 The problem with the audio that has not been remedied, it has been remedied now, so we are back leader of government business and minister and minister of finance, economic development of youth economy. Just because I beg to lay the fallen people's stand in my name, Saturday instrument number 74 of 2022, legal profession, eligibility, Carl Kevin Rogers order, Saturday instrument number 81 of 2022, fiscal incentives, optronics order, Saturday instrument number 83 of 2022, excise amendment of schedule number one, number nine, investment, creative industries, culture and information and leader of government business. Mr. Speaker, I beg to let the fallen people standing in my name, Saturday instrument number 75 of 2022, tourism incentives, ATT limited order. Minister for health, wellness and elderly affairs, Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay the fallen people standing in my name, Saturday instrument number 78 of 2022, COVID-19 prevention and control, physical distancing number eight order, Saturday instrument number 79 of 2022, COVID-19 prevention and control, testing and quarantine number four regulations, Saturday instrument number 80 of 2022, COVID-19 prevention and control, protocol omnibus number six regulations. Thank you. Minister for commerce, manufacturing, business development, cooperative and consumer affairs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to lay the fallen people standing in my name, Saturday instrument number 76 of 2022, micro and small scale business enterprises, declaration of a small scale business enterprise, obstronics order, Saturday instrument number 82 of 2022, price control amendment number 10 order. Senior minister and minister for infrastructure, ports, transport, physical development and urban renewal. Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay the fallen people standing in my name, Saturday instrument number 77 of 2022, motor vehicles and road traffic, public omnibus affairs, amendment regulations. Emotions, prime minister and minister for finance, economic development and youth economy. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the fallen emotions standing in my name, whereas this provided by section 6318 of the public finance management act number 14 of 2020, the act that the minister of finance may, by an affirmative resolution of parliament, borrow from a bank or the financial institution for the capital or current expenditure of governments. Whereas it is fully provided by section 64 of the act that money borrowed by the government must be paid into and from and form part of the consolidated fund. And whereas the minister of finance considers it necessary to borrow an amount of US dollars 10 million from the export import bank of the Republic of China to finance the implementation of national development projects and initiatives. And whereas the loan is repairable in 30 consecutive equal or as nearly equal as possible semi-annual installments, the first of which must be made on the last day of the 66 months from the date the first advance under the loan is made by the export import bank of the Republic of China and thereafter on the last day of each successive six month period. And whereas if the full amount of the loan has been drawn down, each principal installment must be in the amount of US dollars, change in city feet, thousand, change in city fall, except that the last principal installment must be in the amount of US dollars, change in city feet, thousand, three hundred and fourteen. Otherwise, the amount of each installment shall be adjusted by the export import bank of the Republic of China. And whereas interest is payable at a rate of the six month secured overnight financing rate plus 0.20% plus 1.5% per annum. And whereas the loan is repairable in 20 years commencing from the date of the first of its wisdom to the moon, inclusive of a grace period of five years. We've resolved that the parliament of arises a minister of finance to borrow the amount of US dollars, 10 million, from the export import bank of the Republic of China to finance the implementation of national development projects and initiatives. And we've fully resolved that the loan is repealable in 30 consecutive equal or as nearly equal as possible semi-annual installments. The first of which must be made on the last day of the 66th month from the date the first advance on the loan is made by the export import bank of the Republic of China. And thereafter on the last day of its successful six month period. If the full amount of the loan has been drawn down, each principal installment must be in the amount of US dollars 243,344, except that the last principal installment must be in the amount of US dollars 233,314. Otherwise the amount of each installment shall be adjusted by the export import bank on the Republic of China. Injustice payable at a rate of six months secured overnight financing rate, plus 0.20% plus 1.5% per annum. The loan is repealable in 20 years, commencing from the date of first disbursement of the loan, inclusive of a grace period of five years. Mr. Speaker, as the resolution states, this loan is being taken from the Republic of China on Taiwan, from the Exim import bank to finance the following projects. And these projects, Mr. Speaker, have been outlined in my budget statement, delivered on the 26th of April. The expansion of Kraft and CMOS and the CMOS subsectors. Fair with the thousand dollars, Mr. Speaker, will be used for the expansion of the Kraft and CMOS subsectors. Mr. Speaker, SELUSHA has been doing very well in the production of CMOS for exports. And we want to increase the value of the product so we can add value to the raw CMOS. And with the support of export SELUSHA, the measure of agriculture, that work is being done so that we can increase foreign exchange and increase our export of CMOS at a higher value. And Mr. Speaker, the Kraft, Mr. Speaker, the SELUSHA again has been producing some very, very, very attractive pieces of Kraft, particularly from SHOESEL, and that loan will be used to uplift the Kraft Center and to uplift the production of Kraft. Again, causing the people of SELUSHA to get involved in the development of the country paying attention to the people, the regular people, the farmers, the CMOS farmers and the Kraft vendors and the Kraft people in SHOESEL, Mr. Speaker. The 7.2 million dollars of that loan will be used for the youth economy program. And as you know, in the budget, we allocated 10 million dollars for the youth economy project and in your other paper, Mr. Speaker, you will see the youth economy agency bill, which is going to be discussed, debated and it's honorable House, Mr. Speaker. So this money is actually the starting of the youth economy, which we've spoken so much about and which has garnered a lot of interest, both in SELUSHA, 7.2 million, EC, yeah, because it's 10 million dollars for the budget. 10 million EC. The allocation is, let me explain to you again. For the Kraft and CMOS, you can add it up, it's 500,000 dollars, agreed? EC. For the youth economy, it's 7.2 million EC, right? Then we go now to the other section where we are going to be using 200,000 dollars, 200,000 dollars EC for the national competitiveness agenda. That is to seed money to create a partnership with a complete Caribbean partnership facility, which was able to formulate a national competitiveness agenda and a draft innovation policy. You know, we've got to make SELUSHA more competitive, got to make SELUSHA be able to compete in the global world. So using 200,000 dollars from that money to spend, to create that level of, to upgrade it, the level of competition in SELUSHA so we can compete in the real world. So 200,000 dollars being used for that, Mr. Speaker. I mean, Mr. Speaker, then we are going to use, from that money, four million dollars for the Millennium Highway West Coast Road Project. And the two business, Mr. Speaker, I'm not very happy with the way that project is progressing. This project, we will have to look into why a project has, via contract, has been signed almost a year. And then more than a year, Mr. Speaker, two years. And as we said, the last government decided that they would have used the money from the British for the West Coast Road. We thought it was their prerogative and we supported it. But this project is very, very so, Mr. Speaker. It ought to be a free stage. It ought to be, the road ought to be constructed in free stages. Stage one, a contract has been awarded and the work on stage one, Mr. Speaker, is almost non-existent. And I think the measure of infrastructure will have to look into why have we, why has that road, why is that road taking so much time? So the government's contribution because it's four million dollars and we're going to get four million dollars from that 26 million dollars or 10 million US from the Taiwanese, Mr. Speaker. And 3.4 million dollars of that money is going to be used for the street lighting replacement project to augment what is there already because we need to change every light in this country to save energy and so that we can, the means of environment, so we can lower our carbon, footprint by changing the sodium lights into LED lights. So, Mr. Speaker, this basically is what the money is going to be used for. It's a loan from the government of the republic of China on Taiwan and the tomes, I read the tomes, Mr. Speaker, repairable after 20 years and each installment of 333,000 US dollars, Mr. Speaker. And I said, Mr. Speaker, any time we come to this honorable house to borrow, the borrowing is for something productive and the people of Senucia, there's full disclosure. There is no, there is full disclosure, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to be hiding, Mr. Speaker, because we know that when we borrow, the money that we borrow is going to be used for the benefit of the people of Senucia, it's going to be transparency and it's going to be accountability. So there can be, so we are not ashamed, nor are we going to hide or deflect, Mr. Speaker, on the truth. Fact is, we always said, we always said, that it is necessary for governments to borrow. But what we also said is that you must borrow for purposes that are necessary. The borrowing must be responsive, Mr. Speaker. The borrowing ought not to give direct awards to your friends. The borrowing ought to be responsible borrowing. So we're not going to be, we're not on anybody who feels that anybody who feels that they can force on the back foot by creating an environment of fear, Mr. Speaker. The minister, for almost all the situation, no government has had to operate in the environment under which we're operating. No government, Mr. Speaker, no government. There's never been a time in this country when our no government, Mr. Speaker, there's never been a time in Zellusia when Z returns from the gas tax was ever so low, never in the time this year, Zellusia. It was so good at the time, they increased it by $1.50. There's never been a time, Mr. Speaker, even in the height of the COVID crisis, we've never had a time, never when Z returns from the gas tax was so low, Mr. Speaker. So we and the people of Zellusia have understood and the people of Zellusia will understand, Mr. Speaker, that what is necessary and this government will not shy in its responsibility to do what is right for the people of Zellusia. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bait Resolved authorizes the minister for finance to borrow the amount of U.S. $10 million from the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China to finance the implementation of national development projects and initiatives. Bait for the resolve that the loan is repairable in 30 consecutive equal or as nearly equal as possible semi-annual installments, the first of which must be made on the last day of the 66 months from the date, the first advance on the loan is made by the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China and thereafter on the last day of each successive six month period. If the full amount of the loan has been drawn down, each principal installment must be in the amount of U.S. $333,334, except that the last principal installment must be in the amount of U.S. $333,314. Otherwise, the amount of each installment shall be adjusted by the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China. Interest is payable at a rate of the six months secured overnight financing rate plus 0.20% plus 1.5% per annum. The loan is repairable in 20 years, commencing from the date of the first disbursement of the loan inclusive of a grace period of five years. Member for Microsoft and leader of the opposition. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member from Grozallet made mention of the successes we had at the Caribbean Games and I want to congratulate all of the athletes that participated on their success and in particular Ms. Julien Alfred, who came down and won the 100 meters at the same time that she won the NCAA championship and I know that she's, I believe, our sole representative at the World Games taking place in Oregon this weekend. I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that I would have heard the same member make mention of Menel, an icon of this country, a very strong woman of this country and it's very sad what took place with her, Mr. Speaker, very sad, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I'm also a bit dismayed at the reaction by government. The fact that her place, the decision was made to replace her in the finals, I thought at least the $5,000 that each of the participants got in the finals would have been offered to her to help her with her bills, but I'm hoping that this was simply an oversight and that the government will be making some pronouncement on an iconic person like Menel and that we would be doing everything we can to be able to help this young lady who has only been an incredible representative for Saint Lucia. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take note of and congratulate the member from Cass Free Central on his three-day pass to New York to attend the UN meeting. This is the same three-day visa that is normally bestowed on other individuals who do not have visas in the US, so I hope that he's able to make the best use of his time for his three days in New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak specifically to the bill in front of us, and I certainly would like to ask the Minister of Finance that in the negotiations with the Taiwanese whether in fact a clause was put in to cap the interest rate. We're seeing that interest rates, Mr. Speaker, are increasing globally, and I know that that is something that we have always made sure that we put in, that there be a cap on the interest rate, as well as whether there are clauses that we call resilience clauses, so that in fact, in case that there is a catastrophe, that the loan would be abated while that catastrophe is taking place. And I know that he's very well versed in these things and it may not have been included in the information, but certainly it's a question I would have liked to have asked of him. Also, Mr. Speaker, this $10 million loan that they're taking under our administration, the decision was to use that money for St. Jude. I've heard many different numbers coming out of both directly from government ministers, as well as from Syracuse. The reality is that the building that is at St. Jude's today, Mr. Speaker, cost $100 million, of which my government had already paid $75 million, so there was about $25 to $30 million remaining to be paid on the $100 million, and there was another $40 million, Mr. Speaker, airmarked to be able to complete the building. And so you would have known $10 million would have actually been $27 million DC, so a bit more than half of the requirement that would have been needed to be able to have completed the ground floor for us to be able to have gone in to St. Jude's. And while I look at all of these projects, and I have zero complaints in terms of how the projects are being used, Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that when the government made the amendment to change the economic fund from a sovereign fund or a lockbox fund, Mr. Speaker, into a slush fund, that they would have found it within themselves to have been able to, Mr. Speaker, to use some of the monies for this particular project. Or maybe, maybe it is that they have the intention of using the economic funds to complete the St. Jude's project because that is a critical project, Mr. Speaker, in the South. And hopefully with the announcement with the government that they're gonna continue the airport project, if we are going to expand the size of the airport project, it's absolutely necessary that we have a bigger hospital. And certainly as we see the South was growing, I don't know in the last six months, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a reversal of migration that all the persons that were going into the South now are coming back up to the North because we don't hear anything about the South in the year, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the only thing we hear about the South is sad news, as with regards to the level of crime that's taking place in the South. And certainly some of the projects that we saw have all been coming to completion. And we're seeing now actually no emphasis. In fact, the DSH would be a beautiful project to continue. And Mr. Speaker, again, the government seems to be very selective, that is their prerogative in terms of how they want to do. You see, horses before hospitals. There we go, Mr. Speaker. So here's a private sector person, Mr. Speaker, who came in and invested his own money. The government has been in office for over a year. You'd have thought by now, Mr. Speaker, if in fact there was any evidence that the government used any government resources to be able to help support and finance the course racing track, Mr. Speaker, I would love to see it. There's none. All of the money that was invested into the DSH project is private money, not even CIP. Not even CIP. Not one cent of CIP money was used on the DSH project. All his own money. And it seems today that we're going to be very selective about which investors want to come and invest their own money into this country. But, Mr. Speaker, that's for another day. What I am concerned with, Mr. Speaker, is here it is that we had monies that were concessional loans from the Taiwanese who've already invested some $30 million U.S. into the St. Jude's property, 20 million from my administration, 10 million from the previous administration, right? That it would only have been fitting to have used the remaining amount of money to have brought that project to a completion, Mr. Speaker. You know, Mr. Speaker, the member from Cassree's East, in his own words, said that they've come here in full transparency. I don't know that there was anything different than how we presented the bills in terms of the breakdown, but I would certainly say that the math that we just saw is a bit short. So here it is, we're approving a loan, Mr. Speaker, of 10 million U.S. dollars. And the member from Cassree's East gave us a breakdown. And the breakdown doesn't even come to 15 million U.S. dollars. So where is the remaining 10 million E.C. dollars going? So when you talk about, do you want to have full transparency? Let there be full transparency. If you're going to use 10 million U.S. dollars, give us the breakdown because it's not in the budget. When we went back to the budget to see where this money was being allocated to what projects, vague, just like a bill that we're going to be reading very soon, Mr. Speaker, which is the youth bill, vague, no details. But here it is, he said that there's $500,000 for the craft and CMOS, $7.2 million for the youth economy of which we've seen a breakdown of almost half of that or more $5 million if I'm not mistaken is going to be for overheads, $200,000 for competitiveness. I don't know how $200,000 is going to improve the competitiveness of San Lucia, but I've seen other miracles happen. The Millennium Highway of $4 million and the street lights of $3.4 million. I mean, here it is, we're going to go and borrow money for a streetlight program that actually can't pay for itself because it's been given on a concession. So, Mr. Speaker, this does not $500,000, $14 million, almost $15 million. We're talking about where is the other $10 million, Mr. Speaker, in allocations, $10 million. Where is it? I don't know. She cannot come to this house and they claim that there is full transparency and accountability when we don't even have to wait one minute and it's right there. Where is the other $10 million? So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that at a time when this government in opposition accused and challenged the government on every single borrowing that it made, right? Every single board. And today now they want to come and say that borrowing is okay if in fact you're transparent with it and if in fact it's being used for productive uses. I would like to think that all the loans we took weren't in for productive uses, whether it was improving the roads of this country, Mr. Speaker, whether it was improving the healthcare facilities of the country, whether it was improving the education and the buildings of this industry, the loan that we took from the CDB to fix up the schools of this country, whether it's to improve the water distribution in this country, Mr. Speaker, all throughout the length and breadth of this country. A member from Denry ought to know how important water distribution is. It's not something that comes free. The Mexicans didn't give you the money. The Mexicans lent you the money and the World Bank lent you the money. So the fact is borrowing money into productive uses will always be a meaningful part. When we look back in history, Mr. Speaker, from 2011 to 2016, which was one of the greatest areas of increasing in debt in this country, the problem that the government had found itself into, Mr. Speaker, it was borrowing money to pay for debt. And that was again something that we highlighted during the COVID period. Because of the short revenue of government, government's revenue dropped below $822 million from a high of $1.2 billion. There was a need to borrow money to make up for that shortfall, Mr. Speaker. I made the mention in this house repeatedly that is not a productive use of loans. And we've seen in the past when you find yourself continuously having to borrow money to pay for your debt. So the reality is borrowing money and putting it into productive uses will always be supported by members on this side. But the reality is, is that I certainly would like to know from the member from Castries East, if we're not going to use this money for St. Jude's and we're going to be using it for the other things, does he have another source of funding in order that we can see the completion of St. Jude's? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to... Sir, Prime Minister, are you... Oh, you're speaking? Okay. Member for Sousel. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Prime Minister seems to be quite in a haste to end the debate. Well, Mr. Member for Sousel, I trust again you'd have noted that the Prime Minister's light was on and I would have been left with no alternative but to have allowed him to speak in close. Had he not sat down on his own volition? So we have to be careful with these things, members. If we are going to speak, we should move with a certain degree of alacrity. Proceed, member. Mr. Speaker, I hear you, but that would have definitely surpassed Julian's Alfred record to get to that mic today. We've never seen that kind of speed before. Mr. Speaker, my contribution is very straightforward as it relates to this boring and I will not come here to chastise the government on their borrowing, Mr. Speaker, but I've seen in the past and history has shown us that sometimes our words come back to haunt us, especially statements that we make in the parliament. And Mr. Speaker, you would recall distinctly the Prime Minister at the time when he was the leader of the opposition made a statement that he was quite fearful that on coming into government, he would not be in a position to borrow because of the level of borrowing that was being made by the past administration. He stated that the borrowing was reckless and to a point where it was going to make it very difficult for him. So I'm quite pleased in addition to this US 10 million and a number of the other resolutions that will be seen here today where he'll be borrowing that there seem to have been quite a bit of comfort and latitude left for him to have been able to gain access to such financing almost to the tune of 150 million EC dollars, Mr. Speaker. So a lot of the words that we were hearing by members opposite with regards to the state in which they found the finances, Mr. Speaker, again seem to have been a very misleading statement, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the opposition indicated, there seemed to be a difference in the calculation of what was presented by the Prime Minister. And I'm hoping that in his rebuttal, he would give us some clarification of that additional 10 million dollars, Mr. Speaker. I note Mr. Speaker and I'm quite grateful for the recognition of the importance of the work of the craft sector and the amount that will be allocated. And in particular, we heard him mention the community of which I represent, Shuzel. And I'm hoping that there will be quite a bit of transparency when these allocations are being made, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with regards to the youth economy, and I guess we will have a lot more to say when that bill is being presented, Mr. Speaker. Like the Prime Minister for somebody who travels is the Millennium Highway quite often, I am very concerned with regards to the delay in terms of the work commencing, Mr. Speaker, because in addition to some of the hardships of our vehicle owners, it is taking a toll on the repairs and the pockets of our citizenry. So I'm hoping the Minister from Infrastructure will maybe give us some sort of explanation as to the reason for that delay, Mr. Speaker. That being said, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the beginning of some of the projects that were mentioned, Mr. Speaker, because the country definitely needs that sort of input. We have, you know, as you go around, everything you hear is nothing not running, and the people are definitely crying for some input and some sort of stimulus. And so, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the commencement of some of these projects that was mentioned by the Prime Minister. I have a lot more to say, Mr. Speaker, on the additional resolutions, but I rest. Minister Ekoti. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I just stand briefly to support this motion that is before the House for the borrowing and to add my voice toward the Prime Minister, the leader of this government has presented so well in a brief presentation for this borrowing. Mr. Speaker, even when I observed the Prime Minister making his presentation and laying this before the House, as he carefully showed some slices by which this borrowing will be applied to. For a moment, the member for Schroesel seemed to be impatient and thought that it would have been a presentation or service in terms of a wholesome, as if, let me put it in another way, when you are serving people, you know, you cook the breadfoot in thrush, and then when you are served as it, they put one thrush in the plate. You're not served. But you notice the Prime Minister was taking slices and he spoke to, he gave an example of the various slices by which this borrowing will be applied to. And I thought there would have been an appreciation and of course, as the member for Schroesel rightly did, he seeked clarification than the judgment the member for me could placed before the member for central or Prime Minister. But of course, the presentation from the leader of the opposition was quite judgmental as I observed. One laying in his preamble, the famous Calyxonian. And of course, we're not here to disclose our relationship with the former, with the great queen. But I would say to the member for the leader of the opposition, if it did care about this Calyxonian, he would have been so informed of what this government is doing for her. Of course, she later asked for whether we put $5,000 or whether it is $20,000 or whether it is $50,000. But when she got hurt, I personally cried. And when I offered my kisses this morning to her, I know that she's doing better. For instead of coming and politicize the hurt of our people in this chamber, we would do what is important and consult them directly and say what is necessary in this house. You understand, we're not that way. We're not like that. Especially when it comes to domestic violence, when it comes to issues of our population. And Mrs. Giga, the issue of the slices was well placed. And of course, we spent almost a year without coming to this house to borrow. And of course, the position made by the members of opposition suggesting as to we said we wouldn't. Of course, which government in this world wouldn't borrow. But there's an issue of borrowing as what you call reckless borrowing. You understand, there's responsible borrowing. And of course, the trajectory of this world, this region and what is happening across, which is unprecedented, which is not what you found when COVID hit. The price of bread and flour wasn't what it is today. The prices associated with fuel wasn't what it is today. And of course, this prime minister with responsible prime minister tied his ways for months while our people were asking for help. Save the day while we trickle what was left there to respond to the crisis. And that is a responsible prime minister, not just because I'm speaking here on this side, but to demonstrate and to share with St. Glutia that this prime minister has been a prime minister, like a father who is care about his family and has taken this country to a almost to the safe harbor by borrowing when it's absolutely necessary. Members of the opposition spoke to what we can do to St. Jude. And again, I will not elaborate on St. Jude. I'll be extremely brief, but had there been any concern and caring for St. Jude, the $30 million of materials left on St. Jude would have been adequately, you understand, should where exactly it is, because Mr. Speaker, when you state that you've spent $90 million on a hospital under a valuation certificate prepared by a engineer or a quantity surveyor, that includes works and includes materials on site or off site. On the phoenix, you can pay for materials on site or you can pay for materials off site once it's secured. If $40 million worth was paid to a contractor for materials on and off site, off site means it's in the hardware somewhere else, it's not on the site. But once you can provide evidence that the materials is secured, you pay the contractor for the materials. It is the employer's material. And you do not put it on site one because they do not have space or the condition doesn't allow you to store it there. When you spend, you say we've spent $90 million on a hospital, $40 million is only materials stored on and off site. 60 million is material spent in the works. But the materials are no longer available and can be accounted for. You can now come and speak and say, Senjud is important, is it important just today? This government has always taken Senjud seriously. We've always, and we are taking Senjud seriously. And while Sen Lusia speak of commencement, we are not stupid. Commencement is not just about hitting the nail in the wood, commencement is about ensuring that you can secure the nails and that they are sufficient so that you can put it on. We have started working on Senjud. The very day I put in plans. And I'll say something to you, Mr. Speaker. In the business of construction, if you spend one year planning, you could implement a project in eight months. The problem with this administration, as soon as they talk, they went underground. They did not check the supply chain. They did not check that everything was in place and they continue changing dates forever. We are not doing this because we are guided by proper project management and allow professionals to lead the way. So when this, the prime minister speak, the former leader, and when our prime minister speak, our prime minister knows exactly what he's saying. We may not be clothed by some of the, some of what's on the other side is used to, but we are confident. And finally, Mr. Speaker. The member for Surzel, he asked for transparency, but even in his presentation, he applauded, crafts, and he recognized the statement by our prime minister, Surzel. Mr. Speaker, in these difficult times, when a prime minister can find in this difficult economic situation, time to invest in craft, time to invest in the youth economy, time to invest in the things where the ordinary people are involved. CMOS, you know what this, CMOS is an emerging sector. It is not a sector that belongs to the hotel, like Sandals who got the 40 million. It is not the sector that where Cabot is invested. It is a sector where ordinary solutions are participated. Ordinary solutions. And when the prime minister can find within himself to allocate within boring for these individuals, for craft people, you know what it says, that the essence of development start to boil. The essence of hope is starting to take shape. And the aura of that hopefulness is being smelled across Saint-Rusia because our people believe that it is gonna be better. So this is not just about, this is not about posturing to say that we come here to borrow, but every cent spent will ensure that our people benefit, put in our people first. And the issue, and this is tied, this is tied to the environment of lawlessness and gun violence. It is when people see that this government have mercy on them, it is then they will lay down their weapons. And I will tell you that I believe in the work of this government because I am responsible for social equity. And I speak loudly in cabinet and loudly in this room to ensure that the resources of this country, the resources of this government go to the people that needs it most. Because the people who can be troubled, somehow the other understand the psychosocial support of this government and it is powerful enough to disarm them when the police cannot do it. So I support the borrowing at this time because I know where the funds are going. And I suspect it would be advisable and wise that the members on the other side recognize and pitch the opposition in a way that is uplifting our people not to just create discord. And I'm sure there's a Calypsoian who some time ago sang about discord. You can be on different side. That was the great Minal who sang discord. The essence of discord in music is that you can beat a drum and I can play the guitar but they need to be unicers. We can be opposition and be on government but there must be unicers. Minal sang it and I think the leader of the opposition instead of speaking to our relationship with this great artist in such time should remember the song discord and do not be a discord in this house. Try to find your opposition and your essence so that it beliefs everybody will hear the voice of this parliament. Thank you very much. Member for Library. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the loan resolution to permit the minister for finance to borrow an amount of US $10 million from the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China to finance the implementation of national development projects and initiatives. Mr. Speaker, our government inherited an almost bankrupt economy. The former administration engage in massive borrowing to finance capital projects in an effort to try to win the general election. The public debt to GDP ratio increased from 60.4% in 2019 to 92.2% in 2020. The ratio fell slightly to 90.6% in 2021 and that's understandable because as the economy recovers if it grows then with the same level of debt you will see an adjustment. In a downward direction. This means, Mr. Speaker, that we have effectively no fiscal space available for further borrowing to stimulate national growth and development. But despite all the borrowing, the people of this country were not fooled by this expenditure designed to generate some type of pre-election boom and cause the UWP government to remain in office. A substantial amount of this expenditure was highly inefficient as proper analysis were not undertaken. Mr. Speaker, in almost all the cases, projects were awarded directly to contractors and did not go through the process of competitive bidding. This inefficiency in expenditure has resulted in worst stage of resources resulting in sub-optimal outcomes for the sustainable development of St. Lucia. Mr. Speaker, having inherited the massive public debt burden, our government led by this competent and experienced politician and economists, honorable member for Cassavis East and prime minister of St. Lucia and they tell you the wise men came from the East. Financial plan and the public finances of this country. Unfortunately, our economy has been hit by another huge external economic shock arising from the Russia-Ukrainian War. Mr. Speaker, this external shock has seen oil prices skyrocketing to over 100 US dollars per barrel. This oil price shock coupled with the global supply chain bottlenecks have resulted in a huge increase in inflation. Mr. Speaker, economists are now referring to the current economic situation as stagflation. That is stagnation combined with inflation. In an effort to ease the pain of inflation, this government under the competent leadership of the member for Cassavis East and prime minister has had to heavily subsidize LPG and collect little or no revenue at this juncture on fuel to keep those prices as low as possible. Mr. Speaker, this has resulted in a substantial loss in revenue. In addition, government continues to subsidize flour, rice and sugar to keep those prices as low as possible. All of these measures have resulted in government losing substantial revenue in this country, notwithstanding these adverse economic shocks. Our government is exploring innovative financing strategies to implement projects that are critical to the growth and development of our country. Mr. Speaker, the financing of the budget for fiscal year 2022-2023 relies heavily on grants and concessional funding for capital expenditure, as these financing mechanisms have the least impact on our debt servicing capacity. Mr. Speaker, this proposed new borrowing is in line with the government's financing strategy to implement projects that will contribute to economic growth and national development without imposing a burden on our public finances. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government of the Republic of China, Taiwan, for being responsive to our development needs. The loan from the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China is highly concessionary. The terms are as follows. Interest is payable at the rate of the six-month secured overnight financing rate plus 0.20% plus 1.5% per annum. And to the loan is repayable in 20 years, commencing from the date of first disbursement of the loan inclusive of a grace period of five years. The grace period of five years will provide an opportunity for the economy to recover from the external economic shocks and improve the fiscal performance of central government. And this is why, Mr. Speaker, I made it clear that I support the resolution. But the leader of the opposition has decided, instead of just saying what I said, to go into growth, accusing the government of increasing debt between 2011 and 2016, then spoke about growth. The only thing he did not say was that they're responsible for the growth in the economy. And the member for Schuazelle some time ago said so. And outside of the house, they have been talking about it. And they indicated that the performance during their time is so great. And of course, introduce the St. Jude's Reconstruction Project. For five years, they did nothing on St. Jude's Hospital except to try to build some other glorified warehouse. Right? Some monstrosity. They try to build it and then never touch the original buildings of St. Jude's. Five years never touched it. I didn't expect him to raise it and criticize the Minister for Finance in terms of the handling of the affairs of this country. I think, Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow those matters to pass or masquerade as legitimate in this honorable house. And so, Mr. Speaker, I will provide a response to each of them. First and foremost, it is indeed so shameless of the leader of the opposition to attempt to take credit for growth in the economy based on the sound management of the economy. I am deeply saddened, Mr. Speaker, but I would the leader of the opposition talk about the rate of 12.2% was proof that his government policies were working. The leader of the opposition continues to attempt to deceive the people of this country using subterfuge and all type of Cambridge analytical techniques but the people can no longer be fooled by the honorable member who has lost the trust of the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, let us examine the record that is spoke of. In order to make an assessment of an administration's performance, we need to review that administration's performance over the period it was in office. Mr. Speaker, let us examine the economic record of the UWP over the five year period and in this regard, Mr. Speaker, I refer honorable members to the 2021 economic and social review and specifically to page 99, which contains a table on gross domestic product by economic activity at constant 2018 prizes in millions of EC dollars. This table provides information, Mr. Speaker, on the real economic growth rate of St. Lucia in the last row, which is captioned growth rates. Let us look at the growth rates for the period 2016 to 2021. Mr. Speaker, the Labour Party lost the general election in 2016 and led a solid foundation for real GDP growth of 3.8%. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Party took the painful and tough decisions to rescue the country from the prolonged financial crisis and fiscal problems of the government of the United Workers' Party by engaging in fiscal correction measures to reduce the fiscal deficit. This was the legacy bequeath to the government of the United Workers' Party. But guess what, Mr. Speaker? The leader of the opposition wants to take credit for the growth performance in 2016 and 2021. He is an expert in the art of engaging in specious economic arguments. After 2016, Mr. Speaker, the growth rate fell every year from 2017 to 2020. From the 3.8%, which was our growth, it went down to 3.4%, then 2.9% in 2018. And here it is, Mr. Speaker. Negative, yes, you would write, negative 0.7% in 2019. Remember, this was before COVID, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when there was growth in the world, the minister, the former minister for finance and leader of the opposition plunge our country into a crisis situation, so how can the member for Microsoft claim credit for the growth rate in 2016? When some of the major private sector projects like the Royal Town Hotel and Harbour Club were commenced under the tenure of the St. Lucia Labor Party, the policies of the United Workers' Party are reflected in falling growth rates in 2017, 2018, and then plunging the economy into a recession before the onset of COVID-19 in 2019. This was before COVID-19, Mr. Speaker, and cannot in any circumstance be ascribed to the COVID-19 pandemic. This truly reflects the failure of the economic policies of the United Workers' Party government at the time. Mr. Speaker, the conundrum that needs to be explained by the former prime minister is why was St. Lucia's growth rate so anemic? When the ECCB average in 2019 was 3.3 percent, the whole economy was booming, Mr. Speaker, but St. Lucia registered growth of negative 0.7 percent. So, Mr. Speaker, the failure of these government's policies was clearly evident pre-COVID-19. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, these failed policies made us even more vulnerable to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We were already in a recession, pre-COVID, and we quickly went into what economy is called a depression during COVID-19, because they borrowed and we spent our monies, Mr. Speaker, St. Lucia's ability to react effectively with fiscal policy to the COVID-19 pandemic, which depended on our starting fiscal position had been seriously compromised. So, Mr. Speaker, they were on the line conditions prior to COVID-19. This, Mr. Speaker, clearly shows that the government of the United Workers' Party mismanaged the economy and frittered the legacy we handed down to them in 2016. I want you to take the social and economic review and respond to what I have said. And let us look at the growth you're trying to take credit for. Mr. Speaker, the member for Microsoft is now looking to take credit for the 12.2% growth in 2021, following the very steep contraction of 24.4% in 2020. Under you. Mr. Speaker, members should be aware that our real GDP for 2021 is the lowest recorded real GDP since 2006, with the exception of 2020. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the real GDP for 2016, the time that our government was in office is higher than the real GDP for 2021 by 10.3%. So, the real GDP for 2016, is higher than the real GDP for 2021. So, Mr. Speaker, I repeat. Members should be aware that our real GDP for 2021 by 10.3%. The member for Microsoft should know that statistical analysis is not the same as economic analysis. So, Mr. Speaker, let us dig deeper into the numbers to understand the sources of growth in 2021. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, it is also the case that the recovery rate of 12.2% must be viewed within the context of a massive contraction of 24.4% in the previous year. In other words, Mr. Speaker, a 12.2% growth rate may sound impressive at the surface, but well viewed against the massive contraction in the previous year, there is nothing extraordinary about this growth rate. Now, let's look at the sources of growth. A cursory look at the growth rates that contributed most significantly to the recovery in 2021. Mr. Speaker, and I refer to page 100, table showing gross domestic product by economic activity at constant 2018 prices, rate of growth. In that table, Mr. Speaker, we can see the major factor accounting for the recovery in the growth in accommodation and food services, recording a whooping growth rate of 66.8% in 2021. It is also noted, Mr. Speaker, that the accommodation and food services sector accounted for 14.7% in 2021, the largest contributor to GDP. The next question we need to ask, Mr. Speaker, is what contributed to this significant growth rate? And in this regard, I refer to page 20 of the 2021 economic and social review. And specifically, unspecifically, the paragraph before the last, performance of the domestic tourism sector was consistent with trends in most tourism-dependent Caribbean economies, which saw a faster pace of recovery than other regions. On quote, I repeat the quote, Mr. Speaker. The performance of the domestic tourism sector was consistent with trends in most tourism-dependent Caribbean economies, which saw a faster pace of recovery than any other regions. On quote, this clearly states, Mr. Speaker, that the recovery in the tourism sector was as a result of natural recovery in tourism for the Caribbean region and had nothing to do with the policies of the former United Workers Party administration that had plunged our country into a fiscal mess prior to COVID. Mr. Speaker, when we come to this honorable house, we need to elevate the level of discourse. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is misleading. Just to make sure, I have to keep reminding you on a point of clarification, you wait as to whether the other member yields. Mr. Speaker, the member is misleading the house. You're asking for a point of order? Your point of order? Yes, Mr. Speaker. What is the misleading statement? Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that the recovery in San Lucia was on parallel with the recovery in all of the other countries and tourism. He didn't say that. Yes, he did. He didn't say that. He said the recovery in the tourism sector is different to what you just said. Okay, Mr. Speaker. He's saying that the recovery in the tourism sector was equal to that of the other countries in the Caribbean. But he didn't say that. He quoted the economic review statement. You cannot find anywhere that says that, Mr. Speaker, because if you just take Barbados as an example, Mr. Speaker, San Lucia had 200,000 arrival increase. Remember, you're going into an area you can't go into. Are you saying just the statement? Are you saying that the statement that he has made quoted the economic review is incorrect? Yes, Mr. Speaker. Then, Mr. Speaker, at the fact. That's never been a point of order, remember. Would you care to respond to that? Mr. Speaker, let him take the social and economic review. No, actually, it works the other way, remember, that you have made the statement, you have to provide the source. Okay, but it isn't the social and economic review. Well, now, you see, you can speak. We're not going to go into what you did on that, remember? I thought we should debate with the honorable member. Member, you will make available. I will make available at the appropriate time, but I'll continue navigating this. In fact, I suspect we can get a copy. Yes. Maybe parliament can get a copy. We'll get to the bottom, remember? We're not debating that. We're debating what contributed to the growth. The performance of the domestic tourism sector was consistent with trends in most tourism-dependent Caribbean economies. We saw a faster pace of recovery than other regions. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, transport sector. The second-largest contributor to GDP growth was the transport sector, which grew by 27.5% in 2021. I refer honorable members again to page 100. With most of that growth coming from road transport, 29.8%, maybe the leader of the opposition, instead of trying to interrupt my contribution, you should probably stand and explain what he did for transport sector to create growth in the economy, because you are trying to take credit for growth in the economy. Construction, very good. I wish to now focus on construction. The sector which the member spent a great deal of money on to stimulate growth. Mr. Speaker, that sector grew by 20%, and accounted for 4.9% of GDP. Contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with tourism share of 14.7%. And of course, the prime minister was right when he accentuated quality of growth. And let's examine that. Mr. Speaker, when money is spent in a particular sector, it is recorded as value-added and reflected in an increase in GDP, whether it is good in the sense that it contributes to an expansion in the capacity of the economy and contribute to sustainable development or bad in the sense that resources are wasted on ill-conceived projects that contribute little to sustainable development. GDP, Mr. Speaker, does not differentiate between the good and the bad investments. So let us look at the impact of the investments. The impact of these investments will, however, impact long-run growth either positively or negatively. Another dimension of expenditure that one needs to consider is value for money. In that context, Mr. Speaker, if a government spends $10 million on a project that could have been undertaken for $1 million, GDP would record the value added as reflecting the $10 million and not the $1 million. So it could be undertaken for $1 million, but it's $10 million, GDP will record the $10 million. As it is well-known, Mr. Speaker, GDP can be calculated in three ways, the sectoral approach, the expenditure approach, and the income approach. So no matter how you look at it, you can talk about income, you can talk about expenditure. If, for example, the member probably gives an individual $1,000 to paint his house, it is expenditure of $1,000 for him, or income of $1,000 for the individual. So that's how you measure GDP. So any approach is fine. Using the example I just cited of $10 million investment, which could have been undertaken for $1 million, the income approach for GDP will reflect the $9 million as profit to the company which undertook this project. In other words, Mr. Speaker, GDP does not differentiate between overpriced projects in which profits are padded and projects at a properly priced. GDP will simply record the expenditures made on this project, efficiency of the expenditure. Mr. Speaker, it is also the case that the $9 million could have been invested in other projects which would have benefited the country through higher levels of economic activity and employment generation. Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the former administration's approach to procurement for projects was to employ predominantly the direct award approach. It is no secret, but most significantly, Mr. Speaker, the former administration used the direct award for large projects for which the central tendering process should have been used in keeping with best practices. Member for Library, would you just give me that citation? My recollection is page 20 of the economic review, the statement about the tourism. Was it page 20? I have to return to my pages. If my memory shows me, I think it's page 20 and I'll read what it says. It says, at paragraph one on page 20, the performance of the domestic tourism sector was consistent with trends in most tourism-dependent Caribbean economies which saw a faster pace of recovery than other regions. That's what it said. How is that misleading? Because, Mr. Speaker, he went on to say, right, that the statistics don't support that. That's a fast-paced, man-man look, look, look. Just after you have, Mr. Speaker, I'll be in your room in the world. You come in this year and stop the presentation by quoting the social and economic review. Member for Library, just a minute. Member for Miku South, you stood on a specific point of order. I did. You said you looked into yours and you could not find it. These were your words. No, Mr. Speaker, I said the member was misleading. No, no, you said he quoted, he made a quote that you could... The member was suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the recovery in tourism was no special feature. He didn't suggest that he read from the economic review. That was not his suggestion. The statistics, if you look at the statistics, you see the recovery of solution. Solution recovered faster. You may want to put that in a statement you want to make, but you cannot say that he has misled the house when he made the statement. That's what you said. Just a minute, because we need to clarify this. Members, points of order must be done with a great degree of specificity. You cannot make a point of order in a scattered short approach. It has to be specific. And the member for library made a specific statement. He quoted it so well that I actually remember the page. More than he did, page 20. And this is what it said. You said you looked in your economic review and you did not see it. The economic review I'm looking at is 2021. The opportunity in the debate on the estimates and on the policy debate. To come and debate those things, you choose to be on vacation all over the place and then you want to interrupt my presentation. Unless you have a point of order which is relevant and you can ground it into standing orders, do not interrupt my presentation. Because I think the standing orders did make it very clear that a member must be heard in silence. And I took my time to ask for the floor and I'm on the floor of this chamber addressing myself very seriously to the issues of the people, Mr. Speaker. And I want to return to the paragraph that I just read, Mr. Speaker. I said it was well known that the former administration's approach to procurement for projects was to employ predominantly the direct award approach. But more significantly, Mr. Speaker, the former administration used the direct award for large projects for which the central tendering process should have been used in keeping with best practices. But Mr. Speaker, the former government was a stranger to best practices as there was greater interest in providing padded contracts to the favored contractors in which there was little oversight by the technical agencies. Direct awards. As our government has repeatedly stated, Mr. Speaker, direct award should be used in cases to deal predominantly with emergency situations. In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, a high growth rate in construction, GDP tells us nothing about the efficiency of the investment. It is also clear, Mr. Speaker, that the former administration was not interested in getting the best value for money for the taxpayers as the MO was to use questionable direct award methods. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that many of the investments made by the former government were inefficient, wasteful, poor value for money and designed to favor what we called at the time the FFF, friends, family, and undeserving foreigners. So, Mr. Speaker, while these projects contributed to increasing GDP, these were poor investments in the sense that there was considerable waste. The expenditures were inefficient and contracts were not tended out, resulting in worse practices in procurement. You know, a fact which is not subject to debate or compromise, not even the best political liar can refute what I have said. Mr. Speaker, the prime minister and minister for finance mentioned, and not too long ago, in the budget, the questionable practices and mismanagement of some of the largest projects that were being implemented in this country. These include the John Compton Dam in which the government implemented the project in a manner which was contrary to the best advice given by the Caribbean Development Bank and the project consultant. HIA Terminal Building, it gets even worse, Mr. Speaker, when we heard that the former prime minister and minister for finance was giving directives on technical matters like the location of the terminal building, which resulted in the cost of piling, increasing from $4.8 million to $48.8 million. And slasper's external council being paid an additional amount of a whooping, $1.689 million in legal fees for vetting of the changes in the agreement relating to the project. That is what you call wastage. That's what you call wastage. What is even more alarming, Mr. Speaker, is that cost overruns on the airport project, is at a staggering $43.8 million for just the foundation and shell of the airport. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition needs to answer to the people as to why you are so deeply involved in technical matters relating to the implementation of the project. And then you come there and try to chastise the prime minister about transparency and openness. Don't come there and posture like a priest, or some pastor, you know, pope. Debate what is before you in a very sincere fashion. And this is why I'm using the documents to present the information. So if you want to debate, debate with the information, debate with the social economic review, don't try to debate with me. I try to be fair in this debate as I navigate my presentation. The St. Jude's Reconstruction Project. You know, you had the nerve to come there and talk about St. Jude's. Five years. Not a nail on St. Jude's. Then you decided after three years to build some monstrosity, we don't even know how much money is gonna take to finish it. And then you're trying to protest. You know why you all have your little Papy Show protests going, their little Mickey Mouse protests? It is because you all do not want us to finish St. Jude's. You all want us to concentrate on the monstrosity which will take many years to be completed so that elections will come and then we will not deliver St. Jude's. You're trying to deflect. And then we can continue your project, your monstrosity so you can justify that it was the right thing to do. From the time we entered office, the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, as well as the Minister for Health has been working assiduously towards ensuring that we do what is right, execute the project. And then to ensure that a realistic timeframe is given and this hospital is completed. Now, I have never made any pronouncement about completion of any project and I'll do it this time. The only way that the hospital will not be finished before the end of our term is if the will end before our term as ended. And you know I'm the right man to come and see that because you remember John de Baptiste's game before Christ? Well, Alva de Baptiste said so. Mr. Speaker, in the case of the St. Jude's Hospital, there was no need to construct a new building and this has resulted in a monumental waste of resources. The construction of this monstrosity was being undertaken with an open check as the project cost was at no time ever revealed. Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the serious political interference in the implementation of the St. Jude's project resulting in technocrats taking instructions from ministers of government. From this is like the son, the father, the donkey, the story, everybody giving different advice and there was mass confusion as if they were standing on the tower of Babel and this is part of the reason why it was not completed. We, on this side of the house, we speak a common language. We speak English and we speak Creole. We're not speaking any type of other language to mislead. We are going to complete the St. Jude's Hospital. Mr. Speaker, St. Jude, the St. Jude's Hospital project remains dear to the heart of the people of the South and no doubt to the entire population of St. Glacier. This project, which was substantially complete when we left office, was neglected for over three years and then grossly mismanaged by the administration, not the existing side but some other monstrosity. The technical audit report was never made public by the former government, indicating that they had something to hide and so it proved, Mr. Speaker. I have been reliably informed that the consultant who undertook the technical audit did not contract former project manager, the individual, who had the most knowledge of the project and who was dismissed by the former UWP administration. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Speaker, the consultant outlined a plan of construction completion and estimated that the cost was $82,600,509, $506.57, a cost, we believe, was grossly exaggerated. Instead of completing the project as per the technical audit, the less administration took a political decision to construct a new hospital and engage in a massive wastage of resources. This monstrosity, which has already cost the taxpayers over $100 million, is only partially complete and will require most probably another $100 million to complete. It is something that I said last year during the budget presentation because when I look at it, I'm not technical man but I could see this thing as a monumental problem. There were also very serious allegations relating to inflated costings and misallocation of resources and it was properly ventilated in December. It is to be noted that the last government paid $1 million for the technical audit, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the recommendation of the committee. That is the committee that they gave the million dollars to complete the audit. I'm saying in keeping with the recommendation, this government has decided to complete the former buildings that were being constructed under the original project. Over $100 million has been wasted on a project that was not necessary, Mr. Speaker. This is painful, Mr. Speaker. The citizens and the employees of the St. June Hospital have endured a lot and continue to be housed in suboptimal conditions. Our government is committed to ensuring the completion of the St. Jude Hospital in the quickest time. Mr. Speaker, the people of the South have endured a lot and our government commits to completing this hospital at the earliest and that's the bottom line. We don't need nobody to protest. We don't need no pressure from anybody. We know exactly what to do. We know exactly what to do and this is what we have been doing every single day St. Jude Hospital from the prime minister and from the minister for health. Every single day and preparations are in place and very soon we shall set in motion our plans, shovel ready projects. You know, you sit there and say, oh, contraction. This government then gave a new meaning to the term shovel ready projects and in this regard, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the work on the so-called scandalous four lane highway extension in Rodney Bay. We are now discovered that this project was proceeding without any designs. It was awarded to a favorite contractor and there was little supervision on oversight from the official department of infrastructure and I mean, you come here and talk about transparency and openness in an effort to prevent the hemorrhaging of millions of taxpayers resources. Our government has decided to take appropriate action It is so sad to see the millions of dollars that have been siphoned away from taxpayers into projects which add little to future economic growth and development. And today we are doing the direct opposite. We have come here to borrow, to invest in what matters to the people of this country by putting people first, not horses and not FFF. The term shovel ready project was given a new meaning, Mr. Speaker, as I said, awarded by direct awards with very little rigorous cost benefit analysis undertaken for this project and the rest is history, Mr. Speaker. And then I come to the public debt. Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn to the issue that the leader of the opposition and former prime minister was so, you know, forceful on. You know, talk about our debt record versus his debt record. Let's look at it again. The former administration continues to peddle mis-truths and again, using Cambridge Analytica, soft the fugue to give the impression that our government was responsible for the growth in public debt and that the former prime minister and minister for finance was a fiscal hawk. Let us examine the facts. And in this regard, I invite honorable members to refer to page 126 in the 2021 Economic and Social Review so that we can compare the respective records of our government and the UWP government during their respective terms in office. Mr. Speaker, the Labour Party assumed office on November 30th, 2011 and therefore its record on public debt can be assessed over the period 2012 to 2016 as it demitted office on June 6th, 2016. Over that period, Mr. Speaker, the total public debt measured as official public debt and I refer to row two in the table, Mr. Speaker, increased from 2.64 billion in 2012 to 3.07 billion in 2016. From 2.64 billion in 2012 to 3.07 billion in 2016 and increased in the public debt of $440 million. $440 million. Now let us examine the record of the United Workers' Party on public debt over the period 2017 to 2021. The public debt increased from 3.18 billion in 2017 to 4.14 billion and increased of 960 million or close to $1 billion, Mr. Speaker. It is not subject to debate, not compromise and not even the best political liar can refute. This clearly shows, Mr. Speaker, that the UWP government borrowed more than double the amounts the SLP government borrowed during their respective terms in office. Mr. Speaker, these are the facts and no amount of Cambridge Analytica, mind-bending, spin, and propaganda can alter these facts. You see, you can bring new perspectives to the events of the past, but you cannot engage in revisionism. And bringing a new perspective to the events of the past is okay because it's the very lifeblood of historical understanding, but you cannot erase what is factual. In contrast to the pronouncement of reducing borrowing, the former government has engaged in a mad frenzy of borrowing. They engage in a mad frenzy. According to the ECCB, the total disbursed outstanding debt increase by 12.4% to 3.9 billion at the end of 2020 and St. Rusia accounted for 40% of the increase in the stock of public debt for the ECCB countries in 2020. And this had resulted to the debt to GDP ratio climbing like a homesick angel during the former administration time. With this level of borrowing by the former government in 2020, you would have expected that St. Rusia would have recorded the lowest contraction in GDP. In fact, St. Rusia registered the worst performance in the ECCB area with a contraction of 24.4%. When you do all this borrowing, if you were borrowing to invest in the productive sectors of the economy, they would have been growth and we would have been more resilient in pushing the impact of COVID-19. But because of Alan Demick, it compromised the economic and financial and immune system of this country when the pandemic came. So Alan Demick created a recession and COVID-19 moved us from a recession to a depression. And do you want me to come to the house and congratulate you for that? Mr. Speaker, we are living in uncertain times. And according to the IMF, its world economic outlook for April 2022, the Russian invasion of Ukraine will result in a significant slowdown in global growth in 2022. This reduction in growth will be accompanied by higher inflation as food and fuel prices increase rapidly. And I can say again, Mr. Speaker, that during that time, they enjoyed fuel prices at record low and never for once you saw it fit to make an adjustment to ease the squeeze on the people of this country. And if you check, you go to the link and if you want to debate on the fuel prices, you can debate on the... Number for a library of 15 minutes left. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This reduction in growth will be accompanied by a higher inflation as food and fuel prices, Mr. Speaker, continue to increase. But my government is doing all it can. Just recently, we put out some bullet points showing that the government of the Labour Party, a conscientious administration, an administration which is committed to the public welfare, actually taking, absorbing the increased fuel prices to ensure that we ease the squeeze on the people of this country. Notwithstanding the fact that we are just recovering from that blow from the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, the debt increased by over $700 million between 2019 and 2021. We do, however, have a Minister for Finance who can be trusted to steer the wheels of the economy in the right direction and to transform challenges into opportunities as we navigate the strong headwinds. So, Mr. Speaker, given the fact I have so many things to say, but I want to look at a few very important scenarios that show appropriate action by the new Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. I recall when we were in opposition, I said it was time for a Labour Party administration to change the trajectory of this country. And the first thing the Prime Minister did when he got into office was one, critically examine the expenditure policies of the former government and remove wasteful expenditures which had little or no impact on the government to undertook a comprehensive review of the fiscal situation of government and proceeded to arrest the unsustainable policies pursued by the former UWP government, ultimately reversing the negative unsustainable trend. He decided that there was a pressing need to take a gradualist approach to clean up the fiscal mess. We may need to set fiscal targets for the deficits and the public debt going forward for each budget year. Notwithstanding the economic mess we inherited, if you just cut spending right away, you are going to plunge the economy into further crisis. And notwithstanding the serious curtailment of public sector income, we paid facility fees for students right across Central to ease the squeeze on the parents of this country. We gave many electronic devices so that they could access online learning, a laptop program that was stopped and the official policy during that time. You know what was the official laptop policy? Angry answer. That was the official policy of the United Workers Party. But when COVID came, there were everywhere with a shower, looking for all devices that were in the rain to see if it can work to give children. These were like the foolish virgins in the Bible. Revolution comes to the prepared mind. And we knew that the direction of the economy, especially for young people, is not the traditional economy. But moving to the blue and green economy, we live in a very different environment where we have to retool our children. An interaction with technology is a necessary precursor to go in there. We have an old system pregnant with a new one. And youthful energy will be the midwife to give both to that new dispensation. And this is why this Prime Minister accentuates the youth economy. To ensure that we do not stay in this parliament and do things for young people, but young people have a seat at the table as equal and valuable partners in the development of this country. Mr. Speaker, I know time and strict relevancy will not permit me to continue navigating this very important subject. But I want to end on the note of sustainability of the budget. That's to show you the actions taken by, by, but we are borrowing in the context of a budget that was recently passed. That's what we are doing. No, no, you will lie in Canada, Dubai, all over the place. You will lie in. You can represent people in cyberspace. Mr. Speaker, we just saw the Prime Minister deliver a budget. And the budget is the blueprint that will guide everything we do. We are borrowing in isolation. Do you know what the appropriation bill is? The budget defines the scope and purpose of government. The appropriation bill is what sets the limit to the spending. That's what it is. And we are here borrowing in that specific context that the contents must take the shape of the container. Simple as that. You talk about budget, like you surprised. What do you think we fight if I like you? That came to the house and borrowed, which had nothing to do with the budget that you had. The budget. Man, sit down there and learn something, man. Mr. Speaker, and I want to refer to the budget estimates to show you how the trajectory has changed, not with standing having the biggest budget in the history of this country. The budget estimates provide the projections for current expenditure and recurrent revenue for fiscal year 2023, 2024, and 2024, 2025, respectively. Last year, when I addressed myself to the projections, I did it in the budget that was presented by you. And this year, and I showed what the trajectory was going to be. And in this regard, Mr. Speaker, I refer honorable members to Roman numeral page 7 for recurrent revenue projections and Roman numeral page 10 for recurrent expenditure projections. In the current budget, the estimated recurrent balance, which is equal to recurrent revenue less recurrent expenditure, is estimated to be a deficit of $309.8 million. With recurrent revenue estimated at $1.15 billion and recurrent expenditure estimated at $1.46 billion. In 2023, 2024, recurrent revenue is projected at $1.17 billion while recurrent expenditure is estimated at $1.13 billion, resulting in a small recurrent surplus of $45.6 million. In 2024, 2025, recurrent revenue is projected at $1.23 billion while recurrent expenditure is projected at $1.13 billion, resulting in a surplus of $98.7 billion. When I did the analysis on the forward estimates last year with your budget and your figures, we had a deficit moving forward and it shows a different trajectory, Mr. Speaker. And the Prime Minister drew in his policy statement. And when he presented, he did say, based on the changing circumstances, we may have to come back to parliament to make certain adjustments. Now, that's a prudent leader. Sometimes when you navigate, you move from one point to another. Sometimes you get clear turbulence, even when the weather is not bad, and you have to adjust your altitude and the attitude of the aeroplane. Finally, I say to you, consistent with this analogy dealing with aviation, sometimes the Minister of Finance and Prime Minister will say nothing. He inherited a country that was euclid in the dark clouds of economic disaster. And when a pilot inherits an aircraft in that scenario, you do everything you do. You aviate, you navigate, and then you communicate. Aviate means you make sure it's at the right altitude and the right attitude. And this is what he did when he looked at the unsustainable policies of the former administration. Then, to put it on the right course, that's when you navigate. That if you say you're going to castries, you're headed in the direction of Moulashik from Vufort. So you have to ensure you're on the right course, and then you communicate. Communicate is the last thing you do. That's why sometimes when you're on an aeroplane and you enter turbulence, you're a pilot saying nothing, and you see the flight attendants sitting and they look more worried than you. That's a passenger. Just know that you're trying to keep the aircraft stable. I can see, through the guidance of my God, that God loves every inclusion. He knew that we needed an economist, an experienced captain to get us out of this cloud. And he gave us the honorable member for Kastri's East as Minister for Finance to keep this thing floating. If you, honorable member, was the Minister for Finance, we crashed a long time ago. And I really thank God for allowing him to take over the wheels. And of course, we must continue to give him the support. My sole purpose is to ensure that we navigate out of this turbulence successfully to deliver more to the people of this country. And so, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I support this resolution because we are on the right trajectory to develop this country and to deliver to the people of this country in keeping with our theme, Putin People's First. May God continue to bless you. Member for Babano. Mr. Speaker, to support the bill presented by the Honorable Prime Minister and Minister and parliamentary rep for Kastri's East. Mr. Speaker, it would have been a serious oversight on my part if I did not take the floor in this honorable house to represent a sizable population of St. Lucia referred to as women. And Mr. Speaker, when I heard the leader of the opposition made comments earlier with regards to the situation of a highly recognized woman in St. Lucia, I said, don't go there. Don't hit your opponent where your opponent is strong. And I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, that this government is very strong when it comes to representing women and men in this country in the context of this bill where the Honorable Prime Minister is looking at borrowing money. And I wish, as he goes on, he would borrow enough money to take care of the issues of domestic violence in St. Lucia, the issues of violence against women, and the issues of violence in St. Lucia, especially women. Mr. Speaker has a gender affairs department, and I was charged with the responsibility of heading this department. And upon hearing of the situation of our four-time Calypso monarch, Queen Menel, that meant sprung into action, Mr. Speaker. And on that rainy day, Mr. Speaker, we found the family. And Mr. Speaker, this government will not boast how it has taken on this challenge. I will want the leader of the opposition to contact the family, and the family will tell you what has happened. This is a government who cares for people. This is a government who puts people first. And I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, that if this government will borrow to fight crime in St. Lucia, to create employment so that our young people are active and engage in national development, it's good borrowing. It's borrowing to put money into good use for production, for development, and advancement in this society. Mr. Speaker, in this house with emotion, and I did not want to bring this matter into this house because we want Menel to recover in private. We want her formally to reflect. And because of this, I'm saying that this government is committed to continue to give support to the family until the day when she will be able to speak for us. Mr. Speaker, St. Jude's, stress that. I was so proud when I heard the new Calypso Monarch speak of the saints. And I told him this morning in this chamber that I'm proud of his song because we have a group of saints here led by St. Prime Minister. And all his other saints, St. Philip, that will rescue St. Jude. St. Jude will get some form of attention and we will bring it back to life because the saints have gathered and on the 26th of July, 2021, God sent these saints, not just to save St. Jude, but to save St. Lucia. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of the decision by the Honorable Prime Minister to borrow money to do what is right for St. Lucia. And I look forward to the full implementation and the commitment that we have made for transparency in the national development. With this, Mr. Speaker, I lend my support to the bill presented by the Honorable Prime Minister and Parliamentary Rep for Castries East. Sorry, Prime Minister, I put off my mistake. Minister of Finance? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are times in the life of our country where men of good will ought to forget differences, speak the truth, give advice, give counsel, criticize when necessary, and see what is happening in the world, Mr. Speaker. Have a look at what's happening in the world. Let me, Mr. Speaker, when you are consumed with anger and entitlement and you believe that you have a right to something that has been taken away from you, Mr. Speaker, you behave in ways that are unimaginable. What happens all over the world? Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson believes that because he was wealthy, he went to Eaton. He was a member of a club called the Bullington that he could do whatever he wanted. He had to be Prime Minister. He would lie. He would deflect. I mean, Boris Johnson is a typical example, Mr. Speaker, of people who think they are entitled. Donald Trump lost an election once his vice president to go to the Electoral College and create mayhem just because he lost the election, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, these people in world history, they end in one way, Mr. Speaker, just one way. So, Mr. Speaker, right now we are in a situation where the entire world is in chaos. The entire world inflation at its highest. For 40 years, people are predicting starvation. People are saying that this generation is going to be worse off than the last generation. I heard last night that the American virus is wrapping in the United States. Every other person in the United States has said will catch the American virus, Mr. Speaker. That's the world we live in. The world of climate change where, as we speak, England is in a heat wave that will cost lives, floods in Australia, floods in India, and England in a heat wave, Mr. Speaker. That's the world we live in. That's the world we live in, Mr. Speaker. So, we would expect that people who have a concern or genuine interest in the country would pull back a little bit. Pull back with it. Pull back. Let's pull back a little bit. Let's wait. Let's see how we will come through this crisis. But no. We make political mileage with a poor Calypsoan who was injured. And I saw something on a... I don't follow Facebook. I don't. But I saw something on a page, Mr. Speaker. If on a Facebook page, Mr. Speaker. And, you know, I hear lies. Things that are not true. Things that are proven to be not true, Mr. Speaker. Being spouted every day, Mr. Speaker. Every day I hear on a radio station lies, lies, lies. Just lies, Mr. Speaker. I mean, just things that are... Things that I sometimes wonder where these people... Where are these things coming from, Mr. Speaker? The Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Commerce has told you the price of flour is not our cause. We didn't do that. We didn't cause a war in Ukraine, Mr. Speaker. That's reality. And the fact that fuel is $170 per barrel. We want to argue that right now, the revenue from fuel products is less than ever was before. We want to argue that. That's the fact. But you still want to argue... You want to argue that still? That's reality, Mr. Speaker. And you want to argue so much, Mr. Speaker, that you argue things that are... Mr. Speaker, I just have to... I just want to say what I want to say. But, Mr. Speaker, you heard the leader of the opposition come here and said to you that he had $10 million for St. Jude, the money from the ex-Bamboffin, so I said, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. And I really feel sorry for the technocrats who worked with the Ministry of Finance. I feel sorry for them. You know, I feel sorry for them because if I were in their place and I would see some boys stand up, completely not true, I'd be able to see something. But they are professionals, so they see nothing. Let me tell you how the $10 million had to be spent by this leader of the opposition. And why we had to repurpose it, Mr. Speaker. That was the $10 million he had for election purposes. That was the $10 million he had to construction rehabilitation of concrete roads and drains to include general infrastructure, utility retaining walls, fabrication of rails and handicapped access, repairs and renovations to courts, parks and community facilities. He had in that $14 million, Mr. Speaker, for election purposes. And he was afraid to come to this honorable house because he was afraid to come to Borough because he knew if he had come, he would have got stiff operations, stiff opposition, Mr. Speaker. So he backfired in that. Second, Mr. Speaker, here's how he spent that money. He spent that money, Mr. Speaker. Two, he proposed to spend it, Mr. Speaker. He proposed to spend it on geothermal study for police headquarters, designs for police headquarters, site preparations for police headquarters and importation of 1,000 LED lights. And he comes in, Mr. Speaker, stands on his two feet that God gave him and says that money was for St. Jude. Mr. Speaker, Boris Johnson could not do so badly. He comes and he stands and he says that and he knows very well that information is available. Mr. Speaker, then he says that none of these projects were in the budget. Mr. Speaker, agency number 42, commerce, promotion of indigenous craft and CMOS, new project, $500,000, estimates paid $613,000, budget speech, page 33 and 29, infrastructure, Millennium Highway West Coast Road upgrade, ongoing project, $4 million, estimates paid $615,000, budget paid $17,000, finance, agency number 44, national competitive agenda, ongoing, $200,000, estimates paid $618,000, health, agency number 53, COVID response and CDB COVID intervention, Inter-American Development Bank, global loan program ongoing, $11,522,000, estimates paid $643,000, budget paid $42 and $43,000, economic development, agency number 56, street lighting replacement project, new project, $3.4 million, estimates paid $640,000, budget paid $37,000, agency number 56, economic development, economic recovery and empowerment of youth, the youth economy, new project, $7.2 million, estimates paid $641,000, $26,882, and he stands to speak, he knows that very well, until he got the letter from his party to summons him here, if not, they told him he suffered a consequence, so he came here today. So he came here today, Mr. Speaker, he comes here today, Mr. Speaker, the legal opposition says that we should cap, negotiate with the Taiwanese to cap the interest rate and the resilience closet. You think a man can stand up and say that? He negotiated it, we had to repurpose it, there's a letter on the file from the Taiwanese saying why we ought to repurpose, we had to make a case, the poor technocrats in the ministry, not me, you can ask them, I don't deal with this minister of finance, I don't deal with my technocrats, like you, you know, I ask them for policy direction and I reserve the right to take the path that I want based on the policies that they give me. But I don't go to the airport and tell them where to put the terminal building, crossing the country, 43 million dollars in cost overruns. I don't interfere with slasper and write them and tell them to give a direct award to somebody you must do it. I don't do it, Mr. Speaker, and so, Mr. Speaker, so man, he comes and talks about cap, cap in the interest rate and resilience closet. He knows very well, he knows very well, he knows that he negotiated, he knows very well, I can sit and as you see, and I say it is not true, on his offer, Mr. Speaker, there is no letter that instructs us. Yeah, hold on, hold on, men. The member for, the member for castries east does not have authority to give anybody has authority to speak in the house, you go through the president officer, if you wish to rise at a point of intercession. There is a letter. to give a direct award for the opposition. This is a point of order and a point of elucidation if the member will allow it. Are you a member of the cast? Are you a leader? So you invite me and then you don't lead it. Mr Speaker, I'll say it again. There is a letter that he wrote to slasper, and I'll tell them to give the direct award to a particular person. That's not true. That's not true, Mr Speaker. Because he seems to be giving order. The member of the cast is a leader of opposition. The member of the cast can give every indication he wishes. There is only one sheriff in this house. I am the only person who shall call upon somebody else to speak. So I am here from the leader of government. If you are taking direct sensitive, if he stands up and asks to sit down, are you going to ask me to intervene? Are you going to ask me to intervene if he asks you to sit? I'm going to simply ask you if I could make a point of, rise in a point of order and a point of elucidation for the second time. You can rise in a point of order. The point of elucidation is Do you, member of the castries, do you yield to allowing to make a point, he wants to make a point of elicitation. Are you yielding? On what? What is, on which? He's saying that I will allow this last one. Yes, he's very right. So you, so you're not yielding. Okay, proceed leader. So I'm not giving you, not giving me permission again to invite me and you don't give me permission again. But member, member, leader of the opposition. It's a trigger. It's a point of the member. If the leader, the prime minister has made a point that you wrote a letter, there is no elicitation on that. You either deny or you can't give, you can't elicit it on that. Mr. Speaker, the member, the member of the castries, he did not yield, I'm merely giving you directions. I understand. If somebody has made, I'm asking for elicitation from you, Mr. Speaker. Hold, hold the point. Hold on a minute. Listen, listen, let's get something clear. Debate takes place among members. Nobody in this house debates to the speaker. The speaker has the chair, he speaks. If a member has accused you of doing something, you do not clarify that. You either deny or you accept. There's no clarification on that. If it is open to you to bring information at an exit, or you can go boldly and say to the minister of finance to make that a document of the house. Mr. Speaker, finance minister, to settle this matter, are you prepared to make that letter a document of the house? When I speak to my colleagues, we'll decide. We can have a lot more to come. And there's a lot more on the airport, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to jeopardize the way forward. So I will decide without discussion with my colleagues, whether I will make that letter because we might leave that letter for other purposes. So, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, he speaks about the 10 million dollars for St. Jude. And I want him to deny it. I have outlined how he would spend the money and how we have to write the Taiwanese to ask them to repurpose that 10 million dollars. If you want to letter, Mr. Speaker, you don't instruct me when to be let in the house. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, speaks about the national economic fund. And he says that we've made it a slush fund. Here's what we did. We had one amendment to national economic fund, one. We said in that amendment that the cabinet can give instructions on national economic fund. That's all we said. Now, Mr. Speaker, but look at, let me explain to you what it means. The government, the cabinet controls the consolidated fund. All the revenues of the country is under the control of the cabinet and the parliament, Mr. Speaker. So how can you say to the cabinet, if you have come, if there's not an material motive in your intention, how can you say to the cabinet, to the parliament, the parliament is the one that passes the consolidated fund. How do you consider them? There's one part of the procedure of the country that they can manage. So we said no. We said that the national economic fund will follow the directives if cabinet gives it the directives. That's all we said. So when it comes to talk about, it was a lock box and it was a sovereign wealth fund. Mr. Speaker, he paid a lot of work on a sovereign wealth fund. And up to today, we can't get one document on any sovereign wealth fund, Mr. Speaker. Not one document. And we paid the lawyer. That's all. Mr. Speaker, because we have kept quiet, we have allowed them to go and masquerade. We haven't said anything, Mr. Speaker. Because, Mr. Speaker, my objective, my objective is to solve the people of St. Lucia, not to make political points, Mr. Speaker. We could come here. We have enough information, some of which they've hidden. Every day, everything they say, we can show what they did, how they did it, and how they did it, and what the best interests of St. Lucia. But we don't have time for that. These men and women there, we have to sit and deal. This time is the most difficult time to be in government ever. What we're doing now, Mr. Speaker, we don't have time to hale kase. We don't have time to hale kase with Boris Johnson to be. Look-alikes? Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. So when he comes to talk about sovereign wealth fund, he must tell the taxpayers of this money, of this country, why did they pay a lawyer? That's all the money they paid to prosecute him, criminal offences against him. Ministers, ministers, ministers account. He, the former prime minister, all the money they paid to lawyers, he must come and tell the public where did that money go and where the sovereign wealth fund. You don't come and talk about national economic fund, it's supposed to be sovereign wealth fund. And you don't have to be sovereign wealth fund. But again, that's it. Just saying things. Just saying things. Then he comes to talk about St. Jude. St. Jude costs $100 million. And in the 80s then? And then he needed another 30 to finish it. Mr. Speaker. He signed a contract for 70 million. Gentlemen, lead up the opposition. Who he knows very well. In the middle of July, there was a request for a direct award for 70 million dollars. Plus one that was there before, for 33 million dollars. The one for 70, the minister of economic relevancy, sent it to the attorney general. The one he said that one was too hot to handle, sent that one, and that was in the middle of July. And the attorney general has it up to now, Mr. Speaker. $70 million extra, apart from the one he had signed for $43 million before. That's $103 million, Mr. Speaker, to complete. And he already spent $118 million on that box. So, yes, you spent $118 million on the box. Probably you weren't aware. $118 million. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. That 70 million dollars, Mr. Speaker, the attorney general has it in his office today. What did this remember some time ago? To build the ground floor of the hospital. The ground floor alone. We expect to build a ground floor of the hospital. You're working upstairs and people sit downstairs. Does that make sense, Mr. Speaker? But, Mr. Speaker, there was a report, an oil report, and the oil report said that the buildings could be used for the original purpose of the hospital. They refused to bring that report in the public. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something. Any report that you make, anytime you use a taxpayer's money to do anything, you're going to be in the public building. You're going to be in the public building. So, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, then he speaks about investors. He spent five years in government. The minister for education says he did not get a plywood partition in a hotel. Not one. He was minister of tourism. He didn't build one hotel in St. Lucia. Not one. He was minister of tourism. He was prime minister. He did not build one hotel in St. Lucia. Not one. And that was before COVID. But he rented a tent for three million dollars. Not one hotel. When I was minister of tourism, I'd like to boast. I'd like to boast. You want me to talk about hotels that have been under me? And now I'm back and two hotels have started in this country. And go and see it. And you don't like it, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, then he talks about hotels, Mr. Speaker. In sure as hell, Mr. Speaker, next week we are going to send in. No, you'll be happy for that. You'll be very happy because we're getting that hotel bill that they made a mess with. It'll be for you. You all. I know for you. But we weren't there. We were mess with the benefit. But you know why? There's something. Let me tell you what investors tell us. Investors tell us it is refreshing to deal with us. They'll say it's the air. It's a breath of fresh air. They say they're no longer told which lawyer to go to. They say they're no longer told if you go to this lawyer, you're not going to get anything. They are told they're no longer there. So they tell us. They said to us, when we're dealing with us, it's a breath of fresh air. And that is why, that is why, that is why a number of new investments, including new hotels, will commence in solution before this tomb of office is over. Because of our transparency, because of our accountability, and because of the fact that there is no minister who is super to the prime minister. No minister who is the back carrier for the prime minister. Mr. Speaker. Then he speaks about street lights. In government, when we came into power, there was a loan from the Caribbean Development Bank for $9 million to convert the sodium lights into LED. This loan was approved by the president of the Caribbean Development Bank. A loan component and a grand component. $9 million. He stopped it. He stopped it. He stopped it. And he went into some arrangement. That's five years. It never came true. Right now, we are renegotiating. We have renegotiated. And the street lights project going to continue. And that is our component. But he complains about it. The same minister of finance, who in 2019, when the COVID crisis hit, the documents will tell you that the solution economy was the worst hit because it was the worst-prepared. It was the worst hit because it was the worst-prepared. The economy was already in decline in 2019. He inherited surpluses in 2016. Here are the surpluses. By the time we were in 2019, the country was already suffering from massive deficits because of his lavish spending, Mr. Speaker. And there's something he can do. These are factual. So, Mr. Speaker, when we come to this honorable house, and as I said before, we're going to spend it all our time saying what you do, what you say, what you do, Mr. Speaker. But we're not doing it because each man and woman in this honorable house is dedicated to put our people first. They're dedicated to the fact that we have to reverse what's happening in this country. Look at when you see, Mr. Speaker, what's happening in this country. There is a new bus. The member of the castries north had an exhibition for young people in La Claree. The number of young entrepreneurs who brought it, who showed that level of wanting to do something, Mr. Speaker. And then what you do, you castigate the youth economy. You castigate it. You say there's $5 million in the youth economy for administrative purposes. You are going to see the bill. You should read a little more before you talk. The bill says, Mr. Speaker, the bill says, I'm not going to that now, anyhow, the time will come for that, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, the member, the leader of the opposition has once more failed the people of St. Lucia. He failed them as a prime minister, and now he's failing them even more as they dealt the opposition. Because he's offering no guidance. He's offering no advice. He's offering nothing constructive in this crisis times, Mr. Speaker. Only what he hopes to do is to come here with flashing mirrors, come and deflect, come and see all kinds of things. He knows it's not true. And when you prove this is not true, he's shameless. Mr. Speaker, to thank the people of St. Lucia, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank them because they are experiencing now things that are beyond their control. I heard the member for, wait, Microsoft, say the government should reduce impuduities. You think the member doesn't know that we are operating under a CET, a common external tariff? You think he doesn't know that? You think he doesn't know to get derogation? We have to go to Quartet? We have to get it from all other states in the region? You think he doesn't know that? But because he knows that people are under pressure, he says that. And he starts against behind? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I said, repeat it. You think he doesn't know that? You think he doesn't know? You think he doesn't know, Mr. Speaker, that our revenue from petrol is the lowest it has ever been? You think he doesn't know that? You think he doesn't know that, Mr. Speaker, that if, when he came into government, he increased the taxes on fuel by 150 to pay the roads that he built, and you think he doesn't know that we're not getting any 150 again to repay these loans? You think he doesn't know that? You think he doesn't know that? But, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't got the fortitude. He hasn't got the love for people. He hasn't got the love for country. He hasn't got the desire to see people say, Lucia, get better, to say to solutions, let us hold on together. Let's hold on for now. Things are tough. Let's hold on. The government made a mistake. Pull the government up. Let's hold on because things are tough, Mr. Speaker. But the people of Saint Lucia know better. And the people of Saint Lucia, Mr. Speaker, will stand by this government because they know that we put them first, Mr. Speaker. I thank you. Members, be it resolved that parliament authorizes the minister for finance to borrow the amount of US $10 million from the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China to finance the implementation of national development projects and initiatives? Be it further resolved that, A, the loan is repairable in 30 consecutive equal, or as nearly equal as possible, semi-annual installments, the first of which must be made on the last day of the 66 months from the date, the first advance under the loan is made by the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China, and thereafter on the last day of each successive six months period. B, if the full amount of the loan has been drawn down, each principal installment must be in the amount of US $333,000, $334, except that the last principal installment must be in the amount of US $333,000, $314, otherwise the amount of each installment shall be adjusted by the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China. C, interest is payable at a rate of the six months secured overnight financing rate plus 0.20% plus 1.5% per annum. And D, that the loan is repairable in 20 years, commencing from the date of first disbursement of the loan inclusive of a grace period of five years. I now put the question, as many as of that opinion say aye, as many as of a country opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Mr. Speaker, I beg that this house be suspended until 3.15 p.m. I want to remember the question is that this house stands suspended until 3.15 p.m. And I'll put the question, as many as of that opinion say aye, as many as of a country opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.