 Honourable Members, let me first apologise for the delay in recommencing resuming. When the House last rose, the Honourable Member for Kastri's south was in the middle of his presentation on motion number three. Please proceed Honourable Member. Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, before I continue, I just need to understand your interpretation of the skin maze is that the opposition is required to make copies of documents as well as ministers because I thought when this matter was first came up and you distributed a photocopy of a skin maze, what it suggested was that the opposition is not obliged to make copies but ministers of government are obliged, are you saying the interpretation is that both sides are required to make copies? For the benefit of the newer members of parliament, the Madam Clerk informs me that this is a matter that has been almost exhausted. We had all the members will recall there was a situation where there was a session, a parliamentary session and Ms Jackie Simpson from the Parliament of Trindade and Tobago was here and spoke at length regarding that. It appears that the practice in St. Lucia regarding making documents, documents of the House, we have been from quite for quite a while now, I'm talking about successive legislatures and sessions, parliament have adopted the wrong practice. It is one of the things that I do intend to address but members before we can withdraw that which members are accustomed to, before we can withdraw it, I need to give members a chance to understand it. So we need to go over the procedure. What I want members to understand is when they are making reference to documents, whether it's citation because members have used that term loosely as making documents, documents of the House which ought not to be and for no fault of some members, it has been used for so long and loosely and in the wrong manner that I think I owe members, I owe it to members, honourable members the time to explain to you privately how we ought to proceed and give you the reasonings and the authority as to how it's supposed to be done properly. Until such time we have to continue the practice of what members know so that members are not affected, negatively affected by it. So what I ask is that members whenever they are citing documents to make copies available so everybody have sight of the documents that they are reading from and it applies to both sides of the chamber. Is that understood honourable member? Yes, Madam Speaker, let's proceed. Honourable members, even if you speak above the noise which is quite disturbing, chances are the recording is disrupted so we need it for Hansard and we need the issue rectified. So can we call the technicians to see what is going on please? Something is obviously wrong. So Madam Speaker, when we broke, I was making the point Madam Speaker that just before the last January elections in the critic of the CIP Madam Speaker, the member for Miku South and now Prime Minister went to great lengths in the media locally, regionally and internationally criticizing the CIP. He made a number of specific criticisms and I recall three of them Madam Speaker that money is made must go to the people of St. Lucia that the board must be reconstituted and Madam Speaker, he had a problem with diplomatic passports and appointment work and Madam Speaker, I took you on the honourable house through the appointments of a number of persons, our Ambassador, Permanent Representative to UNESCO, Ambassador Steven Siegel, I made mention Madam Speaker of the appointment of the attempted appointment of two persons today I know Madam Speaker and I was at the point Madam Speaker where I was seeing during my tenure as High Commissioner a gentleman came to me indicating that he had been appointed and given permission to open separate offices in London with full diplomatic status to secure business appoint opportunities and Madam Speaker, he shared with me his letters of appointments Madam Speaker, so I want to read from them Madam Speaker, so I have to circulate it before I read from it so you the speaker of the house now do I wait until you receive it and you read it before I continue Madam Speaker, you can give out all of them so Madam Speaker, I had referred earlier so let me just repeat was it's been circulated appointment of Ambassador Steven Siegel how many solutions knew that this famous Hollywood actor while he was starring in many movies was in fact Ambassador Siegel he was an Ambassador of St. Lucia and he had a diplomatic passport and Madam Speaker I was at pigeon point when he actually performed at jazz I never knew he was such an acclaimed jazz musician Madam Speaker and I wonder who had made those arrangements how did he come to be Ambassador Siegel how did he come to perform at jazz Madam Speaker how did he come to have a diplomatic passport from St. Lucia but Madam Speaker I will never accuse anyone of having been paid for such a fever granted to the individual Madam Speaker I would never do so Madam Speaker I made mention of our permanent rep to UNESCO and I was making the point Madam Speaker he's our longest serving Ambassador he was appointed by Sir John would it be right to accuse Sir John of wrongdoings Madam Speaker Madam Speaker he was given that for sure Madam Speaker he was yes yes Madam Speaker I need mention of the appointment that there was actually an attempt to appoint a foreign lady to be our opponent rep and a solution living in the UK to be our deputy opponent rep but there for some reason the appointments did not go through anymore somebody said to me Madam Speaker I don't have a document to share that it probably has to do with the records of the individual of one of the individuals Madam Speaker did St. Lucia's know that Madam Speaker was that associated with the CIP Madam Speaker it wasn't Madam Speaker and Madam Speaker all these leads to a scenario and I really wish I could continue Madam Speaker with my presentation so this gentleman came to me Madam Speaker and said to me that he had been appointed and he gave me his letters of appointment one from the minister the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Madam Speaker and from the other was a letter Madam Speaker from the Cabinet Secretary of the time to the PS Minister of Foreign Affairs I wouldn't read from it because members would say they do not yet have copies I'll come back and read from it Madam Speaker and Madam Speaker these are all examples of United Wages Party appointed foreigners as ambassadors and providing diplomatic immunity and yet never a claim that anyone was involved in any wrong doing but Madam Speaker you may say that this happened when these happen the Prime Minister and Minister of Microsoft was just a minister in cabinet and cannot be totally held responsible then if that is the case Madam Speaker will the Prime Minister inform the people of St. Lucia of how many diplomatic passports has he or his government authorized since becoming Prime Minister can he tell us and he will have a chance to speak how many diplomatic passports has he issued or his government authorized Madam Speaker and Madam Speaker can he explain to the nation who is the person that he has appointed as an ambassador provided a person if a diplomatic passport and attempts were made to get a United States to provide diplomatic immunity for that person and Madam Speaker can he ask tell us whether the United States has provided such immunity because the United States from the record asked why am I to provide why am I supposed to provide diplomatic immunity to that individual what role is he going to perform in the United States Madam Speaker the member for Microsoft was very vocal in accusing the SLP of not publicizing diplomatic appointments even when they were publicized and suggesting that there was sinister reasons for these appointments but today Madam Speaker guess who is making the appointments in secret and Madam Speaker the documents will be circulated I have not even reading from them but if you want me to read from them Madam Speaker I can read from them so Madam Speaker I am not suggesting that making diplomatic appointments and appointing ambassadors is something that is necessarily wrong Madam Speaker many small island states like ours Madam Speaker appoint foreigners as ambassadors we make diplomatic appointments it's called commercial diplomacy Madam Speaker I'm sure the member for Miku North who has some knowledge of international relations will attest to that and the foreign former foreign minister will tell you so he's not unusual but the prime minister and member for Miku South attempted to use a particular situation facing our country to tarnish the CIP to denigrate the CIP Madam Speaker but Madam Speaker remember I told you about Henley and all the things Henley said together with the prime minister about Saint Lucia CIP would you believe that by November 2016 five months Madam Speaker after Madam Speaker the appointment after the elections Saint Lucia is now ranked number two in the world it moved from second last to be ranked in the top five in the world five months after nothing has happened to the program except the person who was the biggest critic of the program supported by Henley is now prime minister Madam Speaker Madam Speaker I'll tell you what really happened shortly after Madam Speaker Henley announces that it is opening an office in Saint Lucia the same Henley the same Henley that was critical of Saint Lucia CIP the same Henry Henley that is now been accused in the media of facilitating the sale of a diplomatic passport announced that they were opening an office in Saint Lucia and guess who Madam Speaker heads the Henley and partners office in Saint Lucia a particular local lawyer who also happens to be the prime minister's personal lawyer and I know he's his lawyer because he's representing him in the defamation case which I filed against him the same person the same person who the prime minister's lawyer is heading the Henley's office in Saint Lucia and Madam Speaker you have a copy of this statement from Henley so you can verify for yourself that that person was announced by Henley as the head of the Henley office in Saint Lucia so before elections Henley was critical was all over the world they're secreting Saint Lucia CIP supported by the prime minister and within two three months of election Saint Lucia has now moved from second last in the world to the top five and then Henley announces the opening an office in Saint Lucia to be headed by the prime minister's lawyer Madam Speaker you see where the CIP where the source of the undermining of the central CIP started Madam Speaker but Madam Speaker there were conferences organized in Dubai and the Far East and Saint Lucia CIP was invited to address but the prime minister did not join his CEO or the chairman to address those conferences you know what he does he goes to the Henley's conference in London and addresses it now people wondering why is the prime minister of Saint Lucia addressing the Henley's conference because Saint Lucia has no relationship with Henley little did we know that Henley was about to open an office in Saint Lucia and there were going to be dramatic changes to our CIP so the prime minister addresses Henley in London although Saint Lucia has no relationship with Henley and the conferences where we have relationships he does not address it the prime minister sits with PM Brong of Antigone Barbuda and he agrees on a need to harmonize our positions on CIP and avoid a race to the bottom the PM goes further and he virtually quotes the speech which is delivered by the prime minister in Monaco the former prime minister and he says we're not selling passports we're selling a lifestyle lifestyle Saint Lucia is premium Saint Lucia is an exclusive program he says that in London but he then returns to Saint Lucia and announces that donation levels will be reduced to a thousand US dollars for a single applicant a hundred thousand a total wrong Madam Speaker from what he had addressed in London and said in London to what he then announced in Saint Lucia so Madam Speaker let us examine the views of the prime minister and what has happened since and examine how the integrity and reputation has been further undermined Madam Speaker has the prime minister since becoming prime minister has he made the CIP any more transparent no he has not he has eroded any semblance of transparency that existed in the CIP let me give you one major example Madam Speaker and you'll recall I said that people had concerns about the CIP they wanted to know that the CIP would be well managed that the people who became citizens would be would be persons of worthy character that they wanted to know that the money's been made was been spent properly and the prime minister himself said in his major critic of the CIP that the money belongs to the people of Saint Lucia and not the government Madam Speaker the legislation of the CIP provides for a report to be submitted to dishonorable halls at the latest September of each year there was no report for the ending of September 2016 and September ends in two weeks time and there is no report before us at this meeting of the house so we would have gone two years or at least two dates where the minister was supposed to submit to this house a report on the CIP a report that said how many people how many people applied who was granted citizenship who these people are which countries they are from as well as submitting audited financial statements as to how much money was earned and what those monies have been used for further Madam Speaker the legislation says that when donations are made to the CIP they have to be transferred to the national economic fund and parliament has to receive a report as to how those monies have been spent and approve the projections for the next financial year Madam Speaker we have never done this in this honorable house the very transparency that the member for Miku South spoke about has been violated is that offensive language Madam Speaker Madam Speaker can you guide me by the way if somebody says something that's not true how do I describe it in the house so I cannot say it was a lie economic with the truth so Madam Speaker the member for Miku South he said those things he said he would do it immediately and today these are two opportunities to submit a report Madam Speaker to this honorable house and it has not been done and Madam Speaker I want to ask you as presiding officer is it your responsibility to ask that such a report be submitted to this house because the CIP is a critical program in this country and Madam Speaker is a rhetorical question Madam Speaker and Madam Speaker we expect reports to be submitted in this house for 2016 and for 2017 that says how many people became new citizens of St Lucia where are they from and Madam Speaker we need to know how much money has been earned and what those monies have been used for Madam Speaker that is what the legislation says has to be done Madam Speaker and Madam Speaker the Prime Minister stood up some time ago in this house Madam Speaker and announced that three persons that failed due diligence but two had been overturned or something like that Madam Speaker Madam Speaker we need details on that because there's somebody that failed due diligence would love to know under what circumstances it was overturned and how it is they've now become citizens of St Lucia but the Prime Minister will get a chance to speak so he will deal with those matters Madam Speaker has the Prime Minister and member from Miku South appointed a board which represents civil society no Madam Speaker in fact he has instituted a principle of political appointment a principle of political appointment to the CIP and Madam Speaker sometimes when major corporations have vacancies for executive directors and general managers it's advertised I think it was advertised for investment Lucia and a new person has been announced but we had a CEO of the CIP we were told she was sent on administrative leave now when you send someone an administrative leave you're making a major statement you're saying that person is believed to have done something wrong and is facing investigation and the next thing we hear there's a new CEO at CIP we never heard she had been terminated we never heard the job had been advertised now I'm not criticizing the person who bought the job but Madam Speaker if the Prime Minister when he was in opposition said he wanted greater transparency in the management of the CIP he has failed to exercise that precise point he said Madam Speaker millions of dollars has been earned through the CIP and no one knows where the money is going or what it has been used for the Prime Minister said one of his principal criticisms was that the money must go to the people of St Lucia and not to the Labour Party government but yet millions have been earned and St Lucia's have never been told the exact amount and what the money's have been used for Madam Speaker the legislation is clear that report must be submitted to Parliament Madam Speaker so Madam Speaker on January 5th the government announced changes to the regulations and it is these changes that we are asking the Honourable House to reinstate the amendment of Schedule 2 Madam Speaker the CIP was positioned as a high valued option for persons who want to be part of a select few this amendment together with the other changes made St Lucia a cheap island paradise in fact when the changes were made it was said that we're now cheaper than Dominica that's how it was portrayed gone our argument that St Lucia is a selected place and but because of the price not just about anybody can apply and become a citizen of St Lucia that was changed Madam Speaker with cheap in St Lucia we've placed at the bottom of the barrel Madam Speaker amendment of regulation nine Madam Speaker and I need you to focus on that change which was introduced by the government it adds that the border the CIP to retain 20 percent of each monetary contribution made to the national economic fund for marketing and promotion that's what the regulation changes says yet when the Prime Minister spoke yesterday's for operational purposes but I will go by what the SI said 20 percent retain for marketing and promotion so Madam Speaker if the donation is now 100,000 K 100,000 K and 20 percent is retained for marketing and promotion it means the state gets 80,000 K 80,000 K now we don't we did not get the details because when I asked the question in the House the Prime Minister said no it's not marketing and promotions for operational purposes now I know marketing agents are getting 10 percent recently the CIP announced that all authorized agents will get 10 percent now something's wrong with that Madam Speaker is it 20 percent retained for operational purposes 10 percent for the marketing companies and 10 percent for the authorized agents but that means 40 percent of 100,000 K is gone but I want to believe the Prime Minister had misled us when he said that the 20 percent is for operational purposes I suspect he meant is the same marketing and promotion because to now reduce our price to 100,000 K and 40,000 K goes off and only 60,000 K remains is I must admit unbelievable Madam Speaker so we've reduced it to 80,000 and at best we reduce it to 100,000 K and at best only 80,000 K can go to the National Economic Fund because 20 percent is being retained now no it's not part of the operation because you get you you earn monies when every applicant submits an application he pays an administrative fee he pays an administration fee he pays a due diligence fee and therefore those fees were supposed to take care of the operations of the unit so if you're going to keep 20 percent for operational purposes we need to see the report in the house for us to understand how it is you keep in 20 percent for operational purposes assuming that's what it is plus the due diligence fees is paid plus the administrative fee is paid for each applicant Madam Speaker the only way those questions can be answered is if a report is submitted to this honorable house but Madam Speaker think about it that's really our arithmetic challenge for me Madam Speaker if you want to pay authorized agents 10 percent incentives as an incentive your fee was 200,000 K 200,000 dollars and you paid 10 percent of that to an authorized agent he's earning 20,000 dollars he's earning 20,000 dollars so he has an incentive to send the applicant to St. Lucia because for every 200,000 he gets 10 percent which is 20,000 K we reduce it to 100,000 K and we give them 10,000 dollars 10 percent commission and we say we're providing more incentive for them how can 10,000 incentive be more than 20,000 incentive and if you had to retain 20 percent for marketing and promotion 20 percent Madam Speaker of 200,000 K is 40,000 the country would be left with 160,000 but when you reduce it to 100,000 dollars and you take away 20 percent you reduce me to 60,000 dollars so on one hand yeah honorable I can go over it again if you have 200,000 if you have 200,000 and you take away 10 percent incentive vamping you 10 percent incentive on 200,000 you'll get 20,000 if you reduce it to 100,000 and you give me 10 percent incentive I'll get 10,000 which one provides more incentive for me the 20,000 or the 10,000 that's one the second point if you're selling at 200,000 K and assume you take the 20 percent as stated in the SI it means 20 percent of 200,000 is 40,000 the country will get 160,000 but if you reduce it to 100,000 and you take away 20 percent it means the country is left with 80,000 80,000 as against 160,000 it means now we have to at least sell two citizenships to make up for the one we had before to equal the one we had before is that challenging members to understand so maybe the honorable member for microsoft can explain to us and maybe the member for cashless office where he seems to have all the answers for that riddle to explain to us how is it more attractive for us to sell at a cheaper price modern speaker regulation 7 3 a was put in modern speaker to ensure that only persons of net high wolf of high net worth qualified to be citizens of st. Lucia only persons of high net worth this provision modern speaker required an applicant to declare his net worth of at least three million us dollars now remember the beginning I stated what the concerns of solutions were one of the concerns of solutions is that they only wanted high net worth individuals to become new citizens but if you remove that regulation modern speaker where each applicant have to prove that his worth at least three million us dollars what you are saying is I do not I'm not interested in your work I do not need to be high net worth individual to become a new citizen of st. Lucia and when you couple it with reducing the price to a hundred thousand key you say to somebody you don't need to have wolf and once you have a hundred thousand key you can qualify to be a citizen of st. Lucia so all the safeguards that were in the previous arrangements modern speaker will remove and we are asking that they be brought back in because this is this is undermining the integrity of st. Lucia modern speaker modern speaker this program because of the changes in the fact the restriction on the net worth and the value of the donation no longer attracts high net worth individual so st. Lucia st. Lucia has become a cow that can be milked by any person with a hundred thousand came a hundred thousand dollars modern speaker regulation seven nine modern speaker the restriction of five hundred applications annually modern speaker was designed to make the program exclusive if you restrict the number of persons allowed into the program then you reduce the possibility of unworthy persons that would become citizens of your country so let's go over the free again you must declare your high net worth of at least three million your donation level is two hundred thousand and only five hundred allowed each year modern speaker all design modern speaker to ensure that our program modern speaker is robust our program is exclusive and our program sells st. Lucia as a desired location modern speaker we also sought to introduce the most rigid due diligence process we studied what the other islands were doing modern speaker where they were faltering and we decided we had to have a more robust due diligence than ever before that persons had to go through the regular due diligence they had to go through policing due diligence modern speaker and then modern speaker you read in the dsh agreement a commitment been made to dsh that there are pecans that they bring into this country will be approved no more than 45 days modern speaker and modern speaker i cannot present a document to this house we know the history of that document modern speaker and the mining the due due diligence that we had established in the program and the prime minister announced i'm going back to it that they were at least three persons were at fail but i think two had been overturned under what conditions modern speaker to explain that to us who are those people and under what conditions they were overturned so modern speaker there is no doubt that the integrity and the reputation of the cip has been severely undermined by the actions of the government there were three fundamental provisions as i said high net worth 500 annually and a high donation level which sought to ring fence the threat to our security and to preserve our image but according to today's thinking in government our integrity our reputation our security is determined by our credit rating modern speaker i will state to you 10 reasons why the changes must be reinstated 10 reasons one the program is no longer restricted to a select few and no longer seen as exclusive and very discriminated it's no longer seen as that we are seen as a cheap option we have little value food it suggests that since we are primarily concerned with making money then the emphasis on worthy individuals is lesser number four the removal of regulation seven three b means that you are no longer required to provide supporting documents of your wealth five the perception in the industry is that it is easy to apply and get approved in the solution cip because it is heavily politicized you just need to speak to certain people and you will get approved six the government refuses to submit reports on the performance of the cip we do not know who are the people that have become citizens of st. musher how much money has been earned and where is that money going seven and i want to repeat it madam speaker that we need to know who are the people that have become citizen i need to ask the prime minister there's a lot been said about jacqueline madam speaker did he apply to be a citizen of st. musher and has he been approved to be a citizen of st. musher madam speaker and the minister of citizenship by investment is in a very good position to present to the nation of st. musher whether in fact that individual has been granted citizenship in st. musher eight madam speaker in the budget madam speaker presented earlier this year about 43.6 million dollars was stated as revenue from cip madam speaker we need to know what that money is going to be used for and we have to be told madam speaker can the prime minister tells us what is been done with the 20 percent been kept by the board madam speaker what is meant by operational expenses and i'm sure you can give us a very good example a very good explanation finally and very importantly madam speaker we are seen in industry as having less restrictions and therefore open for all for the sake of our security we need to restrict the persons who can become citizens this is a high-risk program madam speaker we need to know at senator clear signals as to who can become citizens of st. musher under what conditions madam speaker madam speaker we are seen as having dropped the level of due diligence we had and madam speaker on that note i have heard madam speaker and the honorable minister and other relevant ministers can answer that the canals project has been approved as a project in st. musher i recall madam speaker when i was chairman of cip that the canals project had failed due diligence and if they had failed due diligence how can they now be approved as a project madam speaker how can the cabinet approve a project when there was when they failed due diligence and the level of due diligence i know they had failed was basic due diligence it was not even in depth due diligence madam speaker madam speaker there's a lot going on a lot going on madam speaker because in another jurisdiction in this country it is said that there were a batch of applicants and i need the minister to clarify that a batch of applicants by a developer and he wanted to shift it to st. musher and the banks in that jurisdiction had sent clear signals that they're not accepting monies from iran and syria and therefore since those applicants were from iran and syria they would have difficulty in the monies coming to send coming to that jurisdiction and it is said that the monies will go to the applications will go to st. musher and we need to know and to be assured by the prime minister that there will not be any attempt to allow persons that cannot be approved in other jurisdictions to come to st. musher because madam speaker the talk is and i'll tell you and it will come up later and certainly marry but i'll provide more information on it that persons are now learning that if the local banks are not accepting the monies they can open an account in dubai and make the monies be deposited in dubai and then they will find a way for it to come to st. musher we need to know whether st. musher government has opened an account in dubai to receive monies that will be problematic to come to st. musher madam speaker the honorable member for miku south and prime minister can provide us clarity on whether or not there's any intention to open an account in dubai whether one has been opened and whether we are accepting applicants from iran and syria because madam speaker only last point of view has announced that the u.s government listen to this had charged ipsa ipsa is a firm that does due diligence for the cip program it does due diligence for cip in st. musher and the u.s government find ipsa for breaking the sanctions against iran because ipsa had used local contractors in iran and syria to do due diligence for them ipsa worked for our cip are we accepting applicants from iran and syria to st. musher and if they are our local bank who's accepting there's only one bank in st. musher accepting cip monies right now one bank of st. musher and whether or not the fear of corresponding banks do not accept money from iranians and syria are we still convincing it by opening an account elsewhere and whether that has been authorized madam speaker i want all members sitting there to reflect on what has happened to the cip the cip was designed and built as a program with immense admiration from other countries because simply we had learned from them and we had ring fence our program that repetition has been shattered by the actions of the prime minister and members of on the opposite side the changes which were instituted madam speaker must be reinstated and to send some clear signals to the international community that we are serious about our our cip program and that madam speaker it is a program that one should wish to be part of it is well managed it has the highest level of due diligence by the speaker and i ask honorable members to so consider and i so move thank you very much i'm to assume that the the debate and that is exhausted honorable minister for tourism information broadcasting thank you madam speaker madam speaker i rise to reject categorically reject madam speaker the notion the motion that has been put forward here for the house's consideration this afternoon madam speaker in doing so i would like to make a couple of points about the cip regime and the various programs in the Caribbean and while i may not directly respond to the long-winded presentation from the member for castry south some of my points may automatically do so madam speaker it is a well known fact that st lucer entered the program quite late madam speaker this is an example of the pace at which things move in the previous dispensation when we entered madam speaker they were well established programs by dominica by granada by antigua which was generating tremendous revenue from its own program and then madam speaker perhaps one of the most successful ones was synchitsa nevis where madam speaker they had a very interesting scenario in that they were under an imf uh agreement and madam speaker with the invention of the cip or the resuscitation of their cip program which had been in place since the 1980s they were able madam speaker to repay the imf before time it is interesting to note madam speaker that in some of the requirements and in some of the categories for cip qualification that while the opposition claims that st lucer is cheapening its product at its reputation by reducing the donation component and removing some of the requirements and uh in addition to some of the changes made to the regime it is interesting to note that we came much lower than synchitsa in the real estate component as an example so synchitsa for example madam speaker at the time that st lucer's program was implemented sold a citizen by investment program for 400 000 us dollars in the real estate component for example fact if we madam speaker a country that has a better tourism infrastructure a better reputation as a tourism uh destination we have an airlift capacity that is more superior to synchitsa if we were that confident at that time why did we come in a 350 000 dollars below a country a smaller size below an economy madam speaker that is much smaller than ours and so that's the first question and that's the first reason why i'm rejecting this motion because this motion madam speaker is placed in the sky it is steeped in a whole lot of ideology and philosophy but it fails madam speaker to deal with the realities of the situation and the realities of the market could it be madam speaker that while the synchitsa sugar industry diversification program that's the name of the uh synchits donation component of the program was pegged at 250 000 us dollars could it be that the then administration to consider the fact that we may have entered late and we needed to reduce or to come lower in our own donation component of the program fact we came in at 200 000 madam speaker this is what the i the imf said in a cbi fiscal revenues this is what it says about the program and it says a few things about st lucia i'm reading madam speaker an imf report on the cbi revenues in the caribbean citizenship by investment journal and i can make this a document of the house if members so wish it wish honorable minister it's not if members so wish i think we have established a principle yes madam speaker i would make this a i'd make this a document of the house but it but it go on to say madam speaker yes i'm ready to make it it go on to say madam speaker i i will read this out i'll come back to this madam speaker after it would have been circulated to the i'll make it a document of the house madam speaker and i'll come back to to reading it but madam speaker it said in the document um which i will take some extracts from it said madam speaker that st lucia's i'm not reading the document you'll be able to follow it excuse hello yeah is he's speaking from the top of his head i saw madam speaker when the document when the document will be made available to members of the house they'll be able to see madam speaker that the imf described st lucia's program as a failed launch in 2016 those are not my words those words will be made available to you for you to see and you will believe the imf you don't have to believe me i am just a mere politician and so the failed launch madam speaker where we see the current regime failed to excite the market because if you ask the honorable member for castry south who is priding himself around about the amount about his involvement and he was the former chairman he never said how badly the program performed under the previous dispensation and the previous regime he never said madam speaker the numbers of passport in fact madam speaking the estimates for that year we saw that the cip program on the performed madam speaker are below the projected revenues for the program in the estimates for that year that is a fact it's there for all to see he never said it he's saying all kinds are the things and making all kind of speculative statements but madam speaker the proof is in the pudding show me the empirical evidence that what you have implemented has actually worked in the current circumstance and it was commensurate to the realities of the market that is the fundamental point we are here to raise revenue for our country and the point that somehow we cheapen the destination i don't think of value could be placed on what it is to be a solution citizen in an ideal circumstance madam speaker we should have never had to do it but as he is clearly pointed out that circumstances with our fiscal situation and madam speaker a deficit that was spiraling and a dead crisis madam speaker which was out of control necessitated that st lucia find creative ways to raise revenues and cip madam speech speaker was a fallback measure you know it is interesting to know that while the motion presented by the member for castry south somehow seeks to suggest that individuals who are of a low net worth to use his words individuals that may not have a big bank account may somehow pose a threat to our national security and may cheapen the program but interestingly some of the at least two cases madam speaker that were well published and well covered in the regional media about unsavory characters that were involved in other programs happened to be individuals in the millions that is that is an interesting point but here we are judging people on the size of their bank account rather than on the content of their character and so and so that is the point madam speaker right there is such a thing called a billionaire crook madam speaker the only thing that we can do is to make sure that we optimize every opportunity for due diligence and even so madam speaker when we would have ensured that you have a very robust due diligence mechanism due due diligence madam speaker is not perfect because if it was perfect madam speaker due diligence would have actually revealed that jaffa lee was ill for example and and perhaps that that that roach emel was not necessarily a sounding of deal for example and perhaps that jack brineberg madam speaker wasn't a real oil man or wasn't a legitimate oil man and due diligence madam speaker perhaps would have revealed that at the time that we were entering into the arrangement that grenade had found himself into difficulty with the same investor we are using the very same due diligence mechanism as all and the best all the programs in the caribbean and the best programs in the world we're not compromising on that don't give the impression that somehow we are compromising the sovereignty and the national security of st lucia that is unfactual and it's an untruth honor of a member we are making sure madam speaker that this program stands up to scrutiny that every single applicant that comes through this program is worth his or her salt and so madam speaker we've had to respond to the market just like dominica did when they came as one of the late entrance into the program madam speaker that document is now back and the few sentences that he didn't want me to read a while ago i read them now so that he can hear them loud and so that they can echo across this house madam speaker the imf said in a cbi fiscal revenues on on the budget performance of the cip a comparison is done madam speaker in a graph showing the gdp contribution as a percentage the cdp the cbi contribution to gdp as a percentage and madam speaker it shows you the following countries st lucia granada and tiga and barbuda dominica and synchitz and levis the imf madam speaker in in its analysis of this graph suggests that increased competition and intensified due diligence of prospective applicants impacted income in antique and barbuda conversely dominica lower the cost and a more aggressive marketing approach has contributed to increase its regional market share that's empirical evidence madam speaker here is one caribbean island doing exactly what we have done they have came in late they have said that synchitz and antiga dominating there's no way they can come at that level that is reality that is pragmatism that is people who are measuring the success of their program based on the real perspective of the market not ideology not long-winded statements not bringing motions um in the house to uh perhaps try and uh beef up your own image it's not about that it's about has your program worked the answer is no because the imf goes on to say that st lucia after a disappointing launch in 2016 had to make its program more competitive and what is the result after we have done so right what is the result i will leave it to the cip minister to tell you the results because what i know is that applications are on the increase what i know is that the marketplace is excited about what we're doing what i know is that investors are flocking st lucia because you know what your motion failed to do your motion failed to make the connection between those same high net worth individuals that you desire and the catalyst is that the cip is for further investment that is what your motion failed to make that connection and so it's not only about the hundred thousand or the two hundred thousand being paid for the passport it is the very profound potential that exists to buttress investment in this country grow the economy create jobs for our people reduce unemployment create opportunities for our youth build better schools and improve st lucia and make it a prosperous and sound society for the 21st century that's what this is all about honorable member your program could not do those things in the current environment and if you look at thin kits and you you try to pride yourself as the spokesman for the cip in your party but you failed to mention that when sin kids started they started lower than they are now and as revenue you have to go back to the 80s again you're getting your history wrong as you did with cricket earlier go back to the 1980s and you will see that sin kids need this which is now selling real estate at a level that is higher than us started much lower than they are but as the program picked up madam speaker the option is available to st lucia to increase the price in some of the areas but you have to excite and stimulate interest in the program and how are you going to be selling the same product they are well established programs and then you're going in to say well you know because i have gold but i'm buying the very same service from you honorable member i'm buying the very same service from you and so madam speaker while it's not the ideal circumstance for us to have the program in the first place and there is bipartisan support for it in this parliament madam speaker we have to re-engineer the program and that's what these efforts are amending some of the regulations madam speaker he spoke of removing the cap from 500 000 from 500 passports per year madam speaker if the program is going to peak you're trying to raise revenue why limit yourself we have seen with the various islands that that they have been peaks and troughs the results of the sales of the product fluctuates madam speaker so having a cap is not what's going to turn on the desired individuals individuals from st lucia it is making sure that you extract every opportunity from your due diligence that will ensure that you have the desired individuals to come to the country and so that's what it is so why limit the market if people are excited why limit it why limit it look at the program over five years you propose to sell in your program 2500 passports some years it will be 700 some years it will be two but if you have a program or a legislation that is too stringent and legislation that limits the capacity of the program to expand then you are impeding on success and so therefore I cannot support your motion to reinstate those aspects of the regulation on this basis because it is not steeped in reality and so madam speaker the claims of threat to national security are baseless they uh madam speaker therefore I reject this motion and I want to say madam speaker that we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we maximize due diligence we're not going to do like the opposition you know I have a cabinet conclusion here madam speaker which I want to make a document of the house and madam speaker I am not I'm not going to stoop as low as they did and call the name of the investor I will allow them to do it but madam speaker the previous regime the previous regime making this a document of the house give cip approval to developments where they have never seen a drawing where they have never had dc approval I mean you're talking about a robust program you're not even sure what the investor is doing please make this a document of the house right but here you are of your board passing and approving a cip approval without seeing uh they are never meant to forecast for yourself I mean it is only under such leadership you would see that kind of behavior and so and so madam speaker and so madam speaker and so madam speaker how can you come into this house on the one hand and boast about managing a strong program and having a well-structured program but yet you go and you give cip approval to a development where you have never seen the drawing and that investor madam speaker is yet to lay a brick in st lusia and madam speaker I will leave the then chairman the mover of this motion and the honorable member for castry south to determine the success of that decision that he has made madam speaker they are yet to receive dc approval in principle much less the full drawing and how do you say that the program is well managed so I am not interested in all the fancy talk I'm a very basic practical individual that want to see the results and the program that you have founded within the circumstance of us coming late to the market and based on the market realities is a failure and therefore madam speaker I reject this motion presented here today madam speaker I thank you I just want to warn honorable members I'm not going to play that carton mouse game anymore about mics is there for the debate on this motion on this motion honorable honorable leader of the opposition and member for castries east thank you madam speaker madam speaker I rise to support the motion as read by the honorable member for castry south the man speaker before I do that I just want to make two points on the contribution three points a contribution of the member for answering remember before you ask him to make it a document of the house he said Saint Lucia had a failed launch failed user would fail and the document of the house shows disappointing I will not ask you I will not ask you ask him to withdraw there is a classic difference between failed and disappointing very very classic difference I want to ask you but you see that's and as I go I'm saying I will show you how their woods how their own woods will be used to show their own words man speaker their own words I'm coming so madam speaker he said that Saint Lucia had a failed program and the document says disappointing secondly man speaker he says that Saint Lucia the program hasn't visaged by the governmental party was wrong because it failed it did not have it did not have the the results that it envisaged the program was stable in this honorable house on the 28th of July 2015 it was launched in October and we started to receive applications in January the elections were held in June and the people decided so you are judging six months you're judging six months and on six months you have the wisdom and the knowledge to know in six months that it failed fine man speaker first of all when this government decided to go into the cip the government at the time understood the nuances and the issues involved so bipartisan committee was formed and that committee comprised of members of the opposition members of civil society members of the chamber of commerce and they decided that Saint Lucia needed to go with the cip program the report was agreed in cabinet and parliament approved it there were wide discussions and the government at the time thought that it was important enough but there will be widespread discussions all over the country about the cip program but when the program was finally agreed to and the bill tabled in honorable house the government at the time thought that there were three important things that must have had to be part of that program one the honor and the integrity of Saint Lucia must be uppermost Saint Lucia cannot be for sale at any cost or the lowest bidder and the purpose of the program was to attract high value investments that that was the purpose it wasn't a matter of selling passports to the highest bidder or selling passports amass that was that was not the issue we were guarding against the sale of Saint Lucia's patch money amass and i'll tell you something and in that same contribution the honorable member for Miku Norf I think who was leader of the opposition at the time and I want to quote from Hansen Hansen's already a documented house madam speaker and I quote from page 24 Tuesday July 25 and I quote and here's what she said I just heard my colleague from castries Norf express an anxiety that perhaps should all investors register in view for itself that may tilt the political landscape one way or the other I could not help but hearing this in passing I remember the SH is a view for itself so I think we should consider voting rights are incorporated in here the other one that almost speaks my interest almost immediately was under the on the miscellaneous number 42 without prejudice the generality of the subsection the minister may make regulations in respect of that so we would have thoughts that when the regulations would be amended that idea or that suggestion by the honorable leader of the opposition should be implemented in the regulations in the regulations if that was a concern that it would have shifted the voting rights in the south but what we have is 200 applicants from DSH are going to go in the south of the country I leave it to you madam speaker to make your own make your own deductions from that that's great secondly mr speaker madam speaker sorry sorry we said that the CIP should not create any enclaves in Senutia and I remember the prime minister at the time made the point of enclaves where he said that solution should be able to live everywhere in the country and that and the example he used is capitalist state he said when capitalist state started it started and the impression was it would be an enclave but solutions have moved and lived into it and they've integrated into capitalist states not me man speaker not make up for that but she the the prime minister made that point the then prime minister and we warned that the CIP should not be used for that purpose but we heard about DSH and an enclave in view for it he said he also said that enclaves create problems for the country and that has happened in Barbados where there are high wealth individuals living in one part of Barbados the government to raise revenue had to increase the property tax in that area and the regular people own houses in that area had to sell the houses because it could not pay the property tax that what happens when when you create enclaves and at that time we warned that the CIP should not create enclaves and the final one man speaker is transparency and the information must be made available to the public that was important and that is why in the legislation we have certain requirements that the minister responsible of CIP had to come to the house with full and transparent information on the CIP program that was why that was why that was put into the into the laws man speaker but man speaker the same imf and you note what the minister is speaking about is cbi fiscal revenues cbi fiscal revenues on budget in percent of GDP what that document is saying is relating to the revenues from the CIP not the the makeup of the program not the program was structured but the revenues at a particular time and they compared 2007 2016 such a document said lucha came in late in 2016 so there's a fundamental difference between that and what the imf said about the cip program in its report of the board directors in february 2016 the imf report for february 2016 the board of directors took note of the newly launched cip program in st lucha among these transparency provisions the imf noted the board will have to report annually to parliaments on the activities of the program including on the number of applications approvers rejections as well as detailed information on the successful applicant that's what the imf said about our program the real imf not revenues when they were analyzing the program this the cip program in its entirety it also said the new cip warrants a prudent approach in addition to the fifth financial integrity risk financial integrity risk associated with cip vulnerabilities arise from potential fiscal dependence on these revenues which can be volatile and subject to certain stops the annual cap on approved citizenship applications would be a strong device for containing this risk and adjustments to this cap should be made carefully that is the imf reporting in february the board directors in february 2016 not the revenues not the comparison of cbi fiscal revenues and budget two fundamentally different things man speaker the one the imf board directors are speaking about a praising solution for the steps it took in implementing the cip and the second one is a revenues based on the reality on the reality of the situation madam speaker the imf reports of february 2016 the report of the board and directors madam speaker but what happens speaker is when in opposition when opposition the government when we're in opposition they were excited about the cip they said all kind of things man speaker and man speaker i i got some clippings and exits from press conferences and statements made by members on the other side and i want to make it a document at the house before i begin to read from them you heard you hear man speaker members are very pious you always wanted cip the fourth cip is good all what they did was to make cip easier for people for people to invest piousness may occupy may occupy listen to what listen to what they started to say about the cip uwp miku solve meeting december 6 2016 the honorable allen's no he wasn't yes he was honorable the honorable allen chassis we want the government to reconstitute the board it cannot be that cabinet is going to appoint all the people on the board the commission must be independent and autonomous from government the change of regulations did they do that december 6 2015 miku solve public meeting the person who said so i will mention he's not a member of the house i will mention his name i'll mention his name i won't say what he said his name is oswald agustin i won't say what he said he's not here to defend himself or i know he'll he will defend himself at some point allen chassis again december 6 2015 miku solve public meeting somebody had to get paid some money i'm not saying who i'm asking the question who got paid and do you know whether the bands that were playing tonight in ufort whether in fact that was jufalli's money do we know whether in fact the campaign that the level party is going to run in the next election every billboard that you see going up every act that you see you have to ask yourself is that what st lucer gave up in order to protect mr jufalli the last place you want to put mr hile is to sell the passports of st lucer so much so man speaker for improbable motives so much so and the male the member for cash results eloquently made the point of how many diplomatic passports have been sold or have been given have been given i want to use i don't even say the word given he's made a point man speaker guide joseph main man speaker i'd just like to indicate that the honorable member for castries east is making reference to a matter that is before the court yes um um matters before the court are subjudicates yes and we have to avoid them we know that madam speaker in this very house you rule on the same mat on a point of order madam speaker on a point of order thirty five one you rule it was permissible for members on the other side to cite the case because it was a defamation case today i'm hearing your your ruling otherwise i just want for the record madam to pardon yes okay yes madam speaker may nine twenty sixteen guide joseph dbs news i wonder of dr healy i wonder of dr healy would take a lie detector test that he just made there because any right solution would believe that of a deal was made that dr healy would come on television and say what that a deal was made but apparently conveniently now he appears to know what has happened so we are to take on us so are we to take on us healers word that there was no deal made of jufali is on us healing now kenny anthony because of seems to me that because it appears to me that the solution public just supposed to take it december fifteenth twenty fifteenth gail rigobot for those who want to diminish the importance of the jufali situation let me remind the government and people of san lusia that as a small island states our reputation is of utmost importance and that's when we engage both citizens and non-citizens to hold ambassadorial positions or to act on behalf of the people and country that these people must be held to the highest standards we must never seem as using our diplomatic passports and or diplomatic immunity to protect the persons and the personal agendas of some that is very risky and the eve of the implementation of the citizenship by investment program i can well imagine the alarm bells that rang for all the international community because of this jufali matter because it raises several questions mbc news april twenty fourth twenty sixteen and chassis i just cannot believe that it took dr leah this long to do something common sense or to have told him he should not have allowed the name of seducia and the reputation of seducia to the extent that it is i think that is personally responsible for tarnish in the cip program along with the prime minister he has refused to put in legislation to make sure the cip program is independent i want to read again he has refused to put in legislation to make sure that the cip program is independent i mean forever cip is now going to be affiliated with politicians in seducia now these were the statements before june 16 they have changed the regulations they have amended the regulations but not in none of these amendments have they have they decided to put in the things that they were talking about when in opposition that is when reality of government hits you and that is when you realize all what you were saying on the campaign trail was incorrect and you were saying to people what you would not have done but you said it because you believed that there was a soft underbelly and you could get political political fever and that is what that doesn't happen to you so you change the regulations and refuse to do any of the things that you said you would have done when you in opposition as evidence as evidence by what you said in public and what you said in this honorable house madam speaker the leader of the opposition at the time wrote several letters about the cip program he wrote several letters about the cip and the gist of these letters was transparency the board had to be independent he asked the chamber of commas to appoint people on the board he said that the board should be autonomous he also said that the money from the cip people should know where that money is going madam speaker at that time the member for microsoft was screaming about transparency screaming about transparency screaming about the board of directors he has amended the regulations what he has done in the main regulations he has removed he has removed one the cap a five hundred dollar cap would have given scope for more transparency we would have been able to know who the people who would bought our citizenship would and we'd be able to find out who they were what was the bargain etc 500 per year easier to manage now by your own words by your own words madam speaker you you were saying i'm making no bones about it we are trying to sell as many citizenship programs as we can in the shortest period of time in order to get that money in order to be able to sell to see the sovereign fund that is the same the same people in opposition that were coming for transparency coming for accountability now they want to sell as many as many passports as possible but madam speaker i will put it to you that with the reduction of the cip the donations portion of the cip sen lucha is losing more than it is gaining and i the example i will give you madam speaker is the range development and in that development what has been used madam speaker is the real estate option under the old reality option madam speaker the developer was given a number of investment slots to raise capital for the developments using the approach the developer gets us 300 thousand dollars for investment whereas government gets the fees according to when it's a single applicant or family a family would pay more the investor who gets who gets that citizenship holds the investment for at least five years so he has the 300 thousand dollar investment option he can hold it for five years and that's important they want to come back to you why that is important because he's got a slot he's he can hold for five years and i'll tell you why it's important in a while madam speaker during that time madam speaker that investment he's paid a return on investment by the developer so each time an investor buys into the development the government gets fees he pays vendor stocks they pay some duty they pay a lawyer for deed of sale and even pays a real estate agent for commission if the sale is from a real estate agent that is the old option the old option the old option where he had it in 200 200 dollar 300 thousand u.s. dollar slots but man speaker for range development for the range development the prime minister contrary to section 42 of the act and i read section 33 two of the act man speaker for ease of reference i don't make it a document of the house because it was passed in this honorable house section 33 two of the c.i.p acts has what it says it says the solution national economic fund is established qualifying investment of cash shall be paid into the solution national economic fund subsection two subsection section three the municipal finance shall lay before parliament every financial year for its approval the purposes to which the funds will be allocated section 43 two correct me if i'm wrong man speaker i see nothing in that act about sovereign funds if there is a yield i see no mention in the act of sovereign funds if there is a yield but man speaker it speaks about the national economic fund but man speaker in the range development the range development man speaker is a public knowledge is a project worth 166 million u.s. dollars 453 million e.c. dollars 453 million e.c. dollars now we want to make one assumption the applicants are families of four under the new plan as changed contrary to section 43 two you would need 1,105 applicants to buy donations in the range developments that will come man speaker to so and the prime minister said that 1,105 applicants will give you the 453 million dollars you need for the development but he is going to unlearn that money to range at two percent now we borrow money to do project solution at six percent six percent six point five percent sometimes seven percent but the but the government is selling 1,105 of st. Lucian passports i'm going to lend it or lend it to a foreigner at two percent going to learn going to sell 1,105 solution passports and and lend it to a foreigner for two percent at two percent so the only benefit from that initial sale of the 1,105 passports apart from the fees that are paid to the to the to the to the the agent etc would be the interest of two percent on 453 million dollars that's the only benefits now let me tell you what would happen under the old system under the old system madam speaker you would need 560 investors each at three hundred thousand three hundred thousand dollars to invest these investors would pay the government vendor's tax they pay the government stamp duty they pay the government administration fees even though you you remove the 20 percent that that the prime minister is talking about the authorized agent man speaker would get five thousand dollars and st. Lucia would own after five years 223 million dollars from the sale of 560 passports if they had used the old option so over a 20-year period man speaker look at your money solution would have would have would have owned as compared to the new regime where the donations are hundred thousand dollars and you take the solutions passport money you unlearned it to range to development or you unlearned it to any other person at two percent but you're going to borrow money to develop the country at six percent sometimes there are seven percent and where are the benefits for the solution madam speaker where the benefit for the solution so madam speaker in the old system of donations even when it was two hundred thousand dollars the investment slots could be sold they could be bought they could be sold and money would have been made anytime the investment is bought or sold but in that new option the hundred thousand dollars period one thousand one hundred and five passports that's it what we should get is a hotel and the interest but madam speaker how do we know that the hotel and I don't want to to to be misquoted here how are we sure that the hotel will be completed history shows us there are no more failed projects all over in our time the praline was a failed project we started with with good intentions it was a failed project it it it we started to go intention it was a failed project we agree there are several failed projects all over the region if you go to Antigua now you send the more hotels that was started and and and failed but what you're doing is that we are selling one thousand one hundred five of our passports and we taking the money and we learning it to a foreigner at two percent that's exactly what you're doing and we call that great economic policy and we call that in search of jobs that is what you call it finally madam speaker the changes there is nothing realization that allows the minister finance to do that he cannot show me anything in the law in the civilization that gives him the authority to sell our passports and unlearn it there's absolutely nothing in in in that act he cannot tell me he's got absolutely no authority to do what he's doing unless he changes the law as he lists the cip finally man speaker the prime minister announces that the money will go to invest in lucha invest in lucha is not a lending agency invest in lucha is an investment promotion agency so you're going to send money to invest in lucha for invest in lucha will unlearn to foreigners man speaker so man speaker you see the whole construct of that is wrong it's a government that's economic policies are failing they realize that the reality of the situation is such that they cannot do what they plan to do they realize that the promises that they made on the campaign they cannot follow it so they have one option one option is to sell passports a mass that is the only option and if they don't sell passports a mass and that is why as we speak there's an investment mission going to check going to china to sell passports if they have left the they'll be leaving soon if not today tomorrow a mass a mass all over the world selling our passports because the economic because the economic policies have they realize the reality of government has hit them all the plans fixed schools roads the reality has hit them that they just isn't enough revenue to deal with all the promises that you make so the only solution to their mind is to sell passports a mass so the patrimonious in lucha does not matter you make an excuse that you have a hundred thousand people if you have you sell a hundred thousand dollars the people may have more integrity than people who owe three million dollars also have excuses you're clauditive with diplomatic passports all kind of excuses because you do not want to agree that you have a problem in revenue you cannot fulfill the promises you made to the people of sedition you can't you don't have the scope you don't have the range you don't have the money you have to cut several things carry faster you cut national national choice you cut nice you cut because you have because you don't have the money so the only solution you have is to sell passports a mass and that's exactly what this government is doing they are selling passports a mass so that they're because the economic policies that they promised electorate they cannot the variety has hit them they realize now that there are issues to get money to do what they promised to do the right to have government is setting so the only solution is to sell our patch money a mass to go on a salesman pitch solution passports for sale a hundred dollars who want that is how that is how we have cheapen our city program so man speaker i want to urge this government to act responsibly and really look at the changes they've made to the regulations i want to ask them also to act responsibly and amend the legislation if you want to have a sovereign fund and you want to take people money people passport money and unlearn to fund that two percent amend the legislation mr prime minister follow the law amend there is nothing in that that gives you the right to do that you can't do it there is nothing that says you can do it if you want to do it you've got to come to this honorable house and you have to amend the legislation and allow this house to debate on these amendments finally finally finally man speaker i want to know who are st lucas marketing agents i know there was art and capital and there was c s global these were two marketing agents that we had and the same minister finance made a you and cry saying that the government had used art and capital to lobby for them in the impacts matter attacking this government saying that we use art and capital to lobby for us in the impacts matter right now we hear and this is made a documented house that henry and partners are in st lucas is henry and partners here as advisors are there as marketing agents are there as promoters what are they in st lucas we need to know it because the legislation says that you have to publish the marketing agents you've got to follow the legislation you have to publish the marketing agents you have not published henry and partners as a marketing agent but you have henry and partners is opening a new office in st lucas it's fourth in the caribbean the question is what is henry and partners so my speaker i want to urge this house to allow good sense to reveal let us sit down and we look at that cip legislation let it make it more compliant to what the government thinks they want let us not speak about things that are not in the legislation there is nothing legislation that says the the minister of finance can take people's passport money and lend to foreigners there's nothing that sense and i want anybody to show it to me there's nothing that sense it is not in the law and it should desist from doing it if you want you've got to come to this owner of house and change the law to make that possible so all the flashing mirrors about jufalli and this and that all these things are flashing mirrors for a government who have come to the to the reality that they haven't got money to do what they want to do they haven't got the the the the fiscal scope to do what they what they have to do and they have decided manners bigger they have decided they have decided to sell passports to solve the problem not manners bigger you know look at what's the cabinet conclusion that the minister that the minister the minister um circulator now i want to say man he said now ma'am before i make if i said i want to read it carefully couldn't give me two minutes to read it the minister said that that was a cip a pool project he said so right he said he said that was a cip a pool project all right now i'm gonna say i want to take some time to read it and i want to take the one speaker if the minister said he says it's a good now i want to take time to read it because that is what he's so deleted can you give me some time please that's good by the honorable member for answering and you may recall he said it was an approved cip project and there was no dc approval could i take a few minutes to look at it from to see what he said can i read it man speaker man speaker cabinet he's a man speaker we can't allow that to happen it's the same thing that happened in the campaign saying whatever they want you can make terrorists say whatever they want just to just to soil people's characters just to say just to soil people's characters and impute in power motives look at the cabinet conclusion can i read it application by bokeh state's limited for tourism incentives to facilitate the development of belvedere plantation cabinet considered a memorandum dated seven july 2014 submitted by the mission of tourism creating territory in creative industries cabinet rescinded conclusions two three three or four and pursuant to the two reasons stimulus and investment acts number 12 of 2014 approved the following that belvedere plantation be declared and approved development it goes that's a consideration in fact hundred percent wave of impudence and value added tax on all building construction material blah blah blah it goes page 200 percent waiver of import duty and back on furniture blah blah blah hundred percent wave of import duty on imports of alternative energy any saving that incentives granted in clause two three and four be subject to approval of the basic qualities by the mission of tourism as usual hundred percent wave of input due to an exercise duty on two vehicles appropriate for the terrain for bogies for tv exclusive use number three all vehicles granted should carry the belvedere plantation logo visibly imprinted blah blah blah hundred percent exemption on the charge of income of the companies involving the ownership of the project hundred percent wave of property tax payable and the property is involved in the development for the period that the management of belvedere plantation submits a ban by annual report from the date of commencing of the project that the mission of tourism heritage and creative industries be informed of any changes that the applicant complies with the monetary requirements of the mission of tourism where is see i please take us in that document man speaker i want to propose to you that the member be cited for me sitting in the house that the document that is circulated the member be cited for me sitting in the house because you are telling this owner of the house that you you are going to get a document that says that a project was cib approved and we approved it and the document that is circulate says nothing about cib or this approval man speaker how can be allowed to happen but that is why the way they are today i think so man speaker the member must be cited because he is here to mislead the house and the evidence of mislead the house is there so i want to propose man speaker that the member be be put before the the committee of privileges and be cited for mislead the house okay i want to make that proposition today man speaker man speaker that is what is to be happening sir so noted madam clerk and we'll proceed according you say man speaker that you say man speaker the truth will come to bear you know because all these things that that have been said all these pumpers rising on point of order etc man speaker all these things will come to bear because what has happened in the in the technological age now is anything you say anything you say is recorded and anything you say will be not can be you know will be cited at a different time so man speaker i want to support the motion by the honorable member for castry south i want to say that the government should listen and and consider what you said when we implemented cip we did not think that it would be an issue that would not in that would not have any sort of controversy we knew it was sensitive that is why we involve anybody we are saying to this government involve everybody again involve everybody again in in its implementation or in in the changes involve everybody i have said to the prime minister i've said to him there are certain things that he and i can work with i cited to him about the correspondent banking that's not a political issue i said to him about air travel that's not a political issue there are certain things that we have to take away from the political from the political roughen from the from the hustles we have to be mature we had to be statesmen we in you in government now stop that and let us try our best try our best to make solution succeed and try our best make solution succeed does not mean selling our passports amass thank you man speaker honorable member for view for north thank you very much madam speaker i wish to support madam speaker the resolution moved by the honorable member for castry south and i want to spend just a few minutes to speak on the resolution madam speaker this the cip or the citizenship by investment program of which we speak was introduced by the senator labor party government and as explained by the member for castry south there were several we had several rough discussions before that program was implemented you may well imagine madam speaker that members of a cabinet of a government who have certain views would surely look at a program like this as one that has to be taken on board very carefully and so while madam speaker we brought this bill and afterwards the cip act to parliament we were always very cautious as you know madam speaker an individual can become a citizen of this country by both by marriage and we have the other methods by naturalization by descent and so anytime we are going to grant citizenship to any individual we certainly have to be very careful and i listen to members opposite and in particular the prime minister many times referring to this program and in the discussions they speak about the selling of passports on a while ago the member for castries is referred to comments by the prime minister about selling as many as quickly as possible and i noted that he clapped and knocked the table bum bum bum bum bum this kind of action madam speaker in relation to the cip speaks to the philosophy of the cip and the member for ancillary country said this this is not a philosophical debate there's nothing in this that has to do with philosophy if a madam speaker mckei s p ché he's a fair fun passports at least seen see a bad guy key important if a clever party are met a program seller and some latinian shy difficulty because can you serve local by passport saintly see local by a moon a passport saintly see local for a moon a situa a saintly see see a bad guy need to be fair like a shy percussion if a premier minister madam speaker like a parallel is a fair fun passports at least seen if they've fun a shy passport leave it keep proceed and we are very concerned about that madam speaker i'm concerned because this attitude of selling as many saintly shan passports cheaply and as quickly as possible without any cap as the labor party did with the 500 speaks to something else madam speaker in my opinion there has been an attack on the solutioness of our country madam speaker and this is another act by this government to continue the attack on the solutioness of our people madam speaker when you consider that this is the same government and the same prime minister who who speaks about our patrimony being our credit rating this is the same government madam speaker that is willing to sell as many passports as cheaply as possible and as fast as possible in unlimited quantities madam speaker that's the same government that has attacked the national trust that is the same government madam speaker that has attacked the views of the church and that is the same government that has gone on is the same government so when you speak about the philosophy of this action I believe it's philosophical madam speaker I want members opposite the members of parliament to explain to their constituents the fact that they have agreed to sell on a limited number of passports to individuals whom we do not know who will have the right to live within their communities maybe thousands of them I want the ministers and the parliamentary representatives opposite not to think about it because I believe they think about those things and they institute those programs deliberately because of the newfound cultural philosophical idea of the solution-ness of our country so my god here madam speaker say say monarchy and government so when thousands of those people who will become new citizens of st lusia and the OECS accepts and vencent and the grenadines can establish hundreds of small businesses in their communities I want the government to explain and the members of parliament I speak by madam look in your t-boutique and before he can even bougie men with a past care passé and such a moon being sit while you set the seat you suffer a member I'll have a plea have a plea this is not what the labor government intended madam speaker we have explained that the restrictions that were placed by way of regulations in the CIP those restrictions were meant to guard against an overall running over of our country because while we want investment while we want investment we never intended to sell our passports wholesale cheaply to anybody who wants it madam speaker that is why we stressed on citizenship by investment and not selling of our passports like they refer to it selling passports we're going to sell as many as possible if we believe you have a net worth after due diligence has been done and we believe because of your net worth and your investment portfolio you can invest in our country you can create jobs you can create value added activities and you can increase demand from other allied sectors increase real estate major construction assets then the labor government created a program that would cause you to become a citizen of St Lucia it was never intended madam speaker for any Tom Deacon Harry to just go out there and purchase a St Lucia passport and to me madam speaker I've said over and over again and I will say every time I get a chance in this house that the prime minister and now because of actions the rest of his cabinet really don't understand the people of St Lucia there is a deliberate attempt a deliberate and programmed attempt at recolonizing St Lucia and every every single structure that makes St Lucia St Lucia is being attacked madam speaker there's a citizenship by investment program and they make it chip chip chip so Nepot Moon Saviny Nepot Moon Saviny set up shop Nepot Moon Saviny a cast three I wonder what the small business owners and the medium business owners traditional St Lucia business owners in castries and gozillie think about this I wait to see the day when because of the changes by the UWP citizens of any country who can purchase our passport for hundred thousand dollars will come and set up shop in gozillie and because they have the money to buy up the strip and put businesses in there I wonder how those people feel I would like to say madam speaker these people who are business in castries St Lucia a gozillie who has a business to come and commit because there is no government UWP to do citizenship by investment because the world is not able to buy a passport for a hundred thousand dollars Nepot Moon Mioka Alepei Lashin China Pufan Passport how would they feel when those people land in St Lucia and begin to devour our businesses I need not tell you madam speaker what is happening in Jamaica today I need not tell you that civic groups are rising in Jamaica against this very thing and we are moving to a point madam speaker by the actions of this government whether it is DSH whether it is CIP all of the fundamental structures in our country that safeguard our St Lucia this government is attacking madam speaker Yovle Baytea Bailot Moon Pufan Passport Muntea so I say madam speaker we should ensure that this program goes back to its original intent I believe madam speaker that this government and the MPs opposite will live to regret this we cannot open up our country like this and not just our country the OECS the program the changes to this program madam speaker are not going to benefit our country it is not going to increase the level of investments and the philosophy behind it the destruction of our St Lucianess is madam speaker something that we believe members opposite must think about I thank you madam speaker and I say to you I urge the government I urge the prime minister madam speaker to think about what he's doing to this country I urge the cabinet members to think about what those policies are doing to the country of St Lucia and I urge St Lucianess to think about what this is going to do to their own lives in small communities I thank you madam speaker Honourable minister in the office of the prime minister with responsibility thank you madam speaker madam speaker it is not surprising to me that the member for Kastri South would have raised the motion would have raised the motion regarding this citizen by investment program madam speaker because we're all aware that you know he was one of the architects this is his baby and of course you know he would like to protect what was initially created however madam speaker I am certain that had he been in our position today because of the realities that exist madam speaker he would not have not have any choice but to address this thing as we are addressing it and so I discredit his request madam speaker and I will I will address the points that he's raised as it relates to re-implementing the original version but before I do that madam speaker and I know the member for Kastri South did attempt to speak to YCIP but madam speaker we speak to the citizenry of this country and the citizenry need to understand madam speaker where we are as a nation where we get our assistance from what is happening to us as St Lucia because we are now being seen as a developing country which means we no longer receive the kind of aid that we used to receive before because no longer seen as a less developed country and in the eyes of the powers that be you no longer require the kind of assistance that we used to give you and so we have to turn to other ways to create investments create economic activity so that our country could get on with its program and therefore CIP came into being and madam speaker CIP is nothing new CIP has been around for a very long time and as indicated by the member it's in America it's in Canada it's all over the place but what I would have loved to have heard from the the member for Kastri South madam speaker and and I know he argues very well because I have known him for a very long time madam speaker is how can we address the citizen by investment program to protect our citizens now I'm very happy I'm speaking after the member for view for North because he raised some very put in and put in on points madam speaker I do not recall Heron in this parliament any major policy discussion as it relates to the implication of CIP for Saint Lucia or for the implications of the CIP with the other OECS countries on Saint Lucia madam speaker because madam speaker and I have I wrote it down here just a while ago laws do not discriminate against the citizens based on how one acquires citizenship and I'll say that again laws do not discriminate against citizens based on how one acquires citizenship and I'm saying that in the context madam speaker because as an OECS we have free movement of people madam speaker and when the honorable member and I will address some of his concerns speaks to the issue that the fact that we have now opened up the limitations of 500 passports madam speaker this to me is ridiculous and I'll tell you why madam speaker there is nothing that's preventing someone who has acquired citizen by investment in Dominica to come to Saint Lucia and be a citizen of Saint Lucia there is no protection madam speaker to protect our citizens and as a member from Viewfort North indicated he spoke about the thousands that will come and how it might affect the strip how it might affect Bellevue, Viewfort how it might affect the baker in reunion Choiselle madam speaker and then he said that they ensured that the limitations that were put in place you'd not find every little man coming in but what is to prevent the man with the free million-dollar net worth from deciding I would like to start up a small bakery next to another bakery local bakery in Saint Lucia nothing because the rich only know how to get richer and even look at all kind of ways to make money so madam speaker I would have preferred if the member for castries south was bringing in for a healthy discussion into this parliament how we can protect our citizens madam speaker I remember when the changes were being made to the CIP program I had a discussion with the prime minister and I remember the prime minister telling me that he would have loved to have dealt with the CIP program as an OCS body I remember that very well madam speaker and I'm sure he had that conversation with other members of our cabinet but as it is madam speaker everybody has decided to do it on their own and so Dominica has decided we are going for a hundred thousand dollars if in the true sense of what CIP is to do CIP is supposed to assist madam speaker in gaining sufficient investments to run your economic programs but the most important thing madam speaker in all of that is the due diligence that we're going to do so it doesn't matter how many people we bring in it matters madam speaker the checks that we make on these people to ensure that these people are credible and that we bring in people of integrity into our country madam speaker madam speaker I wish to speak to some of the concerns or some of the the measures that the member wishes to reinstate the member speaks that the minimum net worth of three million dollars should be reinstated and I'm sure madam speaker that the member when he was the high commissioner would have rubbed shoulders with some very rich people and he would have known madam speaker how bothersome these people could find some of these forms that they have to fill these questions that they have to answer and so madam speaker with a net worth of three million dollars it makes it very prohibitive for us to attract the quality of millionaires or billionaires that we would like to attract into St. Lucia madam speaker and it is on that it is on that notion madam speaker that we felt due diligence would take care of that aspect madam speaker I speak to well I've spoken to the issue of the cap of 500 passports madam speaker and you know if madam speaker we have we saw we sell 500 passports within three months madam speaker and then we are able to have discussions with a very very promising investor are you telling me madam speaker that we will not be able to bring this investor in this is what a cap does madam speaker madam speaker as I have said there is nothing we can do to prevent the thousands of people who have purchased CIP in the OECS from coming to St. Lucia and setup shop there's nothing we can do they are OECS residents they are OECS citizens what can we do what we should have implemented was how we protect our people and that's the basis that I want to that's what I want to preach here today madam speaker madam speaker I go to the qualifying donations an applicant applying alone initially it was $200,000 we have reduced it to $200,000 it was initially $200,000 we have brought it down to $100,000 madam speaker madam speaker as I indicated earlier this change was a direct response to the market to madam speaker and what we recognize madam speaker is that some of our CIP competitors are bringing down their ceilings madam speaker so we are not alone in this why would we allow Dominica just to use a country to be able to attract an investor they get the funds into there whether it be the sovereign fund or whatever vehicle is set up to accept the money and yet still they can come to St. Lucia and do what they want madam speaker there is no equity in that so madam speaker for us to ensure that we remain competitive and that we attract people there because by far St. Lucia is more attractive in terms of our beauty than any of these countries and we believe if we put ourselves in a position to attract the investors we will be able to do so the member spoke as relates to the board shall retain 20 percent of each monetary contribution to the St. Lucia National Economic Fund madam speaker to run a unit like the investment the citizen by investment unit madam speaker and I know he was arguing against my contribution when I spoke to him across the room that marketing and promotion does not fall under operation expenses but as far as I know madam speaker marketing and promotion is part of your operation expenses so I'm not sure how you were able to double the 20 percent to 40 percent but I'm sure the prime minister will enlighten that situation as he makes his contribution so madam speaker in essence and in the context of the reality of what we're facing madam speaker as a country it was necessary to make these changes to the CIP program for us to remain competitive and madam speaker as indicated by the member for ancillary countries and as indicated by other members across on the other side the most important aspect of all of this madam speaker is that we have a very effective due diligence process in place because that is where we will be able to capture who is good and who is not good madam speaker I rest my case madam speaker thank you honorable member for view for itself thank you madam speaker madam speaker what the honorable member for microsoft said fact let me rephrase that I can jump in there too quickly madam speaker what the member for chemistry south said in his presentation that I've always harbored anxieties about the CIP and I had to be persuaded to agree to the CIP is absolutely correct that's no secret I made that statement in this honorable house and saw that honorable members who attended that sitting when the legislation was introduced but remember that and I made that statement at the inaugural launching of the CIP program in monaco in europe let me madam speaker explain what my anxieties have been and why today those anxieties have not been calmed those anxieties have been heightened the first thing is really purely theoretical philosophical it is that a CIP program is essentially an artificial construct artificial in the sense that we are creating a legal framework creating a legal creating legal infrastructure to bestow citizenship which does not arise out of the traditional circumstances that we understand to it birth in a country or parents who hold a certain kind of citizenship of course the rebuttal to that is fairly simple that you have been exporting people all these years in any event whether it is to the UK to St. Croix to the US and in time they apply for citizenship although of course it is also well known that in time once they have acquired citizenship family members then use family lineage to justify immigration to the US and eventually green cards and citizenship but it was an artificial construct for economic purposes it was not a natural construct because it did not spring from the historical interpretation of law that confers citizenship but I admit is a theoretical philosophical matter that has bothered me for a while when we enacted the Syngibar Investment Act I was clear and so was the cabinet that I led that it had a very short life we did not believe that it would endure beyond maybe eight years for the most and now I think circumstances are conspiring that it may well not even endure another five to six years why because the circumstances in the world are changing so dramatically and when you look at the number of countries now who have got themselves into trouble over the issue of granting citizenship to nationals whether from Asia or from the Middle East then you begin to grasp the enormity of the issue and I don't see in the horizon that the tensions between Western Europe and the United States with Middle Eastern countries will ease I don't see that happening and whether we like it or not that's our principal recruiting round for these citizens of course some turn to China and feel that China is a savior it will provide the hundreds that we need now there was a plus or minus to this logic because on the plus side it says let's hurry up and see what benefits we can get as quickly as possible before it comes to a natural death or on the other side on the other side ignore that leave it alone and all will be well of course we are now seeing even in Canada there's been a revaluation of their own citizenship by investment program and in Europe there's a quiet re-evaluation that is on the way we have to be exceptionally careful about Europe if only because we have to bear in mind that a few years ago three or four years ago the European countries that fall under the umbrella of Schengen decided to waive visas for seclusion and other nationals of the OECS question is whether we want to protect that how do we protect the right of those solutions to continue to access those countries and whether we get gauged in any behavior that can be potentially injurious my third concern is and has been championed very well is the danger of enclaves in the society the member for Cassie South explained that I was always worried about that issue the member for Viewfort North put it rather eloquently and in very colorful language he spoke about dissolutionness of the program the the new citizen and then of course to the credit of the member for Swazel he hit the nail on the head but he didn't nail it he raised the issue of what will be the likely impact of the citizenship by investment program on our own nationals of course he touched OECS nationals but that is the current and sometimes when I listen to him I have to ask myself I wonder whose side is on because that is a fundamental question that we have to come to terms with but I want to return to that in a few minutes the fourth the fourth point and I want to go back to this issue of the enclaves you know the logic of this program is that these rich people these billionaires millionaires trillionaires they will obtain citizenship in your country they're not interested in residing in your country they will do the investments all they need of course is the passport the question is how long that kind of arrangement will be maintained I believe that sooner or later one of these citizens will be approaching one of these courts in the region for full declaration of what rights they're entitled to are they entitled to vote are they entitled to um old land freely like everybody else these are the kinds of questions that will arise what rights do they have for any transgressions of bill of rights these are kinds of questions and very soon that issue will have to be categorically mitigated I'll come to that in a few minutes the second or the fourth thing that concerned me and I was never able to resolve was the issue of conflicts over the rights of such citizens and the situation is not as clear as a member for Swazel is making it out to be I have seen legislation from other OECS countries or from an OECS country that make it very clear that certain rights that are conferred on OECS nationals do not apply to CIP citizens because basically the passports identify who these persons are there is no constitutional rule that says that because you have CIP and said Lucia you grant a man citizenship in said Lucia then automatically if he goes to St. Vincent St Vincent is bound to give him citizenship there's no such rule it may offend the movement of free persons across the region the movement of citizens across the region but that that means it's a different set of rights that you're invoking not a constitutional right so this notion that somehow you must open your doors and accept everybody willy-dilly it's not free of difficulty and the fact that we have had no major conflict really has to do with the number of OECS countries that moved in that direction Dominica and Tiga Grenada St kids now St Lucia fight and that is this idea of a protocol and understanding between those countries in fact emerging out of the launching ceremony in Monaco where it was first moved in does make a certain amount of sense because it may provide a degree of mutual protection but it does not provide protection in respect of all other character countries who are very deeply disturbed by these developments so the issue is not free of difficulty finally for me there was a challenge of national security there were some strange things happening in the region in the last 18 months the other situation where a Chinese national who had acquired citizenship in St. Kitt's Nevis the Chinese government wanted him for corruption in China St. Kitt's Nevis does not have diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China but China exerted so much pressure at the end of the day that individual could not be protected under the umbrella of the citizenship that he had acquired in St. Kitt's Nevis and eventually he was picked up and returned to China now now the attitude of China is not to be disregarded in this issue and while it is the case that they appear to be turning a blind eye to this development I am not so sure that the seeming friendliness or failure to acknowledge the existence of these programs will continue and I make that point against the background that I expect continued tensions in the Asian theater with the North American theater and even possibly possibly some countries within Europe I am one of those Madam Speaker who argued passionately for the 500 limit per year and I've heard the arguments to suggest that there's no justification for the 500 but a fact that matter the 500 was closely identified with a marketing position and a marketing strategy and also to the reputation of the country it was our feeling at the time that if you were to test the vast majority of situations they probably and I admit to you that is untested and perhaps this is something now we need to test they probably Madam Speaker will express deep uneasiness about the possibility that their country could be overrun by nationals of other countries holding valid passports and so the thinking was you keep the numbers at 500 you increase the unit prices substantially and you position yourself in the marketplace to be different from the rest now of course you hear the argument that that was not competitive enough that did not make sense that you need to open all your doors but as you open all the doors you also open it up to public criticism and anxiety and what has made the vital difference in all of this is to your hand because from day one he was opposed to the limit and argued with us trenchedly that we should not subscribe to any limit now that of course is now settled in the minds of solutions but I believe that we have opened our borders in that way as has happened with the amendments on the review certainly in my view increases and intensifies the vulnerability that we all feel the situation is not being helped by statements made by the minister who is responsible for the CIP program and I'm going to circulate to all of our members but I'm trying to follow your ruling although I will say to you I think that ruling needs to be reviewed but I say so with respect statements made at an investment migration forum some time ago and I'm going to circulate it before Madam Speaker I quote from it the statement was made on June 7th and in my view these are the kind of careless unwarranted statements that are causing damage that are causing anxiety notwithstanding the applause that you get the statement that I'm about to read out is dated June 7th 2007 and it says that follows I'm going to read the entire thing to read it in the recording I know that the honorable member for migrosouth when he replied would be absolutely entitled to reply to what he's quoted to say or even possibly denied who knows quote it was during Wednesday's session of investment migration forum in front of 300 or so delegates assembled in the Geneva Kempinski grand ball room that's inclusion prime minister Alan Shastney announced his country's CIP will begin pain a 10% commission to all registered agents promoting the 100,000 contribution option the audience a veritable who's who of the investment migration industry CEOs of the world's largest immigration firms ciu officials the field's most prominent academics heads of state met the news with chairs the PM also went on to dispel any confusion about the rights pertaining to citizenship obtained by investment saying individuals naturalized to the country's CIP have the same rights as the inclusion of born citizens and they quoted it if you get a citizenship through the CIP and later get married your spouse can apply for citizenship if you get a citizenship through the CIP and later have children your descendants can apply for citizenship as well that is legal heresy but I'll continue commenting on the recent tribulation of Caribbean banks sizable payments to which are frequently withheld or even halted by US intermediary banks due ostensibly inadequate documentation the PM reveal plans who accept CIP payments in denominations other than the US dollar as a means of so convincing the correspondence banking system that is currently delaying the transfer of CIP funds from investors in the country now I want to sink in really sink in ask the question whether any Prime Minister should be saying in public that his objective is to circumvent that spiral just a further disclose plans for opening a st. Lucian residence by investment program the scheme would enable successful applicants to settle permanently in st. Lucia and by extension any carry comes state again another piece of heresy and to apply for the citizenship after five years residents obtaining a permanent residence through this program would be taxed at a very low non-domicile tax rate the PM promise for the details on this program in the week's account I want to return to the substance of the of the document I take first if you get a citizenship through the CIP and later get married your spouse can apply for citizenship if you get a citizenship through the CIP and later have children your descendants can apply for citizenship as well I have gone through that citizenship by investment act and I can find nowhere where that can happen as a matter of fact madam speaker if you look at the citizenship by investment act if you look at the citizenship by investment act you will notice that the category that would attract would be clause 3 sub clause 2 section 3 sub section 2 and section 5 of the citizenship by investment act that section says a person born outside st. Lucia after the appointed date shall become a citizen at that date of his or her birth if at the later date his or her father or mother is it isn't otherwise done by a verdict of this section or section 32 this provision has attracted the attention of the office of the attorney general while it is true a new man now occupies that office but I am able to say that I am aware of a legal opinion from the chambers of the attorney general certainly during my time making it quite clear the children born to parents who obtained citizenship status pursuant to sections 3 1 and section 5 that I've just read out are prohibited from being considered as seclusion citizens now why would you want to go there even if for argument's sake your interpretation of that section was right why would you want to go and announce to an international community that once you get a citizenship by cip then if you get married two months later everything all right your spouse can just normally apply for citizenship so too can the children all normally apply using a different door to what created through the cip why would you do that for who rise for claps that's why you're going to do that and what are the implications of making that kind of statement to the people of seducia telling them that in effect you are prepared to interpret the laws of the country to say that once you give citizenship by a passport then a few months later the doors become open and you can grab citizenship in accordance with the act but that last paragraph is even more ominous as I said it's legal heresy the fact that you grant permanent citizenship to someone in st lusia it does not mean that the same rights to which they're entitled in seducia that they are entitled in other character states permanent residence is a singular act to the country where it was granted you cannot call out that kind of promise to would be investors to sell your product when it is bound to create unnecessary anxiety among members of the regional community I don't know of any situation where once you grant once you grant permanent residence to an individual that automatically the rights that you confirm that individual you can it obtains elsewhere you might argue the case in respect of citizens as I said you might argue that case you might argue it although as I pointed out there are countries who are beginning to make those distinctions between ordinary st lusian citizens and of course persons who have obtained citizenship under CIP programs haven't said that madam speaker I had a concern and the arguments about due diligence I will not respond to the pecan about if you can class it as such about not your mail and this and that but I'm not so sure that those due diligence initiatives or procedures are as I am clad as we want them to be the question that the prime minister has to answer the member for me who saw that to answer in his presentation is whether there are persons who were rejected by the board some weeks a month ago but those decisions were reversed they were rejected because of failure of due diligence and all of a sudden those decisions were reversed and granted passports if that is the case who are those individuals I will simply say this this was right that due diligence is perhaps one of the very key elements and sorting out due diligence must mean that we have exceedingly close relationships with the United States with Canada and with the european countries they must have a clear idea how we are embarking on those due diligence procedures who are the individuals doing the due diligence what are the reports on these individuals that have been considered and well I know the member for me who's south talks his relationship with the with the United States champions that relationship but I think all of us around this table need to be reminded what happened to the former prime minister of St. Kitts and Neathers Denzil Douglas when he was called up to the state department and he was told by the state department that they needed a complete list of all the applicants for the CIP program and who was granted that is why madam speaker that due diligence is not a matter that should be in the bosom of the government solely but it is in matter it has to be open it has to be transparent madam speaker where do I stand with the CIP program I gave you an indication of why initially I was persuaded to to go along with it nothing has happened to inspire me to give me confidence I can't agree with the measures that have been taken by the government because it is denaturing what I believe what I stood for it is true that while we crafted the initiative together with input from civil society and the opposition it is true we did that is also true that because of the anxiety to bring the legislation in force we did have to come to parliament urgently and quickly and then it is interesting too that I remember well they remember for Kastri Saudis when he saw the section that is now being contested today on the negative resolution that he asked for an explanation of what a negative resolution was all about and I had to explain at the time that the negative resolution essentially allowed the regulation to come into force unless annulled by the house now of course they the law that governs these negative resolutions is contained in the interpretation act and the interpretation act provides a window of 40 days for other elements to take place it's actually those who are interested I think it is in section 39 of the interpretation acts of section 7 and 8 I still believe that the negative resolution procedure is the way to go I still believe that but I also believe that precisely because of the sensitivities that is involved in this program and the dangers that are looking the events so eloquently described by the member for Kastri south and the member for Kastri east that that program can best survive by cooperation between the respective parties and I believe that the initiative with which it was started should be sustained it is very interesting as you listen to the member for canaries and answer and you know I already don't have much time for his views but it is interesting that he can say things like we had no choice we had to do it circumstances same conclusion from the member for Suzele I believe like the member for Kastri east the leader of the opposition that the time has come to carve out some kind of understanding or arrangement regarding that program to safeguard it we don't have time that's my point Madam Speaker the truth is as I said I haven't been persuaded otherwise about my views I am inching towards rejection of this program and I have made my position very clear that I have always had anxieties but I hope that does not happen I don't want it to happen and so I urge that we take a different approach to this program by ensuring perhaps there is a joint parliamentary committee that can oversee whatever actions and decisions that are taking place under this program Madam Speaker I thank you Prime Minister leader of government business Madam I beg the suspension of the house for one hour until 20 to nine honorable members the question is the house who stands suspended until quarter to nine I now put the question as many as of that opinion see I as many as of a contrary opinion see no I think the eyes have it the eyes have it this house stands suspended until 20 to nine quarter to nine the house is now in recess for one hour so we invite you to stay tuned to the national television network for live coverage of the house of assembly for today September 12 2017