 Hello everyone and welcome to special production of the National Intelligent Network Government Information Service. I am Lisa Joseph. We'll be having a very special discussion with the Attorney General of St. Usher, Hon. Stephen Julian. And of course we know that the COVID-19 Prevention and Control Bill has been enacted. It has also been the source of great concern to the public. And in this discussion, we will be outlining some of the key concerns that members of the public have raised. We'll also be delving deeper into the bill itself and what it means to you and for you. We know that the spirit of the bill is really to help St. Lucia contain, control COVID-19 and implement measures that will help us to remain safe as we have been doing in the last six months that we've been confronted with the COVID-19 pandemic. Let me now welcome the Attorney General. Thank you so much for taking the time out to speak with us. And there's just so much to unpack. So we'll get right into it. Our country has been under state of emergency. We know that in the last six months, as I indicated, since COVID-19 came on our shores, we've sought to navigate COVID-19. We have had to have a state of emergency in the first instance. Why did we need to enact a state of emergency act at that time when we did? And how involved was your office in the constant amendments to the Emergency Powers Act under the state of emergency? Well, thank you, Lisa. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, viewers. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to express my views on this very important piece of legislation, which will help us navigate the treacherous waters which has been brought by this insidious disease. I would like to start because I have actually missed the opportunity before to express my profound gratitude to the support that I have received in the discharge of my duties as what I've often said to be the custodian of the rule of law in St. Lucia, the principal advisor to the state. There's a lot which happens behind the scenes. My team at the Attorney General's Chambers, they are deserving of great accolade for their professionalism, the dedication to their work, their patriotism. I also would like to highlight the often forgotten persons at the government pantry who have on every occasion stepped up to the plate on short notice and they have helped us to get these bills and these SIs out. Of course, Officer of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Secretary, everyone, it was all hands on deck and I was very encouraged by that level of support. Of course, the media and our NTM group have our media advisors. They were integral to keeping solutions informed and of course, working with the CMO and the other stakeholders made things a lot easier. So in effect, I'm basically saying that I had a big part to play in this. There are a lot of actors, a lot of connecting parts to make this happen. The state of emergency is exactly what it was. We were faced with a pandemic, the likes of which St. Lucia has never faced before and we had to make the best decisions to preserve life, to preserve the average St. Lucia and we had to look at our legislative framework. That would involve the Long and Tooth Public Health Act, also the Quarantine Act, to see whether, first of all, we could have made the necessary changes and accommodations to protect the citizenry. First thing we realized, of course, is the inability to move forward with a curfew. That was simply off the table. The only way this could happen would be through the intervention of the Governor General by a declaration of the state of emergency. Then you would have to consider what is prescribed in the Emergency Powers Act and from there everything would fall into place. And it was during this time that we burned the midnight oil, having had all the consultations of the stakeholders, cabinet, my cabinet colleagues, of course, I neglected to thank them for their support. And of course, I believe that we are where we are and are able to manage this in no small part through some level of divine intervention. So as we will come to your end in the September 30th 2020 period, so we know that the state of emergency would have come to an end. If you're hearing the airplanes, it's because we are at the official residence of the Prime Minister, so we're utilizing that venue. So you'll be hearing during the course of the conversation some extra ambience noise. So don't be too alarmed with that. We were informed that the government would come to the Parliament with the COVID-19 prevention and control bill. Why did we need to replace the state of emergency with this new bill? Well, the state of emergency calls with it, brings with it, of course, the curfew and the suspension of the fundamental rights of the citizenry, something that we do not take lightly. Yes, COVID is not a thing of the past, but the level of that is required to manage it in terms of, for instance, implementation of the curfew, that simply does not exist anymore. And it therefore necessitated moving forward to consider the same Public Health Act and the Quarantine Act to see what can be done to manage the situation moving forward. Now, Lisa, I want to remind everyone that, and if you are able to recall, there have been several dates when persons would be advised that the COVID would have been a thing of the past. People are talking about July, even if we recall the extension to September. There you go, but even then, even at the domestic level, it was not something which garnered much favour within the same vision context, because we know what is involved here. And so it has always been the plan of the AG's chambers, the Ministry of Health, the functionaries in there to review Quarantine Act, to review Public Health Act and bring it into this century. But the reality is it was woefully inadequate. For instance, you have to, if people meet me, you have to consider there is no provision for any of the protocols in the Public Health Act. So when you see the CM1, these were the size which were coming out under the Emergency Powers Act, going beyond the 30th of September, we needed to have a piece of legislation which encapsulated the protocols. So when one makes the argument that all that needed to be done was simply to amend the Public Health Act or the Quarantine Act and put these protocols in there, would that have worked? That would, I would not eliminate the possibility that we could have gone that route, but this is a route which I would not have tread upon for myriad of reasons. A principal one being it would only be logical to consolidate what we already have. You guys remember we were speaking to COVID-19. Something that is new, something dynamic, fluid. Correct. And it brings its own protocols with it. And let's use for instance, this is not new to the Sinnushan landscape. We have the Lepper's Act, not to stand in the fact that we had other pieces of legislation there. It was understood that we needed to have a piece of legislation which spoke to this disease. In the case of COVID, the concept of physical distancing was literally new to the world. What you had before, for instance, in the Public Health Act was a reference to overcrowding. Overcrowding in that context really meant, for instance, an establishment not going beyond their capacity. So if your restaurant is licensed to have 150 patrons, you can be, you could have been cited if you had, if you went into the normal due diligence and found you had 200. But that wasn't about physical distancing, which now demanded that you go from six feet apart, or in our case three feet, or even the masks and all of those things. Even in terms of closure of businesses, under the Public Health Act, you had references to only certain establishments. For instance, the barber shops, hairdressing salons, some restaurants, but nothing else for the other establishments. So you didn't want a piece of legislation which spoke to one or two classes of enterprise. You, the Quarantine Act, for instance, spoke about the quarantine site, not a facility. That's why you have rat eyelet being the quarantine site under the Quarantine Act. So for our purposes, it made sense for not only the practitioners, but the persons who are affected. You pick up your COVID-19 bill. You're at now. And it's all in here. It's just a one-stop. It's just a one-stop. And the even legal practitioners sometimes complain about the fact that you have pieces of legislation all over the place, instead of it being consolidated into one. This is what we were able to accomplish. And it was in terms of the exercise. I imagine you'd have to speak about the issue of consultations. But I can assure you that from the onset, from the minute we left the gates, there was that level of consultation. The consultation process really dealt with when you were establishing those protocols and the assigns. So you had that discussion with the stakeholders, the various stakeholders at varying points. But nothing on the compilation of these SIs and protocols. So what are we, is the issue one of substance or is it form? Because I would believe we would defer to substance. Here we are with, at every stage, we are working with the various stakeholders to put this together. We acknowledge that COVID is going to be here for some time. It is the new reality, the new normal, as some say. And we have determined that having gone through that stage, you have literally put the, and at every point, if you followed the evolution of the SIs from 42, we were literally building and tweaking what's in there. And that wasn't being done in a back room somewhere. We were getting instructions from the command center. And they had, there was a broad cross-section of persons in there. I will not disclose the various conversations that I've had. But even on a personal level, I had persons reaching out to me in the various sectors, making inquiry about certain things. And these are things that we brought through the whole process of legislative drafting. It can sometimes be a bit of a task, especially when you have deadlines to meet. But we have examples of receiving instructions, honestly, and an SI being published on a Monday, bright and early, to reflect the dynamic situation which COVID brought on upon us. And I think we have, for the most part, handled the aspect of consultations to, I'm very satisfied with it. So let's say they had input in the initial stage. When were the stakeholders contacted about the bill itself, and that the bill was going to come to parliament, you've compiled it? And the circulation of that bill to the stakeholders? So, thank you for the question, Lisa. But here's what has happened. Remember, I indicated that we have, as of the 30th of September, most thought that we would not be dealing with COVID anymore. So we were dealing with our airsides, et cetera, et cetera. So we move into the stage when it is obvious that we have to move beyond COVID and put things in place. Even then, those instructions to compile, consolidate what came before, and add certain things, because as we had indicated, I had spoken earlier, the Quarantine Act, the Public Health Act, there was no provision for the tourism standards. That was not drafted in isolation. There was broad consultation on how it would be implemented, the compliance certificates, all of these things had to be done. So once we got through that stage and we're heading into September, we had a very small window within which to, and I must add, that when the decision was taken, we brought in more than the Command Centre. We had the meetings at chambers, and we put this together for submission to Cabinet for the approval that occurred on the Monday, and I ensured that it was circulated among the parliamentarians on a Thursday. It is something that I have taken, I have insisted upon. The fact of the practice that has happened before, in terms of legislation being presented on the day and parliamentarians not having the time to the opportunity to digest what's contained therein, that's the thing of the past. So in this context, we made sure everything was with the parliamentarians by the Thursday, and then you had the sitting the following Tuesday. So the situation literally dictated, the circumstances dictated that this was the timeline with which we had to work, put this together, be satisfied with the final draft, present it to Cabinet, get it to parliament, and bring it before to have a sitting so it can be debated. My final question on that would be someone hearing this will think this is a very short period of time, because certainly we knew that the state of emergency is coming to an end, and we knew that we would have to do something, so the bill was coming into effect. Why at such a late stage, because we're looking at just days before the sit-in, is it possible that we could have had this prepared before? So thank you Lisa again, and here's the simple answer to it. Literally, whilst this document was being drafted, the protocols were changing, because you have the three tier system, the World Health Organization, you have the regional CAFRA, and then you have the CMO and the team. And whilst we are in the process of drafting this document, you have the protocols changing, and you will see it in there and being refined. So it's not something that the legislative process, it doesn't happen overnight. The consultation aspect of it is what took up a lot of the time. And at the end of the day, I needed to be satisfied that before it is, that at the point where it is submitted to parliament, that final draft is as close to being what is acceptable as you could possibly get in the circumstances. But I am satisfied with what is submitted. I maintain a very high standard quality of work at chambers. Were you surprised by the pushback? I will say disappointed in a sense, especially when I became aware of some of the actors and some of the statements which will be made. But then again, I do not permit this to deter me. I believe that we have, and I say we at chambers, we have a duty to perform, and we try and do it as professionally as we can. And that has been my response to it. I don't take these things personally. I will say that I was disappointed. Surprised? Probably not. But disappointed because we expect that leadership isn't something which is seasonal. You persons are looking to our leaders for guidance and we take the line or the posture will be in line with persons who they see as their leaders. And at the end of the day, we must not lose sight of the fact that this is about COVID-19. There is nothing like it, nothing in the annals of our history. And we will have to put our all hands on deck and do the best that we can to manage the situation. And this is all that we endeavor to do. The chambers have always come, it's coming under fire because we will be in that language, perhaps the legalese in there are not up to par for want of a better reason. You see this as a fair assessment of the work that your chambers have been able to put into this. And not just only to the COVID bill but there have been other complaints that perhaps drafting is a bit lacking, the skill of drafting is lacking in the chambers. That is quite an indictment on the persons who have been doing this job for a very long time. And have received the respect of their colleagues throughout the region. In fact, I can tell you that we receive inquiries from other countries, other jurisdictions, who are very curious and desirous of finding out what it is that we're doing and to follow some model of that sort. But some of these questions or issues that persons have, this is a comment that any attorney will tell you that they are not unfamiliar with. To the layperson, reading these bills may seem like recon illogical at some point, but the craftsmen, the technicians, the technical persons, the drafts persons, they know what they're doing. And it's a matter of taking the instructions and putting it together in a way which can be properly understood. And I've seen instances where persons in their attempt to understand what's in the act may single out a section, but if they went a little further or with... It would have to be ready concert with other forms. Everything, you read the bill. Then some of these persons who are raising issues, if you inquire as have you read, starting from the interpretation section, section two and go through, other parts it will reveal, it makes sense. It will flow and you will understand what's in there. You can't pull out a section, read it in isolation and not be surprised on occasion that you don't understand what's in there. Any legal practitioner who does that will fail. You must read it in its context. And I must say it is an easy read. I have to say that because I read it from cover to cover, and it is a fairly easy read and easy to understand. So let's get into the bill. Earlier on, you mentioned under the SOE, the state of emergency, the restriction of the liberty of nationals and so forth. How does the bill differ to the state of emergency in that regard? How does the... In terms of restricting the freedoms and liberties, because that is the main concern of St. Lucian that this bill is oppressive. So we have the Constitution which guides us all. And I took the liberty of just pulling out some sections in it, if you permit me to go through them quickly. We have the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, which is the head, the captain, protection of right to personal liberty. A person shall not be deprived of his or her personal liberty, save as maybe authorized by law in any of the following cases that is to see. And it goes down and it says what goes on. G says, for the purpose of preventing the spread of infectious or contagious disease. So here it was, it says, you can pass law. All right. To a person shall not be deprived of his or her personal liberty, save as maybe authorized by law in any of the following cases that is to see. We have A, B, C, D, E, F, G says, for the purpose of preventing the spread of an infectious or contagious disease. So the Constitution permits that. Protection from deprivation of property. No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of and no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except for a public purpose and except where provision is made by a law applicable to that taking of possession or acquisition for the prompt payment of full compensation. You have freedom section 11 protection of freedom of assembly and association. Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of the section to the extent that the law in question makes provision. A, that is reasonably required in the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health. And it goes on protection of freedom of movement, etc. Now it just responds to those who believe that this is unconstitutional. It isn't. But folks, I and I will say it over and over again. This is that this is another reason that we've put it in the COVID bill in that act. Sorry. So whatever is contained in there and it has a date by a sunset clause two years in the maximum of two years from the date when it was passed. So we appreciate that the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons will be affected. But the law permits us to do that. Why? Because of the public health concerns attended to COVID-19. But these restrictions would come, would they come as the situation dictates? This is not a situation where now we seem to individuals that there's no curfew that is imposed at this moment. So as the situation dictates, we will move as with the SIs that you would say, well, okay, we're now faced with a situation where we've just gotten 10 cases. So let's see where we're moving and how we're going to move to addresses. Correct. Yes. Okay. So let's move on further. There has been the suggestion that the Minister for Health and other government entities that have been granted sweeping powers with this act explained to us what that is, because we've been told that the Minister can sort of create a law, can just sit and legislate at the stroke of a pen, what needs to be done, and then it needs to be enforced. Explain to us what are those powers that the Minister has. So let's put this in context. The competent authority during the state of emergency was the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister literally doesn't feature in this leg piece of legislation at all, except when he acts in the capacity of the Minister of Finance for procurement. Other than that, you will see it's reflected throughout the piece of legislation that the COVID-19 Act, I mean, that the Principal Minister, as referenced by the Act as the Minister of Health, who has to act in consultation and concert with the CMO and the other technocrats. So the Minister is not acting unilaterally. And the suggestion that there would be regulations, the Minister cannot create offences, because if you look at the regulations, I think it is 62, sorry, not 62, 65, the sort of regulations, the nature of the regulations is clearly stated. What the Minister can do after consultation, it starts here. The Minister may on the recommendation of the Chief Medical Officer make regulations to give effect to this Act. So you're operationalizing aspects of the Act. You will notice that in the body of the Act, which deals with physical distancing, there is no number. What is anticipated and what has already been done is you have regulations to deal with that. So the Minister acting on the advice of the CMO will get the regulations prepared. But the Minister is not making an offence. Remember, there's a process. If you are in breach of any other regulations, you will be charged. So the police will get involved, excuse me. And you have to appear before court someday. So for there to be a determination as to your fate. So there's proportionality in terms of the sort of sentence that is imposed by the Ministry of Medicine. This is not as egregious an offence, sorry, an Act. So I mean caution, reprimand and discharge you. But they may decide to fine you $1,000 if you're a repeat offender, if you're the owner of a business establishment, having been fined once or twice and you continue to break the protocols, they may decide to seize your goods. And let's use an example. I don't mean to single out any particular sector, but this is the one that some persons may be familiar with, where during the lockdown period, certain refreshment facilities conducted, they applied their trade, where persons would come in and you have a building through the back door, and you have the place is crowded, windows are closed, and they're in there for hours. That could have triggered community outbreak. So Magistrate for instance, being made aware of the facts of a particular case, or this person has been doing this is a repeat offender, may decide you're going to lose your goods. It's going to be forfeited. So the Minister's role on the issue of the offences, it's not a correct representation. So she will not be able to create an offence other than what's contained in the Act. She is limited to the powers given to her by statute. She can't divine anything because the regulations teach what you can create, what sort of offence that will be attached to, what offence that you will by order publish, and we take it from there. So when we speak to the regulations to give effect to the Act on the recommendation of the CMO, these regulations are we talking about protocols and how to enforce those protocols. This is what we're referring to. And so not any criminal evidence. So we have been able to get that. And we'll get to the penalties a little later on. We spoke about the two-year span for the COVID bill. Now the idea that we could have gone through a six-month period, would that have suffice extending along the way when necessary? Would that have been a good option for us? For the Act. So instead of giving it a two-year life period, could we have given it six months and after the six months do a review? But I guess wordless, sir. The way it is drafted, we could give it three months because Section 6066, subject to Subsection 2, this Act expires two years after its commencement. The Minister may, on the recommendation of the Chief Medical Officer, by order published in the Gazette, extend or shorten the expiry of this Act under Subsection 1. An order made under Subsection 2 is subject to an affirmative resolution of Parliament. So let me deal with the first part. So the two years, this is something that I didn't define. It's we deferred as we've done throughout, without fail. We have deferred to the advice of the CMO and her medical team. I have a great deal of respect for those individuals. So when the CMO indicated that WHO, CAFRA, and PAHO, they've all agreed that this is the time frame within which we are to deal with this disease, COVID-19, not measles, not chicken pox, COVID-19. This is where the two years came from. And we decided on a formula whereby if it is shortened, because we know about the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese, some other European countries are working towards this vaccine as well as the US. So within two months, we may well have the capacity to arrest this disease. So this is where the trigger comes in to, by way of order, publishing the gazette, shorten or, Lord forbid, we go beyond the two years. But here's the caveat. It must, excuse me, it must be, it is subject to an affirmative resolution of Parliament, which means that resolution has to be brought before Parliament. So the minister can't sit at her desk and make a phone call and say, Absolutely not. She, for the two years, she did not do anything. And at the end, at the two-year period, that will be the end of the act, the sunset clause. But if it is deemed necessary to shorten it or lengthen it, she cannot. In our case, it's a female minister, Minister Isaac, would not be able to do that without Parliament's intervention by what we call affirmative resolution. In the very beginning of the bill, the act, we have the creation of the Command Center. That has drawn some question as well. The makeup of the center, we have the CMO, a various representatives from the government there. Should there have been someone from the private sector, civil society, included in the Command Center? Should broaden. Okay. So you said the CMO, another government. Yes, so we do have the permanent secretaries from tourism, health, finance. This is where I'm going. Because persons need to appreciate first of all that the Command Center is not a new phenomena. Under the state of emergency, the competent authority, the prime minister, came up with the idea to have this Command Center. It's now codified, it's now been refined, it's now included in this piece of legislation. So what you have here is one, a chairperson who is appointed by cabinet. Number two. Why does that person not need be the minister for health? Well, if the minister for health is the competent authority for the act, within the act. That's a good question. But you have other stakeholders. Why not the minister of tourism? Why not the minister of finance? Why not the minister of equity? They all could put a legit to make keys to chair this Command Center. And we also have to be mindful that the ministry of health is represented here. We do have the commission of police. We have the National Emergency Management Organization. The Tourism Authority is there as well. The Principal Information Officer for the Government Information Service. And where the members shall be appointed by cabinet and terms and conditions determined. But there's also provision within the act here where it speaks to co-opting. Correct. I was about to get to that. I was about to get to that. Because you will notice in the formal composition that is in the Section 6.1, you do not see the Ministry of Equity. You do not see the Ministry of Education. You do not see the Attorney General. We're not here. But Section 7.3, and if I could read it, the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson of the Command Center may co-opt a person to attend the meeting of the Command Center at which it is proposed to deal with a particular matter to assist or advise the Command Center. So by invitation, you bring in the persons, similar to what happened with AG's chambers. There may not be a necessity for us to be at every meeting. But whenever the legal advice is required, we have a phone call away or we can be invited to come and advise, prepare an opinion. So whatever they need to get the work done, they have the power to, as the legislation says, co-opt that skill set. So this doesn't preclude them from calling in any other, whether it be the National Youth Council, taxi associations, and so forth. And we could look at the composition of NIMAC. NIMAC filled the conference center at the financial center. So you can't have a group of decision makers being such a large body. Anyone who has participated in these meetings, you need a core group of persons. And as per custom, you call in whomever else you need to assist in the decision-making process. So the Command Center in a center is really a sort of nucleus. And from there, then anything can mushroom, can branch out. Let's talk about immunity. We know that within the House of Assembly, we have the Senators, we have the MPs. In the House of Assembly, there is that privilege. And so they are afforded immunity for things that would have been said in the House. The legislation, the Act, gives the Chief Medical Office and the other public officers referred there in immunity. So is this the right interpretation of this section? That is Section 61. So Section 61, first of all, you said this is a false analogy, because the scope and application of what you call parliamentary privilege is quite different from what Section 61 provides. In terms of our frontline workers, our public servants, what we have here, Section 61, no action shall lie against the Chief Medical Officer, public officer, member of the Royal Central Police Force, in respect of an act done, or omitted to be done in good faith. So let's give you, and the parliamentary privilege rarely speaks to freedom of speech and the ability to conduct their affairs and what have you. This is a completely different scenario. And again, we are dealing with COVID-19. Let me give you an example in terms of how this immunity would work. And it's not a blanket immunity. The statutory purpose of this piece of legislation is clear. And probably I should have read it earlier, if you just permit me one second. The statutory purpose is the confines within which this act is supposed to operate. The statutory purpose means the preservation of the public health, that's in Section 2 of the Act, means the preservation of the public health, maintenance of public order, and the securing and regulating of the pricing, supply, and distribution of food, fuel, light, power, and other necessaries. So these are the four corners of this act. So anyone who is performing a duty under this COVID-19 act, it is necessary for them to have that level of immunity, which I will get to this a little later. But for our purposes, let's get into this example. You recall a case of, there was a false positive test on this individual who were traveled to St. Vincent. And this triggered a response by the team, the CMO and her team, in terms of how they dealt with the co-workers of the quarantining of the co-workers, etc., etc. Someone could have made a case that it was wrong of the CMO to have quarantined them. They were deprived of their liberty, etc., etc. Now that state of emergency, I'm talking about moving forward if a similar scenario occurs. What is the protection for those people? Are they now going to second-guess themselves when they get that information? Are they required now to sit and run a test three, four times before they move? Because by that time, we could talk about community spread of thousands. So we need to give them the protection to perform their duties and to do so quickly without having the prospect of of litigation to follow them. In fact, they would be sued as servants of the state anyway. So really and truly, they would be facing a deluge of cases where purses would be claiming compensation for accidents to them. And we need to have that sort of protection. This is not something which is going to be exercised in a capricious way. There are, as I just indicated, by the statutory purpose, the parameters in which they are supposed to work. Now this is not new to our solution context because the persons who have been advocating for the use of the Public Health Act would ought to have realized that this is a similar replication of what obtains in there. They need to only look at the, I had a section here, under the Public Health Act, right, section 19 of the Public Health Act. It says, in fact, it says a bit more, nothing done, directed or authorized by the Minister CMO or Medical Office of Health or any person acting under the authority of any of them shall, if such thing was done, directed or authorized in good faith for the purpose of executing any of the provisions of this act, subject such persons to any action, liability, claim or demand whatsoever. Section 61 says, an action or other proceeding shall not lie against the CMO. Public officer, a member of the Royal Central Police Force in respect of an act done or omitted to be done in good faith in the exercise of purported exercise of his health functions under this act. And I used a good faith, the example if you tie it in, you got this, this test, but you didn't know it was fault, it was, it was, it was, it ought to have been negative, but you got a positive test. Let's do the due diligence and pull these persons out, identify where the community spread is. You're acting in good faith. You need to protect those persons. We live in a very litigous society, we can't deny that. So we must give these persons a level of cover. So then I think the public wants to know what protects them then because, and I think too, but what is the most contentious aspect of that is to live with the Royal Central Police Force. So here's my response. If you look to section three of the act, the same COVID act, it says non application. Where this act conflicts with the public health act or other enactment, the exercise of a power conferred by this act isn't consistent with another act. This act shall not apply in so far as it conflicts with the power conferred under this act, shall not be exercised so as to limit or restrict the exercise of the public health act or other enactment. That means criminal code remains intact. All the other pieces of legislation, it does not create a situation where these other pieces of legislation become secondary to it. That was not the case under the state of emergency. So the issue of liability is specific. Liability speaks to civil matters. I think people need to make all the citizenry, we need to appreciate the difference. You have criminal prosecutions and you have civil liability. So if you are acting in good faith under this act, if you have to go and detain someone for community spread, some persons may not be compliant and you may have to use some level of justifiable force, etc. You have the cover under this act as it pertains to a lawsuit but that does not prevent the individual from acting as a virtual complainant and you've been charged criminally if it is found that you've made that threshold. So if someone has a sort of, well I say query would loosely, but certainly if they felt that they've been wronged by the police that their rights have been trampled, you can go to the criminal code in order for you to address that. And so this is not the end all and be all of that. But it gives, once you have acted, once these functionaries have acted in good faith, that's a standard. This is why I like this real-time actual example of the cases in Vincent. These persons acted in good faith, persons who it was mandated that they remain in quarantine for the 14 days, etc. So there are instances and there is good justification for the immunity. Excuse me. And further, we have precedent for it. This is not new to our body of law. As I said, you need only look at the Public Health Act. Those who are so minded could look at Section 19, which speaks clearly on exemption from liability. And to speak about this act not superseding any other laws, we had Section 62, which was withdrawn. Correct. Where it spoke to the publication of false statements. And so the thinking at the time of the withdrawal was that we have laws that sufficiently deal with this. Correct. And you remain steadfast in that thought that we need not have this cover in the act. Well, remember the spirit and you said so eloquently that it made sense to have its fall in one piece of legislation. So persons who understand that under COVID, you could cause mass hysteria. So it creates that responsibility of persons who have the means to disseminate information, whether it be on social media, whether it's the former media houses, etc. Verify that information. But was it only targeted at mainstream media media houses? In this dynamic age of social media, everyone is pretty much a walking media house. There you go. You recall during the early days, the panic which was caused when persons, there were some reports of deaths. And they were coming from senior persons who you expect, when I say senior persons, I'm talking about senior technocrats, etc., persons who you believe would have done their due diligence and determined the veracity of what the body was putting out. And these persons were acting very irresponsibly. We've had cases of persons who have fallen ill at home for ailments that have absolutely nothing to do with COVID. And they've been targeted in their community, they've been isolated, etc. So we've had, there was merit in doing it. But I had no issue with its removal in the final draft bill which was presented to, the bill which sorry which was presented to Parliament. Okay, but we still have monitoring, oversign over information that comes out of being able to control. And I encourage solution. Let's be very responsible about this. Because it's far-reaching. It is far-reaching. Let's talk about section 57. Now that deals with individual's medical information. That is another concern because people want to know what exactly is it that you're sharing about me with third parties. So what is, is what's been said correct that the private medical information can be disseminated without one's knowledge? And do they need to agree for that information to be shared? So section 57, again I reference my encouragement to persons to read the entire section. Because had they gone to subsection 2, subsection 57, subsection 2, where it says in terms of the transfer of information, it shall not apply if the person has given his or her consent to the transfer. So if I agree to it, that is fine. Number two, the transfer is necessary to safeguard public health and see the matter concerns public health. Let us use our example of the fincension. How would they have been able to trace where this individual worked? Who that person would have been able to be in contact with? The public health, the interests of the public health trumped that person's need for privacy. Because again, folks, we are dealing with COVID-19. It is silent. It does not discriminate. So as soon and you see we have the sharing of information between territories and there are safeguards. The safeguards are that the country or territory to which the health information is being transferred has comparable safeguards to those in signature for the protection of the rights and freedom of a person in relation to the processing of health information. And the CM has authorized the transfer of that health information to that person. So we have our internal measures to protect the identity of that person. Because it is never published. The identity is never published. For instance, you have, and in my conversations with persons in the medical field, that the AIDS, persons who have AIDS, then you have a code. So there's only be that is deciphered only by certain persons. So you will not have access to that person's name. COVID is different because you do not, AIDS will not be spread through contact, through person coughing. I mean, we know the manner, the various ways that we, that this COVID disease is spread. So it's imperative that we know the identity of that person for the purpose of tracking down who else that person has been in contact with. There is no other way to do it. So we need to know this is Jane and Jane, were you with Tom, were you, did you shake hands with Paula and that sort of thing. So we need the names to do the contact tracing, go into the community, go to the work establishments and find these individuals. And the controls is not, is within the ministry. The technocrats who have, are trained to deal with that sort of information. No one is going on the airways to broadcast someone's name. Could someone tell me where Jane Doe is? This is not what it's about. The, the patients, patient zero, the person who was afflicted and the persons who have in the circles, you're going out and you're finding out who had, who has been in contact with whom, so that they could try to arrest the spread of the disease. I want to talk about the electronic monitoring devices and I must say that I was quite pleased when I saw that in there, because I remember in the very beginning at the height of what our COVID crisis was, individuals were really clamoring for us to have a method to be able to track all these people who are going into quarantine and who's not complying and so forth. We spoke about whether we need apps and that sort of thing. So the electronic monitoring device, that's in part five section, beginning section 45. So that's new for us, but we know that it's being used in some countries, in the metropolitan countries, to monitor individuals and to assist contact tracing. But we have a contention here that some people have interpreted the legislation to meaning that the electronic monitoring devices are only for nationals, for residents, it doesn't apply to visitors. Is that the case? That is absolutely incorrect. And again, I'm poor persons, really act. I will, the acts will be published on the government website. I don't know if that has been uploaded as yet, but we are going to do those things so the public could download it and have a read. It's simple. And again, if you permit me, administration of the electronic monitoring device, that is section 45, subsection one, an electronic monitoring device shall be administered by the ministry for the purpose of monitoring. A, whether a person has during his or her quarantine left his or her home. Of course, you're talking about nationals, but right after it is B, whether a person who has during quarantine at a place approved by the CMO, left the place of accommodation. That is the facilities, the hotels. In fact, they have been reliably informed that the Airbnb sector, the informal sector, that in the tourism product are now considering opening and getting back into business. But clearly, B speaks to everyone because a place approved by the CMO, the chief medical officer, a place of accommodation includes the hotels and these are the places where the foreigners will be able to stay. And we'll be aware that before you come into St. Lucia, you need to show where you booked. So these persons are compliant. That's where the certification comes in. So we could do the monitoring, et cetera, et cetera. If you choose to spend a month in St. Lucia, we're more than happy to have you. But when you go out into public, you will have this ban or the bio sticker. So for those who wish to understand or get that definition, if you look to section 45, subsection 8, in this section, you have the bio sticker, which means an electronic monitoring device that is worn on the upper left chest to monitor the vital signs of a person. So this device, as I understand it, could relay critical information like your temperature, the hallmarks that the health officials are looking for to determine if someone is deteriorating, et cetera, as it pertains to possible COVID infection. And you have the electronic tracking wristwatch means an electronic monitoring device that is worn on the wrist to monitor the location of a person. So that is tied in with GPS. So that information is being monitored in St. Lucia or is this by a company stationed elsewhere? This information is being monitored in St. Lucia. It's not being monitored by the police. It is being monitored by the health officials. And if it needs to be, they will have to solicit the intervention or the intervention of more enforcement if a person is strayed, because you would have that person's number. Yes. You notice some contact number. They noticed an activity which conflicts with the condition. They would call a person. What's going on? Because the wrist would be able to tell you the wristband would tell you whether it's in the left there. There you go. Someone may reside on a farm and maybe a three, four acre farm. But I'm still in my yard really. And you can, by a simple phone call, determine this is nothing to be alarmed about. Or this person is outfitting and we need to bring this person in. And I think that when you speak to the accommodation, large properties, you have that additional layer of security guards. But with the Airbnbs, we don't have that. So this would work very well in being able to do the monitoring. Over in section 19, in that response plan, yes, where we speak to the COVID-19 response plan, the recommendations that are templates be developed for the entities to follow in order to formulate their own plans. Because I think this says that the individuals must formulate their plan and present as opposed to them being guided and developing a plan. Right. So this would assume that you could have a one size fit all sort of template. I don't think that is practical. You need to appreciate the need for tailoring the protocols to fit the establishment. For instance, a mom and pop supermarket shop, corner shop, will have a protocol that is peculiar to them. You will not have it for the bigger establishments. You will not have a bigger supermarket where it has a greater spacing. And even if there was even difficulty with the churches, where you have the smaller churches, you have, for instance, the cathedral. So you can't have a one size fit all template. I accept the suggestion that probably in another scenario, but we are dealing with creating a template. Again, remember we are dealing with COVID. But we do have the specific protocols and a tailored for specific sectors. Correct. But even then it still needs to be refined. That is why you have that the CMO will determine that this person is required to develop a plan for their particular establishment. You have the basic protocols, but before you get that certificate, you want to know what are you doing for your space, for your enterprise. And moving forward, we have two years within which to work with this. We can come up with a regulation. It need not be in the principal act because the protocols, it's dynamic. The same way, we in much the same way as during the state of emergency where there were changes in terms of right now, for instance, let us use the example of social events. We are now permitted to have social events of up to 500 persons. Right? That could change. So we could also, as we get a better understanding of the disease, the need of our people, then we could come up with the template. But it would be an awfully long template to cover just about every scenario. It makes sense to have you formulated, presented the CMO for approval. But it's something that can be considered, but not necessarily one that has to be reflected in this current act. But as has been the norm, no one has been left on their own. So they can't pick up the phone. They can ask for some guidance. And I think that has been from the very onset. Right? So with that with that, we want to go to section 27, where we speak about the compliance certificates. We have a number of businesses that have already opened up. Those who are in the process of obtaining compliance. In terms of the notice given on the revocation of such a certificate, is there sufficient time being given to a business where you may have to revoke that compliance certificate? Again, the issue of the COVID-19 compliance certificate, that is section 31. And it says that, before I answer, if I may, that that's two persons who have already been issued the certificate. It says that a COVID-19 compliance certificate issued prior to the commencement of this act is deemed to be issued under this act. So persons need not be worried about any compliance certificate, which was Julie issued during the state of emergency lapsing of being of no effect. They need not apply. Once it is current, they are fine. Correct. So it's like you've been grandfathered into this act. Now if you turn to section 34, so just a turn of the page from the issuance of the compliance certificate, that's section 31. If you go to section 34, which deals with the revocation of the compliance certificate, this is not something that will be done without proper consultation. Because the ministry responsible for tourism may or the advice of the CMO, the ministry, not the minister, responsible for tourism may on the advice of the CMO. So you have Ministry of Tourism, Ministry, sorry, Ministry of Health with the CMO. If they determine that they are for whatever reason, they decide that they want to revoke the certificate for accommodation and other businesses associated with tourism. All right. They must give the holder of the certificate notice in writing of the proposed revocation and his or her reasons for doing so. And the holder of the notice must state within 21 days they may make representation to the ministry responsible for tourism and why the certificate should not be revoked. So it is not automatic. So you have been cited really for being non-compliant. And you're given time to respond. 21 days. So you and again you once this is once this is triggered, the individual would have the ability to to approach the Ministry of Tourism and indicate what the case was, why they will be found wanting and they will be given an opportunity to address it. But also included in there because there will be persons who have determined or for whatever reason they will be able to be determined that their certificate ought to be revoked because this person has continued to break protocol. They are putting a state at risk. It takes all types. When that is done, we have a responsibility to ensure that the general public is notified of that revocation. And that is where section 34, subsection 4, the ministry responsible for tourism shall publish in the Gazette the revocation of the COVID-19 compliance certificate. That is what a responsible ministry would do. So it's not something that's because you would for instance it may be a restaurant. And you have a responsibility now to ensure that having they would proudly display their certificate. But if they found wanting, if there's a need to revoke that certificate, then equally the Ministry of Tourism will have the responsibility to publish the names of those persons or the entity which has been the subject of the revocation. That publication will be in the Gazette. So is the intent of this section to really further license establishments to put undue pressure on them, even by way of incurring more operational cost? Is that the intent of this section? Well, the intent of this section remains the protection of the citizenry. If you are providing a service to the general public, you have a response in the COVID-19 environment. We have to ensure that you have made the standards, that you have you ensure people who ensure that persons wear the mask, you have the stations by which they can wash their hands, you do not do the overcrowding, etc, etc. So that unfortunately is the cost of doing business in the COVID-19 world. There is no way around it. We spoke earlier about the powers of the minister there in the act. In section 11, the granting that the minister has the ability to requisition private property, we alluded to that earlier and even under the quarantine act, I believe it was, when you made mention of it. So the requisition of private property does, I mean, not respecting the rights of the property owners. What exactly are we looking to achieve under this section? So you have a fear and there's a legitimate concern because the Constitution protects you from the deprivation of property. And that notwithstanding, as I articulated earlier, there are instances where the Constitution will permit the state to pass law and consider it good law if that is to protect the citizen in a public health, public order, for instance. So remember, you recall my reference to the statutory purpose, the parameters, the boundaries within which this act is supposed to operate. Whatever is requisition has to be for that statutory purpose. And let's use an example. Let me think of an actual example. During the, at some point, one of our friends in the international scene was accused of intercepting PPEs, et cetera. Not to stunning the fact that, and this was happening to some nations within the Caribbean who had ordered for the protection of their people. So the individual, sorry, the country has a need. There's still a need for the PPE that they've paid for, et cetera. They don't have access to it. The decision can be taken. The CMO in acting consult with the, sorry, the Minister acting consult with the consultation with the CMO may determine the receiving information that a supplier of health supplies, we have a few of them in our enterprises, in our local scenario, our local case, may have a warehouse full of PPEs, right? Personal protective equipment, I think that's what it is. We may decide, we want to get hold of those to give to our frontline workers. This person may not have the ability. We have purchased it, unfortunately for them. They have a warehouse. They're planning to sell it through their normal channels, but we had a greater need, the public health. So having identified this warehouse, we would have gone in there, requisitioned it, taken the items, but as is prescribed by the constitution, after the requisition, the government shall make prompt and full compensation in the circumstances of, in the circumstances to the owner or occupier of the building, vessel, aircraft or article. And I'm reading from section 11 subsection 3. So you would not have a scenario where the government walks in, takes your product. This is not going to happen. Almost like, you know, the German days of Hitler, where you can just walk in, throw people out of their property and take it over. That's not going to happen, because we work within the statutory, the statutory purpose and for to just reiterate it, the statutory purpose means the preservation of the public health, maintenance of public order, and the securing and regulating of the pricing, supply and the distribution of food, water, fuel, light and power and other necessaries. So this act works within that boundary. So the intent, and I want to speak very clearly to the intent, I think that's important, that you would make that initial contact with the individual because civility. So you make contact with the individual, the owner, property, so far. And the conversation would be had. Does the individual need to agree? No, because it's being requisitioned for public purpose. What you have to do, in every case, this is, as you quite rightly said, this is not the days of Nazi Germany. We've identified it. In fact, this merchant may well be so minded because they're getting rid of all their stock and they will be receiving prompt and full compensation. This is for public purpose. This is for our frontline workers, as is in the case. If it is food, there will be a need to feed the people. And you may have a house stocked with certain staples that you want to get distributed out there. And this is an opportunity to thank those persons, if you recall, during the state of emergency, those enterprises, those companies who donated generously or cut down on their markup, they have been paid. Most of them have been settled, as far as I'm aware. But that notwithstanding, the state had that responsibility to public order, public health, et cetera. And so we do not necessarily have to, perhaps, completely take over property, but arrangements where they'd be leasing it for a period of time and things of that sort. So there is that latitude there for thing. What about businesses? Because in the United States, for example, we heard about the President being able to use some older law where you can have businesses cease their normal operation and begin to manufacture the products that they would need. Do we have discovered under perhaps the intent, under that whole requisition as well, when it comes to businesses, if we need to enter that conversation of any businesses, we need to change what they do in the situation? So here's what we did. The U.S. scenario comes with a tradition of manufacturing, they have the energy, et cetera, et cetera. You will observe that we gave concessions and we permitted certain companies who produce alcohol-based products to prepare and maybe give them the encouragement and incentivize the changing of the operations to produce some hand sanitizers, et cetera, et cetera. So from our, and it was all that was part of the consultation, we gave them the capacity to get in there and change their plant, keep persons employed, change their product. And you see quite a few local hand sanitizers, et cetera, being used. Let's move on to the suggestion that the Minister of Finance, we alluded to him earlier, having too much power in terms of the ability of the rules governing procurement. And I think that is also another concern, a sticking point. What are the powers of the minister, the ministers with respect to what they can do with the public course? So we go back to the statutory, turn to the statutory purpose as to what COVID demands of us. We also appreciate that similar to what has happened, even from the standpoint of legislation, that to protect life and limb, to provide for our people, there will be a need to waive the procurement rules, and by waive all the procurement rules, they mean by way of the tenders, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, because we need these products in real time. If we need some, this may not reflect what is happening in Sinusha right now, but Lord forbid, if we have a spike or the second wave as we're hearing across in Martinique and Guadalupe and Antigua and well, in Europe and the US and Canada, if this were to happen, then we need to give the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health the power to determine what products that we need, because again, these lists are not formulated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health sitting at the table as we do. The technocrats will determine based on the need. So the people on the ground with the knowledge. Exactly, they are the ones who make that determination, and here's the important part. The Minister responsible for finance shall every quarter lay a report before Parliament on A that is subsection 12, sorry, section 12, subsection 2. This deals with the power to waive procurement rules. It reads, the Minister responsible shall every quarter lay a report before Parliament on A, the total expenditure of the goods and services procured, B, the suppliers of the goods and services procured, and C, the reasons for the use of the suppliers of the goods and the providers of the services. In other words, why are you using Mr. A and not Mr. B? This is transparency. The taxpayer is the one going to be paying for this. So if you are going to waive the procurement rules, we need to know Mr. Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Madam Minister of Health, the total expenditure of the goods and services procured. Well, actually the report is to be presented by the Minister of Finance to Parliament and to indicate total expenditure. How much did you pay for the goods and services which you procured? B, the suppliers from whom did you acquire, procure rather the goods and services? And C, why did you choose this person, Mr. A, to supply the goods and the providers of the service? It is all above board and it has to be presented. It has to be laid before Parliament by the Minister of Finance every quarter. Now, we haven't had that. So is this retroactively applied? So thank you for the question again. And as per the State of Emergency, I could assure you that the Director of Finance, that is mandated under the State of Emergency under the Emergency Powers Act. I think it's six weeks after the expiration of the State of Emergency, after the revocation of the Proclamation of the State of Emergency which occurred on the 30th of September, six weeks, so the clock is ticking. And we will be having that information presented in Parliament. Why does it have to take the complete end? Because we've had the State of Emergency extended and we didn't have a report. Again, this is because of the nature of the State of Emergency and the fluidity within which things operate. The drafters of the Constitution and I think it was wise of them to wait till that thing is revoked, till the State of Emergency is revoked to bring in all your receipts and present this report. What did you do? This is your account. This is your financial account. When it was being extended, this was the politicians justifying and also informing the State for the reasons for doing X, Y, and Z. But now they are mandated by the Emergency Powers Act to give an account of what was spent. So in effect, we're closing that chapter as we now have the Act. So we'll simply settle everything under the State of Emergency then. And we've ensured that this feature appears in our Act. And so they are so guided by the Act and to act in accordance with the Act. What happens if we don't receive it? Well, they would be in breach of the Act. Is there a penalty attached to that? There isn't a penalty but good governance determines that this be done. Okay. You're giving oversight to that? Well, once I am in the chair, the rule of law will be followed. I give you that assurance. Is there a ceiling among the procurement? I know you were concerned about direct awards being given. So since the public wouldn't hear about it until after the fact, what guides the procurement process then? I know the need and so forth but in terms of ceiling amounts. So how do we, it begs the question then, how do you determine a ceiling amount when we are dealing in theory that this disease, we will be dealing with COVID for about two years. It can be extended. So you want to give that flexibility to the decision makers, ultimately director of, sorry, minister of finance, minister of health, to make a determination based on need. And you will see that they have commissioned, is it, sorry, in the requisitioning they speak of building vessel which I imagine to be a ship or aircraft. These things come at a significant cost. So it is drafted in such a way as to give that level of flexibility. Thankfully, this has not happened and there was no reason to resort to it under the state of emergency. But this has been permitted to be put in this act for the purpose of giving them that level of flexibility because something may happen at the spur of the moment and we may have to get that product from the other side of the world, the tender process, we militate against that quick response. But again, I wish to reiterate that there is that level of accountability and reporting. And good governance, good governance, good sense. Correct. And it is the, to use the example, it isn't simply the minister of finance, the minister of health making a decision. They are going to be guided by the technocrats. They know what the need is on the ground, how much rice do we need, how much sugar, whatever the staples are. No, we spoke about having the vessel, the aircraft. And I'm thinking that we may not need to go that far, but the provision is being made in the event, given the fluidity of the situation. So it doesn't mean that just because it's there, the minister can just wake up one morning and say, well, I see, you know, the MV Marabella, I want that. Correct. That is not going to happen. And you may requisition an aircraft, for instance, if you need to evacuate someone or some folks or as happens with even our COVID-19 testing, I am not too certain, but at some point it was being done in Trinidad. And we had to rely on, I believe it's one of the regional security agencies to assist us. RSS, that is a thank you very much to assist with it. So we may come, the time may come where we may have testing to do, we may have to get requisition, we go to the airport, so we need to use your plane to get these tests out to the country. And you will be compensated. Or even individuals, we had the case where people were stranded in countries and we couldn't get them out fast enough. Correct. Once we could bear that cost, that is an option available. But again, the parameters of COVID-19, this is not someone going on a joy ride. You must tie whatever action that is taken to the suppression of antithesis. Correct. So as we wind it down in our conversation, let's look at some of the events and the periphery. We had the Senate. There's some interesting developments there. We had the opposition Senators feeling to show the two consecutive days, two independent Senators reporting ill unable to be there. We also had the case of the government having a new Senator in the person of Feropolios being sworn in. So the Senate was unable to sit Thursday. That's the first of October as there was no quorum. And the following day, the Friday, the second we saw that the Governor General appointed two temporary Senators in the persons of Marcella Johnson and Jacinta Lee. So they were able to come in to get the business of the government to proceed. Was there anything unconstitutional or the word bandit about illegal about this process? We had the scenario occurred. This took, I believe most, I will not say everyone by surprise. So as I understood it to have happened, on the first at that sit, when they tried to convene Senate, the President would have realized that she fell short of the quorum because you had no one from the side opposite and you had the excuse from the independent Senators. Your quorum consists of six Senators plus the presiding, the President, that's by order, order eight of the Standing Orders of the Senate. So there was no, there was no, there was no sitting. The, the business of the day, nothing was conducted. So the, the, my understanding that before you go on, A.G., the thinking is that once the President came to the Chamber, sat and addressed the Chamber that the Senate was in session. That is, that is not my understanding of, of the chain of events because first of all, the business of the day would have to be established, sorry, the quorum would have to be established before they go into the business of the day. And it's- So what she did was simply announce that there was no quorum. That is all she announced. That is correct, correct. Now, there's a, there's a bit of a mix up in the sense that you, those who follow the parliamentary procedure and such, I would notice that on occasion, the Sergeant of Arms would be asked by if it's the Speaker or the President, we do not have a quorum, please summon the other members and he would duly leave the Chamber and try to get, summon the members to come up to the Chamber. If after five minutes, he's the unable to get that quorum, then the next step would be to adjourn it to another day. This is where the seven days would come into play. But even then, it has, she has a discretion. That is the President of the Senate to sharpen it. So it's not even written in stone that it has to be seven days unless the President otherwise directs. That's order number eight, subsection three. So when the order to summon the senators has been given in the Senate, the President shall after the expiration of five minutes count the Senate. If a quorum is not then present, he shall adjourn the Senate without question put. The adjournment shall be for seven days unless the President otherwise directs. So it envisages a situation where or into the basis of the day, you are, she either in our case, majority identity is able to determine that we do not have a quorum or it is brought to attention Madam President, we don't have a quorum to reestablish the quorum. That is when this kicks in. This is not how it happened on that day. So this is a completely different scenario. That is right. However, we go into the next step of the appointment of the senators, other independent senators to constitute that quorum. That's the following day. And when you look at the order of business, it starts with prayers and then you move into the next section which speaks to appointment of new senators because the standing orders anticipates that there will be a scenario, there will be an occasion where you may have to populate the Senate with new senators. The appointment is made by the Governor General. Let's not lose sight of that. The Governor General makes the appointment and the oath is taken in the chamber. That is what is taken. There is no need to vote for the new temporary appointees in the Senate. So you simply go in here, prayers, you go into the appointment of new senators, then you go into the announcement, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And the business of the day? The business of the day. And the other principles that operate and cater for these scenarios, doctrine of necessity, et cetera. But there was nothing irregular. This is something that I had considered and I have been able to since establish that there is nothing irregular about that. The alternatives would be let's deal with a scenario where for whatever reason you have the majority of your senators being incapacitated. Does it mean that absolutely no business is done? Surely that cannot be what is envisaged. And we have taken a simple literal interpretation. You read the standing orders for the Senate. It is clear what the procedure is. Have your prayers. You take the oath of the new senators and oath for affirmation. And then you move on to oath of allegiance of new senators and then you move on to the the business of the day, announcements, et cetera, et cetera. So the maneuver to appoint the temporary senators, because the constitution that speaks to that, that the governor general can and then of course these individuals temporary. So once the substantive holders, the substantive senators are well enough and they've indicated that they well enough, these temporary senators will cease to exist as members of the Senate. In fact, the tenure was for that one sitting. Just for that one sitting. Okay. Now, and if needs were to be then another process would have to ensue. Correct. But I wish them well. I am not sitting what they are afflicted with, but from my information, I'm told that they were unwell. That being the case, what would have been the harm in waiting until they were well? Hmm. I like the use of the word harm because we would have been thoroughly exposed as a nation. And that, that was for me the nightmare scenario because it would have meant between, in fact, some, some was suggesting that we could have put Senate for next week, Thursday, which is tomorrow. So between, uh, was it last week, first day, which was the first to now we would have nothing in place because, and I encourage anyone to put to can they handle any of the, the, the, the sizes, the statutory instruments during the COVID period, it will state expiry. It's tied to the state of emergency. So when that state of emergency ended on the 30th, we have nothing. We had nothing. And between the 30th and now we have one person. Yes, we have one new case. Correct. So let's, let's delay the scenario. Would we be able to advance or impose any protocol on, on that individual? The answer is no. Like shifting the person from the quarantine, you must get into the respiratory hospital. You must get the insurance so and so done. And that's someone who came in via airplane. That, that is my information. I actually haven't read the press release, but my information is that this person is a local returning national and So the contact tracing, the contact tracing number would have been affected if we had nothing. Correct. That person would have been out in the general public back in the community. And it would literally be what I, what I just said earlier, the, the nightmare scenario. But this is my interpretation of the law during this period is independent of that. If we couldn't do it, then that would have been my advice. But I was satisfied from the moment the scenario occurred in the Senate as to the way forward. And it is independent of the need. It was in the nightmare scenario. It continues to be my nightmare scenario because once we get put, take our foot off that, that gas pedal, once we, if we were to stop implementing those protocols, we would all be vulnerable. You made a comment earlier about the instructions given, you know, where the bill that the act is concerned. But hearing you now what you've just said, I'm getting the impression that you are more heavily involved than the public would know. And when it comes to COVID-19 and the legislation and guiding how we go along. So this isn't a case where you were being dictated to by the executive as to what the executive wanted to see done. And you must do that to the letter or else. Listen, I smile because I'm sitting, my cabinet colleagues are also smiling because this is not how I operate. And in fact, my, my tagline is that I engineer my, I do not engineer my legal advice to any scenario. The law speaks for itself. And I hope whether when, when I prepare an opinion and I advise cabinet that it can be defended even when I'm not there, I'm not present to defend it. So I'm guided by the law by the rule of the law. And I refuse to deviate from that. I believe I will be doing the country of the service, my professional service and the service to myself as a professional. This is, this is not how I operate. I endeavor at every juncture to give the best legal advice that I can. It is not done in a vacuum. There are persons, we have a very capable team at the Attorney General's chambers. There are other persons who we consult when the need arises. But at the end of the day, when it's about quality in terms of the type of advice that is given. And there are scenarios, for instance, with what occurred in the Senate where you may not have the opportunity to consult with persons far and wide. But at the time, we were able to marshal our resources and make the best decision and give the best advice that we possibly could in this scenario. As we have our one minute wrap up there, let me just ask you. So the act is there. It's already enacted, the bill enacted. Not that it has passed. Can it still be amended? It certainly can. And you know, in all the drama of the day, persons have forgotten that there was another piece of legislation that we were dealing with with regard to the Companies Act. Most persons have forgotten that. But there was this act which dealt with the times of operation for the registry of companies. It was dealt with there. We dealt with legislation under the CIP Act, the Economic Fund, where we had to put a proper framework for the administration. To act with that money for COVID. There you go. So again, COVID may well require us to revisit certain aspects of this act. But as it pertains to the rights of solutions, the protection of the rights of solutions, we have ensured that it's done. But also of great importance is the protection of the health of the Santé of solutions. That is very, very important. And we've tried by this piece of legislation to capture what is needed and what we have been advised to do by the technocrats, by the other stakeholders who, all of everyone who has some input and some stake in making sure that we stay safe and that not just standing, we stay, we remain safe, etc. That we are able to maintain some level of economic activity. We need to, once we are trying to protect the health aspect, so we can have individuals can contact the chambers for the concerns that they may have, queries, suggestions, because didn't you say amendment is impossible? So here's the process and I have always been hesitant to do so because it's not just the bureaucracy, but you must have some levels of reporting and the development of policy, etc. This is one of the reasons we have come up with the command center. So you have the various ministries in there. They are able to go out, they have a, they have greater capacity to go in to the communities, to go into the various sectors and get the information, which will trigger the various amendments. So let's say tourism, you have the permanent secretary of the ministry of tourism who's there. So the stakeholders in that sector would go to her. They understand the language, they understand the need of that sector and once it's properly consummated, the instructions would come to us. And then the determination would be made. There you go. On that. So Agi, final question for St. Lucia. This seems to be that we are leading the charge. Do you see that St. Lucia will be looked at by the rest of the Caribbean, even far as the wider world, as being a leader where this legislation is concerned? Well, my focus really is on our need because each country has their own legislative agenda, their legislation and peculiar circumstances. But we stand ready, as I articulated earlier, to assist wherever needed in terms of advice, because we find it similar to our rules of procedure for the civil courts and what have you, especially in the OACS. We're trying to sort of codify some of the laws, have a similar legislation throughout that space, etc. So there is that synergy with the other countries and we open, we're more than open to assist if the need arises. We're also open to learn from them. So the focus really is getting a product, getting that piece of legislation that satisfies the need for St. Lucia, the peculiar circumstances that COVID has brought to St. Lucia. And I'd be quite satisfied if we are able to accomplish that. And I urge persons to familiarize themselves with that piece of legislation and to not lose sight. When I drive around my commute to and from work, it appears to me that it's business as usual. It's out of the consciousness of the individual. So I would then propose to take a second look at this thing, see what's happening, not to farm Martinique is, I think, 25 miles away, less than an hour by Pirog. We are still very vulnerable and whatever gains that we have made can evaporate in a week, even less. So I urge ultra vigilance and hope for the best, that's the best case scenario. Well, Eiji, let me say thank you so much. Your conversation has been a very comprehensive one. I just want to reiterate that all St. Lucia should familiarize themselves. We know we will be having the act uploaded to the government website and so that should give you easy access for you to be able to get on there online and read. We've been speaking with the Attorney General, he's Hon. Stephen Julian, and we've been discussing the COVID-19 Prevention and Control Bill, which is now an act. And we do hope that you have found the discussion very enlightening. All left for me to say is to thank you very much to the staff here at the official residence of the Prime Minister for accommodating this interview. Our studios are otherwise unable to be accessed. I am Lisa Joseph. Thank you so much for watching.