 We need to go back to the origin of the DSH agreement. You would recall that originally the investor was in negotiations with the previous Labour Party administration and we had been negotiating with them for quite a while. We never reached an agreement with them. There were too many clauses in what they proposed as an agreement which we thought were not in the best interest of solution. And we then proceeded to negotiate it for almost a year to try to get an acceptable agreement. Now, we are not opposed to development. We actually invite foreign investors to come into this country. But whatever is agreed upon, we strive always and every political party should always strive to ensure that it's in the best interest of the government and people of solution. By the time of the elections in June 2016, there was no agreement with DSH. Within a month of the change of government and the last UWP administration, the leader of the opposition as prime minister signed an agreement with DSH. In fact, I will tell you some of the clauses we thought were offensive, were actually included and signed into force by the leader of the opposition who was the prime minister. And you need to put that in context. Then we are a Labour Party saying, we've not reached a point where we believe this argument is in the best interest of solution. And within one month, one month of being the new government, it was signed. Of course, we know how solutions reacted when they saw some of the details of that agreement. Let's fast forward now. Since the Labour Party came back into government, we had our creative DSH. We repeated our position to DSH. We are not opposed to a development in viewport. We want development projects all over the country but they must be done in a way which is acceptable to the people of Saint Lucia and consistent with our laws. And we said to them, the DSH agreement, as we know it, has to be renegotiated. We need to sit at the table and to discuss the provisions because there are provisions that we had a difficulty with. DSH's position then was that the why they had not been able to implement the agreement because the last government, led by the leader of the opposition, had not stuck to their commitments and did not, in a rightful manner, implemented what was agreed and the manner of conducting business was questionable. In a sense, that is what the message we got. We indicated clearly again to DSH that we needed to renegotiate the agreement, that they would just not close the reform acceptable, not in the best interest of Saint Lucia, I see. And some of them required legislative changes, some of them required specific arrangements for DSH. So we indicated that to them, let us renegotiate it. They asked us to basically resubmit a new agreement as a basis for discussion. They did not want us to cancel, attempt to cancel the previous agreements and they submitted a new agreement to us for negotiation. The agreement virtually starts off saying that the last government was a failure. The last government did not do business in the right way and they did not keep to the commitments of the DSH agreement. We indicated to them, we still had a difficulty for what they were proposing. It was not in the best interest of Saint Lucia and we had the back and forth, back and forth as is the name negotiations. Then indicated to us, look, Saint Lucia has not delivered, especially under the last government and therefore they are minded to go to arbitration. The Saint Lucia Liberal Party government, which is in office right now, has never canceled any agreement, did not abandon any agreement. Our position with DSH was one of the government of Saint Lucia, although led by Alan Shassi, signed an agreement. We want an opportunity to renegotiate it. So contrary to what the leader of the opposition said, we did not cancel any agreements. But he is right that DSH has indicated to us that they are, well, they still notice on us of an intent to go to arbitration because in their view, the last government did not deliver. So Alan Shassi signed an agreement with them and then for now he could not deliver and the people of Saint Lucia did not favor what he wanted to do and therefore in their view, in their view, he had not delivered and therefore Saint Lucia had not delivered and they would want Saint Lucia to pay them, pay them a fee for them to walk away. Of course, our position was that let's go to arbitration. So he has announced publicly and you would notice that this government has never gone public with those details because we thought that in the conduct of business, we should respect the negotiations that are going on. And yes, they did indicate to us and still notice of an intent to go to arbitration. And we prepared ourselves, if they decided to go there, we would go to arbitration. We told them under no circumstances would the government essentially pay millions of dollars to DSH for them not to go to arbitration. I need to know, how does the leader of the decision know that there is an intention on DSH to go to Saint Lucia? Why is it as a party and as a leader, as a former prime minister, knowing that DSH is going to sue the government of Saint Lucia, you would host a party activity at the DSH facility. Why is it you'd allow your party to have a dance and fundraiser at DSH, knowing that they wanted to sue the government and people of Saint Lucia for millions of dollars? So first of all, how did he get to know that? Is it that he's in contact with DSH? Is it that he's colluding with DSH? Secondly, knowing that there is an intention by DSH to sue the government and people of Saint Lucia, why would you go and have a party activity in that same facility with the same people who intend to sue the government and people of Saint Lucia? And I think these are critical issues because when the government and people of Saint Lucia are sued for millions, tens of millions of dollars, do you know the destruction and the suffering that can cause to the government and people of Saint Lucia? For an agreement that you sign, how is it that he knows all the details of what DSH is going to do? How is it? And I think he need to tell the people of Saint Lucia why in the first place he signs such a horrendous agreement? What was on the table? What was discussed? How did he reach a conclusion to sign that agreement? And now that DSH in confidence to us, and we've never said anything in public before today, that he knows DSH is going to sue Saint Lucia, he needs to come open and transparent in Saint Lucia and tell us what's his true engagement with DSH? But the issue is not about us. The issue is about Alan Chastley. Tell us what's United Workers Party and himself is involved with DSH? How does he know those details? Why did he make it public? How does, how is he involved? Why would this party be having an activity at DSH knowing they're about to sue the government people of Saint Lucia? For me, the people of Saint Lucia can always be assured that we will fight and protect their best interests. There's no doubt about it. We have since they serve intent on us, noticed on us, we have engaged some legal minds at considerable costs to assess, to review and to give us advice. Our team is ready. Any day we have to go to arbitration to defend the impetus of Saint Lucia. So there's no question about our commitment, our dedication to defend and fight for the best interests of Saint Lucia. But again, I call upon the leader, the opposition, to explain his involvement with DSH and tell us what's the true story. Well, there are two things to note in regard to this. First of all, the government system does not own the restruct. The government system has no rights over the restruct. The government system cannot decide how to use the restruct. So that's it, one. And secondly, even if the sovereign group had any intent on asking DSH to use their restruct, the fact is they've had races and they've never allowed them to add any Creole race. Or even when they've not had races to allow them to use it on off days. So there's no intention on the part of DSH or the opposition to take the interests of the sovereign or owners and the stable boys and those guys into account and to make them have a facility. Well, again, the government solution has no rights in the facility. Then at all.