 Welcome to the National Television Network's live broadcast of today's Senate sitting. We are in our afternoon session and we left where we were still on the motions part of the order paper. We still haven't gotten to the bills part as yet as you would recall on Tuesday. It was a very long sitting of the House of Assembly and we're still waiting. We're done. Whether we will go late into the evening today or whether we should finish before the Senate is supposed to conclude at 6 p.m. President of the Senate, Honourable Andy Daniel has entered the chamber. So let's go to the chamber floor for a resumption of the proceedings. Senators, I beg to remind you that when the Senate rose, the question was that Parliament authorizes the Minister for Finance to raise A, a sum of EC 103 million dollars for financing the 2017-2018 budget and B, a sum of 262 EC million dollars for refinancing the existing debts on the regional government securities market or for private placement at a rate, at a maximum rate of 7.5%. Leader of government business. Mr. President, it's my task at this point to provide a rebuttal to the various presentations by our Honourable Senators on our resolution for Parliament to borrow for capital expenditure. Sorry, actually it's the resolution of Parliament to borrow for, where is it again, sorry. Yes, resolution for Parliament to raise funds by the issue of seven bonds in the amount of 103 million and an additional amount of 262 million dollars. All but one senator made their contribution and I will try my best to be as brief as possible in my response to their contributions. May I first start, Mr. President, by making a slight correction. In fact, Senator Oje was about to bring something to my attention and I believe that the timing of trying to make that presentation, he was kind of tardy on it. So I believe in good faith I will go ahead and make the correction. I said, Mr. President, that prior to 1997, capital expenditures were financed solely by recurrent revenues. I wish to make a slight correction to that, Mr. President. Prior to 1997, recurrent revenues was used to finance capital expenditures. At least part of capital expenditures I should say was financed from recurrent revenues. As of today, because of the level of economic activities, the level of expenditures I should say in government and the ability of government to raise sufficient revenue in spite of the high level of taxes we have, we find it almost impossible or insufficient to use recurrent revenues to finance capital expenditures. And that's why the government has now to turn to the financial markets. We used to rely almost entirely, or partially I should say, on grants. But what we have seen in over the years that the support we used to get from friendly governments as far as grants are concerned has actually diminished. If I recall, in fact, this year's budgets, I see there is nothing for as far as grants are concerned here, absolutely none. If I recall the last year's budgets, I see last year's budget, I think like two million in terms of grants, in the budget, that is. So grants is not something that we, the government of today is really putting focus on. So we are focusing a lot on now on Treasury bills. We are focusing a lot on bonds and of course on loans. And if you look at the history, the statistics, you would see that there is also a decline in the amount of loans that we are actually going after to support our budget and more specifically our capital expenditures. Now because I made mention of 1997 as a reference point, I just want to refer you to Mr. President to table 39 or page 101 of the Economic and Social Review of 2016. That is table 39 and page, or page 101 of the Economic and Social Review of 2016. Although this page of this table does not include the 1997 figures as far as the total debt or total public sector outstanding liabilities, but it has another, another reference point of 2006 or 2006. Mr. President, if you look at the outstanding debts and specifically the Treasury bills or notes as of 2006, the outstanding Treasury bills, outstanding Treasury bills in 2006 just over, actually it was 18.5, 18.6 million dollars, that's Treasury bills in 2006, 18.6 million dollars. And Mr. President, we have to take this into context, what we are talking about here. We are talking about using various revenue sources to finance our capital expenditures. So what has happened over time, we have moved beyond using the Treasury bills to finance sometimes, to finance recurrent revenues or expenditures, but now it is being seen, it is being used now to finance even capital expenditure. Now it makes reference to Mr. President that of the NICE program. You recall that the government used to borrow every time, every time, every time, 19 million dollars, 20 million dollars to finance what it is referred to as a capital expenditure and which was actually, Mr. President, it was not properly categorized because the NICE program is more or less a work program, a works program and 90 something percent of that money was actually paid as wages. So I'm not to show why it was classified as a capital expenditure and although you can define a capital expenditure project as one with a lifetime or lifespan, be it one year, be it two years, be it three years, you could say that this is a capital project. And if the NICE program was a capital project, I'm assuming that the former government put it there as a capital project because it was supposed to have been a three-year program. But of course we know that it almost, it is almost five years, it went for about five years, so clearly this was not a capital project because of the nature of that project which included almost 90 plus of that expenditure went into wages. So Mr. President, so we had 18.6 million dollars as Treasury bills in 2006. And when the last administration of the United Workers Party left government in 2011, the amount of Treasury bills or notes went up to about $43.7 million, $47.7 million. And guess what happened, Mr. President, preliminary estimates of 2016, the amount of Treasury bills, as I said earlier, from 2011 it was 42.7, but when the last administration left the number, the amount of Treasury bills, Mr. President, $438.6 million. From $42.67 million to $438.6 million. Mr. President, these are not just numbers, you know, there's a story behind these numbers. And I'm sure you have heard the Prime Minister and myself in the last sitting spoke about the rule over risk that we have based because of that change or the heavy reliance on Treasury bills to finance government operations. From $42 million in 2011 in Treasury bills to $438 million, there's a lot that one can deduce from this statistic, Mr. President, a lot. And the government, the former government had a lot of reliance on this instrument, that instrument for many reasons. I think in the context of this discussion, it had a lot to do with the fact that they will not be able to generate the required revenues to operate government. The country was not performing to the point where sufficient monies were being generated. And I say sufficient because if you look at the various sources of revenues, government revenues in the last five years, there were increases in revenues, yes there were, and if you look at the revenues for that, it's just a classic example. But what happened with the increase in the revenues, or the increases in revenues, Mr. President, the rate of increase in expenditures was greater than that of revenues. So the country was able to generate, yes, additional revenues, yes, but in terms of expenditure controls, Mr. President, that was nonexistent in the last administration. I know, Mr. President, that Senator Ferdinand, he said that, in fact, when he made his contribution, he actually tried to muzzle the mouth of the senators on this side, and he made a statement, he made a statement, you know, please don't go back to the past. None of us here, not one of us here was in the former government, but guess what, we represent the government on this side and the other side represents the opposition, and we cannot not talk about the past, because we are where we are because of the past, Mr. President. So I had to bring up this thing here. The other source of revenue or the other source of funding is that of bonds, Mr. President. What we saw in 2006, the total outstanding liabilities as far as bonds are concerned, is it was actually close to $360 million in 2006, and then in 2011, it was 341, it moved from $341 million in 2011 to $287 million. Again, there is a story behind these numbers, not only that the former government administration could not have borrowed the level of bonds or the amount of bonds it used to borrow before, or we could have borrowed before, because you could have seen that they were actually the numbers, the number of bonds or the amount of bonds that were borrowed in the last five years diminished from year to year, and it's a signal, it is a signal, Mr. President, of the lack of confidence that the bond market or the financial market had in the last administration. And Mr. President, as I said earlier, as I said earlier, that in, for example, Mr. President, not only that, Mr. President, you had short of maturity or shorter periods or shorter maturity dates for the bonds that were actually being received by this government, the last administration. As I said before, we used to have 10 year bonds, but now we talk about two year bonds and three year bonds, and this has a lot again to do with the risk level of government. So your creditor will give you a longer term bond with a higher level of confidence and vice versa. If the level of confidence in the government is very weak and the risk is very high, they will give you a shorter time to pay. And that's what we have seen in this year. In fact, of the $260 million that we are refinancing, there were a lot of two and three year bonds. So I mean, there's a lot that one can deduce from these statistics. I believe it was important that I bring it up to the House this afternoon, Mr. President. Now, the Senator, opposite Jerome, what's his last name again? Sorry, Jerome Gideon. He spoke about, first of all, I don't know, he spoke about fishermen. He seems to have a love for fishermen. I do have a love for fishermen because I get a lot of my proteins from fish. By the way, what sort of protein is it? I think he had a sort of protein this afternoon, right? It wasn't fish, just pork. I have a love for fish and we love the fishermen. This government loves the fishermen. But I was very concerned about his calculations, Mr. President, because he said that 20 gallons of the new fuel tax that the government is ushering in next week. He said that with an additional 20 or 20 gallons of gas will now cost fishermen additional $150. I don't know how he got that. He may have to explain that to me or I don't know. I know there have been a lot of concerns about the new fuel tax and that has been explained time and time again by the within the statement of the policy statement of the Prime Minister. Now, a lot of questions have been asked, you know. Let me stick with the fuel. Mr. President, because of the mechanism of the fuel pass-through mechanism, because of the system, the way to design, they will not necessarily, it will not necessarily, the price of gas will not necessarily from one period or the next increase by 150. Okay. It will not necessarily increase by 150 every time there is a new price change. In fact, without letting the public know or letting the House know that the calculations for the new period is already there. And what we have seen is that because Mr. Senator, Mr. Senator, Mr. Senator, I understand your math skills are not too good to listen. Okay. Listen, listen, listen, listen. Learn something over here. Okay. The other two senators were very, very good. Senator, Senator, Leader of Government Business, please address the chair. Please, please, please. Just relax, man. Just relax. Could you get him some cold water, please? Move on, move on. No one has ever, never called anyone stupid here. Why you calling people stupid? Senators, Senators, let's get back to the decorum. Leader of Government Business, please proceed, please. Mr. President, control this man over there. Control him. Mr. President, again, I'm saying that the, we are ushering in new policy in terms of adjustment to the fuel taxes. And I'm heard that they're saying that the fuel price will go up by 150. Yes, the excise tax will go up, will move from $250 to $4. It's a fact. The excise tax. But in terms of the price of fuel from period to period may not necessarily increase by 150. Understand what I'm saying here. Let me explain it. For example, Mr. President, let's say that the price of fuel, the price of gasoline, is $10. One may say, may say that because of the increase of the excise tax, it will now be $11.50. Okay? But there is another factor in the price of the fuel of gas. You have the adjustments, the fuel adjustments, and that is based on the international price is the prior three-week period. So if there is a decrease in the adjustment of 40 cents, it means that the price of fuel now will be increasing by $1.10. Not the $150. Okay? So it's not the $150 here. There is an adjustment. There is two adjustments here. Basically, it's one adjustment from period to period. It's the adjustment in the international prices. All right? So I hope you understand this. And we have made it a policy that the price of fuel will not go beyond $12.75. And if it ever goes up beyond $1.10, if our calculation shows it will go beyond $12.75, we will adjust the excise tax. So with all of this information, I'm not to show how one can say 20 gallons of gas will cost an additional $150. All right? So I wanted to make that clear, Mr. President. And the Senator Jerome Gideon also said, he mentioned about how we are removing rebates from the fuel for fishermen. Mr. President, we had a statement by the Prime Minister. And that wasn't discussed at all. I mean, the Ministry of Finance, and this has not been part of our discussions at all. So I'm not to show where this information is coming from. Okay? I am not to show where the information is coming from. Is that from the propaganda machinery? I don't know. Because I don't know. Powerball, are we? I mean, now the member also said, Mr. President, that we are focusing on tourism, tourism, tourism. I will focus on tourism. Again, that is a mistruth. That is not true. Again, you see, Mr. President, when you walk out of the house, you miss a lot, you know. When you don't take time to listen to the Prime Minister's budget statement, you miss out on a lot. A lot of the questions that have been asked by the opposition, Senate side, they are contained in the budget speech. You may have the document but not understand or read it. Okay? A lot of the questions, question is, the question is, the question is, the question is, the answers are, the answers are, the answers are in the budget statement. That's where they are, the answers. So you can come up with all kinds of questions, like the questions now they're asking on the market step. All kinds of questions. I heard they had a question about you, Senator Cowards. You see, Mr. President, as I said, we have many areas of focus in this budget. But for him to say that, we are there, Senator, to say that we are focusing on tourism. Not true. And even though, Mr. President, we put focus on tourism, we have to understand the dynamic nature of the tourism sector and the various sectors that benefit from tourism. That's what you have to understand. If we shut down the hotels in St. Lucia, tell me which sector will survive that closure. Okay? There is a supportive network, a link between our agriculture sector, agricultural sector, and the tourism sector. So to say that we are just focusing on tourism, sometimes you have to have a leading sector. That's how you plan your economy. That's how you plan, you have economic development. You plan, you have a leading sector. And if this is the leading sector, you will have other sectors that will benefit from these sectors. So a sector could be a manufacturing. Okay? Your sector could be manufacturing. And it is said that for every manufacturing job you create, or for every manufacturing job that is created, three service-type jobs will also be created. So it depends on the sector you want to focus on. So this government believes that tourism should be just one area that we should focus on. Under the dynamic nature of this sector, we cannot fully understand, Mr. President, the impact of such a sector on our economy. So, Mr. President, I leave the Senator Jerome Gideon, although I've been hearing about consultations, consultations, you know, the hypocrisy, you know, Mr. President, all of a sudden a common word from the common word, a common theme of the opposition is that of consultation, consultation. Wow, wow, consultation. You know what happened, Mr. President? The former administration, they heard of DSH. They took to the streets. They had protests. They had meetings. They had radio and TV presentations. After all the noise now they receive, we're receiving, the Prime Minister is receiving a letter from the leader of the opposition for dialogue. Is that consultation? Is that consultation? Is that consultation? So I just don't understand that hypocrisy. I don't understand that kind of, if you're serious about consultation, you should follow due process. Mr. President, it looks like we have two debates here. I'm talking, he's talking the same way. What's going on here? I'll appreciate if the member, Senator, if you take time and listen, maybe you can learn something. Maybe you can learn something. Okay. Maybe you'll know what 20 gallons of gas would be equal to, not $150,000. Just maybe, cameras, cameras please, cameras. Senators, Senators, Senators. Senators, Senators, before I took this chair, I used to be in the arena. So I know what it means to be in the arena. I do. And I have no issues if it is done properly. So let's try to keep it within the level of decorum that we have developed in this Senate, continually the government business. Thank you. And the word is decorum. Now, Mr. President, I turn to Senator Henry. I turn to Senator Henry. And he spoke of, in fact, he made a reference to a document. I think it was an IMF document, which he spoke about through poor spending. And you will never, ever have a sitting of the house with a opposition without hearing the word poor. As I said before, they seem to love the poor, but not taking care of poverty. Where is it? I want to read from that document that he made, a document of the house. Can I have that thing here, please? That's the IMF one, the IMF. Yeah, that's it. That's why, Mr. President, it's good to make documents available to Senators when reference is being made of these documents, because sometimes these documents could be misquoted or read or explained to suit the reader. In the context of his contribution, it was like he made a reference to 2009 and was speaking on the fact that the administration during that time was not putting much focus on poor spending. But let's read this in context, Mr. President. On page eight of the IMF, well, the IMF of that document, I should say, it says there, the fundamental challenge for fiscal year 2009-2010 is defining the role fiscal policy can play in mitigating the adverse effects of the weak economic environment without the reeling financial and macro economic stability. The limited scope for increased discretionary spending and the deterioration in social conditions with high and rising unemployment would imply a refocusing of expenditure towards social protection. The mission sought the authority's commitment to a credible strategy that would maintain government finances on a medium term sustainable footing while preserving, while preserving. It means that it's already there. It means that the administration during the 2006-2011 already had these social protection programs. So the authorities were asking to preserve it but in spite of the limited fiscal space we have at the time, please, please preserve and possibly expand. And of course there is always room for improvement but the impression the leader of the opposite side was implying is that the administration at the time had no concern about the poor but here they are saying to preserve what you have and possibly possibly expand. Okay? Okay? Possibly expand. So apparently the administration at the time, Mr. President, took cognizant of that recommendation and that's why Mr. President, the administration under Stevenson King at the time had the community projects, the community projects that was a policy by the, that administration at the time and the opposition at the time criticized that policy because these were the programs that were providing jobs for the people in the community, the very same poor people that we spoke about. And they criticize the program and they even call it, they named it government canal. It's a fact. So don't come here pretending that this government side does not support the poor. We do support the poor. We do but where we might be different is how we approach dealing with poverty as a difference. We believe, Mr. President, and we know for a fact the poor will always be among us. The poor will always be with us but it is the approach that we take in dealing with the poor and poverty. And because, Mr. President, we have limited, and even though we don't have a limited amount, even though we have surpluses in the country, even the wealthy or the wealthy economies, when dealing the poor, they deal with the poor in a very strategic manner. They will not just throw money after the poor. You have government business, you have 10 minutes left, 10 minutes left. They will not just throw money after the poor, Mr. President. There is a system in place and that's why again Senator Francis read from the Prime Minister's policy statement, the budget speech, of how we intend to deal with providing social programs, social assistance to the poor and it has to first start, it must first start, Mr. President, in defining the poor. You cannot have what we call a social program and everybody benefits from it. It makes absolutely no sense. So if you have a laptop program, if you have a laptop program, knowing that we have limited resources, Mr. President, we should have first determined who really needs a laptop, who really needs the $500 for every child who rides a common entrance, who really needs it. In fact, when my son rode a common entrance in 2000, when? Well in his informed free at St. Mary's, so three years ago was what, 2014. I told my wife, I wasn't here yet, I told my wife, please do not go to that school and collect any $500. I'm not rich. I'm not rich. But does it really, I mean, come on. So you have wealthy families, you have well able families, taking $500 from government. I have like four, what, three or four laptops at my home. And if the laptop program was still running, you think I would accept a laptop from government? So there are ways and means of defining who a poor person is or a poor household is. And that's why we speak about, we spoke about the means test. And I worked in an organization like this, Mr. President, in the past as senior economists with the DC government, the district, the district department of energy, one department dealt with that, okay, subsidy for water, gas, electricity and telephone. So not anybody walks up to the office and say, look, I want this, I want that. No, what qualifies you for it? And do we have such a system in place in St. Lucia? We don't. And that's why we are working this thing through again. We are working through it again. So you talk about a subsidy program, a subsidy program supposed to be targeted, not everybody. So we are doing things differently, Mr. President. We are doing things differently. And finally, Mr. President, I know I wish I had more time to address the issue raised by Senator Thomas Francis, but let me deal with the issue with the passion, the passionary comments that Senator Fuddon brought out about the teachers. Mr. President, he came out with very good recommendations, very good recommendations, extremely good ones. But what he has to understand that a government can do everything in one budget cycle, can do everything in one budget cycle. But as I raised, the question and the concern last sitting of the House in the absence of the opposite side, that when the country can't find enough money to take care of the needs of the people, we should always remember the monies that we give to Grindberg are the lawyers undertaking the Grindberg affairs. We give money every year, every time, not every year, every time that retainer fee falls below a certain amount, the Ministry of Finance has to write a check and send up to the lawyers in Washington, DC to fight on behalf of the people of this country to see how we can get back our CBN. That should have never happened, Mr. President. And now you're talking about speaking, going on the market step, talking about a new law in this country. I'll move from that away from that, Mr. President. I will address the issue, you have a question? Senator Mauricio. Yeah, Mr. President, I would like to invoke standing order 34 to afford the honorable member of 40, sorry, 10 minutes within which to complete his 10, within which to complete his rebuttal because I honestly would like him to respond to some of the comments I made here today. Thank you, Mr. President. Honorable Senator, what was the time frame you suggested? Honorable Senator, the question is that standing order 40, yes, but the time frame is on the 45. That's standing order 45 free being folk to grant the leader of government business an additional 10 minutes in which to complete his presentation. Senator, Senator, I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, say aye. As many as are of the country opinions, you know. I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. Go ahead. Thank you, Senator. She really wants a questions answered, but leads a response to her questions. Mr. President, the Senator Francis Thomas asked the question as to how does the government intend to manage its expenditures. Mr. President, if I can say one thing about the Prime Minister and my government, if there is one thing we got is how we spend the limited resources of the country. In fact, I mentioned in our last sitting how tight the Prime Minister is and how concerned he is as to how we spend our monies and we should have seen how what happened during the budget period, the budget process. And I always make reference to Senator Francis on the side crying out for cars and buildings and all kind of stuff like that. Of course, the Prime Minister understands very well the needs. He understands. But when he realize what's in the envelope, what's available to be spent, we have no choice but to prioritize, prioritize. And if I were to answer your question directly, I would make reference to the way government was, the way government our ministries are clustered. We moved from 12, 14 ministries to eight ministries. And the objective of that, of course, is to lower government's expenditures. And how do we intently do that, Mr. President? With attrition, we will have just one PS per ministry. And one ask the question, may I ask a question? How can that happen? How would one PS be responsible for three ministries with various departments? But now we have to understand what the role of a PS is. The role of a PS is not, the PS is not a technical officer. The PS supposed to be a manager. And guess what, Mr. President? It's already working. And it's working very well. Working very well. And I mean, I heard the noise. We heard the noise. We heard the bruja when that happened. Talk about the illegality. And they will bring the government to court. You know, the empty threats, Mr. President? Mr. President, we also understand that there is, there could be lots of wastage in government. And especially when we don't guard and regulate and when we do not monitor our statutory bodies. And that's why, Mr. President, I, in putting this manifesto together, and I always, you know, Mr. President, I always talk about putting this manifesto together. Because I remember immediately after I exited the, when I resigned from the last government after nine months, the first thing they said about me was that I could not even make a contribution to the manifesto. You know, that's what I said. I could not even make a contribution to the manifesto. I have dealt with that already. But if you turn to, in fact, the manifesto, the United Workers Party manifesto 2016 on page 10, we said that we will assess the efficiency of government's statutory bodies and where applicable eliminate or merge them. Okay. And Mr. President, I also make reference to, for the benefit of the members opposite who were not in the house the last sitting, I want to make reference to a statement that was made by their prime minister, or the prime minister, I should say, in 99, 98, 99 budget. In respect of privatization, government's policy is guided by three major policies. I'll only mention one. The first priority is for government to withdraw from areas of commercial activity in which its presence is no longer needed and which are better managed by private sector interests. The prime minister then, the opposition, well, opposition leader, maybe his leader, I don't know, he continued to say, the long-term objective here is to create space for new dynamic businesses to emerge and flourish. Where this provides feasible, where this proves feasible, I should say, government may divest all together to retain a minimum equity position while passing management, operational control and majority ownership into more private hands. Talking about expenditure control, if government does that, it will reduce its expenditure because these statutory bodies will no longer be, will no longer need government for any subvention. And we did something beautifully with the Souffre Development Foundation. At one time, the government used to provide a subvention to that foundation, but now they are on their own and they only have two assets. They only have two assets. That of the Souffre Springs and the Pitons. Go Piton. In fact, the latest financial report shows that they were profits. So in as much as possible, I'm not saying that all statutory bodies should be in private hands. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we will assess them and where possible or when needed, the government will have to divest them into private hands. Simple as that. So that's one area government is looking to have some expenditure control. And Mr. President, the independent senator also raised questions about debt reduction. Very good. If there is one thing we need in this country in government is debt reduction. It's needed. Very much so because the rate of increase of our debt stock is growing faster than the rate of increase of government revenues or even the rate of increase of our growth. In fact, we saw for three consecutive years negative growth. And during that time, our debt stock increased even much faster than the decrease. So that's why, Mr. President, we spoke about a sinking fund. A sinking fund. And I think I explained and I gave individuals a history of what the sinking fund is all about. It had a lot to do. It had to do with folks who used to operate ships. And they believed that one day that they may run the risk or the misfortune of their ships being sunk. So they used to put aside monies for that event. And should that, it's like an insurance. So should that sink, that ships sink. Then you have that sinking fund. And this was brought into government. And specifically for debt retirement. And that's why the government is focusing on the sinking fund. And of course, in the ministry of finance, we speak and we are very concerned as a government also very concerned about the structure of our debt profile. The structure of our debt profile. Very concerned. Too many short-term instruments, debt instruments, compared to that of long-term debt instruments. And I raised the issue about the high level of roll over risk with that type of structure. So we are paying attention. We have a plan. We are not operating in the dark. We are not an ad hoc government. We have a plan. And we are sticking to the plan. And we will get there. And Mr. President, finally, I'll go back to the presentation made by Senator Fededon about schools and in the context of expenditure controls. When we inherited, when it came as a new government, we saw that there were about 30 million dollars AC in the pipeline as loans for some special projects at schools. 30 million dollars for five schools, some special project, five schools. The prime minister said to us very, very clearly, while he supports education, while he supports our teachers, he will not just take 30 million dollars and build buildings without taking care of the curriculum. What has changed over the years? What has changed in terms of our curriculum? What is different today of a graduate of our high schools or secondary schools than those who graduated 20, 30 years before? What is different? I mean, whereas I have not taught at primary schools, Mr. President, secondary schools, but I have faced many classrooms, many classrooms for 13, 14 years at four, three major U.S. universities. At that level, Mr. President, we saw lots of changes. I mean, going to the days when you used to have students coming to school with heavy books, I mean, heavy backpacks, and the econ books used to be thick as that. And McGraw Hill at the time, that's the publisher, moved from that completely and students now went online to get the textbooks. I saw change after change after change in the classrooms, but what has changed here? What has changed? And the prime minister and this government doesn't only believe in the physical infrastructure, but also the technical, the technology that's supposed to be brought into the classrooms, and so on. So we have a caring government, we have a government who cares about education in this country. So, Mr. President, I have absolutely no hesitation to give my full support for the resolution to borrow first $103 million for financing the 2017-18 budget, and then an additional $262 million for refinancing the existing debts on the regional government securities market, or through private placements at a maximum rate of 7.5%. Thank you. Senators, the question is that Parliament authorizes the Minister for Finance to raise a sum of $103 million for refinancing the 2017-18 budget, be the sum of $262 million for refinancing the existing debts on the regional government securities market, or through private placements at a maximum rate of 7.5%. I now put a question, as many as are of that opinion here, as many as are of a country opinion, I think the eyes of it, honorable leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to move the following motion standing in my name, Finance Administration Act Resolution of Parliament to borrow for capital or recurrent expenditure if water, then we know of water supply redevelopment project. Whereas it is provided by section 291 of the Finance Administration Act, capped 1501 that a Minister for Finance may, by resolution of Parliament, borrow money from a bank or other financial institution for capital or recurrent expenditure of government. And whereas it is further provided by section 411 of the Finance Administration Act, capped 1501, that a guarantee involving a financial liability is not binding on government unless the Minister grants the guarantee in accordance with enactments or with the prior approval of Parliament by a resolution of Parliament. And whereas it is further provided by section 421 of the Finance Administration Act, capped 1501, that there shall be charged on and paid out of the consolidated fund debt charges for which the government is liable. And whereas the Minister for Finance considers it necessary to borrow from the Caribbean Development Bank an amount not exceeding US 11 million, $228,000, consisting of a special funds resources portion in the amount of 4 million, 65,000 US dollars and an ordinary capital resources portion in the amount of US 7 million, $163,000 for the purpose of financing the Eighth Water, Denry North Water Supply Redevelopment Project. And whereas in the case of the special funds resources portion, the loan is repairable in eight equal or approximately, the loan is repairable in 80 equal or approximately equal and consecutively quarterly instalments on each due date of the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July and the first day of October of each year. Commencing on the first due date after the expiration of the five years following the date of the loan agreement or on finance act or on such latter due date as the Caribbean Development Bank may specify in writing and the interest rate is payable at a rate of 2.5% per annum, withdrawn and outstanding on the amount of the special funds resources. B, in the case of the ordinary capital resources portion, the loan is repairable in 48 equal or approximately equal and consecutive quarterly instalments on each due date of the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July and the first day of October of each year. Commencing on the first due date after the expiration of five years following the date of the loan agreement or on such due, on such a later due date as the Caribbean Development Bank may specify in writing. Two, the interest rate is payable at a rate of 2.97% per annum, withdrawn and outstanding on the amount of the ordinary capital resources option and three, a commitment charge at the rate of 1% per annum is payable quarterly on the amount of the ordinary capital resources portion and withdrawn and which accrues from the 60th day following the date of the loan agreement. B, it resolved that Parliament authorizes the Minister of Finance to borrow US 11,228,000 from the Caribbean Development Bank for the purpose of financing the 8th water denry north water supply redevelopment project. B, it further resolved that A, in the case of the special funds resources portion, the loan is payable in 80 equal or approximately equal and consecutive quarterly installments on each due date of the first of January, the first of April, the first of day of July and the first day of October of each year. Commencing on the first due date after the expiration of five years following the date of the loan agreement or on such later dates due date as the bank may specify in writing. And two, the interest is payable at a rate of 2.5% per annum withdrawn and outstanding on the special, on the amount of the special funds resources. And B, in the case of the ordinary capital resources portion, the loan is payable in 48 equal or approximately equal and consecutive quarterly installments on each due dates of the first of January, the first day of April, the first day of July and the first day of each year. Commencing on the first due date after the expiration of five years following the date of the loan agreement or on such later due dates as the Caribbean Development Bank may specify in writing. And two, the interest rate is payable at a rate of 2.9% per annum withdrawn and outstanding on the amount of the ordinary capital resources portion. And finally three, a commitment charge at the rate of 1% per annum is payable quarterly on the amount of the ordinary capital resources portion on withdrawn and which accrues from the 60th day following the date of the loan agreement. Mr. President, I make reference to page 474 of the estimates of revenue and expenditure for 2017-2018. And in there you would see under capital expenditures where you have we have the January water supply redevelopment. The amount we are borrowing here as I said earlier is a total of 11,288,000 US dollars. But you would see, Mr. President, in the third page, on the third page you would see that the estimated budget cost is 17.8 million dollars. And one may ask what's the difference, why the difference? Here we are asking for 11 million US dollars and in the book we have 17.8 million dollars easy. Well, Mr. President, it is very straightforward. What's in the budget book is just phase one. Just phase one. So we're asking for the entire project. So we would not have to come back here. So we're asking for the authority for the entire amount for that project. So in this fiscal year we will be dealing with phase one which totals 17.8 million dollars. And Mr. President, any project that deals with water should be especially in the January area, especially in the January area should get our nod here. Everybody's nod. So I'm hoping this is exactly what's going to happen here today. Thank you. Senators, the question is that parliament authorizes the Minister of Finance to borrow US 11,228,000 from the Caribbean Development Bank for the purpose of financing the IFWATER, then Renov Water Supply Redevelopment Project. B, it would have resolved that A, in the case of the special funds resources portion, one, the loan is repayable in approximately equal and consecutive quarterly installments on each due date of the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July, and the first day of October of each year, commencing on the first due date after the expiration of five years following the date of the loan agreement on such a later due date as the bank may specify in writing. And two, the interest is payable at a rate of 2.5% per annum withdrawn and outstanding on the amount of the special fund resources. B, in the case of the ordinary capital resources portion, one, the loan is repayable in approximately equal and consecutive quarterly installments on each due date of the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July, and the first day of October of each year commencing on the first due date after the expiration of five years following the date of the loan agreement or on such later due date as the Caribbean Development Bank may specify in writing. Two, the interest is payable at a rate of 2.9% per annum withdrawn and outstanding on the amount of the ordinary capital resources portion. And three, a commitment charge at a rate of 1% per annum is payable quarterly on the amount of the ordinary capital resources portion on withdrawn and which accrues from the 60th day following the date of the loan agreement. Senator Joachim Henry, Leader of Opposition Business. Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues and it has, and I do rise to support the government initiative to embark on this water project. Let me, Mr. President, I'm familiar with Dennery, the Dennery community in terms of social work. And not too long ago, Mr. President, we had to construct approximately 70 pit latrines in the Lakai area. And there are certain parts of Dennery we had to provide households with water tanks. And you would imagine some of those well-built homes would have had flushing toilets. Yes, they had toilets, but no means of flushing the toilets because they had no water, especially in some of the areas in the, in the area. So water is a very important commodity. Water is life, so we speak. And I just need to make two points as it relates to water, Mr. President, because much has been said about our welfare, our safety net programs, our attitude to poor people. We spoke about targeting. But I'll tell you, Mr. President, and I'll say for you a lot of our, and I don't want to call them poor people because when I use the word pro-poor, it is an approach. People with challenges are considered sometimes poor. But I'll tell you, there are people who are working that are extremely vulnerable. There are people who squat, Mr. President, with their babies and their denied water connection. And there are, we deal with water in some respect, and some of these things need to be visited. I am suggesting, Mr. President, that the opportunity to provide people with water in 2017, I personally do not use that time to celebrate. I think as a, maybe as a state, we should be ashamed because water should have been made available. But of course, as a country, we understand we have our challenges. And I also have the opinion, Mr. President, that sometimes we run this infrastructure and what persons do, what we give them are pipes. And whereas persons have pipes, there's no water. And sometimes we have people celebrating because we are giving them pipes. And when they turn it on, there's no water. As persons in this, in the house here, as we reflect on the business of the people, I think we need to, to not just speak from the perspective of representing the sides that we are on, but speak to the business of people, of the people of St. Lucia. Mr. President, in terms of targeting, because with water interventions, you may establish a water system in January and may discover that there are persons who are not able, one, because of our policy on some of them might be what you call squatting. And we know how we deal with squatters in this place. And I think it's a matter that we need to revisit. I personally believe that every household should be connected with water and should not be discriminated at all. I couldn't be bothered whether the person is squatting. Once there's a house and there's children, especially babies, they need to receive a supply of water. We cannot risk lives because we have not put in all of the systems and land management systems in place for us to deal with where people live. So water is a basic commodity, just like access. And today, today in St. Lucia, and as I made the point earlier, we are moving a country where people are becoming very wealthy and poor people are becoming poorer. And while some people are maybe contemplating the next helicopter path to land a helicopter or the small planes, some people today still do not have access to their homes in St. Lucia. They need to go through the mud. It's difficult. That's a reality because of the divide we are creating. So the government must use an opportunity not just to establish a water system, but the policy as to who will get water, who will not get water. We say targeting. And I've listened to the presentation made by the Prime Minister and I've read the entire document. And there is in the document pronouncement of targeting, Mr. President. But I need to make it clear to this house that it is the Labour Party that embarked on a project for targeting people. It is the Labour Party that have approximated that has been used. It is the Labour Party that is currently reviewing the targeting system that we have now and the cotton paste, the cotton paste. No, no, listen. Mr. President, and I watched the posture assumed. It is one thing when you make your initial intervention and your rebuttal is somewhat different when you make the first one. I saw it in your first presentation, the member for government business. But I want to be consistent because I think, Mr. President, through you, we need to adopt a certain posture in this house where one does respect, one does truthfulness. And I will not sit here, I will not sit here and stand here and speak in this house and to misrepresent myself. I have been part of the Ministry of Social Transformation. I have led with UNICEF. We have a document produced through UNICEF on targeting for the Kudme Settlesy Program. And I could tell you exactly what it is. So when we last left the government, the Ministry of Social Transformation, we sat with CDB, we've had the people from Chile. So the issue of targeting is an important discussion. But whereas we are talking about targeting, we must make some critical decisions. And I'm going to use an example, Mr. President. If we have a settlement in January with 200 persons, they are all not at the same level socioeconomic status, but 80% of them are poor. Do you embark on administering a targeting instrument to find out which 80 of that population? Or would it be cheaper to give everybody water? In targeting, who should receive, we must look at the cost involving targeting and whether it will be cheaper in certain respects to use a universal approach. Especially when you have a community, some of our communities where poverty is so intense. When you look at it, it is cheaper. And this is some of the discussions we have had in terms of targeting. So every time I hear you speak on targeting, we have gone through this already. The most important aspect of it that is lacking and has not been mentioned, who is going to do it? And do you have systems in place for referrals? So if Ms. Jones did not get water, if you say you're targeting, who does she go to? Who should go to and say that I have not received and I think I deserve? Mr. President, I've seen after disasters, persons with that's supposed to look like middle-class people come to the SSDF because they are poor. That is the reality. They are working people. Well, I wouldn't respond to you, but I'm telling you that is the reality. There are people working at schools and on the day, the month before they retire, they would come to the SSDF for housing assistance because what they were getting as a salary being able to pay their house rent, the following month, the retirement benefit cannot cover it. These are the realities. So when we talk about the approach that the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and your government, the approach you are taking to this country is a very scary approach because it is not a pro-poor approach. And it is not a pro-poor. You believe things are far much better with poor people than it really is. You believe so. And I think you sincerely believe so. And I'm telling you this is not the reality with the people of St. Lucia. It is difficult times and we need to recognize this. So, yes. And if you want to talk about, we talk about water, we talk about the water system, yes, very good intervention. And I'm happy that the government is continuing and building upon what has been established. This is good. Not party, but the people of St. Lucia that needs it. The issue of waste management comes with water and sanitation. And I am aware, Ms. Fruu, that some of our rivers in January have been polluted because of the absence of water for people. So people have been using the rivers to dispose of their waste. And Belmont certain areas that has been the reality. Now, some of our rivers need to be part of the catchment area to harvest water. We now need to look at training of our persons in the wider community and in the Denver Valley to appreciate that commodity we call water. And I would hope that the intervention of establishing this water system that the capacity building component in getting people sensitized is part of the intervention to appreciate it and have a policy towards ensuring that there's a right to water. Because so far, it is just, it is not just, it is one thing to say we build in water. And yes, you say it is good that we do in water. But when you get on the ground, the underground policies, people are left out of receiving services by other agencies because we do not ensure that thing flows right down to where it's supposed to go. Mr. President, there are other areas, there are other areas I am aware where we have not been able to provide people with water, good quality water. And again, I've always asked Wasco, do you all test your water? I know there's an ISO standard, yes, dechlorinated the water. But under the basic trust fund program where we have implemented millions and millions of dollars of water project for over something years, I am not comfortable, totally comfortable with the way that we administer and check that the quality of our water always is according to international standards. It's an opportunity to look at the ISO standard and see to it that if we're investing that kind of money that we use to augment the agency that's responsible for water to improve the quality. Mr. President, very often that we use funds, we loan money and we implement certain projects with good intentions. But sometimes just by leaving certain components, we render those projects ineffective in a short space of time. Capacity building and getting the communities to understand the value of water is important. The practices in January by the farmers and those persons who use the river, all of that is to be part of the training to ensure that persons can appreciate the intervention being made by the government. Two, we need to ensure that everybody gets water, especially those that are most likely to be deprived. And finally, Mr. President, we need to ensure that the farmers who are working on the hillside in January, we could find within those resources ways to augment the practices so that it makes whatever intervention that's taken place to be sustainable. I'm hoping that these areas may be covered in the project, but I just thought that I should mention it. Thank you very much. Minister, in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Physical Planning, Natural Resources and Cooperatives. Thank you once again, Mr. President. Mr. President, I do not believe that it would be right for this resolution to go through and for me not to say well to give my two cents in there. Mr. President, this project is for the Denry Valley, specifically Denry North. Water is life, Mr. President, and we need this in the valley. Mr. President, I've lived in this constituency for most of my life, and I understand more than anybody inside of here the struggles we went through for water in this particular constituency. And so, Mr. President, I welcome, again, I welcome this initiative where the government has seen it fit. My government, that is, has seen it fit to continue from the first phase of the project, which was estimated at just over $6 million. Our Prime Minister, in his good wisdom, saw it fit to continue with this project and to add for the second phase of the project, Mr. President, an extra $11.2 million to continue with the project in order to ensure that every single individual in the Denry North Basin has access to proper, and I repeat, proper water in the taps. No longer, Mr. President, are persons going to open their taps and most of the times I recall opening these taps and you get mud, literally mud, in these taps. Again, Mr. President, I welcome this initiative by the government, and I hope that we, like the leader of government business, said that persons from this particular constituency appreciate what is going to take place that is in this particular constituency. I thank you, sir. Leader of government business. Mr. President, I also want to join with my colleague with his joining him with his joy, his heart of joy and gladness for the people of Denry North. And if there is one basic need that one has to have, households must have, is that of water. And I believe that not only that the constituency of Denry North will have pipe-borne water, but Wasco will continue providing the quality of water that they have been providing the people of St. Lucia. Mr. President, I just want to, as leader of government business, sometimes you hear certain things that you just can't leave untouched, especially from the opposite side. So when I heard the opposition leader said that the Labour Party is currently reviewing the targeting structure or model, I was very surprised. I'm just wondering if the Labour Party is preparing for an elections, if they're putting a manifesto together. Because if the party, if the party speaks about loving the poor, I would believe one of the first things that it should have done was to define who the poor is, and ensure that the non-poor does not eat from the same plates of the poor. And that's what the targeting is all about, ensuring that those who can afford does not deplete what is set aside for the poor people. So I'm not to show what he meant by the government approach being very scary. He didn't explain what the approach is. I'm assuming that he was referring to the fact that we are undertaking the, or undergoing a process in ensuring that we target the individuals who supposed to be benefiting from any subsidy program or any social program. So if anybody cares about the poor, it will have to be those who are trying to set aside who the poor is and making sure that they get maximum benefit from the social safety net programs or subsidy programs. So if we do so, Mr. President, if we are able to identify the poor and target them, it means that those who are receiving the benefits of these poor programs will no longer be receiving them, thereby providing more resources for these very same poor people. So the targeting program or strategy is to fold, not allowing the non-poor to abuse the system, or not allowing governments, because if you have a system that's open, if you have a system that's open and anybody can come in and apply for the program, that's abuse of the system. It's the government that creates such a system. So we are trying to change that, Mr. President. You know, this reminds me, Mr. President, of the time when my wife and myself, we were, I think we both were pursuing our PhD at a time and in the Washington, D.C. area, of course we had our son with us and we were able to apply for some social programs, we were students. Now remember immediately after getting my first job with the D.C. government, she applied, but she had to, because my name, her name wasn't a system, she had to include my name. And of course immediately we were thrown out of the system immediately because the household no longer was qualified for the program. This is the kind of system we want. This is the kind of system we want. Ensuring those who need the program can get the program and avoiding those who do not need the program to avoid them abusing the program. So we are putting things in place so I am not clear as to what is caring or what has scared the member opposite. I'm not too sure what scared him. Mr. President, also I recall when we, this government came into office in June, in July I had a few or two or three individuals, I think from Mexico or UN, I forget the names, but they came to my office and these were the individuals who were working on the Denver Water Project. And they told me, Minister, we need to close this project, this phase of the project, we need to do it. This has been dragging for a very long time. So I asked them what exactly do you need? Minister, we need counterpart funding. I think it was about 2 million US at the time. 2 million I think it was. I said to her, well the individuals, that my government understands the need for having pipe one water in the denry area especially and I will ensure, my government will ensure that the phase, this phase of the project gets completed. And it wasn't long after that, Mr. President, UNOPS, that's the name of the company, UNOPS, UNOPS, yes, yes. Immediately, Mr. President, we were able to provide them with that 2 million dollars and the first phase of that project was completed. That's how we do things here, Mr. President. And we didn't go to the media, we didn't blow any trumpets because if we are taking care of the poor, your right hand should not know what your left hand is doing. So we are very proud, Mr. President, that we are here today to continue providing the facilities, the infrastructure to ensure that the people of Denry, not specifically have pipe-borne water in the communities. Thank you. Senators, the question is that Parliament authorizes the Minister of Finance to borrow US 11,228,000 from the Caribbean Development Bank for the purpose of financing the IF water, Denry North Water Supply Redevelopment Project. Be it for the resolve that, A, in the case of the Special Fund Reserve portion, one, the loan is repairable in 80 equal or approximately equal and consecutive quarterly installments on each due date of the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July, and the first day of October of each year, commencing on the first due date after the expiration of five years following the date of the loan agreement on such a later due date as the bank may specify in writing. And two, the interest is payable at a rate of 2.5% per annum, withdrawn and outstanding on the amount of the Special Fund Reserve resources. B, in the case of ordinary capital resources portion, one, the loan is repairable in approximately equal and consecutive quarterly installments on each due date of the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July, and the first day of October of each year, commencing on the first due date after the expiration of five years following the date of the loan agreement or on such a later date as the Caribbean Development Bank may specify in writing. Two, the interest is payable at a rate of 2.97% per annum, withdrawn and outstanding on the amount of the ordinary capital resources portion. And three, a commitment charge at the rate of 1% per annum is payable quarterly on the amount of the ordinary capital resources portion on withdrawn and which accrues from the 60th day following the date of the loan agreement. I now put a question, as many as are of that opinion, see I? As many as are of a country opinion, see no? I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. Leader of government business? Mr. President, I beg to move the following motion, standing in my name, resolution of parliament to borrow for capital expenditure OECS Regional Tourism Competitiveness Project. And whereas it is provided by section 391 of the Finance Administration Act, capped 1501 that a minister responsible for finance made by resolution of parliament borrow money from a bank of other financial institution for the capital expenditure of government. And whereas it is further provided by section 41 of the Finance Administration Act, capped 1501 that there shall be charge upon and paid out of the consolidated fund debt charges for which the government is liable. And whereas the minister responsible for finance deems it necessary to borrow an amount equivalent to United States $15 million by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from the International Development Association to finance the OECS Regional Tourism Competitiveness Project. And whereas the maximum commitment charge rate payable on the un-withdrawn financing balance is one half of 1% per annum of the undisputed balance. And whereas a service charge is payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of A, the sum of three-fourths of 1% per annum plus the basis adjustment to the service charge and B, three-fourths of 1% per annum to be applied to the withdrawn credit balance. And whereas the principal amount of the credit is paid A, on each first day of February and first day of August at a rate of 1%. B, commencing on the first day of August 2027 to and including the first day of February 2037 at a rate of 1%. Commencing on the first day of August 2037 to and including the first day of February 2057 at a rate of 2%. Be it resolved, the parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow an amount equivalent to United States $15 million by the way of credit and this resolution referred to as a credit from the International Development Association to finance the OECS Regional Tourism Competitiveness Project. Be it further resolved that A, the maximum commitment charge rate payable on the un-withdrawn financing balance is one-half of 1% per annum of the undisputed balance. B, a service charge is payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equivalent to the greater of one, the sum of three-fourths of 1% per annum plus the basis adjustment to the service charge and two, three-fourths of 1% per annum to be applied on the withdrawn credit balance and C, the credit amount of the credit is repaid, one, on each day of February the first day of August at the rate of 1%, two, commencing on the first day of August 2027 to and including the first day of February 2037 at the rate of 1%, three, and three I should say finally commencing on the first day of August 2037 to and including the first day February 2057 at the rate of 2%. Senators the question is that parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow an amount equivalent to US $15 million by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from the International Development Association to finance the OECS regional tourism competitive competitiveness project. B, for the result that A, the maximum commitment charge rate payable on the un-withdrawn financing balance is one-half of 1% per annum of the undisputed balance. B, a service charge is payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of one, the sum of three-fourths of 1% per annum plus the basis adjustment to the service charge and two, three-fourths of 1% per annum to be applied on the withdrawn credit balance and C, the principal amount of the credit is repaid, one, on each first day of February and first day of August at a rate of 1%, two, commencing on the first day of August 2027, two, and including the first day of February 2047 at the rate of 1% and three, commencing on the first day of August 2047, two, and including the first day of February 2057 at the rate of 2%. I now put the question as many as our that opinion see eye, as many as our country opinions, you know, I think the eyes of it, the eyes of bills. Leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to present for the first reading a bill shortly entitled, Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions. Agreement establishing the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions. Leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to move for the suspension of Standing Order 49-2 to allow the bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Senators, the question is that Standing Order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the honorable leader of government business to proceed with the remaining stages of this bill at this sitting. I now put a question as many as our of that opinion see eye, as many as our country opinions, you know, I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. If it's granted, proceed honorable leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to move for the second reading, for second reading of a bill shortly entitled, Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions. Mr. President, I believe this is a very, very important bill because, Mr. President, we are talking about accreditation, setting a standard, setting some kind of regulation to ensuring that institutions of higher learning, businesses that are operating in the health services, providing health services, that coming to our shores, opening business in our shores, on St. Lucia, we want to ensure that these institutions have some level of accreditation. Mr. President, it is very, very sad when you hear of certain individuals who have gone through certain institutions. Perhaps they have used all of their savings, parents' savings, family savings, and that particular family member most times would be the one that the family would be depending on for the future livelihoods. And this is well known, especially, Mr. President, I remember while attending school in the United States, I had a lot of Indian friends, a lot of friends from China, and they will tell me how the parents would would save the number of years the parents would have saved to send them to school, especially boys, children, because the family believes that if you are able to go get yourself higher education, go to the United States, get educated, in return you would be able to take care of them naturally. And Mr. President, we had a situation just recently in St. Lucia, where we had such students. I'm referring to the students from Nipple, and most specifically, Mr. President, these were students who came here to get training, students whose parents made a sacrifice, saving upon savings, upon savings, denying themselves lots of stuff during the years, and now the parents or the students are ready to go to St. Lucia to go to Lambert University or college, or whatever you want to call it. And all of us know here the end of that story, what happened to these students, the sad reality, the sad story surrounding these Lambert students, all because we did not have a well constituted institution. Not only that, Mr. President, not what if Lambert, for example, was accredited? Mr. President, we want to ensure that the bill that we are about to pass, say, Mr. President, it will be able to be used for current and future institutions, not just that of institutions of higher learning, but it also deals with health institutions, health professions, because, Mr. President, there are institutions, even while we speak in St. Lucia, operating in St. Lucia, health institutions, that are not accredited. They are not. And I believe, Mr. President, it is a disservice to the current and any future students who want to enroll in these professions or in these health institutions, because accreditation is very, very important, because as for one who did all my studies in the United States, I know the importance of that, because it's not just graduating from a school, college or university, but the level of the accreditation of that institution. And the accreditation is not a one-time thing, it is a continuous, a continuous process, a continuous accreditation, because if you lose that accreditation, it means that your reputation as an institution is down the gutters. So we don't want any institution in St. Lucia, health or education, to be one that is not accredited, because, Mr. President, I don't believe it was a nice thing for St. Lucia to have been in the news with regard to the Lambert students. I mean, just imagine if it was just a reverse, where that institution was an institution that was well-established, an institution that was highly accredited, we would have had ambassadors leaving these institutions and going overseas. So now you have such sad stories coming out of this. Do you believe that these students, their parents, their family members, their friends, and those who actually read about the situation we had about the Lambert, do you think that it will be positive for St. Lucia? Absolutely not. So Mr. President, we are safeguarding, we are safeguarding our reputation when we ensure we have such accredited institutions on St. Lucia, health, and education. So this is not just about current, future students, but also about the good reputation of St. Lucia. So, Mr. President, it is my hope that this Senate will give the full support to this bill. Thank you. Senators, the question is that the agreement established in the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education and Medicine and Order Health Professions Bill be read a second time. Minister for Health and Wellness. Mr. President, fellow senators, I stand again here in support of this bill, this act, this bill establishing the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions in the region. This agreement of the agreement to establish this institution, regional mechanism, was discussed as far back as 2003 at the CARICOM level. CARICOM members came together and agreed in 2004 to set up this mechanism. The former prime minister sat at those meetings and agreed to put legislation in place to honor this agreement. But today, Mr. President, it had to take this administration to initiate the legislation to solidify the existence of this accreditation body. This accreditation body, Mr. President, has come to be known as come HC, HP, sorry. And it is an absolute necessity for us to accede to that agreement today. Mr. President, you may have heard and my colleague mentioned all the hoopla that took place during the Lambert Affair. Actually, our country, I believe, was seen in the world as a country that engages in human trafficking. And that, Mr. President, is a terrible tarnishing mark for St. Lucia. To date, and my fellow senator on the other side mentioned that these universities, these medical universities are not accredited, I believe. However, or something to that effect, the hospital. And I'll come back to that, fellow senator, because I believe we need to enlighten our people about the accreditation status of our health institutions here in St. Lucia. Of course, Mr. President, we heard all what went on and it took, like I said, this administration is now in the process of settling the matter, because I know our Home Affairs Minister is quite involved in settling the whole issue of the Lambert Affair. However, in terms of legislation, we are moving ahead with this piece of legislation to provide some legality to these schools that are established here in St. Lucia. Right now, that puts a lot of students in this array, a lot of parents, other St. Lucia's who have provided shelter for these children, these students do not know today how they stand. So this piece of legislation, I know that many people will be watching us today to ensure that it goes through this honorable house, because it is really a necessity for us to save face as a nation, as well as to start setting standards for our medical institutions in St. Lucia. Mr. President, I know I have heard about the former administration setting up Viewfort as a university town. That was the call for Viewfort to be a university town. We heard of the, what was it, something about some frontier, the new frontier, the university town. It's funny, Mr. President, how Viewfort has been labeled with all the beautiful acronyms, and nothing really happens in Viewfort. Today, nothing has happened in Viewfort. And strangely enough, the Prime Minister of this country has represented that constituency. The former Prime Minister, sorry, of this country has represented that constituency from time immemorial, and still nothing in his own constituency. This was an opportunity, Mr. President, in 2004 to establish legislation to support these medical universities. And why? Why is it taking so long? Why has it taken so long? Why did it have to take a united Workers' Party administration to institute the administration? And I don't understand how people in the South do not recognize that they were deliberately being kept in poverty, and we have pro-poor coming from the other side. Who focuses on the poor in this country? It's only a united Workers' Party government. Look at all the legislation we are putting through. We've barely sat in office, and we started putting legislation through from day one. One piece after piece after piece. And this is just another necessary piece of legislation that we are passing in this honorable house today. One would have thought that the former Prime Minister, coming from a legal background, being the representative for that area, himself having worked in one of those institutions, would ensure that the institution that he affiliated himself with was operating up to standard. One would have thought so, Mr. President, and not even that, not even that the former administration could have accomplished everything we have to do when we get in office. And all they do is oppose, oppose, oppose. Everything they oppose. Look it right here. Legislation. We've passed about four of them this morning. Three others. Legislation for St. Lucia, for the people of St. Lucia. Water for Denry, your constituency. We are just passing it. Where have they been, Mr. President? Ribbon Wrinkle, like I said, they slept for 15 years. And now they've woken up and they say, we don't want you to tell us we didn't do it. You do it. We are doing it, but we are reminding you, and we are telling you, and we are letting the people of St. Lucia know that we are the ones that are doing it. So this legislation Mr. President, after all the labor pains from 2004, we have brought this legislation to the house for the blessings of this honorable house. Now I heard earlier, Mr. President, and I wish to just draw our attention to the fact that in the region, we do not have an accreditation body for hospitals. And correct me if I'm wrong. We have two accreditation bodies that I know for hospitals, and they are the Accreditation Canada. And another one is it is the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in the USA. It's an American organization. So what we have done is we have approached, as a Ministry of Health, we have approached Accreditation Canada to assist us with accreditation for our hospital, but that is not mandatory. We just want to ensure that we are operating above board, and this is why we have done that. However, they have done an assessment, and they have determined that the Victoria Hospital, the St. Jude Hospital, Community Health Services, and the Mental Wellness Center are all operating above board. And what they have, what we have done now, what we have accreditation to do now is to allow our students, and that came from CAMHP, to allow our interns to undergo their internship at our health institutions. And as such, they are going to be accredited. When they have completed their internship, they will be allowed to register as doctors in sedentary. So there is a level of accreditation in terms of our interns that go through these hospitals. Because this legislation, Mr. President, it really is giving accreditation to the medical schools and their programs and so on and so forth, and the professionals that go through those medical schools. It does not give accreditation to Victoria Hospital, to any hospital. It's really to the medical schools. So I just wanted to be clear here. I wanted St. Lucia to know that we are operating above board at our hospitals as much as possible, and that there is no fear there, Mr. President. So, Mr. President, again, I want to say that this legislation has my full support, and of course it does have some bearing on the Ministry of Health. And I also want to say to the medical schools out there that with this piece of legislation, we are getting closer and closer to having them get some form of recognition and accreditation in St. Lucia. I thank you, Mr. President. Leader of Opposition Business. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. And for the first time, Mr. President, I'm saying that I would be saying that I did not plan to speak. Mr. President, this is a simple matter that is before us. A matter that has been led by the former administration, signed by the former prime minister, and it has taken a period and this administration is carrying on with it. I listened to the member, these senators, as she spoke on this matter. Mr. President, I'm sometimes trying to wonder why, as a matter of fact, this side almost seemed as if doing opposition, because I sat here well relaxed, listening, but almost seemed to be provoking a sort of a response because we are not being political. That's what I sense. And of course, I'm happy the body of the independent can recognize that. I am just not, I don't know what this thing is about. Why this government side is trying to provoke a political atmosphere that is absolutely not necessary? As a matter of fact, if you want to talk about accreditation, I've asked a very pertinent question that has not been answered. Why is it, since you've understood accreditation of hospitals so well, why is it that the terms of reference for the audit, the technical audit of the St. Jude Hospital included, to the engineer to assess and make reference and recommendation as it relates to accreditation? Because like you said, accreditation have nothing so much to do about a technical building, but have to do with processes. Mr. President, I think that I started today on a note that we are lucky to be here, because every time we come here, we need to remember so many persons have passed. And I'm trying to hit the right tone and the right note for us to turn that bend that is necessary, that could bring about the healing. As I walk through the streets of Cassius, Mr. President, the place is vile, the place is divided, it is toxic, and it is getting to the point where it is scary. People are taking this politics to the next level, and I assume the posture in this house today that supposed to be ushering what it's supposed to be, but I listened to unprovoked, the former prime minister, I mean, you want to play politics, the former prime minister has made his contribution, he's made his contribution, and I'll tell you, and I'll tell you, because I've spent time in the public service, Mr. President. Mr. President, I've worked on projects, a number of projects that are initiated by one administration, and it is completed by the other. As a matter of fact, that is the modest operative of solution government. The basic need trust fund programs are like this, look now you are ending a water project that was initiated by this administration, and so many projects that were completed by the Labour Party that you initiated, so where's the talk about you coming here to do everything? This is misrepresenting what is the true essence of what we should tell solution. We're not supposed to behave this way because we are misrepresenting two solutions, what is truly the business of government. We are promoting ignorance. So Yohkai Aleledo, Mrs. Yohkai Aleledo, but you know that's not true, misrepresentation, and that's why the former prime minister was correct on market step when he made the point that we need to look at the issue of political fraud, because if, and I'm saying this and I did reflected on it, Mr. President, when I first entered this house, everything that I've heard this side presented, it is somewhat, it is totally different to the post, how they posted it during the campaign. Everything is the direct opposite. And I, for example, have given up on that, I've given up on that, I will not come here and say you said this, this is what you said, the prime minister said, the former prime minister did nothing about crime, but I will, today what? While we sit there, they're shooting taking place at Baudelaise, while we sit here, am I going to say that you're responsible for it or try to to score cheap political points on this? I didn't come here for this. I have not attacked anybody and I refuse to be part of this day-class say kind of politics, I'm tired of it. And of course, you may wonder why you miss, you miss the opposition in the house today. Honestly, if it's going to be like this, walking out is so much better, because it does not contribute anything to the well-being of our people. All what they see it is, this one pulling it. I've tried to, I've said to my colleague friend, do not expect me to respond to anybody here on this kind of thing. I'm not on that. I sit in the, I sit in the lower house, I am not made up of this. We are here on serious business. And what is most important here is for us to tell Saint Lucia the truth. Tell them the last administration started that, it's good we're finishing. The water project started by last administration, very good. The government of Saint Lucia under the UWP is finishing it. Good. Good. This is what our children need to understand, so that they will appreciate that a country is not developed by one generation or by one administration, but by successive good people who make a contribution and who love Saint Lucia. So I trust and I know that you are sincere about some of the things that you say. And yes, I say so because I'm not God. I do not trust everything people say, but I trust and I'm wishing you well that you will continue along those lines, because you will never be there forever. And those who come after the good things we must build on it, if this country need to go somewhere. So let us not today, not to play this. This is unprovoked. I rather stay in my silence. This is not necessary. The former prime ministers made his contribution. Those who have gone before him have made their contribution. And the prime minister who's there will make his contribution as well. And history will judge him. You are not in a place to judge the former prime minister because he has done well. He has served viewport and is still the parliamentary representative for viewport. I do not think it's necessary. This is not the lower house. He sits in the lower house. Leave that for the lower house. I am not, I have not served in his cabinet. So let us speak to each other with respect. Let us speak with each other and leave these partisan politics. If there's something you think that is absolutely necessary to bring to my attention of the past administration, of course, and I will not respond to it. But I find through you, Mr. President, a lot of it is absolutely not necessary. And I think there are pertinent things that can, they can respond to. The leader of government business referred to the Senator Mauricio Thomas as Francis Thomas and did not answer her question that she asked. I find, but I leave that for the evaluation of this. Again, was more concerned about responding to my colleague here. And I find it was absolutely not necessary. This is my observation. And I think that we should try to bring this upper house into a certain style, into the rigors of the issues that are at hand. Let us take this, this Senate into the matters that are pertinent, that we can turn the corner and issue ideas that even if you do not take it, it will cause persons out there to start to think. It could cause those with the guns to say there are some people who are at least thinking about something positive. Those who are about to commit crimes, let's speak to them indirectly and collectively. It is that posture that is necessary to them, Mr. President, if we are going to see light in this country. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to support this bill. Only this morning, Mr. President, just before coming to Senate, I had the good fortune to have a discussion with the U.S. Ambassador. And she gave me some very good information and good news for St. Lucia. My colleague made reference to the human trafficking that put us in the eyes of the international press and other places. This morning, and I'm sorry that I didn't bring the document, but she was able to tell me that St. Lucia's status has now been raised from a tier three to a tier two. And it is good news in that it is only because of what the United Workers Party has done since entering office that we are able to leave tier three and go to tier two. We have been able to deal with the Lambert issue. All the students are now back home. We have been able to recover some of the monies that they lost and so that they can be compensated. But then we need to talk about these things because the government of St. Lucia spent almost $2 million taking care of the students. But due diligence been done, that will not have happened. But my friend on the other side does not want to speak about these things. We must not talk about these things. We must always talk about the good things. But St. Lucia's need to know what has happened with their taxpayers' money. $2 million. You can imagine a number of playing fields and social programs that we could put in place with $2 million. You will find out soon. It's coming, you know. It's coming. When we get what we want to get in this report, we'll get. As a matter of fact, you heard. You would have heard that based on that report, we were able to go to Miami and other ports in the United States and bring equipment here with almost $6 million. So we spent $1 million, but we're able to recover $6 million. So far, more. More will be recovered. More will be recovered. So this is all of a sudden, nobody wants to talk about history. You cannot see anything. I would sit here and I would not descend into this sort of malaise that is happening right now. I would just sit. Minister, make a contribution and send it to us. Thank you, Mr. President, for that support. But I also wanted to talk about that we did have some lectures on parliamentary procedure and Mr. my esteemed brother, the former president of the Senate, did spend time with us explaining some of the rules and procedures of the House. In section 41, rules for members not speaking. 41 A, a senator present at the Senate during a debate. A, shall enter or leave the Senate with decorum. B, shall not read books, newspapers, etc. C, shall maintain silence while another senator is speaking and shall not interrupt. But I just told you, you know, it just happened there. Yes, but send it to you. Now digressing from your presentation. No, but I'm just, I'm trying. He is saying that we have descended to a level that he didn't want to go. Get, get to your, continue your presentation, minister. And that we have to, we have to, we have to do it. So at all times, there will be, there will be exchanges while, while a presentation is being made and they'll pick on here and they'll pick on there. That's good. Well, sometimes you'll listen to the, the, the member on the other side for Denry, that, that, that hears from Denry. Yes. Thanks for the correction. And the amount of speaking that he has done, I think he has spoken for about three hours now. So I don't think he needs any time. So if you need time to speak on the, on the, on the, on the bill as before you put, put your light on and respond. So Mr. President, I just wanted to give solutions that, at least that piece of good news, that the government is working in the interest. We have put a, a DPP there who is showing that he has the ability to work in the interest of solutions. And I want to thank him publicly for the work he has done with the Lambert students. I thank you very much. Leader of government business. Mr. President, I am still trying to, trying to understand what evoked livid discussions from the other side. My dear senator here, Senator Isaac, simply highlighted facts, strictly facts. And that just evoked a, a spirit of how to call it. You know, I, so I'm still surprised. And you know, the Senator Fuddon, I remember after making his wonderful contribution, he said, I hope we don't go back to the past. So I'm not to show why the other side is afraid of the past. I'm not to show why. And now you speak of the past, you've been political. You've been political. We speak of what brought us where we are. Because what we are discussing here today has a lot to do with what happened before. They are not disjointed. So what are you referring to as being political? You know, and in being political, I mean, you bring up a certain name, a name called Kenny Anthony. You know, in defense of Kenny Anthony, you want to speak out. Let the former prime minister's record or his work speak for himself, don't try to defend it. And if you, if you say that he has made his contribution, why is he still in politics? Why is he still there? He has made his contribution 20 years in government, 20 years, 15 years as prime minister. And you were saying he has made his contributions. Well, if he has made his contributions, he should just bow out. That's what I would have done. Enter politics as 46, 47 and 20 years later you still in politics. So what are you defending? So 15 years, 15 or 20 years. Senators, Senators, like I've said earlier, Senators, gentlemen, ladies, senators, I understand the need to defend and to show the positions that we, we are here, or you are here to put forward and defend, accept that, you know, that's why I allow you. But there comes a time when we all have to accept where we are. And we say it, we say we have for the good of the nation. I'm asking, I have allowed it today. But if you want me to strictly apply the standing orders, then continue in your behavior. Because if you continue in your behavior, then I will. But I'm allowing for you to participate in your debates. I try not to interfere. Please show a little more understanding of each order's position. Leader of government business, please continue. Thank you, Mr. President, and I hope the side, the opposite side will have me to make my contribution uninterrupted. With all due respect, Mr. President, I believe you should have the more specific as to where the noise is coming from. So, Mr. President, the leader opposite also said that I, I never responded to the Honorable Senator's questions. Francis Thomas, Thomas Francis, my apologies, my apologies. I think I did, I think I did. And sometimes if you don't understand, you don't understand. But I think I did. And I was very specific at each of the points that you, maybe not all, because of the time constraints, but I made sure that I pointed out exactly what you asked and I gave the appropriate responses to your questions. So, I am not to show what the member opposite was referring to, but I think I addressed most of the questions asked by the dear Senator. So, Mr. President, I had to make that contribution because I believe that my my dear colleague and Senator, she was being attacked on the other, from the other side. So, I had to come to her defense and set the record straight. Thank you. Senators, the question is that the agreement established in the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education and Medicine and other health professions bill be read a second time. I now put a question, as many as are of that opinion, as many as are of the country opinions, you know, I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. An act to give effect to and provide for the implementation of the agreement establishing the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and other health professions. Senators, we will go through the act by clauses. Clause two. Interpretation. Clause two stands part of the bill. Clause three. Force of law. Clause three stands part of the bill. Clause four. Amendment or schedule. Clause four stands part of the bill. Clause five. Regulations. Clause five stands part of the bill. Schedule. Section two. Agreement establishing the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and other health professions. The schedule stands part of the bill. Clause one. Short title. Clause one stands part of the bill. Senators, the question is that the committee rises and the bill be reported. I now put a question, as many as are of that opinion, C.I., as many as are of the country opinions, you know, I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. Senators, I beg to report that the agreement establishing the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and other professions, another health professions bill went through committee stage with no amendments. Leader of government business? Mr. President, I beg to present for first reading a bill. Senator, Leader of government business, you're still on the same accreditation. Mr. President, I move that the report of the committee be adopted and the bill be read a third time and passed. Senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the agreement establishing the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and other health professions bill be read a third time and passed. I now put a question, as many as are of that opinion, C.I., as many as are of the country opinions, you know, I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of Senutia and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited as the agreement establishing the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and other health professions act 2017. Leader of government business? Mr. President, I beg to present for first reading a bill shortly entitled accreditation. Accreditation. Leader of government business? Mr. President, I beg to move for the suspension of Standing Order 49-2 to allow the bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Senators, the question is that Standing Order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the honorable leader of government business to proceed with the remaining stages of this bill at this sitting. I now put a question, as many as are of that opinion, C.I., as many as are of the country opinions, you know, I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. Proceed honorable leader of government. Mr. President, I beg to move for second reading a bill shortly entitled accreditation. So, Mr. President, we are still on the discussion and the topic of accreditation. I would believe that this bill goes hand-in-hand with the previous bill, which was more of a original bill. This accreditation bill is one that would lend support and strength our local bill with the one that will lend strength and support to the original bill. Mr. President, I was just looking through the speaking of the importance of having such institutions accredited, both education and health. Do you know, Mr. President, that we should have been in this long time ago? Very long time. Because while the member opposite was referring to the former Prime Minister's contribution, yes, he signed the agreement established in the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions Act. Yes, he signed it and I am looking at it here and it says it was signed 26th day of February 2016 or 15, it's not very clear, at Nassau Bahamas. But I'm looking at the other signatories and the dates when they actually signed this agreement and the agreement by all the other signatories was signed in 2003 and there was just one other person who actually signed it in 20, that is in Kit's Prime Minister, that signed it in 2006. So you're talking about a period of how many years here? 11 years before St. Lucia actually signed this agreement. St. Lucia was the only person or the only country that had not signed this important piece of legislation. It took 10 to, well that's 205. Okay, well it wasn't very clear and it wasn't very clear, is it, would you agree? For some clarity here, Mr. President, for the record. Okay, here you go. Again, in defense of the former Prime Minister, they tried to pushing another one here but let me read page four of that act, Mr. Prime Minister. Agreement means agreement establishing the authority, Accreditation Authority for Education Medicine and Other Health Professions signed on the 26th day of February 2015 in the Sub-Bahamas, the text of which is set out in the schedule, so it's 2015. Okay, so we talk about 12 years after the other Prime Ministers actually signed this agreement. I don't know why it took so long, I don't know why it took so long. So there are lots of things that could have been done long time ago, but you know, we are here and we will do what needs to be done and what was not done by the former Prime, the former administration. Thank you, Mr. President. Senators, the question is that the accreditation bill be read a second time. Minister for Health and Wellness. Mr. President, once again I stand because we are dealing with accreditation and this bears directly on my portfolio, which is Ministry of Health and Wellness. I just want to say that this legislation, like my colleague has said, strengthens the first bill and I want to read out the purpose of this bill because I know that a lot of the students in those universities are waiting for the passage of these bills and I need them to know exactly what it is that it's about and I want to encourage them to get a copy of this bill so that they will know they're standing after today's sitting. The purpose of this bill, Mr. President, on page one is to provide for the process and mechanisms of accreditation. A program of study offered, accrediting a program of study offered by a tertiary institution and the award it confers to the establishment to establish a National Accreditation Council. So this bill is the accrediting body for the local, for our country, St. Lucia and it also establishes a council that is going to establish the standards which needs to be met so that an institution or students from those institutions meet accreditation. Mr. President, the bill also binds the crown and that is to say even the government, if government decides to set up any such institution, government also is bounded by this bill. Government also has to meet those standards and get accreditation. So you see where we strengthen our legislation and we also hold ourselves, government, accountable for ensuring that we meet quality standards. Mr. President, I want to draw your attention to section functions of the council, section 10N of that section on page 12 and you see where it refers to again that the council, the function, one of the functions of the council, of course there are many functions but I want to highlight this one and it is to promote quality assurance and a program of validation and accreditation in St. Lucia. If you go down to Q in that same section Mr. President, you see where it provides transparency, transparency to the public so that everybody know what is happening and what is going on. It gives the council, the council has to provide the public with information on the quality and recognition of programs of study and institutions including the annual publication of a list of accredited programs of study and tertiary institutions in order to protect the public. So no longer will we have universities setting up here and doing as they wish offering whatever programs they want, they will have to comply with the standards of the council. If we go to section 12 Mr. President, you see that we are establishing a council where there is no room for political interference. Section 12, independence of the council, it says that in performing functions and exercising powers, the council shall act independently, impartially, and in the public interest. Again Mr. President, I want to go to page 15, section 17, revocation of appointment. This legislation Mr. President gives the council the authority to revoke a person's accreditation. No, to revoke in writing the appointment of a member, if the member is not performing up to standard, the council has the authority to revoke the member's appointment. I will go on further Mr. President because we want to ensure that this legislation protects the students in our universities and protects our country's reputation as well. When we're looking at part two accreditation, section 36, restriction on programs of study. This is set up to protect the students also Mr. President. It says a tertiary institution shall not offer a program of study unless the tertiary institution holds a valid certificate of accreditation under this act. So the students registering in these programs will know that the institution is fully accredited. The legislation calls for an evaluation of the institution in section 39 Mr. President. It says on receipt of an application, the council shall undertake an evaluation of the tertiary institution and program of study to determine if the tertiary institution and program of study meets the standard of accreditation. So we will not have those fly by night institutions coming set up and taking off like lumbered and so on and so forth. That evaluation must include validation as well. The legislation also speaks of the proposed physical location of the tertiary institution, including projections regarding student enrollment and staff size, provisions for classrooms, laboratories and offices. The governing body of the tertiary institution, all of that is provided for Mr. President in the legislation. I was reading P on page 23 and now I go to standards, real the core that is establishing accreditation. Issue of certificate of accreditation Mr. President. 41 on page 24. Where the council grants an application under section 40, the council shall issue to the tertiary institution a certificate of accreditation in the prescribed form and on payment of the prescribed fee, a certificate of accreditation issued under section 1 and it states the conditions under which that will be issued. There will be an accreditation mark that goes with that the council is going to institute. You can also get re-accredited and of course the council may revoke a certificate of accreditation that is section 44. So the legislation I read this Mr. President to show that the legislation is all encompassing. It gives the council access to premises in section 50 on page 28. Institutions will have to display the certificate of accreditation, section 54. And for every section Mr. President, the penalty if there is non-compliance is clearly specified. The council is also going to be a sustainable entity because it will be collecting fees and of course that also speaks to continuity of service. It will have borrowing powers and oversight by the Ministry of Finance in section 59 on page 31. Thus the council will be subject to audits thereby providing transparency and accountability section 63. And there again, which is very typical of this administration Mr. President, the council regulations allow for consultation. The minister section 67, the minister may in consultation with the council make regulations for giving effect to this act and it's listing the other conditions. And this is the part I believe Mr. President that is very, very useful to our current students in those medical institutions. Transitional section 68. There is a clause for transitioning from where we are today into to the point where an institution gets accreditation and that is what that speaks to. It says the tertiary institution in operation before the commencement of this act shall apply for accreditation within six months of the commencement of this act. So as of tomorrow, those institutions who do not have accreditation can apply for accreditation. Well as soon as this legislation passes, can apply for accreditation under this act. Which means of course the council will have to be set up very quickly so that we can ensure that none of our institutions here suffer as a result of them not having been accredited up to what they like today. And of course there is an oath of secrecy which is attached for everyone to see. So Mr. President, I present this so that we can give some comfort to the students out there, to the medical institutions and to so many of our people who are depending on that for their livelihood. I thank you Mr. President. Leader of opposition business. Just two points, just two points on this Mr. President. Thank you. Just to remind us that accreditation is very important, very very important, especially in the world of business that we're in. But it also brings upon itself a responsibility for maintenance. There's a cost associated with it. Once you're accredited you need to maintain the accreditation. You now need to have your structures in place in terms of maintenance because you would be, you can't be visited at any time. I just need to say with regards to what this thing is about and for solutions to, for a moment, just spare thought. In the south of the island they have quite a few, quite a few. And everybody who is part of medical, understanding medical, offshore school understand that in places like Grenada it's a business, it's part of the contribute to the economy. It's quite a big deal offshore medical schools. The former prime minister led, because in view of what is the place where you find so many of these offshore medical schools and it is his direct intervention, perseverance worked diligently as he put everything in place and today I'm happy that we're bringing this thing here to just close and to sign it off as we, but all of the work that has actually gone through in terms of having all of these documents, all of this didn't happen overnight. These things were already in the process and I just need for solutions to understand what is factual. It is the business of the former prime minister to ensure that all of the offshore schools, in view of what an incendiary by extension have accreditation so that we function in keeping with international standards. But of course there is a responsibility especially accreditation of hospitals and the minister of health would want to think of it that some hospitals have had to give up accreditation because of the responsibility of maintaining it, the cost, the cost of maintaining it because your processes and procedures and the fact that you have to continue to operate within certain standards and sometimes we are challenged especially in Third Island when you do not have all of the resources at your disposal to spend at the hospital, but it doesn't mean that your process is not good because you can have accreditation and still be doing the wrong thing, but when you have accreditation is to say that persons trust what you're doing, people internationally can recommend your services and I think it's good that these institutions, medical institutions are receiving that. Thank you. Senators the question is that the accreditation will be read a second time. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, CI, as many as are of the country opinions you know. I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. An act to provide for the process and mechanism of accrediting a program of study offered by a tertiary institution and the award it confers to establish a national accreditation council and for related matters. Senators we'll go through the bill both through by way of clauses as well as parts. Clause two interpretation clause two stands part of the bill. Clause three application. Clause three stands part of the bill. Clause four act binds the crown. Clause four stands part of the bill. Clause five purpose. Clause five stands part of the bill. Part one clauses six to 45. National accreditation council. Part one clauses six to 45 stands part of the bill. Part two clauses 46 to 56. Accreditation. Part two clauses 46 to 56 stands part of the bill. Part three clauses 57 to 65. Financial provisions. Part three clauses 57 to 65 stands part of the bill. Part four clauses 66 to 68. Miscellaneous. Part four clauses 66 to 68 stands part of the bill. Schedule one. Section 34 one oath of secrecy. Schedule one stands part of the bill. Schedule two. Section 46 two recognized accreditation authority. Schedule two stands part of the bill. Clause one. Short titled short title and commencement. Clause one stands part of the bill. Senators the question is the committee rises and the bill be reported. I now put a question as many as of that opinion see I as many as of the country opinions you know I think the eyes of it. Senators I beg to report that the accreditation bill went through committee stage with no amendments. Leader of government business. Mr. President I move that the report of the committee be adopted and the bill be read a third time and passed. Senators the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and the bill be read a third time and passed. I now put a question as many as of that opinion see I as many as of the country opinions you know I think the eyes of it the eyes of it. Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Lucia and by the authority of the fame as follows. This act may be cited as the accreditation act 2017. This act shall come into force on a date to be fixed by the minister by order published in the case. Leader of government business. Mr. President I beg to present for the first reading a bill shortly entitled public finance management. Public finance management. Honorable leader of government business. Mr. President I beg to move that this bill be presented for the second reading at the next or subsequent sitting of the Senate. Leader of government business. May I at this time bring to your attention standing order 993. Mr. President I wish to invoke standing order 93 to ask for the suspension of the House between 6 and 7.30 o'clock in the evening. You need to ask for the suspension of that standing order. Oh it's a lesson learned Mr. President. Mr. President I wish to ask that the Senate suspend standing order 93 so that we can continue with the House business. Senator the question is that the House that is standing order 93 be suspended to allow the Senate to sit through the hours between the hours of 6 o'clock in the afternoon and 7.30 in the evening. I now put the question as many as of that opinion see I as many as of country opinions you know I think the eyes of it the eyes of leader of government business. Mr. President I beg to present for first reading a bill shortly entitled Eastern Caribbean partial credit guarantee cooperation agreement. Eastern Caribbean partial credit guarantee cooperation agreement. Leader of government business. Mr. President I beg to move for the suspension of standing order 949 to to allow the bill to go through the remaining stages at this sitting. Honourable Senators the question is that standing order 49 to be suspended in order to allow the leader of government to proceed with all the stages of this bill at this sitting. I now put a question as many as of that opinion see I as many as of the country opinions you know I think the eyes of it the eyes of it. Leave is granted proceed honourable leader. Mr. President I beg to move for the second reading a bill shortly entitled Eastern Caribbean partial credit guarantee cooperation agreement. Mr. President I will read to the House just a synopsis of this bill and it states here that the participating governments of the Eastern Caribbean currency union have realized the prevalence of micro small and medium enterprises in the ECCU and the importance in driving economic and social change. Generally these enterprises have experienced difficulty in accessing credit given the size of the operations lack of capital and collateral. These enterprises are however critical to economic growth and job creation. On this basis the participating governments in the ECCU have devised an Eastern Caribbean partial credit guarantee cooperation which will strengthen the financial system within the currency union by providing credit risk mitigation to participating lenders in order to increase the ability of micro small and medium enterprises to access loans and absorbing a portion of losses incurred by participating lenders in cases of defaulting on payments. This act brings about the establishment of the Eastern Caribbean partial credit guarantee cooperation. The main objectives of the Eastern Caribbean partial credit guarantee cooperation are one to assist in promoting economic growth and development in member state territories by administering the credit scheme to increase access to finance. Two offer credit to lenders through qualified borrowers which will meet the criteria which will be outlined by the cooperation. Strengthen three strengthening the confidence of lenders to provide loans to qualifying micro small and medium medium size enterprises and four increase the ease with which qualifying enterprises can access financing. The board of directors of the corporation shall be appointed by the monetary council through a vote. However the board of directors should comprise of one, one member from each participating government, two one member representing the banking industry from the ECCU's banking association, three two members representing micro small and medium size business community from the chamber of commerce of two member territories which will be rotated. The authorised capital of the credit guarantee corporation shall consist of contributions from one participating governments, two any other investors approved by the board of directors, three donors in accordance with the terms and conditions that are acceptable to the board of directors. The initial authorised share capital of the corporation shall be approximately EC 30 million dollars which will be divided into 30 million shares of a power value of one dollar per share. The shares of the credit guarantee corporation shall be allotted to the participating governments and other investors as the case may be in proportion to their respective contribution to the share capital. St Lucia contribution to the authorised share capital is US 2 million dollars approximately 5.434 million EC dollars. A credit guarantee scheme will be established which will address operation matters of the operation including one threshold that lenders that wish to participate shall have to meet, two the extent to which the corporation's liability to a participating lender in accordance with an agreement between corporation and lender, three the imposition of terms and conditions of payment of fees and charges if any by the participating lender or borrower and four etc. The corporation shall be guided by the directives and requirements set by the monetary council. The ECCP shall act as the regulator of the credit guarantee corporation and will ensure compliance on the part of the corporation. Mr. President, I must commend the Central Bank, the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank for this very, very, very important initiative from the ECCP point of view from their perspective and just like we do in St Lucia and just like this government especially understands in St Lucia the importance of the small, medium and micro businesses in St Lucia and the importance in the economy. But what we have found Mr. President and the ECCP has noticed is that these micro, small and medium-sized businesses they have a problem when it comes to access to capital, access to finances. We have a lot of entrepreneurs and people who would want to become entrepreneurs but do not have the access to such finances or capital. In fact Mr. President, the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank in their wisdom realize that the financial institutions in the various territories of the ECCU they tend to shy away from such individuals or such enterprises enterprises because they believe that such individuals, such business sizes, the small micro, micro, small and medium-sized businesses, they may pose some risk, some default payment risk. So the ECCP is saying look, I'm going to stand in the gap for these enterprises. We're going to take on the guarantee, a partial credit guarantee for these enterprises. So that in its sense, in a sense Mr. President, it increases or reduces rather the default risk of these enterprises or future entrepreneurs and of course the default payments or even the non-performing loans by these financial institutions because if these entrepreneurs end up not being able to finance or pay back their loans, at least they will have a partial credit guarantee from the ECCB. And our contribution to this Mr. President is a meager two million dollars out of the 30 million dollars required, EC dollars required, two million US of 5.434 EC million dollars. Mr. President, I believe that this bill will strengthen and build and grow the small, medium and micro businesses in St. Lucia because we understand the importance of such businesses, we understand very much so Mr. President. In fact, I want to make reference to page 13 of the United Workers Party manifesto 2016. Page 13 says, among other things, under the caption small business development because as I said, we as a government believe and understand the role of the small businesses in our economy. We understand and that's why we have placed lots of emphasis as expressed in this manifesto. And under that caption, small business development, one of the captions says, in fact, I'm going to read the preface to this. It says here, there has been an unprecedented, unprecedented closure of small businesses throughout St. Lucia in the last five years on the labor. We have witnessed the difficult decision by employers to lay off hundreds of the employees in order to remain open. Small business owners have had to fend for themselves with very little or no government support. Those that remain open are barely surviving, relying month to month on exhausted bank overdrafts. They have lost total confidence in the ability of the labor government to assist them in their plight. And we said here, and I pinned this by the way, after speaking to a lot of business people over a few months, I was able to write this without any doubt that what is written is what is. It further states that a new UWP government will seek to restore confidence in the small business sector. We believe that incentivizing the creation of new businesses and supporting existing ones will be the engine that will spur growth and vibrancy in the economy. The following are the specific initiatives that will be undertaken and this is that specific initiative I want to make reference to. It says in context with what this bill is, facilitates access to finance by small businesses. We said it here. Long before we knew that we would have come to the house and present the Eastern Caribbean Partial Credit Guarantee Cooperation Agreement. So I believe, Mr. President, this is a happy day for small or micro small and medium-sized businesses in this country. It's a happy day for the young man or the young woman or even the older man or the older woman who has an idea, who has a business idea. But the financial institutions are shying or pushing them out because they do not have access to the required capital or credit. So this bill, Mr. President, will help these individuals. I am not sure where they are but they may be listening to me right now or in a subsequent broadcast of this sitting. That this government understand the need for supporting micro small and medium-sized businesses. We understand the need to build a vibrant entrepreneurship in this country. We need such businesses to generate the required economic development and growth that we do need in this country. And talking about growth, Mr. President, talking about growth, we as the governments believe that the small, medium, and micro businesses, they are the engine of growth, of not only of this economy, but economies throughout. And that's why, Mr. President, when I made mention of the importance of the vision that this government has for the South and the important leading, the leading industry that will be planted in the South, it was very insulting, Mr. President, to have heard a member in the opposite, a member opposite in the lower house speak of individuals or restrict solely as individuals brushing the teeth of horses and brushing the hair of horses. And not understanding, Mr. President, not understanding the many small, medium, and micro businesses that will be established because of a racetrack. And beside and beyond the racetrack, Mr. President, when we speak of DSH, it is not only, Mr. President, it's not only of the high rise and the hotels, but the small, micro, and medium businesses that will be created not only in view to view for Mr. President, but in the southern corridor. And this is what we refer to as a new frontier. And you see, Mr. President, you know, we didn't just wake up in the morning and just start saying things, you know. We didn't just start saying things. You see, again, make this your Bible. Make this a Bible to read. Get ideas. Get ideas. Mr. President, again, we have two debates in the house. We have two debates in the house. The member, oh, he's not a member. He was kicked out by Estes. He's not a member. Gideon? Gideon. Anyway, but Mr. President, in the manifesto page 14, it speaks of, let me, the caption again, and the tourism. It says here, as the main state of our economy, the tourism sector will be re-engineered and re-energized to achieve its full potential. The sector will be used as a major catalyst to facilitate real economic growth. We intend to create a tourism product that is globally competitive, environmentally and socially sustainable. You heard that? We intend to create a tourism product that is globally competitive, environmentally and socially sustainable, one that provides viable opportunities for indigenous investment, indigenous investment, small or micro, small and medium-sized businesses, and a product that will maximize both backward and forward linkages. This caption, Mr. President, what was going through our minds, my mind, and when I sat with the Prime Minister at the time, about five months before June 6th, I remember that time, was the idea of a vibrant SME, small micro enterprises, medium enterprises, vibrant, and what the tourism products and how the tourism products will be able to create these SMEs. Okay? And Mr. President, what's wrong with this guy? I want you to know, if you take your lessons from a platform, from the former Prime Minister, you'll be lost, okay? Gentle Senators, if you take your lessons from the Prime Minister, you'll be lost. Leader of government business, Senator Jerome Gideon, Senators, I'm hoping that at the next sitting, we all will know from Standing Order 41 to Standing Order 44. Very well. Proceed the Honorable Leader of Government Business. Mr. President, I believe that the, I may recommend for the leader, the leader of the opposition, not government business here, the leader of opposition, Philippe Pierre, to maybe reconsider having this guy in the, this, the Honorable Senator on this side. Because to me, he's an embarrassment. He's an embarrassment. Okay? Mr. President, as I was saying, when we speak of the tourism, when we wrote and presented to the people of St. Lucia, this manifesto, and more specifically, the tourism product, we had in mind, Mr. President, this micro, small and medium-sized businesses. And not just that, Mr. President, we understood very well what was happening in the South. Very, very well. Extremely well. And in the absence of the, the opposite side in our last sitting, I explained to the House what happened during the banana of the, the structural change we had in St. Lucia post-97, when we moved from a tourism, from a agricultural-based economy to that of a tourism-based economy. What happened in our rural sectors? We had a mass migration, an exodus of individuals from the rural areas to castries, the urban centers, to the north, leaving the poor, leaving the rural sectors in poverty. And more specifically, specifically, Mr. President, I was making a reference to the banana communities of Biku, Denry, Vufort, Labry, Choiselle. These were the supporting constituent, the communities to the economy of the South. And because bananas went downwards, the economy of Vufort went downward also. So in the thinking of the Prime Minister and this government, we believe that Vufort is a very important area, a very important constituency, a very important location to jumpstart the economy. And that's why we believe that the DSA project is, will be the driving force for this economy. And all the opposite side can see, high rises and hotels. But what we see, Mr. Prime, Mr. President, what do we see? We see the thriving. We'll see the development. We'll see the growth of small, micro, and medium-sized businesses in this country. And that's why I am very excited that the ECB, in their foresight, in their wisdom, sees such an important bill, and such an important agreement called the Eastern Caribbean Partial Credit Guarantee Corporation, to give support indirectly to prospective business individuals. And speaking of the South, Mr. Prime, Mr. President, on page 15, it says that we, this government, will develop said lucha, especially Vufort, as a home port for the cruise industry. You see, Mr. President, we don't think in isolation. We are not an ad hoc government. Our policies are very strategic. We have targeted goals. We have a vision. And with that vision, we have policies to support this vision. And of course, we have legislation. So, Mr. President, when we said that we are interested not only in poor people, but we are interested in poverty. We are interested in ensuring that the poor people get out of poverty, not a government that just gives support to poor and the poor remains poor. No, Mr. President, we believe in empowering people out of poverty. And we believe that one of the ways of doing so, Mr. President, is giving them access to credit, access to capital, so that they themselves would be able to grow their small businesses, to start new businesses, and to get out of depending on government for handouts, depending on government for social programs. We are interested, Mr. President, in developing the individual. That's what we are interested in doing. So, Mr. President, I'm very, very happy, very excited because I can see in the not near distant future that we will have a cadre of new businesses in St. Lucia. I'm very excited because, you know, I wish, in fact, we have not done an assessment of poverty in St. Lucia. I think the last time it was done was 2007. Am I right? 2007? The last time? No, I think the last one was 2007. 2007. Okay. So, it's overdue. A poverty assessment for St. Lucia is overdue. And it's my understanding that we will be undertaking a study very soon by the CDB. CDB will be undertaking a study of the poverty level in St. Lucia. And we understand very well based on the last poverty assessment of St. Lucia. It's not looking good. It's not looking good. And I'm very excited that a poverty assessment will be undertaken, I think, within this fiscal year. We have set aside monies in the budget for that. Because, Mr. President, poverty is not nice. It's not nice. And that's why we intend to do whatever it takes to get people out of poverty. And I said the last time here in this house, you don't tackle poverty by putting monies in people's hands directly. But creating the environment where people can grow out of poverty. Because if you continue putting money in people's hands and having people to stretch their hands to government, you're developing a welfare state. You're developing a begging state. You're developing a state that depends on government and a government that will abuse such a system. We as a government and the philosophy and the ideology of the United Workers' Party think differently. And that's why, Mr. President, I don't know if you sense how I feel about this, my passion about this. Because too many young men and women who want to have a starting and just cannot have a starting. In fact, I always make reference to this, Mr. President, because this is my Bible. Not the Holy Bible, but my Bible. There's a difference. Check the definition of Bible. Check the definition. Check the definition of Bible. I said this is my Bible, not the Holy Bible. Hey, here you go. It says here, we will, under the caption, Small Business Development, one of the initiatives is to help more St. Lucian to become entrepreneurs. We said it here. So it's not by accident, Mr. President. We said it here. We knew what we are going into. We knew what we found. We knew the turn the economy took and what was required to turn it around. And I'm happy, Mr. President, that in the last, in the latest, I think just two weeks ago, the latest Chamber of Commerce business report of what I call it the business confidence report, something like that. Businesses feel better compared to last year. They feel much better with this new government. They didn't say with the new government like this, Mr. Prime Minister and Mr. President. But clearly, there's a new government and the initiatives we have undertaken so far, pro-business, pro-business, pro-business, they have said that there is a better, the feel that there's a better level of better environment. Well, I'm quoting. I'm not quoting. I'm paraphrasing. Get the difference. Quote and paraphrase are different. I'm not quoting. I'm paraphrasing. This guy. This guy. I'll report it to you. I'll report it to the Honourable Philippines, honestly. Okay. So, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. President, in all my excitement, in all my excitement, I am hoping that the members in this Senate will give the full support to this very important bill, a bill that will reduce the risk of lending, the risk of lending, by financial institutions in St. Lucia, to micro-small and medium-sized businesses, individuals who want to start the business but do not have access to credit or capital, and hopefully, Mr. President, it will reduce the level of poverty in this country. Thank you. Senator, the question is that the Eastern Caribbean Partial Credit Quarantine Cooperation Agreement Bill be read a second time. Leader of opposition business. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know how to describe what I just listened to a few minutes ago. I thought DSH would not have been mentioned from this side, because it's a matter that, it's an issue that they have, this side have run away from. They have not, they have kept, they said that the agreement is not disagreement and host of things. But again, you, the member of just displayed some characteristics I've never seen before. I think it's one of maybe a feeling of redemption. I don't know what it is. Or maybe this person, I could say that is maybe the individual is still suffering from a disease of what? This thing that you call, like he's not, he's still sleeping, he's in a deep sleep, non-responsive wakefulness. You're sleeping. Mr. President, I support an initiative where there's an environment for creating small business and any initiative embarked by the ECB with the surplus of resources that they have instead of placing it in government hands, but to come up with initiative to assist the environment, the original area for small, for persons to participate in microenterprises. It's good. It's good. But the member on this side indicated that the poor will always be with us. And then the next moment I said that, I'll say that he will remove, he'll take care of the poor, he'll, what? Remove poverty. I do not think you understand social work and maybe you may wish to stay away from discussing issues like this. One, people are citizens of this country. And when people are asking for bread because they're hungry, I do not refer to them as beggars because I think people have a right to food. If you do not want beggars in this country, when they're lined by the streets and they're asking for food, then make provision for them because the people who come to the streets in castries where the church is feeding them, they are not beggars because preparation has been made for them. The church recognizes them as a right. They have a right to eat food. We talk about safety nets again. How do you see solutions? Who do you see when you see a man struggling? Who do you see? And I think the UWP have joined this problem because of how you view solutions. You're speaking of an initiative to deal with micro enterprise and you speak of poor people like beggars. But what's about those who come and beg for the million dollars? They're not beggars too. So those who are asking for 300 dollars and those who are asking for 150 and the single mother who wants a little break, it is the amount is so small we call them beggars. But the one who crawls nighttime by the bar and you give him the one million dollars to do an audit, that's not an audit. This is investment. I call it corruption. You see in this country we are all equal. Different roles, different roles, but we are equal in wealth. When I pass and I meet my good friend by the luxury supermarket, good friend I call Aaron, who would direct traffic. He used to go to St. Mary's College, but he's not well. He's not well. Now there's a sign in front of the luxury, no beggars. He would help assist the traffic, Mr. President, and he would ask sometime for a little change. He's not well. He's a beggar. He's sick. He's not well. And you know what? Right now the business says no, he's out and they employ somebody to do what he was doing, trying to assist the people parking their vehicles and you'd ask them for some food. How do you view solutions? When you go to places like Saraton, Cooley Town and you see the young people line up, how do you see them? How do you view them? You concern about poor people? You concern about young people? When you're sleeping, we're sleeping in this place. Of course, if you have an initiative that's going to create microenterprise and provide an environment for people to do well, small businesses, there are some people that will take advantage of it and they're in a position and that must be applauded. But the DSH project you're talking about, that you refuse to put the facts out and make it a document of the house whereas you have this yellow piece of paper you call your Bible. Now I know it's your Bible. It's not mine, but I'll tell you something. The document that you refuse to make a document of the house that we all can see have a buyback clause in it. For when this DSH problem hits the wrong road and you know something about buyback, I'll tell you something about buyback and I'll put it in biblical terms. So the land that you've given, $49 million square foot of land for $900 a year in viewport, $49 million, 900 acres at 41 acres is $43,560 square foot multiplied to get $49 million plus square foot of land for $900 under your DSH project. Do you know how much people pay to be buried at shock 4x8, $32 square foot? Do you know how much they pay to be buried on $32 square foot of land at shock cemetery? Over $6,000, $8,000 solutions to be buried, they pay that price and you give a foreigner 900 acres of land and you're going to boss microenterprise. The people that are going to go to the bank for loans, microenterprise, where in viewport will they put their microenterprise business when you give all of the land to Theo Akin? Where? Have you rationalized this? But of course it's selfie, they will be taking with horses in viewport, brushing them, what else you think they would do? Have you visited California and look at race tracks and find out what's happening? Mr. President, in these countries where you have race horse tracks, there is a culture of people owning the horses. There's a culture of people maintaining it's a local industry. You see, it's easier to make success out of Bataikok in St. Lucia that is illegal than even the people you're importing horses, you're importing the services associated with horses to run a horse race track, you're bringing the jockeys from overseas and you're going to boast about that, that it's going to create an environment in viewport and viewport going to flourish. That's what you're saying? You need people there and your high-rise buildings that you're going to put there. Who's going to be inside of it? Where is the business plan for it? Is it digicel? I see so many feet of high-rise, these are corn people at its best, Mr. President. When I last worked on a hotel in St. Lucia, I knew the fire service would not approve more than eight. Didn't want to give eight stories building because the fire service cannot outfire at that level and we have not improved our fire fighting capacity to build any building more than about six or seven stories. So then your pictures showing all those skyscrapers in viewport, you are misleading and deceiving people. This is deception at its best. You can boast that, Mr. President. You have an agreement in the DSH project, your agreement that calls a buy-back clause after you've given it to him. When, if it goes bad, you have to buy it back, you know and I know that when we were lost in sin, Christ had to die to buy us back from the devil. You know that and you know anytime there's a buy-back clause, a sacrifice need to be made and blood need to be shed, who will make the sacrifice to buy back the land? Who would? Our children? Our grandchildren? If you do not have all of the evidence about DSH, for what I know about DSH, you do not celebrate it associated with an act to establish an environment for small businesses to flourish. Why it's associated with DSH? Also, you're going to fix viewport with a horse racetrack, take all of the land or what else are you going to do or what you're not doing? Put the facts before this chamber so that we will know what this DSH thing is all about. You're saying it is not the agreement but we have seen an agreement. The Prime Minister said this is the agreement but you boast about transparency and accountability. Your transparency is like plastic bag. Mr. President, I had no intention to speak on this resolution but again I've been provoked to speak on it. Your new St. Lucia, this new St. Lucia that you have this dream about. The member on this side have this dream, a vision about a new St. Lucia. I suspect it might be a nightmare and you should wake up and face the reality. A new St. Lucia for who? Who are you building this new St. Lucia for because it's all about your imagination. Mr. President, I went to Chile on a social program and the president, the then president of Chile, Chile was doing well, was doing well and the president, forget her name, came up with a social safety net program called Chile Sise Contigo meaning Chile grows with you and give every pregnant mother and the spouse support from the state because she did not want to allow Chile to develop and the people are left behind. It was direct, it was deliberate and they got support from the state until age four. This is an example of a government that's serious about its people. Direct immediate, not indirect. So you're not giving a foreigner 900 acres of land at a dollar square foot, while we have to buy a plot to bury ourselves 42 square feet at 16,000, 10,000 or 8,000. On the problem, you have to pay $5,000 for a lot that you've been on for so long and boast about DSH. So I'm saying, Mr. President, whereas this at this side of the house support initiatives, any initiative that would advance and move well for people. And I'm not referring to just poor people or people who fit within a certain, you know, a certain structure of our social ladder. I'm talking about all people because we are all worth the same. And I do not, when I hear you speak of poor, that's not how these are people with the challenges that are dignified. And they may never get rich. This is not what we're offering. I'm not suggesting that we will take poor people and make them rich. That's not what you're talking about. But we must, as a government, as a parliament, send the right signals to our people. We are not sending the right signal to the young man on the block. When you tell me you're going to give a foreign investor 900 acres of land, you will give Ojo Lab a factory shell retrofitted for him and give him all sorts of support that has never been given to any local business here. And then you're going to boast about I'm creating loan and you're happy and you're excited. Where's that coming from? This is scary. I think at best, maybe you should be hopeful that these things work. I would say that I hope that these things work. Excitement, excited about what? Mr. President, we have difficult times ahead of us. We have debt insurmountable that we're taking at this point in time. We have crime on the rise. And then you tell me the lead on government business is excited about what? Mr. President, every day I think of coming in the matter that I have now associated myself with, the issue of the business of politics, wanting to represent people. Every day I think of it, it is humbling and there's a solemn part of it. Very solemn, if you're taking it serious, because anybody who's going to boast and say they have the answer, you're starting to lie. At best, you should tell me that you hope that this thing will work. You know why, Mr. President? I know too many great individuals who have contributed ideas. In time past, and some of them have not worked, well-intended, brilliant solutions. What? They were foolish. So everybody on this side who served the government meant nothing to solutions. And then you come in with the panacea, and then you, oh, you're going to solve it. And I'm excited. We have the answer. That's what? Trust me, attitudes like this, God usually rise and break the backbone of your power and your days in this chamber can be numbered. And I'll tell you, for as many who have sat here, they are not there. And our problem lingers. So don't beat your chest. Do not speak of the other side as if they didn't have ideas, as if the fountain of ideas now exist from you. The fountain of good deeds now exist from this side. And everybody else is to exist. Is this the posture that you're going to assume in this honorable house? Mr. President, I personally applaud the efforts and the energies on the government side was trying the best to wrestle with the realities of things today. I'm hopeful that some of the things that they're doing will work. Because if it fails, all of us are going to crash. But we need to start with speaking the truth and being sincere about what we say. This, there was a demonstration of charisma that led to Jim Jones killing people in Guyana. This is the charisma where I see people saying things that they really do not believe. This is what I see there. And you do not believe what you said. So let us not try to mislead St. Lucian's. Let us be hopeful that this thing will, but recognize that there are many persons who've gone before well intended. The plans also did not work as they wanted to. Thank you, Mr. President. Leader of government business. Mr. President, there's a saying if you want your enemy to be mad, just be glad. Just be happy. I'm speaking in general terms here. A smile kills the enemy. And there's a saying also that, figuratively speaking, that dogs only bark at moving vehicles. So there was a vehicle moving on this side not too long ago. It was a jumping vehicle, a vehicle bitten its chest, a vehicle that was very charismatic. And that vehicle, Mr. President, was not building its chest, was not being charismatic for its own purpose. It was doing all of these things because of the people that we believe that this bill and the policies of this government will affect positively. Mr. President, you will recall that I spoke about the impact that this initiative by the ECU, ECB, will have on existing businesses, small, medium-sized and micro businesses, the access to credit, the access to capital. And I also said, Mr. President, the impact it will have on our existing poor. But it appears to me, Mr. President, that the opposition seems to think they have a patent on the word poor. They have a copyright that this side should never talk about the poor. And when we do talk about the poor, they believe that we have broken the law, the patent law, the copyright law, that they alone have on the poor. You see, Mr. President, I have said before, and I'm repeating myself, that our approach in dealing with the poor is different on this side than this side. As the saying goes, Mr. President, if I give you a fish, you will eat today and tomorrow you have no fish. But if I teach you how to fish, Mr. President, today, you will have more than one fish tomorrow and the day after and the day thereafter. That's our approach dealing with the poor, Mr. President. That's our approach here. So now we are talking about how we love the poor and how we will be getting people out of poverty. Not that, Mr. President, there will not be poor among us. The poor will always be among us. But it's how we deal with poverty. So my excitement here, Mr. President, it's not about me, but it's about the people. This bill will affect. Now, Mr. President, I brought about, in fact, the leader of government business, opposite, brought in the word beggar. So now we have tackled, or we have said how we're going to tackle the poor, how we're going to deal with the poor and poverty. You see, before, Mr. President, there was absolutely no discussion on poverty in this house. Absolutely none. Because the focus is about having people believe, the poor believe that they care, the opposite side cares about them. You see, you can care about somebody, but it's for your selfish gain. So your care is not really caring for the person, but caring about yourself. And that's why, Mr. President, I believe and this side believes that we need to go beyond taking care of the poor, or loving the poor, but to get rid of poverty. I am repeating it so you can understand what it means. The opposite side can understand what I'm saying here. So now, Mr. President, we have removed the carpet under the feet. They have no more the carpet of poverty to stand on, because they cannot fool the poor people anymore, because we have a different approach. So now the member, the leader of government business of opposites, is now talking about beggars. Who said beggars here? You, the member of opposite was the first person who mentioned beggars here. I used the word welfare state. I never said beggars. So now he brought in the word beggars. So the new word now will no longer be poor, but beggars. I want to know how we're going to take care of the beggars. So that's why I said, Mr. President, that we need to undertake a poverty assessment. And I'm happy we are going to do that this fiscal year. Now, Mr. President, the leader, the opposition leader of government business, I spoke of the DSH in a very, in a contextual manner, context and the impact that the proposed development will have on the south. And more specifically, Mr. President, micro and small businesses. And one of the things that I like saying, Mr. President, is about the 900 acres. And he asked the question, where will we put the businesses? When we give, he said we give, we will not be giving. We'll be leasing. It's a difference. We're not leasing. We're not giving. We're leasing. And I prefer leasing than selling at one dollar an acre, like you guys did. Now they're asking the question, he's asking the question. The leader opposite is asking the question, where will we put the business? That's a very good question. Very good question. Because apparently he's thinking what we are thinking over here. There will be so many businesses that will be emerging. He's asking the question, where are we going to put them? Where are we going to put them? Now, Mr. President, even in case he was thinking differently and asking the question because he believes that V Fort only has 900 acres. And the development will take all the land in V Fort. And therefore, no land will be available for businesses. If in case, Mr. President, that's what he's thinking, then I'm asking him right now, not where to put the businesses, but where are the businesses currently? Are there businesses in V Fort? Where are they? What happened in the last five years in terms of business closures in V Fort? Where are the businesses? Many closures of businesses in V Fort? You are so concerned, you're so concerned about businesses in V Fort? Oh my goodness. What attention was given to the many businesses that closed the doors and many people who had to go home because of these closures? Where are they? Where are the businesses? Where are they? Where are they? So, Mr. President, we are changing this. We're going to change it. We're going to do it. And Mr. President, you know, we on this side, we believe in due process. We believe that the DSH project is still in negotiation, still in negotiation. And they want us to come and tell them everything about the agreement, everything. And whereas the former prime minister and the last government had it for 15 months and no one knew anything about the DSH, absolutely nothing. But now they want us to come and discuss DSH. DSH only came in the public domain when this government took office. No one knew anything about DSH. And I said before, that was the right way. That was the right way. Because in the agreement, there is the confidentiality clause. And every investor wants that kind of comfort. That while investor is discussing or negotiating that there will not be public disclosure of that negotiation, every investor wants that kind of comfort. And I applaud the former prime minister for that. I applaud him. But now he's in opposition. The former administration or the administration, the last administration is now in opposition. And they want us to come to disclose that very same agreement they kept under the breast. You see, Mr. President, I question, I question whether or not this former of this opposition really wants development in this country. I just question it, it's questionable. Because as soon as we said that we are signing a, what do they call it? The MOU? The framework agreement, thank you. The framework agreement immediately, immediately it was leaked. It was leaked. It was leaked. But you know what, Mr. President? The people of St. Lucia and the people of the south are paying attention. They are not blind. They are not deaf. They are not dumb. They know who are for them or the people who are for them or the government who is for them and who is against them. We are governments who believe that we need to create jobs for the people of this country. And here you have an opposition that is trying to obstruct that process. Obstruct the process. Because if this was a responsible opposition, they will not frustrate that potential, the current investor of the DSH. Trying to frustrate the government and have said publicly that we will not, they will not, we will not have the DSH in the south. We will not have a DSH in St. Lucia. They have said it. In essence, Mr. President, they are saying that we don't, we don't want you to create jobs for the people of the south and the people of St. Lucia. That's what they are saying in essence. But again, the people, Mr. President, the people of Order 361, the member is definitely imputing improper motives in the House and is misleading the House, Mr. President. There is no way, no way that the St. Lucia Labor Party or the opposition has ever said that they are not for development. There's no way that you cannot prove- Senator Leader of Opposition Business, please allow your colleague to- Yeah, you cannot prove anywhere that the opposition has said that they are not interested in development. What we said, this current agreement, as it stands, is bad for St. Lucia- Mr. President, I stood on point of order for the 61- 461 is the incorrect one. In Putin, you're misleading the House. Read it for yourself. 461. Read it. 46A, well, you know what it is. Okay? We've never said that. We said best the current agreement, as it stands, it is wrong. It does not have any benefit for anyone in St. Lucia, especially in view for it, and therefore we cannot support it as it stands. We cannot support it as it stands. Thank you. But then your student for the 66A, but your point of order is on the 47A. Yes, I understand that. But then when you make reference, the point you're making 46, allow you to do the interruption. 47 says upon which you stand. Leader of Government Business, you heard the Senator. Yes, I heard him clearly, Mr. President, but I believe he's wrong. The Opposites, Senator. Clearly he doesn't. Now, Senator, Senator Gideon, I've allowed you. Like I've said, I've allowed you. I've allowed the cross chat. I've allowed it. But we come into a point where we now have to just allow it, allow the Senator on the Standing Order 41. I'm now making a formal order. On the Order 41, C, allow the Good Senator to make his presentation. So I'm expecting you to maintain a certain level of silence and do not interrupt unless you rightly do so on the section Standing Order 46. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I will advise that the member opposite, first of all, learn his math because he said that 20 gallons of gas would be $150. And now he's being very orderly and giving the wrong Standing Order. Leader of Government Business, let's, Senators, I would like to bring this Senate sit into the appropriate conclusion. Do not allow, I'm avoiding today, but like I've said to you, if that's how you want to operate, then I will operate strictly under the Standing Order. Now, I have warned him, I'm expecting you, Leader of Government Business, to stick to your presentation. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I, the member stood on a point of order stating that I'm misleading the House. And he said that the opposition is saying that they are for development. They never said they are not for development. And I'm saying that the actions have shown that they are not for development because they are trying for straight the process of the development. That's what I'm saying, Mr. President. And I'm saying also there is due process with every investment project. We have a confidentiality clause and every investor needs that kind of comfort. And for documents who have been leaked in the public is just one way of frustrating the development in the South. So don't tell me that you are for development and your actions are different. Don't tell me, come to my back and say you are, you understand my pain, but you have a dagger in my back. Your actions are different. So all the actions from the opposite side, Mr. President have shown that they are trying to stall the development in the South. And after much protests and marches and talk shows and public meetings and town hall meetings, now the opposition leader is asking this government for talks, for talks on that DSH at this point in time. So if you are serious about the development, the first order business would have asked is to have asked the prime minister to have a discussion on the matter. So don't tell me you are for development. Don't tell me that. Show me that. Show me. And then I'll believe you. So Mr. President, I believe, again, I believe that this bill, this bill called the Eastern Caribbean Martial Credit Cooperation Agreement, is a very welcome bill. It falls in line with the ideology and the philosophy of this government, United Booker's Party government, a pro-private sector, a pro-business sector, an economy that is driven by micro and small, micro-small and medium-sized businesses. But in order for us to support these businesses, in order for us to support the current entrepreneurs, the business people, the small business people, the man on the block who wants to start a business, they need that kind of support. They need the support where they can go to a bank. And the bank believes that because of this bill, they're going to reduce their risk of non-performing loans or default loans because they have that partial credit agreement with the ECCB. That's my excitement, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. President. It's not my excitement. I'm excited for what it will do for the business climate in St. Lucia, so I can beast my chest on behalf of the beneficiaries of this. I can be charismatic and I don't apologize for that. So my joy and my excitement is what this bill will do for the people of this country and, more specifically, the private sector. Senators, the question is that the Eastern Caribbean Partial Credit Guarantee Corporation Agreement Bill be read a second time. I now put the question as many as are of that opinion, CI, as many as are of a country opinion. I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. An act to provide for the implementation of the agreement establishing the Eastern Caribbean Partial Credit Guarantee Corporation and for related matters. Senators, we'll go through the bill through my way of clauses. Clause two. Interpretation. Clause two stands part of the bill. Clause three. Agreement to have force of law. Clause three stands part of the bill. Clause four. Financial provisions for giving effect to the agreement. Clause four stands part of the bill. Clause five. Fees. Clause five stands part of the bill. Clause six. Credit Guarantee Freshhold. Clause six stands part of the bill. Clause seven. Audited annual accounts to be laid in Parliament. Clause seven stands part of the bill. Clause eight. Failure to comply with remedial actions. Clause eight stands part of the bill. Clause nine. Exemptions. Clause nine stands part of the bill. Clause 10. Amendmental schedule. Clause 10 stands part of the bill. Clause 11. Regulations. Clause 11 stands part of the bill. Clause 12. Savings on cessation. Clause 12 stands part of the bill. Schedule. Sections two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, ten and eleven. Agreement establishing the Eastern Caribbean Partial Credit Guarantee Corporation. The schedule stands part of the bill. Clause one. Short title. Clause one stands part of the bill. Senators, the question is that the committee rises and it will be reported. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, CI. As many as are of a country opinion, you know. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Senators, I beg to report that the Eastern Caribbean Partial Credit Guarantee Corporation Agreement Bill went through committee stage with no amendments. Honorable leader of government business. Mr. President, I move that the report of the committee be adopted and the bill be read at third time and passed. Senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the Eastern Caribbean Partial Credit Guarantee Corporation Agreement Bill be read at third time and passed. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, CI. As many as are of a country opinion, you know. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Be enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Lucia and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited as the Eastern Caribbean Partial Guarantee Corporation Agreement Act 2017. Leader of government business. Mr. President, I move that the report of the committee be adopted and the bill be read at third time and passed. Oh. I have done that already, Mr. President. Yes. I think that's among the time I get some mangoes. So maybe I need some mangoes now. Mr. President, I beg to present the first reading. A bill shortly entitled St. Lucia Tourism Authority. St. Lucia Tourism Authority. Honorable leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to move for the suspension of Standing Order 49-2 to allow the bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Honorable senators, the question is that Standing Order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the honorable leader of government business to proceed with the remaining stages of this bill at this sitting. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, CI. As many as are of the country opinion, you know. I think the eyes have it. Leave is granted. Proceed honorable leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to move for second reading. A bill shortly entitled St. Lucia Tourism Authority. Mr. President, you would see in the explanatory notes that, too, it says that the purpose of the bill is to repeal and replace the Tourist Industry Development Act, Cap 15.32, and to increase the socioeconomic contribution of tourism to the national development. Mr. President, this new tourism authority, we believe as a government that the marketing of the tourism product in St. Lucia doesn't need a tourist board. In the way it was structured, the high personnel costs and just the operational costs of such a board was not necessary. And, Mr. President, we believe as a government that with our limited resources, we should also always look at the best way in which or ways in which we can spend our limited resources. If we are doing something one way, it doesn't mean that we have to continue the way we have always been doing it, especially if it can be done differently and more efficiently, and of course produce greater results. So, Mr. President, in the wisdom of the Prime Minister and this government, we saw the need of repealing the Tourist Industry Development Act and replacing it with this new tourism authority. This is not reinventing the wheel because there are other jurisdictions that have actually done similar changes, and the results of such change is phenomenal. So, Mr. President, we believe that likewise that this new tourism authority will provide more for our box. In other words, we will have value for the monies that will be spent through this entity for the marketing or promotion of our tourism product. So, the time will come when we're going to test this new entity. There's always a test, Mr. President. The solution public will test this government in the next three and a half, four years as to whether or not we deliver. Likewise, there'll be a time when this new authority will be assessed, and there are various ways of assessing its contribution in the promotion of our tourism product. So, Mr. President, without further ado, I ask that this Senate give their full approval to this bill. Senators, the question is that the St. Lucia Tourism Authority Bill be read a second time. Senator Oje. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, fellow members. Mr. President, I hope not to be too long. In fact, I was hoping to be shorter, but since we have sat through so much banter, in the last few hours my sympathies have evaporated, and I feel I will cause you all to sit through my presentation as quietly as possible. Mr. President, it was mentioned earlier that today is Fisherman's Feast, and I think I should applaud the recognition of that day and join in acknowledging that these are important people in our society. They make a valuable economic contribution to the welfare of our country. And there's a connection, I think, because Wolcott writes the sea's history, our tribal memory, our monuments, our battles, our martyrs are all locked in that gray vault, which is the sea I'm paraphrasing. I grew up at Parve, so we didn't have much sea there, and even fewer fishermen, but our family has roots in Labri, that jewel on our coast. And I have very fond memories of diving for sea eggs at T2 and spearfishing beyond the reefs at Abaco Co, and I think of Ali and Marsilus and Kennedy from Labratui, and their mother, the late Marie Maul, who baked this miraculous bread in her stone oven. And that miraculous bread was made even more magical with a generous helping of butter, hot butter. And I can still hear the call of the conks in the early morning when the boats come in, and the ritual of dividing up the catch, which was always a great process to observe. And I remember them marveling at the art and science of making fish pots under the ackee tree in the corner of the beach there, and then that sunset the conk would sound again when the boats returned. These are important memories, good days, the promises of Taza and Doad and Koff and Uma, nearly forgotten, locked up in that gray vault, which is the sea. And how appropriate, Mr. President, to begin a discussion of a new tourism authority with memories of these people who make their livelihoods besides the water's edge. There's a new generation of Saint Lucians who also make their living beside the water's edge. In his work entitled White Egrets, Walcott remembers them in one of his most painful poems. He writes, these new plantations by the sea are slavery without chains, with no blood spilt, just chain link fences and signs, the new degradations. It's a sad commentary, Mr. President, an unfortunate perception, an unfortunate reality. We need to change it. And I think this bill has the possibility of changing, providing that its intentions are good, that its language is appropriate, that its content is as it should be, and most importantly that its implementation is in keeping with the spirit and the intent. So I wish now, Mr. President, to make some specific comments with that introduction, which I am concerned about. Section 9, I note that among the chief functions of the new agency is to optimize the contribution of the sector, while it's in the introductory note actually. The purpose, it speaks about the contribution of the agency to the development of Saint Lucian. It's in the explanatory note, Mr. Chairman, but it is not in the objectives, in the functions of the authority, and I think it ought to be there as well, that one of the functions of the authority is to optimize or should be to optimize the contribution of the tourism sector to the economy of Saint Lucian. The intention and the spirit of item 2 of the explanatory note, I think needs to be integrated into section 5, subsection F, so that the authority can be reminded at all times that that is its purpose, not just to optimize a sector, but to optimize the contribution of the sector to the overall economic welfare and well-being of the people of Saint Lucian. In related news, Mr. President, I am a little concerned that the act is very minister centric. It is an unfortunate pattern which has crept into our legislation of late, that a lot of bills rely heavily on the office of the minister, on the authority of the minister, on the judgment of the minister, on the goodwill of the minister, on the patronage, you might argue, of the minister. And it is the most repeated word in the current draft. 9F speaks to strategic plans and a need for the minister to approve. 9H speaks to direction by the minister. 9K speaks to performance review to be submitted to the minister. Section 10 speaks to statutory and legal compliance as directed by the minister. Surely these are objective independent requirements that have little to do with a minister. They have to do with good practice. They have to do with international accounting standards. Even revocation of appointments refers to the minister. Remuneration of directors refers to the minister. And I think there's some error in the language there that needs correcting. That's section 16. 32B, the budget and plan of action must be submitted in a form that the minister directs. And I quote, why not use international standards, financial standards, and best practice rather than language like in a form that the minister directs. The minister ought not to be directing the details of something as simple as that. Also, so the making of regulations to give effect to the act, which is really where the bones and the meat of the matter will lie, is also at the pleasure of the minister. I think that this is subjecting the agency to unnecessary political manipulation. And we must remember we are not making laws for ourselves today, but forever. Similarly, appointments to the board will be made entirely by the minister. Despite the language, it says three nominations by the primary tourism association. I don't know who that is exactly. I think that remains unidentified and should be clarified. But there are three nominations by bona fide, legal, duly constituted, legitimate, and democratic organization. And they ought not to need the approval of the minister, that they're coming from civil society, people who are capable of representing themselves and the sector, if they put a nomination forward, the minister ought not to have to approve it in order for it to be valid. It should be valid coming up from the constituent agency that makes the nomination. So, I would like to recommend that specific agencies be mentioned either in the act or in the regulations, and that these institutions being of long-standing and noted contribution to the affairs of the state can be delegated with the responsibility to nominate someone to the tourism authority. We have had precedents for this in the past, and I think it's a good idea to remove such nominations to the board from the exclusive ambit of the minister. I would like to suggest that nominations by the San Rocha Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture, nominations by the San Rocha Manufacturers Association, nominations by San Rocha Hotel and Tourism Association should be standard features, because these are legitimate, duly constituted organizations, and it would democratize the sector a little bit because its impact is so pervasive that you need to have representatives from other non-tourism or associated tourism agencies so that you can have some balance in the landscape. I would also recommend so that if the minister appoints the chair, either in the regulations or in the act itself, there should be a convention that the minister does not appoint the deputy chair, that the deputy chair is nominated by the members, by the board members of the authority, or better yet, that the deputy chair is appointed by convention at least from the private sector, not from the government. Again, the need for balance and the need for a less political architecture in the creation of this institution. We have had enough agencies which are dominated by this sort of appointment and they haven't worked, they haven't worked for anybody's benefit, and the public confidence in those agencies has been severely eroded by the perception that these are friends of the party and friends of the minister, and then people get fired in the middle of the night when they try to exert some autonomy or independence from political interference. So let us bring some balance and reduce the propensity to have a board comprised entirely of minister-friendly directors. Let there also be natural checks and balances built into the infrastructure and in the structure of the institution, make it less susceptible to manipulation. In section 20, subsection 2, there's a clause that deals with conflict of interest. I think it's admirable in its intent, but it's weak in its language. It needs to be strengthened, sir. It provides for a director to recuse himself if there's a matter in which he has an interest, and it says that the director then shall not have any further information on the matter, but that is inevitably going to be frustrated because the director must receive minutes at the meeting, and he cannot receive minutes that are out of which some section has been expunged. So that does not make any practical sense to me, but maybe that can be explained further. Regarding senior appointments, there is provision in the Act for three senior positions, corporate officers, chief executive officer, and chief financial officer. I would like to suggest that these should be advertised internationally as a matter of course. I think it should be built into the regulations or the Act, and so that we can have persons with international experience, people who are the best at what they do, have an opportunity to apply to fill these positions, and that we should not recruit from our limited circle of friends and family. I believe that in rating these individuals who do apply, and I'm thinking particularly of solutions in the diaspora, further afield, our regional counterparts, anyone really who qualifies to occupy these positions, but that there could be a ranking or a scoring mechanism that favours people who have the local experience in the tourism industry. It doesn't have to be biased entirely in favour of solutions, but people who have local knowledge and experience. So we can make sure that the institution is well served by competent and professional people with the necessary skills. We've had quite enough of jobs for the boys and girls, and this only breeds instability and uncertainty, and as soon as my party comes in, I take out your guy, as soon as your party comes in, you take out my girl, and the solution gets nowhere. So let us recruit internationally, let us recruit objectively, by all means, let us look at suitable solutions who have the qualifications, let us advertise the posts, and let us make it clear and transparent as has been mentioned so many times in this honourable house over the last few months. So if government is committed to the agency, please give it the professional leadership that it deserves. All posts should be advertised and professionals competitively recruited. Regarding procurement guidelines so for the institution, I would like to suggest that major contracts should be conducted or awarded by open competitive tender, especially above a certain amount, which can be figured out in the regulations, but built into the DNA of the agency should be that transparency. If you're going to spend amounts above a certain amount, it must go to international tender or competitive bid. The government already has procurement guidelines, those should be reflected and mandated in the legislation so that the organization can conduct its business above board from inception, and that government does not have to be on the back foot defending and explaining and trying to make good things that were not previously anticipated. So I would like to in that spirit raise the question of the national tender's board. I'm not sure what the status of it is, but it seems to be a little bit neglected these days, so perhaps we should get an update on where that stands. As with the Public Accounts Committee, I raised that matter at our last sitting, but I don't believe there was a response as to what the state of that convention is. With regard to Section 31-2, there is provision, a rather worrying provision for financial bailout by central government. In the event of non-payment of debt and interest, the minister again in his wisdom is given a power to bail out the authority. I think that's, I'm not sure that's conventional, but I think that it's dangerous. It's a curious thing to me to front load the organization with. It provides a de facto government guarantee if somebody's looking at the act when the agency wishes to borrow this. Oh yes, government is required to pay the debts of the organization in the event of a default, so I'm safe. And if that is in fact a de facto government guarantee, then I believe it has to come before the House and therefore may not have a place in this document. If in its wisdom the government wishes to provide for this, then I think there need to be countervailing provisions in the act that require the board to act with certain fiduciary responsibility that is not reflected in here. I notice however in the Partial Credit Guarantee Act there's a wonderful section that speaks to failure to comply and it holds directors directly responsible and as well as officers of the cooperation directly responsible for the financial property and operational property of the entity. Maybe that's something we can look at here. And I remember that the number of bailouts costing taxpayers millions of dollars, particularly in the banana industry, SLBGA and Senatorship Banana Corporation for example, and it was due largely to financial impropriety, Mr. President, and share incompetence in some cases and the knowledge that, oh, government I pay, so why do we have to conduct ourselves appropriately if we know there's a bailout down the line as if it is not the taxpayer's money that is going to be used to bail the organization out? So in the interest of strict financial guidelines from inception I would like to suggest some changes be made, sir. Recommendation is that section 41C and 41F be reviewed as one clause seems to bind the new authority to pre-existing arrangements, but the other releases the authority from pre-existing debts and liabilities which it says are to be assumed by the government. So I'm not sure what the intention is there but it seems to be a little bit at odds. To close, Mr. President, we must always remember that, well, we must remember why we are in the business of tourism and who the ultimate beneficiaries must be. So visitor arrivals, tourism expenditure, bed nights, rock rates, cruise ship calls, all of these are wonderful statistics but they are not the ultimate objective. So growing those figures in and of itself is not necessarily the end game. They tell us how well the industry is doing but they do not tell us how well the industry is doing for us. So the ultimate objective and the test of all our efforts in this sector must be the betterment of the lives of rank and file citizens from all walks of life in our country, people who are engaged in making their livelihoods within the sector. So when we are reviewing this as I think is provided, I think we need to look at other statistics besides the strict tourism arrivals, tourism statistics. So let us look at the growth of incomes and wages. Let us look at improvements in income distribution associated with the sector. Let us look at increased domestic investment and savings associated with the sector. Let us look at how many workers in the sector are able to enter into mortgages or send their kids to school or be the guarantors of student loans. Let us look at some of those underlying things because the statistics we are using to assess the impact of the sector do not tell the whole story and it was mentioned earlier about tourism workers who must leave their kids because they are on impossible shifts and single women getting home at one o'clock in the morning and the toll this has on our society as a whole, what it does for our young girls and boys who are left unattended. We have to think about those things because the ultimate beneficiaries of the sector are not the tourists. That is not who we work for. We work for the citizens of the country. So the people in the industry, the people of the industry are the living tissue, the flesh, the bone and the lifeblood of the industry. Without them there is no industry. They have hopes, they have aspirations, they have dreams of a better life for themselves and their families. Remember it is their assets that we are trading on. It is their warm smiles, their friendly service, they are an ending patience with visitors who can be quite impossible. Their natural sense of hospitality, their environment, their public recreational spaces that are being given up very often. You know we retreated from the bridges, from the beaches, we went to the rivers, they came there, we go up in the hills, they're there, we go in the forest there. You know and solutions being hospitable people we recognize that there's an industry built around our physical environment. Okay we step back, we allow certain things to happen but at the same time there must be space as I have said before in this Honorable House. There must be space for regular citizens to have meaningful lives as the great tourism industry flourishes among us. And I'm particularly concerned Mr. President about recreational space which is an important facet of a civilized society. There must be public spaces where people can recreate in traditional ways a simple thing like taking your family to the beach and having vehicular access because we're not moving on foot anymore. Those are important things. There are areas in the country where this is being challenged and we have to look into the peaceful coexistence of civil society and industry. At the end of the day we are in this business for one reason only and that is to better the lives of the people of Saint Lucia. They are not mere statistics, they are not square feet of real estate. Visitor arrivals are irrelevant if they produce no tangible change in the well-being of ordinary citizens. So let us keep this Mr. President. I would say at the forefront of our agenda as we consider this very important bill. I think it is a good move to streamline the agency to refocus its mandate. I believe it is a good thing to have it primarily concerned with marketing and product development and there's a little bit of provision for training which is a good thing. Let us also in keeping with my earlier comments at our last session, let us also try and make sure that as we change the landscape the mandates of the remaining institutions are well defined. How these institutions integrate and collaborate is very important. Who has the money does not necessarily have the mandate. Who has the mandate does not necessarily have the money. So let us make sure that we have an integrated approach to the sector and that we understand the motivations of each agency and its constituencies because each of the agencies in the sector has a constituency of members which it serves and we have to be consistent about that or as we are sowing confusion. So I support the bill Mr. President and I would like to make sure that it goes through hopefully with the suggestions that I have made. I thank you very much honorable members. Thank you. Senator Wojie please. Senator the question is that the Saint Lucia Tourism Authority bill be read a second time. I now put a question as many as are of that opinions here as many as are of a country opinions you know. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. An act to repeal and replace the tourist industry development act cap 15.32 to increase the socio-economic contribution of tourism to national development and for related matters. Senators will go through the bill. My way of clauses as well as parts. Clause two. Interpretation. Clause two stands part of the bill. Clause three. Application. Clause three stands part of the bill. Part one closes 4 to 27. Saint Lucia Tourism Authority. Part one closes 4 to 27 stands part of the bill. Part two closes 28 to 45. Finance. Part two closes 28 to 45 stands part of the bill. Part three closes 46 to 41. Miscellaneous. Clause three closes 46 to 41 stands part of the bill. Clause one. Short title. Clause one stands part of the bill. Senators the question is that the committee rises and the bill be reported. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion here as many as are of a country opinions you know. I think the eyes have it. Senators I beg to report that the Saint Lucia Tourism Authority bill went through committee stage with no amendments. I believe of government business. Mr. President I move that the report of the committee be adopted and the bill be read a third time and passed. Senators the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the Saint Lucia Tourism Authority bill be read a third time and passed. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion here as many as are of a country opinions you know. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Be acted by the Queen's most excellent majesty by and with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of Saint Lucia and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited as the Saint Lucia Tourism Authority Act 2017. Senators sometimes that we forget or I forget sometimes sometimes it's not brought to my attention. Sometimes it does and sometimes when I remember I immediately at the point of announcements do acknowledge but it is good that today the senators brought it to my attention that today is officially the fishermen face. You see we tend to celebrate most faces, most feats and everything else on the weekend and because it's always tied to den recanival so we always remember the celebration on the weekend but this be in the case then let me join you senators in Ruxin. All fishermen are very good day and hope that the celebration I normally celebrate on Sunday and that let me put in a plug here since many colleagues they are from Denry that all the senators will join Denryans in celebration this weekend of the carnival so I hope that I'll see Senates independent deputies, Senate president and Senator Adrianoge will be there and everybody will be in Denry this weekend very well I get your assurance senator that you will be there. Senators also let me remind you that we guided by outstanding orders I know during my time in the senate I've been one of the participants government leader of government business then senator LaCobinier would see that his bible is the blueprint for growth and I've heard you say that the UWP manifesto is your bible but senators our bible is outstanding orders and we seem to be wanting to depart from it please review it if you seem to have forgot it appears that you have forgotten and that next time we'll operate this course participate in this sitting or in the senate sitting by way of our bible. Leader of government business. Mr president I beg that this house stand adjourned sanadae. I move that this house stand adjourned sanadae. Senators the question is that the house do stand adjourned sanadae. I now put the question as many as of that opinion see I as many as of a country opinion see no. I think the eyes have it the eyes have it sit in this adjourned