 It wasn't really my intention, Mr. Speaker, to delve in any kind of detail or even superficially into the appointment of the deputy speaker, but certainly a hope, Mr. Speaker, given that the member from Kastri South has opened up the box, the Pandora's box, you will allow me to respond in some kind of detail, Mr. Speaker. The member, oh, all of a sudden there's a motion. When you went on your journey. Member, when a member responds to what you see, why he responded, there's only one chair, and then you're going to see your time is up. Thank you very much for your advice, Mr. Speaker. Always very much appreciated. So, Mr. Speaker, on the situation with the deputy speaker, and members want to, how did we arrive at this position? Members on the opposite side, Mr. Speaker, when they were in opposition for five years made an allegation that there was a breach in the constitution of, because of their own interpretation of the act, and many people around this table share that interpretation, and that's their privilege. We all can interpret things of the constitution. Constitution is not necessarily, Mr. Speaker, always a very easy document to understand. The document, the constitution, was very clear about the deputy speaker. It always envisaged, always, that the deputy speaker would come from a member who is in the house. That means a member, a member of parliament ought to be, had to be, the deputy speaker. Always. And the constitution also makes a very clear clarification between government and opposition. That's why there's a government and there's an opposition. And when it speaks to the house, it speaks of the collective assembly of our parliament, meaning both the opposition as well as the government. And in the constitution, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that when the house first meets, Mr. Speaker, when it first meets, Mr. Speaker, there has to be the first, the election of a speaker, and the speaker may come from either among the members of the house or a person who comes from outside the house, it could be elected. That's the first order of business. The second order of the business of the house, Mr. Speaker, is that we must have a deputy speaker elected in order for the house to proceed. It is also very clear, Mr. Speaker, at any point for whatever circumstances that a speaker vacates the position of the speaker of the house. The house must have a speaker before it reconveals. It must, cannot proceed without that. In the case of the deputy speaker, Mr. Speaker, what it says is that the house, excuse me, what it said before the amendment, before the amendment, Mr. Speaker, what it said was is that the house must elect a member from the house who does not hold the position either of a minister nor of a parliament secretary at its earliest convenience. It doesn't say that the house needs to proceed or needs a speaker, a deputy speaker to proceed. Now, that is a member for Microsoft. With all due respect, you sought the latitude of the chair to respond to what the member for Cassree South said. At no point in time in the Cassree South MP's presentation did he proceed along the lines that you are going down. What he spoke about was your anticipation of what would happen today. So I am always a student for learning. So as much as I appreciate your lecture on the Constitution, the member for Cassree South never ventured down that path. So if you are going to seek my latitude, please respond to what he said. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. But I am getting to his question because he did say that we were surprised or not to have been surprised by the appointment of a member from the house and that our anticipation that somebody was going to come from outside the house, Mr. Speaker. I was giving the background to how we got there. So the fact is, Mr. Speaker, and let me hurry it up for everyone, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that after five years of crying rather than taking it to the court, the government, when it came in, decided to fulfill a campaign promise, Mr. Speaker, and that it was going to amend the Constitution. And there were supposed to be two amendments to the Constitution, Mr. Speaker. One amendment, Mr. Speaker, was supposed to be that we must have a deputy speaker in the house. So it cannot be at its earliest convenience anymore. And that section of the Constitution was amended to say that if a deputy speaker resigned, we must immediately or no later than the next house sitting elect a new deputy speaker. And that's fine. The problem, though, was the second amendment they were supposed to make, Mr. Speaker, was to say that the deputy speaker must come from the government side. Okay? But you see, they didn't do that, Mr. Speaker. Although that's what they had been advocating all along. Instead, what did they do? They said that the deputy speaker can come from either within the house, one of its members who was not a cabinet member or parliamentary secretary, or somebody from outside. How can members on the opposite side want to sit here for any moment and convince anyone in St. Lucia that there was never a contemplation on their side of possibly bringing in a deputy speaker from outside the house? Member, I can't allow you to prolong that. The Prime Minister made it abundantly clear up to this morning. He never said members of his side contemplated or did not contemplate. What he said was clear and unambiguous that he never made a statement that the deputy speaker would come from outside the house. That is what the Prime Minister said. So you are now bringing a new element about whether the government contemplated bring a deputy speaker. Clearly, if an amendment is made where it allows for a deputy speaker from outside, it does mean that the government would contemplate at some point in time. But today, the Prime Minister made it, if I may borrow a phrase from the late Forbes Brunham, plusically clear that he never said, not that he never contemplated, but he never said that he intended to bring a deputy speaker from outside. So you have made your point, I think you can move on. Thank you very much, the Speaker. But it is important to say that they created the option of either having the person appointed. And there were several press conferences and public pronouncements by the government and the Prime Minister included in which many people would have interpreted that the intention was to bring somebody from another. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there was even rumors as to who those persons would be. But I move on, Mr. Speaker. The fact, Mr. Speaker, the fact is, Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the opposition, I had to take it my job very seriously. And to remind the government that even though they may have made that amendment to that section, Mr. Speaker, that it's still required for section 30 to be amended, because it's interesting, you know, Mr. Speaker, the framers of the Constitution give the latitude, the latitude, Mr. Speaker, for Parliament to amend the Constitution by themselves. But they are special sections within the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, in which the framers of the Constitution make it very clear that the parliamentarians by themselves, even with a two-thirds majority, cannot make those amendments by themselves. It must include the approval of the people which is through a referendum. And so, Mr. Speaker, next week we are about to approve what should be something very simple, which is the estimates. And in proving the estimates, a lot of people may not have realized that. Their estimates are not approved at the end of the debate. Their estimates are approved once they are laid in the House. And it is required, Mr. Speaker, a very important part of our constitutional process, that in order for the government to pay salaries on April 1st, in order for government to pay debt or to pay any of the operating costs, the estimates must be approved before March 31st. If they are not, then we would be in the breach of the Financial Act. And if, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the government had taken up its option of which it had alluded to and come to the House and attempted to have approved a deputy speaker from outside the House, it would have been our responsibility to have pointed out the illegality of that process. So, Mr. Speaker, the members from the opposition are, in fact, very pleased and happy to see that the government decided not to put the Constitution to test and have not decided to place our finances of this country in a quagmire and have done the reasonable thing of choosing and who you wanted to choose on your side as long as they were not a minister or not a parliamentary sector, we can proceed. So, Mr. Speaker, I move on now to the tourism thing. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am extremely pleased by not only the member from Cass tree south in his recent pronouncements, but also for the majority of the members on the opposite side of the government side of their new discovery of the importance of tourism. And I welcome, honestly, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the fact now that we don't have to get into this nonsensical debate about tourism and racism, subservience, et cetera, that we have to now start understanding the importance of foreign direct investment, Mr. Speaker, and that we're not going to demonize tourism. We're not going to demonize foreign direct investment. And in fact, we are now going to be able to create an environment to support the growth of tourism. And the fact is, is that the difference between the two political parties at this point on tourism, Mr. Speaker, is how to do that, but not anymore, whether we should do that. Because it has been very questionable by the actions and the policies and the statements made publicly by some of the members of government as to whether they really, truly genuinely appreciate. I mean, even the member from castries east in his pronouncement that all of a sudden he now didn't know that understand tourism and he now understands the importance of tourism. I don't criticize him for that. I welcome that we finally have gotten to that threshold where both sides now can agree. So Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden now sandals and all inclusive and whether it's negative against the country. I see now there's a new love affair and a new embracing of sandals as to how great they are and the contribution that not only making in San Lucia but throughout the region. So I say to the members on the opposite side, thank you finally that you've reached up to us and we can now celebrate Butte Stewart, a great individual who we should all be very proud of as a West Indian man as to building a brand in the Caribbean that is globally competitive and the thousands of jobs and the millions of millions of dollars that he's invested into this region. I am glad now that the members on the opposite side have embraced that. I am so happy Mr. Speaker and even more happy for the people at Cabot that the members on the opposite side now have recognized that this is a world-class investment and this is going to make a significant economic contribution to the country and have understood that it's not just about a hotel. It's not just about a golf course, but it's about real estate development and the jobs that are going to be generated and preparing our workforce to be able to not only take up those jobs but to do them at a world-class level because the Cabot, Mr. Speaker, has been ranked number 75 in the world already and projections are that it will make it into the top 20. I want to remind us in this house, Mr. Speaker, only one other golf course in the entire Caribbean has made it into the 100 rank and that is in the Dominican Republic and it was ranked number 74 this year. Cabot is one behind it in its first year and I'm just so glad to see members going to Cabot participating in the opening and finally, Mr. Speaker, publicly embracing Cabot and the investors of Cabot. That is a good sign, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see the embracing of Merritt Courtyard because I know that there was a hesitation on some of the members on the opposite side whether we should be putting a hotel near Point Serif in. I am so happy and you all are welcome that when you all came in that the project had already been signed financing negotiating and work had already begun. I am so happy, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have to be in a point of contention anymore as to whether that was a good investment or not. That was good. That was started by us. We celebrate the fact that you've now embraced it and you're continuing it. Mr. Speaker, I'm so sorry that my friend from member of Castry Central is not here. He has repeatedly and I believe I didn't hear him today but I'm pretty sure it's one of his top 10 list of things he loves to talk about. Is the acquisition of the land at Mont Piedmont, Mr. Speaker. Both the land was acquired at Mont Piedmont as well as the land at shock and I dare say the land that Galaxy is being built on was also acquired back after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, Mr. Speaker. So guess what? When we came into government we found out that both shock and Mont Piedmont were still in receivership and we knew that even if we identified an investor there were plenty of hurdles that would have to be overcome. So the government acquired the lands for $11 million through Invest in Lucia. So Invest in Lucia purchased the lands from the receiver in the UK and got terms for the financing. The land at shock was sold for I think is just either under or above $6 million and then the lands recently, based on what I've seen in public announcements with Mont Piedmont was sold for $15 million. So that means that the two properties that were owned by Invest in Lucia that were acquired by our government for $11 million was actually now sold for $21 million. That means Invest in Lucia when it gets paid would have actually made a profit of $11 million but more importantly, because Invest owned it Invest had the ability of being able to control the narrative of those investors in terms of what they're going to be. So I am happy, I am happy that my government was able to do that. I'm even happier now that there is no argument by members on the opposite side as to how brilliant of a decision that was and to embrace that as a positive move and to grow on that. Mr. Speaker Galaxy, again Galaxy was sold the land under the CIP program and Galaxy is building three hotels in that location and I'm so happy to see that members on the opposite side traveling to Dubai, getting them to sponsor all kinds of things and how abrasive they are to that project and how encouraging the news is of the progress of that particular project and to see that the members on the other side finally now believe in that project because initially there was a lot of doom and gloom but I am so happy Mr. Speaker to hear members on the opposite especially the CIP program encouraged by what's taking place there and the development is taking place in the south and the impact it's going to have. Sabasha, Mr. Speaker, again I'm happy to hear when the government came in that they continued and even though there was some misunderstandings in the initial part and I understand that thinking that the Bulgarians that are Sabasha were the Bulgarians that they left there to now find out that they're two separate companies and again I want to be able to thank the Bulgarians that are doing Merit Courtyard that when they realized the difficulties they were having with that project they found a new investor and I'm very grateful that the government has continued to do the work these things take time I know you're getting the road fixed up and I know the displacement of some of the residents there is being worked on I want to congratulate you but it's because of your new understanding of tourism and the impact it's going to have on solutions that I see this new renewed effort on your part to make these things happen I am very happy Mr. Speaker I hope now that members on the opposite side would have realized when they went to Koknit Bay that there's two hotels at Koknit Bay there's the old Koknit Bay and there's Serenity and the impact of a high-end property in Koknit Bay and in terms of the employment it's generated and the economic activity it's generated and again I'm hoping I'm pretty sure I know they will because of their renewed understanding of tourism that when the expansion plans come to expand both Serenity and even Koknit Bay that I know that members on the opposite side will embrace that and facilitate it so they can happen as quickly as possible Mr. Speaker Village Tourism Despite again the members wanting to change the name that's come in common place with the members on the opposite side I want to encourage them to really understand the detail behind the Village Tourism if we are going to have more solutions and that's what we want we want to see the expansion of tourism Mr. Speaker that more solutions are given that opportunity and it's very difficult when you have a small property Mr. Speaker to make the infrastructural investments by yourself I mean I went through that personally with Coco Creole which was originally 12 rooms it is virtually impossible to make a decent return on that size property this is why it was hurtful Mr. Speaker you have to be honest with me when members on the opposite side wanted to play and let me restrain from using that adjective play cheap politics in the sense that roads you can't eat roads the roads up to your area in Saltables how many people and we know that my business at our homes do Airbnb and who are now so grateful for the fact that it makes it easier to be able to sell those properties roads in Grozellet Casamba all of a sudden well I wish at Boston Hills it's a story for you I'll be happy to touch it but again the roads are no longer just about making it comfortable for us to drive it's open up more opportunities and that's again Mr. Speaker there's two aspects to village tourism that I have said and I want to be able to reiterate Mr. Speaker one is to be an incubator to be able to provide small hotels or restaurants to software to interior decoration to financial support and also to make it even better for the banks Mr. Speaker that when the banks now are lending money to these small businesses the banks know that there's somebody they can go to because there's somebody holding that that investors hand and many of our banks Mr. Speaker despite the fact that tourism is such a big part of our economy they themselves have lacked the appropriate skills Mr. Speaker to assess tourism properly and to be able to provide that support so village tourism was to be an incubator to help people who want to get into the industry whether it's by way of an attraction whether it's by way of an Airbnb whether it's by way of having a small room whether it's by having a restaurant whether it's by having an art shop and a gift shop but facilitating them through an incubator with all the professional skills that they would need the second component of village tourism which is very important is the infrastructure so when you go down to an ancillary or you go down to a canry or you go to a souffre that all of the villas and Airbnbs that are on the exterior the reception of the hotel becomes the village that there's restaurants shops and activity that they can participate in that is what generates the character that is what's going to differentiate St. Lucia by authentic tourism the big hotels play their important part Mr. Speaker of volume and that is necessary but it's going to be impossible for solutions themselves to build a sandals to build a St. James hotel I'm hoping that one day it will not be impossible but for now there are not many solutions who have the financial or where with it all to build a hotel of that size so in the meanwhile what are we going to do to help them get into the industry that conceptually this idea of this fund is a very good thing again when I go back to the act that was passed and the absence of the regulations the teeth of the matter the details of the matter there's one thing that is in this proposal that concerns me a little bit who is going to determine what the excess amount of money from the levee is going to be because it was really my understanding Mr. Speaker that when we put the levee together the levee was to be used for marketing why? because the hotels are already paying taxes at the airport the customer comes in they pay $98 all of the electricity cost and even when they're bringing in food and they're bringing in their operating materials they pay duties on that that's not duty free the hotels in the tourism sector are already paying a significant amount of money to the taxes and the purpose of this was really to put the money in and having it related to the performance what do I mean by that Mr. Speaker I'm hoping in their new exuberance of tourism that members on the opposite side will also appreciate that marketing is not a cost marketing is an investment and the investment that you make with marketing and branding is what drives value if you take a 3 star hotel in solution it's probably going to get an average of $120 to $150 rate per night that same hotel in Barbados gets $200 or something that same hotel in Cayman gets over $600 a night and that is what the branding of the destination it is the marketing of the destination that creates now added value and that added value is very important because the operating cost and solution are so high so Mr. Speaker I would just like to say to the government my little advice if in fact you're going to use this where you're going to make a discretion a discretionary decision as to how much the levy is going to be and how much of that percentage that levy is going to remain in the fund the marketing fund is it called the tourism authority who is going to make that decision this does not say that it only says it's possible but nowhere does it describe what the overflow is I can only assume it is an excess amount that you determine because it's for the government or the ministry of tourism to determine how much the levy is going to be in the first place the same persons that are going to say well three quarters of the levy is going to remain in the tourism authority and one third is going to go into this and I would hope to think that that's not the case it has always been the belief that the extra revenue we're generating in tourism the monies that we're going to get from donor countries etc that that money would be used to help improve the infrastructure of tourism not at the expense of marketing Mr. Speaker we are now having a better conversation because we no longer have to have a discussion as to whether tourism is a good thing we now know that we're now getting into the details and I'm going to say it to all of us it is important that we understand the marketing and branding in differentiating our product to drive the airlift and to drive the rates because with a proper brand people are willing to pay more and that more is absolutely necessary because the cost of electricity is too high here and as the prime minister said the member from castries E said hard to control that I'm importing that cost of bringing containers in expensive local transportation is high we don't have the economies of scale so the discussion that has to take place Mr. Speaker very important is a plan for tourism where are we going how many rooms do we want and is that scientifically worked out in terms of our own competitiveness because it becomes back to our competitiveness what are we doing to train our workers what are we doing to train our service providers to go into the sectors of tourism that we want because tourism is not one thing in itself there's romance there's family, there's business there's all kinds of tourism products we don't have different needs so Mr. Speaker let me reiterate my position again I am very happy and we should all be that both political parties now are going to embrace tourism both political parties now are going to talk no longer about demonizing foreign direct investors no longer demonizing and being racist with the type of tourists that come to Sadusha but more importantly this nonsensical argument that this rhetorical question that is asked all the time how many rooms did you build so again sandals cabot Marriott Courtyard Monk Pleasant Monk Pied Maussary and Shock Galaxy Sadusha Serenity just to name a few that we were involved in in the last administration oh la it's amazing to me how bold which one ok great congratulations end of the day we need all hands on deck so I'm hoping that the members on the opposite side will continue with their new discovery of tourism and stop politicizing it and realize that we all need to be on the same page the differences will come in terms of branding the differences may come in the number of rooms ok but the fact is let us agree that we have to move the needle forward and stop trying to make cheap political points at the expense of an industry that the member from castry south now has admitted that it's resilient it's withstood the test of times it helps distribute income to all kinds there are a whole bunch of people now that depend on tourism and that can continue but I'm so happy well you know Mr. Speaker I'm not even going to get into that Mr. Speaker I've made my point Mr. Speaker I thank you again for your opportunity for me to expand on the deputy speaker issue Mr. Speaker and I look forward to this new relationship that we both political parties have as it pertains to tourism and I look forward that we can work in collusion to make sure that Saint Lucia is the best destination in the world and that the most number of solutions are benefitting from it and that we can earn a satisfactory income to propel our country forward I thank you Mr. Speaker let me sell for you