 Mr. Speaker, the member from Miku south is not present and I would have loved him to be present to have because this morning you would recall that he made statements as it related to as it relates to GPH, Global Ports Holding and I indicated to him then that when I spoke in the afternoon I would have provided some clarity on some of the issues that he had raised. And it's important Mr. Speaker that I correct some of the points that he made this morning because you would notice the attempt that we're making through the amendment proposed and we spoke of creating an investment climate in the country where we can't spur business development. We spoke of creating the linkages between the ministry responsible for business development and for investment and all of that is about creating an investment climate that's conducive to our, to the economic growth that we need for the national development process in St. Lucia. And I think it is really important that St. Lucia focuses on the difference between the opposition and how they operate and this government and a member earlier today spoke of we doing our work in a focused manner, deliberate, knowing exactly what it is we need to do to take St. Lucia forward and you compare that with what's happening with the opposition. There is nothing about the actions of the opposition that gives you the impression that they are concerned about creating an environment in this country that is conducive for national development. When you hear some of the comments emanating from the opposition, they speak of Booninong the country, they speak of you know, blocking roads and you even heard the member speak of the big match they want to have next week. Everything that one would expect, the opposition that is not committed and sincere about national development and about taking the country forward. And it became really disturbing Mr. Speaker, when you listen to the attack that has been going on against GPH, if you wanted any more evidence that the opposition has no interest in showing that St. Lucia progress is and I think the Prime Minister, the member forecaster is describing it as they willing to destroy everything in the hook that they can be reelected and they would build it back Mr. Speaker. Why would you launch an attack against GPH? Why? Especially given the fact that when we came into office in July 2021, the opposition when in government was negotiating with GPH, in fact let us go back a few years. This same leader of the opposition had signed an agreement with Royal Caribbean in 2008 for the redevelopment of port castries in 2008. Again, another agreement was signed after he became Prime Minister in 2016. So there had been a determined effort on his part to pursue the redevelopment of castries for cruise services and to do so with Royal Caribbean. We have learned against his coming into government in 2021 that there was discussion ongoing with Royal Caribbean, Carnival Corporation and DSH about building a cruise ship terminal in the El Pirata area together with about nine or ten islands that he wanted to build. So he had been on train with DSH talking about cruise terminal with private enterprises, with private enterprises. Of course, the cruise lines would inform us that they never took the Viewfort project seriously because they could not see how it was feasible to do so. They have an interest in Viewfort and continue to talk to us about that interest. But why would you be critical of GPH? It's a question I've asked myself over and over again. So let's go back to July 2021. There had been discussions with GPH and you wonder, Mr Speaker, if the member from Miku South, and I don't know whether I should add the member for Sousa and Saltybus as part of it, but he was responsible for investment. They seem to have forgotten that the member for Castries North, who is part of our government, was part of the discussions. So much so that the member for Castries North, who is now a member of our government, had travelled with the Leader of the Opposition. He knows the discussions that took place. He was the minister responsible for ports. So how can you have had somebody with you in the discussions who is now a member in this present government and pretend that GPH is so bad and that it is the most unworthy thing to happen when you were holding discussions with them? In fact, I can tell you what has happened that when we came into government in July 2021, having reviewed what was on the table, we thought it was not good enough. Think about that. It was not good enough. And the story is well known that the member from Soufre in particular impressed on the Prime Minister and asked that Soufre be included in any development of any port for cruise services. And to show you how the opposition operates, she said she had a secret meeting with them and convinced them that they must include Soufre. They said it was a secret deal that was being done to spin it. But the member from Soufre ensured that Soufre was part of their agreement. So why are they afraid of the GPH arrangement? Why? Is it because they believe if it comes through and it will come through, it means the death of Soufre to them? Is that what it is? Definitely. I mean, that Soufre will no longer ever be available to them as a seat. Is it that is what they are afraid of? So listen to the member from Meku South. First of all, he is boasting everywhere that the government sold the ports. Now, seriously, that the government sold the port and to actually hear members of the party, and I cannot say I've ever heard a member from Soufre's altibus repeat it, but I'm sure you'll know better, to actually say that they've sold the ports, I can inform this honourable chamber that the government has not sold the port and will never sell the port. What has happened? Investment, I'm closing comments. What has happened? No, I'm making a point I have to respond to comments made by the member from Meku South this morning about GPH. You want to rise on a point? Clarification. Remember for Souzal, I notice you are asking the Deputy Prime Minister for permission in my house. Just kidding, just kidding. Mr Speaker, there are some relationships that go beyond politics and I'm always happy when my friend and colleague... I can say it anyway, I can say it anyway because there are things that are a lot deeper than... Actually, I was not sure what you were discussing, so you had to give me clarification. But the whole issue of the GPH, Mr Speaker, and I'm seeking some clarification, is that, and there's a question that has been asked, and the member for Soufre, one of the things she said when she stood up is she's been very concerned about the amount of disinformation and misinformation that has been going on recently. And very recently I was invited to a forum at Sandals, discussing that very same thing. And one of the points that stuck with me was one of the presenters said, lack of information is just as detrimental as misinformation and disinformation. And I think that is the whole issue with GPH because there's not been anything forthcoming and that's the concern. And questions that have been asked is, has there been due diligence? Okay, has there been due diligence? When you go on the GPH side, which is public, there are a number of questions. When you analyze the last set of balance sheets, a number of concerns. So people have a right to ask these things. Now, I'm hearing you for the first time, you may have spoken about it before, trying to clarify certain things, but I'm saying there should be a broader transparency of regards to that because that's significant. So I just wanted to say that because I think the GPH thing is significant enough for us to know our solutions. The question, and I've said it, that's the one thing I've said before in reference to the community that I'm from, because we said that view for it is going to be locked up from any development on that part of the deal. So these are questions we've been asking and we do not know. We have a right to ask of it, so we can't get vexed, you know. A convenient member for Dan Rinoff because you ask questions when you're in opposition too, okay? So Mr. Speaker, thank you for your leave and yeah. Before you proceed, Deputy Prime Minister, Member for Swazel, every member before taking his oath or her oath is presented with the standing orders. The standing orders make provision for any member to ask of any minister either written or orally any question to be answered in parliament. I don't know that the opposition has taken advantage of that. So to blame the minister for not giving information is equally to say that you have not requested what is your duty under the standing orders and in this house. Please proceed, Deputy Prime Minister. You might put down your mic. I mean, honorable member, it is... It kind of strange. Your questions are not necessarily unfounded and like the member from Dan Rinoff has pointed out, it's a little unusual to hear you say what you're saying because... No, it's not unusual. When I say unusual, we've been generous to him. You know, because we came into this house, you would recall the DSHD bit. The questions that we had asked, the Don Lockerbie agreement, the Carbwater agreement, the Ringe agreement, the Dolphin Park agreement and I can go on and on. And even if I want to be generous to you, I would say you fully appreciate the fact that sometimes you sign commercial agreements and governments do not just go and make public the copies of commercial agreements. I'm giving you a way out why you all did not do it. Although in your case, it was a little different because what you all did was deny there was ever DSHD agreement. We were the ones who actually made it public and we tried to make it a document at this house and we were told if we cannot because this is a false document. But the point is, there are questions about DSHD and sure, we have to answer it as a government. Some of those very same questions I have answered, the Prime Minister has answered, GPHM cells have had public consultations. They have answered those questions. They have answered them. They have had sessions with the chamber. They have had sessions with vendors. They have had sessions with in-souffre multiple public discussions in-souffre. They have had in-banan. So therefore there are persons on your side who are deliberately and maliciously trying to create an impression in the minds of solutions that this is so wrong. I have no difficulty with you asking questions which you believe in the discourse would not have been answered by the government side. That's fine. That's fine. But let's not pretend as if any agreement we sign on in this government, it has to be made public and everybody to see it. You know that's not how commercial negotiations and agreements are structured. You know that. But yes, government does have a responsibility to share information with the citizenry. We accept that. And when questions are asked, we answer them and that's why I'm answering the question that government did not sell the pot. And everybody on your side knows that government did not sell the pot because governments do not sell pots. At least I don't know governments that sell pots. Listen to the leader of the opposition. Your leader, when he explains why he believed the pot was sold, if you list for 40 years then that's as good as selling it. Is that the quality of his thinking and his understanding of issues? Is that what it is? So he knows we did not sell the pot. And then he says for 40 years and he does some maths this morning. I mean, it is almost unbelievable. He claims that we had a million cruise passengers, one million cruise passengers in 2019. I can make it, it's already a documented house. The social and economic review of 2019, page 41, will say we had 786,000 visitors, the highest to date and we've not passed that since 2019. 786,000. The leader of the opposition stands there and he's challenged but he still says that the data is there and we had a million passengers. So that's fine. A million passengers. He then says in his calculation because he's saying all over that Slasper has given up 400 million US over 40 years of the agreement. Can I just also inform you that it is a 30-year lease? It makes provisions for negotiations on an extension with the same company or any other company that we may wish to have any new agreement if we so desire. But let's assume, like he said, 40 years. So he says 40 years by 1 million and then he calculates that the head tax is 10 US dollars. Now that's the deceit of the man or the member. If I can say so, Mr. Speaker, he's not there. 10 US ahead. He knows that he's been part of the tourism infrastructure for a long time, that we have never had an increase of head tax in the history of St. Lucia. Never. Never. The last attempt was by Dr. Kenny Anthony administration together with the present prime minister and we all know what happened to it. We tried to do it together as an OECS. A couple of countries pulled away, changed their mind and then we ended up in the same situation. We had an increase. So the head tax is still 650, 150 goes to solid waste management, 250 goes to slasper and 250 goes to government. He then says this morning that the cruise ships had agreed with him to increase it to 10 dollars, that's why he's using 10 dollars. And the question must be asked, if you prime minister and the cruise ships agreed to increase the head tax to 10 dollars, you accept that and increase it. Why did you keep it at what it was? He said so this morning. He said before he left the cruise ships had already agreed to increase the head tax to 10 dollars. But he as prime minister did nothing about it. What does that tell you? Are you in cohorts with the cruise ships? You have never had a head tax increase and the cruise ships said they willing, imagine the cruise ships they willing to increase it to 10 dollars and he's not doing it. That's what he implies this morning. So he multiplies one million which has never happened and will probably take a few years to happen. He multiplies it by 40 years but there is no 40-year agreement and he multiplies it by 10 dollars ahead knowing that it is no 10 dollars ahead. And then he comes up with 400 million US and he's all over the Caribbean. He's all over the new spin and all the other sky and all the others saying all the time together with you that the government is giving up 400 million US. But why the deceit? Why the deceit? Why? I can say to you that part of the GPH deal is paying off the 40 million 20 million US all alone of Slasper. At least 20 million will be spent on the redevelopment of pork castries. What would that include? It would include the redevelopment of Bannan's Bay and the construction of a fisherman's village that will include restaurants retail outlets and an improved facility for the fishermen. It will include a revamping of the La Plage Carinage. It will include the breaking down of the customs building and the rationalization of that area for parking and for traffic management to prevent the traffic back up that we have. It will include the redevelopment of the vendors arcade and designing a way where all the visitors who come on the ships will have to go for the vendors arcade to be able to access their transport. It would include building two finger pairs to allow for tenders from Point Seraphine to the vendors arcade so we can get more traffic into the vendors arcade. It would also include the development of a boardwalk on the waterfront to elevate and enhance the experience of visitors who walk down the waterfront to enter into the city of castries. It will also include the dredging of Point Seraphine to allow for the OECS class vessels which are the largest vessels presently to enter into the cities. And of course a minimum of 25 million US dollars will be spent on the redevelopment of the Souffre waterfront. At a minimum there is an investment of about 65 million US dollars that will be put in by GPH in exchange for which they will be allowed to manage cruise services at pod castries, cruise services. They will have no involvement in ferry operations or cargo operations. And as the member of OECS pointed out on Tuesday no more than 5% of the revenue of Souffre comes from cruise services. So GPH is providing much needed investment in enhancing and elevating the visitor experience for cruise passengers. Why do we have to go down that road? Primarily because the last government, your government of which you were part of has that reed and slasper at a time when we decided to have gone with a PPP for the redevelopment of the UNR international airport. The government decided instead to burden slasper for a load of 175 million US dollars. Slasper doesn't have the capacity and the space right now to get the kinds of money necessary to upgrade the offering in pod castries. So we notice GPH investing heavily in the Bahamas enhancing the cruise arrival experience. GPH in Antigua just completed a modern facility enhancing the experience. GPH is in Puerto Rico enhancing the experience and in discussions with other Caribbean islands to do the same. What do we do? What do we do? So the engagement of GPH which builds on what his government did, your government did when we came in we thought it was not good enough what was on the table. And he forgot that alongside him in the discussion was a member from Castries North who is now a part of this government. So he denies GPH and says all kinds of things about GPH all kinds of things about GPH but the member from Castries North was there. What kind of hypocrisy is this? And he wants to come in this morning and pretend that he knows so much about how to manage the economy and such a disaster. You would never believe he was in government for five years and he was minister of finance for five years. He has all the answers for all the problems and you really wonder why he lost elections. So we believe the deal of GPH is a good deal. We believe St. Lucia needs it. We believe it will certainly enhance the cruise passenger experience in St. Lucia. And all they talk about selling the port and 400 million U.S. is really malicious. And of course the attack on St. Lucia who have been employed by GPH. And this one really baffles me why would you be decrying a St. Lucia professional who has been given the regional job to manage GPH investments? Why? And to claim that there is nepotism and there is a connection between the bank because the bank gave some of the financing of GPH came from a local bank. And you wonder, is it new a new banker? Is it new that investors get part of the financing from local banks? Is that unusual? But compared to what he did now GPH going to a local bank is an entirely private transaction. The government is not involved in it. But remember what happened with development in the north where the NIC was prepared to buy lands for purposes to suit St. Lucia and for St. Lucia to own it. What did he do? He encouraged the NIC not to buy the land but to give it to a developer who for years has been trying to raise the money to buy it. Now think about that. How can he conceive of doing this but want to decry a private company from getting some of the financing from a local bank which is normal and usual in the conduct of business? And when St. Lucia's expressed satisfaction with the fact that workers' pension funds were used by a foreign interest do you know what he did? You were probably still there at the bank. I'm not sure. They went to a local bank to get the money to pay off the NIC loan. He said nothing, he was part of it. At least he was minister of finance and prime minister. But he's announcing to the world that GPH is wrong and wants to agitate St. Lucia and tell them to get vexed, get angry against GPH. But why? Is it the fear of what can happen in Sufra? Is it just ranking maliciousness? But it's consistent with his behavior. It's consistent with his behavior because that same leader of the opposition would announce to the world that DSH is preparing to sue the government of St. Lucia for non-delivery on the DHH contract. And that one really struck me because we came into government in July 2021 and I'm going to be careful how I speak about DSH because as you know we are aware that they record everything we say for obvious reasons. We took a very clear principal position that we believe the terms and conditions were not in the best interest of St. Lucia and we were opposed to that. We outlined the exact clauses we had a problem with and we said it should be renegotiated. That was our position. That was our position. The prime minister signed an agreement together with you within a month of being elected in 2016. The then prime minister within a month signed it but let's put that aside. When we came back into government in July 2021 we repeated our exact position to DSH that we wanted an opportunity for us to renegotiate aspects of the deal because we felt there was not in our best interest. I won't tell you what was said to the prime minister by DSH about the government that you served in. Suffice it to say we continued talking to DSH about what we thought was unacceptable and they expressed their views to us. And yes, they did serve an intent or notice to us for the possibility of arbitration and the issues of that. But they never made it public. We never made it public. We continued to try to resolve our issues. It never became public. Why would the leader of opposition in St. Lucia two weeks after he had a dance at the DSH horse facility and also the will that DSH was going to sue the government of St. Lucia? Why did he do that? Maybe you can ask him why? Is it to desecrate St. Lucia? Is it to destroy the reputation of St. Lucia as an investment destination? Why did he do it? DSH never even did it. We didn't say anything because we still believe we can talk and we can resolve the differences. It's because he wants to destroy what has been done to move St. Lucia forward. It is because he wants to destroy this very investment climate that we spoke about and when someone would say it's a decision meaning vote people that care about St. Lucia people that are committed to St. Lucia he takes offence and your party takes offence and a lot of noise has been made because you all feel offended that somebody said what you need in this country are people who are committed to the ideals of this country and prepared to work for this country and care about this country and care about the region and its institutions. Don't you not take any offence when that is said because the behavior I've just stated of your leader demonstrates somebody who has no liking for St. Lucia doesn't shouldn't feel offended and shouldn't make noise about anybody saying that. After all he said clearly he's a product of Canada so he said to us he was born in Martinique under certain circumstances he was an American citizen and he's a product of Canada and then he said and it's rhetorical no I didn't hear rhetorical and then he says he's now committed to St. Lucia so you lose elections now so you're now going to be committed to St. Lucia so there's a fundamental issue fundamental issue with the leader of the opposition and his commitment his connection connectivity to St. Lucia and you know he stands up there on Tuesday and he speaks about tourism arrival and the Prime Minister the member for castries east spoke about tourism and he spoke of the reports and the contribution tourism is made to this country and he's almost annoyed at the Prime Minister because and he says he's predicting there's going to be gloom and doom for tourism in St. Lucia and wait and see, wait and see what's going to happen and we said to him the numbers show that we are doing better than we did last year and what did he say to me he hoped the table I distributed I can read it I think I can read it at least I know every member in here can put on the table their qualifications and where they studied and which school they went to maybe someday you should ask your leader to show which university which school he went to might be most interesting but let's move on look at the table and what does it say about our tourism performance what does it say that tourism industry is about to collapse in St. Lucia is that what it says but he's not here this afternoon and for good reason so Mr. Speaker we worry believe that we are the creation of an investment climate is critical for our national development we believe we must build institutions build structures that can work together and that can create that enabling environment where investors want to come to the country we believe that we do have political differences and we believe that we will not agree on anything but we have always been reminded by our prime minister especially when we're in opposition that we must keep our eyes on the prize and the prize is always the well-being and welfare of St. Lucia so whatever we do we must always make sure we do not destroy that because we might never be able to take it to where it has to go so we'll disagree but we'll never behave the way it does and what he has done and what he continues to do to destroy the reputation of St. Lucia is totally unacceptable so you ask the questions and they totally differ you can ask those questions but the context in which you're asking them it is really unacceptable so I ask that members approve and we move to committee stage thank you