a simple point been made by the leader opposition saying to the prime minister Madam Speaker that what the authority you were given you are now passing that authority to borrow that's what he was being told Madam Speaker but Madam Speaker the member for catches out he spoke about why the Labour Party was thrown out of government and his party was elected and Madam Speaker that is where the issue really is because the people of solution would tool in all the disappointing the Labour Party that better can be offered five to stay alive was the clarion call Madam Speaker and they were told and Madam Speaker no matter how the Prime Minister tried to spin it now that they will be no more borrowing and you know why they said no more borrowing because it was felt that solutions were tired of the levels of borrowing in this country so that there will be no more borrowing when the United Workers Party wins the election they will have a budget that is balanced there will be no deficit budget again in St Lucia and that there will be no borrowing in case if you do have deficit well it's balance you know your revenue equals your your expenditure but Madam Speaker did not take long for the people of St Lucia and let me just say to you man Speaker no matter what is said by the member for ancillary countries the member for country south east the member from Babo know you see the people the people know when there is economic progress in the country because they feel it they feel it no matter what you say Madam Speaker when I go to the old cemetery when I go to Fuashu when I go to Banan when I go to Marigold Cicero Basel Joseph the people are saying what they are feeling and they're not feeling this the kind of growth and prosperity that members opposite are telling us is taking place in this country right now people are not feeling that prosperity Madam Speaker so I don't have to come and argue if you whether or not the economy is doing so well and everything is moving in this country once again the people on the street the business persons know what's happening in this country but man's good they'll come at time very soon when we look at the figures but Madam Speaker Madam Speaker the economic philosophy of this government is what worries me what worries me and when I hear certain members on the other side and applaud it it frightens me because Madam Speaker when your Prime Minister says that his primary consideration is guided by a belief that your patrimony is measured by your credit rating he's saying something very derogatory to you as a Saint Lucia when that same Prime Minister goes on CNBC and when he's asked you know what he says he wants to make it easier so investors who come to Saint Lucia can expatriate they can export all the profits they're making Saint Lucia he doesn't say I'm going to find ways to make it easier for investors to reinvest their profits in Saint Lucia he doesn't say I'm going to find ways and means legislation or otherwise to make sure that profits made in Saint Lucia some part of it can remain for the redevelopment center he doesn't say that Madam Speaker and in that statement he betrays Madam Speaker what he thinks about Saint Lucia and Saint Lucia it is not about Saint Lucia and putting Saint Lucia first we may disagree on either side Madam Speaker about the tactics and some of the projects we implement but we must all agree that Saint Lucia is about Saint Lucia the things we do are ultimately for the benefit of Saint Lucia we may disagree on some of the tactics and some of the specificity of what has to be done but we must never compromise that essentially this country this heritage of ours this country of ours the resources of this country must primarily be for the benefit of Saint Lucia we should not believe that when we go internationally and we boast of how investor-friendly I am and how business-friendly I am come to Saint Lucia I will give you all the profits and help you go overseas with it that makes you a great prime minister but what about the people in Saint Lucia what about them Madam Speaker and therefore Madam Speaker what we have seen in the last few months and I'm going to come Madam Speaker because it relates directly to the borrowing is a philosophy that does not put Saint Lucia's first Madam Speaker Ojo Labs is a real sour spot for me Madam Speaker because there you are saying that you're bringing an investor to the country the same prime minister who this morning says he wants to create an environment where the private sector will bring their monies to the economy but he's bringing a foreign investor paying to renovate the factory shell paying operational expenses paying salaries of individuals in that business place and all the profits is going to make it easier for them to export it out of Saint Lucia that's what he says by saying you're going to make it easier for investors to export the profits you're saying you're going to allow Ojo Labs to come into Saint Lucia we finance the building we finance the operations we pay the salaries and when they make profits we'll make it easier for them to send it overseas that's the economic philosophy which guides this government so the prime minister can feel very happy that wherever he goes in the world investors love him they love him Madam Speaker and why they love him because he's giving them the best deal available but I said Lucian's getting the best deal available Prime Madam Speaker Madam Speaker the range project and let me make it very clear Madam Speaker I am not against the investor and the last time I spoke in this house and I criticized the range deal Saru gets run to range and said how I said I was a consultant if range and ask that I be if I will work in for range I should be dismissed Madam Speaker of course those things always come back Madam Speaker what I said about range and I will repeat again and it will come down come we'll come back to it Madam Speaker that if you're taking our CIP money monies that are the people of Saint Lucia's money Madam Speaker how do you want to take that money Madam Speaker and give it to an investor who wants to build a hotel at two percent interest Madam Speaker we are borrowing here today two bills at six percent Madam Speaker we borrowing here today at six percent but you're going to give range our passport's money at two percent Madam Speaker and Madam Speaker and you're saying to me Madam Speaker that you're giving us the best deal for Saint Lucia's of course the developer would be happy of course he would love you of course he would hug you and squeeze you wherever you see you he may not hold your hands but you know what I mean Madam Speaker you know Madam Speaker is this about Saint Lucia are we borrowing money Madam Speaker because Ujjolad's need money Madam Speaker for the operation to start over the next few days Madam Speaker and we asked about VAT and I heard the member from Cassie South is grandstanding about VAT and they reduce it to 12.5 percent the prime minister himself stood up and said he knew when he was reducing it to 12.5 percent that the ordinary person would not get the benefit he said it in this house Madam Speaker and we chastise him for saying it Madam Speaker go to hand side he's the prime minister and Madam Speaker not just in profit he said it at a press conference as well and if if if m mcdonald was there we would ask her to think and and he actually said by doing so the businessmen will have more liquidity and more money and Madam Speaker it was one of the most disappointing statements ever made but you know what Madam Speaker the prime minister says one thing today and next week he says a totally different thing with no consideration for the truth or consistency in what he says the prime minister said it Madam Speaker that he knew when he reduced it to 12.5 percent because we were chastising him saying that there have been no decline of prices in the supermarkets in the stores and he said so he said i knew when i reduced it because the businessmen have been suffering for so long so they have so much more money now to reinvest but then the member for Cassie South is will come here and say how people in Saint Lucia are so happy they got so many reduction in prices and the government is working for the people of Saint Lucia go to here where Madam Speaker where Madam Speaker but this is the economic philosophy that's guiding the borrowing that's taking place today Madam Speaker Madam Speaker look at the budget Madam Speaker look at the budget page 509 Madam Speaker Madam Speaker every single capital project is listed in the budget Madam Speaker the estimate every single one is listed and every single one the estimate and every single one has a source of financing attributed to it every single one so Madam Speaker if you will refer to the documents the estimate you will see every single capital project and how it is going to be financed no one has told us that the 15 million and the 25 million which project is it going to finance which ones because the prime minister said just check the estimates it's in the estimates i have gone to the estimates Madam Speaker and he doesn't say which projects will be financed by local financing and Madam Speaker where you see bonds Madam Speaker listen to this also Madam Speaker Madam Speaker Madam Speaker you know it's a ridiculous question Madam Speaker because there are so many projects to be funded by bonds 145 million dollars worth of property to be funded by bonds this is borrowing for 40 million am i assuming that 40 million will pay for the entire 145 million by bonds no i am asking you Madam Speaker to ask the honorable member to indicate to us which projects will be financed by the 40 million dollars which projects will be financed because if you're borrowing 40 million to finance capital projects can you just please indicate to us Madam Speaker that these are the projects that will be used to finance simple because Madam Speaker ojo labs just over five million dollars in ojo labs is to be funded Madam Speaker by just over five million dollars will be funded Madam Speaker by bonds and four million odd by by by by by local revenue how is that Madam Speaker sometimes there's a prime minister even know the budget that he himself you know Madam Speaker Madam Speaker page 464 bonds 5.89 million local revenue 4.1 million Madam Speaker so part of it has to be financed through bonds so when you say to me that it is projects by bonds i leave you for the US authorities my brother i'm not even investigating you i'm not even investigating you don't pass it on me just take it easy all right so Madam Speaker if ojo labs has been funded by bonds Madam Speaker are you telling me that this is replacing bonds is this money for ojo labs yes is money for bonds but how could the 40 million dollars be for bonds it replaces bonds but what is the money going to be used for so ojo labs is for bonds so is this for ojo labs so then this is for ojo labs but that's what we want to hear just say to me Madam Speaker just say to me part of the borrowing is for ojo labs it's not in there it's not on the order paper Madam Speaker it's nowhere in any of the motion that the borrowing is for ojo labs but just say that you are going to borrow money from local banks to give ojo labs now Madam Speaker and you tell me there's so much prosperity in this country man Speaker but let me do a little exercise for you Madam Speaker a little exercise Madam Speaker now just a little analysis Madam Speaker the member from Ansari countries I know you're challenged you are challenged so just leave it at that for now Madam Speaker according to the the document we have before us 25 million dollars is being borrowed over 180 months Madam Speaker 180 months every month the governmental center shall be just over 210 thousand dollars according to the documents we have before us every month for 180 months it means after 180 months we'll be paying a total of 37,973 dollars 973 thousand after 180 months yeah that would be the total repayment a difference of 12.9 million dollars so we take a loan for 25 25 million we paid over 180 months at 6 interest over the 180 months we will pay in excess 12.9 million dollars if you float a bond and follow me Madam Speaker if you float a bond at 7 percent let's assume 7 percent interest and you paid over 10 years over 10 years you will pay each month 296 thousand 754 thousand 754 dollars over the 10 years you will pay a difference of 10.6 million dollars so if you take the loan as you're doing you will pay 12.9 million dollars over the borrowing amounts if you float a bond when it matures and you have to pay it with interest you will pay a total of 10.6 million now I want to ask a question one is 10 years one is 15 years but there's a simple question no no no it probably makes more sense Madam Speaker it probably makes more sense to take a loan because your cash flow is affected every month and you have to pay a low amount every month but shouldn't the government come clean with us and tell us if it is true that the reason why they have to resort to taking the loan is because the interest rate they would have to pay on the bonds is simply too high and then tell us why is it that the country is prospering so much there is such an economy booming this country but we cannot get rates of interest on the bonds that are acceptable enough that we now have to tap into the local market now Madam Speaker the first question somebody might ask you is why are you why are you going to the local market why are you just crowding out other local investors who probably want money from First National and from Bank of Saint Lucia then somebody might say you know what there's liquidity in the local financial sector but why is there liquidity if there is an economic boom if there's economic boom and investors are booming and people are buying consumer purchases are exploding everywhere why is there such liquidity that the banks are so willing in Madam Speaker to borrow you that money but also Madam Speaker note not Madam Speaker when this budget was passed in April Madam Speaker in June Madam Speaker there was no suggestion from the other side that we would be tapping in the local market to get monies they said to us the bonds we're going to sell there's a lot of enthusiasm there's a lot of confidence all our bonds would sell but why are you resorting to the local market now Madam Speaker if there is so much confidence why are you competing with other local investors and consumers people that want to build a house for 700,000 500,000 300,000 other local businessmen why is government competing with them in the local market why Madam Speaker there's a simple reason Madam Speaker the economy and the bonds are not doing as well now for bonds you can sell any bond Madam Speaker if you pay a high enough interest rate there are people that will sell bonds to you if you want to pay 9% because it's risk it's all about risk but if you get it at 6% you have to decide it might be better economics better financial management to borrow it at 6% then to go and pay bonds at 8% on the market which is what you would have to pay now if you go now you have to pay 8% and that's what it is and you talk about honesty in parliament honesty in parliament Madam Speaker so Madam Speaker I'm not fooled by this thing about any wizardry and why we be borrowing because we're getting such a deal from the local banks Madam Speaker Madam Speaker it's a very simple reality a very simple one people want jobs Madam Speaker we want schools repaired Madam Speaker people want medical care Madam Speaker and when the Prime Minister speaks about sensitivity and he stands up Madam Speaker Madam Speaker has the Owen King Hospital been open has it been open Madam Speaker we all recall what happened when school reopened in September right in the constituency of the Minister of Education Madam Speaker principle when public and trust me you couldn't say was a Labour Party person that we set up to do that we couldn't say that and she exposed how the whole business of the ministry was managed as it relates to the repairs of school and you know what the Prime Minister said in one of his interviews and I saw his director of communications that she stepped out again the only Prime Minister said they're not going to repair schools in St Lucia unless we change the curriculum of the schools and that's a very profound statement that the children of this country will get no relief in the conditions of the school something Labour Party has criticized for unless they change the curriculum of all the schools Madam Speaker this Madam Speaker is what this is about you are borrowing money for Ojo Labs Madam Speaker rather than borrow money Madam Speaker to repair schools the playing field in this country is in a mess Madam Speaker and I'm told there is some grand plan and I'm waiting for the grand plan because I know the grand architect very well so I'm waiting before I say anything Madam Speaker but the young people of this country Madam Speaker they want jobs they want to be able to go and get small loans you see the boys on Marigold Beach Madam Speaker they want small loans to buy more beach chairs Madam Speaker but Ojo Labs is getting that money instead Madam Speaker Ojo Labs is getting it and I heard a member from Ansari County speak about how many percentage increase in cruise tourism and all the vendors are so happy now in St Lucia Gona's Gloria and Marigold whether she's any happier and she's seen any increase in cruise ship arrivals Madam Speaker they're trying to create this image of prosperity and boom in this country and all is going so well that's not true Madam Speaker that's not true oh you didn't say that oh you're forgetting the things you just said we'll come to that but Madam Speaker I need a prime minister to indicate to us the projects that are to be funded and that those two motions governments borrow money you see all the talk that is going to be deficit budget from now on and no borrowing from government that's a fallacy that never happens but if you're going to borrow money Madam Speaker and you said this is the honorable member you're a little smart for yourself so Madam Speaker you know you know you know Madam Speaker all we need to know what is the 40 million dollars going to fund Madam Speaker and I think that's a fair question for us to ask I thank you thank you very much Madam Speaker Madam Speaker we all in this honorable house would appreciate that borrowing is a normal process you come to the house especially in the aftermath of a debate on the appropriation bill to borrow so there is absolutely no problem with that Madam Speaker but Madam Speaker from the debate on the appropriation bill the leader of the opposition and members of the opposition express serious concerns about the context and the level of borrowing given our own vulnerabilities and today we are here to discuss borrowing it should not surprise the government that we have lingering concerns where borrowing is actually in sharp focus I remember the debate on the appropriation bill when members on this side were presenting they were ridiculed when they were raising concerns about the cost that we were on and immediately I took my journey through the corridors of time and I remember when Noah was preaching and Noah was ridiculed because nobody saw any rain and you know everything was fine until the rain started coming down the concerns raised by my colleagues are valid and sensitive to context given our limited room for fiscal maneuver we must be prudent in the management of the economy of our country in fact we must endeavor to keep both our overall fiscal balance and our primary fiscal balance in check overall fiscal balance which is our total revenues minus our total expenditure and total revenue would include grants and when you omit interest payments you get the primary fiscal balance that will actually give you an indication of the fiscal stance of the government madam speaker given our vulnerabilities given our limited space for fiscal maneuver we must at all times position St Lucia to attract official develop official development assistance and obviously grants now are not as forthcoming as before once upon a time in this country official development assistance flowing like milk and honey into this country but not anymore because the very countries with the publics that encourage that type of dispensation have actually changed and said listen our taxpayers are very very discerning today as to where their monies go now when foreign governments give us capital budget support we must demonstrate our appreciation by respecting the sacrifice that the taxpayers of the sending countries are making by destroying public infrastructure finance by the sweat of their brow is disrespectful and economically irresponsible the supra square the supra square was a product of discussion in the community of sufreq the people came together there was an architect design the structure financed by the taxpayers of taiwan and you know what happened to it in the aftermath of the 2016 elections jack hammer in it destroying over a million dollars wealth of infrastructure why because the new government is drunk with power and wild with new liberty drunk with power and wild with new liberty so the jack hammer is used as a weapon to destroy what the taiwanese people have given to us both is you monies that were mobilized i remember my stint as foreign minister we attracted for our office in new york monies for livestock production and right now it is a casualty of some framework agreement everything is on a on a standstill because of some dsh deal with one to our king i always describe that dsh issue as science fiction but be sure but one concern i always expressed and that was for our lands to end up in the hands of to our king our strategic lands in view for to end up in the hands of to your king when we look at the other tour where millions of dollars were invested by the taiwanese people again and right now we don't know what's going to happen to it because of some deal with to your king and i now come to senjutsu madam speaker senjutsu hospital a very interesting history as to how senjutsu got there and the role of senjutsu the people of the southern part of the island i live in the immediate vicinity of the hospital in fact the fire the explosion of those tongues was what woke me up from my sleep and i was the very first person from the parliament to arrive at the senjutsu hospital the burning yes i was there before you i i moved with lightning rapidity to the side and you know see this hospital burning and inhaling maybe something from the asbestos roofing you know and obviously it was the united workers party that was in office the prime minister subsequently came down and of course they set in motion a scope of works to rehabilitate the hospital but as they began to navigate the difficulties the scope of works naturally changed with no allocation to actually build the hospital that called for more resources we went to the taiwanese government gave us support and again as foreign minister again as foreign minister mobilized funding from the mexican government and these were the two buildings that were handed over sometime last year to the incumbent administration so we have been dealing with senjutsu and i have the moral authority to speak about senjutsu i have the moral authority to speak about senjutsu and i remembered during the campaign period the united workers party was saying oh open the hospital complete the hospital complete the hospital they came in and stopped construction of the hospital and then they come with all sorts of foolishness about demolition hospital which hospital which hospital which hospital will be demolished and i'll say sake no i to say senjutsu i to say you know that's why i never really raised my blood pressure over the foolishness that was being said about demolition senjutsu you're gonna demolish you all didn't build senjutsu you're just gonna take a facility and demolish it you know what the people of oj the people of labry the people of larry shoes you know what they went through when senjutsu was not there they should take their loved ones when they felt sick in the night by the time they get to miku or denri their loved ones would pass because they they are headed for victoria hospital sometimes people suffer probably a stroke a heart attack and they need to get to a hospital urgently and to move from the from the the southern part of the island to the north would not be an appropriate thing i will not fall easy prayer to provocation by the member for babuno i will remain on course i will remain on course and i will continue to say madam speaker that none of them on the opposite side will come and demolish senjutsu that's not an option senjutsu will be completed and all this talk about senjutsu i believe that the conversation with senjutsu was handled badly by both governments you have people building the hospital the public asking questions let those who were immediately engaged the consultant and others to answer the questions but normally politicians are the ones that must always speak first you know instead of sending those who are building the hospital to speak to the people and for there to be political intervention we want to be in everything you know so the minister must come and speak when we were there then now the minister must come and speak we need to get the politics right and we need to organize our communication better than that but when members opposite come and talk about senjutsu they have absolutely no moral authority to come and talk about senjutsu you shut down the the works for over a year and then you come and talk about the structure the integrity of the structure let me tell you something senjutsu was built to military standard and one of the problems you'd have in dealing with senjutsu if you have to demolish it is the thickness of those walls and the the kind of steel that's in those walls okay so senjutsu is still a very strong building and obviously the amount of work that has been done on senjutsu we need to move to complete senjutsu and that's the only option on the table to complete senjutsu and to have the people to get out of the stadium and get to the hospital as soon as practicable in fact we flatten it in rapidity and this is a directive from the member falabi to the government this is a directive and i'll tell you something madam speaker madam speaker when foreign governments are taking a look at senjutsu and seeing that when foreign other countries give us support that we talk about fiscal problems that we have when other countries give us support and we just put jacama in it you know what they are going to be reluctant to support us and you know what in the equation that we have the overall fiscal balance where it is total revenues that you replace grants the grant amount will continue to decline if that is our attitude we must show respect for a product of national consultation or constituency consultation you cannot just go and demolish a square and believe that it's okay and you have a new vision you know the people decided what they wanted who are we to just decide unilaterally that no this is not good so the people must not demand what they want we are out of place to do that madam speaker now they have rebase and obviously it showed that the GDP the debt to GDP ratio a little lower based on rebase that does not mean that financial institutions are in the orbit of our island with alacrity to lend us money that's not what it is they are very concerned they are going to monitor the attitude of the government they are going to monitor how we maneuver as a government and we must as a country navigate the turbulence of the current period safely madam speaker we talk about globalization all our countries move into into a globalized world you know the very publics that supported globalization and now turn in and say look we need to abandon this kind of global responsibility and mind our own business at home and we are jeopardizing our chances of mobilizing support for our country when we behave in such a reckless manner government borrowing from local banks is supposed to be something great and revolutionary from an economic standpoint this could have serious implications like the member for country south indicated because it could create a crowding out effect where the government will be competing with the local business sector for capital and then i heard about sales revenue increasing and they couldn't understand that there's a difference between profit maximization and revenue maximization revenue maximization takes place when marginal revenue is equal to zero as long as it's positive you need to continue to add until it is zero if you go beyond that then it will be negative and then it will start falling your total revenues will start falling profit maximization takes place when marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost where m r minus m c is equal to zero that's when profit maximization takes place so we need to understand those things and i've always insisted that when we come here to debate the people's business whether economics was your major or not you should have an understanding of basic economics basic economics so at least when we raise concerns you can address it in the spirit within which they are made madam speaker madam speaker during the course of this debate the prime minister talk about how we we think we care we say we care about people and we were doing nothing good for the people and about buildings are in a deprobable condition etc etc madam speaker i want to remind the prime minister that it was the labor party government between 1997 and 2006 that ended the shift system in our schools by expanding the the existing secondary schools and building new ones eventually every child could have been guaranteed a school place at a secondary school we move to universal secondary education because i have i have said in this house before and i've reminded members of what it was to have no prison you know where prisoners were rioting on a daily basis by the bridge then there was a makeshift prison at odds where people were living like a hotel going online and coming back on their own there was no control it was a labor party government that constructed the bodily correctional facility the police officers you remember what it was to go to a police station sometimes police officers were using the same toilet facilities with prisoners and we were the ones who built new new police stations and refurbished the existing police stations at the time to ensure that we improve the working conditions for police what's about the fire service health centers were refurbished 43 so when the prime minister comes to this house you need to come with his facts you need to come with your facts and then we found very high unemployment when we came in in 2011 we sat in motion the nice program since the uwp got into office they have fired hundreds of nice workers hundreds of them under tremendous right it would have been lower had you kept those programs more people would have been employed and the more people that are employed the more people that would have financial resources to make a demand for goods and services in the economy so it would contribute to economic growth the laptop program the rich people can afford to give the kids laptops you know it is the four people that cannot afford laptops for the kids and so whilst the rich child could have access to a laptop until midnight because they can have it at their homes that poor child would a mother can barely send to school must wait until daybreak to go to some cafe or to some other computer facility to complete the assignments it places them at a distinct disadvantage and so we gave the laptops so the kids could complete their work at their homes under the supervision of the parents once the parents are computer literate but of course they are going to get used to the technology especially since we are going to move into online examinations you stopped it who's caring and who's uncaring and i mentioned you stopped the supre square you stopped the building at viewport fired caretakers you stopped the library market stopped the cdp um prom library village upper oj projects we talk about san ju's hospital but madam speaker i want to indicate in response to the victimization charges that were leveled against us the member for babu no the member for castry south east talk about victimization i will use my constituency as i prepare to close as a casualty of decades of flambo road under the labor party over different periods we were able to build the monvey road the fork on way road the minor road off wavin pond kate road two roads near the junction of palm ron the bend road near the evangelical church at oj road near the ballies at oj road near the kuman's the oboe road oj black bay plainfield road a back up ash road the kodros road in the library village test on the highway lakwa road eucalyptus avenue flamboyant avenue west hall group bay street lamar roads koolitong road the itan road upper citrus groove road the library wellness center it was originally built by clive compton a very long time ago when viewport and library there was still one constituency the velanjon administrative building the library jetty the bunds laguas road the laho laguas concrete road laho better road bay one j hunt road olibo roads monpaul roads uwp has nothing to show in library to say well as a government where the people of library are paying the taxes contributing like everybody else what did you do for them you cannot walk around library and pinpoint anything of significance that the united workers party has done for the people of library in fact in 1992 they planted poles in bewa je planted poles on the library bypass they said they're going to bring electricity to the people of bewa je laho and the bypass the united workers party won the elections in 1992 and after the elections you know what they did they gave a contractor a contract to go on uproot every pole instead of bring electricity to the people of library i'll come to you just now you should stay out of that conversation and you know madam speaker the library market was in the 2016-27 budget estimates uwp came in in 2016 never pursued the project it was in the estimates 2015 2016 2016 2017 and it disappeared from this year's estimates and you're telling me that's a caring party and anybody from my constituency who says vote for uwp is asking us to reward the united workers party for uprooting every pole they planted in 1992 reward them for oppressing the constituency of library but yet still we the people of library we never ever convert political discontent into hatred we are christians we pray to god we form our credit union which is the key to libraries economic salvation that's what we do we pull our resources together to build a strong laborian economy to be able to distribute substantial benefits to the people that i represent and so madam speaker it is only in this spirit that i speak to that issue and i want to return in closing to the central arguments that we need to be prudent in our spending we need to listen to the opposition we need to listen to the christ of the people of the country a high debt to gdp ratio must be kept on the strict control we are economy that's a country that's in the in in the disaster path hurricanes hit us regularly we don't invite them but they come and they could destroy our country and crime is another aspect that is impacting negatively on the economic and social fabric of our country and so and so those who are putting pressure on the former government about crime now they begin to understand what it is to deal with a country and once you remove social programs that would benefit people you are eroding the social environment that will facilitate some level of control and so we need to engage in that restless but competitive search for the solutions to the problems that impact us as a people we cannot split the development of a country at its political seam we need to confront those problems within the framework of our integrated whole so madam speaker the opposition was correct in warning the government and i'm hoping that the prime minister would take our basic concerns and question into consideration as he continued to navigate just the few remaining days as we approach another general elections i thank you madam speaker god is in control honorable prime minister madam speaker i have to assume that the opposition really gave up on their argument with regards to the topic of discussion or the motion that we were debating i mean one almost wants to believe that elections are within around the corner but you know what's what's interesting madam speaker what's it interesting madam speaker and i just want to address a couple things when we when we make statements in this house and we believe that just because and i want the audience hopefully the people of solution madam speaker that just because we sit here doesn't give us any prescription or magic formula to resolve anything okay but also that unfortunately in this honorable house not all of us are so honorable and that we pass an attempt to pass off that we understand or pretend to people because we can see it a certain way that that brings the conviction that what we're seeing is correct you know it's interesting to note a simple thing take a simple the comment that people have not benefited from the vat of the reduction of two and a half percent it's such an absurd statement but but listen to the justification i indicated that people who were paying rent would automatically get a two and a half percent decrease in the rental rate the argument on the other side is that there are people who don't qualify to be part of the vat regime which is true if you don't earn more than four hundred thousand you're not part of the vat regime but it doesn't mean you're not paying vat madam speaker it means you're not going to recover the vat and you're not netting off but every day you go to the shop somebody doesn't ask you are you earning less than four hundred thousand dollars and do you pay vat or you don't pay vat everybody pays vat so if you're a small business person earning less than four hundred thousand dollars are you going to sit here on the other side and tell me that they're not going to pay vat on rent is that what you're suggesting but you see that is the kind of of common sense that's on the other side madam speaker they're more intent to try to score political advantage points than dealing with what the factual situation is and i speaker when grown men come to this house and continuously attempt to mislead the house and madam speaker i'm sure that we're going to continue that debate with regards to the motion with regards to disciplinary action because i don't know how an intent in somebody's head gets registered either you're passing a motion and you have a motion but your intent to do something doesn't qualify as anything when it comes to that particular subject but again now we have a situation in which the honorable member from castry south again again he's so skillful madam speaker at coming and and saying what other people have said and tried to present his case he said madam speaker that if they get into office that what he had said previously was that any application that did not meet the security requirement that the opposition if they would get back in office would review and he specifically used that there are times in which the prime minister or sorry the minister of the cip may have overridden the the board not overridden the board because once the board makes a decision within the same regulations and act that they wrote the person can appeal that's the part he forgets to see and i can assure you that in any appeal that's been made this minister of the cip is not making that decision by himself and certainly that their committee has been put together to review all appeals but that's not where we don't want to go there today what we want to do is to focus on the fact that it's those individuals that the opposition saying that when they get back into government they're going to review those and if they're not satisfied that a person uh appeal process or information was incorrectly with your drawing but in fact madam speaker that is not what the member from castry south said in fact that is not in fact what the liver party said be careful be careful i will circulate i don't know what you want to hear can you say exactly what i said today no but are you standing on the corner of water madam sir i have not yielded madam speaker the the member from the other side will have all his time and but i will i will repeat him again but if in fact but madam speaker madam speaker it's very important it's very important that we get this right so what i would like to do is i will for the purpose and the benefit of the speak of the of the member is just say to satan that's not what you said everybody so is it everybody that i've interfered with or everybody see i don't understand ma'am but i will happy to sit down that he can explain to us what he has said i would love for him to do that may i ask him to do that to repeat so we get it very clear what he said so madam speaker my madam speaker as i said you can't have it both ways what you said was is it anybody and i'm glad you repeated it that the minister of cip interfered with but that in fact is not is what on your press statement and madam speaker if i may make this available to the other side of the house before i quote from it do you have access to the tips of what was said earlier on i'm happy to sit down again i'll let you stay to know madam speaker may i and because this is not correct procedure i'm going to say it to you again that when we get back into government we will review the persons who have granted citizenship under the cip the reason why we're doing this is because we are aware that there are persons who failed due diligence and you overturn the ruling of the board when they of course the person did make um overtures to you um they appeal to you and you overturn it and because we know that those cases exist every single person will be reviewed to see the extent to which it did pass due diligence and they will approve in an appropriate manner every single one will be approved will be reviewed that's that's possible we said so in public we said it in the house and i repeated it earlier today so madam speaker he he elaborate a little bit more which is not what he really said the first time but i'm but i'm going to take the members word for it but you see in the press release that they wrote madam speaker on april 7th of 2017 and i've provided you with a copy if we go down to the bottom part madam speaker and i you know i in fact hate repeating this because what they have written here in my mind is in fact what we called economic terrorism without any hesitation when the labor party resumes office we'll reinstate the net worth requirement and will undertake another due diligence assessment on each and every applicant granted under the u of p with other promises to revoke any passports of applicants who do not meet the three million dollar net worth requirements or does not meet the strict due diligence requirements which that we should expect applicants applying for citizenship solution should be warned should be warned that when the s of p was returned to office we will also demand that all citizens who did not donate the full contribution amount of 200 thousand dollars will be compelled to top up the contribution that they made at the time of becoming citizens that is very different to what he just said madam and in fact i'm just glad that the member has since retracted those statements and that he's going down the line that he's going down madam speaker on a point of order we don't retract any statement this is our official position and remains that there's no retraction of it i spoke of the due diligence because you overturned i spoke of due diligence because you overturned persons who had failed due diligence he did he actually gave way to you and told you the floor was yours if you wish to clarify your point and there is absolutely no reason why you should have just stood up and interjected like that my apologies madam speaker i was taking the liberties he had extended to me i probably took it too far so i'm sorry madam speaker i am sorry madam speaker madam speaker the opposite side have become such good deceivers of the truth because i don't want to call it the other way because i need the accuse of bad and foul language in the house the severs of the truth the other side that that in a matter of here of just one minute we hear the contradiction on one side on one hand they want to say madam speaker that they're going to review the people that we have and review the due diligence on all the people particularly the people that they claim that filed for an appeal and were approved but and then he's now standing up after i've read the the the quote that they made which in fact is much broader than what he said which is totally different but see that's the problem with labor you never know what you're getting it's from one lie to another lie one deceit to another deceit absolutely because it just happened in the house what he said and what is written here are two very different things but you know become accustomed to that you know madam speaker the bill we came here the motion we came here to debate was a simple motion i cannot believe members on the other side given the level of experience that they have would try to imply all kinds of things that are implying here we have to come and tell you where the bond money where this money is going to be spent since when since when is that the process that is the point of the appropriations bill the appropriate highlights all of the areas of expenditure and tells you the source of funds if you're going to get a hundred and eight million dollars in bonds nobody goes and finds out who bought the bonds and which specific bonds are going to be allocated to which expenditure item the bonds are pulled together and that is what pays for it all we've come to the house to say today is simply that in the bill in the appropriations bill we indicated that we were going to borrow a hundred and three million dollars in new bonds there was a hundred and five million of which were going to be turned over and there's a hundred and three million in new bonds and that instead of borrowing the entire amount in bonds we've decided to borrow 40 million of the hundred and three million dollars in the form of a loan but you know what the member on the other side will come up with some cocommonian comparison to say if you borrowed bonds for 10 years at seven and a half percent versus if you're going to borrow money from the bank at six percent for 15 years and try to make a determinant which ways you're better off we're not even comparing apples to apples but that is the kind of logic that we become accustomed to on the other side matter speaker it is scary i'm in pains to say to them because i don't want the public to leave with the impression in any way that anything that the other side have said is true in fact nothing that they have said is true nothing there is no request on the table to increase the amount of borrowing in fact if we wanted to do that if we wanted to do that madam speaker we would have had to come to this house with a supplementary budget all we have come to do is to ask what we always have to do that once the appropriations bill is approved on how much money we can borrow the source of the funds we must also come to the house and receive the permission of the house and identify who we're borrowing the money from and what the terms that we're borrowing the money that's what we came here for simply to get permission to borrow the monies from the bank of celusia and also from the first national bank with the terms of six percent and 15 years that's that is what the motion is madam speaker all this other discussion needs to be saved for the market step when they go and have their meetings because they don't have to justify anything but if this is going to be an honorable house then one would expect that they're going to come to this house and debate the bills the motions in appropriate way but to come here and and and pretend that there's something wrong we've been in office for 16 months madam speaker we've inherited a menu of different things which we need to fund and they chose the priorities that they wanted they chose that they were going to spend 20 million dollars a year on nice and the claim that they were making is that they were helping the people but ironically the 1,100 people that were being implored by nice were the same people year after year after year so this idea that you're going to give somebody an opportunity to get a new job and everybody now was starting to expect that the nice money was a job and we said that you cannot do that to the people nobody who is earning a nice income can go to the bank and borrow any money because no bank is going to lend them the money because all they have is a contract for one year how can that be considered to be a real job you want to now compare it on the other hand where we've taken the same monies that we were going to use for nice put it into an apprenticeship program encourage businesses to hire these people in which we're going to pay part of the salary for a year or for a year and a half with the idea that they become full-time employees of that business so both sides are winning and that ultimately government now can take those resources and help other young people on a regular basis to get their first-time job so man a speaker i'm a i'm perplexed perplexed we talked about another simple thing my colleague who i have to tell you my colleague from labry is a gentleman despite the fact that he made the comment that'll be over his dead body and i don't know how that that coincides with the other statement that everybody from labry is friendly but i took it in jest i took it in jest and i've never i've never ever felt and i hopefully will never feel unwelcoming going to labry i've always felt very welcome and i thank you for your hospitality and i thank the people of labry for their hospitality but he made an interesting comment talked about the schools that they came in and they built these new schools and that um it was under them that the rotation basis ended right but what he's failing to say is that from 1995 imagine we had 32 000 primary school students 32 primary school students in 1995 and today we have 16 and that has also started to impact the secondary school levels so it means that while you were there building the statistics the numbers were saying something different so here you were building more schools don't you think that it might have been better to have fixed up and improve the quality of the existing schools that we had well i don't know if you did that because if in fact not a speaker if in fact if in fact the other side talked about police stations and fire stations and i know that they built them but again it was all for politics how do i know that how do i know it was just about politics because they built the building and there was absolutely no interest taken in the maintenance of those buildings if in fact if in fact madame speaker that they ever had any concerns mean and again i want to publicly thank my wife for the incredible job that she's doing in raising funds and in being able to help the fireman and the police and when i went and she showed me some of the pictures madame speaker no hot water that firemen are sitting there to take a shower in cold water no recreational facilities i met fire chief that was sitting on a table was termite leading how does that happen and the thing is madame speaker that didn't happen in 16 months not only is that situation existing in the schools and the fire stations and the police stations that that situation was existing literally throughout government but as i said before i went to a building to go to inland revenue and on the same floor of inland revenue madame speaker is investment you're going to the inland revenue which is on the left side and you feel like you're going back into the eighties the condition that i saw people working on was was heartbreaking sorry which really east brilliant but then if you made a right and you went into invest in lucha very modern so what it tells me is that somebody knows the difference a proper computer office come proper files proper space place looks beautiful and here's an entity that is generating 400 over 400 million dollars of revenue for government i saw a man in what i would prescribe i would i would describe as a closet literally the door was bigger than the room i saw a lady who was wearing a sweater because the air conditioner was literally to her back and again in a very small cubicle and i go throughout government and i see it and i can see that people know better and they're just fondant about it so let us not pretend that sin lucha has not had economic problems let's not pretend that they may be all kinds of reasons to justify it the fact is is that my government has laid out a plan to build a new solution my government has laid out a plan to say that these conditions are not acceptable unfortunately there is not enough money to fix all the things that we want to at the same time and it's about now madam speaker about gaining confidence as to where we go you know madam speaker confidence is totally different than an economic boom the first thing that you must do is engage the confidence of the world bank and the imf as well as the business people in order that they see the policies that you have are consistent and that you have the courage to be consistent in your policies and so you're not going to see this economic boom initially but what you're going to do is start to see signs like you're turning around the statements by the chamber of commerce speak for themselves it's not just about an increase in sales increase in sales is what is said to them that they are feeling better about the economy now they're seeing hope in the economy and they believe they believe that things are going to get better but the clock is tick ticking and we're still being judged and that is fine everybody here is up for that not one person is here today madam speaker who has said that they're satisfied might be honorable member from castry south east said good boast if we wanted for political points to talk about the reduction in employment but 21 percent is still too high it's still too high and we're still not satisfied that 12 and a half percent is enough you know and it's amazing madam speaker we made a promise of five to stay alive we didn't say five to solve solution problems five things to be able to resolve the plight of the people that we believe were being the most affected by the policies of the labor party that we felt that they increased the vat and the vat was insensitive to the poorer people that they went in and increased the licensees and we said why would you increase the licensees because if they have no business a man has to put out the money before he can get the business and that people would park the cars on the side of the road we said if you've increased the size of the vat and if in fact the economy is not working why wouldn't you give a helping hand to the poor why wouldn't you increase the amount of food feeding program why wouldn't you increase the amount you're giving for transportation when we talked about the poorer people in this country who are going to the hospital and couldn't afford to pay but you know what hurt those poorer people more because I heard the story over and over and over again Mr. Shastney I don't want to go to the hospital because I owe money and I find when I go to the hospital the people are looking at me and I feel bad so the simple thing of exempting their debt giving them a waiver on that debt because they weren't going to pay it they had no ability to pay it but to take that mental stress off of their head was a huge gift but nowhere have we said that five states of life which we completed within the prescribed time was the remedy to San Lucia's problems we believe there are much bigger fundamental problems that we have to resolve and it starts with getting our culture back off the ground increasing the number of tourism arrivals getting new investments into the country and you know one of the the great leaders of this country the icons of this country was Sir Arthur Lewis and all the way back then Sir Arthur Lewis wrote a document that talked about development by invitation was inviting investment to come to your country investment by invitation so the question becomes what is it you have to offer people in order to be able to come solution and its competitiveness and that competitiveness can be in offering a unique destination which is what we're attempting to do with village tourism or it could be in the form of incentives and the fact is is that we're well on the way we have over 2,000 rooms that are committed to come and invest in San Lucia sand those 400 rooms Rich Carleton Sabasha Canals we're hoping to be able to announce a couple of other developments up north but that is important because it is those numbers that are going to help us become more competitive because we can now afford to get more airlift into solution but Madam Speaker I want to close at this point I want to close on the final statement because I heard the other side repeated over and over again so I think it's worth addressing that when we came into government that we closed the office building and view for it but that's another classic story of Labour Party that it was a last minute decision how do I know it was a last minute decision Madam Speaker they had no planning approval they rammed it through the board they rammed it through the board they always talk about new interference but let's go and see the history as to how they rammed it through the board and you're going to borrow 77 million dollars to be able to build an office complex to do what when they were talked about it you know they talked about they're going to get driver's license and passports all these things that we're already going to put online but again the 77 million dollars was four million dollars in interest a year but they're not concerned about that they were just concerned to see that they had something going on the ground they had broken ground what was it going to generate to the economy how was it going to improve anybody's life in the south and if you're already running a deficit where was it going and the same thing that they're saying applies to them why would they've had to go and depend on other people to lend them money for the for St. Jude's hospital why after five years we didn't make that happen why after five years of being in government and that you marched you marched that you couldn't open it five years so the member from my the honorable member from the library can say what he wants to say but the facts speak for themselves they did not deliver oh and king why wasn't it open i know why we've not opened it but can they answer why they didn't open it then all that time they cared so much why wasn't it open you knew the roads were bad how can you didn't fix them you knew the damn need to be disilted how can we didn't be silted you knew the schools need to be fixed up how can you didn't fix them up you need it you knew that people needed jobs you needed you knew that people needed jobs and you didn't deliver but the answer to your question is that we are ready to be judged and we've indicated that we're going to have a plan to rebuild some lucha it's going to take us a couple of years to return and bring things back to the level where we can get going we're already seeing signs that things are growing madam speaker not to what we want them to be but we're seeing progress and every day we're winning more and more people over because they realize that this side is not intent is not malicious and we want to bring everybody on board and I keep on saying the only the only argument the other side has is to cry victimization that's all they have they have nothing else to offer if you notice in the middle of any presentation the leader of the opposition goes back to the same tested and tried speech just like my friend from the library if you go back and look at handset you look at the things it's the same speech over and over and over again is the same speech is the same speech I only want to know is how come he didn't listen to his own advice because if he had listened to his own advice we wouldn't be in the problems we have and he would still be in government so anyway madam speaker I'm grateful for the support of the members of the house in approving this motion honorable 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 from the bank of sin lusia limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget and that interest on the principal amount of the credit is repayable at the rate of six percent per annum and the principal amount of the credit is repayable in in the amount of two hundred and ten thousand nine hundred and sixty four dollars and twenty one cents per month inclusive of interest for 180 months I now put the question as many as of that opinion say I as many as are of a contrary opinion say no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it honorable prime minister minister for finance leader of government business Madam Speaker I beg to leave the following motion standing in my name whereas it is provided by section 39 one of the finance administration act cap 1501 that the minister responsible for finance made 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 one of 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 consider considers it necessary to borrow an amount equivalent to us one point one million six hundred and twenty thousand us by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from the international development association to finance the solution disaster vulnerability reduction project and whereas the maximum commitment charge rate payable on the under on the un un un withdrawn financing balance is one half of a percent per annum and whereas the service charges payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of a the sum of three-fourths of one percent per annum plus the basis adjustment and three-fourths of one percent per annum and whereas the principal amount of the credit is payable on each fifteenth day of may of may fifteenth day sorry the principal amount of the credit is is is repayable on each fifteenth day of may and fifteenth day of november commencing on the fifteenth day of may twenty twenty seven two and including the fifteenth day of november twenty thirty six at the rate of one percent commencing on the fifteenth day of may two thousand and thirty seven to including the fifteenth day of november twenty fifty six at the rate of two percent be it resolved that the parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow an amount equivalent to us one million six hundred and twenty thousand by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from the international development association to finance the st. lucha disaster vulnerability reduction project beat further resolved that the maximum commitment charge payable on the unwithdrawing financing balance is one half of one percent per annum a service charge is payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of one the sum of three-fourths of one percent per annum plus the basis adjustment and three-fourths of one percent per annum the principal amount of the credit is repayable on each fifteenth day of may and fifteenth day of november commencing on the fifteenth day of may two twenty twenty seven two and including the fifteenth day of november twenty thirty six at the rate of one percent commencing on the fifteenth day of may twenty thirty seven two and including the fifteenth day of november twenty fifty six at the rate of two percent and the speaker the solution disaster vulnerability project dvrp is being financed through loans and grants from the international development association or aida and the strategic climate fund channeled through the world bank the project seeks to finance structural risk mitigation and reconstruction interventions prioritized following the passage of hurricane tomas and the december two thousand and thirteen floods as well as technical assistance and the capacity billing efforts to ensure long-term sustainability additional finance is being financed through a credit from the international development association aida loan and grant from the european development fund edf european commission facilitated by the world bank the international development association aida world bank is approved on november twenty third twenty sixteen and an additional credit in the amount of one million six hundred and twenty thousand united states dollars and grant financing from the european development fund in the amount of four million nine hundred and forty thousand euros equivalent to united states five million five hundred thousand dollars to st lucer for the above project the edf grant will provide support to the construction of p i bridge and the rehabilitation of the van aft ancillary road aimed at enhancing component one risk reduction and adaptation measures of the project specifically funding for the international development association will support activities transferred from the hurricane tomas emergency recovery project including provision of software and equipment to support analysis and investigations to be carried out by the national meteorological service national emergency officer rebuilding of the millet intake and the development of bridge maintenance plan management system to support the work of the department of infrastructure portion energy these investments will enable an increase in the development impact and results of the dvrp the additional financing would not result in a change in the original implementation period for the project the closing date of the project is december 31st 2019 madam speaker with regards to the credit from the international development association the recipient st lucer may withdraw the proceeds of financing in accordance with section four of schedule two of the financing agreement the maximum commitment charge rate payable by the recipient on the unwithdrawing financing balance shall be one half of one percent per annum and the service charge payable by the recipient on the withdrawn credit balance shall be equal to the greater of a the sum of three fourths of one percent per annum on the on the on plus the basis adjustment and three fourths of one percent per annum the payment dates has been indicated before madam speaker and the resolution and the motion and commencing on the uh the may 15th 2027 madam speaker i submit this resolution for the consideration of this honorable house thank you madam speaker madam speaker in spite of all the aspotions and the half truths and the innuendos that have been stated by members opposites i stand here very proud of the contribution that the government of the labor party has made to the people of st lucer sorry honorable leader of the opposition please take your seat my apologies honorable members the question is that parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow an amount equivalent to us $1,620,000 by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from the international development association to finance the st lucer disaster vulnerability reduction project and that the maximum commitment charge payable on the un-we've drawn financing balance is one half of one percent per annum a service charge is payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of the sum of three fourths of one percent per annum plus the basis adjustment and three fourths of one percent per annum and the principal amount of the credit is repayable on each fifteenth day of may and fifteenth day of november commencing on the fifteenth day of may 2027 to and including the fifteenth day of november 2036 at the rate of one percent and commencing on the fifteenth day of may 2037 to and including the fifteenth day of november 2056 at the rate of two percent honorable leader of government thank you my speaker thank you so i'm speaker i will see all the aspersions the lies the insults new in the new endos that have been leveled at me in particular and the government of of the labor party me in this case now or today i stand in this honorable house very proud very proud of the government that have been part of very proud of the contribution that this government has done to the people of san usia very proud of it i will not be daunted by the threats or by the insults that are held at me never every statement i made this honorable house when i responded to the prime minister i responded to everything that he said there's not been one response that has doubted the facts or the figures in what i said there have been explanations but the facts and the figures have been the same tuesday june the 27th the order paper says a sum of a hundred and three million dollars for the financing of the 2017 madam speaker and a point of order there was absolutely a point of order standing order 32 3 where it says madam speaker clearly that a member shall not speak more than once on any question except the various range of options listed here madam speaker i think that this part of the debate is now closed the prime minister has responded and you have put a different question to the house this is a this is a new motion and he's bringing back all the old stuff from the morning but of course it's a new motion but he's going back with the old stuff we are on the motion number three which is another motion regarding borrowing and the honorable leader of the opposition is making this presentation now i don't you are not correct to interject him and say that he has spoken on on an issue that he's he may be repeating himself as regards the issue of borrowing that is quite this is a new motion and he's speaking on it and you cannot preempt what it is he's going to say and it is his corroborate please proceed on my vote thank you so you see ma'am speaker the staff they want to stifle stifle anyhow no matter so ma'am speaker this i made the point that the country could not advance properly if there was victimization both the prime minister and the minister for economic development went on a whole charade about grass on one side of the road i want to speak up i want to give one example one example one example one example and you know private correspondence between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition should remain private i want to give one example but but you know when people continuously come and push on a matter instead of saying nothing push on a matter continuously push it push it push it i will not divulge the communication with the prime minister and i on that matter but the prime minister knows very well what i'm speaking about he knows very well the direct victimization that happened with that individual but i will not disclose it the member for castries southeast the examples that he brings he's the only one you can remember them there's absolutely nobody who was in this honorable house when he was in the opposition can make can make the accusations that the member of cash his office has me has done but you know there is a a a saying in patrol a saying in patrol queer you're queer you're queer by avant-garde so he rushes and he makes all these accusations paint himself really white and casting all the aspotions that he wants on me and today i was his topic but the members of his office and i have no issues with him his issues are away from me i have no issues with him so even though he makes me his topic today trying to please his prime minister who refuses to respond to issues that relate to the borrowing of money that taxpayers have to have to repay he refuses he doesn't want to allow me to answer questions relevant and pertinent to the borrowing that we're doing here today i will not be done then i will continue and i will continue because i know that what i am saying is based on fact and based on what we are discussing here today the prime minister speaks this motion we have discussed in borrowing of 1.6 million million us dollars is for the dvip project the dvip project was negotiated when we were in government the dvip project was negotiated when we were in government we have not come here we will not come here and boast about it now when we say that the government or the party did nothing nothing we did nothing all our times in government we did nothing they did all the benefit and the aspects of the dvip project was negotiated by by us the dvip was one of the largest loans ever given to a to a country under that program for hurricane relief hurricane mitigation hurricane adaptation so i will not come here today and question the prime minister borrowing 1.6 million dollars to further that project i will not do that i won't do it because i know that that was a project that is necessary after the after the hurricanes after the fact that we never know when a hurricane will hit st lusia but but but must be i want to come back to a point when we built the border launch bridge they were all over the place accusing of all sorts of things we told them that the bridge had to be resilient that what had to be there was to deal with storms one in i think a thousand years we told them that you have to build your infrastructure in a way that we can deal with with the problems of climate change they said no you should build a bridge for three million dollars they had a picture of a belly bridge they said that's what should have been put at barrage they accused me of all sorts of things they had an audit they had an audit in the audit they said that the audit would send me to a director public prosecutions they did all sorts of things but today they can come here and speak about building resilient infrastructure i'm happy and this though the whole basis of that dvrp was to be able to part of it was to be able to build resilient infrastructure so i will not come and say that is that is not necessary that boy of course that boy is necessary but it will not stop me from telling you that you bought a hundred twenty two million dollars when your original motion was for hundred three million dollars because that is a fact and despite of tenement is bonds or loans that is a fact which you cannot dispute because it's said both in the budget and in the order paper on the 27th of June so i support that motion but i want to know just a few things in what ministry is the dvrp located when we were there we knew it was a nexus between infrastructure and economic development does that is that the same is that the same thing is it still located in both ministries or is it in one ministry i want to find out whether the projects that were listed in the original document whether these projects are going to continue whether you've shifted the focus from one place to another just want to find out further further the prime minister says some things and you know i know that prime minister knows what he's saying he should not see he speaks about why didn't you desilte the rose of dam you see a prime minister knowing the cost and what is involved in the silting the rose of dam the process that has to go through in the silting the rose of dam you think he doesn't know that that can happen in one day or two days or two years he knows very well that the process in place but the question is what is happening to the desilting of the rose of dam now has the question here asked ourselves where is the desilting of the rose of dam where is that project i just want to ask a question if your answer answer me don't tell him where to go i'm going i'm not afraid to go anywhere i'm going to hide i can go anywhere i'm hiding nothing i have no secrets so i can go anywhere i want to know where is the desilting the desilting project why is it where are we and what is the time frame for the desilting of the rose of dam because the prime minister asked the question photo finally this developing project as i said my speaker is one of the largest loans and grants it's a combination of loans and grants that's ever been given to to a country to the OECS countries i think it is it is commendable but i hope i hope that the original thinking what i asked minister for infrastructure is where the DVRP project before you given the wrong minister of infrastructure let me tell you what i asked because you might be given the wrong might be send the wrong they might take the wrong thing what i asked is the DVRP project used to be in the ministry of infrastructure and the ministry of economic development i want to know where is it now whether the combination exists where does it still two ministries or it's all in one ministry that's what i want to find out if it's in two ministries yes if it's one ministry yes it's in economic development okay fine it's okay fine i've got the answer very simple the DVRP project is located in the ministry of economic development thank you thank you but i hope that the original projects the tendering process the procurement processes all of them are followed so that the DVRP project can benefit the people of Senusia how it was intended in the first piece to benefit the people of Senusia so man speaker in terms of this project in terms of the DVRP project i have absolutely no issues or questions before thank you Madam Speaker first of all again one on a point of hallucination to be able to clarify things i had no point of ever attempted to stop the leader of the opposition or anybody from the opposition and asking any questions but i said the kind of questions he was asking if he wants me to answer those questions there's a prescribed way to do it if you want to know what's going on with the economy you need to write me through you madam speaker that's what's in the standing orders and i'll be very happy to those but to believe that you can come here to the house and without any notice and ask those kinds of questions and they're very important questions they're very relevant questions to the public but they require accurate answers and so therefore the house standing orders has a prescribed method to do that i also want to say madam with regards to the DVRP i'm very glad that the Labor Party believes that they were the ones who negotiated the agreement if i'm not mistaken hurricane tomas triggered off the discussions and i believe that those discussions started under our government but it's irrelevant of who negotiated the fact is it was uh it was great that the development agencies made those funds available at concessionary rates to deal with recovery of tomas and also the christmas trough of 2013 in addition to the 1.6 million dollars that were we are borrowing at a very concessional rate madam speaker we're also getting a grant of five point one million u.s. dollars and i just wanted to make sure that that was not lost in in in the discussion and that's new money um the source of the dvp in terms of who is managing the dvrp it is exactly the same as he left it right the ministry of economic development is the liaison with the world bank and the development agencies and deals with the reporting but the actual execution of the work is done under the ministry of infrastructure as far as i know it's the same methodology that it was used for all the executions in fact in the document we read out where the funds were going to be used um and again um we will continue to use those in whatever discretionary way that we can in terms of the priorities that this government has deemed to be necessary in terms of uh desilting the dam it's a great question you know it's a continual debate that we hope to bring a conclusion to very soon in fact if i'm not mistaken minister there's a meeting tomorrow morning with um a wasco and the relevant agencies and the issue at hand madam speaker is a very good opportunity for us to be able to talk about what the problems are is that given the level of of priorities that we have in water where does the desilting of the dam today so when we came in madam speaker there was over a hundred million u.s. dollars of loans that were negotiated by the former government with cdb which would have increased the debt stock of sub lucha by 10 percent and when we looked at those loans we could not say to ourselves that those projects were going to move the needle when we talk about spending 30 million u.s. dollars in education and that 25 million of it was to go into fixed five schools is that what we really believe is the problem with the education system today is that five schools is going to turn around the problems that we have the perennial problems we have the fact is is that continuously people say that the output of our students relative to the needs of what the economy needs that there is a big misconnect and likewise now the situation with the desilting of the dam there are a lot of interesting things that are taking place up at the dam madam speaker when we saw the proposal that was done by the experts which really called to put a um a pneumatic pump on a barge and to be able to suck out the silt and then to put it over the side and put a piping system which would have taken it to a piece of land about a mile and a half to two miles down and that's how we were going to solve it and we were talking about barring 15 million dollars madam speaker just to set up the mechanism that didn't actually include the operations and the fact is the period of time in which you would have taken to desilt the dam would have taken years because we could do only desilting during the rainy season with that system to find out madam speaker that when the dam the dam was actually built it was actually a desilting process that was in place that has never been used there's actually a pump house on the wall in which it has pipes that go down underneath the the ground and what the intent is is that it would blow air down and blow up the silt so that as the water is flowing over it actually would carry out the silt in a natural manner using gravity it's never been used the other problem that's an astonishing number madam speaker with wasco is that we're only collecting 40 cents of every dollar of water that we treat so because of leakage of loss of water whether it's people are stealing the water whether it's because there's leaks in the pipe so it means that we're spending this money to treat the water but we're actually only collecting 40 percent of the potential revenue to solve that problem madam speaker would require an investment of about a half a million dollars to buy what are called smart meters to be able to put them in the pipelines to be able to determine where the leakage is because if in fact you can stop the the leakage of water what you're automatically doing is reducing the consumption of water almost by half the other thing is is that there are several other outtakes that are producing six million gallons of water in fact the dam is producing 10 million and there's still a big debate going in fact where the outlet valves are so one of the reasons why everybody was rushing to be able to desilt the dam was because if the water level had dropped below where the outtake was and the first lower outtake was already clogged by the silting we would not have access to water but thinking that there's no technology where we can't simply put a big hose over the side and suck out the water and the fact is we've never reached to that state the other thing is is that there's a technology that you can use which is called a balloon which can fill the gap space at the dam which would allow us to raise the water level by another six or seven feet and if you look at the shape of the dam and you know anything about mathematics and space that by raising it by six feet given the extra space you're going to take you can almost double the amount of water that you have in the dam so because every single dollar that we have to spend we have to take into consideration what are we getting back if we were to desilt the dam it would not improve the capacity of the country it would not improve the economic conditions at wasco so tomorrow we're going to be looking at all those different options and to make sure that we're going to make the right decision and we believe there's a mythology given the technology that existed the dam that there's a possibility that i don't want to say i'm making any decision here today madam speaker a possibility that we might find a lesser expensive way of desilting the dam over a longer period of time while we resolve the biggest problem that we have which is the loss of water and then speaking to the minister of infrastructure earlier today the damage that's being done to our infrastructure by even those leaking pipes in terms of undermining our existing infrastructure but we've never been mindful to solve those problems when you take monadol the sewage problem in castries we all see it every day we pass by it the raw sewage being dumped in but there's a bigger issue all the people who are living on the hillside who are using um pit latrines and given if any heavier storms come we could have a massive landslide on the city of cast sorry but that's the problem they are a lot of different issues and we have to weigh the impact of each one of them the cost of each one given the resources we have make the best decision we can and we will make those decisions but like st june's it would have been a great thing if the united workers party had come into office and tried to continue the plans that were being put in place and everybody would have been right to say it's now our responsibility did we not do our own assessment the fact is is that that building like a lot of things that we've inherited a lot of money has been spent and there's nothing to show for it so madame speaker i'm very grateful for the efforts of the opposition when they were in government in negotiating the dvrp i think this is a worthwhile project and again a reminder of the presentation i made at the opening of the session today madame speaker that building resilience is truly our next big challenge and the time is running out on us and it's going to cost a lot of money for us to be able to do that and i'm hoping that we will be successful in the meetings that we've been having to be able to create this resilience bond that we can create monies that we can get more concessional rates like the dvrp in order that we can address some of the major infrastructural problems in this country so again madame speaker i'm grateful for the support of the house on this motion honorable members the question is that parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow an amount equivalent to us one million six hundred and twenty thousand dollars by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from the international development association to finance the solution development vulnerability reduction project and that the maximum commitment charge rate payable under unwithdrawn financing balance is one half of one percent per annum a service charge is payable under withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of one the sum of three-fourths of one percent per annum plus the basis adjustment and three-fourths of one percent per annum and the principal amount of the credit is reappayable on each 15th day of may and 15th day of november commencing on the 15th day of may two thousand and twenty seven two and including the 15th day of november two thousand and thirty six at the rate of one percent and commencing on the 15th day of november two thousand and thirty seven two and including the 15th day of november two thousand and fifty six at the rate of two percent i now put the question as many as of that opinion say i as many as of a contrary opinion say no i think the eyes have it the eyes have it honourable prime minister leader now speaker i beg to lay the the following motion standing in my name whereas under section 109 1a of the value added tax act cap 15.42 the act is provided that the minister responsible finance may by order published in the gazette amended amended the schedules to the act and whereas it is further provided on the section 109.2 of the act that an order made pursuant to section 109.1 of the act is subject to an affirmative resolution of parliament except where the amendment is to discuss tariff headings only and whereas a minister responsible for finance seeks approval of the value added tax amendments of schedule three order to amend schedule three of the act by affirmative resolution of parliament be resolved that the parliament by affirmative resolution approved the draft value added tax amendment of schedule three order which amends the schedule of the act in exercise of the power under the section 109 of the value added tax act cap 15.42 the minister responsible finance makes this order citation the order may be cited as the value added tax amendment of schedule three order 2017 amendment of schedule three the schedule three of the value added tax of 15.42 is amended by deleting paragraph 20 and by substitute substituting the following 20 one personal items food clothing toys other household consumables containing barrels and imported during the period commencing on the 15th day of November 2017 and terminating on the 31st day of January 2018 the exemption in paragraph one a applies to items with a total value not exceeding $2,500 EC for each barrel it is limited to a maximum of two barrels for each household and does not apply to electronic items and does not apply to items for commercial use and a speaker the barrel concessions were first introduced as one of the initiatives in 1997 1998 supplementary budget under the following conditions maximum of three barrels per household and then subsequently reduced to two concessions apply only to unsolicited personal items including food clothing toys and other gift items except electronic items an upper limit of $1,500 EC per barrel a modest service charge is attached to each barrel and depends on the value of the barrel the objective of the concessions was to assist needy and underprivileged families during the Christmas season it was decided then that the barrels received from relatives abroad would be waived from import duties and consumption taxes during the period starting from November 1997 to January 1998 while consumption tax and import duty were waived a modest service charge was levied since then concessions and barrels imported at Christmas time have been done annually normally in the months of December to January as follows in recent times November 15th 2012 to January 31st 2013 December 1st of 2013 to January 31st of 2014 December 1st of 2014 to February 15th of 2015 December 1st to the February 15th of 2016 and December 1st of 2016 to February 15th of 2017 the barrel trade has grown as we all know Madam Speaker over the years and is keenly anticipated by the public and keeping with the spirit of providing good share at Christmas time tax exemptions for goods imported into barrels by families during a specified period usually two and a half months is considered this year we proposed to commence the barrel concessions two weeks earlier than was done over the past four years but a similar period as in 2012 2013 and with the same duration of two and a half months the earlier period was intended to facilitate the ease of clearance of the barrels to avoid as much as possible the hectic Christmas traffic at the ports in order to give effect to this proposal especially since the implementation of that in 2012 which replaced the consumption tax a parliamentary resolution is required in order to exempt important items from that accordingly this parliamentary resolution is being sought for waiver of that on items imported in barrels during the period November 15 2016 to January 31st 2018 the following concessions with regard to the Christmas barrel trade is proposed one and a half percent waiver of import duty on the personal items food clothing toys and other household consumers contained in barrels electronic items are explicitly excluded the number of barrels that would qualify for the concessions are limited to two per household and there's an upper limit of ec-2500 per barrel on the value of the items qualifying for the concessions the items contained in the barrels must be for personal use only and not for commercial use unusual penalties and fines apply sorry my madame speaker usual penalties and fines apply if the goods are used for the commercial purposes madame speaker I therefore submit these resolutions for the consideration of this honorable house honorable members the question is that parliament my affirmative resolution approves the draft value added tax amendment of schedule three order which amends schedule three of the act I now put the question as many as of that opinion say I as many as of a contrary opinion say no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it bills honorable prime minister leader I think the eyes have it the eyes have it the eyes have it the eyes have it the eyes I think the eyes have it the eyes have it bills honorable prime minister leader of government business madame speaker I beg to move for the first reading of a bill in shortly entitled investments in lucia amendment bill invest in lucia amendment honorable prime minister madame speaker I beg to move for the suspension of standing order 48 to to allow the investment st lucia amendment bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting honorable members the question is that standing order 48 to is suspended in order to allow the investment lucia amendment bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting I now put the question as many as of that opinion say I as many as of a contrary opinion say no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it proceed on over prime minister leave his grant madame speaker I'm extremely mindful anytime a colleague of ours in our house expresses a concern about being able to move forward and not sufficient time being given to be able to do the research but I would beg the members indulgence from denry north that the bills that we're going to be debating here or coming to the house are really more administrative changes or grammatical grammatical changes none of these bills are intended to make any substantive changes to the bills even the bill that we're going to be debating last which is with regards on the airport tax fact the airport tax has already been approved but was on the advisement of the former prime minister the member from view for south where he made a very poignant point with regards to where the tax was being collected because as you will know that under the old government madame speaker they had decided to go with a PPP and so there was a new vehicle that was created and the tax was going into that area so we're basically just bringing the tax back into the lockbox it originally was but there is no there is no substantive changes to anything that we're putting here and I would hope that I would get the members consent on being able to move forward and that we're not trying to in any way push something through without your your level of consideration so if we look at the first one madame speaker the the bill for consideration is the investment solution amendment bill the purpose of the bill is to amend the investment solution act number 14 of 2014 clauses one and two of the bill make provisions for the short title and interpretation interpretation respectively clause three sorry clause three of the bill amend section four one of the act and clause four of the bill amend section 17.5 of the act basically being enacted by the queen's most excellent majesty and with the advice of the consent of the house of the assembly that the senator sinlusa sorry that the short title the act may be cited as the investment solution amendment act the sorry invest my apologies madame speaker interpretation that number two is the act a principal act means that the investment invest solution act number 14 of 2014 and then amendments of section four section four one of the principal act is amended a in paragraph b by deleting the full stop and by subtracting a semicolon and b by inserting immediately after the paragraph b the following paragraph the permanent secretary in the ministry responsible for investment amendment of section 17 madame speaker is section 17 five of the principal act is amended by deleting the word two two and by substitute substituting the word three and that is the extent of the amendments of the bill madame. Honourable members the question is that the invest sinlusa amendment bill be read a second time. Honourable members the question is that is that the invest sinlusa amendment bill be read a second time. I now put the question as many as of that opinion say aye as many as a contrary opinion say no I think the ayes have it the ayes have it and act to amend the invest sinlusa act number 14 of 2014. Members this is very straightforward and I did make copies of these the substantive the the substantive act and the sections that that are going to be amended so it becomes easier to read and follow through. So members have copies of the the current legislation so it is easier to insert the amended legislation and to follow I believe. Clause two interpretation clause two stands part of the bill clause three amendment of section four clause three stands part of the bill clause four amendment of section 17 sub five clause four stands part of the bill clause one short title clause one stands part of the bill. Honourable members the question is that the committee rises and I report the bill as many as of that opinion say aye as many as of a contrary opinion say no I think the ayes have it the ayes have it. Honourable members I beg to report that the invest sinlusa amendment bill went through committee stage with no amendments. Honourable Prime Minister leader of government business. Madam Speaker I beg for the move for the second reading of the sorry Madam Speaker my apologies. Madam Speaker I move that the chairman's report be adopted and the bill now be read a third time and passed. Honourable members the question is that the chairman's report be adopted under the invest sinlusa amendment bill be now read a third time and passed. I now put the question as many as of that opinion say aye as many as of a contrary opinion say no I think the ayes have it the ayes have it. Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St Lucia and by the authority of the fame as follows this act may be cited as the invest in Lucia amendment act 2017. Honourable Prime Minister leader of government business. Madam Speaker I beg to move the first reading of a bill shortly entitled income tax amendment bill. Income tax amendment. Honourable Prime Minister leader of government business. Madam Speaker I beg to move for the suspension of standing order 48-2 to allow the income tax amendment bill to go through its remaining stages at this city. Honourable members the question is that standing order 48-2 be suspended in order to allow the income tax amendment bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. I now put the question as many as of that opinion say aye as many as of a contrary opinion say no I think the ayes have it the ayes have it. Leave is granted please proceed Honourable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker the income tax amendment bill amends the principle. Madam Speaker I beg that we move for a second reading of the bill shortly entitled the income tax amendment bill. Madam Speaker the income tax amendment bill amends the principle act to make corrections and provide clarification for clarification. For example in section 7-6 identify sections 61-13 as follows in quotations such income shall not form part of the accessible income of such person and the gross amount therefore is liable to withholding tax in accordance with section 53-5 or 61-13 as the case may be. The reference however should be 63-14 as there is no 61-13 in the act. Madam Speaker section 18-3 refers to a beneficiary of the estate of a deceased person. At the end of the paragraph reads and I quote, occurs such legality. Instead it should read that an amended to occurs to such legality. Madam Speaker section 19 this section indicates how an incapacitated person should be taxed. The chargeable income of that person should be taxed in the name of the trustee in the same amount as would be charged if a person had not been incapacitated. However paragraph states if that person was incapacitated. Madam Speaker sections 43 is amended by deleting the word I quote section and inserting the words subsection 2. Without this amendment a person is entitled to a deduction for capital allowance only in respect to St. Lucia for the first time and is funded from non-local sources. Based on the current wording the local acquisition of capital items does not qualify for capital cost allowance. These special requirements are applicable only to subsection 2. Madam Speaker section 73 this section refers to the registration of an annuity contract under section 70. However section 69 deals with registration. In this same section after the word premium the word paid is omitted. And Madam Speaker as indicated these amendments do not create any changes in tax structure. They simply eliminate ambiguity, correct errors and therefore provide clarity. Honourable members the question is that the income tax amendment bill be read a second time. Honourable members the question is that the income tax amendment bill be read a second time. I now put the question as many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of our contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. An act to amend the income tax act cap 15.02. Okay like the prime like Honourable Prime Minister said. These are purely typographical errors that are being amended there so we can proceed and move expeditiously with this. Close 2. Interpretation. Close 2 stands part of the bill. Aye. Close 3. Amendment of section 7. Close 3 stands part of the bill. Aye. Close 4. Amendment of section 8. Close 4 stands part of the bill. Aye. Close 5. Amendment of section 18. Close 5 stands part of the bill. Aye. Close 6. Amendment of section 19. Close 6 stands part of the bill. Aye. Close 7. Amendment of section 40. Close 7 stands part of the bill. Aye. Close 8. Amendment of section 73. Clause 8, that's part of the bill. Clause 9. Clause 1, sorry, my apologies. Short title. Clause 1, that's part of the bill. Honourable Members, the question is that the committee rises and I report the bill. 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 Honourable Members, I beg to report that the Income Tax Amendment Bill went through committee stage with no amendments. Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business. Madam Speaker, I move that the Chairman's report be adopted and that the bill now be read a third time and passed. Honourable Members, the question is that the Chairman's report be adopted and that the Income Tax Amendment Bill be now read a third time and passed. 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. Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent Marjorie C., by and with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Lucia and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited as the Income Tax Amendment Act 2017. Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business. Madam Speaker, I beg to move the first reading of a bill shortly entitled Land and House Tax Amendment Bill. Land and House Tax Amendment. Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business. Madam Speaker, I beg to move for the suspension of the Standing Order 48-2 to allow the Land and House Tax Amendment Bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Honourable Members, the question is that the Land and House Tax Amendment Bill. Honourable Members, the question is that Standing Order 48-2 be suspended in order to allow the Land and House Tax Amendment Bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. I now put the question, as many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Please grant it, please proceed Honourable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, I beg to move for a second reading of the bill shortly entitled the Land and House Tax Amendment Bill. Madam Speaker, the Land and House Tax Act Cap 15.13 provides that land and house tax is due for payment on an annual basis. The Land and House Tax Amendment Act provides for a three-year exemption to owners of private residences for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 in fulfilment of a promise made by my Government. It means that the owner of a residential property will not pay the Land and House Tax for the three years mentioned. The introduction of the open market value threshold is threshold of 200,000 in 2014 resulted in 15,115 registered residential property owners being exempted from the payment of property taxes. This three-year exemption will benefit an additional 11,220 registered residential owners and will save $5.2 million a year to those individuals. Madam Speaker, the residential property owners are encouraged to settle taxes outstanding prior to 2017. The Government has provided an avenue for settlement through a tax amnesty program which ends in February of 2018. Persons can qualify for a waiver of up to 80% of late payment fees. The total impact of this three-year exemption is the resident in the residential home owners obtain a reprieve from current taxes an opportunity to take advantage of the ongoing tax amnesty to settle their arrears. So what we're asking is not that you're getting this three-year amnesty, please use the opportunity to be able to settle your arrears. In addition it provides the property tax division an opportunity to further strengthen its administrative framework to enhance the administration of property taxes and solutions. And mind you, Madam Speaker, my government is also examining other ways that we believe that might be more effective in being able to raise the property taxes and one in which we believe that would be a fairer system to all solutions. So again this is in fulfillment of one of our five to stay alive promises and I'm very glad that we're able to bring this to the house and hopefully it will get the support of other members in the house. One of the members the question is that the London House Tax Amendment bill be read a second time. I now put the question as many as of that opinion say aye. Aye. As many as of a country opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. An act to amend the London House Tax Act cap 15.13. Very simple. We have two clauses here. However, I felt that I needed a bit of clarification as to where exactly the amendment was fitting and I think the the Attorney General's chambers have provided that with respect to close to the bill amend section seven one. We need to make that clear. It is section seven one. So the institution will come if you if members look at the current seven one it will come down after the current each. We clay on that? Yeah. Yeah. All right. So we are amending section seven but there there is an amendment. Okay. So clause two. So that is where we're taking this. Clause two. Amendment of section seven. So the amendment of section seven and the clause two. We need to insert after seven sub one there. One in bracket. Section two. If you look at your. Section seven. Section seven. We add sub in bracket one there because if you look at the current seven there is a section seven one, section seven two, section seven three. But the amendment proposed there comes into section seven sub one. So it will come under after one key. Seven one key. I've provided the right. So this is exactly where it's coming. So I'm saying this one will actually have where we come to close to. We're inserting an amendment there after the number seven. Bracket one. One in bracket here. Are we there with that? Okay. After seven one we have seven reads special exemption and there is one. After one there is A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K. So sub two. Section two reads section seven and I'm now asking you to insert bracket one of the Land and House Tax Act 15.13 is amended by inserting by inserting in the proper paragraph sequence the following. So this will come under the current key after. Yes, but it says that amended by inserting in it we don't have to say K. No, it will move it after K. I understand but I'm just saying to you okay. Proper sequence. Well in essence it will. Residential properties. Yes residential property because if you read if you run the current key three years any new commercial property and it says wait the commercial property is dealt with under K. So now there is an exemption of residential property for the for the three years named mentioned. Is there a difficulty understanding that? It reads strange. Madam Director of Legislative Drafting we need your your guidance here. I would need you to perhaps come down and speak a little louder, more loudly please. Yes, I made the point that it does not read to it does not read nicely. Yes, yes you were saying. I'm saying that if you read it with the shackle then it reads okay. With the shackle which is the paragraph at the top. If you read it on its own it will not make any sense but you must read it. The following properties are exempted from the payment of taxes under this act for years 2017, 18 and 19 residential property. There isn't a problem. Okay, so clause two as amended to include one after section seven stands part of the bill. Clause one. Short title. Clause one stands part of the bill. The question is that the committee rises and I report the bill. As many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Honourable members I beg to report that the London House Tax Amendment Bill went through committee stage with an amendment to clause two. Honourable Prime Minister, leader of government. And Speaker I move that the Chairman's report be adopted and that the bill now be read a third time and passed. Honourable members the question is that the Chairman's report be adopted and the London House Tax Amendment Bill be now read a third time and passed. I now put the question. As many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Madam Speaker I beg to move for the first reading. Be eaten acted by the Queen's most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St Lucia and by the authority of the fame as follows. This act may be cited as the London House Tax Amendment Act 2017. Honourable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker I beg to move for the first reading of a bill shortly entitled Airport Development Bill. Looking at the time I need to indicate that if perhaps let us give an indication as to how many people intend to debate this bill because if it is going into two or three hours I have to say I can't stay for that long this evening. So I need to have an indication as to otherwise we'll have to take it in the morning. Well Madam Speaker I'm hoping that it wouldn't be a long debate because if I'm not mistaken we've already debated this bill. All we have we have because all we're doing is really amending it because when we came to the House the first time to approve this the monies were approved in the wrong place and which was appropriately identified but the amount by the amount by the amount that we are charging remains the same and the date of implementation remains the same. We don't intend to debate this very much on our side Madam Speaker so it really is entitled up to the opposition. Madam Speaker I'd like to ask that we take a 15 minute recess and reconvene it at five minutes to eight. Honourable members the question is that this House the rise and be suspended for 15 minutes and we return at five minutes to eight. I now put the question as many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of contrary opinions say no. I think the ayes have it the ayes have it. This House stands suspended until 755.