 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the press. Thank you for joining me today as you address concerns circulating regarding the draft tax administration procedure act that has garnered attention. It is imperative that we always provide accurate information to the solution public to dispel any misconceptions. First and foremost, I want to make it clear that the draft bill in circulation was initiated during the term of the United Workers' Party administration as evidenced by cabinet conclusion number 1511 of 2020. The cabinet conclusion reads, and I quote, cabinet, considered a memorandum dated 13 November 2020 submitted by the Department of Finance and approved the request for creation of the Tax Administration and Procedures Act to harmonize the administrative collections and penal provisions of the various species of legislation that are currently administered by the Inland Revenue Department. Further, by memo dated November 3, 2020, December 3, 2020, from the Ministry of Finance, Economic Growth, Job Creation, External Affairs, and Public Service headed by the former prime minister states, the Department of Finance wishes to inform the cabinet by conclusion number 1511 of 2020, considered a memorandum dated 13 November 2020 submitted by the Department of Finance and approved the request for creation of the Tax Administrative Procedures Act to harmonize the administrative collections and penal provisions of the various species of legislation that are currently administered by the Inland Revenue Department. The aforementioned is for your attention and necessary action. Can I read that again? By memo dated December 3, 2020, from the Ministry of Finance, Economic Growth, Job Creation, External Affairs, and Public Service headed by the former prime minister states, the Department of Finance wishes to inform that by cabinet conclusion number 1511 of 2020, considered a memorandum dated 14 November 2020 submitted by the Department of Finance and approved the request for creation of the Tax Administration for creation of the Tax Administrative Procedures Act to harmonize the administrative collections and penal provisions of the various species of legislation that are currently administered by the Inland Revenue Department. The aforementioned is for your attention and necessary action. It is clear that the instructions for preparation of the draft bill came from the former prime minister and minister of finance. Let me inform the public of Senusia that the cabinet, which I lead, has never seen the draft bill now in circulation. The cabinet that I lead has never seen the draft bill now in circulation. It is clear, and is my understanding, that consistent before approach of transparency, dialogue, and open government, the draft bill prepared on instruction from the former prime minister is open for public discussion. My government's policy on tax is clear. We have increased the tax threshold to $24,000, meaning that anyone who earns $2,000 and less per month pays no income tax. My government has given the most generous tax amnesty in the history of St. Lucia, where all forms of fines, penalties, and interests have been canceled on all outstanding tax arrears, including vats. This is a statement, and I have in circulation the memo from the Ministry of Finance, Economic Growth, Job Creation, Excel Affairs, and Public Service. There is no such ministry in my administration. And it says, which I have read for you, cabinet by conclusion approved the request for creation. Approved the request for creation of the Tax Administrative Procedures Act to harmonize the administrative collections and penal provisions of the various piece of legislation that are currently administered by the Inland Revenue Department. The aforementioned is for your attention and necessary action. That's a memo from the Ministry to the Comptroller of Inner Revenue, to the Director of Research, instructing them to prepare the draft bill that's in circulation. My government has absolutely no input in that bill. My cabinet has not seen that bill. That bill has been segregated with our position on transparency and accountability and it's been circulated for public discussion. It has not come to cabinet. It has not been approved. And it's not our creation. It's the creation of the former government. Can I get any questions? Thank you very much. We will email you the statement at the end. The statement, we email it to you today. Yes, questions? Who gave the authorization? I just read for the internet. That is the circulation is for public discussion by the technocrats, the technical people. Before it comes, they go and give it to the public. They say we need several other bills. But in circulation or for consultation purposes? It hadn't been prepared. It had not been prepared. No, these instructions were prepared came from 10, 20, to prepare it. And you take time to prepare a bill, don't you? Yes, so that this... What's the age of this? Who's preparing the bill? The bill? Okay, okay, okay. You want to, you know... Let's go through it. The important point is that the instruction to prepare the bill came from the former government. That's what's important. That after it is procedural, not the age in the revenue. The instruction, the order to prepare the bill came from the former prime minister as evidenced by a document. We're not getting involved in UC, IECCC. A document which is an instruction from the former prime minister to repel a bill. What happens after that? Based on instructions, the inner revenue proceeded to prepare a bill. Which, according to the instruction, according to the instruction, it says to harmonize the administrative collections and penal provisions of the various piece of legislation. That's what's written. I didn't say that. Hold on, hold on. After it is prepared by the technical people, it is circulated. And then it comes to the cabinet. The cabinet opends, discusses, and it turns it to the attorney general for necessary changes, and then it goes to the parliament. Anything before that is just a piece of paper. So what you have is a piece of paper. You have a piece of paper that is prepared by the technocrats for discussion and circulation on instruction from the former minister of finance. He gave the instructions to prepare it. Go ahead, go ahead. Let's go ahead. Go ahead. The concerns are the restriction of the movement. We don't speak to the concerns. What I'm saying to you is that what I want to dispel, that bill was not initiated by my government. It's not our ideas that are in this bill. This bill was prepared on instruction by the former government with the following instructions to harmonize the administrative collections and penal provisions of the various pieces of legislations that are currently administered by the even revenue department. That was all this way. When it comes to me, when it comes to the cabinet. Yes? Yes? They are doing what they have to do. They have to circulate. Because it only becomes important when it's passed. Right now, it's a piece of paper. It only becomes important when it goes through the processes. It's a piece of paper for circulation. That's all it is. The prime minister teaches us now. This is important. Yes, and that is why we have the consultation. But what I'm talking about is the blame. What I'm talking about is the fact that Philip J. Pierre is the one who did that. That's the point I'm making. I haven't seen it. I haven't read it. If you are confused too. Because I could not understand how people can lie like that. I'm confused too. Because when I saw you all making a phosphate, I was wondering what I talked about. I'm confused myself. So I don't blame you for your confusion. I'm making you clear. I can't clear what I didn't initiate. OK, those monies would be revamping the operations of the... What's the relation to that? You spoke about the streamlining and everything. Is this real part of that plan? A bill part of a plan to modernize? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You have it? Let's go for that slowly. Let's go for it slowly. There's no need to be confused. In December 2020, the former minister of finance instructed the Inland Revenue to prepare a bill to harmonize. No, hold on, hold on, I'm having a press conference to harmonize administrative collections and penal provisions of the various piece of legislation that occurred at May 11 in 2020. What you're speaking about is in 2023 is a grant or a loan to deal with procedures in revenue. Collection of taxes and records not to prepare any bills. But that's not... Completely different rules. But there's no connection between them. How is there no connection? There's no connection. But he just said procedures and everything. Right, so procedures... Operations on the neighbor, what's this? All right, so let me give you an example. The city of Inland Revenue needs money, but money is money for people. Some of them, from the 40 million dollar group, are allocated to help them with those kinds of office... The operations. He is the minister, right? Should we let him answer? What I'm saying to you, if I were you, I'd be confused at the actions of the former minister of finance. Because if I had initiated an instruction to prepare a bill, and the bill is now in the public domain, I would have allowed the public to discuss it. And don't blame somebody who did not instruct to repair it. I wouldn't blame them. That's what I'm confused about. So the idea of the modernizing of the operational engineering department has nothing to do with the circulation of a draft bill that was instructed by the former minister of finance. Maybe? Okay. You've been a member of the government for the past 30 years, 25 years? As many as you want. I'm just asking, right? So you know better than me that you're working in these states, right? So I'm relying on you for your expertise. That draft bill that was prepared, it doesn't matter what it was prepared, it doesn't matter. We understand it was prepared. I didn't say it was prepared, I never said so. I said to an instructor. Okay, the instructions, right? So the instructions were from back then, but you were part of the cabinet at that time? No. You don't even know that they had 20-20. Yes, but you were in opposition. Yes, I was in the cabinet, but I was in the cabinet. I'm sorry, you see, you all have me so confused. You can be confused. This is very confusing, and I'm trying to put it together. So you were part of the government, let's just... No, I was not, I was not. You were in opposition. Yes. Right, you were in opposition. Now when you're in opposition, you have knowledge of... No, no, no knowledge, absolute knowledge. Cabinet, you see, cabinet meets with government ministers and parliament meeting elected members. Now I know where the confusion was. Okay, so the instruction was in 20-20, but you are in the process of revamping the operations of the Inland Revenue Department right now. So what I want to ask you is, during your, while you're revamping the operations of the Inland Revenue Department, is this bill, the draft bill, going to come into play now? No, the draft bill is being discussed. The discussion, after the discussion, of draft will be sent to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance will look at it, send it back to the Inland Revenue Department, that will be consulted by the Attorney General, and then it will come to the Cabinet of Ministers. The Minister of Finance will present it like the former Minister of Finance instructed. The present Minister of Finance will present to the Cabinet the Cabinet will opine, it will go back to the Accountant General for the necessary changes, and then it will be presented to Parliament for the bit where everybody can speak. That's when it becomes law. So let's go back to, what is your personal opinion? I do not know, because I've not seen a draft from the Inland Revenue Department. Yes? I thought you'd be very happy about the tax amnesty instead, about the Inland Finance and taxes. I thought that would be important, yes. Since you've placed a position in the Treasury, would this be merit some of the staff that reforms? That is why it's in discussion. You see, that is not, that's a piece of paper. It has not gone anywhere. It's for the public discussion and people are raising their queries. And we have been against the queries to know what we take on bridge to is the fact that you blame the present government. That's why we take on bridge to, because it's not right. We have no problem with the discussion, you know. People can see, people can raise concerns. That's why it's in discussion. You may recall when there was a tax on charcoal that was gazetted. You may recall that, right? It was gazetted that there would be a tax on charcoal production on production of black pudding, on production of things. That was a law. Extending all your house. That which we have not implemented. That is still the law. This, what you're watching is a piece of paper that's in distribution for discussion based on an instruction from the former minister of finance to put it together. That's what you see. You see nothing else with that. But what we are concerned about is the lies. I use it with lies that these are measures proposed by this government. That what is there is comes from instructions as evidence by instruction from this ministry to the parliament, to the commisionary revenue. It wasn't me who gave the instruction. That's what's important. That's what we're saying. Yes. This quite came from, I think, an exit of whatever document it is, that something about houses being seized if one doesn't get one's taxes and one wouldn't be able to charge one's stuff. Okay, have you read, you may be very young. You may not know that there was a time in Seleucia when you could not travel if you didn't have a tax clearance. You know that? Yes. You don't know who removed it? Kenny Anthony and the Lea Party. You know, I'm glad, I went to hope that, I went to, and especially the reporters were confused. There was a time in Seleucia when you could not travel unless there's something called a tax clearance. You went to the interim department, they looked and they said, no, you can't travel. You must pay $10 in your tax and you couldn't travel. So this is not new legislation. That's been there all the time. But it was kept in the books, so we clean it up. So the intention is to clean it up, which is a right intention. The intention that is correct, that's a perfect intention. That did not say, I will never accuse the former prime minister of putting that in legislation. That's not my style, I speak the truth. I will never accuse him. What I am saying is that was his instruction. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying he put it there. They say to me, he should not say I put it there. And that's the point, that's what's important. I'm not saying he put it, he should not say I put it. And I want to tell you that there was a time in Seleucia when you could not travel without a tax clearance. And Kenny Anthony and the Lea Party removed it from the books. Next person, you're same to him. You can allow it to, so you can hand this to me, go ahead. Go ahead, that's what it's meant to be about. I think if you just put that in some... Tell us what exactly you intend to do so that... I intend to continue to circulate bills for circulation and discussion. I intend them to, I want them to continue to circulate bills for discussion and for dialogue before it becomes law. What are your proposed revampments? In the room in the department, there are situations where the IT processes must improve so they become a modern department, that's all. So they become a modern department where information is easier, where you can go in today and find how much you owe as such a using IT, using technology to make it a modernized tax department. So information can be easier. As in regards to bills and regulations, the procedure will be the same. It will come from an instruction from a ministry, like was the instruction from a ministry in 2020, the bill is going to be prepared, there is a public discussion and it will come back to the cabinet, then go to law. There will be no change. I can assure you. Can I ask you something? No, I want to disabuse your minds of the confusion. Because, you know, I did something. Mis-truths become truths if they're not cleared. Now, the only reason why you sound confused because you cannot believe, and I agree with you, you cannot... I said I was confused, sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, okay, right. Right, right, right, right, right. I am glad, I am glad. You see, let me tell you, let me tell you why, let me tell you why my good friend is confused. Because she cannot believe, she cannot believe that you have a document that gives an instruction to prepare a bill. And when the bill is prepared for discussion, after you give the instruction, you blame the person who hadn't done it today for it. So I agree for it. I was confused myself. I said, but what's going on? What's going on? Till I was told what is happening. That's a fact. Something that is, I mean, this is the cannot remedy for it. Yes. So it is technocrats, basically, that did this. Mm-hmm. And they're doing something. I said the contents. No, my language is correct. My language is correct. Yes. But this is being done, whatever is being done right now, right, by people that work in your ministry, and you are unaware. But what must I be aware of? That's discussion. There is nothing, my good lady. There is nothing. That's discussion. That's not the law. It hasn't reached me yet to make a discussion on. Yes. Uh-huh. It hasn't come to me. It has not come to me. It has not come to me. Yes. I, can I explain to you? Can I explain to you? It's not unprecedented. It is not, and I agree with them. Can I explain something to you? Did you hear me before? Did you hear me a while ago? Did you hear me a while ago? Did you hear what I said? Did you hear what I said? There was a time in Zellusia when you could not travel. I think that doesn't sunk. That hasn't sunk in your mind. Right. That's a fact. And I'm saying to you, what you see now is for discussion. Will opine when I hear officially from the area of the department, what they see. I do not speak unless I have official documentation. When it really comes to me, and I say Prime Minister, we held discussion of Chamber of Commerce. We held discussions with the Chartered Accountants. We had discussions with the business people. Here are their concerns. Our recommendation is such. We are going to delete that, include that, then I come in. I do not speak prematurely. Speaking now is speaking prematurely. Because I'm, look, I'm hearing you say, I'm hearing some of the people say, so I need to get a document from the authoritative people. These are the people who have been charged with tax, the Inland Revenue Department. When they come back to me with a piece of proposed legislation that I have to opine on, I will opine on it to get my cabinet, seek necessary advice, and then I make a public statement. I agree that everybody should express their concerns. This is why it's in circulation. Everyone should express their concerns, but I'm not opining on what I do not know. No one has written me officially with any complaints about that bill. No one. What's happening now is discussion. That's all. So there's no need because this, that instruction from the Ministry of Finance was to put together 12 existing acts. There are 12 laws written to income tax in Senusia, 12. 12 laws, yes, 12 of them. They are 12 acts written to taxes in Senusia, 12. That instruction by the former Prime Minister was to put these things together into one piece of legislation. In that piece of legislation, everybody is seeing now what existed in the 12 acts. So people are querying. Right, let me say. You've not heard this Prime Minister condemn anybody for querying. You've not heard me say that they should not query. All we're saying to you is what they're querying on is a piece of paper and on existing law. That's all we're saying. So what is going to happen? When the queries are put together into this document on the instruction of the former Prime Minister, then we are going to open. So right now, nothing has changed. Right now, concerns are good. The bet is robust. We're happy about it. But nothing has changed. Nothing has happened. It will only happen when it goes to the parliament. It hasn't gone there. So, yes, go ahead. This goes through the final process when drafted finally asks for legislation to be passed in parliament. It will then be brought to your attention against death. And this finally goes through. It means you will agree with what? The former Prime Minister. When I see the draft, I'm in agreement with what initiated it. Of course I'm in agreement with it. I'm in agreement with it. It's a good idea. It's a very good idea. Of course. Because how you can have 12 pieces of legislation for taxes in this country? Investors are confused. Everybody's confused. You've got to go for income tax. This and that. House tax. Property tax. The VAT tax. You put all of it in one bill. That's a brilliant idea. What? Nobody has no bill to... I guess I... Yeah, good. Mr. Prime Minister, you just said... You just said... You just said, you just explained that there were 12 existing pieces of legislation. Okay? You also said that the instruction was to put those existing pieces of legislation together into one thing. To what? That's what you said, right? That's what the former Prime Minister said. How is it that you've been a member of the government for 25 years? No, no, no, no. Let's get it straight. I was... Go ahead, go ahead. How is it that you've been in government for so long and you have no idea or no knowledge of those 12 pieces of legislation that have already existed? I never said so. But that's what you just said. I said... I said I never saw the consolidated bill. That's what I said. I never said anything. I said it's the consolidated bill. But the bill... The proposed bill. The proposed bill is a document that puts these 12 existing pieces of legislation together. So how is it that you have no knowledge of? What are you asking me? You're asking me whether I know about capitalization? Of course I know about capitalization. But I don't know about the council. That's what I'm saying. Did the church... Why let the minister of finance answer this? But because you're not asking the minister of finance questions. You're not asking the minister of finance questions. You're not doing that. You're saying things. I'm asking. Ask me what? I'm asking you because I cannot understand that. Ask me what? I'm asking you. How is it that you say that you do not know the contents? I never said so. I said I do not... I have not seen what is being prepared which is a consolidation of these 12 acts. I have not seen it, that's what I said. But you have knowledge of the 12 acts. Of course I know which are 12 acts. And again, as the minister of finance, some said it was a good idea to put it together. Yes, I have. What is your opinion on this result? When I see the European, I haven't seen it. I have seen it with my own eyes.