 Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. First of all, let me thank the Lord for his continued blessings, not only for me and my family, but also for my constituents and for us in St. Lucia, and for us generally in the Caribbean and hope we continue to practice the very important value of love. Mr. Speaker, maybe before I begin, I can beg your indulgence on some housekeeping matters. First of all, if I recall, at the last house sitting, Mr. Speaker, a member from Castry Central had basically refused to withdraw a particular statement, and he was intentioned to provide the evidence for that. Is this going to be the time that that's going to happen, Mr. Speaker, or is that going to happen at some other time? Because I would just like to be guided on that. I would hope not, but I shall not stop you. I would hope this is not the time, but I shall not stop you if you wish to proceed there. If you want to open that door, by all means, proceed. Sure, Mr. Speaker. I mean, the member from Castry Central indicated that Theo King had obtained a CIP passport. I indicated that was not the case and indicated he was going to bring the proof that Mr. Theo King had applied for a CIP passport. Member from Castry Central, he will make his presentation. You have not spoken. You will get the opportunity to respond to that particular point when you rise. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping that the additional time would be allotted to me. Yes, that would not be part of your time taken for your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The second point I was really looking forward to, I was going through my standing orders, Mr. Speaker, to hallucinate myself as to where in the standing orders did it speak specifically to the speaking order in the House during debates. I couldn't find it, so I don't know if, Mr. Speaker, you're able to guide me as to what the standing orders are on the order of speaking in the House. Member for Microsoft, I don't recall anybody stating that there is a speaking order. What I did hear the member of Castry's Eastern Prime Minister say was that it is the tradition, not just in St. Lucia, but throughout the democratic world. So I don't know a reference is made to a written specific order. And in any event, even if there is an order, the chair could not be bound by that order because the standing orders particularly say that the chair is only bound by that person he recognizes by the light being on. But that does not stop tradition. I think the member for Castry's East was all about tradition, which was supported just a while ago by the member for view for itself. Well, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to reassure myself that there is actually nothing in the standing orders. It speaks to speaking order. The fact is, is whoever catches the eye of the speaker. And reality is tradition is that we would normally sit down and agree on an order beforehand. And again, I would like to suggest that some persons who want to make reference to the past, we're in a unique situation, Mr. Speaker, in which we have two members of the opposition rebutting the government. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear there is nothing in the orders that speak to any speaking order. Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, I continue on that particular point. Mr. Speaker, in beginning my presentation, I really want to speak to probably something that, in my humble opinion, really summarizes the difference in the debate. And I heard the member from Anslery Canaries try his best to speak to how the government in the past budget and in this current budget, we're really going to help the persons that are being impacted by the current environment. And I want to make reference, if I can, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister's budget address. If it's not a document of the houses yet, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to make it so. In which he said, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, notwithstanding this performance, excise tax on petroleum did not perform as anticipated. This is due to the extent of the subsidies provided to cushion the high cost of fuel and cooking gas experienced earlier during the year. So, Mr. Speaker, I make reference now to the budget estimates. And I specifically go to Roman numeral five, Mr. Speaker. And it's a summary of recurrent revenue by economic classification. And under 0314 excise tax, the actual for 2021-2022 was $480 million approximately, I'm rounding it off. The approved estimates for last year was $515 million.7. And the revised estimates, meaning what the amount is going to be estimated for this budgetary period, meaning that just passed, is $584 million 2021. So it means that the exceeded the budget expectations by some $65 million, $69 million. So here it is. Mr. Speaker, let me just see if I understand you. Aren't the figures for 2022 also estimates? You're saying that they have exceeded, these are not actual figures, are they? The revised estimates, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, they're the numbers that are provided to us. They're basically, they're revised upwards from what was approved, meaning that the government at this point is expecting to collect more. Okay, so access time for the whole country. Absolutely. Of which, the petroleum gas is part of that. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to reread it again, Mr. Speaker. I see that we want, I'm going to re-quote it again, Mr. Speaker. And we can take, we can take as, we can take as long as we want because you see, Mr. Speaker, this is the issue that really speaks to the character of this government. It says, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding this performance, excise tax on petroleum did not excise tax on petroleum. So petroleum excise tax is included in the total excise taxes that we're going to collect. Performance anticipated. This is due to the extent of the subsidies provided to the cushion, the high cost of the fuel and cooking gases. But the point is, is that the total amount of excise tax exceeded the amount that we were supposed to collect. So in fact, the loss of, and you know, Mr. Speaker, again, it's the use of words. This is, Mr. Speaker, the government budgeted to generate 56.9 million under that revenue head, meaning that the expectation was, is that the government would have collected 56.9 million dollars on the excise tax for petroleum products. Okay? However, given the increase in energy prices earlier in the year and the government shielding the consumer from absorbing the increases, it expected that, it expected that 25 million in revenue will be collected, meaning that there will be a shortfall of about 40 million dollars. But that shortfall was made up in other items of excise tax. So the total excise revenue that was collected was in excess of what you budgeted. So it means you, I'm just saying, the idea that there was, you put a budget together of expenditures, you expected that your excise revenue was going to be 515 million dollars. You took a hit on the petroleum, but you collected it on other items, and so much so, that you collected more revenue than you even had budgeted, more revenue to budget. So it means that the capacity to have done more in order to cushion people from the high fuel prices, high cooking gas prices, preventing bus fares from going up, preventing bread from going up, which are now going to become permanent increases into our economy. And this is the government, do you want to make it out to believe that you're all so magnanimous, magnanimous in what way? Member for Microsoft, there's a point of order. Yes, Member for Microsoft. Mr Speaker, I didn't want to interrupt the horrible Member for Microsoft. Mr Speaker, could we just turn, could we just turn, Mr Speaker, to page 18 and use the essence of my statement. Page 18, Mr Speaker, of the estimates. Page 18, all right, you have it. Page 18, excise stats on petroleum imports. Member for Microsoft, just a minute, Member for Microsoft, there's a point of order. Would you take a seat? I did. I was just trying to get my book to look at it, Mr Speaker. Okay. Excise stats on petroleum imports. 3161 003. You all right there? Okay. Actual, 45 million. Approve estimates, 59 million. Revise estimates, 25 million. So that's a difference, 40 million shortfall. But Member for Cassuries, Issa, what I understand the Member to be saying, I don't know that there's relevance to what he's saying, but what I understand to be saying is that whereas there was a shortfall in petroleum, there was an increase in overall excise tax. No, but I did not say that. No, no, he didn't say you said that. Yes, but members, yes, but he did not state that the Member for Cassuries said that. What he's saying is that the Member for Cassuries said there was a shortfall in petroleum excise tax. Yes, but he's saying there is an overall increase in all excise tax. And I said that's all he's saying. I don't know the relevance of what he's saying, but that's what he's saying. We didn't speak up. Sorry. We said that's the one. I just wanted to make clear this is because for people listening, for the public listening, for the public listening, we agreed that there was an increase in excise tax. We said why? We said because of the buoyancy that you call but we also stated, which is the fact that the petroleum tax, which is shown on page 18, there was a $14 million less input, which is also fact. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So in essence, it's like being in a household, Mr. Speaker. You have a budget of $5,000 and you have an electricity bill, Mr. Speaker, and you have revenue and all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, the revenue that you were anticipating, your electricity bill went up, but you were able to get a bonus that month from your work. So the reality is the point that we're trying to make is the line item excise tax, of which petroleum makes part of that excise tax. And that while excise tax for petroleum may have been less than expected, the total amount of excise tax that was collected increased by almost $17 million. And therefore, and therefore, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, the government did not have to allow the price of fuel, if I have to break it down to the average man in this country, the government did not have to allow the price of fuel to go to $17 or $17.95, because it was the increase of the price of fuel to $17.95 that caused the bus fares to go up. That's what the reality is. And so here it was that you want to go out and you want to have your cake and eat it. You want to talk about being benevolent and being caring. You all don't care, because if you did care, you would have not allowed the price of fuel to go up because you would have understood what it did to the average person. And when you had the price of other goods going up, Mr. Speaker, which was undermining the revenue, the household income, and now you are allowing goods to go up. How? You knew, you said it in your budget previously, that because the CIF prices cost, insurance and freight was going to go up, you were expecting to collect more of that on your duties. So what? We gave you the advice, lower the rate to reduce the level of the impact of inflation on your economy. That's what you had to do. That's what a compassionate government would do. Mr. Speaker, that's why I'm saying to you, Mr. Speaker, we heard from before from members of this House how all numbers and stuff like that all matter. But all of a sudden it changes. The reality is, is the evidence shows that this government is only about putting themselves first, not anybody else, Mr. Speaker. And when I go through this budget in detail, we will see, Mr. Speaker, again, horses before hospitals. What does that really mean? We've argued that and showed that that is nonsense. That's just a rhyme. That's a stupid point because there's no correlation. The government of Salucia did not put any money into horses. Oh, come on. So, Mr. Speaker, let's get back to the point. The fact is that this government collected more excise tax than expected, $70 million. And wait a second, Mr. Speaker, that they had expected, they had expected to generate $56 million worth of revenue. And they took a $25 million subsidy. You mean to tell me they couldn't have subsidized it all and kept the price of gas at $13.95? That they're so detached from this economy to understand that when you allow the price of gas to go past $13.95, Mr. Speaker, the impact it's going to have on households in this country, the same people that they profess they're going to be protecting, come on, Mr. Speaker. Makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the member from Viewfort South is not here, but I want to say that my heart does go out for all the people in Viewfort, and it also goes out for the people in my own constituency and in the South, and the impact that's happening. And I specifically, Mr. Speaker, want to thank the people from my constituency who volunteered on Sunday to go and help with the cleanup, and who brought chainsaws, extra hands, brought chicken and brought water to join in with the community. And I want to say to my community, my constituency, how proud I am of not sitting on complaining, but when there's a community that's doing the right thing to get involved. And for those persons who got involved and brought their chainsaws, brought the extra manpower to help out, I just want to say bravo to you and bravo to Miku South for their contribution in that very worthwhile effort. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say before I get into my more details is what the member was speaking about. Brucefield is the same thing that's taking place in Angers, where every time there's a change in election, you're going back to Sir John, trying to rationalize the lands for the people in Angers. I've gotten to the point where everything had been agreed upon. I'm not so sure what has happened, but I want to take this point, this time out, Mr. Speaker, to also allucinate to the people of Saint Lucia. Allucinate to the people of Saint Lucia about the reality of when we talk about rationalizing land. It is not as simple, it is not as simple as coming to cabinet and approving it. If it were, a lot more land rationalization would take place. A lot more. The reality is specifically when it's either private land or crown land that has been squatted on, when it's private land, that means it has to be an acquisition. And even when it's crown land, we have to go in and do the subdivision. And sometimes that subdivision will require some houses to be relocated. Because there's a minimum size lot that we are allowed to give each person. And sometimes this takes millions of dollars. And again, when we speak about proud and we'll get to it, that's where the money goes into, is to pay for the architects, the engineers, the surveyors to be able to allow this transition to take place and for deeds of sale for each of those lots to be taken place of. What we have attempted to do in the past, Mr. Speaker, is that selling the land at a minimum and for the returns of that money to assist in the cost of the surveying, the subdivision, as well as putting in the public facilities, the water, the electricity and the roads. All those come at a significant cost when you're going to make those things happen. So Mr. Speaker, my people in Angers continue to wait for their subdivision. Mr. Speaker, I want to start at a macro level to begin with. Because I've just spoken that how the government's revenue has been recovered. In fact, the government has generated more revenue this year than any time in the history of solution. In fact, in 2015-16, when we came into government, the revenue was just over a billion dollars. By 2018 and 2019, it had become $1.2 billion. In 2020-21, it dropped to $923 million, almost a drop of $200 million. And in 2022-23, the revenue is $1.3 billion. That's the recovery. That's the extent of the recovery of revenue that this government has had. So Mr. Speaker, again, I heard members, particularly the loudest one, always, the member from Cass Street Central, indicating that this year's economic performance was the best. We've never seen that kind of management in the history of San Lucia. We've never seen an economy perform to the extent of this. I said, wow, the great thing, the great, oh, it's all changing now, you know, it's all the ratios before now it's changing. But the reality is that's what he said, the best performance ever. That's why I say, history is there, the books are there for us to be able to go back and see. So Mr. Speaker, when we go back and check out 2000- Member of Microsoft, yes, member of Cass Street Central, what's the point of order? Point of order, Mr. Speaker, he's misleading the house. I need him to substantiate, tell me time, didn't please. I said it's the best performance ever. But you spoke already? No, Mr. Speaker, but he's misleading the house. How is he misleading the house if you have not yet spoken? No, he said, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, the member for Cass Street Central indicated that this is the best performance ever. But when did you say that? So that's what I need to ask. But I'm saying not in this debate, so I can't rule on a matter that's not in this debate. So can he go on his rims and fancies and quote me because I've not spoken, Mr. Speaker? But I can only deal with what's on the record. But it's on the record now, Mr. Speaker. He told you he would have an opportunity to respond to him and deal with it. No, I don't want him to continue misleading the house. We know that forms part of his DNA. But I want him to withdraw that statement. Member of Cass Street, just a minute. Member for Miku South, the member for Cass Street Central has not yet spoken, is not yet on the record. Are you referring to a side comment? I am, Mr. Speaker. But then you can't do that. Okay. It's not on the record. It has been suggested, fear enough. So he would have to withdraw that the member said this because there is no such record in handset. Okay. During the presentation. Member for Miku South, Mr. Speaker. You shall not ignore what I just said. No, I'm taking it as a concern. No, I've asked that you withdraw the statement because the statement was not on the record, if at all it was said. Mr. Speaker, we've drawn the manner in which I said what I said. No, no. Member, you began your contribution by saying words matter. Don't do that to me. I'm asking you directly to withdraw the statement. Thank you very much. Well, during the Prime Minister's presentation, his estimates, the member from Castery's seat said during the the chat. Member for Miku South, as he did withdraw the statement. He is on the record as he joined the statement. So Mr. Speaker, let's move on. So at the end of the day, let's just make the comparison. In 2018 and 2019, if we compare it to the budget of 2022-23, as I said to you, the revenue in 18-19 was just over a billion dollars. And the revenue in 22-23 was $1.209 billion dollars. The current revenue in 2008-2019 was $983 million. The current revenue under 22-23 was $1,199,000. The tax revenue in 2018-2019 was $934 million. The tax revenue in 22-23 was $1073 million, $1 billion and $73 million. The tax income in 2018-2019 was $241 million. And the tax income in 22-23 was $259 million. And now we get down to the crux of the matter. How did that all balance out? On the measurements that members on the opposite side are touting. The current balance in 2018-2019 was a positive $82.7 thousand dollars. The current balance in 2018-2019 was $82.7 thousand. And the current balance for 22-23 is $40, minus $40. The primary balance in 2018-2019 was $50.3. And the primary balance for 22-23 was $29, half the amount. And the overall balance was minus $106 million, and $106 million. And the 22-23 was minus $150 million. So the reality is that there was a time just before COVID that this economy was being managed extremely well. No. Before 26, I can get there for you. No, 2018-2019, from the time we came into government. The results? Sure. You can go to your social and economic review. Can I borrow yours? Which year is that number? 2021. But it's a document at the house. So all I'm saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is this is idea that this is the best economic performance? That's not true. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we go back and we want to compare a term in government, because again, I want to bring some of these issues that have come up repeatedly and to deal with them upfront. So the overall balance between 2011 and 2016 were the following. 2011-2012 minus $227 million. The next year, minus $328 million. The next year, minus $216 million. The next year, minus $138 million. And the final year was minus $106 million. The aggregate, because it adds up, was $906 million of overall deficits in the five years, 2011 to 2016. The overall deficit, the same way you can add growth. The overall deficits, Mr. Speaker, the overall deficits, Mr. Speaker, during the years 2016 and to 2019 were as follows. Minus $79 million, minus $111 million, minus $57 million, minus $193 million. So the aggregate of the deficits leading up to COVID in the four years was $400 million, minus $400 million. And then now the last year of COVID, 2020-2021, was $493 million. So I want to say that, that the deficit that we had in 2020 and 2021 was greater than the total amount of the deficits that we had in the four previous years. Okay? Now, the reality is, Mr. Speaker, the reality, Mr. Speaker, the reality, Mr. Speaker, the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that when we want to speak about crisis and how a government reacts to a crisis, here it is that we have a government that's out there crying every day, how tough it is. They found an economy that wasn't a mess. We've now seen in two successive budgets that that's not true. That revenue, government revenue in St. Lucia has recovered faster than any of the other caracum countries other than, other than Guyana. We've had 12.5% growth. They're projecting, I see, another 12.5% growth this year. That means that St. Lucia, from a GDP, because when we got into COVID, we were at $5 billion, and COVID caused a contraction of $1 billion. Our GDP, during COVID because of the closure and the loss of tourism, our GDP contracted by a billion dollars. Government's revenue contracted by $500 million, excuse me? He doesn't get the point. So we're talking about that we got a crisis that had nothing to do with us, an exogenous force called COVID that caused our economy to close down like everybody else. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to have that debate with him any day. Mr. Speaker, so in closing our economy for that year, the impact that it had on our economy, we now know it's history. We lost $500 million in revenue, and our GDP contracted by a billion dollars. This year, where you're all talking about completing, revenue has grown to an all-time high. You're running surpluses in your budgets, and the reality is that there's substantially more that you could have done to cushion the blow, because during COVID, I don't recall the price of fuel going up to $17. I don't remember the price of cooking gas going up. All I remember is the amount of money that we were doing to help people in our economy, and I'm not seeing the reciprocal response by this government who had the capacity to do that and chose not to do it. I want to make that point. I had the capacity, XISACs generated $70 million more than they had budgeted, and they didn't do it, and they didn't do it. Meanwhile, when you want to compare about the crisis of COVID, the COVID crisis was a half a billion dollars short in cash, and your economy contracted by a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, and yet the government found a way to help the people, and that is a government of compassion, not this government. This government has shown no compassion to the people of San Lucia. So, Mr. Speaker, let us now get into the detail. If I can make reference to Mr. Speaker to page 53, Mr. Speaker. When I look at the expenditure of the office of the prime minister, everything is on the increase. Staffing has been increased with all, I guess it must be all, those media consultants. Salaries on the increase. Grants, Mr. Speaker, on the increase by $5 million. So, now we know that the prime minister has $5 million at his disposal under this disguise of grants to give away to the people the money, Mr. Speaker. $5 million of it is with no accountability as to who or what qualifies want to get these grants. It is how this government has managed, Mr. Speaker, that we can disguise money on the grants to give to our friends, family, and comrades. $5 million to protect the victory. I urge all solutions to please, I am begging you all, please make appointments to see the prime minister and get your slice of the $5 million in grants that he's put here. Mr. Speaker, consultancy. This government who went in opposition complained about the amount of money that we were spending on consultancy. There was a certain talk show host, Mr. Turn Minister, who used to lament on it every Thursday, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, do you know that the total for consultancy serves for this financial year is $122 million? Over $122 million to repay all the friends, families, and comrades who contribute to the victory. Where is that host now, Mr. Speaker, to talk about this? The $122 million. So, Mr. Speaker, we saw, Mr. Speaker, that in 2021-22, the traveling in the prime minister's office was $526,000, line item 01-201. This last year, it went to $997,000, and he's projecting now to take it to $1.925 million. Hosting and entertainment went from $455,000, Mr. Speaker, to $724,000. The same year that we're talking about the hardship, the impact of inflation on the people of San Lucio, and what do we do? We increase the amount of money that we're spending on parties. Mr. Speaker, consultancy fees went from $1.5 million to down to $1 million, and now is going up to $2.629 million. And there's grants and contributions going from $1,651,000 to $7,102,000, the $5 million I spoke of. I move on, Mr. Speaker. Page 55, under achievements. So it says, Mr. Speaker, and that's Section 21, Office of the Prime Minister, program performance information on the right-hand side. It says to conduct training in national emergency operations, center management, and district emergency operations for heads, response agencies, and district disaster committees responsible. DoC activities were 100% completed, but is a recurring process. The work on the district disaster committee to order to conduct vulnerability and capacity assessments, and develop community profiles for at least four communities per year in the district. Activity could not take place due to COVID protocols. I didn't know we were still in protocols. I thought this government, when they came in, they got rid of all those protocols. This activity requires community engagement, and also there was a void of staff to lead the process. If we read, Mr. Speaker, the next set of things to do with risk mitigation. Every single one of them says the same thing. Activity could not take place due to COVID-19 protocols. This activity requires community engagement, and also there was a void of staff to lead the process. I continue, Mr. Speaker, page 61. National apprenticeship program, zero. We talk about a youth economy, Mr. Speaker. We talk about a program that was legitimately helping young people get jobs. In training, I heard the member from Soufraire lament about having a call center and people not being properly trained. That's exactly what the NAP program was doing, was helping people, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, to help people get jobs. Yeah, Mr. Speaker. Ojo Labs is a great thing, Mr. Speaker. Go and tell the 450 people that are earning in excess. Member from the Cassidy Center, as I said, I don't have a problem with the heckling, but I don't like the imputations about the member for Miku's wife, and I think we can do better than that. First thing member, Mr. Speaker, the NAP program was exactly used to help Ojo Labs, was to provide training, subsidize those jobs in the initial stages, the first six months of $1,000, the second six months by $500, and the next month $500, and the employer was paying those people $3,500. So the money that the government here is lamenting about paying, who do you think the money was going to? The money is going to the staff. That's who the staff is going to, and it was limited to 400 people. Excuse me? The people, but you're the ones who decide. The people, that's technically who it's supposed to be. When you collected the $70 million in excise tax, that is the people's money, and you chose not to spend it on the people. You're complaining about having to subsidize gas because it cost you $25 million. Really? And you made $70 more million in revenue, and you want to come here and complain and say to people that they shouldn't have suffered? You allowed by allowing the price of gas to go up to $17.95. You're the one who caused the bus fares to go up. You're the one who caused the cost of living and put hardship on the people of Sanducia. And we have the numbers here to show that you did not have to do it. The member from Babylon, Mr. Speaker, speaks about border control, 000, 000, all zeros. Where's the border control? Where's the crisis that we have? Where's the requisite resources to show that we're going to put a border control in? But instead of the border control, Mr. Speaker, the land where the border control was going to go was sold, but that's for another day. Distress fund, $1.6 million. Bravo. But the reality is that now you're in government, you can go and check the facts. All the money that we were taking from the contingency fund to help support the people. There's a gentleman just on the corner who got burned by electrical shock doing work for the government. We spent over $80,000 in sending him to Colombia and that he now can have a life. You know how many more hundreds of solutions who needed money? Millions of dollars were spent from the contingency fund. So this idea that you want to come and convince people that the government was not compassionate, the government spent an excess of the million dollars and the 1.6 that you're going to cap yourself at. There is, if you have not figured out, there are many more needs in $1.6 million, but we'll get to that point. Mr. Speaker, page 71. Everything that we've seen being initiated, Mr. Speaker, in the justice has been initiated by our government. And I specifically want to speak about operating expenditure, Mr. Speaker, is going from $11 million to $17 million. Rental higher, meaning the office rental, is going up by $5 million, Mr. Speaker. Consulting is going up. Mr. Speaker, so you're going to have this. Mr. Speaker, so you're going to complain, you're going to take, let me get this right, let me get this right, Mr. Speaker. Again, I want the public of San Lucia to really appreciate this point. So here it is that we have orange grove, water wash, in which we're now going to get built out office space for $4 a square foot. And you're going to go and take, you're going to go and take, you're going to go $4 a square foot, $4 a square foot. Go ahead. Mr. Speaker, I sat very quietly. Mr. Speaker, I sat very quietly. Mr. Speaker, I sat very quietly. But you know, we really can't let the public get up, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, orange grove, the only part of orange grove that is fit out for offices, is for the Eastern Caribbean Court of Justice, at $8 a square foot for the top floor, and $4 a square foot for the bottom floor costing the government $1 million per month. Now, I've said nothing about that, but since he's opened the door, let me enter. For the government offices, for the government offices, for the government offices in the speaker, it cost the taxpayer $360,000 a month and extra $12 million to reconfigure it, plus a capital of $1 million deposit, meaning that if we go around his back and he sign the contract for the government offices, government rent will go out by an average rent only, effectively, for about $12 million per month. So when it comes to about a year, I understand the member playing the figure, like, what is it there? I'm going to come back and talk about everyone inside. You see, everything I said, so I'm going to talk about it. But to speak to the international public that we pay for fitted office, that's not true. That's not true. The government is not paying for fitted office. We pay for children for offices where you have to pay another $11 million to retrofit. Member for Mikusov. So, Mr. Speaker, I accept and understand the rationale when the member from Castry Central goes on that kind of tangent. But for the prime minister to find himself repeating those kinds of numbers, it's beyond me. Beyond me, Mr. Speaker. Member for Mikusov, what is it that you're saying that the member for Castry's east has misled the house? Completely, Mr. Speaker. Completely. The fact is- Which part of the response was misleading? All of it. The fact is- That we are not paying $8 a square foot for one floor and $4 for another? Mr. Speaker, I have given you the contracts, Mr. Speaker. Member for Mikusov, you don't want to go there. You don't want to go there. Trust me, you don't want to go there. I would love to go there, Mr. Speaker. The deal was that we sold the ground floor and we were renting the two-force upstairs, which is $77,000 square feet. And the money that we were paying was in order for them to build out the space for to be specified by the government what offices they want to put them. The courthouse that the prime minister is making reference to was never part of the deal. The fact is is that the regional court, the regional court of Saint Lucia is hosted in Saint Lucia and we are currently paying rent for the regional court in town. Is that not so? Okay. Who makes the decision to determine where the regional court goes? Thank you. So by which ministry? Which ministry makes that decision? So the regional court, when they want to move to somewhere, who do they go to? They go to the Ministry of Justice. It's for the Ministry of Justice to make that determination as to where they're going to go. That is nothing to do with the building. So don't try to make, if you don't want, if you don't want the regional court to go there, you don't have to agree. There was never a contract signed to a cause the regional court to go it was. Never. Member for Calisthenics East. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy. I'm very happy. Members, there's a member on his feet to a point of order, please. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy that the prime minister said so. I'm very happy. The former. I'm very happy. Mr. Speaker, I want the owners of Orange Grove to head because I also want the owners of Orange Grove to know that the man who sat and negotiated with them, the man who they are courting all the time when we try to get some balance to that, he's the same gentleman who has come in the open and denied them. I'm very happy. You know what he said? He said, Mr. Speaker, out of the abundance. Mr. Speaker, when, you see, when the members of Mikos have considered, when I have been trying my best to protect the reputation of St. Lucia, because the investors are telling me they have an agreement with a government which he negotiated, which not one civil servant ever saw, and I'm trying to protect the reputation of the government by saying to them, if you negotiated in good faith with a prime minister, I cannot just erase that. And he's coming and saying, there's nothing wrong with us. I thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. So Mr. Speaker, clearly, clearly the prime minister could have saved a lot of time if he'd have picked up the phone and called me. It hadn't been very simple, but the reality is I want to refute something right away. The fact that he said that no civil servant, but the cabinet secretary's signature is on the agreement. So how can you tell me that that's not the case? The cabinet secretary. I said no civil servant negotiated the agreement. You negotiated it. You and the lawyer will not mention his name. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, the building is owned by Amazon, which has its own board, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister, he knows that very well, has no authority to have signed anything, Mr. Speaker. The prime minister can simply give his acquiesce to the decision. The decision was we sold the ground floor and they use a bolt arrangement to remember from Microsoft. I must stop you. The records that produced in this house and which form document to the house say that the building was sold. I will not allow you to continue with this fallacious idea that a floor was sold. When I have before me the document that says the building was sold, I will not allow you to proceed. And I advise you a little while ago, do not proceed with the idea that you gave me a document because the document you gave me, which purports to be a development agreement, predates the sale. So how can how can the new owners have an agreement with you to return the bill into you when you still own it? So do not go there, please. So Mr. Speaker, again, I can understand how we got into problems with the privileges committee. Mr. Speaker, I took the time to provide to you the development agreement. Member for Microsoft, I'm trying to lead you on a proper path. The deed of sale is dated the 21st day of September 2020. You gave me a document purporting to be a development agreement where the people who bought the property in September 2020 are agreeing in March and February 2020 to give you a building you already own. Do not go down that road because it is not a sustainable path. Mr. Speaker, is it not correct? And I would love you to read it out loud again, because the last time you went and made it, this is a document of the house, that the deed of sale makes reference to the development agreement. But you cannot have a development agreement where, listen, Amazoner owned the property. They sold it in September. But you're bringing a development agreement to me, dated in February, which is 10 months before that. How is that possible? How can somebody who does not own a building agree to sell it back to you before you're sold it to them? Mr. Speaker, I'm not understanding your rationale. The persons who were going to purchase the agreement, the building... 10 months in advance. 10 months in advance. That's how long the discussions were taking place. Agreed that a condition to this sale would be that in order for them to hypothecate the building, that we would sell them the building. At the end of the lease period, which is in the agreement, Mr. Speaker, that the lease portion of it is transferred right back to the government. We sold the building. The agreement includes now, like the Ministry of Communication and Infrastructure, same bolt agreement. Well, different thing. You see? At the end of the 15 years, the upstairs becomes back to the government. Mr. Speaker, we sold the ground floor of the building and we allow them to hypothecate the upstairs part. And it's outlined in the development agreement. And I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that you would not agree that the deed of sale makes reference specifically. It says when it is sold, it is conditional to the development agreement that was signed previously. All the details are there. Anyway, Mr. Speaker. So the reality is, is that if in fact the government wants to move people into the die-here mall, where it's going to be $4 for a fixed-out building, why wouldn't they take other spaces, people that they're paying $752? Why do they want to take government offices that are in offices either to the NIC at $3 and $4? Or in some cases, nothing, because they're owned by government. Why are those the offices that we're transferring? Why are we not transferring the offices where we can save substantial amount of money and put them there? So, Mr. Speaker. We have 10 minutes left. Well, Mr. Speaker, do I get the extra time given to you as the... Mr. Speaker, I don't give people... Or I can't see it because of the... The member for Suzele is all to us. I'm sorry, but I... Member for Suzele, I do apologize for not acknowledging you, but because of the lectern, I'm only able to see your microphone. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invoke standing order 3-3-10 to ask for an additional 45 minutes for the member to continue his debate tonight. I want to remember the question is that standing order 3-2-10 being invoked to allow the member for Mikusov an additional 45 minutes in which... 45 minutes, right? 45 minutes in which to conclude his presentation. I now put a question as many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of a country opinion say no. Madam, Madam Clerk, I can't make out which is which. I'll take a division. But this is not how it works, you know. If the ayes have it, you vote aye. I'm going to put the question again as many as of the opinion that the member for Mikusov gets an additional 45 minutes say aye. As many of the country opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. I think the ayes have it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we move on. Page 84, Mr. Speaker. I did. I said thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, my members, the members of the House, for your consideration. Page 84, Mr. Speaker. Public service, their progress reports. To develop standard operating procedures for the Department of Public Service by March 31st, 2022 to ensure consistency in the delivery of services. To develop an orientation manual for the Department of the Public Service by December 21st, 2021 to inculcate new entrants to the shared commitments of the department. To develop a framework for teleworking March 31st, 2022 to determine the requirements for teleworking in the St. Lucia Public Service. Nothing. No report, Mr. Speaker. Page 85, Mr. Speaker. Again, rent is going from 15 million to 20 million dollars, Mr. Speaker. We continue, Mr. Speaker. Infrastructure and ports, page 233. We're seeing that the expenditure, Mr. Speaker, is at 220 million dollars last year, and next year is projected to go to 170 million dollars. So I just want to say to all those persons, we have this expectation that there's some salvation coming. At the conditions of the roads, I'm not seeing the requisite resources here to be able to make that happen, Mr. Speaker. Page 234. Operations and maintenance, Mr. Speaker. 1208 has gone from 6.9 million to 13.437 million dollars. That is for operations and maintenance, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Infrastructure on 036. On the next page, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, key program and key programs and strategies for 2022-23, achievements in progress, blank. Zero. 236, Mr. Speaker. On the top of it. Yes, I do. Okay. Blank. Mr. Speaker. Nothing. Page 238. Operations and maintenance, Mr. Speaker. Which is 1208 has gone from 4.7 million to 10 million. And if you look moving forward, it goes to 2.3 million dollars, Mr. Speaker. Page 241, Mr. Speaker. The point is that there is no continuity. There is no reporting. There's no evidence of any major work. Not that the fact that people of San Lucia can't see that for themselves. When you drive around this country, you can see that nothing is being done. That this is all just patchwork. That's exactly what this government is doing. Patch here, patch here. The moment that somebody complains about something, patch it up. 241, Mr. Speaker. Again, update road construction specifications used by the ministries for project execution by March 23. Review and update maintenance regimes and mythologies for capital projects by March 223. Training contractors in project implementation execution to improve quality assurances. Ongoing but funding has been affected completion. Specifications for residential roads complete. Specifications for general construction to be done and is still pending. Still pending. That's what we see all throughout, Mr. Speaker. All these ambitious words and programs, but there's no follow-through. None. Page 249, Mr. Speaker. If we look again, program performance information. Implementation of a fully operational department manager's street lighting program. This is ongoing. The number of street lights available for installation are not numerous due to lack of movement on the part of the contractor or the contract between Governor San Lucia and KED Capital. This has been going on for years, Mr. Speaker. For years, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the government inherited the relationship and have continued the relationship and nothing has happened. That's the bottom line. Mr. Speaker, Page 266, 266. Dead investment has gone from 292 million to 339. Up 100, sorry, has gone from... Item? The item is the operating expenditure. Sorry, not the operating expenditure. Which one is it? Mr. Speaker, we've seen it retiring benefits and we've seen it going up from 14 million to 20 million. Up by 42 percent. Page 266. 106. 1106, yes. Finance. Achievements, Mr. Speaker. Page 268. This is very important, Mr. Speaker. Finalization of public financial management regulations, the PRMR. Monitor the implementation of provisions of the PFMR. Completion of the post-disaster action plan. Operationalization of the accident investigation board. Ensure all officers assigned procurement officers receive training in public procurement. Publish 22-23 public procurement plan to the Governor San Lucia. Submit public procurement report of 21-22. Implementation of the mandatory use of the GEGP system by all agencies. Issue revised public procurement user manual. And the report is nothing. Blank. No report. No progress made on these critical things. And when we went to now pass the financial act, those are one of the commitments that were made. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to get when the Prime Minister speaks on page 269 that we're seeing that interest payments are going to go from 172 to 218 million dollars. I know that he's indicated in his budget speech that this has to do with what's taking place in the United States of America. So I would certainly like to know what loans do we have that we have a variable interest rate on that's causing the interest rates to go up to that extent because that's a significant increase. And I certainly know in the loans that we negotiated with the Taiwanese we put a cap. The DFCs are fixed, Mr. Speaker. The DFCs are capped. It was interesting for me to note, Mr. Speaker, a very important project, particularly for the Minister of Tourism, under the Capital Grant on page 270, the Caribbean Development Capital Contribution, that there is no contribution for next year. So I don't know if that's an oversight or if the program has come to page 270. On the Capital Grant says Caribbean Development Fund Capital Contribution and it's zero. And I know that's a program that we've participated and benefited from. We've actually got a multiple of the contributions that we've made in the past. So I don't know if that's an oversight of the programs coming to an end. Certainly I would like to hear on that. Page 352. Mr. Speaker, we're seeing that the page 353. We're seeing that the and I know the Prime Minister answered that question, where we're seeing that the under development of culture and creative industries that we're increasing it from 9 million to 17 million dollars. 017 operating expenditure has gone from 9 million to 17 million, which I assume is the the jazz festival. And it's just interesting to me that given the success of Carnival that we would not continue to have develop Carnival. And again, we're seeing Mr. Speaker, on the grants and contributions, we're seeing it go from 13 million to 27 million dollars. That's almost a 14 million dollar increase in grants and contributions. Page 354. Line item 0151. But a page 357, Mr. Speaker. Very importantly, under achievements in progress, campaigns and promotions to have a call to action, which leads to the Solution.org website, increasing direct bookings, which can provide return on investment data on successive campaigns and increase the average daily rate. What was interesting, Mr. Speaker, is a third line there. It says reinstate a marketing strategy on par with the program executed in 2019 for the financial year 2022-23, March 31st-23. So again, Mr. Speaker, very simple objectives, no report. And by the trend that I'm seeing where we've lost air capacity, I'm seeing that our presence in the marketplace has subsided. Now I understand. There is nothing going on. There's nothing to report, Mr. Speaker. Nothing taking place. And what's interesting is we're talking about going from 480,000 airline seats to 528,000 airline seats this year. How is that going to happen? I don't even think that we're going to have as many airline seats this year coming as we did last year. You know, we'd go out and celebrate going two flights to Guyana. But nobody remembers that that came at the expense of four flights to Trinidad. So we lost four flights to Trinidad. We got two flights to Guyana, two flights to Tobago. I mean, I've never heard that. There's no net gain. In fact, if anything, there's a net loss because those two markets cannot even begin to compare against Trinidad and Tobago. But again, Mr. Speaker, here it is where promises are being made, and I'm not so sure the resources or the capacity to reach those objectives are going to be there, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, page 386. Mr. Speaker, operating and maintenance in the housing, going from $3.2 million to $5.3 million. Sure, $1208, Mr. Speaker. And consulting services and commissions. The member had so much to say about consulting. I see the consulting has gone from $1.6 million to $3.3 million, but maybe he has an excuse for that. There must be somebody else that's doing that, not his ministry. Mr. Speaker, page 500, Mr. Speaker. Just before we get there, I know the member is not here, so I really didn't want to bring up anything with regards to equity and social justice. I'm happy to see that the increase that is there. The only thing I would say, and maybe I can pass it on to you, Prime Minister, and that's something to give some consideration to, is that there are not enough line staff workers in that ministry. So it was at four, I'm not seeing that, but if you're saying two, that's good, because we do need more persons to assist in evaluating and making sure that when we are giving assistance, that it's getting to the rightful place. Page 500. I'm going to deal with, before I get to 500, Ministry of Health, because I think it's really for the government at this point to say what they're doing. Clearly, that by zeroing out the allocations for Victoria Hospital and OKEU, certainly suggests that you're following the path of transferring everybody to Millennium Heights. So I would have thought something as important as that, that that would have been part of the speech, that it would have been pre-announcements by the Minister of Health. That's a significant move. And I certainly know that we've had difficulty in the past in negotiating with the workers. I'm hoping that this is going to be a very smooth transition in that regard. Page 500. So again, Mr. Speaker, this is a ministry, a very, very important ministry, and I heard the member from Babano, from Grosally speaking, and I felt that, you know, I felt there was an urgency on his part to really let the people in his constituency know he's there, because you're certainly hearing that that's a common cry. But when you go through this budget, literally every single component of it has no report. Approval of draft for national youth policy and action planned by Cabinet by November 22. Approval of draft national youth policy by Cabinet and acceptance on the same Parliament by November 22. Create a production for which to provide a platform for youth to speak on issues through social media or mass media by May 2022. Double the number of young people in the youth service corp corp's pending budget approval by March 23. No report, Mr. Speaker. Zero, nothing. And yet we hear that this government is a government of the youth. Turn the page, Mr. Speaker. Next one, training at least 100 people in leadership training by March 2023. Facilitate 25 island-wide camps for children and youth, especially unreached communities, e.g. Da Bomb by September 2022. Implement mobile app and web browser to address youth unemployment by June 2022. No report. Zero, nothing. Nothing there. Page 504. Same thing. All kinds of expectations. No report. And that tells me there's nothing going on because the minister is spending more time traveling than he is on the ground with the people that he says are more important. And I would also like to ask, Mr. Speaker, while we're at it, I have been led to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the revenue to the NLA has been reduced quite significantly. And I certainly have not seen any report, but those are the rumors on the ground. And that that's why a lot of projects and a lot of ministers have come back here with the expectation things are going to be done. But the revenue has been depleted. And I would like to know, is it true? Is it true that the revenue to the NLA is down from the lottery people? Re-vamp and complete return to school sports program. Rebranding of secondary school sports. Alan Champs on a weekend. Introduction. Page 508. Blank. Zero. No report. Nothing has happened. All we're doing is we're looking pretty, talking smart. But the reality is that there's nothing happening on the ground, Mr. Speaker. Nothing taking place. Mr. Speaker, facilitate the transition of Julian Alford from an elite student athlete to elite professional athlete. We couldn't even take care of it when she was in university. Fall has when we're going to take care of her now. And I would strongly suggest, strongly recommend, I would strongly recommend, Mr. Speaker, that the program of embracing national athletes and using them as brand ambassadors is very good. But I'm not so sure the Ministry of Sports is the place it should be. I think it's something better placed under the Ministry of the Tourism Authority to be included as part of their program. But it is legitimately a very good cause. Mr. Speaker, I go on. Page 563. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I stand on the point of clarity. Mr. Speaker, I don't have a point. Right. He says not dealing. Member, may I remind members who are ministers that understanding order 32-5, any minister may speak again because the rules for the estimates are different that any minister can speak twice. But only in response to matters which come out under the Ministry, you will not be allowed to raise new matters. So if it's, if you're saying that the member has said something under your ministry, I would suggest you hold it for a more substantive intervention. Sorry about member. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, Page 613 was interesting for me, Mr. Speaker. It's 46. Department 46-066 Division is the third national tourism awards. Page 613, the third item from the top, national tourism awards. And that we would be using either grant money or a loan from the Republic of China, Taiwan to fund a tourism awards. Really, Mr. Speaker, $150,000. That could be going to social development for a government that says that they so care about the people of this country. That you're going to now have an entity like the tourism that has hotels and all kinds of entities. You can't raise $150,000 to pay for that awards. That you have to come now and use scarce monies from the Taiwanese to do that. I don't understand, Mr. Speaker. When you turn the page, 613A, you go all the way down, Mr. Speaker, between 44 and 45, repairs to facilitate ambassadors' residence in Washington, D.C., a million dollars, and we're going to use Taiwanese money to do that. At this time, when you say that you're so scarce, you don't have enough money to help people, a million dollars to fix the ambassador's office. Really? I mean, you have to just get vexed and laugh. What is that? What is that? You're going to take Taiwanese money to fix up the ambassador's residence in Washington, D.C.? Wow. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I want to go. I want to go, Mr. Speaker. I want to go to page 624, Mr. Speaker. And specifically, this is contingency liabilities, National Insurance Corporation, contingent liabilities, Senlusha Housing Authority, 34 million dollars. So it means the Senlusha Housing Authority owes the National Insurance Corporation 34 million dollars. So I want to know, Mr. Speaker, that the piece of land that was sold by the National Housing for 2.5 or 2.7 million E.C. dollars that is substantially more valuable, 100,000 square feet of property. Now, in 2013, that land was valued at 7 million dollars. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Member of Castro Central. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member for Miku South is misleading the House, saying that in 2013, the land was valued at a much, was given a much higher value. He is misleading the House. This is untrue. I'm calling on him, Mr. Speaker, to produce a document in substantiation of that decision. If not, we've draw the statement. Fair enough. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to provide the document. And he knows he has it, right? And it's been made, it's actually been made public already, that document. Okay, Mr. Speaker, but I will be happy to make that available right away, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that, let us evaluate it for ourselves, Mr. Speaker. Let's let common sense prevail here. You're going to have a piece of land that is on the harbor. So everybody is clear. This is a piece of land at the end by Binance. Underneath Golden Vogue. 100,000 square feet on the water. Now, land in castries, Mr. Speaker, goes from anywhere between $500 a square foot to $1,000 a square foot. In castries. That's right. That's what land's going for. All right. So the reality is now, when you talk about waterfront land, so I want to say this. First of all, Mr. Speaker, to have sold that land to a non-entity. A non-entity. Nobody knows her. Who is she? Has she done any work in San Lucia? Okay, Mr. Speaker? Oh, San Lucia. So a person who has no track record of doing any developments in San Lucia, unless we want to go and study her lineage and then say her father is a person who is a developer. Maybe you want to go and say that. But the reality is, Mr. Speaker, here is a piece of land, Mr. Speaker, that should not be sold. And far less, far less for selling it for $25 a square foot. I'm saying to you that the real value is closer to $300 to $400 a square foot for that land. Okay. And the reality is, is it would have been better off, Mr. Speaker, that if national housing had sold that land to NHD in exchange for the debt, look at the winners, that comes off as being a contingent liability. Reduces our debt by $34 million. And you give it now to an entity, NIC, right, that in essence is a quasi-development agency. They have the money. They're the agency we go to many times in order to develop assets. So the reality is, the reality is, Mr. Speaker, NIC would have been satisfied through their load. Secondly, NIC would have had the capacity to have developed that line in line with maybe even how the district rep wanted to do it. Who knows. But the reality is to have sold it for $2.5 million when they have a liability on the books for $34 million. And the NIC is an entity that we all know and recognize. And we'd have had much more confidence if the minister would have been conscious of the solution's debt, as well as the ability to develop the land. And I think that that would have been substantially better, Mr. Speaker, if the minister had taken that course. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about a couple of things that came up. Bananas. So you're telling me that we're gone away from spending $2.7, $3 million a year to now a million dollars. And the million dollars is $750,000 for overheads. And a hundred and something thousand dollars was for transportation. Mr. Speaker, this is not going to solve the problem. And even when I heard the minister speak about his plans for bananas, I want to say to him, sir, that the difficulty is the quality of the bananas. An FTO is a significant part of the problem that we have. Until we can get our farmers to produce quality bananas that we can export, we're not going to get back into the UK market. An FTO. My apologies. Thank you very much. I did. I did. And I thank you for that. I said FTO. I apologize. It's an FTO. Okay, National Fair Trader Organization. The reality is that's where the bottleneck is. And until we solve that problem, government is going to continue finding itself subsidizing. And I think that the member from Schwozell indicated, my understanding is when we left office, the ECCB was trying to provide a facility force in order that we would get access to the currency. You have to make sure that's the case because banana farmers struggle and need their cash right away. And that was one of the problems that we had with Winfresh. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we've now come full circle. There was a time when we'd spoken about revitalizing this economy after COVID. COVID was outside of everybody's control. And the question is how we're going to handle it. And the member from Ancelary Canaries brought up statistics. Everybody can use statistics. And he spoke that in terms of the amount of debt that was taken on, that Solution was one of the highest, et cetera, interest rates in comparison. Okay. So let's look at those other, let's look at all those countries in the region. Sinkit stayed shut down for a significant period of time because Sinkits was using its CIP program to subsidize its losses. The reality is CIP continued even during COVID. In fact, CIP grew during the, then the COVID period. And so they had significant reserves. In the case of Grenada, Grenada had just come out of an IMF program and had built in reserves and did not have to tap into the amount of borrowing like the rest because all of us were impacted the same way. Everything got shut down in Sinkits. But the government kept paying the salaries and they kept paying it through their CIP. Dominica, even with the shutdown of the economy there, continued, sorry? What's that? CIP was not even remotely close. We had $20 million. Okay. 20 million. You're talking about programs like Sinkits that had, had over 12,000, 14,000 passports and do very, very well, much mature. So the reality is, is the reserves that they had built up, Dominica, the same thing. In the case of St. Vincent, St. Vincent economy was hardly impacted. I remember speaking to the prime minister over there, you know, a couple of million dollars that he lost and he made some sales of land which covered that. The reality is that when we got hit, Mr. Speaker, it was immediate. It was immediate. There was no reserves and we keep talking about this, Mr. Speaker. And in your own budget statements, Mr. Speaker, you speak about what you all have done. You have amended the economic fund to now use the monies as recurrent expenditure. Now, when we used to come in and the member particularly from Cassry South used to say, where's the money? Where's the money? And I used to show him because we were using it for capital expenditure exactly where the money was going. So I did, and I'll bring it back for you. I'll bring it back again for you. Wait, I did. At Payne's, and I'll bring it back again for you again. So the reality is when I go through this book, I see nothing in CIP. There's no accountability. So I want the people of St. Lucia to know that what the members are doing is using CIP funds for recurrent expenditure, the increase in consultancies, the increase in entertainment. All of those things that you see, that is exactly what the CIP monies are being used for. And are then coming to tell you, tell us, the people of St. Lucia, oh, they're subsidizing the price of fuel and cooking gas, which has always gone on. Member of Cassry's East. Mr. Speaker, the point of order is, I don't, you see, Mr. Speaker, if you allow the member to get away with these things, here is, some people might believe him, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the CIP funds, they go to two sources, the national economic fund and the bonds. For this year, we have transferred international economic fund and the money international economic fund was used only once, only once, $3 million for a cleaner program in the country, once. And the remainder was used to pay debt, to put down on debt on the national economic fund. And in the bonds, it went into the bond market. And now we are thinking of whether we can use Watson bonds to have a reserve to pay our debts. So when he says, let us say, egg money is used to pay consultancies with them. This is deliberate. And he's mislead the house. That is deliberate. And he knows that that is not true. But he continues to say it. The money went into the national economic fund. The transfers are there. And it is used to pay, in fact, the last one we put us $20 million down on debt. He knows that. Member for Microsoft. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I make reference, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister's budget speech last year, again, I'm happy to make it a top of your house if we don't have it. It says, Mr. Speaker, given the passage of legislation for the establishment of the Solution National Economic Fund, inflows from CIP are expected to be deposited into the Solution National Economic Fund. In light of this, revenue for voluntary transfers reflects anticipated receipts of $65 million from the Solution National Economic Development Fund. Mr. Speaker, it is my government's intention to make an application to the Solution National Economic Fund to request the use of $31 million, of which $1.5 million to finance the rehabilitation of Jinju's hospital project, and $30 million to contribute towards the debt principle requirements of a bullet payment. We've got nothing else. All we got this time in his budget speech, Mr. Speaker, is that, Mr. Speaker, the recovery and the economic activity, improved tax compliance and returns from the ongoing tax amnesty are among the reasons for the improved performance. Higher anticipated CIP inflows of $99 will account for the increase in non-tax revenue. So non-tax revenue is aligned in the budget. Where's that money going? What are we supposed to read your mind? Bring a report. Where's the report from the Economic Fund, Mr. Speaker? There's a requirement. There was a law. Mr. Speaker, what law did I change, Mr. Speaker? Okay. That is what the reality is. These are your words. You said it's non-tax revenue. It's non-tax revenue. Again, he's misleading the house. The $91 million is for $23.24. How can I give a report on what happened? That's why he said, but this year, this year, what we accounted for in the estimate is what we collected this year and where it went to. So when you talk about the $91 million, the $91 million is for next year. How can you report on what hasn't happened? Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry if the Prime Minister misunderstood me. I read from his report last year in which he said that there's an expectation that they're going to get $56 million or $65 million, of which he's saying that $31 million is what he's going to be requesting. I'm saying to him that he's also saying that the monies are going into the non-tax revenue line item, which is part of our consolidated accounts. So the reality is the money is being washed into the system to pay for recurrent expenditure. Now, if you're going to do it differently, Mr. Speaker, I don't recall, unless I've missed it, that there was anything that came to this house to report as to how the money from the economic fund was being used. None. All I know is you're saying, you're just saying that the non- Member for KS3, Member for Microsoft. Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for Microsoft is on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. What's the point of order? That is misleading the house deliberately, maliciously misleading the house. The Member, when he was asked on numerous occasions in this house to explain what was happening in the CIP monies, he could not explain it. He never did. Eventually he did come in 2020 and produce a listing of all projects and claimed he had used CIP monies for those projects. And I remember standing there and saying to him, did he not even add to the amount of money that was stated that he got from the CIP? So he created some bogus list of expenditure items claiming that the CIP had been used for that purpose. The Member was full well, Mr. Speaker. And I need to indicate clearly how he's misleading the house. The first thing he says is that the law was changed so that the government can approve items of a recurrent nature. The reality is that there's a law that was passed, legislation in this house, that clearly stated how the monies can be used. And I will read it for you, Mr. Speaker. It says under four functions of the fund, E4E says, to provide monies for a purpose approved by cabinet that is not considered recurrent in nature. When this new government came into power, the Minister of Finance applied for money from a grant from the National Economic Fund. It was refused. Refused. And the Minister of Finance asked, how can you refuse such a request? They decided they were not giving it to the Minister of Finance. We made it very clear then that we were going to have an amendment so that any request that is approved by cabinet, and the law says, and I will read it to you, that you can make a request for any project that is approved by cabinet that's a capital nature. It said so. And the fund was told, but government is making a request. And they said they're not approving it. The law was changed and we removed it and we made it very explicit that any project that has been approved by cabinet has to be approved by the fund. That was what was done. It was not to facilitate expenditure of a recurrent nature, but to make it very clear that once cabinet had approved a project, no fund can decide that it is recurrent or it is not recurrent on their own. Now, do you know why, Mr. Speaker, the fund could have done this? Let me explain to you. And again, how is mislead in the house? The legislation states who comprises the fund. I come into that. That's the point. Most of the members, or few other members, are stated by legislation. They are public servants. The member from Miku South has been saying that the government changed the board of the National Economic Fund. But not saying, but you want me to read it? Mr. Speaker, I've been at a document. What's that? I said the board sheet. What do you have as a document? It's a document from the speaker, from the member from Miku South. Yeah, what is that document? I don't know. He's been circulating it all over the world. Because in this debate, he hasn't spoken about the board. So I can refer to it. But anyway, let me just stay on. Of course, the director of finance changes, so you have to change the person on the board because there's a new director of finance. There is a new person who sees you of investment. You must change the representative of the investment. But there's one person that he appointed to the board. And that person is still there. And the benevolence of this government must end. Because that person has been elected by him to be the treasurer of the United Workers Party. And she was on the board. She was on the board. And she still is. But the member from Miku South has not made any reference to the board. I'm going to explain to you his statement that we changed. He didn't make that statement today. About the board. No, he said we changed the regulations, the guidance. I'm going to explain to you what we changed and why we changed it. We changed it not to make the board a proof expenditure of a recurrent nature, but rather to approve projects that have been approved by cabinet because persons he had put on the board told the minister of finance they would not approve in any request from the government. Now that is it. But that's a fact, Mr. Speaker. But I will answer him in greater detail during my presentation, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you know, I almost felt like standing up on a point of order during his point of order. Member for Miku South, you have 10 minutes left. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, so let me get this right. So the statement that I made that the legislation was changed to allow that any project that cabinet approves is what the board approves. That's what I've said. But that's what you've done because you've taken out all the clauses. The issue is, and we brought that up when you were making the change in the legislation, you made it a slush fund because you made the decision maker cabinet with none of the provisos. So cabinet has the ability to approve any expenditure, whether it's recurrent or capital of the nature. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. So, I mean, and the member from Castro himself has admitted that. So I'm happy for that. This idea that I said about the board members. No, the fact is, if I think there's five or six board members, if you have one person, you think one person is going to be able to hold it up. That's not true. And I wanted to put on record that when I was prime minister and made request that economic fund, it was turned down for the same reasons. I will get them exactly for you. Two or three of them would request for me. Okay. Now, in terms of accountability to parliament, the member has a short memory. We stood here when I was prime minister and yes, he was on this side and we were going back and forth. Okay. And I got into trouble because I said, you're choosing not to see it. Here is the expenditure book. Here is the list of capital projects and written by the capital projects exactly who the source of funding was, which was CIP. So I gave him both that in the capital list as well as taking him to the specific pages as to where it was outlined. Okay, Mr. Speaker. And I'm happy to bring that back to the house again. And maybe with a new speaker, we'll get greater clarity and everybody will see it. And that was what the difference was. We were not using the money for recurrent expenditure. So the fact is, is that it would be appreciated if in fact that we don't have any speculation because the last thing we should be doing is having speculation about CIP is just simply provide some reports. We don't know. Tell us which projects you don't have to come to cabinet to get them approved because it proves again, you know, can I educate the point of order, Mr. Speaker? But he keeps saying this, that the monies have been used for recurrent purposes. Can I tell him that that is not so? The Prime Minister said so to him. He keeps repeating it. So maybe he wants me to. I don't think he said it is being used for. I think he said the lowest change to allow it. No, no, no, no. He just said it's been used for recurrent expenditure. Mr. Speaker. Yeah, all the time, all the time. So yeah, it is. But if he will deliver. Mr. Speaker, I don't understand. Simply by providing clarity would be helpful. And I heard the members saying, well, I feel like I'm in a school. The job of the opposition is to oppose. Okay, our job is to review things with a critical with a critical with a critical with a critical eye. We don't have the benefit. We don't have the benefit of being in cabinet. We don't have benefit to have access to you to in question answered period. And so therefore the reality is, Mr. Speaker, I can only read them and take them literally. So when you provide a report and you said you're going to do this, this, this, and there is nothing behind it, I have to assume that you did nothing. Now, if in fact you've done something, that is for you to now provide the report and to bring that clarity to it and to make sure, as a young minister, that when you see these things coming out, that you make sure you read them, that you read them, that you make sure that they are truly reflective of what is taking place in your ministry. Okay, ministry. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this government, this government, this government has, has continuously tried to, in my, in my own mind, to fool the people of this country. When we talk about my good friend from Meku North and his dock, I want you to know where the dock is. The funds for the dock had been solicited and the minister of agriculture came in and moved to Savansby. That's where it is. Okay, and that was done many, many, many years ago. Mr. Speaker, the seven crops, I'm going to say to the minister of agriculture, if you really believe the seven crops are going to reduce the importation bill by 25%, somebody is selling you something wrong. That's what he said, 25%, you're going to reduce it. Members said he didn't say that. Okay, I'm going to move on. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I'm very proud of the work that we did when we were in government, leading up to 2018-2019. And I think all of the numbers that I went through today reflect that, Mr. Speaker. I'm also very proud of what we did to handle the COVID situation. It was not easy, Mr. Speaker. The reality is, is that we were, it was a shortfall of almost a half a billion dollars in cash and that we had a reduction in the GDP by a billion dollars. We had thousands of workers who could not go to work, Mr. Speaker. We had the banking situation. We had a massive crisis on our hand of which could have created a significant amount of fear and panic. And instead of focusing on the negatives, Mr. Speaker, we worked together to bring confidence back to this country. We adopted the theory of coexisting with COVID. And I remember opening up the doors. I remember members on the other side ridiculing us, saying that we were putting people's lives at risk, saying that we are the only people who believe that tourism could have recovered. That's what the words were. In fact, they went out and marched. They caused by themselves more infections in the early stages of COVID than anyone else they did in their march, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, in that first year of finding money for people, quelling the panic, working with the banks to get a more torgman people's loans, although we were not successful in convincing the workers, the civil servant workers, to assist with the cash flow. And that's why I want to end up in the summary, because the prime minister, the minister of France, rightfully pointed out to something, payables. How many times I came to this house and said, even though that we've borrowed $250 million, there is a deeper hole, and that that hole is being financed by payables. And it's the people who are providing services to this country. And our delay in making those payables, that's where the money came from. The money didn't invent. We could have, we had every reason to want to borrow more money. But we felt that if we could get construction going, and then what's instead? Member of Amigosart, you have one minute in which you have one. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members on the opposite side took the opportunity of us having to make those tough decisions to say that that we were, that you could not eat roads and didn't understand the importance of construction. And today they're the ones reaping the benefit. I can't wait, Mr. Speaker, to hear the policy statement, to hear the rationale for the growth. And the growth could have only come from two sources, Mr. Speaker, could have come from the increase in tourism arrivals, as well as a continuation of construction. None of which this government had anything to do with nothing, nothing. And that's why I look forward so much, Mr. Speaker, to hearing and having the policy statements in order we can, we can discover and unveil the mass that's taken place of the people who continuously to say that they care about the people. What I know is that they are putting people worse in this country every single day. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.