 Let us pray, Almighty God, by whom alone kings reign and princes decree justice, and from whom alone cometh all counsel, wisdom, and understanding. We, thy unworthy servants, here gathered together in thy name, do most humbly beseech thee to send down thy heavenly wisdom from above, to direct and guide us in all our consultations, and grant that we, having thy fear always before our eyes, and lane aside all private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, the result of all our counsels may be to the glory of thy blessed name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the safety, honor, and happiness of the Queen, the public will, peace, and tranquility of St. Lucia, and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons, and estates within the same. In the true Christian love and charity, one towards another, through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all forevermore, Amen. Announcements by the Honorable Madam Speaker. Honorable members, I wish to convey that I am in receipt of communication from the Honorable Member for Viewfort South, informing that he is currently out of state and able to be present with us today. He apologizes for his absence that is sitting today. I wish, Honorable Members, on behalf of myself, as Speaker, and the Members of the Parliament staff, the Office of the Parliament of St. Lucia, to convey our deep gratitude to Honorable Members for participating in the Bucket Drive for Dominica. I think most members, if not all, contributed to that, and we are grateful, and I thank you for your participation. Honorable Members, I wish at this point to address an issue and a matter that seems to be, that has raised some particular concerns in the House. And whilst I endeavored, once I came upon the material to sort to do it in a less formal forum, it has become evident that it needs to be addressed and addressed immediately. And I speak specifically with respect to documents being laid before the House. I wish to inform Honorable Members that I have read up tremendously on the point. I have sought counsel and guidance of the most advanced parliaments within our region, and I have consulted not only a skin may on parliamentary procedures, but also parliamentary practices in New Zealand, which somehow seems to go very closely with the Commonwealth Parliaments of the smaller Commonwealth Parliaments of the Commonwealth region. On the issue of documents to be laid for the House, I have caused for Madam Clark to circulate by way of electronic means some notes that ought to guide parliamentarians generally on the point. I wish also to state that the question to be considered are what is a document of the House and how does a document becomes a document of the House? The House's collective term for various documents formally presented to it is papers. So just about every document is referred to as papers. However, these consist the papers of annual reports of government departments, reports of independent state agencies and of commissions of inquiries, annual reports and financial statements of organization created by acts of parliament, statutory instruments, auditor generals report, addresses by the Governor General on the occasion of ceremonial opening of the parliament and reports from committees of the House or joint select committees. Papers are tabled by executive fiat as well in accordance with established practices or pursuant to statute. Pursuant to Standing Order 13 of the House Standing Orders of this House and Standing Order 14-3, so it is the House Standing Order 13-3 and the Senate Standing Orders 14-3 of the Senate, all papers presented to the House in accordance with the Standing Orders shall be ordered to lie upon the table of the House without questions put. The main reason for the physical laying of papers on the table of the House is to provide the House with information for possible follow-up actions and to make such papers known to the world in the most public manner possible. What then is a paper of the House? A paper of the House is published by order or under the authority of the House. These documents are referred to as papers of the House or house papers. Not all papers tabled in the House are papers of the House within the meaning of the term. There are therefore two categories of papers of the House. Papers which are mandatorily ordered to be published as a paper of the House under the Standing Orders and those that are ordered to be published as a paper of the House by motion moved in accordance with Standing Order 13-3 of the House Standing Orders. Standing Order 79-7 of the House of Assembly's Standing Order identify reports of committees and other categories of papers ordered to be laid on the table of the House and be printed as papers of the House without questions put. Papers which are ordered to be published as a paper of the House by motion moved and approved without debate and that is again Standing Order 13-3. The effects of making a paper a document or paper of the House. Papers ordered to be printed as a paper of the House where the mandatorily by Standing Orders or by motion move and agreed to attract the protection of absolute parliamentary privilege from the moment they are so ordered. A consequence no action whatsoever can be brought against anyone by virtue of an aspect of the contents of a paper of the House or a document of the House so printed and published. This is significant since papers presented to the House that are not printed as papers of the House or we see document of the House enjoy only qualified privilege as distinct from absolute privilege indeed by the very nature many of those papers do not require any such protection and the elevation to the status of document of the House or paper of the House is not routinely pursued. I have also so I am hoping based on what I have said members, honorable members can understand the long and this is where I wish to make the point the long practice of presenting documents and stating that they are documents of the House will no longer be permitted because they are not document of the House and cannot form part of the records of the House. There are documents that will be officially made documents of the House and practice and even the Standing Orders so give them that status. We're talking about the Governor-General's statements to the House as well as reports of standing committees of the House and one can very well understand that these are generated from within the House itself and the third category of documents of the House are those that ministers papers led by ministers understanding order 13-3 where the Minister by motion request that it be printed and there later on publish and be made document of the House so there may be documents that a Minister may wish to table before the House and because of certain sensitivity within that document the Minister may wish that document to have some more attract absolute privilege. Members you are so guided and I have stated my part and so I am going to watch this very closely. Moving on I wish to welcome honorable members I'm sure that you are aware that we have a number of persons in our midst sitting in the public gallery. We have a contingent of some 25 persons from the National Council of and for persons with this ability. We welcome you honorable members of the Council to this sitting of the House of Assembly today and I hope that you had in your celebrations on the observation of international day for persons of disability which was observed globally on Sunday the third of December that you had some much interaction and a good session. Welcome once again. In that regard the House now will accept messages from the honorable Prime Minister followed by the Leader of the Opposition and then the Honorable Minister with responsibility under whose portfolio they counsel for and of persons with disability falls. Honorable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker on December the third 2017 we marked the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I want to welcome and acknowledge the attendance in the gallery today of persons from the organization for and of persons with disabilities and advocates for persons with disabilities and special needs in our community. Before I commence my presentation Madam Speaker I think it would be important for me to also recognize one specific person, a young lady Christy Joseph who is just entered form one and who is the first blind person who has entered into secondary school and she's entered into a secondary. So I want to give her a special shout out and also to say how proud we are of her overcoming her disability but in particular in speaking to her. I want to continue to thank her teachers and her friends for the support that they're giving. This year's theme Madam Speaker was transformation towards a sustainable and resilient society for all and obviously there could be no more relevant theme given the level of hurricanes that we've seen this year. The words sustainable and resilience are terms we have been using increasingly as we discuss our plans to build a new nation that is encompassing of all persons regardless of their physical circumstances. Accessibility to Parliament. Indeed even this very chamber we had a situation where former Senator Mr. Rosemann Cleary who is present here today had to be carried up and down the stairs in order to perform his duties. What does it say about us as a country when even in the highest office in the land we don't take into account persons with disability. We must make a commitment as Parliament to change this and change it soon. In hearing this story I also recalled a young man I had an opportunity to meet with Madam Speaker in Dennery who was in a wheelchair and had graduated to form three. And I asked him I said boy he must be so excited about graduating and he said no sir I'm not. And I was a bit taken back by his by his response only to find out that each of the forms were on the higher floors. So form one on ground floor form two form three form four and form five. And graduating to him meant that his friends had to carry him up another flight of stairs. And the significance of this is not that it pained him of the additional energy that was required to bring up but it was a further reminder of his inability to depend on himself. And if there is one thing that comes about with disabilities as we're not supposed to teach treat people with disabilities any differently what we're supposed to do is empower them so they can be equals in our society. Making the city more disability friendly our city still has a long way to go to make it more inviting for persons with disabilities. How many times have we had to hear near misses with persons in wheelchairs having to use the street because the sidewalks are not built to accommodate them. Our city and town and village councils must be charged with the duty to make our environment more safe for persons who are differently abled. The commitment from government. As a government we're committed to equal access for persons with disabilities. Our focus starts primarily with ensuring schools and government departments are adequately fitted to accommodate persons with disabilities. Madam Speaker as we welcome our guests to this chamber I take the opportunity to stress that we're also dedicated to ongoing public education in our society to be more accepting and to help persons with disabilities. I have the opportunity to listen to some very simple stories listening to the news. If you are deaf and not being able to hear for yourself or understand for yourself what is being said. A simple idea of going to the airport and not being able to hear the announcements and continuously having to ask somebody what is going on. I ask you to put yourself in that position and that would you want to be that dependent on everybody else around you given how we are. We want to work with you and for you to ensure a fulfilling life. You should not be treated as second class citizens and we support you and will ensure your needs from part of this government's policies. Thank you. Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Thank you very much Madam Speaker on behalf of the Opposition I would like to welcome members of the National Council for and of persons with disabilities. I want to pay special mention to Senator Rosemont Clary who was a member of this Honourable House and who on many occasions suffered the indignity of having to be carried. I pledge and I hope that I will give my fuller support to any improvements that will cause people with the courage of Senator Clary to be able to be more comfortable when they attend these sessions. I also want Madam Speaker to contribute to a gentleman called Mr. Avril who has been a pioneer for a long time for the causes of people. He has worked tirelessly and has pushed the agenda of these people. I also want Madam Speaker to pledge the support of the Opposition to any measures that a government would take to make life more comfortable for people who are who suffer from these issues. I want to tell them that they are part of the society and they have a meaningful contribution to pay to play in the development of Zemusia. Let nothing stop you. Let's push on and I'm sure as time goes you deserve to be treated equally and you will be treated equally. So I wish you all the best and I want to also pay tribute to the people who work with the folks with disabilities. Again, it's a labour of love. They spend hours working in DC but I want to pay tribute to them and tell them that their labour of love is appreciated. I thank you. Honourable Minister with responsibility for equity. Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise as Minister responsible for equity, social justice and empowerment to add my voice in congratulating the National Council for Persons with Disabilities as we observe International Disabilities Day. Well, that was observed on Sunday but we continue to celebrate and recognise persons in our society with disability. As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, we once had a member of the upper house who was disabled. As we welcome our citizens with disability here to the gallery today, I look forward to the day, Madam Speaker, when we will have a member of the National Council for Persons with Disabilities be present right here where we are on this table in the lower house. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that from the very top, in the words of the Honourable Prime Minister, that we are mindful, conscious and willing to make provisions to facilitate our citizens with disability. As Minister responsible for equity, social justice and empowerment, and the Ministry directly responsible for affairs related to disability, I want to give my commitment in ensuring that I advocate at every juncture the need for us not just to make those pronouncements when we observe special occasions related to persons with disability, but that we in fact put policies and adopt policies and implement plans to ensure that we give meaning, true meaning to those plans that we have. I say so because as the Prime Minister quite rightly indicated, these are people in our society who not too long ago were abandoned, were kept away from the public and left to fend for themselves in isolated corners. We have come a long way, Madam Speaker, where today they have begun to take their place in society and have seen people with disability in the Prime Minister's office, have seen people with disability at the banks, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition mentioned people like Mr. Avril, Mr. Mofeles James, all of those persons who have made meaningful contributions, who have demonstrated that people with disability can hold their own and take their place in society and be equal. So I say that we need to continue and to ensure that enshrined in our policies, in our regulations and even in our legislation, that we make provisions for the facilitation of those citizens. I want to once again wish you all the best as you celebrate. Well, I imagine it was the day on Sunday, but you continue to celebrate the week. As you are upfront in our minds today, I just want to appeal to those of us here and the rest of society to keep them in our thoughts, play our part in ensuring that we facilitate them and let us do all that we can to ensure that they can make meaningful contributions to our society because they have already demonstrated that they have the capacity and they are capable. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, I beg your indulgence, let me just make one announcement. Through the urging of the parliamentary representative for Swazel, the Prime Minister mentioned Ms. Christine Joseph, who has a distinction of being the first person with disability to go to secondary school. It was brought to my attention by her parliamentary representative that she, as part of her awards, received a special computer to facilitate her disability. But unfortunately, she does not have access to internet service at home. And so without much twisting of my arms, I agreed, Madam Speaker, that as minister responsible for the SSTF, I will make representation on behalf of the member for Swazel to ensure that she is provided the service of internet so that she can actually make use of that computer. Statements by ministers. Honorable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, my statement today is on a very famous matter, a very well-known matter in many ways in terms of name, but not necessarily in content. And I speak none other, Madam Speaker, of the Grinberg Affair. Madam Speaker, according to the laws of solution under the Minerals Vesting Act, section three, and I quote, it is hereby declared that all minerals being in or under any land of whatsoever ownership or tenure are vested in and are subject to the control of the crown. In this section, minerals. Honorable Prime Minister, please permit me to disrupt you just a moment as the members of the National Council of and for disabilities would like to exit the chamber and can we kindly acquiesce and give them a few minutes to do so? Members, so it is correction. All those members who are hearing impaired are making the exit. My apologies. Please proceed Honorable Prime Minister. Perhaps if you want to recommend. No problem Madam Speaker. For fluidity, if you don't mind, I'm going to just start from the beginning because we really have not started. Now Speaker, according to the laws of solution under the Minerals Vesting Act at section three, I quote, it is hereby declared that all minerals being in or under any land of whatsoever ownership or tenure are vested in and are subject to the control of the crown. In this section, Madam Speaker, minerals includes all radioactive minerals as defined in Radioactive Minerals Act. Under section four, provision of prospecting and mining except for license subsection one, I quote, a person shall not prospect from or mine any minerals except by the authority of a license granted by the Governor General and in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the license. I think that's important enough that I can repeat that again, Madam Speaker. I quote, a person shall not prospect for or mine any minerals except by the authority of a license granted by the Governor General and in accordance with the terms and the conditions specified in the license. It's important to know that the words may don't exist. Instead, the word is shall, which means generally that that is compulsory. Any person who contravenes that provision of subsection one of this section commits an offense and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and to a further fine not exceeding $50 for every day during which the contravention continues. This section shall not be taken as authorizing the prospecting for or mining of any minerals in or upon any land except with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land. Further, according to the Constitution of St. Lucia, at section 65, I quote, the Prime Minister shall keep the Governor General fully informed concerning the general conduct of the government of St. Lucia and shall furnish the Governor General with such information as he or she may request with respect to any particular matter relating to the government of St. Lucia. Madam Speaker, in a letter dated June 3rd, 2013, the Governor General addressed the then leader of the opposition and says, I quote, I write in response to your letter of May 13th, 2013, in which you refer to the issue of a contractual arrangement or agreement drawn up in March of 2000 between the Prime Minister, Dr. Kenny Anthony, on behalf of the Governor St. Lucia and one Mr. Jack Grinberg, CEO of RSM Production Corporation of Denver, Colorado. You express concern that the Governor General's authority may have been usurped and that an illegal act may have been committed, presumably by one of the other of the parties involved. On this matter, I can only say that I have no personal or first-hand knowledge of any contract arrangements or agreement made by anyone or entity in or outside government with Mr. Jack Grinberg and his corporation. That's pretty emphatic. No such contract or agreement was ever brought to my attention in my capacity as Governor General. That that subject was never discussed with me, not even as part or the enormous investigation efforts which you indicate were initiated by the Ministry of External Affairs during your administration. My advice was never sought. I played no part whatsoever in anything that may have transpired then or at any time subsequently. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 65 of the Constitution of St. Lucia, no Prime Minister from March of 2000, the date you cited, has taken up the subject with me. Neither admittedly have I requested any information relating to it, since it would seem that the successive administrations are content to have this issue of national interest aired out, debated, and somehow resolved in the media. Sadly, the current situation reflects only two-pointedly. The general perception and delusion that the role of the Governor General in our government system is purely ceremonial. Except it would appear when we have faced with a constitutional or legal crisis, as this one seems to be. I hope this throws some light on this still smoldering issue. Madam Speaker, it would appear members of this House are as much in the dark of this matter as clearly her ex-since the Governor General has by her letter indicated she is. We have found no official record of the Grimeberg transaction, neither in the files of the Cabinet nor in handset. All efforts by the 2005 government to secure related information from its predecessors, including televised addresses to the nation proved fruitless. There has to be no response, only a deafening silence. Nevertheless, in a press release dated May 20th, 2012, the Office of the Prime Minister issued a press release. That seems to point the finger at the sitting Prime Minister's predecessor. It began as follows. RSM, Production Corporation, the company owned by Jack Grimeberg, has instituted arbitration proceedings against the government of St. Lucia in respect of the exploration of license which his company was granted several years ago. To undertake exploration for oil over a specified area of water offshore the coast of St. Lucia. RSM Production Corporation claims that the company's case against the government is a simple breach of contract. The release stated further, the corporation bases its case on two grounds. Firstly, notwithstanding two previous extensions by the former SLP administration to continue exploration, it could not complete its exploration because of the failure to resolve the boundary disputes between St. Lucia and the neighboring states. This failure says the corporation constitutes grounds of force majeure. More will be said on this force majeure in due course. Secondly, the corporation claims that the former Minister, Hon. Stevenson King, did sign an extension to the agreement which he subsequently retrieved. The second ground is simplicity premised on the fact that the agreement was received by the former Prime Minister, King's Letter, which was recalled but confirmed by Mr. Osborne Dover. These matters were publicly discussed prior to the 2011 general election. RSM Production Company further alleges that by the letter dated April the 10th, 2008, the King government took the position that the agreement had expired. St. Lucia, it says, had subsequently reportedly taken steps to put the agreement area which RSM has the right to explore to competitive bidding. According to RSM, by claiming the agreement has expired and threatening to place exploration rights in the subject area out to the competitive bid, St. Lucia has breached the agreement. The arbitration proceedings have been filed with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. It's important to understand this peculiar situation. So in essence, Mr. Granberg claims that under the force majeure included in it is the boundaries disputes. And basically was saying that the contract was on hold until that matter is resolved. So that the time that he was given for exploration did not and does not commence until after the boundaries are resolved. The government of St. Lucia will vigorously dispute and contest the proceedings. The Attorney General is in the process of assessing the claim and securing attorneys to represent the interests of St. Lucia. As I say, Madam Speaker, the press releases I've just read saying nothing about how St. Lucia got into the particular contractual arrangement with Mr. Jack Granberg. The nation remains altogether in the dark on this matter. The Office of the Prime Minister issued on August the 25th, 2014 another press release this time informing that the government of St. Lucia had won what it described as another round in the ongoing arbitration with RSM Corporation. The release claimed that on August 13th, 2014, that the arbitral tribunal ordered RSM to post a guarantee of US 750,000 to ensure it will pay St. Lucia's legal cost. If it is ordered to do so at the end of the case. The release noted that this was St. Lucia's second major success following the tribunal's order on December 12th, 2013 for RSM to pay all the advances towards administrative cost of the arbitration, which in all previous known cases have been paid 50% by each party. Finally, the release acknowledged the ICSID ruling did not mean that the ICSID considered St. Lucia's defense on the merits of the success. It was Mr. Granberg's reluctance to put up the 750,000 in which the case was decided, not on the merits of the case. Since then, RSM has appealed this ICSID's decision not to consider its suit until he has disposited the US 750,000 to guarantee costs should in his breach of contract petition prove unsuccessful. So he's now appealed and he's basically saying and challenged in the court's decision that he would have to put up the 750,000 dollars before the case is heard. But whatever the result of Mr. Granberg's appeal, whatever the result of his breach of contract suit, St. Lucia's have a right to know how we found ourselves in this very expensive and embarrassing situation. To date, Madam Speaker, the former administration paid fresh fields, which is the law firm that we have jointly engaged in New York, approximately 1.4 million EC dollars. And we as a government have now paid out an additional 300,000 US dollars in now preparing for this appeal. I felt it important to update the people of St. Lucia on this long standing troubling issue. And I appeal to those with knowledge about this matter to do now what they should have done 16 years ago. Come forward and let's put this matter to rest. St. Lucia deserves nothing less. What do we mean by that, Madam Speaker? There are some questions that remain unanswered and members of this side are not in a position to answer those questions. One, why did we enter this agreement when at the time Mr. Grineberg was already in litigation with Grenada? Why wouldn't we have waited to see what the outcome of that case was? Why would we have used the exact same contract with some minor amendments that in fact, those minor amendments were the amendments that Grenada used to extract itself from the original contract. Why would you have signed the agreement when included in the agreement under the force majeure was boundaries well established? The government ought to have known, I can't imagine they didn't know at the time, Madam Speaker, that we had boundary disputes and that more than likely it was gonna take years before those boundary disputes could be resolved. So why would we put the contract on hold until those boundaries are resolved? Why did you not make any announcements of signing this agreement? If this was such a good deal for Salusha, I would have thought in the year 2000 that there would have been a press conference, there would have been announcements informing the public of Salusha that they had signed this agreement with Jack Randall and would have clearly outlined in signing this agreement what the expectations would have been. But the most important question comes after the fact, Madam Speaker. Why is it that the prime minister who signed this agreement in the year 2000 has not been prepared to answer any of these questions? That we only became aware that there was a Jack Grinberg involved in Salusha when in fact a request was made when Mr. King was prime minister to renew the contract. In fact, we had no background information and it was predominantly on the premise of that that the decision was made not to renew the contract. But the fact is, is that the only person that can answer these questions is the former prime minister, Dr. Kenny Anthony. And Madam Speaker, I truly believe that as a constitutional lawyer and someone who continues to expel the need to be transparent and accountable that he certainly owes the public of Salusha an explanation. And I would appeal to my colleagues on the other side that they ought to do everything in their power to ensure that he does address this and fills in the very severe black holes that exist in this agreement and that will allow solutions now to turn the page and move on and to learn from the experiences. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the other paper, the minister with responsibility for education, gender relations and innovation, sustainable development is supposed to make a statement. I have not seen her, however, I have been informed that the honorable minister in the office of the prime minister with responsibility for tourism has a statement to me. Honorable minister with responsibility for tourism. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, much has been said recently about the job numbers by the Department of Statistics, which suggests that the unemployment rate would have dropped from about 21% to 16.8%. Madam Speaker, it went on to state that this reduction in unemployment was as a result of the accommodation sector and was led, indeed, by the tourism sector. Madam Speaker, there are some who tried to discount the work and the analysis presented by the Department of Statistics and it prompted my ministry, Madam Speaker, to go and do some research to see where the additional jobs had come from. And so, Madam Speaker, our research has shown a number of things. It shows, Madam Speaker, that while, for example, that we're in Jamalanding, a hotel of 321 rooms at announced construction, Madam Speaker, many tour operators and travel agents became very anxious about selling that particular property until the construction was completed by the third quarter, the period in question. And that hotel, Madam Speaker, became fully operationalized within that period. Madam Speaker, while much fanfare was made about the opening of the Royalton Resort, what many did not say was that the hotel was partially open. And so, while the resort announced that it was going to build a 455-room hotel, it's opening back in February only had 318 rooms. The remaining 72 rooms, Madam Speaker, was opened within that quarter and the Royalton Resort added an additional 253 jobs. Madam Speaker, we also would have seen the planning by Bellejuil Hotel to reopen their 76-room property, which was previously a 68-room property. They've added an additional eight rooms. But, Madam Speaker, during the third quarter, indeed they were planning to reopen their hotel and added an additional 100 jobs. Madam Speaker, Serenity at Coconut Bay also opened its doors in August of 2017. And, Madam Speaker, it's the high-end component of Coconut Bay, a 250-room resort which operates at a four-star level and do a tremendous job. And, Madam Speaker, Serenity is their high-end section which offer more services and amenities. And, we have seen, Madam Speaker, the ratio of two-and-a-half employees to one room. They have added an additional 70 jobs. Madam Speaker, Sandoz Halcyon at the Shock Bay was undergoing a stage-by-stage renovation and upgrading of their property at Shock. And, Madam Speaker, within that period, the Projects Department handed over an additional 36 rooms to come back into circulation and to put into sales. Madam Speaker, we see during that period as well, the opening of the Overwater Suit at Sandoz granted additional 50 rooms which added 40 jobs, Madam Speaker, and this, Madam Speaker, would have contributed significantly towards the numbers. I must also indicate, Madam Speaker, that what the report didn't capture was the enormous advancement that the cruise industry has made this year. Where we see a 13% decline in 2016 is being replaced by a 22% increase in cruise arrivals or 120,000 new passengers coming to our shores this year. Madam Speaker, surely this must have an impact on the number of people that are employed in local restaurants, that are employed by sites and attraction companies, that are employed by dayboat charters. Madam Speaker, these are just some of the indicators which would indicate, Madam Speaker, that they are direct jobs coming from over 551 rooms, Madam Speaker, coming back into circulation in the tourism sector. Madam Speaker, there's an industry standard which suggests that for every room in the tourism and hospitality sector, two people are employed directly. And Madam Speaker, at least another one and a half is employed indirectly by ancillary service companies. Madam Speaker, the math is very clear about the impact and about the number of jobs which have come about. Madam Speaker, I wanna indicate as well that during those months, we didn't only see a buoyant performance in the cruise sector, but in the month of July, Madam Speaker, we saw an 18% increase in stayover arrivals. So while the hotels brought back more room inventory, another factor which contributed to the additional jobs was the hotels needed more part-time employees because their occupancies were skyrocketing this year. So the sector, Madam Speaker, in July increased by 18% from 33,381 to 38,291 over the same period last year. In the month of August, Madam Speaker, we saw a 15% increase from 29,991 to 341. 4,400 people coming to stay in our hotels, an 18% increase in the month of August alone. In the month of September, Madam Speaker, we see that there is a 15% increase as well over the same month last year, where there were 18,000 people in 2016. This year there were 20,049 tourists that came and stayed in our hotels. Of course, Madam Speaker, occupancies are up, people will hire more. The hotels have, Madam Speaker, what is called a casual network of employees. And Madam Speaker, we see that many of them came out and gained employment, Madam Speaker, within that period. Now, I want to say that there's only one person in this room that disagree with these figures, because even the leader of the opposition has said that he's happy that these figures are here. We may have some differences in terms of whose policies are responsible for these wonderful job numbers, but Madam Speaker, we see that even the leader of the opposition has added his voice in support of these numbers. Madam Speaker, we also saw that the Ministry of Agriculture indicating that 66 new farmers have come back into the agricultural sector, into the banana sector more principally. And their average suggests that for every farm, Madam Speaker, there are three additional jobs. On an harvesting days, Madam Speaker, there are an additional two or an average of five employees for every single farm. That alone, Madam Speaker, accounts for about 300 new jobs in the agricultural sector. And Madam Speaker, I know that agriculture has nothing to do with me, but I am from an agricultural constituency, so I keep very, very close to the developments in the agricultural sector. And I am on record of saying that the policies which have worked in the agricultural sector to boost their production from 8,000 last year to 12,000 this year, representing a 30% increase, it is as a result of the Ministry's keen attention to the development of that sector. One, we have seen for the first time that even the farmers in Viewfort North, Madam Speaker, are celebrating the fact that fertilizers are now 50% less than it was a year ago, Madam Speaker, from $92 to $46. Madam Speaker, we have seen as well that farmers are being subsidized and their confidence are coming back because there's a subsidy with the Black Sea Cotico Oil to better respond to pests and other threats to the agricultural crops. So, Madam Speaker, these numbers are not bogus as is suggested by some. These numbers, Madam Speaker, are very credible with developments that are happening within the productive sector on the ground. And I want to say, Madam Speaker, that this government is not at all satisfied that we're at 16.8%. We are committed and we continue to work hard towards the development of the economy, to grow this economy so that we can create prosperity, we can create hope, and we can create more opportunity for people all over this country. I thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Honorable members, I wish to inform you that I've just been in receipt of a letter of apology from the Honorable Minister for Education, Gender, Relations, Innovation, and Sustainable Development, informing that she is unable to be present in this Addis sitting today, unfortunately so, and offers her sincere apologies. The Honorable Ministers who have just presented Omid's State Months of the House, I wish to remind you that you are to make copies available to all members. Honorable Prime Minister, are you in a position so to do now, sir? You do have copies? We can make copies available. Can we? Minister of Tourism, can, do you have something printed? Not as yet, Madam Speaker. You see, I'm very passionate about these issues that I deliver them from the heart. Can you please, hasten to get it transcribed? Absolutely. And so that before the, can we say before the end of the day? Do you think it would? Before the sitting is over, I shall. Before the session, much appreciated, much applied. And I wish to remind Honorable Members that these documents do not become documents of the House, but they are members circulated, papers circulated. Papers to be laid, Honorable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, back to the lead of the following papers standing in my name, statutory instrument number 103 of 2017, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Court Proceedings Fees, St. Lucia Rules, statutory instrument number 104 of 2017, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Non-Contentious Probate and Administration of Estates Rules, statutory instrument number 105 of 2017, automatic exchange of financial account information amendment of Schedule II order, statutory instrument number 107 of 2017, automatic exchange of financial account information, designation of non-reporting financial institution order, statutory instrument number 111 of 2017, Finance Administration Act, resolution of parliament to borrow for capital expenditure, St. Lucia Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project, statutory instrument number 112 of 2017, Finance Administration Act, resolution of parliament to borrow from the Bank of St. Lucia Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017 and 2018 budget. Statutory instrument number 113 of 2017, Finance Administration Act, resolution of parliament to borrow from First National Bank of St. Lucia Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget. Statutory instrument number 114 of 2017, value added tax, resolution of parliament to approve draft value added tax, amendment Schedule III order. Statutory instrument number 116 of 2017, excise tax amendment to Schedule I number 8 order. Statutory instrument number 117 of 2017, legal profession, eligibility, Shawna Akira Jordan order. Statutory instrument number 119 of 2017, automatic exchange of financial account information, designation of an excluded account order. Statutory instrument number 120,000. Honourable Prime Minister, Honourable Prime Minister, can I just interject a minute there and say that in the previously circulated order paper, statutory instrument 119 actually now replaces the earliest circulated statutory instrument 106. And Honourable Prime Minister, is it me or did you skip 118? Shawna, John. Andre, no, 117. Thank you. Statutory instrument number 117 of 2017, legal profession, eligibility, Andre Charles Mackenzie order. Statutory instrument number 119 of 2017, automatic exchange of financial account information, designation of an excluded account order. Statutory instrument number 120 of 2017, Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court court proceedings fees St. Lucia amendment rules. Statutory instrument number 121 of 2017, value added tax amendments of schedule three order. Honourable Minister for economic development, housing, urban renewal, transport and civil aviation. Honourable Prime Minister. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I beg to leave the following paper standing in my name. Statutory instrument number 102 of 2017, St. Lucia National Housing Corporation, do come and view for best in order. Honourable Minister in the office of the Prime Minister with responsibility for commerce industry enterprise development and consumer affairs. Madam Speaker, I beg to leave the following paper standing in my name. Statutory instrument number 115 of 2017, price control amendment number 17 order. Honourable Minister in the Ministry of the Office of the Prime Minister with responsibility for tourism information and broadcasting. Madam Speaker, I wish to leave the following paper standing in my name. Statutory instrument number 108 of 2017, tourism incentives, joy adventure and coastal services cruise company limited order. Statutory instrument number 109 of 2017, tourism incentives, Somerset jet ski rentals, St. Lucia order. Statutory instrument number 110 of 2017, tourism stimulus and investment, Bay Gardens limited order. Bills, we are now on the airport development bill which is currently in debate. Honourable member for castries south, you have 20 minutes within which to complete your presentation. We were in debate. From recollection, I think at the last seat you did see a little more than 20 minutes. I kind of vaguely recollected my recollections that you did see a little more than 20 minutes. Your recollection was that I had more than 20 minutes. So what do you recall in terms of time? Madam Speaker, I mean I'll be guided by you but in my own preparation for today I actually had at the back of my mind that I had more than 20 minutes. There were numerous interruptions and I'm sure it was more than 20 minutes but I'll be guided by you and by the generosity of this house if I should need more time that such will be asked for. We will proceed and you may be given additional time under the standing orders. Honourable member, please proceed. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, when we last sat in this honourable house the seating ended in a very unfortunate manner. Despite our regret at what happened, we must admit collectively that it had to happen sooner or later. And Madam Speaker, I hope it never happens again. We simply cannot expect a human being to suffer the gross inconvenience that you have been asked to suffer. Order. When my mic is on, honourable members, I would wish this house sitting to proceed without making any reference whatsoever to me and the unfortunate incident that happened in this house. Madam Speaker, history is a recording of events which cannot be... The statement which I have just made is made to either side of this house. Honourable members, I have so spoken, I wish every member to so abide by fact. Thank you. Honourable member, for cast result, please proceed. Madam Speaker, there is a callousness and insensitivity which pervades this government that it is frightening. Madam Speaker, it is slowly extending to becoming a vicious and vindictive tendency that says to every citizen in St. Lucia, to be aware, be vigilant and rise to fight oppression. Madam Speaker, when I spoke at a debate on the estimates on April 26th, I indicated that I knew I was a mach man. I promised then that I would be firm and resolute. I said to this house that our youth, our citizens, wanted different politics. They want a politics of hope, of aspiration, of decency and of decorum. I said then to this house and to my constituents that I would ensure that the government is asked the tough questions to hold them accountable and to forever represent the people of Castro South with the highest standards of which I am capable. So, Madam Speaker, I know after the last sitting in this house that, Madam Speaker, I would be jolted into high gear to discredit me and seek to harm my reputation and my character. They failed in the elections and I know they would not be sleeping. So, Madam Speaker, there were many whispers, many whispers of how they would hurt and destroy me and I smile, Madam Speaker. I will keep on smiling for I fear no evil. I am comforted by my faith. Madam Speaker, I will not wilt in the face of accusations or parliamentary obstructionism. I will not be broken by threats, emails, phone hacks or vindictiveness. So, you can try over and over and over again. Search and search from London to St. Lucia and to see what bogus charges and investigations you can trump up. I promise you that every time I will be ready to rebuke you and come at you harder than before because there is nothing to find. There is nothing I have done wrong. But more importantly, I am blessed. I will never sit back and allow evil to prosper. This government is a wicked government. And Madam Speaker, more will be said in the weeks to come. I am waiting patiently, patiently. Madam Speaker, and I'm smiling because, Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, I tell you, Madam Speaker, this airport development bill, Madam Speaker, is another example of how wicked this government is to the people of St. Lucia. The last time, Madam Speaker, I made reference to this government moving from a model where it had, the previous administration, the SAP administration, had engaged the World Bank, had engaged the World Bank and sought advice on the best model to rebuild the airport in Belfort. The World Bank advised to go to the IFC, the International Finance Corporation and arm of the World Bank because this government of the Labour Party could not accept that the government was seeking to borrow $400 million to rebuild the airport in Belfort. But more importantly, the process had become tented when a member of the then government indicated that he did not agree with the approach being used and that he had been offered a bribe. He claimed he reported it to his prime minister and, Madam Speaker, that was publicly on a talk show. And then he was informed that the prime minister had also been offered a bribe. And, Madam Speaker, when I said to the member from Ancelere countries, asked me to provide the evidence and I cited documents in my possession that indicated that a member of his honourable house was a subject of an investigation. And that's where we ended at the last seat in, Madam Speaker. The document is in the public review. The document, Madam Speaker, shows that an honourable member is part, at least, one of the subjects of an investigation into one transpired in the last government when he served. That is fact, Madam Speaker. I am not manufacturing it. I am not looking for trump up charges and expressing any matter that's not in the public review. The prime minister said then they had no evidence in the house, in government, that the government which had ever made such a request. The prime minister said he would lead an investigation. More will be said on that very soon, Madam Speaker. But it really raises a question. Why, Madam Speaker, if you wanted to borrow $400 million, the World Bank would say no. This is a different way of doing it. This is a way where St. Lucia will not incur not one cent, Madam Speaker, in loans. Why would you overturn that and want to go back to borrowing $400 million, Madam Speaker? And this is what this bill is about, Madam Speaker. We're going back to an approach that was tainted and is tainted by the documents in circulation that a member of this house is the subject of an investigation for a process that was tainted and corrupted, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the point of order on section 35. It says the subject of the provisions of a standing order 10 of the House debate, any motion bill or amendment shall be relevant to such motion, bill or amendment and a member shall confine his observations to the subject under discussion. Madam Speaker, we're not here to discuss the airport project. We're coming here to discuss a bill in order to create a lockbox, to put monies into the account. The member will have the other side. We'll have plenty of opportunity when we come with the agreement to the House to discuss the matters of the airport. We are here simply to discuss an approval of a method in order to put a tax into a lockbox. That is what we're here for and I would seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, that the member from Castrisao can confine his comments to that issue. Honorable Prime Minister, you have raised a point of an objection understanding order 10. You said section 35.1, okay. Relevant bill or amendment and the member shall confine his observation to the subject under discussion. And the subject under discussion is the bill for consideration is the airport development bill. The purpose of the bill is to provide for airport development. Shall I proceed, Madam Speaker? My mic is still on. Yes. Now whilst I see that the bill is called the airport development bill, it appears to me that just about every clause speaks with respect to charges, payments, how payments, airport facility funds, just about every I am still on the floor, just about every one of the clauses from clause three to 23 to 20 speaks in relation to money of an airport development. Yes, if you raise your point, some have ruled about it and I will rule about it, okay. So honorable member for Castrisao, please proceed with respect to confining your debate to the bill before us and the matters and the clauses within the bill. Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker. I have no confidence in any attempt by this government to set up any lock box or have any charge to be in any new airport because the last time they tried it, it was a tainted process. It was a tainted process the last time they tried it. The last time they tried it, Madam Speaker, the last time they tried to have something exactly like this with the same clauses, Madam Speaker, there was a statement by a colleague minister that I am seeing that the process was tainted. The last time it was tried, Madam Speaker, those same clauses or similar clauses, it resulted in a US investigation into a present member, Madam Speaker. So I have no confidence, Madam Speaker, in those clauses, Madam Speaker. What does the investigation have to do with this debate? We're simply putting a lock box, the same lock box that was in place prior. In fact, when they came and they amended it, they put the same lock box and instead of it going into Slasper, the lock box was going into a private company. So if the member can please confine his comments. The investigation and the process as to how the award of the contract is not what is being debated here to debate. What is being debated is the lock box mechanism. And for him to make those allegations, Madam Speaker, are erroneous and are misguiding the house. They have nothing to do with that. The lock box was established, $50 million was put into the lock box. And in fact, Madam Speaker, it was the former government on the other side that spent the $50 million. So it has nothing to do with that. Yes, in order to be able to create the places. So, and the amendments of the airport. So Madam Speaker, there's nothing in here that connects the tax to what the member is alleging. The tax is about a tax that goes into a lock box in order to develop the airport. With regards to issuing contracts for contractors and bringing up some purported investigation that has not even been confirmed. Some here say that it's taking place. The Honorable Prime Minister, you have made your point. Honorable Member for Castro himself, can you please confine your debate to the bill? To the bill before us. Madam Speaker, I am confining my debate to the bill. The purpose of the bill is to provide for airport development, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, there's a sadistic tradition in parliaments, Madam Speaker, that in debate you provide context. You provide rational and you provide a basis for any argument that you're gonna put forward, Madam Speaker. But Madam Speaker, I'm amused. And you know why? It's because a sport has been touched. A sensitive sport has been touched, Madam Speaker. And the people of San Lucia want to know, Madam Speaker. They want to know. And every time we stand to speak. And I'm going to cast them to it. Once I stand, all the signals start to stop him, stop him, stop him. Madam Speaker, I have no confidence in this initiative taken by this government. I have no confidence, Madam Speaker. None. Because of the historical experience, Madam Speaker, that's number one reason why I have no confidence in those clauses. Secondly, Madam Speaker, in the last time we met, I spoke of certain inconsistencies in the bill. I made reference to it, Madam Speaker. And I trust when the prime minister rebuts, he will respond to those inconsistencies I pointed out that's in the bill. Especially since he's preoccupied with lock box, Madam Speaker. But Madam Speaker, the prime minister says, I should all only confine myself to the clauses and only speak about the clauses, Madam Speaker. Because I suspect the prime minister is afraid of me asking him to explain to the people of San Lucia why it is he made calls as stated in that document that is circulating, Madam Speaker. Because you know I'm going to ask that question. Order again, Madam Speaker. What does that happen? No need so to do, sir. Honorable member for Caste Resolve, you speak too. You can cite or make a reference to a document, but I will guide you and say to you that making no amount of shaking the document will make it a document of the house. It cannot be. You can cite it. You can make a reference to it. You may not read there from. No, you cannot read there from. And I circulated the notes on that. There are notes on it. Okay, so now whatever allegations or assertions you wish to make regarding another member of this house, please do not make them if it has no relevance to the bill being debated. Stick, let us confine to the bill being debated. What you have in your hand, a prop to have in your hand has no bearing and if it is yet to be determined or whatever stage it is at. I'm really not interested in what stage it is at, but I do not think with respect to that Airport Development Act bill that we are debating it has relevance. It has direct relevance and bearing. Can we please proceed? So, Madam Speaker, if I'm arguing that we move from a model where the previous UDP government wanted to borrow $400 million and use a particular approach, the Labor Party came into power, abandoned that approach, went to the World Bank, got the ISC involved that suggested another approach. This government comes back into power, wants to go back to the previous approach and I am saying I do not have confidence in that previous approach because the World Bank, and you're saying to me, don't say that because it's not relevant. Is that the guidance you're providing to me, Madam Speaker, that I am not entitled to refer to the first experience in the previous United Workers Party government? It is not relevant to Airport Development. I should not refer to it. I should not mention it. Is that what you're saying, Madam Speaker? However, I am sure, let me make myself clear. What I am saying is, if you are given the genesis of this document and how it came back to the house, I have no objections to you doing that. The departure there seems to be centered around a particular document which I'm saying, do not, do not, you, once you may make a reference to it or you may cite it, you cannot read it, it's part of it and it is not on the floor for circulation in the house or for debate. So you can say the genesis of the document, it came back, it has gone to the house, it came back, you may even, you will even be permitted to say that it did not make it in the previous form, but I am saying to you, I am sure you can understand the language and speaking when I'm saying, stay within the parameters and the confines. Okay, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I must also say that, to cite a document means to read from a document. I mean, I don't know that you can cite a case, you can cite a reference and you don't think, but Madam Speaker, you said, do not read from the document. Okay, let me correct you on the point of citing. Citing does not mean. Citing of the document, as per, your skin me, I think members are page 446. Oh, let us go back to 445. It is previously circulated. A minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a dispatch or other state papers not before the house. Now, I say a minister because it says a minister and there the greater is taken to include the lesser. Okay? Unless he is prepared to table it before to lay it upon the table. And we have specific rules within standing order 13 of the house as to ministers having the responsibility of laying papers before the house. Please be so guided. Please continue. I thought you were going to define what cited was, but anyway, Madam Speaker, I will move on. Madam Speaker, because I'm being asked to debate now if my hands tied behind my back and a co-chief tied around my eyes, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, I want to know, Madam Speaker, where the advice on how to establish this lock box came from. And I wanted to ask the question whether it came from many phone calls that were made, Madam Speaker, by various persons during the last experience of trying to get a loan and bill an airport in the same fashion that it has been done now. Because there are records, Madam Speaker, in documents which showed hundreds of phone calls being made between a particular minister and the prime minister who was then minister of tourism who had nothing to do with the airport development. And it begs the question, why were calls being made? And I suspect, Madam Speaker, those calls were probably to get advice on how to set up a proper lock box, Madam Speaker. It had to be, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I want to stay on this airport development, be it, Madam Speaker. Because earlier today, the prime minister spoke that he wanted answers on Grindberg, Madam Speaker. He wanted answers on something that was 16 years old. He wanted answers and he wanted to know certain matters clarified. And I would like, Madam Speaker, and this is relevant to this bill, for the prime minister to tell us, why did the IFC find St. Lucia, almost a million US dollars, Madam Speaker. Why did they find St. Lucia? That's important, Madam Speaker. The same way you want answers to something 16 years ago. And, Madam Speaker, from information that was given to me, Madam Speaker. When the IFC was told that the government of St. Lucia, and I want the prime minister, to say whether it is true or not, and then we'll discuss the evidence based on his response. When the IFC was informed that St. Lucia was not following this model, the prime minister was advised to be very careful. Because the previous experience had question marks over it. And we must say, Lucia must avoid giving the impression to the whole bank and the IFC that we were going back into a process which was tainted, which is why I keep repeating it. The prime minister authorized discussions with the IFC because he was encouraged, do not abandon the former that was negotiated by the Labor Party before. In totality, the prime minister was told that, and he was prepared, and the IFC was also prepared. If the government wanted it, it would borrow the $400 million lock box, as provided for in those clauses. But the IFC would manage the process of international tendering, awarding of contracts, and monitoring of the process. The IFC, inconsistent with its practices, was prepared to oversee the process in St. Lucia to ensure that there was no suspicion or any reason to believe that there was going to be anything untold. And the IFC agreed, madam speaker, and then the prime minister when asked to send a letter to the IFC, refused to do so. And he said he did not want the IFC in anything to do with supervision of the tendering, selection, or managing of the process. And I want the prime minister to say that's not true because these are the whispers, madam speaker, in international circles. And on having made a decision that he did not want the IFC involved at all, then the whole bank decided that they were going to find St. Lucia and that fine had to be paid. Can the prime minister tell us in this bill, consistent with it, how much did we have to pay the IFC and why did the IFC end up finding St. Lucia, madam speaker? Because it's important, madam speaker. It's important because you asked in the people of St. Lucia to take a loan of $400 million, madam speaker. $400 million, madam speaker. Why would you abandon a model, a project, approved by the IFC, by the World Bank that allows for St. Lucia not to borrow one cent, not to have to spend one cent on maintenance of any airport and get an annual lease payment to go back to a model where you would spend $400 million, madam speaker. It raises questions and the people of St. Lucia want questions. So before you go back 16 years, answer those questions of the people of St. Lucia. What is the driving motivation? What is the economic sense and what's the business sense, madam speaker? Why would you ask this country to take a loan to madam speaker to have the responsibility of $400 million, madam speaker? Deep down inside, madam speaker, any rational person would ask a question, why? Why is the government doing this? And madam speaker, the question, nobody wants me to talk about. Against the background of those documents, it really pricks up to you, madam speaker, to find out what is going on, madam speaker. It really begs the question, madam speaker. And I am saying, madam speaker, that solutions need answers. We need to be told clearly, madam speaker, what is involved with this, madam speaker. And unless those things are cleared up, madam speaker, there will always be questions and doubts about every single project that this government undertakes, madam speaker. There'll always be doubts, madam speaker. And when one speaks about the clauses, madam speaker, when you speak about the clauses in there, unless that cloud that's over our head blows away, madam speaker, there'll be no confidence in this project. There'll be no confidence. Solutions will be distilled by the fact that they have to borrow $400 million. They'll be distilled by the fact that the previous time this model was followed, what it ended up in, madam speaker. And this is just the beginning, madam speaker, for those who do want me to talk about it. I won't talk about it. It will talk about by people at a much higher level than me, madam speaker. I'm not the one to talk about it. I only refer to the documents I saw. This is way above my head, madam speaker. Solutions will have no confidence in this bill, madam speaker. This bill, madam speaker, runs suspect, madam speaker, because of past experiences, madam speaker. So, madam speaker, let me repeat a point I made, madam speaker, that I want answered, madam speaker. If we look at clause 11, madam speaker, a collector shall pay the development charge into and place the development charge to the credit of an account at a bank approved by the authority with the consent of the minister. We need to be assured that that account at that bank will be a local bank and not a foreign bank, madam speaker. Madam speaker, it goes on. Subject to this section, the development charge is for the purpose of making payments for the debt service requirement of a debt service arrangement to implement airport facility improvement projects. So it says the charge is for the purpose of making payments for the debt service requirement of a debt arrangement, okay? That's what it is for. The authority may enter into a debt arrangement for the purpose of carrying out airport development projects on terms mutually agreed between the authority and the lender. Food, 12-3. Where a debt arrangement is entered, and listen to it, where a debt arrangement is entered to under subsection two, the authority shall set up a log box account into which money is collected from the development charge at transfer. Where a debt arrangement is entered into. Then the authority shall set up a log box account. So you have to have a debt service arrangement and then you set up a log box account. And the bill, madam speaker, gives a date as of when January 1st we were informed that the charge will be imposed. Now the bill says only when you have entered into a debt service arrangement, you can set up the log box account. And we are starting to collect that money from January 1st. I ask the question, have we entered into a debt service arrangement already? Because if we are starting to collect this money from the 1st of January, madam speaker, I assume, madam speaker, that according to this bill, which we will pass today, we have already entered into a debt service agreement. And if I'm wrong, madam speaker, I wish to be corrected, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I also made the point that under the exemptions under this bill, under the exemption of this bill, nowhere do you see youth groups, sports groups, or people representing St. Lucia. Nowhere. But we see, madam speaker, in the schedule two, E, a person signified by a minister to be guest of the government. So a government minister can say, John Blue is a guest of this government, he doesn't pay the tax. But a youth group representing St. Lucia must pay it. A sports group from St. Lucia must pay it. And I said, madam speaker, this is wrong. There are people representing St. Lucia. They should not pay it. Because if a guest of the government of St. Lucia is exempted, our national representatives in culture, in sports, must not be asked to pay that tax, madam speaker. And I maintain that, madam speaker, it's wrong. Madam speaker, I wanted to say something, madam speaker, about the purpose of the airport, madam speaker. This is about bringing and facilitating the tourists that will come to St. Lucia. That's what it is about. And showing that when we welcome people, the first experience of St. Lucia, madam speaker, is one that you will remember. So we're not against upgrading the airport. In fact, the Labour Party sought a better arrangement than the previous arrangement that the United Workers Party government had, which is why we went to the World Bank and the IFC. And madam speaker, whilst talking about tourism, the member for Ansari Kamri spoke to justify figures that were presented, madam speaker. Madam speaker, sometimes you really warn the madam speaker. I'm not gonna contest and say figures were bogus. I said, madam speaker, and I will repeat it, that those figures have something fundamentally wrong about them. When those figures says in Trosell, Saltibas, a thousand jobs were created in the accommodation sector, in library, 3,000 jobs were created. In Ansari Kamri's, over 1,000, almost 2,000 jobs were created. The figures say so. And all of us know in here that 1,000 jobs were not created in Trosell in the accommodation sector. 1,000 jobs in library, in accommodation. Ansari Kamri's 2,000 jobs. We all know that's not true. And I'm not saying anybody doctored figures. I'm saying something is wrong with the figures. Whether it's a methodology, whether it's a collection of data, something is patently wrong. But we need the airport, madam speaker, because we want those figures to become a reality, madam speaker. We want it to become a reality. But we want, madam speaker, the clauses of those bills to get out of the shadow of suspicion that hangs over it. That is the fundamental issue, madam speaker. And why is there suspicion, madam speaker? One, is the documents that are in circulation, madam speaker. Two, the amount of calls that were made by the prime minister and another member, madam speaker, in the course of the last experience. And fully, madam speaker, the shared irrationality, the shared irrationality of giving up a World Bank approved approach that would cost Senbusha no money for us to go and borrow $400 million, madam speaker. That one is deaf named, madam speaker. And I'll tell you something, as I go through my constituency, people ask that question, madam speaker. Puchinu Kaffesa, he asked the question. So when we heard there was a 100,000 new cruise ship passengers, they're also asking the question, where them? Because Gloria in Marigold not feeling any better. The Beach Boys down in Marigold, the beach not feeling any better. They're not seeing it. They're not benefiting from it. Maybe it is there. But something must be wrong if our model because they're not enjoying that benefit. Maybe some people are enjoying the benefit, madam speaker. But we want an airport that will be of benefit to Senbusha. We want clauses, madam speaker, that can give us confidence that this process is beyond reproach, madam speaker. And we have no confidence that those clauses that the prime minister spoke about, madam speaker, gives any solution, any confidence, madam speaker, that something is not wrong with this approach and something is wrong with this government, madam speaker. Thank you very much, madam speaker. Honorable minister for infrastructure, port, energy and labor. Madam speaker, I shall attempt to deliver my statement and contribution to this debate within the confines and frame of the bill which has been presented. But certainly I'd appreciate if you grant me the privilege and latitude to go slightly at a tangent to the presence of the representatives from the National Council of and for persons with disabilities, many of whom the Ministry of Infrastructure, ports, energy and labor are called upon to serve on a daily basis. Be it with the provision of adequate sidewalk facilities, ramps and other such facilities, the inconvenience that they often face when they are to travel, whether by sea or by air, without proper ramps or bridges that will leave them on board, airplane or ship, or whether it's their inability based on their disability to hear or to see schedules as posted or announced by the airport's authority. And so as minister responsible for infrastructure, it is indeed a privilege to recognize that they are here with us this morning as they observe their week and their month as significant elements in our society, a society who so often forget that they exist. And only on occasions of this nature that they praise them and shower them with such pleasantries and words of encouragement. Our words today to them must be words that shall manifest themselves into physical action. Be it our parliament building, government offices, public infrastructure and other institutions in our society, to demonstrate not just lip service, but to show that indeed as a people and as leaders, we care about those who are unfortunate. I wanna say to them that as minister for infrastructure, my heart is with you, my support and my commitment to serving you as citizens of St. Lucia and giving you an opportunity not only to be recognized as being deprived or not having the abilities, but to be able to participate confidently knowing that you two have a contribution to make to this great nation of St. Lucia. Madam Speaker, the subject matter before us has to do with the Airport Development Act, Airport Development Bill. Thank you very much, honorable member for the correction. And so to a certain extent, it is deja vu. And while again, according to your ruling and instruction, it limits me in terms of the avenue that I shall assume or I shall pursue, it is painful that after six years, and if we were to go even further, after 12 years that we're here today, debating how can we develop an international airport that will serve the people of our country, particularly our disabled or differently able persons in our society. I recall when I presented this bill six or so years ago, seven to be precise, when I presented this bill in February of 2011, the intention then, and I made it very clear, the intention then was to provide the infrastructure of an airport of world-class standards to underpin and give support to our tourism industry and to our people who travel frequently. A model was developed, and the intention then was to pursue this vigorous, in an effort to realize a first-class airport in the Eastern Caribbean that will be second to none. I recognized the challenge, or rather the competition that Barbados had led us into, ahead of us with facilities that we couldn't match. And I cautioned about the potential of Saint Vincent aggressively pursuing the initiative of building an international airport in Agile, even in the absence of having the room stock necessary to be able to attract aircraft and to attract seats that the potential existed of being able to develop their airport ahead of ours and possibly dispel it and possibly displace in us in a very competitive environment where not only do we need the service to fill the rooms, but the potential of losing the opportunity of being a hub for airline, for traffic within the region. Today, Saint Vincent, through the coalition of the willing, as Prime Minister Ralph Gonzalez say, has opened their airport. And even if they do not have the number of rooms that we have, the threat still lies. While they wait for services, the threat still lies that we may very well be displaced if we don't hurry to get a first-class international airport established here in Saint Vincent. Madam Speaker, at the time when we introduce the Airport Development Act number 15.40 in 2011, February the month, and establish exactly what we are saying here, a lockbox, which merely means a facility in which the charges would be placed in that facility, not to be tampered, not to be put up as insurance or anything else, but solely reserved for one thing, and that one thing is to develop a first-class international airport. The bill was passed, Madam Speaker, and the necessary instruments were introduced. And in June of 2015, the then administration repealed the Airport Development Act. And I would recall, to a certain extent, the allegations being made that you cannot tax an initiative on something that you're not doing. So in other words, to almost use the statement made by the Honorable Member for Cassie South that under the section relating to the lockbox in which it says that a lockbox account may be set up, may be set up, may exclusively for the benefit of a lender for the purpose of that service. But it goes further, if you read from the top, it says that subject to this section, the development charge is for the purpose of making payments for the debt service requirement of a debt arrangement to implement airport facility improvement projects, specific lockbox designated facility to develop the airport. The authority may enter into a debt arrangement for the purpose of carrying out airport development projects on terms mutually agreed between the authority and a lender. And where a debt arrangement is entered into under subsection two, the authority shall set up a lockbox. And where a debt arrangement is entered into under subsection two, the authority shall set up a lockbox account into which monies collected from the development charge are transferred. So basically what this section is saying that there is a charge. The charge you collect taxes and it is only when you have entered into an arrangement that the lockbox is set up to allow those funds to be transferred into this special facility because when we speak of lockbox, you know, I can imagine the famous guy at five o'clock in the morning saying, I'm wet keelakle, keemum keenilakle apuway. But it is a facility designated. You know the guy. Madam Speaker, we all know the guy. You see, the point I'm trying to make, Madam Speaker, sometimes we get into this parliament and expediency seem to play on, we seem to be engaging all this expediency. So it is not proper to collect the airport development charge because you have not decided how you're going to engage the charge that you're collecting. But you can introduce a dredging fee for Wasco to dredge the dam that you have not started dredging. So the point becomes redundant that if you can introduce a fee on one hand to undertake a measure that you have not started, then you can do the same to initiate a project that you have a vision for. So here's where we found ourselves, Madam Speaker. Before 2006, the former administration had a plan and I commend them for having a vision, a vision to expand our infrastructure, to expand communication and to do all of those things. We came in and while we embraced that vision, we thought that there are other things to be done. And in so doing, the administration at the time thought the mechanism, the vehicle for executing what that vision entailed was one in which we felt we can set up a financing mechanism using the lock box as the key element in the mechanism to achieve that objective. We got to the point of 2011. And by the time the act was repealed, the account had accumulated $53,991,391,399. Let's say 60 million, between 2011 and 2015, four years. At this stage, we would have collected probably 120 million EC. And we would have been on our way to set up, or rather to developing a new international airport. We have come and we have decided that the model that has been presented, we don't subscribe to it. So we've gone back to the lock box. But there must be a point, Madam Speaker, when we all agree that we are all attempting to get to a final destination that all of us are interested in. So it's like all the Christians, we all want to get to God. Whether we go to church on Saturday or Sunday, we lie, we steal, we do whatever it is, all of us want to get there, but at the end of the day, let's agree all of us want to get there. Those in wools, sheep in wools clothing and all the rest of it, wools in sheep clothing. But Madam Speaker, the point I'm making is we need to arrive at some consensus moving forward. We need to do it and do it as soon as possible. Because as we look around the region, as we look around the region, Barbados is improving. St. Vincent has built a new international airport and Tiga has improved the airport. And you move on and you look island by island by island and each island is doing what is necessary. We in this country, there are certain institutions and certain elements of development we must move on and deal with. If we are to continue to record the numbers that he's talking about, we must be able to have the capacity to bring in the tourists into the country. If we are to maintain our reputation, we must be able to put in the services in health, in education, community services, recreational services. We must be able to put those in to be able to support the industry that we're talking about. And so Madam Speaker, as Minister for Infrastructure, I am committed to moving forward with this exercise to ensure that St. Lucia realizes the dream laid out many years ago when the great Sir John Compton thought that we couldn't have allowed an abandoned American air base to lie there in the South underutilized or not utilized at all. And to develop it in 1974 with the support of the Canadians who saw it necessary to redevelop Vierfall, which is called Bean Field Airport, into the Hironura International Airport. We need to find the ways, Madam Speaker, to develop it. So here, I believe in this bill, we are speaking of using the mechanism of financing. The mechanism of financing, unlike the other model, which is not bad, we all go into PVPs, whether it's the construction of roads or other infrastructure, but it's a matter that a government decides. Do we feel that going in with a PVP now is really one to go in, or is it better for us to pull back and to give us an opportunity to finance the project and to be able to maintain our control in management once we provide the capable management necessary to move forward? So this government has decided, we do not believe the PVP model is in our interest. We do not believe that by introducing a method in which, introducing a method in which you would lease or allow a concession to run the airport while you're paid every year. While you're paid every year, we do not believe this is the most beneficial. We are saying, let us do it ourselves, let us find the partners, let us engage them, let us put in place the financing mechanism, and let us put the support infrastructure that will allow us to build the airport, finance it and to manage it and to realize the same objectives as would have occurred under a PVP. It is just that it's two different philosophies. Our philosophy is we can do it ourselves. And if we can do it ourselves, let us get the job done in the interest of all solutions. I'm hoping, Madam Speaker, that as we continue with this debate and as we agree on amendments, if there's a need for amendment, that we can go to the people and to say to the people, we cannot sacrifice our national development. We cannot sacrifice our national development on political, on the altar of political expedience. Let us get this thing done and give St. Lucia the profile that it requires as we continue to participate in an environment that is very competitive and one which I believe we have an opportunity to continue to blaze the trail, be it in tourism, be it in industry, be it in agriculture, and even meaning, be it in providing the support necessary to those individuals who are differently able or are persons with disabilities. So when they decide to do like every other inclusion, they can leave in comfort being able to read, hear, understand, or to be able to be wheeled on through an air bridge onto the aircraft without having to be lifted up the stairs to get into that aircraft. I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and I support it. Please bear with me honorable member for Eufort North while I recognize your mic. I ask the House to rise for 10 minutes. It is now 12.30. All right, we can do so. So we will rise at 12.30. We will resume at 1.30. Is that okay? All right.