 and welcome to the live coverage of day one of the debate on the appropriation bill for the 2017, 2018 financial year. We are broadcasting via the national television network also live streaming about the Salucia Porto, Facebook page and also YouTube channel. The debate on the appropriation bill is a second part of the budgetary process. The first being the debate on the estimates of revenue and expenditure, which deals with the allocation of funds to various ministries while the debate on the appropriation bill deals with policy, basically how the budget will be funded. The debate will be presided over by the House Speaker. 17 parliamentarians are given the opportunity to add their voice and it will be allotted one hour. The debate will be spread over the next three days and so I'm not certain at this point how many presenters will go today but we will see as time goes on. At this juncture I think it is appropriate for me to highlight some of the high points during the Prime Minister's budget address which was last evening and he actually provided an insight into what the debate will focus on. Speaking on the theme building a new Sint Lucia, the Prime Minister in his budget address focused on some key areas and some of them are tourism, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, the financial and monetary sector and in charting the map for new direction for Sint Lucia, the Prime Minister spoke of creating sustainable employment of course using a tourism led strategy, the introduction of a national apprenticeship program, the reformation in the agricultural sector and also a robust road infrastructure program, re-engineering social services and reforming government to make it more responsive to the business community and to citizens. Let's hear what the Prime Minister had to say about this last point in particular. Madam Speaker, creating sustainable employment is a priority of this government and we have pledged to work towards an unemployment rate of no more than 15 percent by 2021 as stated in our manifesto. It is expected that many of the investments within the coming months will create employment throughout the island particularly in the sectors of tourism, agriculture and construction. Clearly, our approach is very different from the Labour Party. We aim to create the enabling environment for growth within the private sector by providing incentives, enhancing government support services, improving efficiency in the public sector and addressing the existing skills gap. We're currently working on a comprehensive incentives package which will create employment within the private sector and provide much needed support to businesses within St Lucia. More details will be given on the incentive package within the upcoming months. Madam Speaker, as one of the main contributors to our economy, the tourism sector will be re-engineered in order to achieve its full potential and to be used as a catalyst for economic growth. We will work towards building a tourism product that is globally competitive, environmentally and socially sustainable and will maximize both backward and forward linkages particularly in our culture, manufacturing and construction sectors. Madam Speaker, it is possible to expand the tourism room stock by 2,000 rooms over the next four years throughout the island. Major tourism investments are expected. We have already witnessed the opening of the roll-ton where a minimum of 900 jobs have been created during operations. The Harbour Club is expected to be open towards the end of the third quarter of the calendar where 117 rooms are expected to be available and it is envisioned that the minimum of 150 jobs will be available. Cognitive Bay plans a 200-room expansion and is expected to employ a minimum of 400 persons during the construction and an additional 320 jobs on completion. Madam Speaker, there are some other major investments under active consideration. Well, that was Prime Minister Hon. Alan Shastney last night during the budget address speaking of some of the initiatives that the government intends to undertake to curb unemployment. In the area of security, the Prime Minister also spoke of improving security and the justice and strengthening border control. This is very important as well as the rest of the Caribbean islands have been considered as a very porous territory with regards to illicit drug trafficking. The second main economic pillar which at one time was the economic mainstay of the country and I refer to her to agriculture. This is also expected to bring about a significant turnaround in the industry in creating employment and generating employment as well. How is the Prime Minister again during last night's budget address as he speaks on the various initiatives and reforms to take place in the agricultural industry? Madam Speaker, this government recognizes the importance of agriculture, particularly for creating employment, especially in rural communities for reducing poverty, generating income and achieving food security. Our government will create the environment to enable the private sector to participate in the development of the agriculture sector and foster a commercialized approach to livestock, rearing, fresh produce farming, and fishing. We will revitalize the banana industry and increase banana production. The Ranju Farms have been identified as available farm lands which will be utilized for banana cultivation. These lands will be leased to the farmers through windfish. Madam Speaker, a banana productivity improvement project will be undertaken during this financial year. In addition to addressing the issues related to leaf spot control, that project will oversee the expansion of the current acreage by 600 to 1000 hecta acres, arrest decline in production, and rebuild farmers confidence, increase productivity to 37 to 49 tonnes per hecta acre, and restore production to satisfied... We turn over to the main business of the house as a speaker. We will officially begin the debate on the 2017-2018 appropriation bill. Let us pray. Almighty God, by whom alone kings reign and princes decree justice, and from whom alone comeeth all counsel, wisdom, and understanding. We, thine unwary servants, hair-gathered together in thy name, do most humbly besieged thee to send on thine heavenly wisdom from above, to direct and guard us in all our consultations, and grant that we, having thy fear always before our eyes, and laying aside all private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, the results of all our counsels may be to the glory of thy blessed name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the safety, honor, and happiness of the Queen, the public will, peace and tranquility of St. Lucia, and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same, in true Christian love and charity, one towards another, through Jesus Christ our Lord, amen. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the sweet fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all forevermore. Amen. Announcements. Honourable members, I wish to remind that according to the standing orders 3211, members should not read their speech, but he or she may read from extracts written on printed papers or books in support of his or her argument and may refresh his or her memory from reference notes. I also wish to remind honourable members that when referring to or reading excerpts from documents, the said documents must be made available beforehand to all members, so that honourable members may follow as and when the member speaking is reading their form. Finally, let us be reminded that the debate on the appropriation bill shall be confined to the financial and economic status of the country and the general principles of the government policy as indicated by the bill, and that is understanding order 652. I wish to remind honourable members that when the House last rose, the question was that the appropriation 2017-2018 bill be read a second time. Honourable member for Castries East and Leader of the Opposition. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. When I listened to the Prime Minister deliver his first budget address, I decided that I would use a tool of analysis to see if I could make some sense out of it. So I decided to use what a social scientist calls the pest analysis. That means political, economic, social and technological. I decided I would analyse the budget in these rooms to find out whether the objectives of the budget, whether what the Prime Minister was saying, whether it was relevant to the situation that existed in Saint Lucia. So Honourable Speaker, I will begin by analysing the political situation in which this budget was spoken yesterday. This environment, Madam Speaker, is an environment of fear, vindictiveness and victimisation. That is the political environment in which this budget was read. There is a lack of transparency and accountability. The government is intolerant and vindictive and appears either for its ministers or its surrogates to abuse, to victimise and to attack anyone who dares speak against them, regardless of who that person is or what organisation that person belongs to. The government has openly stated that its mission, its political mission is to make members of the opposition cry, to make them suffer, to make them cry. That has been the stated position of the government. And this position has been endorsed because he has not said, that should not happen, he has not contradicted it. It has been endorsed but then no other than the Prime Minister who has agreed that the mission of his government is to make the opposition cry. And that crime, no one is special crime, the church, the national trust, the nice workers, reporters, the cleaners at the castries constituency council, all of them are made to cry. Madam Speaker, it's an environment of revenge and again Madam Speaker, no one is spared from that revenge. Even we inside of here, that represents 37,000 people are not spared from that revenge. And if you use your right to say something, they sit back in their state fund the chairs and tell you, now you know that and that's why you're dead now. That is how they respond, Madam Speaker, when you tell them about the atrocities that they commit against the people of St. Lucia. But I want to inform the government, Madam Speaker, that in this political environment, we will never be silenced. Your position will never be silenced. We will speak the truth, we will speak what the people of St. Lucia want us to see and we will represent the people of St. Lucia in the way that they seem fit. That is why, Madam Speaker, on the same on the same of May, next week Wednesday, we are going to need a protest demonstration in the streets of castries to tell the government that we are dissatisfied. And it's not an orange march, Madam Speaker. It's a march of protest. It's a march of dissatisfaction with how they have been running the country. So, Madam Speaker, the environment in which we operate, I want to inform the government that your position will never be extinguished. We will never be made to submit. We will never be beaten into submission. We will never be made to be quiet. Regardless of the revenge, regardless of the victimization, regardless of the vindictiveness, we shall never be quiet. We shall not be made to be silent, Madam Speaker. So, the government will have no child, no choice, but to live with that, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the political environment in which we operate is an environment where the government wants to appear or they want to make the public believe that the Labour Party did nothing, that we were government, that we were useless, we did nothing, we did nothing for the country, Madam Speaker. But, Madam Speaker, our party has a proud legacy, a legacy of achievement, a legacy of improvement, and we will remain, Madam Speaker, to live this legacy. And when the time comes to continue this legacy for the people of St. Lucia. It's been 11 months, Madam Speaker, since the government has been in power. It's been 11 months. And in that 11 months, St. Lucia has never seen so much revenge, so much division, so much vindictiveness, so much lack of transparency that has never happened in the history of St. Lucia. For that 11 months, the religious government has been in power. It has never happened, Madam Speaker. And this, and I heard the Prime Minister speak about civil servants and the public service. The problem, Madam Speaker, with this government is the political interference in the public service. That is the problem. And that political interference has reached the highest levels. It has reached the level of Cabinet Secretary. Never before in the history of St. Lucia has the government seen it right to dismiss Cabinet Secretary. Never before. But it's because of this government's vindictiveness that they've seen it right to dismiss Cabinet Secretary, Madam Speaker. So how can a country survive? How can the economy of the country survive? How can the people of St. Lucia have the spirit that is needed to develop St. Lucia in that environment, Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker, this environment is so caustic. It's so filled with vindictiveness and revenge that the government, a surrogate of the government, Madam Speaker, went on public radio and he threatened to bring back the Immigration Ordinance Act number 15 of 1983, or the David England bill, a bill that the Labour Party saw it fit to remove from the books of the people of St. Lucia. A surrogate of the government has gone on public radio and threatened to bring it back just to handle legitimate dissent. How, Madam Speaker, how can we create a new vision for St. Lucia in that environment? How is it possible to have a new vision? How is it possible to have a new beginning in that atmosphere of revenge and vindictiveness and lack of transparency? Our Party, Madam Speaker, has a proud record, a proud legacy. And if you compare our first 11 months to their first 11 months, I will just highlight a few of the things that we did in our first 11 months. Madam Speaker, in our first 11 months, we repurchased the Black Bilans. We commenced work on the Badeline. We reintroduced a $500 grocery for all successful students at the Common Engines. We commenced NICE. We commenced SMILE. We stabilized the leadership of the St. Lucia Police Force by the confirmation of Vernon Francois and other senior members of the force. We introduced the labor code. We introduced the construction stimulus. We introduced an immediate response to Black cigarette token. We had an amnesty at Wasco for fees for people who could not afford. We engaged the business sector to adjust the ease of doing business. We had a subsidy to minibus drivers. We adjusted the pass-through mechanism to allow for a three-month exchange. We renovated the Tirochet Miku Health Centre. We introduced the sports program at school. And I know this, Madam Speaker, in the Prime Minister's budget, there was only one line relating to sports. We constructed the Du Bonet Bridge, and we had a subsidy on chicken feed for $5 to buy. These were a few of the things that we did in our 11-months of government. And if you compare what they did in the 11-months of government, all you'll find, Madam Speaker, is conflict, vindictiveness, revenge, and all sorts of things which I will not want to see in this Honourable House. Madam Speaker, what is the economic situation, yet the economic environment under which the Prime Minister has delivered his budget? Madam Speaker, it's a position where the fundamentals of the economy, as outlined in the budget summary, Madam Speaker, are flawed. The budget will result in the country being in a serious deficit position. Or in other words, Madam Speaker, the country will be in a financial hole for $220 million. That is the deficit that this government is carrying in this budget. $220 million of deficit. And if you compare that to 2017, Madam Speaker, you will see that the deficit at the end of 2016 was $62 million. So this year, we are carrying or we intend to pass a budget that will have the country 4.7% deficit to GDP as compared to 1.4% when this government inherited the economy of Saint Lucia. Honourable Leader of the Opposition, my apologies. I just realized that you would be on your feet for a while and you do not have to rush from, would you like? No, I'm sorry. Thanks. Madam Speaker, the government, the budget has Saint Lucia in the position where the current deficit, that is the revenue for taxes and unavoidable expenses and wages, has increased by 109%. It was $37 million when they got the economy and they've changed it to minus $78 million, Madam Speaker, an increase of 109%. This means that this government will have to borrow $78 million to meet its unavoidable expenses. It will have to borrow $78 million, because the current deficit is now $78 million. And these are not figures from the fairy tales and you can go and you can compare whatever year you want. The fact is, what you found, what this government found and what they intend to bring it to will lead to a disaster. And Madam Speaker, if you look at the current surplus, the current surplus, Mrs. Speaker, when this government took the economy at the end of 2016, the current surplus, Madam Speaker, was $89 million. They are projecting that it will go down to $46 million, a reduction of $43 million of 48%. The primary deficit, which is the difference between the current expenditure and the total revenue, is reversed. That is the economic environment in which the Prime Minister read his budget. The primary deficit is reversed, from a surplus of $102 million at the end of 2016 to a deficit position of $50 million, a negative shift, of $152.8 million. That is the reality, in that economic reality in which the Prime Minister read his budget. Madam Speaker, the government intends to borrow to increase capital expenditure by $140 million, making the budget a deficit budget, deficit of $220 million. Madam Speaker, we cannot continue on this trend. And what the Prime Minister hopes for is for a fairy godfather. He's hoping for a fairy godfather to land in St. Lucia and solve all the problems when he, because of the lack of fiscal discipline and the lack of courage to tell St. Lucia, this is a situation that we face and let us work together to improve it. What he intends to do is to quiet the opposition, to victimize them, to ostracize them and look for a fairy godfather. Madam Speaker, the budget deficit is real. It's not fabricated and no amount of flashing mirrors, no amount of bluff and fluff can stop the reality of the deficit that the Prime Minister is leading the country into. There is nothing. There are no arguments. And even though he goes back and speaks about 20, he likes, Madam Speaker, talk about 2012, 2017, 2014, 2050, Madam Speaker. I just want, I did not intend to do that. But I just want to bring the Prime Minister back to the 2012 budgets when the overall deficit in 2012 had widened to $254 million, equivalent to 7.6 percent of GDP from $106.5 million in the year 2010 to 2011. That is the 20, that is the 2012 situation that he inherited. So when he intends or pretends to want to go back and pretend that the economy we are the ones who cause the economy to be where it is, the facts do not substantiate that because economies are measured in terms of reality. And if you look at the 2016 figures and you look at the figures that the Prime Minister is pretending to want to say will lead the country to growth, you realize, Madam Speaker, that we are leading in a very slippery slope and the country is leading to a major fiscal disaster. Madam Speaker, the economic environment under which we operate. Madam Speaker, when this government came into power, again, with the eye on vindictiveness, they stopped a number of projects. And all the projects that they stopped is the airport project. And I heard the Prime Minister say that they are going to tell the public of Senusia how they'll finance the airports. Madam Speaker, I just want to go back a little and tell you the situation regarding the airport, the expansion to the Hironora International Airport that this government inherited. In 2014, Madam Speaker, the government made a policy decision to explore the redevelopment of Hironora International Airport via a PPP, a public-private partnership arrangement. The girls of Senusia, Madam Speaker, through slasper, engaged the International Financial Cooperation, the IFC, which is a subsidiary of the World Bank, as the lead advisor to structure and advise on the feasibility of that transaction. Upon the receipt of a due diligence report from the IFC, Cabinet in 2015, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the IFC when they recommended that we pursue the redevelopment and financing of the Hironora International Airport via a PPP structure. That means, Madam Speaker, that the private sector would manage the project, the private sector would finance it, the private sector would construct it, the government of Senusia would lease the airport. It was clear the government would lease the airport for 30 years to that private sector organization. At the end of that period, the airport would return to the people of Senusia. What is more significant, Madam Speaker, is the private sector body would not ask for any liability, no contingent liability, on the Treasury of Senusia. So our debt, our debt, which the Prime Minister cried rightfully, makes the point that we have to deal with, it would not affect our debt. So the government would have had a situation, would have had an airport without pain, without having to incur one cent of debt on the Treasury of Senusia. Because, Madam Speaker, we know the history of airports and the airports in the region. Any country, any country that has built an airport, Madam Speaker, there is always a whole mass of corruption surrounding that airport. It happens in every island where an airport is built, because, Madam Speaker, an airport is major money, major money. Anytime you talk about building an airport, somebody wants to get involved in something. So we decided that our government would take the construction of the airport completely away from that situation. We would take it completely away from that situation and we would look for private sector body, a private sector body, that would put in their own finance, put in their own finance and would build a top, a modern airport for the people of Senusia. Madam Speaker, so we decided that we would come into what is called a concessionary arrangement with a concessionaire. And I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, when we left government in 2016, two of the world's biggest airport developers had tended to build the airport for Senusia. Two of the world's biggest airport developers had tended to build an airport for the people of Senusia at no cost to them. And that agreement, Madam Speaker, was as follows. The sites and immovable assets of the airport would be leased to the concessionary for the term of the concession contract and shall remain the property of the government. The concessionary shall pay the authority, that is slasper, a share of the annual gross revenues generated by the airport as agreed by the parties. The airport revenues, the concessionary shall be entitled to collect, receive, and retain ironetical revenues during the concession period in accordance with the Unora International Airport Development Act and this concession agreement. The concessionary shall collect and remit to the owner all navigation and communication charges and passenger security charges. So the government would share with the concessionary the fees charged on the airports and the concession fee, a concession fee shall be paid to the government, to the owner on the 10th business day of each month during the concession period except for the installment payment during the first month and shall be based on gross revenue set, set forth in the monthly unordinated financial statements or the concessionary period for the preceding month. So that means the government would share the returns immediately as soon as the airport is constructed. But Madam Speaker, in its usual, in its usual vindictiveness, the government said to stop it and they did not even have the courtesy to discuss, to discuss with the opposition what was the rationale, why we went into a PPP. But the fact is, let's make them cry. But there are other reasons, Madam Speaker, why this airport development was changed. There are many other reasons, but they will be said in the fullness of time. So, Madam Speaker, if the government continued construction of this airport, we would have had by this year, October, the airport, construction of the airport would have started. People would have been employed by this October because at the time, two of the largest concessionary, two of the biggest, two of the biggest airport operators had already attended, Madam Speaker. And the Prime Minister had a meeting with the IFC. He had a meeting at IFC. He was told that, Madam Speaker, I will not tell him what IFC thought of him after the meeting. So, Madam Speaker, the government is a government of lost opportunity, lost opportunity, just to be vindictive. They've made the people of St. Lucia lose an opportunity to get an airport, a modern airport without having a payment of one cent on the national debt of St. Lucia, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the government stopped the viewfort commercial building. The government stopped the building where the people of viewfort, as we speak, while we look for a theory, Godfather, to develop viewfort, the viewfort building would have been under construction. People would have been employed. And what's the reason? There was no planning approval. A government, a government, a government that signs agreements, a government that gives or intends to give more than 900 acres of land and sign an agreement. And now you see that a building that's going up for the people of viewfort, you can't, you stop it because you say there's no plan approval, just to embarrass the member of viewfort south and to make him cry. Madam Speaker, they stopped the Soufres Square. They stopped the Soufres Square. What was the reason for stopping the Soufres Square? They said there was not the architectural design. So they went in, in their vindictive and dictatorial mark, in their vindictive and dictatorial mark. They stopped it. Stop it. I'm the boss, stop it. Up to now. Up to now, Madam Speaker, the Soufres Square has not recommenced. And the people of Soufres, they won their square. But the reason has become, when you stop the square for the people of Soufres, you do not affect any one of us. You don't even affect the representative for Soufres. You affect the people of Soufres. But you stop the square just to show that you are the boss. I stop it. And up to now, up to this day, the Soufres Square has not commenced. Madam Speaker, the government stopped the Grocery Highway, the Grocery Shock Highway. Again, Madam Speaker, again, a highway that $150 million funds alone from KFED had been negotiated. It entailed the reconstruction or the reconstruction of all the bypass roads, a list of bypass roads. This will be reconstructed and then work would have commenced on the highway, Madam Speaker. So, while the work is happening on the highway, the secondary roads work would have commenced, would have continued on them. The government stopped it. They stopped it, Madam Speaker. And now they have dimensional infrastructure in an embarrassing position of trying all sorts of things, soft measures, all sorts of things, instead of allowing the highway construction to continue. But again, Madam Speaker, to make them cry, to be vindictive, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the government stopped the CDP contracts and a whole, a whole story relating to the CDP contract. You would believe, you would really believe there was something in there, Madam Speaker, on the CDP contract. Madam Speaker, you know why? Because they assumed, you see, they have assumed that when they do these things, they affect Labour Party people. They assume that. So what they do is they stop it, but the intention, Madam Speaker, is to make the Labour Party people suffer. So they stop all the CDP contracts. And there were sorts of excuses why they have stopped the airport, Madam Speaker. So the airport, the airport, the buildings, the square, and the CDP contract. So, Madam Speaker, it's a government of lost opportunity. It's a government that has a lost opportunity to continue the development of solution, just because they want to be vindictive and they want to make the people of the Labour Party cry. Madam Speaker, continuing the best analysis. What is a social environment under which this budget is being read? It's a social environment, Madam Speaker, of conflict. Madam Speaker, when the government won the election, I, as leader of the opposition, I congratulated the Prime Minister. I said to the Prime Minister, we are not about believing that we only have to be in power. We are saying that the government is in power. We respect the people's rights. We respect the democracy of the people. In fact, some of our supporters are saying to us, you are too quiet. You are too quiet. We said, no, let the government run the country, because we live in a democratic system. The people have elected governments, let the government run the country. No, Madam Speaker, no. No. They started. They have to start. They had the revenge, the hatefulness was so great that they could not, they could not settle around the country. So, Madam Speaker, they are in conflict with everybody. The government is conflict with everyone. I have never seen a government in 11 months that found itself in conflict with everyone like that. So what the government is in conflict with the church? Hey, Madam Speaker, I've been the first one to tell you, I'm not going to get involved in playing I'm more of a Christian than anybody else, or playing I'm holier than anybody else, or playing when I die, I'll go to heaven and then we go to hell. All I will say on the church situation, I just want, Madam Speaker, to make a simple quotation, the words of Oscar Romero, the Archbishop of Ensalva Law. And here's what he said, two quotations, Madam Speaker. He said, Madam Speaker, that the church must suffer for speaking the truth, for pointing out sin, for rooting sin. No one wants to have a sore, a sore spot touched. And therefore, a society of so many souls twitches when someone has the courage to touch it and say, you have to treat that, you have to get rid of that, Madam Speaker. And that quotation comes from Archbishop Oscar Romero in the book, The Violence of Love. And one more quote from him, Madam Speaker. He says, when the church has the cry of the oppressed, it cannot but denounce the social structures that give rise to and perpetuate the misery from which the cry arises. This is all I will say, Madam Speaker, as it relates to the conflict between the church and the government, but Madam Speaker, I also want to speak about, just shortly, about the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Madam Speaker, when in England, when they voice their concerns about the elections. So the church, so it's not a common, Madam Speaker, for the church to get involved in these matters, Madam Speaker. But we sit here and we say that the church is better off under the United Workers Party. But no surrogate of the St. Lucia Labor Party has ever attacked the church, has ever attacked the church as surrogates of the United Workers Party have done in the last 11 months. None of them, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, but I want to say to those who profess to be Christian, I want to quote from them James, James Chapter 1 to 26, and it says, Madam Speaker, those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep up tight reign on their tongue, deceive themselves and their religion is ruthless. So this, Madam Speaker, is a social environment under which the church, under which the church operates under this government, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, it's an environment of unacceptable levels of crime and we will never do like them and blame the government for crime. We won't do that. We will never do it, Madam Speaker. But fact is, there are unacceptable levels of crime in the country. That's a fact and we must, we must try our best to reduce that unacceptable level of crime. We have to agree and admit that, but we will not, we will not do like them. Remember, the Prime Minister says, when he was campaigning, are you feeling safe in St. Lucia? Are you feeling safe on the St. Lucia Labor Party? elect me and I'll make you safe. The same Prime Minister who said he signed for the reduction of gas, the same Prime Minister. Yes, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, we have an unacceptable levels of crime. We have journalists being called dishonest. Journalists being threatened, Madam Speaker. We have some very uncanny arrests of journalists. Madam Speaker, we have talk of hacked emails and tapped telephones. That's the environment in which we operate, Madam Speaker. We have uncertainty over impacts. We have not yet got the enough impacts has not come to its logical conclusion. That is creating social unrest. Madam Speaker, the government has failed to create an environment of stability, Madam Speaker. We have political interference in the public service. I made a point about the Cabinet Secretary, Madam Speaker. So, the government interferes directly in the public service. Government ministers use public servants to go and search people's premises, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this is the environment in which we operate. This is a social environment in which we operate, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the government has a responsibility to create an agenda social calm. It has a responsibility not to be fighting, not to be not to be the aggressors, but to be the ones to calm the waters, Madam Speaker. So, because that's the government's responsibility, not to be aggressive, but the government has a responsibility. That is what they say they're elected for, Madam Speaker. But what the government believes is by aggression, they can quiet the opposition. By aggression, they can be eventual, Madam Speaker. That's what they believe. But I'm saying, I can tell them, Madam Speaker, it has never worked anywhere in the world. It will not work in solution. We will not be quiet. We will not be made to submit. So, I can tell you, you're wasting your time. Madam Speaker, the social environment that we have, environment where a few thousand nice workers will dismiss and they laugh at that. They laugh. They suppose they have contracts, or the contracts finish. Contracts finish, in the contracts. Madam Speaker, the government pretends that the nice workers were people who we were doing a favor. Madam Speaker, the nice workers were Saint Lucians who were earning a living to support themselves and the families. Madam Speaker, and again, the prime minister doesn't tell you that they were nice workers who worked at the transport board. They were nice workers at the immigration department. And if you go to the transport board now, you will see lines of people, lines, Madam Speaker, and they complain. If you go to the immigration department, the people that complain that things take too long because of the absence of nice workers, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the nice workers who involved in vector control, in the control of vectors, the nice workers involved with that, they send them home. The nice workers were employed at the forensic lab. They were nice workers at the forensic lab, Madam Speaker. They send them home. They send them home. Yes, they were at the forensic lab. There were nice workers involved working at doing plain field maintenance. They send them home. There were nice workers working in farmers. They send them home also. And Madam Speaker, and the sad thing is the government doesn't have any empathy to say, listen to me, we had fiscal problems. The government, possibly, or you all had a contract. So contracts end, go. That is the government, Madam Speaker. That's the government. You see what I'm saying? At least the government could have said, could have said, we apologize for having to send you home. We are very sorry for having to send you home. We apologize. We believe that we can't afford to employ you now, so we send you home. But it's arrogance, man, the content, the arrogance, how power I'll do you what I want. I'm in charge. I run things. Go on, because you all will just contract with Madam Speaker. But let me tell the government, Madam Speaker, and the most experienced member of what I will tell them, politics is as perennial as a grass. So, man Speaker, the social environment in which we operate, man Speaker, the social environment in which we operate is not an environment conducive for any development or any growth, man Speaker. Man Speaker, the government is in conflict with the national trust. Man Speaker, you think a government can look for problems with the national trust? The people who have the responsibility for conservation in the country? Man Speaker, the national trust anywhere in the world. In England, man Speaker, the national trust gets a subvention from the government. In Barbados, the national trust gets a subvention from the government. Man Speaker, any developer always wants to speak to national trust to get a blessing of national trust before they embark on any major development. But this government, because the national trust has expressed its concern over a major development, a major development, man Speaker, a major development, major, they have decided to silence them and listen to their schools, listen to their schools, listen to their schools. The national trust hasn't prepared a business plan. Yeah, right. The national trust has assets they must leverage on. Yeah, right. The national trust must give us a document to show how they intend to raise money. Man Speaker, but you give money to many other places. You give money to the ecological and historical society. Why don't you ask them for the same thing? Why you choose a national trust to do that? You know why, man Speaker? Because you want to show you are boss. That's what you want to show. And man Speaker, those who have conscience on that side should say to the Prime Minister that's wrong. Because, man Speaker, we have to live in tenducia. So you want to show you are boss. You are the boss. You run things. So you in the stroke of a pen, you decide that you're going to stop the convention. And you use all kind of excuses, man Speaker. The national trust has assets. The forestry division has assets. The forestry division has two 21,000 acres of forests, but you still give it 2.6 million dollars. So why don't you tell the forestry division to let vision the assets and get money for themselves? You still give it 2.8 million dollars this year. So why the national trust? You know, man Speaker? The national trust dead. It dead to come up against the government. So they crushed it. And here's the excuse that the Labour Party gave permission to build a dolphin park. Man Speaker, the Labour Party never gave any permission to build a dolphin park at vision point. Never. It has never given permission to build a dolphin park at vision point. The question is, the question is, what the Labour Party man Speaker gave approval in principle for a dolphin park to be considered and approved tourism project in Canaries? That's what our party did, man Speaker. Nothing else. But the normal thing, man Speaker, anytime you find the government, they blame you. It's not miss you. So anything you speak of, the government always has a right to blame us. Not them, they blame us, man Speaker. So they've come up with this flashing mirror. Or you get permission for a dolphin park. Where? But, man Speaker, that happened in 2013. But times have changed. Times have changed, man Speaker. And the captivity of dolphins has now become a serious problem. Virgin Holiness, man Speaker, has said that they will not, they will not promote a country with new dolphin parks. Man Speaker, there have been several articles published about dolphin parks, man Speaker. So why can the government talk? Why can, man Speaker, a government with 11, you say everybody vote for you. The government says everybody vote for you. Why don't you speak to the people who voted for you? So, man Speaker, the government has taken this intervention from the National Trust. And what makes it worse, man Speaker, the National Trust was getting involved in the Derrick Walcott Museum on Grass Street. And we speak about the inner cities. And, man Speaker, is that if you go, if you, I don't know if you want to, because some people, they only go there near election time. But I pass there all the time, man Speaker. I'm there all the time. I don't go to election time, you know. You see, that's the difference between me and them, man Speaker. I live, I live what I say. So every day to go to my home, I go to my constituency. Every day. Day and night. I pass to my constituency. I have to face them. Every day, man Speaker. So you see, if you go to Grass Street, you will see the Walcott building going up in Grass Street. And you will see how the society has integrated itself around that project. That all the people, all the, all the young guys in the area have against the around that project, man Speaker. And if you go higher up, you will see a park. You will see a park, man Speaker. And again, the society has integrated itself around that park. That is part of the renewal of the revival of the inner city. Yes. Yes. Honorable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, on a point of elucidation, the Honorable Member has it. Prime Minister, I just want, I just want to, to allow, to make members bring the point. I have said it before, if it is a point of elucidation, we need to know, because if it is a point of elucidation, the member standing determines whether or not he or she yields. So if it is a point of clarification on understanding order 34B, if you are standing on a point of order, that is different to a point of elucidation. On a point of order 34B, Madam Speaker, the Honorable Member has indicated that Virgin Holidays has indicated that they would not fly or service any country that has a dolphin park, Madam Speaker. A new dolphin park. And that in fact is, is, is wrong. In fact, what they have said is that Virgin Holidays, which is not the airline, is the two operator company, is that they would not sell any new parks that have dolphins. So it's a very different thing to the airline not flying here, or Virgin Holidays not servicing St. Lucia. They would just not sell any tours to that park. And in fact, the world has criticized Virgin Holidays for the inconsistent position, because they have decided to continue selling the parks that they were already selling. And all they've said is they're not going to sell any new parks. So I just want to make it very, very clear. And hopefully the Honorable Member agrees with my assessment and that what he said was maybe giving people the wrong impression. And, and just that all members understand it. Let us, let us be clear on that. Once a member stands to interrupt or interject another member, immediately call out your standing order so that the other member may hear what standing order you, what point you're standing on, because once it is a point to elucidate, that member does not have to yield if he or she chooses. Thank you. The interruption, Honorable Leader of the Opposition. I am mindful to add five minutes to your time. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the I dealt with the social situation regarding the environment which the government operates, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, now I want to briefly go on the technological factors to end my personal analysis. Mr. Speaker, the technological factors. Mr. Speaker, the government speaks about technology, but they haven't made a definitive statement on laptops for students. No statement of that. The government speaks about technology, ICT. The government has not made any statement on the provision of the Wi-Fi hotspots, the Leopold Intel Trap Idlemide hotspots, Mr. Speaker. What, what, what is the position, Mr. Speaker? And to make it worse, Mr. Speaker, I understand, and I'm subject to correction, that the government has closed the Government Contact Center, the free level number. The government has closed it and has caused a few people to be out of work, Mr. Speaker. Is that, is that true? The government has closed it. Mr. Speaker, again, again, Mr. Speaker, the environment under which we operate, Mr. Speaker, but, but most of all, Mr. Speaker, when we left the Ministry of Infrastructure, there was a CDB funded streetlight project, an LED project, where the CDB would have made a loan available to the government to replace the street lamps in castries and in the environment with LED lights. The CDB would give the government a loan, a low interest loan, and the government would repay the loan from the savings they would make on the payment for electricity, Mr. Speaker. What is wrong? Where has that project gone, Mr. Speaker? Where has that project gone? So, Mr. Speaker, the best analysis that I've, that I've made shows that the government is completely at sea. It's lost. It hasn't got the fabric. It hasn't got the commitment. It hasn't got the spirit. It hasn't got the temperament, Mr. Speaker, because it is sift in vindictiveness, in lack of transparency, in revenge, and in making people pay. The budget statement, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the budget statement from the Prime Minister was short on details. There were no specifics on important fiscal policy matters. There are several areas in the budget, Mr. Speaker, where we are lost. We do not know how the budget will be financed. And, Mr. Speaker, I will give you a few. I'll give you a few areas, Mr. Speaker. On page 12 of the budget, the Prime Minister says more details on an incentive package within the coming months. On page 21, an announcement on the confirmation of financing will be made this year for the airports. Page 43, we currently working on a medium-term fiscal policy aimed at crafting a clear path towards growth. Towards growth while improving solution's fiscal and debt position, we currently working. Page 45, reforms that the government proposed to undertake in respect of postal income tax will make an announcement of the changes to be made in the postal income tax prior to its implementation. Page 48, over the next few months, we plan to announce several initiatives which we believe are necessary to place our debt on a sustainable path. Health, Mr. Speaker, page 25, and I want to read that one in its entirety. Page 25 on the health. Our objective for this sector is to transform the government's role from a direct provider of health care services through hospitals and clinics and a direct fund for budget subventions to a policymaker and regulator. What does that mean? Our government aims to achieve this by implementing a two-prong strategy which pursues public-private partnerships for provision of services and the introduction of national health insurance. My government believes that to preserve the future sustainability sector, we must establish a financing mechanism and continues. Mr. Speaker, my government aims to utilize the resources of the National Health Insurance Fund to finance health care. A number of matters will be addressed, including purchasing and contracting public-private service providers, consumer choice, the initiation of the fund, the agrarian's finalization of the packages of services provided to all registrants for the health service. The aim is to provide health coverage for all people as too many are falling through the cracks. Nothing specific, Mr. Speaker. On certainty, we will, we might be shown. But, Mr. Speaker, the only fiscal measure that the government is definitive about is the excise tax on gas. And, Mr. Speaker, when I heard the Prime Minister say that, I really thought that I was dreaming because that's a government, Mr. Speaker. That said, because the Labour Party had increased licenses on vehicles and trucks that were killing the people, so they had to have five to stay alive, that's a government, Mr. Speaker, that said that people had to close the trucks to use the exact words of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. He said that we will help those who have made investments in a truck for transport to focus on the business and get back on the roads quickly illegally. That is because we increase license and fees by a few cents per day. By a few cents a day, there is a government that said that truckers would be out of business because we increase license and fees. That's a government that said that minibuses would not make any money because we increase license and fees. That's a government that said that there would be a hardship on the land because this Labour Party was so wicked, they increased license and fees. That's what the government said, Mr. Speaker. And you know what this government did? This government increased excise tax on gas by $1.50 by 60% when they reduced, because they promised to remove the license fees, to bring it back to its original level, but it changed their mind and they said half. As usual, that's how things go. They saved the consumer $2.5 million. But, Mr. Speaker, what they have done now is that they have taken, and the Prime Minister can tell me if I'm wrong, they have taken from the consumer $18 million by the increase in gas fees, by the increase in excise tax. That's the same government, Mr. Speaker. This government let a demonstration, Mr. Speaker, for license fees, you know. They let an orange match. They said we were making $680 per gallon of gas. They let a match. Everybody was involved, Mr. Speaker, not all, but most of them were involved. They said we were brutal, we were wicked because license fees for vehicles were increased. And these license fees in the region, solution still has the lowest license fees in the region, even at the time when we increased it. But now, that same government, that same government, Mr. Speaker, has put a button on the people of Senucia by increasing the excise tax on gas by 150. But, Mr. Speaker, listen to what happens. They say they reduce that by 200 percent, but they increase gas by 60 percent. They reduce that by 200 percent, but they increase that by 60, they reduce that by 200 percent. And they boast about it. Oh, my money in the pockets. If the money doesn't go in the consumer, it will go in profit. Oh, my, 200 percent. But they have increased the price of petrol by 60 percent. Now, let me preempt them. Let me preempt them. Let me preempt them. Let me preempt them. Because I know, I'm here long enough to know what you are going to see. I know long enough. In spite of what price gas is on the international market, the consumer of Senucia will pay $1.50 more for it. In spite of the price of gas on the, of oil on the international market, the consumer will pay $1.50 more for it. But you, but you, you made a point that because licenses went up by a few cents per day, that it will cause chaos and confusion in the country. But let me tell you what the increase in gas will cause in the country. Honorable member, you now have 15 minutes within which to complete your presentation. Honorable member for library. Madam Speaker, I move for the invocation of standing order 3210 to allow the leader of the opposition to conclude his presentation an additional one hour. Honorable members, the question is that standing order 3210 being evoked to allow the leader of the opposition an additional one hour within which to conclude his presentation. 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. Honorable leader of your position, your, your now concluded time is, anticipate is 635. Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I'm standing on standing order 34B, the point of elucination. The Honorable Minister, the Honorable Member has indicated that the gas price is going to go up or the suggested $1.50 increase is going to increase the gas price by 60%. I don't know how the Honorable Member arrives at that and I would love him to explain his mathematics on that, because that is completely erroneous. That's what he said, he said he said that he's going, the price price is going to increase by 60%. So I mean the gas price now is $10, he's suggesting the price is going to go to $16. I don't know how that that mathematics works and I would love an explanation of that Madam. Madam Speaker, I will allow the Prime Minister to interrupt me, because his interruptions can be easily dealt with. The government made $2.50 on every gallon of gas. So when you work the price out, $2.50 was given to the government. You have increased that to $4. That means you have increased it by $1.50. One diary about you, $1.50 is 60% of $2.50. So the tax is not going on the gas. The bottom line is that the price of gas will go up by $1.50 per gallon. That's the point. And you, you let a match, an orange match, because you said that we were making $6.80 on a gallon of gas and we were so weakened we had increased licenses by a few cents. You did that. And now you, and now you now, you are increasing the price of gas by $1.50 per gallon of 60%. Now let me tell you how that is going to affect you. That's going to increase the fuel surcharge. So you have to pay more for electricity. It's going to increase the fuel surcharge. I'm going to tell you how it's going to, how it's going to affect the tourism industry. I'm going to say it is going to, the fuel charge will go up because the cost, because you've increased the excise tax on gas. You've increased the excise tax on gas so the fuel surcharge will increase. And for the man speaker, it will increase, it's even worse. The distributors, the people who have their bread vans, will have to pay more for gas. The people who sell groceries in Bhutan and in Anslavadi, will have to pay more for gas. That's right. The people, the minibus drivers, that you increase their fees by, that you, you cause in your income to get $440,000 for them in, in fees, in terms of rule ban fees. The price of gas for them will go up. I'll give you an example. You see, that's the flashing mirrors that you, you, you get involved in. You never want to admit the facts. You increase the price of gas by $1.50 per gallon. Admit it. That's what you did. Yeah, but, and you boast about it. Yes. Man speaker, let, let me tell you what will happen. Let me get an example from a minibus driver and some of them here know a lot about minibus driving. Man speaker, if you have 18, if you have eight, a minibus driver puts 18 gallons of gas on an average in his vehicle. He puts 18, eight gallons of gas in his vehicle, man speaker. He'll have to pay an additional $27 per day for gas. $135 per week for gas. $540 per month for gas. That is what you've done to minibus drivers. That's what you've done to minibus drivers. That's what you've done to minibus drivers. But you know, but instead of admitting, it's not saying that there's a reason why you do it. You want to defend it. And that's the arrogance of the government. The government is never wrong. Even though people are suffering, they want, they have a right to make people suffer. They have a right to make people cry. So you have now, so the poor people now, the poor people that you say you reduce the price of VAT for, the poor people that you say you use the price of VAT, they now have to pay more for the goods and the services because you've increased the price of gas. Once you've increased the price of gas, you've increased the price of everything in the country. So you've wiped out in one solid swipe, you've wiped out the two and a half percent that you reduced the VAT by. That's what you've done. That's what you've done, man speaker. And you, you made the point that when the tax, the tax, the license fees, man speaker, the license fee that we increased by a few cents per day, the incidence of that tax was only on people, old vehicles and trucks and heavy equipment. That's where the incidence tax was. But when you change, when you increase the price of gas, everyone, the country suffers, everyone, because everyone directly or indirectly they have to, they have some part of their life that depends on gas. And that's what you did, man speaker. That's what you did. And you will not do it and you will not do it and say there was a reason why, you're going to ironically say that you're right to do it, you're right. You're going to have all kinds of flashing mirrors, all kinds of distortions to say that you'd, where the fact is that the price of gas, of a gallon of gas will go up by one dollar and fifty cents. And that is the bottom line, man speaker. That's the bottom line. But man speaker, it's not only that. The government has done that, but at the same time, at the same time, at the same time they are doing that. They do not feel the implications of that increase in fuel for the people of the country. But they've removed the subsidy on flour, rice and sugar. And I'm coming to that because the prime minister said that the four million dollars subsidy had removed is because the price of these commodities was going down and the supply warehouse was making money. So they would absorb these increased costs. But it's the same prime minister who says he intends, he intends to do something with the supply warehouse. If the supply warehouse is doing well, if the supply warehouse is operating at a profit, so you no longer have to have the subsidy on these important commodities. Why interfere with it? Why interfere with it? Again, flashing mirrors. You said in one breath that it's doing so well, because you removed the subsidy, but then you are interfering in it. But man speaker, to make it worse, man speaker, the increase in the price of gas may affect the cost of bread. It may affect the cost of bread. Because now what I know they will see, what I know they will see is that the price of gas was 16 dollars and now it's 13 dollars. That is irrelevant to the argument. The market finds its own level. That's irrelevant. So when the price of gas is 16 dollars, the market operates at a particular level. When the price is 10 dollars, the market operates at a particular level. So anytime you increase the price, you affect the cost of living and you affect the quality of life of the ordinary people in the country. Man speaker, the prime minister again very flippantly talks about closing down of state enterprises. Very, very flippantly, man speaker. He says, close the marketing board. Close the marketing board. Close the fish marketing corporation. Close renaissance. Close it. Man speaker, people who work there, you know. It's not robots, you know. People work in these institutions. Robots don't work there. People work there. When you send them home, man speaker, you know, it is alleged. It's alleged and I wouldn't do like you when somebody committed suicide, when you're all competing, you'll say is, is never do that. It's alleged, man speaker, that a man died in Shorzel because he lost his nice job. It's alleged. But you are flippantly saying that you will close, that you will close all these institutions. That you will close radio solution. You will close the marketing board. You will look into the supply warehouse. You will close fish marketing corporation. You never said that you will have some counseling for the people who lost their jobs. You will have a proper separation package. You will get the people some counseling. You'll talk to them because they are human beings, not because that you are fortunate and doesn't affect you. Most people, most people, madam speaker, their salary is all they have. They have no salary. They have no savings. Most people live on their salaries only. So when you're very flippantly saying, you'll close it down. What man speaker? I have a suggestion to the prime minister. But as usual, they will not take it. Why can they look to merge the marketing board with the fish and with the fish and the fish marketing corporation? Why can they look to allow the marketing board to run the abattoir? No, I forget. They move in the abattoir. I forgot that. How can they, why can they think about it, man speaker? Why can they think about merging these bodies to save human beings? We can't be so flippant about human beings. We can't sit back because we are members of parliament and believe that this will already matter. So you want to attack us because we represent them, but you believe that we must not speak for them. So man speaker, you must have some heart for the people who will lose their jobs. Poster services, man speaker. Poster services. The prime minister says again, poster services. But man speaker, you know, the discussion on poster services is a long discussion. And it's a fact that poster services sometimes cause a problem in terms of the economics of the poster service. But poster services, man speaker, they play a unique and significant role in the rural areas, in the rural areas. People expect, because you know, whereas all of us have computers and we have WhatsApp, et cetera, there are people who do not have that. And they depend on the letters from the letters from the folks in St. Croix United States. They still receive their checks in the mail, et cetera, man speaker. So when you close in poster services, when you look at the bottom line, think about these people, because poster services serve a social need, man speaker. So think about... Honourable member for lab break. Madam Speaker, when the prime minister delivered his presentation... Sir, you're rising on a point of order, I take it. What is it? On 34. What is it? Subject to the provisions of standing orders 2026, 38 and 39, a member shall interrupt another member except, and it speak about a point of order on a point of elucidation. And I would appreciate if this Honourable House would allow the leader of the opposition to make his presentation without interruption in the same way that we granted the prime minister last evening. Thank you. Honourable member, I think the correct standing order is 40. Order, please. I thought my light was on. Since Honourable members are having such a good time interrupting and interjecting one another, if it is your wish, it is your house, you all will continue that way. However, the member for lab rest stood on a point of order, and I think the point he was making was that there was a little too much interruption as the Honourable Leader of the Opposition was on his feet. I will read, standing order 40, both 34 and 40, correction, a member on his feet shall be heard in silence unless it is a point of interruption. Please proceed Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Madam Speaker, what I'm speaking of too is the human cost of these people losing their jobs. And Madam Speaker, it's okay for us to be comfortable, we are ministers, we have a good life, we eat in hotels, etc. But you must understand the cost, the human cost, Madam Speaker. You must understand the human cost for these people. So we laugh, people lose their jobs, we laugh, 90% of them are liable, so it doesn't really matter. We laugh, people lose their jobs, let them cry. We look at that, we're big, we run things, we control. So Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister to have a little heart, have a little heart for these people when you intend to restructure these organisations. Madam Speaker, in the budget, the Prime Minister spoke about something called NAPS, N-A-P-S. And in that NAPS, there is $10 million for NAPS. Madam Speaker, I want to just ask a few questions. How do we decide what firms that will give NAPS money? How do we decide, because you see, that $10 million is not from your pocket, you know. That $10 million is from the tax payers of the country. And I'm coming, just wait for me. You have given $1,000, you promised to give a foreign firm $1,000 per employee, and you never said so in the Honourable House. You have promised to give a foreign firm $1,000 per employee for four years, for an amount, for four years you came here and you spoke about a firm called Ojo Labs International. You both said about it, but you did not tell the Honourable House that you intend to take $1,000 and $500 per employee to pay that firm and it's open-ended. You have no conditions under which you give that employee, that foreign firm $1,000 per employee. And you are the same person that complains when you say that we had people working at true value. The same person, but once it's a local, you have promised of it. But a foreign firm, you have decided that you will give them $1,000 per employee and $500 per employee. And you read a budget statement in some way and you refuse. You refuse to tell the Honourable House that you are doing that. Lack of transparency. And no matter what mechanics you tell me for six months, nine months, three months, two hours, the fact is, the fact is you were not transparent. You did not tell this Honourable House that when you spoke about artificial intelligence and audio labs, you had also decided that you would give employees of sale wins limited and crawling unlimited $1,000 per employee and $500 per employee. Both. But in the interest of transparency, if you're boasting about work in the South, you tell the people, tell the public that you've taken their money and you've given a foreign firm $1,000 per employee and $500 per employee. That's what you've done. So, Madam Speaker, I want to also know what is the role of the National Skills Development Center? What is the role? Why do you have to take government money and put in private sector enterprises? And for training, why do you have to take government's money and give training to private sector enterprises? You must be transparent. You must say, who are the people in these schools? Who runs these schools? Who owns these schools? Who, what is the curriculum of these schools? Who are the owners of these schools? Who are the indirect and direct beneficiaries? When you take government's money and you give to the private sector in terms of training, you must say the whole truth because you have a National Development Skills Center that can do all that. You must be transparent and open. You see? So, Madam Speaker, the point is we need to know who are the owners, who are the shareholders, who are the affiliations of these educational institutions that you intend to put enough money in. You must be open and transparent. You must tell the public of St. Lucia, Madam Speaker, how? Who is benefiting from these 10 million, from that 10 million dollars that you're going to take for your NAPS program? You must tell them. Yes, Madam Speaker. And you know, this special Audreau Labs International firm, they operate in a free zone. They are in a free zone, Madam Speaker, and they have natural incentives from the free zone. But this government has given them more incentives to buy both sunkers. This government is promising that they will give Audreau Limited a special firm. They have them operating in a free zone. They have all the incentives from the free zone, but they're going to get more incentives, including a promise to get incentives to buy both sunkers. Audreau is called Audreau Labs International Inc., and it runs two firms in St. Lucia. And sales were limited, and current are limited. But, Madam Speaker, these companies are special. The minister is special about them. The minister is special about them. The amount of young people who want to start, who want to begin internet-based business, the amount of young people who want to make, who want to create websites, the amount of young people who want information technology, but you don't have confidence in your own people. No, you have to get a foreign firm. You have to pay a foreign firm. And you come in this honorable house, lack of transparency. You boast about Audreau International, but you do not tell the people of the country that you promise to give them $1,000 per employee and $500 per employee. And they operate in a free zone, and they're going to get extra incentives from being in that free zone. That is the, and that is what this government is prepared to do for special people. Madam Speaker, the prime minister said that he's going to build five hotels. I've heard five hotels before. In Miku, I heard he would have built five hotels in Miku. So I heard that before. It's the prime minister's habit of staying five. He was campaigning in Miku, and he said he'd built five hotels in Miku. Five, five. He liked five to stay alive. Five hotels in Miku. So now you're going to build five hotels in St. Lucia. All right, no problem. If they build five hotels in St. Lucia, I'd be very grateful. I'd be pleased. If they build five, I'd be pleased because people will get employed, and even though I know they send a list to hotel managers and tell them only employ people on that list. I know they do that. I know they do that, but I'll be, because you see, even though when UWPs get a job, man, speaker, there's something called everybody benefits because the UWP have a labor boyfriend or labor girlfriend or labor godchild. So if you would get five hotels for two, if you'd build five hotels for two, and people will get employed, I'll be happy. You think we'd sit here and would be against you building five hotels? We wouldn't do that. We'd be glad if you do that, but man, speaker, but you give the impression that all the hotels were yours, that you are the ones, because you came back, you've generated so much confidence in the economy. You have three airlines coming in without paying any revenue sharing. So you've been so good because you are in government, man, speaker, but, but, but, man, speaker, let me tell you something. Of these five hotels, Royalton was negotiated by us. The hotel on the Pope site was negotiated by us. The hotels on was negotiated by us, man, speaker. We were the ones who spoke to them, spoke with them, the same way you speak into the SH. We were the ones who negotiated for the hotel in Choselle, and our spokesman for investment will say a lot more about that. Of these hotels, tell the people in St. Lucia that many of these negotiations were started and nearly computed by us. So why must you give the impression that because you're back in power, because there's so much confidence that all these hotels happen to come all of a sudden? That didn't happen. So I'm waiting to see you build five hotels. I'll be very happy if you build five hotels, because even though you try even at that level to victimize our employees to get a job there, I'll be happy if we just get to work in the five hotels. But man, speaker, in one this government, in its vindictiveness, they dealt a mortal blow to the Jazz Festival. Here is a government that had a festival that was among the first, the best 10 festivals in the world. A world-renowned festival. Everybody knew St. Lucia for the Jazz Festival. People used to plan their holidays in advance for the Jazz Festival because you want to be vindictive. You've done no survey. You've done no market survey. You've done nothing. You have unilaterally and on your own, you just decide that you're going to downgrade the Jazz Festival. And you replace it with a festival commission. So people will plan five holidays per year. They'll come to your Rum Festival one month. Next month, they'll come to your other festival. So, instead of people coming for one festival, they'll come for five festivals. But man, speaker, all countries have a Maki Festival. All countries, there is all countries have a festival that they are known for in the entire world. You had the Jazz Festival. You could deal with it in a certain way. But just because you want to be vindictive, you've just downgraded the Jazz Festival. This week is Jazz. We will see the amount of visitors we have for Jazz, and we'll compare it to what happened last year and year before. And you know what you say? You say because you want to save costs. But you save in costs. But why should you save in costs? You are saving. Why should you save in costs, man, speaker? You are increasing the cost of travel to St. Lucia by increasing the travel tax on the tax bills, on the visitors. So, man, speaker, we left to see the impact of your so-called re-engineered Jazz. I'm saying to you that the benefits that the vendors had from Jazz, the benefits that the people who got involved in the Jazz Festival, the speculators, the small boutique owners, the buzz that was around the country for Jazz, that buzz does not exist as we speak. That doesn't exist. Why? Because you were irrational, you were hasty, and you were vindictive. So, man, speaker, you have downgraded a world-class event, man, speaker. Now, you've dissolved the St. Lucia Tourist Board. And the excuse you give is the Tourist Board had liabilities. I want to put it to you. What was the liabilities, what were the liabilities of the Tourist Board in 1997? And what were the liabilities of the Tourist Board in 2011? Because you've closed it down because you said it has liabilities. Bring different financial statements and tell me what were the liabilities of the Tourist Board in 1997 and in 2011 when you took it over. But you've closed it down. But, man, speaker, whilst you are closing it down, you are closing it down for a tourism authority. We await patiently the legislation as it relates to that tourism authority. Because I'm putting to you that all what the Tourist, the Tourism Authority was doing, or will be doing, the Tourist Board could do it. There was no need, except if you wanted to victimize people. There was no need. If you wanted to have a change, you could have changed from the, you could have changed the apparatus as in terms of staff etc. in the Tourist Board without dissolving that the board as it existed. But again, you want to target certain people so you dissolve a whole board to target certain people. This government will burn a house to kill rats. That is a level of vindictiveness just to target somebody. And I will not tell you, I will not behave because I shared personal correspondence and affirmation. I wouldn't say it in this house because I will say it in this house. I will never say it in this house. I will not behave like you. Because you want to target somebody. That's why you dissolve the board. That's not right. That is not right. Don't do people that. This is plus illusions. Don't do them that. Because many people, there's some of you who are labor rights, you'll run for us and you'll turn your back and you'll hate us. That is a nature politics. That's a nature politics. That's a nature politics. But you know, but you want to behave as if because somebody is labor, because somebody is labor, you want to destroy them. No matter who they are, grass cutters, civil servants, former ministers, MPs. All of them are labor. You want to victimize them because you think they are labor. Nice workers. So, Madam Speaker, you have a tourism policy, tourism authority, but you have increased the airport tax and all studies, the Caribbean Environment Bank study has said to you that the elasticity of demand for tourism, for air travel is very elastic and any change of price affects it. We came here and we told you so. I quoted for you a Caribbean Environment Bank study. You didn't take me on. You laughed at me as usual. You laughed. It's a joke. You're in power, so you can laugh. And right now, the SLHTA had to tell you that that is bad policy in the factorism arrivals, so you pulled it back and you promise that you will help them in some way, but there's nothing in the budget that says where you will help them. You speak about tourism, but you've increased solutions. Problem is that it is a high cost destination, but you've increased the price of gasoline by $1.50 per gallon, so you've affected your tourism industry because you've made Saint Lucia a higher cost destination, but that's what you've done. And you see, these are the repercussions of your actions. When you believe you did it in one way, you affect other things, so right now, you've made Saint Lucia more expensive as a destination. You speak about hotels, what are you doing about WASCO? What are you doing about giving water to these hotels? When you're in government, you may have forgotten that. We did the piping from into Grozile to feed these hotels. You may have forgotten that. We did that. And right now, I'm sure that the capacity of that sector is too large for the water that's available. So what are you doing about water? These are the things you must think of. Where is the allocation for WASCO, for water in WASCO, in the budget? When WASCO had perfect management, the management of WASCO, and up to now, the people of Cassius East will tell you that water in Cassius East is much more regular than before because of work done in WASCO. But you know, you allow WASCO management to live. Why? Because you believe that WASCO, the manager of WASCO, wasn't one of you, not one of us. So you, that's what you've done, Manspeaker. So I'm saying to you that you'll have issues with water when it comes to your development of tourism. What are you doing for the yachting sector, a major sector? What are you doing for the yachting sector in your tourism plan? Nothing about that sector. Another important sector, Manspeaker. So I'm saying to you that even in tourism, the tourism that you proclaim that is your engine of growth, you have serious shortcomings in that regard. So Manspeaker, I want now to briefly deal with DSH. An incredible thing happened yesterday, Manspeaker. Incredible. Incredible. An investor came in this honorable house and he sat in a privileged position. The Prime Minister referred to him and all the members of the government bent. Madam Speaker, that's incredible. It's the most incredible thing I have seen in my 20 years here. It's the most incredible thing I have seen, Manspeaker. If I think, I couldn't believe, I was seeing that both Stuart has investments in San Lucia, major tourism investments. Both Stuart was here some time ago. I was, I don't think most of your hair were inside here because you must have some kind of metal to be here, like he and I, for so long. You understand? Nobody never, that the Prime Minister at the time never said, hey, Mr. Stuart, never said so because Mr. Stuart was here as an investor coming to listen to what happens in the house. But you, you are so, you want to drive it home so much because you believe you have such a good thing. You have the investor in the house and you recognize him and all of you, if you know how you look doing that, if you know how solutions felt, especially solutions abroad felt about you as you're doing that, you'd never laugh. Anyhow, father forgive them for they know not what they do. Madam Speaker, the DSH, the DSH is not a regular investment. We behave as if DSH is a regular investment. It's not a regular investment. It's not a simple investment. Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister says that DSH will give 500 jobs. How many jobs? Five thousand jobs, whatever he says. Madam Speaker, Royalton Hotel has a thousand employees. It doesn't exist on 900 acres of land. Why you need to give an investor 900 acres of land carte blanche? One month we got a strange thing is the Prime Minister says that that's such a good investment, but he refuses to make the agreement that he signed a document of this honorable house. If the agreement is such a good one, if it has so many benefits for the people of St. Lucia, if we are wicked and we hate St. Lucia and we are against progress and the member of the view for itself wants to leave you for in darkness, why can't you make the DSH agreements or agreement a document of the house? You talk about Greenberg. You talk about Greenberg. Greenberg was made a document of the house. It was made on 9th of April 2009. Check your records. Greenberg was a document of the house. We are saying to you to make the DSH agreement. The DSH, if you say it's false, make it a document of the house. If you say it is not the right document, make it a document of the house. So Madam Speaker, since you refuse to make it a document of the house, I have now copies of the document that was on the Internet. I have copies of the document that was on the Internet in my possession. The government has not said that that document is wrong. So I'm assuming and I'm presuming and assuming that since this document on the Internet has the signature of the honorable Prime Minister and a gentleman called Chan Sipo, on one, and T.O. R. King on another one, and this document has, on this other one, it has the signature of Alan M. Shastney, Pinkley Francis, T.O. R. King, and something I don't understand. Since these documents are in circulation, I am going to quote from them. I'm going to quote from them. And I want you to tell me that what I have quoted is not right, because you refuse. You refuse to make, and there is precedent to that. Leader of the opposition, if you wish to quote these documents, you need, as I alluded to earlier on when I started, you need to make copies available so as and when you read, members can follow from the same document. Do you wish time to send it downstairs to be copied? Yes, I will suggest that. So, Madam Speaker, for the record, I am making these two agreements as circulated on the Internet, a document in the House. So, Madam Speaker, once we await that document from the House, I will continue with my presentation, Madam Speaker. You see, Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said that our heritage, our patch money is in our credit, our credit what? Our credit ratings. That's where our patch money is. But, Madam Speaker, the people of Viewfort, the people of Viewfort have a rich history, and for those who do not know, let me tell you something about the history of Viewfort, and the history of the lands in Viewfort. There is something about the lands in Viewfort that has great historical value, Madam Speaker. Viewfort was the site of the first European settlement in 1605. It was the site of the first sugar mill in this country in 1763. It was the site of important migrations from India and Barbados, and to work in the sugar factories in the late 1800s and 1900s. It was the site of the U.S. being filled a field during World War II. The lands of many Viewfortians were lost during that time. Eventually, it was George Charles, as Chief Minister in this Labour Party, who regained the 500 acres of land from the Americans in the early 1960s, and began developing it by building a secondary school, et cetera. The first secondary school to be located out of castuaries was built by George Charles in Viewfort. The people of Viewfort, have seen colonization. The people of Viewfort understand what is happening to their lands. The people of Viewfort have a right to guard their lands jealously. The people of Viewfort, Madam Speaker, they have a right to query when 900 acres of the land are given to one man for 99 years. They have a right, Madam Speaker, so you cannot say, you cannot say, that because you believe, because you believe that an investment is good, you can sit in your cabinet, sit and sign these deals, and refuse to discuss the people of St. Lucia. Sir John Compton, when he had the Hesse Agreement, when John Compton was signing the Hesse Agreement, there was people saying, why are you giving Hesse such a large area of land? Nothing as much as what you're giving the usage. Sir John Compton, in his wisdom, came to this honorable house. He put the Hesse Agreement on the table, and he said, let us discuss it. Every elected member had a chance to discuss this agreement, and in the final analysis, everybody voted yes, even though some of them tear it up. You understand? So, Madam Speaker, what we are saying to this government is if you have such a good agreement, if this agreement will transform the face of Viewfort, if we are so wicked, we do not want to have development in Viewfort. If you want to do so many things of Viewfort, bring the agreement to this honorable house, or say to the people of the country that the agreement that's been circulated on the internet is false. It wasn't me who put it there. I don't know who put it there, but it was the internet. The agreement on the internet is false. What you signed is wrong, and this is your party is lying. Madam Speaker, on a point of order 34, I rise 34A to say, Madam Speaker, that unless my learned colleague can show the authenticity of the document, then he cannot present it. I have not said the government has not acknowledged that that information is correct, so therefore, unless he can substantiate to you, Madam Speaker, that he knows who the author and the authenticity of that document, I have to say that he cannot submit it to the house. You can't just take a document from the internet and claim it to be an authentic document, and we're going to bring it to this honorable house. He cannot do that. The government's position has been that we have signed a confidential agreement and we have not acknowledged in any way that the documents that are in our encirculation are correct, Madam Speaker. Do I continue? Please bear with me. No check, please. Honorable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, I ask if we can adjourn the house for 15 minutes. Honorable members, the question is that this house be suspended for 15 minutes. It is time that I believe that I need it. Thank you. As 15 minutes, 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. This house is suspended for 15 minutes. We shall return at 25 past six. All right. Speaker, will I get my turn? At this juncture, the house has gone. For 15 minutes recess so far, we have been hearing from the leader of the opposition who is still into his presentation. So we'll be hearing from the leader of the opposition. When the house resumes, please stay tuned to the national television network for the resumption of the house momentarily.