 Honourable Members, when the House last rose, the question was that Parliament by negative resolution approve that Regulation 73A and 79 and Schedule 2, one qualifying investment as provided by statutory instrument 2005, number 89, be reinstated. Honourable Minister for Economic Planning and Member for Castery Southeast. Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to this proposed negative resolution to amend some of the changes made to the CIP programme or the regulations governing CIP. Madam Speaker, I have sat here for the better part of this afternoon and listened to try and make sense out of what the concerns are as it relates to the CIP programme. Madam Speaker, the least that we can do as parliamentarians in this Honourable House is to maintain some consistency or if we have changed our position on a particular matter to be able to come out clearly and articulate that we have changed our position or our thinking. Madam Speaker, CIP project or programme is an issue of trust. Can you trust the Government that is implementing the CIP programme? And it is clear that the opposition does not trust this Government by everything that they have done. But they need to come to understand, Madam Speaker, that they are in opposition and they have the chance to govern. Madam Speaker, I raise issues about CIP in this Honourable House. When there was a rush to pass the legislation and to pass the act and we did not know what would be the regulations governing it, what did the member of Eufort South say to me? Don't worry, it's going to come to the House. Madam Speaker, I'm still in the House. I want to ask the member of Eufort South when did it come to the House? Now, I know regulations. You don't need to come and approve regulations in parliament. I understand that. But you see, Madam Speaker, when it is not the intention of somebody to do something, they must not raise the hopes of the people in the Honourable House because, you know, I listened to the member of Eufort South and he said somebody had to convince him about CIP as if he expects me to believe that. If I know one thing about the member of Eufort South, what he wants to do, that's what he does. I don't know who has the capacity to convince the member of Eufort South if he is not inclined to go in a particular direction to go in that direction. So to try and make me believe as a member of the House, well, you know, I'm not sure where I stand on CIP. I never really wanted CIP, but somebody convinced me to go with CIP. I mean, that's the essence of what I gathered. And, you know, what is interesting about the debate on this negative resolution is the member of Eufort South has not even touched on the points raised by the member for Castery South, on the concerns that he has eloquent with nothing, no substance. You know, Madam Speaker, you would expect as the member for Choiselle indicated that if there were concerns, genuine concerns about CIP would be raised. Now, Madam Speaker, let me just take one example and show you how much this makes no sense. 500 cap for the year. I would not employ any of you to be a salesman for me because my business would go bankrupt. You are telling me, you are telling me, and let's look at it, because sometimes we try to make this thing look like rocket science. There's basic common sense in this. Madam Speaker, there are times when the market, when it's a buyer's market, there are times when it's a seller's market. Okay? At the end of the day, you choose as a buyer or a seller when you are going to trade. So, you put a cap of 500 passports per year for how many years? Now, Madam Speaker, it would make sense to me if the members opposite would have said, look here, we need to put a cap of 10,000 CIP passports in St. Lucia and close the deal from there. So, if you sell it in one year, CIP closes after one year. If you sell it in 50 years, CIP closes in 50 years. So, 500 a year to say what? To say what? 500 a year. Why a cap of 500 a year? So, I'm trying to understand. So, I'm in the market. I have a product to sell. People are ready to buy my product, Madam Speaker. I'm ready to sell, but I sell and remember I'm competing. I'm competing with my neighbors. I'm competing globally, but I'm selling a product. And I say for this year, I'm selling only 500. So, I start in January. By March, my 500 is sold. Everybody who applies, I sell for you, you have to wait for next year. What happens? You think people sit in there waiting for you if they want citizenship by investment? You think you have something that nobody else has? So, I'm trying to understand the logic and the reasoning. Now, if you had put forward an argument that you cannot do more than 500 due diligence, proper due diligence in one year, I can understand that. I didn't hear anything about that. All I'm hearing is we put a cap for one year. What is the reason for the cap? Too many people come into St. Lucia too quickly, Madam Speaker. This is a flawed argument. That is why I didn't even want to speak to this subject because at the end of the day, it so much did not make sense. But at the end of the day, how do you allow all of this to be said in the honorable house and say nothing? So, take for example, due diligence. And I'll make a couple points, Madam Speaker. I said CIP is an issue of trust. Now, I had my concerns when they were implementing the program because they have proven that they are not a government that can be trusted. And even when they give information in this honorable house, the information cannot be trusted. The information cannot be trusted. Let me use the member for Castries Central as a point of reference. The member for Castries Central at one time said, the member for View Fort South said something. And he almost had them put the member out, denying that he never said it. And Madam Speaker, I'm establishing a point here because I want to come to make to analyze what the information is that is out there. So, take the project that the member for Ansleray countries mentioned about getting CIP approval on this project. And I saw the member's CIP approval. What's CIP approval on what project? Yes, Honorable Minister for Tourism. Madam Speaker, I'm ever so sorry for interrupting the rather eloquent presentation of the member for Castries Southeast. But I rise, Madam Speaker, at a point of elucidation, as it pertains as he has brought up the particular matter. Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments just to clarify and apologize to the house that I was not attempting to mislead the house as was wrongly suggested previously. But Madam Speaker, we came to the Parliament with a pile of documents and therefore I would like to make a document of the house, Madam Speaker, the correct cabinet conclusion for the purpose of the members of the house. I would also further, Madam Speaker, make available to the house an agreement between the government of St. Lucia and the set development so that members of the house can be further elucidated. Am I understanding in you to be saying that cabinet conclusion, you cited the wrong cabinet conclusion, but you have the correct one now? Yes, Madam Speaker. I came to the house this morning with several cabinet conclusions and I accidentally passed on the wrong one to the Clerk of Parliament and I would, I have now copied the correct document for members of the house and I was in no way attempting to mislead the house as was wrongly suggested. And Honorable, I need to get my head around it as well. So are you are you referring to the point that you've been cited on because you have been cited? Yes, Madam Speaker, the very same point. Because you distributed the document, you spoke to a document and the document distributed had nothing to do with what you did. Right. But Madam Speaker, I've now got the right and correct document which speaks to the very point I was making. The point being? The point being that the developer without DC approval had received CIP approval. First pass the document to me. I have in my possession a cabinet conclusion dated 21st of March 2016 and it speaks to approval of Belvedere Plantation that it has been approved. Okay. Cabinet considered a memorandum dated 8th of March 2016, submitted on behalf of the Citizenship by Investment Unit and approved the Belvedere Plantation by Enchantment as a high-end branded hotel and resort under the Citizenship by Investment Program. Honorable Leader of the Opposition, you raise that point. It was a point to raise and the Honorable Member was cited for, of which it was duly noted. The Honorable Member now has said the wrong cabinet conclusion was distributed and that the correct one is now being distributed and it seems it actually brings to the fore the point that he raised regarding an approved CIP project. Madam Speaker, I had in possession, in my possession, a cabinet conclusion and that cabinet conclusion was cited by the Member for Anzac County as showing that the project on cabinet approval, I had no DC approval. I acted on the evidence presented to me which was a cabinet conclusion. I was in no position to know that the minister would have brought other documents. Now, since the minister has brought other documents, I want to suggest that the minister must be a little more careful in his utterances. He has been doing so for a while. So in this regard, since the document that he showed was incorrect, he'll have to agree that it was incorrect and once he agrees that it was incorrect, I will withdraw my cite. Yes, but I think I heard you saying it was you cited, you came with a bunch of documents and you had the wrong one photocopied. So what I just want to clarify Honorable Leader of the Opposition is the fact that he did indicate that he had photocopied the wrong document and I very much agree with you that we need to be very careful that when we bring documents to the house and we're citing documents, we need to be prudent as to at the very least knowing that we're citing the right documents. But then he has then brought and has given an explanation. That is what I'm saying. Madam Speaker, I am bigger than that. The minister brought a document he tried to miss. If the document showed that he was missing in the house. He's brought another document which is different and for all of us can make mistakes. So I have withdrawn my cite. The need to mention or to cite him. Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise to add to this discussion. Because the member from Ansler Canaries said two things. One, that he got CIP approval without DCA approval. And I have Madam Speaker, which I will circulate to every single member of this house, copy of the approval in principle given by the DCA to the investor. And Madam Speaker, he's the member from Ansler Canaries will not get out of it so easily. His student he said and he's explaining to the house. He had multiple documents before him and he gave the wrong one. What is the relevance of the one that he circulated? He never had the document, Madam Speaker. But secondly, Madam Speaker, he said clearly and he just repeated it that the investor was given CIP approval without he ever obtaining DCA approval. That's Madam Speaker, can I make it a document of the house? Can I make it a document of the house showing where the investor had received? One member is on his feet. One at a time. So Madam Speaker, there were two matters for which he was going to be cited. It's saying to this Honorable House that he had in his possession a cabinet conclusion that showed Madam Speaker that I need to yield them to a member on a point of elucidation. I am trying to understand where does the member from Castro South come into the equation on the point of elucidation. Did you raise an issue when the member made his point? I mean, I yielded to the member for clarification. How does he get the member responded? How does he get into the equation, Madam Speaker? Can I go on with my contribution? Two points were raised and it has been brought to the floor, which is very correct. Honorable Minister for Tourism, you made two pertinent points because I took note of it and it was past the clock. Two points. One being that the allegation you made, two, you alleged that there was cabinet approved the project for CIP. I will accept that you've brought a document and the Honorable Leader of the Opposition who cited you and stated, yes, you've made an error. The other point you made, you actually made two points, was that it was without DCA approval. There were two points. Madam Speaker, I rise in a point of elucidation. So, Madam Speaker, there's a difference between approval in principle and full DCA approval. And so the project, Madam Speaker, has not received full DCA approval. In fact, Madam Speaker, what the DCA will confirm is that the project, Madam Speaker, has received land use approval, which is far different from DCA approval. I think we're adding a lot more to it now. One moment, please. I will rise to verify something, but I'm not leaving the chamber. Honorable members, I wish to bring to your attention that this matter will be taken to the Committee of Privileges, which will be investigated. Otherwise, Honorable Minister for Economic Development and member for Castery Southeast, can you proceed with your presentation? Madam Speaker, I don't know whether I should recommence my presentation or whether I can continue from where I am. But I will say, Madam Speaker, that CIP, a lot of it has to do with trust and what happens. And I can well understand why the members opposite, Madam Speaker, have so much difficulty because I listened to the member for Viewfort South. And I want to read a section of the CIP Act. And I heard him talking about what the member for Meekood South said in relation to persons who become citizens, citizens who gain citizenship through the investment program and what they are likely and how it is going to benefit their wife and if they have children. Madam Speaker, page 281, section, section 33, no, section 36, Madam Speaker, it says all applicants who is granted citizenship by investment shall enjoy all the rights of a citizen and also be subject to the laws of St. Lucia, including exemption from requirements of the Alien Landholding License Act. Now, Madam Speaker, what is a citizen of St. Lucia entitled to? Makes it look like somebody invented something to say that. But, Madam Speaker, in another debate, in another time in this honorable House, he made mention of St. Vincent's position and how much of a hard time they would have that Ralph would have to convince otherwise that these people are entitled. Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I'm sure the honorable member would be gracious enough to yield. Relax, 34, elucidation. Yes, yes, if you're in my classroom, you would have been better. No, do that foolish mistake today. Madam Speaker, it's the honorable member here and I thank him for yielding. He's totally misconstrued what I'm saying. Yes, no one is denying that the wife or children of an applicant can get citizenship through the CIP Act. That's one route. I said there were two routes, but a second route does not apply. I was responding to the statement made by the Prime Minister at the forum. Our Normal Citizenship Act does not apply, and this is the point, so that you can only acquire that citizenship if you take the CIP route, not the other. There are two doors. One door is closed. Hello, Speaker. I will highlight the contribution by the honorable member for Viewford South Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Economic Affairs, Planning and Social Security. It is a vex issue in some quarters. That is the contribution. That is Hansard, Madam Speaker, on the CIP program. I don't have the date on let me see. Yes, Hansard House of Assembly Tuesday, 28th July, 2015. I will read the full paragraph, Madam Speaker, as made by the member for Viewford South. It is a vex issue in some quarters. The OECS Prime Ministers make the point that under the existing citizenship laws in the account situation, all countries give citizenship approvals. For example, somebody who qualifies for citizen in St. Lucia by virtue of residence, that person, once we give them a St. Lucia passport, they have the right to go to St. Vincent, or to Dominica, or to Grenada, or to St. Kitts, which is part of the discussion I heard. I think the member for Viewford North was highlighting. It goes on to say, Madam Speaker, for them, I guess referring to the OECS Prime Ministers, for them, for some, it is a non-argument to Dominica, no, to the Prime Minister of St. Vincent, who is adamantly opposed to the citizenship by investment. That OECS rights should only apply to persons who are born in St. Vincent, now other governments counter. But that cannot be right, because other persons who are not born in St. Vincent or other islands who give them citizenship all the time. What is happening here with the program is an accelerated program. And it goes on to say, I believe though that it is going to be a losing battle for the Prime Minister of St. Vincent, because St. Vincent also grants citizenship to those nationals who buy big properties in the Grenadines. So, Madam Speaker, and that is the twist that we always get in this honorable house, that what is presented is not what is presented. Now, Madam Speaker, it is easy to cite everything that the member for Viewford, for Meekood South said. Every statement he made, whether in a private or public conversation, I heard them, they came here, I could have objected. So, you can go and type anything on the internet and say that I said it. I don't play these cheap games in politics, you know. And I, anything I say, I stand by it, Madam Speaker. I heard them read quotation after quotation after quotation. They said they took it from the media. You think I worry about that? I have consistency in what I see. You cannot find me. If I change my position, I will declare I change my position. Madam Speaker, these same members, when VAT was being discussed, they called VAT an oppressive tax. When they came in, they introduced the same oppressive tax and say it's necessary. When we spoke about CIP, Madam Speaker, when we raised the concerns about CIP, because they were in government, they sang a different song. Don't worry, everything will be all right. Now they're not in government, everything is wrong. And they want to make it look like the three little changes that are made that the member for Castery South is presenting. I mean, I don't know what he's thinking is. I don't know where the problems are. But, Madam Speaker, on the issue of trust, if they were implementing the CIP program, I would not trust them. I would not trust them. Castery South, if they were introducing that CIP program, because we raised the questions, we have the concerns. Madam Speaker, I heard the member for Castery South say so much about Joufal. I heard them talk about passports. I heard him talk about Chaguri and all of the others. If you all had a problem with Chaguri, you all gave him a cross. You all gave him one of the highest honors in St. Lucia. So it means he was doing something right. When we raised, we had to find out about Joufal through other means other than the government. When Stephen Seagal came to St. Lucia, that was public knowledge. Nothing was hidden. You know, I heard the member talk about an attempt to make somebody an ambassador. Madam Speaker, I heard him on a radio Caribbean program, Newspin, and he said he don't know nothing about who got diplomatic passports. He's not here that can answer that. Go and ask the government because he's not here that issue in diplomatic passports. But I know better than that and I have evidence to back up what I'm saying. But I choose when I use my information. Madam Speaker, I choose when I use the information that's available to me because I have to use it when I can get maximum effect from using it now. And that's what they don't understand, Madam Speaker. So when they tell me due diligence, due diligence is not just important for citizenship by investment, for somebody who may buy 10,000 square feet of land somewhere in St. Lucia or may buy a villa that is just 5,000 square feet. When you give 83 million acres of our seabed to a bluffer, you sign an agreement that only the governor general should sign. Did you do due diligence? How many members on this side of the house did that due diligence to find out who Jack Greenberg was? And if they have done that due diligence, wouldn't they have known that he has made more money from litigation than from drilling for oil? You want to come and lecture this side of the house about how to do due diligence? I am asking the members opposite, what due diligence did you do? And how many millions of dollars are we paying as I speak today to still defend this case in court? We'll talk about due diligence and high net worth people, high net worth, high net worth. Jufali was high net worth. He promised us, what did, what explanation did you all give us in the house? When we ask about Jufali, he promised a research center for diabetes. Where is the research center, Madam Speaker? And you talk about how many passports? Jufali alone had four, himself, his wife, his daughter, and his child, four diplomatic passports and made the representative in Saudi Arabia a lady. And we know a lady can even hold a driver's license in Saudi Arabia. And I should not question that. Should I question whether somebody got paid? Well, I have to ask, did Jufali buy any vehicles for the consulate, the high commission's office? Maybe I can ask that in due time, I will get an answer. You see, Madam Speaker, when things are being dealt with, I heard the members of UFOT North talk about recolonization. I heard the members of UFOT South, he said that's one of the problems he had with Teowakim. But I fought in another time and in another place, they never met Teowakim. They never had discussions with Teowakim. And in his presentation, he said removing the cap of the 500 was one of the debates that they had with Teowakim. So you never met Teowakim. You don't know anything about DSH project. But you had that heated discussion with Teowakim. Was it Teowakim or a ghost named Teowakim? That is what I have to ask in this honorable house. Now, Madam Speaker, when you look at all of the things that has happened, you want to talk about the land in St. Lucia, member of UFOT North, you saw the agreement, are you aware? It's already a document of the house. The letter to Mr. Robert Enzwood. Enzwood, 9 February 2016, signed by the then Prime Minister, Dr. Kenny Anton. And you would think that we would have learned a lesson, Madam Speaker. What do you diligence was done on him? You want to talk about land in UFOT? You're concerned about land for the young people in UFOT? You're concerned about that? A thousand acres. A thousand acres. He built in one factory that going to take a thousand acres. It's already a document of the house. You don't have to trust it. I don't, you don't have to trust it. I don't need you to trust it. You know, Madam Speaker, in point 14 of that same letter, page seven. Madam Speaker, the member is winning from a document. I want to see it, please. I do not know. I don't remember that. I don't recall. I want to see what he's winning from. I'm not taking his word for it. Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, it is already a document of the house. It is a document. What is it? What is it you're afraid of? What is it you're afraid of? I don't need you to trust me. I don't need you to trust me. I tell you all the cows disappear under your watch. You can account for the cows of the people in UFOT. You're still talking? Okay. The government confirms the rights of the developer to extract and develop all natural resources. If any that are discovered within the cartilage of any of the lands owned by the developer and the subsidiaries. Now, Madam Speaker, why is that important to me? You know why this is important to me? Because it tells me, it sends a signal to me that after the Grinberg affair and all of that happened, you would think that a sensible individual would realize maybe I acted in a manner that I should not have. And the governor general, and we know all of the things. You know what happens? He signs another agreement in 2016, and he gives the same rights. So if while the person is there, if on the almost because this whole agreement is almost 4,000 acres of land that is involved. So if he finds gold, if he finds diamonds, if he finds oil, whatever he finds is his to extract. Madam Speaker, that is telling, that is very telling, Madam Speaker, with the disdain that this leader has treated the citizens of this country, not just the politicians, because as politicians, we can take that. But you are saying to the people talk, say all what you all want to say. I'll show you all who's in charge. So I'm signing another agreement. So the 83 million acres of the seabed was not enough. The $6 million plus we are paying in court to defend our surroundings. The seabed is not enough. And you know, Madam Speaker, if there was not an encouragement, if a cabinet did not support the leader in making these decisions, that would not have happened, Madam Speaker. That would not have happened. And these people want to come and lecture us about what we should do about CIP. You want to talk about colonization. That is where the colonization takes place. 4,000 acres to a person. I want to ask you all what was the due diligence on him? The business he has was registered months before the agreement was entered into with him. Months. You understand, Madam Speaker? But you, but you are coming to this honorable house, and you want to question, you are saying, well, you have 10 points on which you want this to be reversed. What is it worth? So I couldn't trust you all. And I can well understand why you would not trust us. But time will tell. I always tell people we are quick to speak. You always want to pass judgment. You know, I heard them talk about diplomatic passports. There's no relationship between diplomatic passports and CIP. No, in CIP we sell them. But when you have reason to believe that diplomatic passports are sold, then it gives a completely different twist. And we need to understand that. I heard the member talk about the position taken with the Chinese citizen and the pressure that was applied. Even when the UK tried to apply pressure on St. Lucia, the then government took a position. We are not going to take any action against you. Why? St Lucia's name was being dragged in the mud. We were all over the place. Negative publicity on the media. For what? For what? You telling me just because you like a man who never attended a meeting on our behalf? Never attended a meeting? I am all representative. Never went to a meeting. But yet still you cannot tell him that you can no longer hold diplomatic immunity. You are willing to go to court and we the citizens of St. Lucia should not question that. I do have no reason to question what you do because it's the Labour Party. I heard you all about diplomatic passports and who have it. I can tell you all who had it when I was in opposition. I didn't have one. I never came and asked for one. Okay? I was not given an official one. I was not given a diplomatic one. I was treated as a nobody. Did you hear me come and complain about that? While Jufalli and his wife and his daughter and his daughter's child, all of them had diplomatic passports. Free to roam in the name of St Lucia. And the elected representative and you all presented a book, a book was presented here. Pick any member on this side. Maybe with the exception of the member for Cassie's East. Pick any member. Any two. And I got more votes than you all combined together. Any two of you. But I couldn't have that. I couldn't be treated as a parliamentarian. But everybody else outside. And today you want to come and talk about citizenship by investment and what should happen. Adam Speaker, the attacks, the attacks have been there. And I'm coming to that in due course. I'm coming to that. The reports that was made about me. You think it's the media alone. You all call terrorists. You all reported me as a terrorist. You all reported me as a terrorist. But Madam Speaker, that is how far the members on this side will go. You know, we'll come to that in due course. I want you to think about it in the meantime. Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I am saying to you today. I am saying to you today, Madam Speaker. Same kids with a population of about 35,000 people. How many passports have this rule? When I heard them talk about what is going to happen to us in St. Lucia, in all the countries Antigua, Dominica, St. Kitts, Grenada, St. Lucia has the highest population among all of these countries. Why didn't you put a cap on how many diplomats, how many citizenship by investment you think we should have? I would have supported a position like that. If you had said, look here in the interim, we are going to sell 10,000 because we don't want them to outnumber us. Then I could see some merit in that, but you just put 500 a year. And that's why I said, I would not make you all a salesman for me. Because if the idea is to raise revenue with high net worth individuals, now the member was making a comparison between 100,000 and 200,000 and saying that we have cheap home St. Lucia. We have made St. Lucia a low end destination because we sell them. Now there are some basic rules in commerce and in business. And I can well understand why West Indies cricket board lose all of the cases that they have done with the players and the fiasco that happened there. Because when I listen to the rationale of the member for you for Castery South, about the 100,000 and the 200,000, Madam Speaker, how can you enter a market? You're the last entrant into the market. Everybody else is known and ahead of you. And you want to be more expensive than everybody else. And you expect people to take you on. And then I heard them trying to play with words about failed. There were two words that the member for Castery is used. Failed and disappointing. Too peace in the same part. You know the saying a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. That is what the 100,000 is about. That is what the 100,000 is about. And do I believe that St. Lucia should remain in the CIP program indefinitely? Certainly not. I have had my reservations about CIP and I still have my reservations being in government. But how can I allow St. Vincent, not St. Vincent. Dominica Green, they send kids to make decisions for me. They get all the money in the country and then these people become citizens and they have the same rights in St. Lucia. Am I that stupid? Am I that foolish to allow you to get all the benefits and the same rights so anybody who wants to open a business in St. Lucia and we do not have a CIP program can just go to Dominica, buy your citizenship by investment and come and open their business here and there's nothing we can do about it. We are the ones who went into the OECS arrangement, free movement, no barriers. So do we want citizenship by investment or we don't want it? That is what you need to ask yourself. Now because you are so adamant then, you are in charge, you know about Atten Capital, why didn't you tell us about that? What was the deal with Atten Capital? That they would have paid 150,000 US on behalf of the government of St. Lucia for lobbying firm in the US. But you see you are not smart enough to understand that the laws in the US are very different to the laws here and that when this law firm had to fight, they had to declare who paid them. So what was the deal with Atten Capital and who in this parliament used to be affiliated or work with Atten Capital? Madam Speaker, tell them when they come in, come clean, come with all of the information. Who was doing what? How did Atten Capital get into the equation on the CIP program? So when we raise questions about certain things that was happening, there were grounds to raise the question. Madam Speaker, as much as people love us, nobody is just going to pay 150,000 US for you on behalf of a lobbying firm. What was promised to them? You wanted to imagine everything that had happened. This one you don't have to imagine, you can just tell us. Tell us. I'm not assuming. I'm saying you are making a, Madam Speaker, through you. The member was making assumptions. I will not say they sold that passport. I will not say they paid that person money. I will not say that. So I'm not saying anything. I'm asking you, what was the deal with Atten Capital? Why did they pay 150,000 US on behalf of the government of St. Lucia? And where is that declared in the books? Because Madam Speaker, this is the business of the country. So the member for Cassidy South knows that he has no grounds for the changes that he's asking them. You know, that's like a crybaby, Madam Speaker. You put your thing like that and they come and they interfere with it and they want to move it there and put it there. You ever see children playing, Madam Speaker? I put my thing there. Don't touch it. So who is the UWP to come and touch a program established in a particular manner by the St. Lucia Labor Party? You govern the way you wanted. And regardless of how much advice, for that matter, when I tried to give a little bit of advice, the member for Viewfort South told me right here. You see, you and Alan Shastnik, I will not take no advice from you. Now, if you give me good advice, I'm taking it. Yes, I don't know if he has the capacity to give good advice, but if he gives me good advice, I will take it. That's the problem. Who tried to change your mind? I brought people. No, no, that's okay. That's all right. You think I go, Madam Speaker? But the honourable member for Viewfort South, you said you are imputing and you actually said that the member is very bribing people left, right and centre. We spoke to that earlier answer and I need you to withdraw. Madam Speaker, you can say what you want, but I could never forget the briefcase of money in a toilet, Madam Speaker. Never. That can never happen to me. Forget the briefcase of money? Who forgot the briefcase of money in the toilet? Madam Speaker, I didn't say anybody. I said that could never happen to me. I didn't say anybody forget the briefcase of money in the toilet. I mean, all I'm saying is that cannot happen to me. So, Madam Speaker, but that's the politics of the day, Madam Speaker. That's the politics of the day. And I will tell you, Madam Speaker, the member for Viewfort South knows better than what he's saying there. Ask him. He paid three million dollars to investigate me. Ask him to release the report. It's not what he says as a politician. He hired the best, the best forensic auditor that you can find in the world. But, Madam Speaker, when I'm ready to deal with them, I have everything there, everything, and I want the world to see this report. I have everything there. So, when you're ready to talk about Bright, we're free. It will come in time. Don't worry about that. Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, I am saying here, politicians will not, politicians will not define who I am. You paid three million dollars to investigate me, three million. The best forensic auditor that you could find in the U.S., paying him four hundred and eighty-five U.S. an hour to investigate me. You're afraid to release the report? Release it? No, you got the report. You got the entry report in 2013. Why you did release it? By you think you can accuse me of bribe? I know what to do with me. In your mind, you can make me a thief, but you can never make me that. I am who I am. What you say about me cannot make me that. But that's what it is. Because, Madam Speaker, after you investigated, they gave you the report. You hide it? Why you hide it? You hide the report? I know about brothers, you know. I know about brothers. And I choose not to go there because they have certain things in the politics. And I heard you this morning when you said you want me to set up your brother on you again. And I noted the word again. But that's what the Labour Party does. You go to any length to destroy somebody. You don't care if you destroy their family or whatever happens in the process. But, Madam Speaker, these are the people who want to advise the government on what to do, you know. But, Madam Speaker, I'm bigger than that. And when I release my report, we would know who's speaking the truth. If you pay a month, three million dollars to do something, and you still don't believe what he said, why did you give away three million of the taxpayers' money to do that? Yes, that's a report on me. But you know what, Madam Speaker? He did everything he could to sully my name. He paid three million dollars to claim all by himself. I never got involved. I was never involved. That's how God works. You did it, and you cleaned it. So, Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, I say here in closing that the members opposite, they are grasping at straws to try and find something to label persons. But at the end of the day, my record is always my record. It's not what you say about me. It is what is there. And, Madam Speaker, this motion, this negative resolution is of no substance. That's why they have to divert attention from the substance of the debate. And that's why I have to respond to what they say, because they put a motion on the table that none of them can speak to. They have not said anything to convince any solution that there's a problem with the CIP. And we could have saved a lot of time. But, you see, the member for Castries South, Madam Speaker, there's a competition going on among them as to who should be the leader. So, that one on that end want to show the other one or the other. And, Madam Speaker, who's boss? And so, when you listen to the presentation, you're not sure because each one's saying something different about the same document. And then you want the people to believe you. How can people take you serious? Madam Speaker, a negative resolution is supposed to have some substance in it to at least attract people. But I was making the point that, you know, these people feel that they did their thing and nobody should interfere with it because they alone have the mind to do things. But, they can never do anything right. That's why they're in opposition. The people, they said, who can never win elections, Madam Speaker. They said the member for Meekood South could never win an election in St. Louis. Look at where they sit in and look at whose prime minister. That's what they cannot deal with, Madam Speaker. That's why they come in with all of this thing, negative resolution. They still don't realize they're in opposition. They're not in charge. You had your turn. You failed. And the people rejected you. And they have elected a government they know who can handle the CIP. And I didn't even go into the details of where all the money was going. You give them out our passports and other people control the money. We didn't even know where the money would come in terms of the investment. Ask us how to manage money. That's why we don't lose it in the toilet. Ask us how to manage it. Look at the successful business people you have on this side. And look at those over there. If somebody don't, maybe with the exception of one, if somebody don't give them a job, they could eat a break. Look at success. Look at how many independent persons. Why? Madam Speaker, these are the criterias that we should use. Show me a track record of success. Every day, every month, somebody have to pay your salary. From the day I left school, I pay my salary. That is how you measure success, not what is said inside here. So, Madam Speaker, I know that the CIP program is in the best hands that it can ever be in this region, in the hands of the government of the United States. I thank you. Honourable Member for Custry Soft. Madam Speaker, am I to assume that you are asking me to rebut at this time? Because, Madam Speaker, during the course of this debate, a number of questions were asked of the minister responsible for citizenship by investment. And one expected that both... Are you saying the minister? So, Madam Speaker, so the Honourable Member from Custry Soft is saying that there is nothing of substance for the Prime Minister to respond to. Madam Speaker, and he speaks about arrogance and disdain. And this is the Parliament of St. Lucia, Madam Speaker. This is the Parliament of St. Lucia. This is where we are going to the people for the conduct of the government, Madam Speaker. And you have an opposition that is supposed to hold the government accountable to suggest that the government and the minister should not answer any questions in the parliament, speaks a lot, Madam Speaker. And I'm not sure that's exactly the spirit in which, Madam Speaker, we want to conduct ourselves in this Honourable House. But, Madam Speaker, I just need to respond to a few issues, Madam Speaker, which we raise. And it's getting late, Madam Speaker, and I feel we still have a number of matters to address, Madam Speaker. The Member from Ancelary Cannery, Madam Speaker, made the point, and he asked a question, why should we have asked for a high price for St. Lucia? Madam Speaker, how can you suggest that we should not ask for a premium price for St. Lucia? How can you not say that? And the Member from Trousel Saltibus made the point that St. Lucia is in demand because of our beauty and all the attributes that we have. And coming in late, Madam Speaker, does not mean you have to sell yourself as cheaply as possible. But, Madam Speaker, if the logic is true that the price was reduced from 200,000 K to 100,000 K to be competitive, Madam Speaker, since then Dominica has reduced its price in terms of its fees and Tiga has reduced its price. St. Kipps has reduced its price. Are we now going to reduce our price even further to remain competitive, Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker, the logic escapes me. Madam Speaker, we have dealt with the issue of the Bocca Group being granted CIP status without having this year approval, Madam Speaker. And this has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. So, I guess, Madam Speaker, it will be examined further, Madam Speaker. But, Madam Speaker, you'll admit that was an unnecessary attack on an investor in St. Lucia. But I guess, Madam Speaker, there probably are reasons for that and I would not seek to speculate what those reasons are, Madam Speaker. But the Member from Answer Cannery also said St. Lucia is becoming so attractive now for investors. And, Madam Speaker, let me explain to you why for some investors St. Lucia is becoming so attractive, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition and Member for Cassius is dealt with with earlier, Madam Speaker. And let's go over it again, Madam Speaker. The previous configuration allowed for real estate options, donations, bonds, and enterprise. I think the bonds option has been discontinued. It has not because you criticize it. The Honorable Member did criticize it and there was an announcement that it had been stopped. So, if it has been revived, so be it, Madam Speaker. But, Madam Speaker, when persons or individuals apply for the donation mode, Madam Speaker, the legislation provides that that money goes to the National Economic Fund and we need to approve in parliament how that money is being used. In the other islands, Madam Speaker, that money goes to the people. It's used to build schools, to build roads. And investors use the real estate option, the real estate option. Under the donation option, Madam Speaker, there are no government fees paid. The donation goes straight to governments. But under the real estate option, Madam Speaker, the government receives fees. So, the developer would get the 300,000 minimum, but government would get fees, Madam Speaker, 60,000 if it's 50,000. But if it's a family of four, it could go up. So, they receive fees. The minister announced, as well as a developer, that they would change in the model. Now, Madam Speaker, that same developer had signed an agreement with Senutia. He was happy with the arrangement we had. And I'll tell you something. I do not criticize a developer. The developers receive a deal that is the most glorious deal he can ever ask for. That developer is one of the happiest men on the planet right now. And he's excited about Senutia. And you know why, Madam Speaker? That developer, for a project of $453 million, would have to find at least 500 investors. Each of the investors would pay 300,000 K. He would pay government 50,000 US. That developer, when he invests and say he buy a suite, he buy a villa, or he buy a room in the hotel, he has to pay government vendor stocks. He has to pay some duty. He has to pay a local lawyer for a deed of sale. All of that is revenue to be earned in the country. That investor who's just paid 300,000 qualifies for citizenship. According to the law, he can hold it for five years. Each of the five years, the developer must pay him ROI, written on investment. So that developer, in his mind, knows that after five years, that investor who got citizenship can resell the investment. But for every year, he must pay him ROI. And after five years, a new set of persons can buy into the property again because it's an investment. Each new set, Madam Speaker, has to pay some duty, vendor stocks, has to pay lawyer fees. And if a local real estate agent is the one who got that new investor, they get real estate commission fees. So the citizen by investment program was supposed to generate an acceleration in the real estate industry. Lawyers across would be making money. Government would be earning government fees on every applicant. Government would also be earning some duty and vendor stocks. But the investor was having a major headache. Every year, he must pay ROI. He's now been offered a deal by the government of St. Lucia. He's been told, bringing your investors, not as investors, but just as applicants, make a donation of 100,000. And each one you bring in, we will put the money and hand it back to you as a loan at 2%. And the member from Cassius has pointed out, our government is loaning money at 2% interest. But we are borrowing money at 6.5% interest right now in St. Lucia, according to the deal announced by the Prime Minister. Now, why would that developer be vexed with such a deal, Madam Speaker, that all of a sudden, I can bring in a thousand applicants to St. Lucia. They pay in the money through donation, and the government gives it back to me through invest in Lucia as a loan at 2% interest. And that new model being proposed by the Prime Minister. The return to St. Lucia is the repayment of the principal loan, $453 million, the 2% interest over 20 years, and all the monies that offer agents will make in solution of our process in the applications. Now, Madam Speaker, and there are persons on the other side, and I wonder who's doing the financial modeling for the Prime Minister. Because if you compare that to the other scenario, where if you had kept it as it was, where every investment is government's dumb duty, vendor's tax, lawyer fees, government fees for real estate applications through the CIP, and every five years, Madam Speaker, it can be resold and the cycle repeats itself, or not necessarily every five years, a minimum of five years, so it can be after seven years, it can be after eight years. And somebody do a model and calculate the amount that this country would have earned after 20 years, compared with what the Prime Minister has now offered the developer. We are losing big time, Madam Speaker, massive loss in revenue under the CIP, massive loss, and the document which was presented by the Leader of the Opposition this morning will be circulated so people can get a chance to read it. At this point, I don't want to go into all the figures, Madam Speaker. Now if you offer that to a developer, why would he refuse it, Madam Speaker? The developer is a happy man. He doesn't have to worry about ROI every year. After 20 years, the hotel is his, he got a loan of 2 percent, Madam Speaker, when the world are investors going and getting money at 2 percent interest, Madam Speaker. But, Madam Speaker, you know in all of that, every cent under the old donation model that went to the National Economic Fund was available to be spent on repaying the schools, repaying the roads, managing the hospitals so we don't have to privatise it, Madam Speaker. All of that is now lost to St. Lucia, because every donation that comes in goes back out as a loan to a developer. And, Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister said to us that under DSH, that the developer, Mr. Thio Akin, was going to be putting his money up front for phase one, the racing track, but we were going to pay him back the money under the CIP. Prime Minister said to Riquin, I found it a little bizarre then that this is total madness, but now I understand what he's doing. So, Mr. Thio Akin will bring in the passports as donation, and then we give him back the money, and he will, how do you call it, affront it or something like that. Madam Speaker, is that sensible? That St. Lucia is losing hundreds of millions of dollars, and we are making investors happy, Madam Speaker. When they were even satisfied with the old deal that we had, and the member from Duford South asked, are we doing that just to get chairs, and for people to clap and say bravo for investors who like us, and say we are so investor friendly in this country, meanwhile our school children cannot go to school in Miku, North, they cannot go to school in Lakoamengo, school, Madam Speaker, because of the conditions of the school. That's money we could have earned through the CIP, Madam Speaker, and through donations. That the member for Miku, North, would not be under so much stress, Madam Speaker. That is why investors are so happy about St. Lucia, because they fund an arrangement that they can take advantage of, Madam Speaker. Now I'll tell you something, Madam Speaker. I'm not entirely against the idea of a sovereign fund. In fact, the member from Duford South will tell you many proposals were submitted to him about the establishment of a sovereign fund. It's not really a bad idea, you know, but you can do it badly. And that is the challenge we have before St. Lucia. But the member from Miku, South, I'm not sure if he really fought it through, because the idea is a bad idea, the way it's been implemented. And, Madam Speaker, the law does not allow the member from Miku, South, to implement such a program. The money must come into the national economic fund. And I do not wonder what authority that money can be given as a loan to an investor, Madam Speaker. And, Madam Speaker, it is illegal. And very soon, Madam Speaker, the prime minister and minister of Miku, South does not address that somebody is likely to take it to court and test it to show that what he's doing is illegal, Madam Speaker. It is illegal, Madam Speaker. The member from Miku, South will have to come to the house and change the laws to cause it to be legal. But even if it is legal, Madam Speaker, it's immoral. It's immoral because those are monies that the people, the young guys in Fuashuo and in Bannon and in Monkey Tongue can benefit from, Madam Speaker. We're giving it back as a loan to a developer, 2%, Madam Speaker. And the developer is happy. And as a consultant to the developer, I would tell him, take it, run, and go drink a few bottles of champagne because it's one of the best deals you can ever get anywhere in the world. The member from Schroeder-Toldebus was a banker. And let him tell you what he thinks of such an arrangement. And I'm sure if he's honest outside the circles of politics, he will tell you, this is madness, but, Madam Speaker, let's move on. The member from Schroeder-Toldebus spoke about persons coming and competing and opening the bakery. And I ask him, Madam Speaker, who is more likely to come to reunion and open a bakery, is it somebody who has paid $100,000 for a passport without having to show any net worth, without having to show any high net worth, or is it somebody who is one of 500, who paid at least $200,000 and had to prove he had over $3 million net worth, who is more likely to come to reunion and to compete with your local person from Schroeder-Toldebus. And Madam Speaker, he's right in the concerns that he raised, and the member from UFOT South raised some of them. But then the changes in the CIP is going to lead to a situation where his worst fears will become a reality, especially in the South, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the member from Katsui South is Madam Speaker. You know, I had resigned myself, Madam Speaker, to always maintain a positive countenance in this house and not really take on the member from Katsui South is Madam Speaker. But Madam Speaker, the member from Katsui South says to trust him, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, that's not really my colleagues, I don't want to go there. But when the member from Katsui South tells the people of St. Lucia to trust him, Madam Speaker, that they will not trust us, but they will trust him and them for managing the CIP. Madam Speaker, if your brother comes on television and says the things he said about you, how can people really believe they should trust you? When your colleague in parliament said the things he said about you, how can people really trust you? Now, Madam Speaker, he's a master craftsman and what he does, he is. Let's give him the credit for that. But does he really think he can look at us in the eye and tell us, trust me, I am who I am. I pray every morning with my wife before I leave the house and God has blessed me. Madam Speaker, if that is blessing, Madam Speaker, then he's really, really in a league by himself. I will not pass judgment on him. All I have said to him, he's accused me. I'll get my idea of judgment. But why don't he go and answer Richard Fedrick? And not that Richard Fedrick is, like Nikitian, he's my boy. Richard Fedrick is not my boy. Richard Fedrick doesn't need boys. Richard Fedrick doesn't need that. But he has said things about the honorable member. And maybe he should, of course he would have said things about me. I don't know, I've never heard. But if he said things about me, Madam Speaker, that's the order of the day. That's the order of the day. People say things about you, but you know yourself. You see, but then when the Prime Minister said enough things about me, I took him to court. If Richard Fedrick is wrong about you, this is a glorious opportunity to make him pay for his mouth. Madam Speaker, so member, I do not know how easily I will trust you. What did Fedrick say? Madam Speaker, I will not fall for the luring. But Madam Speaker, the member for Cassie's office said about the cap, the cap, the 500. And that makes no sense. And we can't trust us. Madam Speaker, let me read. And I will make it a document of the House. Madam Speaker, it's right here. Madam Speaker. And I'm making sure, Madam Speaker, I don't choose the right, the wrong documents for fear is the wrong cabinet conclusion that I'm circulating. So, Madam Speaker, let me read about the logic of the 500. And I'm quoting from the IMF, Madam Speaker, the International Monetary Fund. And here what is said by the International Monetary Fund. A prudent use of the annual cap on approved citizenship applications would help reduce the risk of fiscal dependence on volatile inflows. That's the IMF saying that. That's the IMF saying that. And when members get the document, they can read the full, the full thing. But let me read another part from the IMF, Madam Speaker. The what? Madam Speaker, the IMF also says the same thing about the logic of the cap. Similarly, these programs entail important reputational and financial integrity risks, which necessitates strict adherence to standards for due diligence, governance and transparency. The cap on applicants and additional transparency regulations passed by the authorities may help contain these risks. Among these transparency provisions, the CIP unit will have to report annually to parliament on the activities of the program, including a number of applications, approvals, rejections, as well as detailed information on the successful applicants. Now, the IMF is actually saying that the cap is a positive feature of the Senators CIP. And a member from Kastri South may wish to read it. I know he will not read it, Madam Speaker. But the IMF has explained the logic of the cap. The same cap he said was illogical. And we did not know what we were about. Madam Speaker, the member from Kastri South spoke about art and capital, Madam Speaker. And, Madam Speaker, I will say to you, Madam Speaker, earlier on, you asked me to apologize and withdraw. Now, he did so in the spirit of parliament and ensuring the parliament functions properly. But you allowed the Honorable Member to say quite a few things and impute improper motives, Madam Speaker, to suggest that there was an unholy alliance with art and capital and something was wrong. And he said other things to Madam Speaker. But, you know, that's fine. But let me say something about art and capital. The involvement of art and capital with the CIP was gazetted, Madam Speaker. It was gazetted. It was announced and published, Madam Speaker, in accordance to the legislation. Have the other side, the government, publish and gazetted all the persons involved in the CIP program? Madam Speaker, no. But art and capital, Madam Speaker, was appointed as a marketing agent, one of two global marketing agents. And, Madam Speaker, at that time, there was a lehi law issue hanging over our heads. And it was a serious issue. And certain foreign countries were concerned about the lehi matter affecting Senusha and the setup of our CIP program. I do not want to go into too much details, Madam Speaker. I'm sure you'll appreciate why. I'm sure you'll appreciate why. In discussing the marketing agents, they decided that, look, we need to get some professional lobbies in the U.S. who can speak to the relevant authorities in the U.S. to see the extent to which this matter with the lehi law can be resolved. Art and Capital offered to use their lobbying firm, Patent Squires Bond. They have a relationship with Art and Capital and they are the global, the U.S. lobbying firm that work with them. And they decided that they want to utilize their firm to provide certain services, Madam Speaker, to assist Senusha in dealing the lehi law situation. And ironically, Madam Speaker, and listen to this, the initiative was stopped by this government. And I heard the Prime Minister quite rightfully say, we will need to start doing some lobbying in the U.S. to deal with this matter. He said so. Yes, he said so. And he's not in his head because he recognizes that that's an important way to address this issue. Again, I don't want to go into all the details. But Art and Capital was using its company, it's not its company, but it's a company that works with it, to do some lobbying in the U.S. to deal with this lehi law, to provide services for them. Now according to the U.S., any U.S., any lobbying firm in Washington needs to declare who the clients are and what's the value of the work that they do. And for the member from Kashi's office, Madam Speaker, to stand in this house and suggest that there was something unholy about Art and Capital, a firm which was gazetted in St. Lucia. Madam Speaker is wrong and improper. But Madam Speaker, let it ride. Let it ride. But we are the client because they're speaking on behalf of St. Lucia. They're speaking on behalf of St. Lucia. They cannot tell the U.S. that they are lobbying on behalf of a firm. You understand? But it is evaluation of services. But Prime Minister, you know how those things... Look, I mean, I'm sure you understand that county that you know how those things are dealt with. But even if we would never... Pardon? You do it precisely. You have a problem. Sorry, Madam Member, if you have a problem, you understand? But even assuming, even assuming, Madam Speaker, that Art and Capital are paid 150,000 U.S. on behalf of St. Lucia. They did it for selfish reasons because they are benefiting when we are able to have a successful CIP. So if they believe, if they resolve this matter for us, we will be able to have a more prosperous CIP. They would do it. It's an investment for them. So even if they paid the monies, that's why it was done to not come in this house and masquerade and suggest that there is some kind of unholy relationship between myself and Art and Capital. Madam Speaker, and for you to be allowed to go on, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the simple argument is that... No, you can question me anytime. Madam Speaker, the Honorable Member is fond of speaking about Westinies Cricket Board. Westinies Cricket Board. Now, Madam Speaker, I laugh, but it's funny, Madam Speaker. It's funny. Anybody that knows cricket and followed cricket will tell you, Madam Speaker, of the successes of Westinies Cricket. When I will see you, we won a World T20. We won six test matches in a row. We were ranked number five in tests. We were ranked number 16 ODI. When I left, we won a World T20, Madam Speaker. And we had just played the finals of the Women's World Cup, and I had to take on all the fights and clean up the mess at Westinies Cricket Board. So when people talk about Westinies Cricket Board, I left Westinies Cricket Board. I took on the hard fights and I cleaned up the mess that was there, Madam Speaker. That is what I can boast. And Madam Speaker, if Westinies Cricket Board had continued on the path that we had set off Sir Julian Hunt and myself, we would have been top of the world at right now, Madam Speaker. Top of the world, Madam Speaker. You see those young players they have played now for Westinies that give us a slight hope. In England, they started under the programs that Sir Julian Hunt and myself started off, Madam Speaker. And I know some of them, and if they continue, they will be some of the best cricketers the world have seen. So Madam Speaker, Darren Summion, spoke about Darren Summion. He introduced Darren Summion. While I'm on my feet, Madam Speaker, this morning we had an exchange about under 15 cricket and what the Honorable Member from Ansleray was saying. Madam Speaker, give me an opportunity to clear this up because he asked me a question for you. Madam Speaker, the member has it so wrong, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, we had an under 15 camp at the VG Sports Complex. When I became PSU of sports in 1999, there was the United under 15 cricket tournament and the United under 19 cricket tournament. Madam Speaker, but there was no development programs as such in St. Lucia. So we had a camp and the officers in the ministry, Midget Pierre and Fyria Charles and them went to Sandals to get some donations of sandwiches and they referred us to Dominic Fede and he donated sandwiches. He then came up with an idea which was actually a very great idea. He came up with an idea and he said he was going to start a Sandals Academy in St. Lucia. That's how it originated, Madam Speaker. That's 1999 and he started off the program here in St. Lucia. At that, Madam Speaker, I became CEO of the Westerners cricket board 10 years later and he's come into this house and said when I was CEO of Westerners cricket board, he approached me about a program and he said to me he would help me improve my image by offering me a program that I can implement. Madam Speaker, the member for Answering Countries came to me and he said for the 10th anniversary of the program, he wanted to have an original program. He wanted to have a program that included other islands in addition to St. Lucia. By then we had the digital cricket coaching program that led to the establishment of cricket academies in St. Lucia in the northern part of the island. He just sponsored those grassroots programs. He wanted to do a program and I supported his idea, Madam Speaker. Probably the era I made, Madam Speaker, was to take the member of Answering Countries too seriously then, Madam Speaker. But you know what, Madam Speaker? He's become an embarrassment to this parliament, Madam Speaker. That's what he has become, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, because you are immature and you're juvenile and you're childish, the parliament is a place for serious business. We debate, we argue, but then, Madam Speaker, there's a certain decorum that must be held in this house. There's a certain conduct that must prevail and Madam Speaker, I'm sure you will agree with me that the member for Answering Countries does not always uphold the highest standards in this parliament, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, the changes that were made have affected the reputation of St. Lucia. It has tarnished the integrity of the CIP program and a lot has been said about due diligence, Madam Speaker. And like the member from Castry Southeast who said he's holding his information, I will certainly have an opportunity later on to say more about due diligence, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, as I end, I ask Honourable Members to reflect on the consequences of the changes that they have made to the CIP program. We have put forward our arguments asking that they be reinstated. And, Madam Speaker, at this point, as I conclude, I want Members to reflect and to be conscious of the decisions that they are making and the consequences on St. Lucia. I rest my case. Honourable Members, the question is that Parliament by Negative Resolution approve that Resolution 7.3A and Regulation 7.3A and Regulation 7.9 and Schedule 2.1 qualifying investments as provided by statutory instrument 2015, number 89 be reinstated. I now put the question, as many as of that opinion say aye, as many as of a country opinion say no. Madam Speaker, call for division. Madam Clerk. Honourable Dr. Gayle Rigobot, how do you vote? Honourable Herod Stannis-Grath, how do you vote? Madam Speaker, ayes have five votes and a no is seven. Honourable Members, the noes have it in which case the resolution is not passed. Bills, Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business. Madam Speaker, I beg to move for the first reading of the bill, shortly entitled the Automatic Exchange Financial Account Information Amendment Bill. Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Amendment. Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business. Madam Speaker, I beg to move for the suspension of Standing Order 48-2 to allow the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Amendment Bill to go through its remaining stages at this city. Honourable Members, the question is that the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Amendment Bill, sorry, Honourable Members, the question is that Standing Order 48-2 be suspended in order to allow the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Amendment Bill to go through its remaining stages at this city. I now put the question, as many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Leave is granted. Please proceed, Honourable Prime Minister. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Automatic Exchange, sorry, my apologies, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I beg to move for the second reading of this bill, shortly entitled the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Amendment Bill. This bill, Madam Speaker, is the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information, which amends the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Act number 22 of 2016. The Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Act number 22 of 2016 came into effect, Madam Speaker, on the 29th of December 2016. The main purpose of the Act was to bring into effect the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and the common standard of reporting the due diligence for financial accounting information, sorry, financial account information. As a result of the review with the International Partner Global Form on Transparency and Exchange of Information, it was indicated that various amendments had to be made in the Act for it to be more effective. Various definitions have been affected by the changes being made to the Act. The term Appeal Commissioners is being deleted from the Act because a court of competent jurisdiction will be responsible for hearing appeals under the Act. In addition, slight adjustments have been made for the definitions of convention and standard. A new section for A is added to the Act to deal with the inconsistency with other laws. Therefore, if another law is inconsistent with the Act, the convention and the Act will apply. The Act is amended in section 918 to make correct reference to the subparagraph of the standard. Section 9-2 is also amended to remove the word Gazette so that a list of participating jurisdictions does not have to be published in the Gazette but can be published in other means in Clause 5 of the bill. Section 10-2 of the Act is amended and to change the date that a reporting financial institution must submit a return from 30th of June in each year to the 31st of July in each year. A new subsection 5 is inserted in section 10 of the Act to require a reporting financial institution to submit a new return if it does not have a reportable account for that particular calendar year. Section 22 of the Act is amended to correct the section reference in subsection 1 from section 20 to section 21 and to change the reference to appeal commissioners to court of competent jurisdiction. The provisions in subsections 1 and 2 have also been removed from the Act as these provisions made reference to the Income Tax Act Cap 1502 and the Appeal Commissioners. In order to ensure that all references to appeal commissioners are removed from the Act, a general amendment is made to the Act to delete all occurrences of this phrase in the Act. So the recommendation, Madam Speaker, is that the Automatic Exchange and Financial Information Bill be made to make these changes to automatic exchange. So Madam Speaker, the Primary Act, the Automatic Exchange and Financial Account Information Act was enacted in 2016 as we said as part of the obligations, agreed to when Solution signed the Multilateral Convention on Multimutual Administrative Assistance Tax Matters. The Act facilitates the collection of financial account information which may assist in the prevention of tax evasion and other illicit activities. The financial institutions are stipulated by this Act to ensure the collection and maintenance of financial information of all persons with the exceptions of U.S. citizens and residents who are covered by the Intergovernment Solution in the United States America Act of number 19 of 2016. The amendment act seeks to correct minor errors to ensure the collection of the account information as required, the dates of collection and submission to the competent authority and the specified financial institutions to report. One of the key amendments to the Act is the insertion of the new section 4A which stipulates that the Act shall prevail where there is any inconsistency between the Act and the Convention of the Act shall prevail where there where there is any inconsistency between the Act or the Convention or any other Act. The amendment to number section 9 removes the need to the Gazette which I indicated. So Madam Speaker, these are technical amendments to the Act which are to strengthen the Act and to bring more consistency to the Act. So I seek the House's approval to proceed with these amendments. Honourable members, the question is that the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Amendment Bill be read a second time. I now put the question as many as of that opinion see aye. As many as of the contrary opinion see no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. An Act to amend the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information Act number 22 of 2016 and for related matters. Honourable members, these are some very short amendments. So we'll just stick them clause by clause there. Clause 2. Interpretation. Clause 2 stands part of the bill. Clause 3. Amendment of section 2. Clause 3 stands part of the bill. Clause 4. Insertion of new section 4A. Clause 4 stands part of the bill. Clause 5. Amendment of section 9. Clause 5 stands part of the bill. Clause 6. Amendment of section 10. Closed 6 stands part of the bill. Clause 7. Amendment of section 22. Closed 7 stands part of the bill. Clause 8. Amendment of Principle Act. close it's then spot of the bill close one short title close ones then spot of the bill honorable members the question is that do rise and report the bill 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 honorable members I beg to report I beg to report that that the automatic exchange automatic exchange of information amendment automatic exchange of financial account information amendment bill went through committee stage with no amendments honorable Prime Minister Madam Speaker I move that the chairman's report be adopted and the bill now be read a third time and passed honorable members the question is that the automatic exchange of financial account information amendment bill be now read a third time and pass 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 be conducted by the Queen's most excellent majesty bandwidth 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 automatic exchange of financial account information amendment act 2017 honorable Prime Minister and leader of government business Madam Speaker I beg to move for the first reading of a bill called the public sorry the second reading Madam Speaker my apologies for the second reading of a bill entitled the public finance management bill honorable members the question is that the public finance management bill be read a second time honorable Prime Minister thank you very much Madam Speaker a speaker for the past few years so Lucia has been facing a significant fiscal challenge with a growing fiscal gap and and limited options in financial markets to address this the Department of Finance embarked on a comprehensive reform agenda this agenda has been guided by the public's finance management reform action plan and implemented with technical assistance from the Caribbean regional technical assistance center Cartag and the supporting economic management in the Caribbean SEMCAR project mainly concerned with the budget preparation and treasury options the general approach has been to focus on a small number of fundamental public finance measure issues one aggregate fiscal discipline to effective budget management three basic legislative scrutiny and transparency and accountability for pursuit in a logical and sequence that allows the Department of Finance to approach reforms in a systematic manner that makes account of capacity constraints the program Madam Speaker has some broad programs first of all planning in which the objective is to introduce performance budgeting and medium on for and for budgeting and on and medium term forecasting operations which is to optimize the budget execution cash and debt management and revenue management and internal audit in reporting it's enabled preparation of timely international public sector accounting standards compliant unqualified financial statements the oversight strength and secure scrutiny of governance and Lucia financial operations enabling to deploy skill personnel and optimize ICT and then the legal part the reform of the public finance management legislative firm work and finally the cross-cutting to coordinate reform agenda management change and promote collaboration Madam Speaker as each country has different laws politics and cultures there is no single set of provisions that can be labeled as best practice but they are some useful sources of advice and practices that can be drawn on when drafting public finance laws after researching many sample public finance laws for many organizations after researching many sample public finance laws from many organizations of economic corporation and development the OECD countries the observation was made that laws underlying budget systems in the OECD countries are more diverse than the budget systems themselves this reinforces the importance of recognizing the following points when drafting public finance laws one size does not fit all the constitution and other existing laws greatly affect any new new law context especially political and legal especially the balance of power of the legislative versus the executive or the federal or unitary bicameral or unicameral hierarchy of law is critical in drafting these new laws there are there has to be support for passing the law and implementing it and there are many levels of instrument instruments to be considered when putting changes into law including acts regulations instructions under law and decrees not only of executive but also of parliament Madam Speaker the Finance Administrative Act has a number of shortcomings it does not support many of the requirements of the IMF code of fiscal transparency the main weaknesses include inadequate specification of accounting and reporting standards no provisions for setting fiscal policy with regard to fiscal principles no provisions for linking macroeconomic and fiscal forecast to fiscal policy including expenditure levels no provisions for linking medium-term fiscal policy to the annual budget weak reporting requirements including a lack of in-year reporting a lack of non financial performance reporting inadequate reporting on the position with state-owned entities the budget can be passed after the beginning of the financial year we've seen repeatedly Madam Speaker we're almost passing the budget in April of every year which we believe is an impediment to good governance the lack of budget processes requirements the lack of risk analysis and reporting the scope to change the annual budget is very broad there are no provisions for dealing with excess expenditure and expenditure not approved by supplementary estimates and the appropriation bill so Madam Speaker the act deviates from the recommended 10 principles for budget laws put forward by the OECD and the IMF advisory papers the budget can be enacted after the start of the financial year in a routine way which isn't which not as an exception no requirement to include all revenues and expenditures in the annual budget on a gross basis appropriations in classification for the budget are not finalized in the draft finance administrative act a balanced budget is not required accountability is undermined by the lack of reporting requirements transparency is compromised by the lack of reporting requirements stability is comprised compromised by a lack of debt objectives framed in the context of regularly updated medium-term budget framework no fiscal principle about stability of rates and basis of taxes some countries have this but may not be suitable for the St. Lucia if the tax system is still evolving performance specification reporting requirements are insufficient and speaker it is very important to note that the finance act does not support some aspects of public financial management and that are assessed as part of the public expenditure and financial accountability criteria in addition to many of the issues already identified above the following matters are notable appropriations are not sufficiently specified the requirements for the budget documents not fully specified it does not support policy-based budgeting due to the failure to link medium-term and annual budgeting the requirements regarding the management accounting and reporting for donor funding are not adequate additionally the finance administrative act does not support the publication of many of the budget and reporting documents in the open budget index list the act lacks many of the documents and does not contain sufficient publication requirements the audit act of 2008 permits the minister to delay the laying of the audit report on the government accounts in parliament this is not a good provision to have in the law and can be used to permit extended delays in reporting the finance act should have firm dates for the tabling of the audited accounts included auditing report what does the public finance management law seek to accomplish and a speaker this law in hands and hen seeks to address the gaps mentioned above here by achieving compliance to the standards set by the IMF the OECD and the PFA most importantly it is the hope that incorporating these fundamentals which now become widely accepted as the basic PFM requirements allows the department of finance and then the necessary latitude to institute the procedures aimed at achieving fiscal discipline which have the backing of the law the PFM laws imposes constraints on undesirable physical physical behavior in respect of public money and they can promote reforms by mandating certain physical actions the PFM laws also seeks to improve transparency and accountability of the government's financial management it further seeks to provide frequent changes in the law it further seeks to avoid sorry frequent changes in the law by establishing these fundamental PFM principles such as well-defined processes of budget preparation consolidation of public money in a Treasury single account transparency in fiscal management through regular reporting to Parliament and the public in a nutshell Madam Speaker there are many practices that we have been conforming to which we have not yet put into law so I don't want to say that governments or the government of San Lucia has not been following some of these same prescriptions but they have not been supported by law and this act intends to strengthen the existing financial act in order to be able to bring more credibility more transparent transparency to the public of this country and also to the international institutions in which we're operating with so if we're going to continue barring money madam speaker this is an essential element of showing people that we are serious about the fiscal reforms in our country and they're no longer just verbal commitments on our part but in many ways we're establishing them in our wall and I'm an amendment of our financial act so Madam Speaker I look forward to the support of again my colleagues in Parliament in making this momentous change in the history of solution and that we could move forward and put on paper and in law what we have been saying verbally for many years I thank you Madam Speaker you fought South Madam Speaker first I want to apologize to our members I know it's very late it's quarter past 11 but this piece of legislation is too important to be treated flippantly or very lightly they are major and serious effects in this legislation and I don't know to be frank whether they are a member from south would wish to proceed tonight with the legislation or whether having done in second reading that you might want to defer to a later date because I genuinely believe that there are some technical issues with this legislation the second thing is this the honorable members historical memory and mind differ substantially in actual fact this bit of legislation was compelled or gained by the Caribbean Development Bank for a public policy loan granted to Sidlusha during the tenure of the former government of 2011 and there were two major pieces of legislation that the Caribbean Development Bank insisted on so that we could have drawn down on that money the first was the public procurement act which has been enacted by this house but the date has not come into effect and it's companion it's companion legislation to this act and then of course secondly this this act itself and I can fully understand therefore why that act would have regional content and regional input so this this piece of legislation has not come to parliament of its of our own volition the Caribbean Development Bank insisted that this piece of legislation be enacted as part of that public policy loan the second thing is this that I think tries one may from time to time when regional technocrats draft bills in the region especially when they're not from the region they sometimes tend to fall into error because they don't always understand or appreciate the constitutional prescriptions that govern us what we do and how we should proceed I know I said I must tell you that I think the bill has some good provisions and I was I wouldn't want to be interpreted as suggesting that the bill has no good provisions and in section section five or clause five for example clause five deals with the administration functions and powers of the minister responsible for finance another good provision is clause 16 I think that clause very quickly deals with the medium-term framework and the imposition on the minister of finance the need to make certain reports to parliament clause is 16 and 17 and even clause 23 which requires that the estimates as soon as it is approved by the Standing Finance Committee be made available to the general public on any media the appropriation law as soon as it is approved by Parliament it is true that those estimates reach the public in any event but at least it is cast in stone that there's a duty on the minister of finance to make it available so I want to be understood as saying that there are some good provisions in this bill but in equal measure I find there are some astonishing aspects in this bill first for some bizarre reason the role of cabinet in financial management and policy meeting is militarized I think if you go through this bill you probably will find that cabinet is mentioned maybe once maybe twice I mean I can't be absolutely correct but it is astonishing that a major piece of legislation like this would marginalize cabinet the way it has and if I may share my own personal experiences during the period I served the country as a minister of finance I can tell that my colleagues were usually very suspicious of the Ministry of Finance they always felt that there were things occurring in the Ministry of Finance that somehow that was not shared with them even if the budgetary processes were fairly open and fairly direct but a lot of it of course had to do naturally with the power of the Minister of Finance but at the same time there was never clarity on what the actual powers of the cabinet were in respect of budget formulation of management of debt etc. I make I say this to make the point that it is a highly dangerous thing for us to miniaturize the position of cabinet because it's going to lead to even more suspicion indeed madam Madam Speaker consistent with the miniaturizing of the role of cabinet in economic policy formulation we then find a bizarre accumulation of power by the Director of Finance I will have more to say about this and point to the sections and there seem to be some confusion between the role of the Permanent Secretary of Finance who has overall responsibility for the department and the Director of Finance who is supposed to be reporting to the Permanent Secretary but I will come to that in a few minutes I will argue that there's some provision in the head at a breacher constitution and when I come to that I will explain why I think those provisions of breacher constitution and why we need to go back to the drawing board I want to be very clear this bill has had a long gestation we need it we need to make adjustments but I think we have to go back to the drawing board I want to start off with the definition section in the bill and I'm going to go very quickly because I know time is of essence now as a student I have always known I'm not so sure I was trying to look in the order papers to how I would do this but I just want to say that I concur with the member from view for itself this is a very very important piece of legislation it is late and given that there are so many potential contentious points I think it's worthwhile for us to suspend the continuation of the debate on this matter tonight I would love to get some points from the honorable member if I make it available to the Attorney General or anybody else and that hopes that we can maybe work something else or whether we in fact we go to committee and try to have a discussionist there's no way that our government my government is attempting to ram this down the throats of anybody and I grieve him wholeheartedly that this is a very very important piece of legislation I thought the fact that it had been out there that we would have had a better discussion on it it's my misinterpretation I'm very grateful for him for bringing this up and with his consent I would like to suggest that we suspend the debate on this and we maybe continue to state on a time where we can dedicate more time to it and maybe have it as a singular item in a parliamentary session because as he says it is extremely important to go I welcome the suggestion that the sitting be suspended but I just want to latch on to a suggestion made by the honorable member I know that other colleagues of mine have issues with the legislation and I think it is very important as you rightly said that there be consensus on both sides because this is a very serious piece of legislation with major implication I mean a simple example provision is made in the bill to insist that statutory boards be accountable it's a fight all of us have had over the years but curiously the bill totally in omits government companies where do they stand because they are as dangerous as the statutory boards so I welcome the suggestion but if I may I want to suggest that we really take the opportunity as we did with the public procurement bill put a select committee together three on the government side two on the opposition side with the technocrats from the ministry in the course of the next few days and let us go through the bill and share our perspectives and come back and complete the debate thank you madam speaker I think there is concurrence on that and honorable members can we put that committee together and it be noted yes honorable prime minister what I will do is if the leader of the opposition conceives is maybe he and I can speak over the next couple days and organize for that committee to meet us yes it is very important that that the parliament notes the composition of the committee sir and so we'll have to get if you don't mind madam speaker I think it's late what I'd like to do is to consult him and as soon as yes we'll advise the speaker honorable prime minister yes you can advise the office of the clock to note it so we we will then you'd move for a suspension and this the second reading be suspended or joined to a later date yeah okay honorable members then I I will put the question in that case if that the public finance management bill the question is that the public the second reading of the public finance management bill be adjourned to a later date to a latest a subsequent sitting of this honorable house I now put the question as met as many as of that opinion see I as many as of a contrary opinion see no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it with that position have to also include that we're going to suspend it until after the commit the subcommittee we put together has met or there's no need to make reference to the subcommittee you have the idea is honorable prime minister you meet the it it would mean perhaps then the bill is coming amended with amendments to the house when it comes to the house no I was just asking whether it needed to be put in your question your question simply said that we were going to suspend the second reading I'm asking whether the question yes correct there's going to be a second committee yes okay honorable thank you for that correction honorable members the question is that the second reading of this bill be suspended or adjourned to a subsequent reading of the house but also to allow for a subcommittee a joint sub committee of the house to meet discuss possible amendments and that they the composition of the subcommittee to be communicated to parliament and thereby work together towards some amendments to the to the bill in its present form as many as of that opinion say aye as many as of a contrary opinion say no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it honorable prime minister and speaker I beg to move that the house to stand adjourned Senate aye honorable members the question is that this house sitting to stand adjourned Senate aye I now put the question as many as of that opinion say aye as many as of a contrary opinion say no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it this house to stand adjourned Senate aye with a negative resolution tables about the MP for Castro's self generating much of the debate the resolution has to do with certain provisions of the CISP program but were amended in the end the resolution went through a vote 7 to 5 with 7 representing the number of votes on the government side which means that the amended provisions remain unchanged in case you missed the earlier portion of today's sitting be sure to join the national television network on Wednesday for a repeat broadcast well this is where we say so long for today's broadcast be sure to join us on Thursday September 14th for the live sitting of the Senate good evening