 Senators, when we last rose, I believe we had just concluded our debate on the youth economy. So we will continue with the items on the order paper and we move on to continue for our bills. Leader of Government Business. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I beg to move for the first reading of a bill, shortly entitled Firearms Amendment. Firearms Amendment. Honourable Leader of Government Business. Mr. President, I move for the suspension of Standing Order 492 to allow this bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Senators, the question is that Standing Order No. 492 be suspended in order to allow the Honourable Leader of Government Business to proceed with remaining stages of the bill at this sitting. I now put the question, as many as are of that opinion say aye. As many as are of a country opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Leader of Government Business, you may proceed. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I beg to move for the second reading of a bill, shortly entitled Firearms Amendment. Unlike the previous bill, Mr. President, this bill is an amendment bill. And it really is, before I move on, we know that this was circulated previously. And so it was in the public domain. And also, I'm hopeful that the Leader of Opposition Business did receive it in the same package that he received the Youth Economy Bill. I note also, Mr. President, as I begin my presentation, that he is not in this chamber. Again, I'm hoping that when he comes in, that he familiarizes himself with both what is in the bill and what I would have said before he seeks to make his presentation. So as to avoid a repeat of what happened earlier this morning. Mr. President, this bill, as I did mention, has had some public scrutiny and was circulated. And so you will notice as I go through the contents that there will be quite a few amendments proposed and quite a few suggestions that have been taken into consideration. The context there, Mr. President, is that in this country, we have had reason to reflect on what we need to do as a government to deal with the surge or surge of crime, particularly violent crime involving fires. We have, as a government and as a people, to face the situation head on. We are not to make excuses, but to agree that this is something that we must respond to. And while we cannot solve crime only through the police and through legislation, while we accept that there are a number of other approaches and a number of other initiatives, both through infrastructure, through programming and social interventions that we need to bring together to solve or to mitigate against crime or criminal activity, there are times when specific situations call for specific actions. In this case, Mr. President, we have an issue with the apparent overuse or frequent use of firearms in reported violent crime. And so, as a government, we will not wait or continue to wait for the next case or the next assault or the next homicide. We believe that it is timely and we need to, in fact, it couldn't have been earlier. We need to do something, and this bill is just one of the many interventions that this government seeks to engage in to address a very ugly situation that we do not wish to escalate. Mr. President, one of the issues that confronts us is the issue of firearms entering this country through our borders, whether it's front door, back door, wherever. We are very much aware that firearms and ammunition seem to be entering our country and finding itself or finding a home in the hands of the wrong people. Mr. President, the access to illegal firearms, illegal guns, and ammunition is something that creates a potential hazard. A gun by itself is not as harmful as one that is loaded with ammunition. So while we deal with the firearms, we must also always remember that it involves the ammunition as well. Mr. President, for this reason, we believe that the first thing we need to look at is to see how we can regulate or have some level of control with allowing the issuance of firearms, who gets to own one, or who gets to have one, and if so, how does that person end up with one? Mr. President, we are proposing that provisions should be made for the Fire and License Board, which is the organization that should be responsible for issuing firearms to be involved in the process of issuance of firearms, and that is legal firearms. Right now, what obtains is that a single individual in the person of the police commissioner is the one who, on his own volition, decides who should or should not be a holder of a fire. But we believe that this should not be left to the discretion of a single person, but instead the commissioner or police can chair the board, but that other individuals should be included. So that takes me to a particular clause on page 12, clause 5-2C, and it reads, Mr. President, the minister shall appoint the chairperson from among the members of the board. And we are proposing that instead of the police commissioner being the sole person that the minister appoints a chairperson for the board with other members, and that the commissioner, as it reads, quote, the commissioner is the chairperson of the board. So in that regard, the discretion is not being given to a single individual. Now, I know there were questions raised about whether the individuals who should be on the board, whether the board constitutes, should be this person or that person, but whether it be individuals who are of a certain association or a certain group, it is within reason to suggest that these individuals will have independent minds and would be more likely to make a more, a fairer decision than vesting the power in the hands of a single person. So instead of just the commissioner? Honourable Senator, I have to stop you here because we need six members from a quorum. We do not have a quorum. So we'll have to stop and wait till somebody comes in. I suppose I can proceed now, Mr. President? You may continue. And I want to say that it's almost as if some of our members will remain bound to this chamber and cannot leave because a certain member is never there. I understand that sometimes we have urgent matters. You may have to do a washroom, something, but right after lunch, an urgent phone call or something. But I hope the leader of government business can come in so that if someone else needs to take care of an urgent matter, it would not cause us not to have a quorum. Anyhow, Mr. President? Mr. President, I also believe that in this in this bill there needs to be amendments made to take into consideration the penalties that are dished out to would-be criminals or would-be offenders and persons caught in possession or persons who would have, who should not have had firearms to end up with them. And so, Mr. President, on page 15, clause 6, we propose that an amendment be made in section 15. And that involves the penalty. And we believe that although it was previously suggested that it should be 10 years, but as a member had indicated, most times when there's a 10-year sentence, by the time the sentence has been served, it's already been reduced by a quarter-third. So the proposal is that this penalty be increased to 15 years. So in that case, Mr. President, on the clause 6, amendment of section 15, clause 68A should then read, and that's the last line, the 10 years should now be 15 years. Mr. President, similarly, the amendment to section 16, clause 7, for persons who choose to try to interfere and modify firearms, these days we have some very creative people who can find very creative ways to do things that are not necessarily in the best interest of themselves or others. And they have developed the skill of taking firearms, certain caliber or certain type, maybe a semi-automatic, and being able to convert it into fully automatic. And so once that is done, it makes the firearm a lot more lethal and more dangerous. And you do not want these things to be done. So if someone is caught or has decided to modify a firearm, the bill is proposing to amend section 16, clause 7, and for modification of a firearm that the penalty be increased to 15 years as well. Mr. President, I thank Senator Aziz for returning with the leader of government business at this time, opposition business. I'm really thankful that he finally found himself where he needs to be. And he has returned. I hope that his colleague now briefs him on where we have been and that he checks his notes this time before he attempts. So Mr. President, in clause 7, we've just proposed to amend section 16. Now Mr. President, it is also true that in addition to just the issue of penalties and doing something to maybe penalize or sanction the persons who are offending, that we as a government believe that other support services are necessary. And this is why. This government, Mr. President, has embarked on a number of other initiatives along with what we're proposing in this bill to help empower and assist our law, our agencies that deliver or that are responsible for upholding law to be able to function. And I just want to cite a couple. In the last 12 months, Mr. President, we have increased the number of vehicles in our fleet for the police. We have provided, I believe, a minimum of 20 vehicles. That's about almost two per month to our police. The training vote, Mr. President. We have increased the resources on the ground. We had a situation in view 4. Right now, we have increased resources on the ground. And for security purposes, I do not wish to disclose all of that. But what I could tell you is that there are more resources on the ground in view 4 as we speak. It may not be for a permanent situation, but hopefully we can have some measure of control. But at least there was need for it and we responded. Mr. President, just a few sittings ago, we came here and we passed the domestic violence bill. That bill, although some of us may not have seen the connection, that is a step in a direction towards mitigating against crime, particularly against women. Now, we must never forget that domestic violence, you know, men can be victims of that too. But there is an assumption that crimes committed against people in the home, within the domestic environment, is taken lightly. And sometimes it begins as a simple, you know, bit of verbal abuse or minor assault and then escalates into violent crime. People lose their lives. So, Mr. President, I want to propose that another change that is made is in clause page 16 under section 21 and likewise to increase the penalties to 15 years. Mr. President, under clause 9, page 70, prohibited weapons and ammunition. Again, that is a situation where people who are not supposed to have certain, I call them items, find a way somehow to end up with them. And under that clause, Mr. President, we are proposing that we delete A and B under that section, the entire sections A and B, and I hope the leader of government business is following at this time. And we include, so we would delete A and B and after the word, liable, that we insert the following. And I quote, on conviction of indictment to a fine which may extend to $200,000 or imprisonment for a term which may extend to life. Now, that was a previous suggestion, but we are proposing to amend clause 9 under section 21A to change from the 10 years and B, the 15-year penalty included instead. Mr. President, there was conversation about licensed fire owners. Probably in terms of this bill, we always seem to be talking about people who have illegal firearms. But licensed fire owners also have a responsibility to secure and manage the firearms that they've been issued with. And so we expect them as well to be subject to the penalties if they are in violation of the law. So I also want to speak to the issue of the management, the use, the security of firearms, of persons who have acquired them the legal way. Not because you have been issued a licensed firearm that you should be, you should feel that you have the right to be reckless and be irresponsible in the way you secure it or you use it. Too often times I have seen people who own or carry firearms, they seem to have very little discretion in the way they carry it or they brand the sheet or it's exposed or it becomes almost like a toy. In that case, I think we have to be very responsible so that when the government or the authorities have issued a firearm to you that you be responsible. So in that regard, Mr. President, the under clause 11, it refers to the brandishing or showing up of a firearm in a public place. That should not be acceptable. Also, persons who may decide to, for some reason, be under the influence of alcohol and drugs and whatever and because of whatever influence they decide to, maybe those are short or do these kinds of things that can cause other people at risk. Even if you're a licensed firearm holder, these sanctions should apply to you. And in that regard, on the section under clause 11, the penalty should also apply to them. The same 15 years should be applied. Under clause 12, and before we go to clause 12, Mr. President, another practice that is very common is that some people feel that they can use firearms to threaten other people just because you carry a gun and somebody else does not. Doesn't give you a right to unjustly threaten people. A threat can be considered just as bad as actual action. People can intimidate. I've seen it, I've heard people do it and I think that is wrong. So people who intend to intimidate or threaten others, make people uncomfortable, messing around and using firearms for that purpose. And even if they are not real guns, as they say, I've seen people, I've heard of people who have been robbed before a water gun. It was concealed in a bag, it looks like a gun, somebody walks up to them, he pulls them up with a water gun, takes the money and later on they find out that the person was carrying a water gun. But in their mind, their life was at risk. So once you can create the perception in the mind of someone that you have held them up or that you have intimidated them with anything that they believe is a firearm, you should be subject to the same penalty with somebody who had a firearm. So I believe that this clause in clause 11, all of these instances where people who are doing those things should be subject to the same penalties. Under clause 13, or before 13, clause 12, similarly, the last line in clause 12 under section 26, Mr. President, we propose that the 15-year penalty be applied as well. Clause 13 as well, same, the last line, 13, section 27, 13 to A replace the last 10 years we propose that the 15-year should also apply. Mr. President, we move the clause 14 under the bill, in the bill and there is also a tendency for people who choose to rent firearms. You may not believe it, Mr. President, but it has been alleged, at least from common knowledge, that some of the firearms that have been used to commit some of the most heinous crimes in this country have been firearms that belong to legal license owners. And for some reason, somebody who does not have a license for it has been able to access it and use it. So if firearms that people own or have legally acquired are being rented or borrowed or whatever, to people who are not licensed and they commit crime, then the person who owns the firearm should be held responsible as long as you can prove that it wasn't stolen from you or something. Once you can't account for where it is, you are responsible for it. And both the person who used it and the person who it was taken from should be held to account. And again, it speaks to the issue of responsibility. The more you are endowed with, the more responsible you should be. So Mr. President, on the clause 14, on page 19, subsection, the substitution of section 28, again, the last line should read 15 years rather than 10 years. We now look at the issue of the tampering with firearms. Some firearm holders or some people, maybe after they've stolen a gun or they have one or they want to reproduce something, they may decide to remove the serial number, tamper with various components of a firearm. And it's already illegal to do so. And even those who dispose, when people dispose of a firearm, there are methods and there are ways in your training you taught what to do. And if you're not upholding to these expectations, then there should be some kind of sanction. Also, Mr. President, with regard to trafficking, this is another one that I believe is very important where people aid and abet or assist in trafficking firearms and the fine of $150,000 has been proposed there. So that amendment would be also including up to the 15 year, the 15 year sentence and not 10 years. Mr. President, clause 15, again similarly, we propose that the 10 be replaced with 15 years. On the clause 16, Mr. President, we under insertion of new sections 28, 29A and 29B, we propose to replace 29A, 29 to A, 29A to and 29B to with the last two lines with 15 years as well. Clause 19, Mr. President, this one before clause 19, let me go back to clause 18. There are times, Mr. President, where I've actually witnessed it on the road, the police is attempting to do their work and issue roadblocks and ask people to stop. And because they know they're carrying something that they do not want the police to find out, they decide not to stop. I don't think we should be encouraging this. And so failure to stop or to adhere to a stop and search by the police with due process should also result in a similar penalty. And again, the 15 years would apply. And now to clause 19, there are some persons, Mr. President, who may decide to try to obstruct the act or the activity or work of the police in dealing with fires. So if you are trying to obstruct another officer or an officer in his effort to deal with that matter, then you too would be subject to that same penalty. Under clause 23, Mr. President, this one is a general penalty. And we propose that the similar 15 years be applied. And in cases of robbery and kidnapping, which are very serious, including involving the firearm, there was a proposal for compulsory imprisonment for up to 15 years and not for 10 years. And also for failure to disclose where you obtain ammunition from. And this one I think is a very interesting one because there are people who don't have a firearm but they have ammunition. I mean, you can't take a bullet and throw it at someone. For you to have ammunition, you need to have a firearm. To me, it doesn't make sense to be, what are you doing with ammunition if you're not a legal holder of a firearm? And so there are people from, it has been noted, where persons can obtain ammunition from persons from others who have actually acquired it legally. And it finds itself in the hands of people who shouldn't have it. And even when they can't use the ammunition to match the firearm, if what they can find is ammunition for firearm X, and I don't want to go into all the details, but they have access to firearm Y, they then modify firearm Y to use ammunition X. And the ammunition and the firearm were designed for each other. So when people try to use one type of ammunition to cause it to work in another firearm, you know that they're doing something wrong. And so it's important that all of these be dealt with and to allow for there to be some kind of regulation and control of what is going on with all these firearm things in this country. But Mr. President, I want to also make a point about the approach that this government is taking. While we propose to strengthen the firearm legislation, and I believe even after we do this today, people become so creative that there's always something else that you would have to come back to do. If you listen to some of the documentaries in what happens in prisons and how criminals can adapt and they can be so sophisticated, you almost have to prepare to come back to either enact new legislation or to amend legislation so that you can respond. And sometimes it's even better to be proactive and anticipate what they're going to do. But Mr. President, I want to just tell the Senate that while we are trying to strengthen the legislation on firearms, this government is also doing a lot to strengthen both the physical infrastructure and the social infrastructure that can help reduce crime in general. So we're not only looking at firearms, although this is what this bill is about, but we believe that there are other things that the government needs to do and we have already started doing. I believe some of my colleagues will give more detail, but I'll just mention a few at this point. Mr. President, this is why this government has decided under the physical infrastructure section that I've mentioned to upgrade and to get custody suites back in order. Because right now, Mr. President, it is painful to hear that a police station, police officers work hard to try and apprehend criminals. They have apprehended a suspect and they have no way to put the person. They have no place to house. Imagine you arrest somebody in January and you have to go and put them in a cell in Souffre. I mean, it's costing the state a lot of money. It's a threat to our security, moving people around. Custody suites, we all know what happened to it, Mr. President. I hope the leader of opposition business can stand up and explain how he intends to support this bill and help us to encourage the reconstruction of a place like custody suites. I think his government has other ideas. Mr. President, another example of physical infrastructure that is supporting some of what we're doing is the grossly divisional headquarters which is soon to be completed or soon to be made available to the people of the North. And also in the prime minister's budget, there was a location there. And I also want to mention at this point the rehabilitation of the view for police station. The police have been moved to rent here and rent there, they're all over the place just because there was a little bit of mold I think or whatever happened in the roof. And instead of the government, the previous government moving in and fixing the problem so that the police officers can make use of a beautiful building with all the facilities, allow the problem to become, I guess it wasn't enough to spend on it, allow the problem to deteriorate to the extent that the police officers could no longer occupy the building. And now the building requires major work that's going to cost us a lot more money than if they had addressed it when the problem started. Mr. President, I mentioned the vehicles and we must never underestimate the value of these for police to be able to respond quickly to calls and for help. Social infrastructure Mr. President, I did mention that we are not only providing infrastructure. Social, we understand the value of mitigating and doing what is known as prevention. It's one thing to catch a criminal after they've killed someone. You catch them, you send them to jail, whatever you do to them, they are those who believe in capital punishment and tell you, hang them. And so Mr. President, no matter what you do to someone who has killed someone else, you cannot bring back the one who has died. You cannot. And the family who is hurt and suffering and the children left behind and the deaths and the pain, no legislation, no amount of custody suites, no amount of arrests, nothing you do. No vehicles can deal with that. And so this government understands the need to put in place social interventions that can help to minimize and prevent or would be offense that involves a firearm. So while we're trying to remove the firearm from the hands of people, we're trying to deter them by increasing the penalties. We are also doing the following, Mr. President. We are providing educational support for our children in schools. And you want to ask me how that relates to firearms? They are young children now who have been found with guns and they are using it to do activity to earn money. Children in schools, I was a school principal. They are teachers who still talk to me. Young children, girls and boys. And they see it as an alternative to earning a living. That is very scary, Mr. President. If these young children get the strength, the support they need in schools, they get their laptops, they get their supplies for school. They have the family situation is stable and they can see why they should have an education. They will not need to think about anybody putting a gun in their hand so that they can make money. So we have to start by providing the support in the educational sector. And I'm happy that our government has found it necessary to increase the provisions made with CXC subjects with bursaries, with facilities fees, and all the other things that I'm sure our other colleagues will talk about to make this our children's education more accessible and affordable so that they do not end up with a gun in their hand. They will not be easy prey for any baron or boss. Their boss will be their own boss. They'll think about being their own boss like what we spoke about in the youth economy. They think about being their own boss so they're not going to work for anybody. For a few hundred dollars with a gun in their hand. Mr. President, the health sector, we may not think about it, but the health sector, if you have a healthy nation, people feel better about themselves, they are happier, they are less likely to get involved in unscrupulous behavior. Strengthening our short-term employment programs. I can tell you a number of young people who just tell you boss or sir or Mr. Ferdinand, I frustrated if I had something to do, I wouldn't be smoking, I wouldn't be doing this, I wouldn't have, Daman wouldn't be my friend. They almost feel as if there's nothing to do so they find a way to engage the board and the unrestless so they find a way to engage and do something exciting and that exciting thing might be to go and find a gun and start messing around. Mr. President, I also believe that the youth economy is an alternative. It is one of those programs that helps to target or would be gun holder or gun rental or gun handle. If people have money, they have resources, they have a livelihood, they don't need guns. They don't need it because there's nobody to, they're not suspicious of people, there's nobody to hurt. They look forward to doing things productive. When they get up in the morning, they think about how much they're going to make for the day and how much of their product they can improve. They're not going to think about whose house they're going to break into. So Mr. President, I believe that strengthening our social infrastructure, the youth at risk program is another very good example. These are other programs that help to strengthen and give support to a bill like this one. Also Mr. President, we have a situation where people who are vulnerable, vulnerable young people tend to be a good target for that kind of use or that kind of activity. And the people who are involved in this, they know who to target. They generally target the more vulnerable young people who they believe will be attracted to putting their hands on a gun. And so empowering them and making them less vulnerable reduces that risk. So Mr. President, the result of all of these gun-related incidents that we're trying to mitigate against, all it does is that it puts strain on the already meager resources of the state and the more we can do to minimize that, the better. Now, why this bill? After all that I have said about the support services, the social and infrastructural interventions. Mr. President, why this bill? Generally, if you look at a normal clue to explain the percentage of persons who get involved in violent crime and gun-related crime, in most societies, it's a very small minority. Most people in this country are good people. Most people are good people. They live an honest life. They go to work. They look after their family. Most of us are honest people. Some of us or some of them may find themselves in trouble from time to time, would have probably faltered. And if you put some measures in place, you pull them back. But Mr. President, there's always a small percentage, a very small percentage. And it varies in certain jurisdictions. In some countries, the percentage may be a little bit more, depending on like people, places like Japan, I heard, a very small, maybe signal poor, depending on the government system. And in other countries, the percentage may be a little bit bigger. But there's always going to be a percentage of people that despite every single intervention that I have mentioned, despite all that you do, will probably fall for the cracks and may find themselves, whether it's because of genetic makeup or whatever dynamic, may find themselves in the situation that the gun violence speaks to. And for these people, we must have something in place. Senator, you have 15 minutes to complete your presentation. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm wrapping up maybe just two more minutes. We must have something in place to respond. And this amendment or these amendments, Mr. President, intend to target that particular tiny segment of the population as small as they may be can have serious implications and serious impact on the lives of the whole population. You only need two or three indiscriminate people holding a gun to cause major pain to an entire community. One gun can change the lives of an entire, people in an entire village. So it's not about how many we have. One is one too many. And so this piece of legislation is really to target people who would have been involved in violent crime, particularly crime that is related to the use of guns and ammunition. So what we want to do is to bring that percentage to the smallest possible that it can be and to serve as a deterrent to would be users of firearms and ammunition. So Mr. President, I have attempted to give some context and explanation. I believe there's a lot more we can do. But for now, this piece of legislation is specifically, the amendments to it are specifically targeted to dealing with a particular problem at a particular time, which at this point is the issue of gun violence. It is not going to solve all crimes and Russia it never will. But while we're doing so, we are also doing other things to address the whole management of crime as a government. I thank you, Mr. President. And I look forward to a very fruitful debate on this matter. Senator, the question is that the firearm amendment bill will be read a second time. Senator Stanislaus. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I want to start off this afternoon. By saying to this Honorable Chamber that crime is everyone's business. Crime is the business of the government, it is the business of the opposition, the business of the community leader, the church leader, the school leader, everybody's business, Mr. President. And this opposition, Mr. President, is going to do everything it can to support the government when it comes to combating crime, to trying to stop the scourge of crime which we have been experiencing in this country for so long. Especially, Mr. President, violent crime against our citizens with firearms, unlicensed firearms. We've lost many precious lives, Mr. President. Lives which could have been very productive members of society, contributed to the socioeconomic development of this country as a result of gun violence. And one life lost is too many, Mr. President. So, Mr. President, I therefore stand here today in support of the bill as presented by the leader of government business for the amendment of the firearm bill. However, I have a few comments, Mr. President, a few statements on certain sections of the clauses of the bill, which I'm hoping that the leader of government business, the government side, will take into consideration as I make my presentation on the bill as presented, Mr. President. So, President, crime is very serious business, very, very serious business, and most fire and related crime in St. Lucia goes unpunished. Most of it, Mr. President. And increasing the penalties is most welcome at this time, as we see it in many of the clauses and the sections in this bill. However, we also believe that crime is such a big business and crime is not a business of a few thousands of dollars. You're talking about millions of dollars. And we also believe, Mr. President, that even some of the fines we see there of $50,000 could have been doubled and even tripled in instances. And I want to take you back, Mr. President, honorable chambers, to a few weeks ago in January when an interception was made of what I think $3 million worth of drugs. That's to show you how big of a business it is. And $50,000 is like peanuts for such individuals to pay to the authorities when they are caught. So we're still hoping that maybe in the future, the fine could be increased, Mr. President. Mr. President, we need to look at the work of apprehending offenders and not reacting or concentrating on making a rest and convict persons when they are caught. But we need to be very proactive. Predictive, when I say proactive, Mr. President, we need to be able to put measures, initiatives, in place where we could gather intelligence even before the crime is committed, even before those illegal firearms are used on our people in the country. And this brings me back, Mr. President, to the subject of the K-9 unit. And I think there have been discussions recently on the K-9 unit, the cost of it. And I am not too sure, I stand corrected, that it was stopped by the government or it has been considered to be stopped, Mr. President. And I think that is going to be a mistake on the part of the government to stop the K-9 unit. And I'm saying so, Mr. President, because this was a very, very important unit of the police force in helping the police, tracking down illegal fire, not only drugs, but illegal firearms, Mr. President. And those dogs, those K-9s, are not any ordinary dog or dogs, Mr. President. They are highly, highly trained, highly selected animals. And the handlers of those K-9s have to even be polygraphed on a regular basis, Mr. President. These are dogs that they are now being trained, probably not in St. Lucia, but around the world, to even be able to sniff for chips, sim cards, and so on, on individuals. That's to tell you how well trained, how effective those animals can be. And these are sometimes you have intelligence on a particular location, that there are firearms, ammunitions, and so on stored. You go on an operation, you get there, you search the property upside down, and you find nothing, Mr. President. But if you have the K-9 unit with you, your chances of recovering ammunition, a firearm, is a lot greater. And I'm hoping maybe that the government could rethink their position on that, Mr. President. And we know that the monies for this unit was not born by the taxpayers of this country, but it was monies which was being paid for the unit under the seizure of the Prevention of Crime Act. Monies which have been seized and is used to pay for this unit was used, Mr. President, to purchase ballistic vest, shields, vehicles, et cetera, et cetera, to help the police force. Mr. President, I refer to clause six of the bill, Mr. President. You permit me. Trying to get clause six of the bill, section 15, Mr. President. And we believe, Mr. President, that in section 15, there should be an additional penalty where all the firearms and ammunition and section 15 deals with firearm dealer license. And we think that maybe another penalty should be added there, Mr. President, where all the firearms and ammunition which is the property of the firearm dealer may also be seized on either summary conviction or conviction on the indictment. We have to be tough on crime, Mr. President. And if we are going to be tough on criminals, dealers whom we haven't trusted to retail firearm and ammunition, they must be responsible. They must talk, they must protect the ammunition, the firearms. And if that is not been done, the firearms and everything else, ammunition should also be seized on the property. Mr. President, I refer to clause seven of the bills, section 16, section 16 of the act, which is converting firearm, Mr. President. And we believe, Mr. President, that the penalty for conviction on indictment, but on some conviction on indictment on the dissection should be increased to life imprisonment. I think as it stands, it's about 25 years. And if I may bring to your attention, Mr. President, the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister just a few weeks ago should be embraced as a teachable moment for this. The fact that you have this weapon, Mr. President, with the intention to kill may give the prosecutors the option of eliminating future threats. Because you know, as the leader of government business, articulated earlier, that some of those weapons could be converted from semi-automatic to full automatic. And they can be very, very dangerous. Homemade, homemade guns and all of that can be very, very dangerous, Mr. President. And you'll also note, Mr. President, that section 16 complements section 27, clause 13 of the bill, which speaks to attempts to commit an offense. So basically, 16 and 27, those two sections complement each other. And hence we're saying that conviction on indictment could be increased to life imprisonment instead of the 25 years, Mr. President. Mr. President, I refer to clause 14 of the bill, section 28 of the Act, which is the restriction on sale of firearm or ammunition. So, President, we have all heard the sound of rapid gunfire on social media in certain communities of the island. And law enforcement will tell you, Mr. President, that the fabrication of firearms is a cottage industry in the criminal underworld. It is big business, a cottage industry. And like the police, the criminals want weapons which are reliable at all times. In other words, they want weapons that when they squeeze that trigger, it is not going to jump. It is just going to release everything in there within a minute, two, three minutes, Mr. President. This skill set, Mr. President, is in high demand in this country and they command top dollar for the services. Therefore, Mr. President, those gangster gunsmiths and those in possession of those modified weapons, Mr. President, must also be prepared to pay a higher price. That price should be given to the High Court, Mr. President, to consider the life sentence for those found guilty. Because those modified weapons are even more dangerous than the original weapons that are bought, Mr. President. Mr. President, I refer to clause 19 of the bill, section 40 of the Act, which is such warrant. And I think the leader of government business spoke about it, of course, in his preamble. And this is a very welcoming section. And I'm certainly sure that the Royal Central Police Force is going to be pleased with this section, which has to do with conviction of persons who attempt to interfere with search warrants issued by the police. The police have had many instances where they go on operations and persons are interfering with the search and this is going to be very welcoming with the penalty and the fine to the police, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am also hoping that the government is going to look at since we are making those amendments and we know of so many illegal firearms out there. And the chances are the police may now start to apprehend a lot more persons that we are making available the capacity and the ability at Borderly Correctional Facility to house those additional prisoners. Because I believe, as you all know, there has been an issue with overcrowding at Borderly. And if more persons are going to be coming in now, then we need to take that into consideration to make preparations there. We also hoping, Mr. President, that the court system we can expedite those cases and get those individuals off the streets behind bars as quickly as possible, Mr. President. Mr. President, also I would have loved to see some additional, in considering the Fire Amendment Bill, Mr. President, I was hoping that we could also probably look at the Explosives Ordinance Act, which is also an act that must be considered as well. And I am speaking of explosives such as dynamite, Mr. President, because you could just imagine an individual getting hold of a dynamite or a couple of dynamites and just take this stick and just throw it in a crowd of people at a location, the damage that is going to happen. And just a couple of years ago, we had this incident with dynamites in Kaldisak and so on. A lot of the dynamites are used in quarrying and so on. So I think we also need to look at that to strengthen the storage of those explosives so that individuals out there will not lay hands on explosives such as dynamites that could be very, very dangerous, very destructive as well, Mr. President. Mr. President, I now refer you to clause five of the Bill, Part 1A, which has to do with the administration of Firearms Licensing Board. And, Mr. President, I am very, very concerned about this amendment, Mr. President. Which amendment are you talking about? Your pardon? Which amendment are you referring to, what clause? Clause five, Part 1A, administration, the Licensing Board. Firearms Licensing Board, Mr. President. I believe that this is a dangerous, dangerous move with this amendment. And if we have to look at the establishment and composition of the Board, Mr. President, I'm looking at Part 1A administration, that's 2A, there is established a Firearms Licensing Board. The members of the Board are the Commissioner of Police or his or her nominee, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry Responsible for National Security, three persons nominated by the Minister and approved by the Cabinet, who are of high integrity and are able to exercise good judgment in fulfilling the functions under this Act. Mr. President, as it stands now, when someone applies for a Firearm License, the application goes to the Special Branch Unit of the Police Force. And the Special Branch Unit goes out there and do extensive investigation, background checks on those individuals. And if the investigations reveal that certain individuals are not qualified for Firearms, then they recommend to the Commissioner, I guess, for the Superior and so on, that this person should not be qualified because of X, Y, and Z. And of course, the Police Commissioner has the final say. When we, so the Commissioner is the authority, as we speak, on the issuance of Firearms Licenses. But with the establishment of this Board, Mr. President, I'm afraid that this now is being politicized. The Board appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers, three members of a five-member Board, with the Chairman having a casting vote and an original vote, Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous amendment. And I'm not speaking on this amendment because I'm on this side of the House. If I was over there, I would have spoke against it. Rest assured, Mr. President, whichever government is there, whichever government, whether it is a Labour Party government, a UWP government, those three members are political appointees. They are political appointees. And this is politicizing the issuance of Firearms Licenses. This does not augur well for the state. You're looking at, we know how society works here, Mr. President. We know how supporters are. You know the connections, Mr. President. This is arming people, arming friends, arming supporters with firearms, legal firearms. We want to get rid of firearms on the streets, but this is going to basically be creating a militia out there. That is what is going to happen. And let us not be naive about that. That's right. Let us not be naive. When you now have a Board, and we have to go further, Mr. President, further powers of the Board, to F, one, the Board may, not shall, not shall, the Board may, subject to subsection two, investigate an application for a license or a permit. They may, they don't have to investigate. They receive the application, they consider it, they can approve it. Unlike now, it has to go through extensive investigation by Special Branch before it is passed on to the Commission of Police. They may, the Board may, not shall, may. And it says that the Board may in B require an applicant for a license or a permit to appear before the Board for an interview. They may. This is dangerous. This amendment. We believe that the issuance of fire licenses should remain as is. I'm not saying it is perfect. It can be strengthened, Mr. President. But issuing licenses for a Board where three members of a five-member Board are appointed by Cabinet, by the Minister of National Security through Cabinet, is political interference. And that is a cause for concern, that is trouble, that is severely undermining the Commission of Police and the Police Force. I have strong confidence, Mr. President, in the judgment and the fairness of any Commission of Police who is sitting on that chair to issue fire arm licenses to individuals who are capable, who are responsible, who are in need of such licenses, Mr. President. Because you may just find that the Board issuing a license to an individual whom the Police have rejected two, three, four times because of certain reasons, questionable reasons. And when this individual now has a license issued by the Board because of his or her connections to persons on that Board, to politicians of both parties, not one party of both parties, Mr. President, this could be a recipe for disaster. And we spoke of the domestic violence bill early, I think, the leader of government business. We had to think of the belligerent husband when he comes home after night of drinking and he was rejected by Special Branch by the Police for license. What happens in that house at midnight, one o'clock, two o'clock, with his anger, with his rum? We have to revisit this amendment, Mr. President, because it sends the wrong signal and my concern with it is of political interference. Can I say this? Not because I am on this side of the house. If I was over there, I would have said the same thing. This should never be a part of the amendment of the Fire Amendment Bill. Issuing of firearm licenses should remain with the Police Commissioner. Allow Special Branch to carry out the investigations and report to the Commissioner, not a Board which may investigate. They don't have to investigate, they can just look at the application of John Doe and issue that license to John Doe. Without any background check on his temperament, his capacity, his ability, his location, his home, safety record, nothing of that sort. Mr. President, we need to revisit this amendment. Like I said earlier on, Mr. President, the opposition will support the government in the fight against crime because it is everybody's business. You should never politicize crime. We are not politicizing crime. Crime can have devastating impact on this economy, on the prosperity of this country, on the safety of our citizens. But this particular amendment, Mr. Speaker, is bad, it is wrong, and I'm afraid this may come back to haunt the government because this is very, very dangerous. And I'm hoping that consultations took place with the police, with the police welfare association and other individuals. I do not know of any other jurisdiction in the Eastern Caribbean where licenses are issued by a board. I stand corrected. I stand corrected, Mr. President. But this is a wrong move. It is severely undermining the police force. The police are going to have a lot more work to do now because we know the politics is going to come into play. It is going to come into play. We are not going to be naive about it. A majority of persons will now have license for your arms, persons with all varied temperaments, Mr. President, and time will tell. But, Mr. President, to end, I want to reiterate my support for the amendment of the bill with those concerns, especially, Mr. President, the amendment to the fire arm licensing, the issuance of fire arm license through a board. With these words, Mr. President, I thank you. Mr. President, I thank you. I want to start my presentation on this amendment to the Fire Arms Act by recounting, Mr. President, the incidents of the last few months in the community of Viewfort. It feels only like yesterday or this morning, Mr. President, that at about quarter past seven in the morning, I got a call from one of my staff in tears because as she walked into work that morning, she was greeted by a spew of gunshots right outside my place of work. And so it is so relatable to me when we speak of gun violence and so on. And we cannot underestimate and we cannot stop speaking of the effects that gun violence, any type of violence, but especially gun violence has on a country, on a community, Mr. President. Mr. President, I thank you. I also want to talk about who is going to evolve the gun because we all know Viewfort is under the news. It is not Viewfort, but we all know Viewfort is under the news. That is why I am here today. Because the people who come here in the morning are the ones who take out a lamp on the ground. It is the gun that fire works. I also want to thank the young government and the government for protecting this country. The effects of gun violence brings about fear, like I said when I began. Business interruptions. A couple of weeks ago there was a funeral at Viewfort, a young man who was gunned down. And that afternoon, Mr. President, almost every supermarket, every store in Viewfort was closed on the afternoon of that funeral because people anticipated that there might have been a backlash and so many people closed their stores and the streets were empty because people were fearful of the possible backlash and the police were on the road and it felt really like it was a sin from the war in Ukraine. There is loss of life. There is loss of lean. There is societal degradation. And so putting measures in place to attempt to curb this incident, Mr. President, is indeed applaudable. Every one of us has a path to play in fighting crime. As a parent, you have a path to play in ensuring that you raise your children in a particular way. They may not all follow it, but you still have a responsibility to do that. The community has a responsibility, Mr. President. In the last few weeks, the media has been asking me questions about the criminal situation in Viewfort. They have been talking about this. They have been asking me questions about the criminal situation in Viewfort. And the person cautioned me, Mr. President, that you should not speak about it. Are you not afraid? You should not speak about it. And Mr. President, I was taken aback and I asked this young lady, how could we not speak about it when it's all of our business? It affects all of us. How could we all sit around in a community, in a country, and say nothing when our children and our parents and our brothers and sisters, our neighbours, our friends are falling down and dying as a result of crime? How could we not speak about it? In my opinion, by not speaking about it, we are perpetuating the behaviour and we are no better than those who pull the trigger, Mr. President. The government has a responsibility, a responsibility to ensure that there is an efficient legal system, a responsibility to ensure that those who fall prey, those who are criminals, Mr. President, has proper rehabilitation, that social programmes are put in place and my colleague, Senator, has spoke to some of these other initiatives that the government has undertaken and are undertaking in a view to look at a holistic approach to dealing with crime. There must be funding for the mechanisms to put in place. There must be programmes and there must be policies, Mr. President, like what we're seeing being done today as an amendment to the Firearms Act. This is the responsibility of government. There is no standalone approach, and like I indicated, my colleague here mentioned some of the others, like the resources both physically and training to the police and so on, Mr. President. These are some of the other measures that the government has put in place to aid in the fight against violence, gun violence, Mr. President. Notably, this amendment seeks to stiffen the penalties for the illicit or illegal use of firearms, Mr. President. When we go through the different clauses, a lot of them seek to increase the penalties in terms of the amount of money or the amount of imprisonment times, Mr. President, and I think that is commendable. I do hear some of the criticisms in terms of, and we saw some of the additional changes that the leader of government business presented today, increasing and stiffening the penalties, Mr. President, because as a nation, as a government, we need to send a strong message out there to the criminals that they cannot take over our country. Mr. President, my children need to be able to live and grow and play in the communities that have tried to ensure that it's safe for our children. And the criminals are compromising that level of sanctity, Mr. President. And so it means that you must put stringent measures in place that we understand may not necessarily eliminate it altogether, but at least what they will create or what revoping that they recreate is a level of a situation where they may think a couple times before they pull a trigger or before they modify a firearm or before they attempt to import a firearm, Mr. President. Earlier we spoke of the creativity of our youth and sadly so, Mr. President, we have. When we speak of creativity, we cannot make it look that it is always positive because there is creativity in some of the things they do that are not necessarily positive and we saw in the amendment the section that looks at the modification to the firearms and I notice well that there is an increase in the penalty for crimes of that nature and we must, like I said, put measures in place to let these criminals know that if they have an intent to do that, that there is a similarly it will follow with penalties that are stringent, Mr. President. Mr. President, but like I indicated before, it has to be a holistic approach and so there are other entities, there are other organisations and have as well to play their part in the fight against crime, against gun violence, Mr. President. And I recall some time ago speaking to a young lady who's a police officer. We indicated that she was at a particular place waiting for a bus at a bus shelter and these young guys, not knowing she's a police officer, they're playing clothes, walks to the bus stop and they've seated there and they're having a conversation. Not even, perhaps not even mindful, it's simply that they don't, they brazen enough and they don't care that this young lady who's not part of the conversation is sitting right next to them and she's recounting that she's hearing them speaking of intelligence that they received from a colleague police officer about an intent to carry out an operation, Mr. President. So that there are elements within the police force and I applaud the police officers who do what they're supposed to do, who do it in the proper way, who ensure that the oath that they took to secure our country, that they take it very seriously and they carry out their task with pride, Mr. President. But the reality is we also cannot run away from the fact that there are some of them in there who walk alongside the criminal, the criminal elements, Mr. President and they seriously affect the ability of the police force as an entity to do what they are supposed to do and so there too, as much as we modify, we amend, we increase the stringency of the act, Mr. President, these agencies, these entities have to do what they were created to do in order to ensure that we achieve what we're seeking to achieve. Customs, Mr. President. I mean, I go to clear my barrels sometimes and you subject to emptying the entire barrel from the top to the bottom and you take out cans and you take out packages from the barrel, Mr. President, but yet still we know of the incident or at least we allege incident of firearms and so on coming in in barrels and packages, Mr. President. So the question is, who is keeping check at our borders? A lot of these guns and so on, they don't, they come in through very, very legal channels, Mr. President. Who is watching the gates where other watchdogs, we have to ensure that these areas are also strengthened in order that this legislation actually achieves its purpose, Mr. President. The bill looks at possession for both legal and illegal possession of firearms and I think that's very important, Mr. President, in that amendment because I know for a fact that in certain street corners in St. Lucia some young man or some young lady or some let me not proper have say young because it's not just the young persons who are involved in criminal activity is not pleased with these amendments but these, based on the amendments presented, Mr. President, that we see amendments to the licensing authority and so on. It means that the government is attempting to tackle this on modern one angle and so it is not a case of where one set of persons are classed in a particular way and you're squeezing them or breathing down their necks. It is a case of looking at everybody across the board and understanding that even if you have a legal firearm that you have a license for that you also have a responsibility to ensure that you carry it in a particular way, you carry it in a legal way and that you should not now be a party to it being used in a manner that could be considered illegal or otherwise. Mr. President, I look at section 2a the establishment and composition of the board and that seems to be a very contentious and talked about amendment Mr. President and I dare say that I think it is so shameful that some of the quarters that that argument is coming from are the very men and women of this country Mr. President who have sought political office Mr. President who have presented themselves to electorate and citizens of this country supposedly as good standing men and women but they are the very ones who feel that because there are members of the board who are to be appointed by a minister a political figure that automatically becomes tented and so it begs me to question the integrity of these men and women a lot of persons in society we cannot run away from it view politicians in a particular light but it is something really different when the politician himself or herself actually speaks about themselves in that manner how could we ever change that viewpoint that the citizenry perception that the citizenry have of our politicians when our politicians speak of themselves in a light manner Mr. President I have sat on board a couple years ago I was appointed to sit on a constituency council does that mean that I was tented by virtue of the fact that my name was submitted by my parliamentary rep Mr. President I had a responsibility and I took an oath to see about the business of my constituents and it did not matter whether they were red or green or yellow or blue when there was a need the council lines and we looked at the situation of single mothers and we looked at where we could help people not based on political I'm a hand out of political political things we did it because we took an oath to serve our community and so I think it's important that we who sit in these chairs who roll these positions that we start to work in a manner that really changes the view and the perception that society has of persons affiliated to politics in this country Mr. President and it has to start with us we cannot expect the citizens and the electorate to do it for us if we do not do it for ourselves Mr. President and so I'm really taken aback by where these things come from Mr. President but perhaps it is a situation of where they speak from a position of knowledge that prior to the last election there was a gentleman who very very deep affiliation and I may choose not to say what the affiliation was had allegedly applied for a firearm right before the election and he walked into the institution and he was brazen about the way he spoke about that it had taken too long to be conspired and licensed to be approved and I wonder about it I wonder if he behaved that way then if he had gotten the opportunity and he perhaps had won at that box what would have been his next move his next step and so perhaps when they speak of these things they speak because they can relate to that sort of largesse when it comes to persons affiliated with political connections and the need or the want for a firearm Mr. President and it is concerning to me and I think that it does not give us the confidence that we need to look at our politicians, our political system and our system of governance Mr. President Mr. President this amendment does not only look to stiffened penalties like I said illegal weapons but even those with licenses that they must understand that having a weapon whether illegal or not it must come with a high level of responsibility and you must ensure that you secure it I've heard too many stories of persons with license firearm who drop it somewhere in the house who does not have a safe for it and so many other stories and they need to understand that there is a responsibility and when persons who want to do criminal acts with a firearm want to get access to a firearm they will get it wherever they know it's available and so they too have a responsibility and I as I end Mr. President I want to say that again I applaud the government for seeing the need to stiffen especially the stiffening of the penalties and I want to also say that I am aware and I think the government to understand that this cannot be a standalone measure that this alone cannot create the situation that we are trying to create in the country but it definitely is one measure in a host of other measures some of which have been rolled out to create that safer environment for our citizens in this country I would like to say Mr. President I would like to say that I am aware and I think the government to understand that the government to understand that this is not a state where the situation is disparaging I have done a lot of work and we have a lot of senators who speak of work like the Chinese government by police I can be a police government but it is a lot of work that I have done Mr. President and I would like to say that it is not a state where the situation is disparaging and we have a lot of work to do and we have a lot of work to do that because it is not a state where this situation is disparaging I can be a police government because I can be a police I also want to, as I close Mr. President, indicate that, and the member opposite did a look to it, that crime is everybody's business. And I applaud the Philip J.P.L.-led administration, especially the Prime Minister, Philip J.P.A., who did not and who has not taken the posture of politicizing crime in this country. Not on his political platform, Mr. President, and not since a year of assuming office, has he indicated that his predecessor could not and that he would magically solve the crime issue. What he has done is he has sat down with the men and women who serve around him and they have determined that there are a list of things that we can do and we are going to do it. He has never taken the posture, like the previous Prime Minister, to say that Kenny didn't and he could, and he is delivering, Mr. President, and I want to applaud him for that. There was just one statement that was made by the member opposite in terms of the K9 unit. And of course, understanding when my presentation began, by indicating that I understand too well what the effects of crime can be, I mean, like I said, I remember it like it was yesterday when my staff called me in fear and I was home that morning about quarter past seven and I really wish I could have teleported to Viewfort because I recognized that she needed some level of moral support and I walked into the office about 30 to 45 minutes later and she had not, she could not, she was shaking, Mr. President, that I had to send her home on that day. My business operation was interrupted to a certain extent that morning and so I understand the effects of it, Mr. President. And so any other measure that could help, for example, the K9 unit that was spoken of, of course, I will applaud that sort of initiative, it dawned on my curiosity to know that I do not think and maybe the leader of government business can perhaps correct me there, but I am not sure that I have the statistics with regards to the K9 unit and perhaps what was the legacy of that unit because in order for us to be able to perhaps add it on or support it, for me personally, I would really need to know what the legacy of that unit is to determine whether or not, in fact, it was, it added some level of value to the work of the police force, which I'm hoping that it did, Mr. President. So Mr. President, with these few words, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my submission on the firearms amendment and to reiterate that I applaud the government on this initiative and that I look forward to the other measures that this government is going to roll out as we attempt to make this country safer, for the especially the law abiding citizens of this country, for our youth, for our children, for our women, our girls, our boys and our men. I thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for recognizing my hair, Mr. President, for lack thereof. Thank you, Mr. President. Just again, few words on the Firements Amendment Act. I don't believe it's necessary for me to go into a justification for this bill. I think crime, generally, and gun violence in particular is of concern to all its intuitions. We've all been affected in one way or the other, whether it be directly through the violence or through the fact that we may have changed our habits where we go, the times we go, our enjoyment, our quality of life, generally. But I just want to caution, and I've heard it from some of the government members, I think I just want to reiterate and reinforce that the passage of this bill is not going to solve our crime problem. When you look at the Central Statistics Office statistics on crime, and particularly in gun crime, you will note that it's been progressing for a number of years. You had an upward trend in gun crime. So it's taken us a while to get here, and clearly there's not going to be any magic bullet to put an end to gun crime. I'm heartened to hear from the leader of government business and the other members of the government that there is a recognition of the need for other steps to help fight crime, generally, and gun crime in particular. In particular, a recognition that there needs to be greater social inclusion, greater economic participation, and steps taken to make sure that persons are more invested in our society, so that they recognize that when behaving in deviant and antisocial behavior, they're affecting not just themselves individually, but the community and society as a whole. And hopefully we can take the steps that are necessary. I recognize that the youth economy is a step in the right direction in terms of that, and once that can achieve its ends, hopefully the young persons who unfortunately do tend to make out the majority of persons involved in this type of criminal behavior. I accept as my colleague indicated, it's not just young persons alone. In most cases, you do have more senior and older members of society who are similarly engaged, but unfortunately the bulk of the persons who are arrested and who seem to be affected directly by gun violence do tend to be within what we consider youth. However, I also want to point out that, and it makes the need to take these additional steps that more urgent, that the penalties that we are seeking to introduce by this amendment are very, very strict and very, very severe, but we can't solve crime by just warehousing young men and women at bodily. We have to recognize and deal with the root causes and the things that cause them to get involved in crime in the first place. All of that being said, I do have a few comments on the bill itself. I want to start, Mr. President, at Section 5 and in particular the amendment 2B, which speaks to the qualification, in fact, disqualification of persons from serving on the board that will be approving gun licenses going, or firearms licenses going forward. I note that Section 2B makes disqualifying disqualification, sorry, for persons who have been members of the House of Assembly or have been nominated as a candidate within the first, well within a period of five years prior to them serving on the board. And I did wonder why this was put in here, but given the discussion that has taken place, I perhaps understand why it has been included. That being said though, Mr. President, when I compare the disqualification section on this and what I know tends to obtain in disqualification sections. And by way of example, I want to refer to Section 16 of the Youth Economy Act, where you have, for example, the fact that the person is a bankrupt, sorry, who has been declared bankrupt by a court, is mentally incapacitated or has been convicted of a criminal offence. I think these sections are glaring omission from the Firearms Amendment Act, particularly given the fact that we are going to be entrusting to persons a decision which has great repercussions of a moral and legal consequence. So the need to insert in this section, Section 5 and particular 2B, the requirement or the disqualifying, sorry, condition that persons who have been declared bankrupt cannot serve on the board. And I think the need for that is obvious. You don't want persons who would be susceptible to bribery or other monetary influence. Disqualifying persons who have been declared mentally incapacitated, again, I think the necessity of that is very clear. And then obviously again, persons who have been convicted of a crime. The last thing you would want is somebody who for heaven's sake has been convicted of a gun crime, determining who can now get a firearm. So I will be commending an amendment to this section when we move into the committee stage. I also had a concern with Section 14, which is seeking to amend Section 28 of the Act. And I heard my colleague Senator Stanislaus make mention of the ghetto gunsmiths and this section being aimed at preventing them. However, or preventing them from operating. However, when I compare Section 28 as it originally was drafted, I note that provision was made for particularly repair of firearms by firearm dealer licensees. And again, I think in our desire to prevent people from doing illegal and lawful things, we fail to recognize that firearms will need repair. And this Section 28 as amended does not make provision for licensed firearm dealers to carry out repairs to firearms. So I would commend again that we include the wording which is similar to Section 28 as provided, for example, which said very simply, a person shall not manufacture, sell, transfer, lend, repair, test or prove any firearm or ammunition exposed for sale, transfer or have his or in her possession. For any of the purposes in paragraph A, any firearm ammunition or convert into a firearm, any imitation firearm or gadget, we can leave that part out unless he or she is a firearm dealer. So again, I would commend us including language similar to what was in Section 28 previously to ensure that persons who are carrying out legitimate functions and repair of a firearm for a licensed firearm holder is a legitimate function. Because the last thing you want is somebody carrying a faulty firearm with them because they could not get repair and then seeking to use it in a situation of need, and then injuring either themselves or some innocent bystander because the firearm is not functioning properly. I also noted under Section 3, and perhaps I should have started there, that we are now including under the definition of firearms, air rifles, air guns and air pistols. And I happen to know that there are persons who have such firearms as they now call in their possession because at the time when they did acquire them, there was no regime that governed their acquisition. Those persons obviously would now become illegal firearm holders for once or better would just do a change of the law, but no reflection on them. There's no provision in here for either grandfathering them under the legislation or providing some mechanism whereby their possession of these firearms can be regularized in short order. And again, I believe some consideration ought to be given to that because we'd be criminalizing persons who are otherwise lawful and lawfully abiding persons. The process I understood it before was that the commissioner would have given you express permission under a letter, but not strictly speaking a license. So these are my considerations for amendments to the bill or areas where it could be enhanced or strengthened. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Fede. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to make a few comments on this rather important bill. Mr. President, my own experience with Don Violence is me having to attend dozens of funerals of young men, some that I have grown to know very well because I would have had the opportunity of sharing with them constituency constituent member of parliament relationship. Some of them I know their mothers and I can see their tears still rolling from the shock of another young life that is no longer with us because they have fallen prey. It is all too familiar, scourge, this cancer that continues to eat away at the very fabric of our society. And so, Mr. President, this bill is one of tremendous significance. I'll join my colleague and suggest that we on this side are not in favor of politicizing this discussion because the truth is that none of us have been on top of gun violence for the last 20, 30 years. You've had successive administrations, SLP, UWP, and we haven't been able to rectify the challenges. In fact, one former prime minister is famously on a record for saying that the criminals should give the people a break for Christmas. Another prime minister is on a record of saying that none of us are safe. And this is following an incident where outside his constituency office on constituency day, there was an altercation which included and which resulted in someone being shot outside his constituency office. While he was meeting with constituents at the time, and so we're all exposed to this problem, my colleague is indeed very right that this situation does impact socially but also economically as well. People are beginning to feel unsafe. It is not unusual to hear comments by people that we know say we're not going to the beaches anymore after six o'clock because it has become unsafe. Business people are small business people, large business people are victims of robberies. People go to funerals these days and worry about their lives. In fact, in some communities, you've seen some funerals that the police has had to pluck up a significant amount of patrol and manpower personnel because of expected gun violence that may come about because of a situation involving the person who's being buried. So believe me, Mr. President, when I tell you that I do not wish to politicize this matter, but I want to make a few comments that are of grave concern to me and the first one is that the firearms act has been ventilated here today. I want to echo that it's in reaction to gun violence that has already happened and in fact by itself it will not be able to cure the problem. I think that's an admission that has been made here by the members on the government side. Mr. President, to accompany gun control or stiffer penalties regarding illegal or illegal firearms, we need to ensure that our borders are protected. We need to have a system by which we control the flow of guns that are coming in because it is clear, Mr. President, that we don't manufacture them in St. Lucia. Most of it, it's coming from the U.S. and nearby Caribbean islands and some from the northern coast of South America. And so what we have to do is to ensure that we work very diligently to make sure that the police is properly equipped with the necessary tools that it requires to fight this problem from a multiplicity of angles. So Mr. President, I've heard comments that the police should do more, but the police is only equipped to deal with this problem. Many times the radars don't work. The vessels that we have to cover an island that is 27 miles long on both sides and if you consider the north and the south as well, how do we adequately resource the police to ensure that that is done? So there must be that effort blaming the police alone or saying that the police must do more doesn't solve the problem. Mr. President, I want to also echo the sentiments by my colleague about the K9 unit and there were issues ventilated by the prime minister who holds one a part of the national security portfolio. It's a very cumbersome arrangement in the cabinet. One minister is responsible for administration and another minister is responsible for policy. And I couldn't get my head around that, Mr. President, because I don't think it makes for a synergistic strategic management of a very important matter such as national security where you'd need a very direct and single approach so that this individual, there's greater accountability, we know who's the minister of national security. But albeit, Mr. President, I leave that to the administration as their prerogative to determine what structure of management as it relates to national security policy that they would like to enact. But the prime minister is on record publicly as indicating that the 40,000 months that they were paying for the K9 unit was too costly. And notwithstanding the fact we saw the police commissioner had mentioned before that the K9 unit was essential to the whole issue of crime fighting. Not only has it intercepted many drug smuggling activities, but it has also intercepted with illegal firearms because the two are intrinsically connected. When the drugs is coming in or leaving, usually guns is also coming in because there are many parcels or many fines that they, if you look at the various reports and disclosures from the police, you would see that whenever drugs is being intercepted, that they're also intercepting sometimes within the same operation, illegal guns as well, because the drug traffickers require a weapon to protect turf and to also protect themselves in this rather dangerous trade. So I think that that's a mistake to spend less than half a million a month to continue to mount up the pressure and to beef up the police and to give them the necessary tools that they require so that they can have a better handle of the situation. That is a mistake and that to me is very, very unfortunate and has weakened the police force in their ability to deal with this problem. The scanners at customs from time to time would not work and so having to deal with large consignments, I heard the senator mention that customs would empty her personal belongings when they come from overseas. I mean, not all of us are fortunate to get barrels from overseas but the fact of the matter is that there's a large portion of consignments that are coming in and these consignments usually they, we don't have enough personnel to take barrels and boxes and empty them manually so we need scanners so that we can actually go on a wholesale large scale basis to be able to scan all of the barrels and all of the boxes and all of the consignments of goods whether in containers or barrels so that the customs officials can be on top of that situation. So when I speak of equipment these are some of the areas and too often we hear the complaint by enforcement authorities whether it's customs or police that there just isn't enough support from the various administrations and that's one of the things that both of us will have to do more. We will have to put a lot more money to wear our mouth and wear the rhetoric is because both political parties would like to give the impression today to people that are listening that we care about the crime situation of course we do so this must be closely aligned to the the amounts we've made available in the budgets and then of course Mr. President the foreign policy of our country as a small island developing state with no military we'll need to ensure that we get the best international help to to fight this whole question of national security securing our borders. I know that many years ago a joint curriculum effort would have signed an agreement called the ship rider agreement which would have given US vessels passing through Caribbean waters to intercept drug traffickers or illegal substances the legal authority to be able to do that we want to strengthen these partnerships and we want to ensure that we have greater partnerships working with the British and the Canadians and all the various traditional allies that have had a strong interest in seeing that the Caribbean basin is a basin of security that we must ensure that we maintain these relationships we don't do anything to undermine them these relationships that when we go to international for us that we are leaving these countries with no doubt that St. Lucia is in their corner in every possible way so that we can get the requisite and the commensurate and the reciprocal assistance because if we go to the organization of American states for example the OAS that there should be no question whether we are with Venezuela or whether we're with the Americans it has to clearly show that we are supporting our main traditional allies that are going to help us in this fight and so there has been questions raised the government has taken some very controversial decisions and made some controversial statements in international for us that has left us to worry whether these relationships are intact you must remember Mr. President that only recently our police were allowed to attend training from put on by the United States and other friendly governments in a partnership for us to liberate the people of the Caribbean from the scourge of this national toxic and chronic cancer crime in St. Lucia and the Caribbean so what we need to do Mr. President is ensure that those relationships they stay intact so that we can tap the international help that is badly needed where we don't have the requisite resources a lot of the times in terms of ensuring that our police force is trained up to capacity and to given the requisite weapon and ammunition that is needed these days when you look at some of the fines that the police are making both from amnesties and from seizures and operations we see that the sophistication of weapons among criminals has actually gone up and it is getting quite sophisticated these days and so we must ensure that our police has the best help that is possible locally and internationally so that they are their their capacity is beefed up Mr. President when we get a young man with a gun usually that young man is working for someone that is bigger in the trade especially in in drug trafficking and if for example there is a bigger boss I think that they there has to be penalties to accompany this gun legislation the firearm act what I would call for as well is for there to be stiffer penalties for drug trafficking because the two go hand in hand so that we're intercepting the problem at both levels one at the level of the workers in the drug trafficking trade but as well the people who are in the trade itself who are making the bulk of the money we have to ensure that you send the very clear message to these individuals I know some countries have gone as far as signing extradition treaties for drug traffickers and for criminals notorious criminals and that might be something that the government may want to consider so that they leave no stone unturned and they send a very clear message to potential lawbreakers and potential felons that we are serious about haunting you down for crime I always thought that it was a mistake when very early on in the administration that the government came to the house and expound the records of people who committed yeah petty offenses but at the same time I believe it's set the wrong tone and and sent the wrong signal to individuals especially when the country is going through a crime problem and by not starting out and sending a clear message I believe that that tone is coming back in a way to haunt us now and I think it's unfortunate that the government started out in that way mistake new government these things happen but I would definitely want to register my own disappointment and reiterate that that wasn't the thing to do while the country was going through such a and continues to go through a crisis with the crime situation the leader of government business said that support for youth and education will help and as he was saying that I thought of the high dropout rates in schools and I wonder what is it we're doing wrong I don't profess to have the answers but if you look at what's taking place and if you consult with the Ministry of Education there is a significant dropout rate that is taking place in fact when you talk to educators today you see that a lot of the classrooms are getting empty and empty and comparison to 10 15 years ago at varying levels and this could be because of economics because of perhaps the young people in some societies may not necessarily understand the purpose of education could be a number of factors that are contributing to this phenomenon which is absolutely affecting the education system and and so when someone drops out of school what happens to them the youth at risk program is also mentioned as one of the programs and how many young people are trained in that program how much of a dent will this have on the youth situation in the country both in terms of the youth economy as well as the the the social landscape as it pertains to young people in this country is it five thousand is it ten thousand young people as going through this program a year I doubt but it would be good to get a number from the government so that we truly understand that this is not just rhetoric but this is a very solid well thought out plan that the government is putting together bringing together the social the fight from the aspect of ensuring that they beef up the social land landscape of the country as well as well as youth economic so every interesting to hear what the leader of government business has to say about the number of young people and what percentage of young people that are at risk based on the research that the government would have done but I agree with him when he said that this measure alone will not solve crime in our community totally he said no it wouldn't he reiterates and I share that view as well that this cannot by itself solve the crime situation so there is really a lot more work for the government to be done to ensure that they first of all articulate a clear plan a very concise plan ensure that the plan is coming from a multiplicity of angles so that we can get on top of this situation the opposition remains very very available to help in whatever way we can if you notice we haven't been saying much just on the crime situation because we understand that this is a humanitarian issue and this issue affects mothers sisters brothers everyone the horror of little children sometimes witnessing the whole barbarity of of gun violence is something that is absolutely debilitating to the psyche of a number of our young people and so what we want to make sure is that we are adding our voices to this in a very positive way that will help to add to being a solution to the problem and not contributing to the problem my colleague mr president spoke about the board and the shameless politicization of it the board as the legislation states the amendment which we've gone through here today would have said the commissioner of police the ps of national security the minister of national security nominates three members of the board which is the majority so it means therefore that the minister's nomination has the the majority of the voting numbers on the board this is then approved by the cabinet of ministers i'm very surprised at the response because they my colleague did not suggest that by putting politicians now and taking the absolute power away from the police and now giving the political directorate the power through its nomination of members he didn't say that because there's something wrong with politicians that's not the point the point is is that politicians are very exposed because all of us we go into constituencies you've got people voting for you and what it is is that people come and and expect the kinds of pressure that a politician is under to consider it because of political considerations someone in the police force is not under those considerations they are able to make a judgment call on the approval of a gun license strictly on whether you qualify or not simple but what you've done now is that by doing this and constructing the board in this manner you are now bringing in other considerations and we are very concerned that the political considerations which are being brought into the mix are dangerous to this whole affair and i want to echo the sentiments and reiterate that i stand with the senator stanislaus to ensure that this is something that is untenable why take away the absolute power of the board from the police and then put it in the hands of the political directorate it baffles me completely i just don't understand this level of madness but at the same token when you take away the power of the police you're also going to say to them that they are responsible for solving the crime situation that we have in the country this is not fair so if you are going to take the responsibility by having the majority of the nominations then you are to be responsible for solving the crime situation in the country so therefore leave the matter of gun license with the police and let the police sort it out but to now bring cabinet involved i think that the cabinet has enough work to do there is a lot of other problems that are facing us let us stick to the business of policy formulation unless not overreach into what is a very sensitive matter this is a very serious situation where you're now asking someone with a gun to go face the politician and to put an award for me to the board because i voted for you no this should not be why make it that why bring that in that's unfortunate so i want to reiterate that i agree with senator stanislas um that that in itself is not somewhere um that we want to go so mr president i it is my view that we also need to stiffen the process by application i brought with me today um a the requirements from japan for uh crime for for gun applications and it says mr president says for example he says take a firearm class and pass a written examination which is held up to three times a year so you have to then go take a course write an exam if you fail the exam you have to rewrite the exam they don't just give you a gun and then after passing the exam you must get a doctor's note saying that you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse then the third step once you would have gotten that note from the doctor you have to apply for a permit to take firing training which may take up to a month then the fourth step you have to describe in a police interview why you need a gun and then the fifth step pass a review of your criminal history gun possession record employment involvement with organized crime groups personal debt and relationships with friends family and neighbors the sixth step apply for a gun powder permit the seventh step take a one-day training class and pass a firing test the eighth step obtain a certificate from a gun dealer describing the gun you want the ninth step if you want a gun for hunting applying for a hunting license the tenth step buy a gun and safe and an ammunition locker that meet safety regulations step number 11 allow the police to inspect your gun storage step number 12 pass an additional bug ring review and then you get to buying a gun step number 13 so we see that a very unlike what happens in the united states of america where they have had their own issues with gun control and where they have seen that there has been a deep correlation between gun violence of the highest kind as well as the lax nature by which they issue guns to their citizens we see that with japan it is much more difficult now ironically my colleague mentioned that it was in japan where they former prime minister was gone down in broad daylight but when you look at the overall stats for japan i think that they would have a better handle on gun crime as as would the united states so mr president i want to end by saying categorically that i do support changes that would have to be made so that we can also make it more difficult for individuals to get to the application process of of guns so these are my comments to this bill mr president i posidum to you and i thank you senator reynolds thank you very much mr president as i rise to share my comments on this these amendments to the firearm act i wish to first of all if you allow me mr president to extend congratulations to the government for a very steady and successful year of service to the people of st lucer i look forward to another year of putting st lucer's first in a bigger way i also wish to congratulate the prime minister of st lucer the honorable philip j pair and the former prime minister honorable dr kennedy anthony will celebrate 25 years of a broken parliamentary service to the people of st lucer as well as the people of their constituencies and wish them well in the in that extraordinary journey mr president i stand to support fully the amendments that have been proposed to the firearms bill because mr president we must deal with crime and violence in this country and i applaud the effort of the government to deal with crime and one way mr president to deal with crime is to prevent it quote a criminologist an italian criminologist jurist philosopher economist and politician whose theories influence laws in the e u as well as the rights u.s rights in the u.s constitution scissor bicarrier who offered that government should work to prevent crime rather than focus on punishment that is exactly what our government is doing in these amendments trying to prevent crime and the question is how bear with me mr president because one may argue that these amendments deal with punishment severe punishment and this may be so but vicarrier also stated that legislation is not about punishing people but to serve as a deterrent unquote legislation is not about punishing people but to serve as a deterrent and this is what we are attempting to do he says further this type of prevention which we're talking about legislation to prevent crime where the it is it will be effective where the threats of punishment outweighs the urge to commit a crime and as you can see the penalties as we indicated earlier you've heard discussed by previous speakers the penalties are hefty maybe one or two may not think hefty enough that was an imprisonment for a term which may extend to 15 years to last mr president some of these amounts can pay degree programs they can build homes they can do lots of things for our families instead of paying to the court because a person decides to have an illegal firearm and so yes that threat of punishment will outweigh the urge to commit a crime mr president i i want to discuss a little of these theories proposed by vicarrier because it is very interesting i think in some way maybe it influenced what the amendments seek to do the aim of punishment he says and i quote is not to cause pain to the offender and i add i dare to add the offender and the family members but to prevent them from doing it again and to prevent other people from committing crime so the government in these are to serve these punishments these penalties impose here to prevent people from committing crime and those who are caught who are charged convicted and sentenced this will serve as an example for others that would not commit crime and we see this happening even in the classroom situation in the education sector those of us who are educators when you put the rules in your classroom and the students see one student who's broken the rule and gets the punishment administered the others will pay attention and i know mr president we have hardcore criminals in this small island state unfortunately we do and like i was previous speakers indicated there's much more to be done because not only about the drugs there's some really sick human beings in this country and they need help and we will discuss a little later what are some of the interventions that have been put in place and can be put in place to deal with them at a very early age because you see mr president the amendment of section 2612 be lists certain convictions which may extend to life again our philosopher posits that for punishment to be infected as a deterrent the punishment must be certain it must be swift and there must be severity i repeat the carrier states that for punishment to be effective as a deterrent it must be certain the punishment must be swift and see and there must be severity as he explains or defines that level of certainty in the punishment he said it must be guaranteed that the individuals will be punished and with that in there the fines we see imposed in the bill one is caught one is charged one is convicted and fined and is either 50 000 or 150 000 and up to maybe life based on and of course i'm very impressed seeing that the board the appointed board that we have the issue about they have a responsibility to educate the population about those those bills and and the consequences which is very interesting mr president it was not just that people just plucked things out from the end put it in as amendments but it's about putting responsibility on the people of this country because all of us as i heard earlier are responsible and have to put our heads together to fight crime all of us the second one punishment being swift means no procrastinating punishment must be swift to ensure that it works well as a deterrent and the severity punishment is proportional to the crime and definitely we've heard when we've lost a life a loved one has been taken no amount of 150 000 dollars and 50 000 can replace a loved one when we see children without their fathers mothers without the the fathers of their children mothers are crying about loved ones being gone down no amount of money can replace a loved one this is why we have to take it so seriously there hefty fines but a life is worth much more than a hefty fine the trauma that is experienced at losing a loved one the sole provider in a family being lost being killed what happens to the family and so i'm proposing mr president that consideration can be given to a special court for firearm offenses this seem to be the use of firearm illegal at that it seems to be the primary instrument that is used to commit murder in this country and in the region so this is one consideration i mean throughout in this our chamber we continue mr president punishment to serve as a deterrent punishment must be certain it must be must be severity and it must be swift the bill creates also mr president a level playing field when it comes to sentencing when it comes to punishment what we are doing here today to enact to the amendments that is the laws the fines the penalties this will apply to all and sundry no more privileges as perceived in the past family friends and others who are backer who break the law who it is perceived in the past will get away just a slap on the wrist now it's for everyone who knows so many in the past well known rich famous would commit crime go in pay the way out and who knows who but we have had enough and i think the people of this country have had enough and i noticed mr president the comments emanating from the live when the prime minister was presenting in the lower house two days ago said lucians was saying finally the prime minister will be in serious with had enough we've had enough and i want to share with you mr president an experience that happened just recently we have a visiting family member my sister was here from the uk and we visited my mom who lives close by are we walking home and there was a rattling sound and she just left me and run into someone's yard and i'm standing on the road and asking where are you going to and she said them gunshots it was funny to me at the time mr president because it was actually a motorcyclist revving his motorbike down the road but into a frenzy because a few days previously we'd heard someone discharging their weapon and i'm sure mr president it was an illegal fire it was just been fired up on the hill away from where i live and we were on the steps in my house when she heard it and she went inside and then to be on the road this time and hearing someone revving up a motorcycle and she went into panic mode and was running into someone's yard when i was still on the ground asking her where are you going to so it made me feel sad that the community where i live and grew up you know where she lived where she grew up now she's walking down the road at 7 p.m and having to duck because she thought someone is discharging the fire so just like in all communities i'm sure all of us have heard it at some point where young people figure they're having fun they sleep on social media it's it's sad what is happening what has happened to our country and it needs to stop i know there is so much more to be done but when those perpetrators get to know about the punishment get to know about the fines i am hoping when their parents their girlfriends their partners talk to them about those hefty fines because they bring it into the homes of their parents they bring it into the homes of their girlfriends and expect them to secure it for them we as women as mothers as girlfriends as wives we need to tell our children our partners about what can happen we have a responsibility not only as lawmakers but as citizens of this country if we love our boyfriend if we love our baby daddy if we love whoever who would not want them to go down and face the courts and spend 15 years in prison missing out on so many years of the children's lives we need to sensitize we need to educate our partners our family members about what is what the amendment speak to in this bill and i look forward to the members of the board doing just that to inform the people of this country what can happen what will the certainty you will get punished you will go down there is no escaping this time it is in the law and so i hope to see that support happening to ensure that we continue to fight and fight honestly the crime situation in this country i want to call on the mother of the women of this country to stand up to stand up and reach out to their children to their community members to stop this situation mr president the government has implemented and continues to implement other initiatives to deal with the crime situation to deal with prevention and i continue to preach the word prevention the youth at risk program the domestic violence bill the youth economy that we passed earlier this this morning and way back when when the labor party administration implemented the program of counselors in schools as i indicated earlier mr president very early some of us with background in psychology we can tell when things are not right with our students we can tell we see it in their behaviors and so we can refer them for intervention whether through the counselors whether those psychologists or psychotherapists what it means medication we can tell and if we care we will do something about it mr president especially our young men who are coming from backgrounds where they feel they may have been abused the young women who may have been abused at home i mean we heard of what happened during the covid situation the heights of the covid situation where students children were abused sexually abused when they went to the homes of their neighbors to use devices because it was nothing at home and they were abused when their mothers had to go to work and left them with other they were abused and so the counselors now have their hands full trying to work through and rehabilitate these young people it's reality and if it is not dealt with we see the problems and we say criminals criminals sometimes created by the home situation by the community and bigger bosses in the evil bosses in the communities they see the vulnerable people they see those who are just live to languish in the community and they take advantage of that and hence the reason why is absolutely necessary for the government to put and continue to put the social programs in place the after school programs the distressed farm the support for single mothers all of that to put in place to ensure that no child becomes a target we start from the very tender age let's teach him how to manage the conflicts that is why you have the counselors at the school secondary school level the counselors at the district level to ensure that we make those interventions we have them but much more is still needed and I heard the member opposite spoke of it's selling us a wrong tone a wrong message when we dealt with the legislation to deal with the free grams of marijuana what have you I mean we're talking about these serious crimes there are ordinary folks in our community who use marijuana for whatever reason whether to make tea to deal with the eye problems or therefore whatever reason you may tell me we're taking these as the criminals and comparing them to those hardcore criminals who use those those kinds of weapons to gun down people like dogs you comparing this these are two different situations sometimes I just wonder mr president why why we even bother why we even bother to make those kinds of statements if it's just kind of almost a response to the constitution of the board the powers of the board to investigate an application for license or permit to require an applicant for license or permit to appear before the board why not if special branch can investigate and the commissioner can make a decision a determination why can special branch still investigate the board continue to investigate and they sit with the commission and make a decision what's the big who-ha about this why are we undermining the the level of professionalism of our people in this country again it shows what we're thinking is only foreigners who can do things well in this country you mean to tell me you cannot get people who are of high integrity and are able to exercise good judgment in fulfilling the functions in this act you mean to tell me st lucha has no body who cares and sit down in commissioner look at applications and make a determination we are saying we are so hollow and we said that I mean we maybe we revoke some people's passports and you know you know st lucians you know that st lucians we have it in us to do this mr president we have it shameless politicization of having a board to help to go along with the commissioner to issue a license for fire one of the functions of the board is to promote and oversee public education related to safe use of a firearm and ammunition we gave the board responsibilities powers and functions also indicated the minister shall by notice published in the gazette they appointed the members of the board members of the board are and mr president in the previous life as a minister i appointed boards and mr president as a previous life you appointed boards these are governed by laws the appointment the constitution of the board is in the books it's in the law books it will govern it will tell you specifically which professional which background is necessary for a person to serve on the board be a guided by and so mr president i appointed boards nursing council i appointed persons who serve on the medical and dental council to appoint doctors i appointed people to serve on the allied health board council to the people who who dealt with you know ophthalmology and other areas like that specific areas when it comes to health we trust persons to serve on boards who can appoint doctors to work in our hospital our health institutions you mean to tell me the situation the laws cannot that special branch who is still involved in the investigation commissioner police or his or her nominee the permanent secretary in the ministry responsible for national security again you see a way to undermine our public officers no wonder we wait and pay earnings so young to do our budget we don't believe that our public officers can deliver three persons nominated by the minister will sit and review the applications simple mr president we must have the ministers came in here over a year ago about a year little less than a year ago and they took up this country of those ministers will cause to happen politicization of persons who can apply or receive a firearm or license to carry a firearm we must have more confidence in a group of people sitting down and making a determination because we seem to have more confidence in one person and who appoints the commissioner mr president who appoints the commissioner so one person or two people or three people would appoint the commissioner and the commissioner there's so much confidence in the commissioner but a minister along with guidance from the cabinet and the act is so guided to appoint a group of people and we have no confidence we say it's politics but i can understand that based on the past experience when the previous administration the way things work the way their hands were in every board manipulating everything they believe that all governments after who come after may behave the same way which is a shame and i want to say mr president that we need to go back to that point of being good examples we need to go back to the point of having young people look up to us and believe that we have this integrity that we are unbiased senator you have 15 minutes thank you mr president i am wrapping up when it comes to the security in this country which is very very important to all of us so as i close mr president i want to reiterate my confidence in the amendments that have been proposed to this act i want to applaud the prime minister and the government for these amendments have been proposed and will be passed here this afternoon i want to appeal to the people of this country that we can work together to prevent crime to ensure that what is proposed in the bill here this afternoon the punishment will serve as a deterrent because failing to do that we have more problems in our hands let's ensure that the bill is passed it becomes law and anybody anyone who is caught will face the punishment of it being certain it being swift and of course that level of severity it must serve as a deterrent along with other programs to look at crime prevention in this country i thank you please of government business thank you mr president president once again i stand in this senate to present a rebuttal and to attempt to among others respond to the questions and comments raised by the leader of opposition business and mr president for the third time today once again i'm speaking to an empty chair mr president let me start by acknowledging the contributions of all the members on this bill and thank them i think we have all agreed that this is a very necessary amendment and that we have all acknowledged that there's reason for us to pay attention to the situation in the country as it relates to gun violence i will first address a couple of issues that were raised by the opposition with regard to gathering intelligence the board composition which in part has been addressed by one of my colleagues and the role of the various persons and so on first of all mr president i want to ask the opposition because it's something that i think they have been hitting at from the time this bill was introduced what is the obsession with the k9 unit i i i heard the k9 unit you know yes we have we we acknowledge that this is important in terms of detecting um the dogs being used to locate weapons drugs and other illegal items but i i kind of looked a little further than what was being said and i asked what is the obsession that the opposition has with the k9 unit and whereas this government has never said that we will dismantle and do not have anything to do with the k9 unit all the prime minister said was that he's going to review the contract the contract that was given for that unit clearly there are issues with the contract and the prime minister has a right to look at any contract and determine that it needs to be reviewed have the review done and then fix the problem there's no there's no way in this debate or any time that this government has indicated that he's going to do away with the k9 unit so the k9 unit argument has nothing to do with not wanting to help detect crime and drugs and and guns but i suspect this opposition has a particular interest in that k9 unit but i'll leave it at that for now mr president the opposition also raised the issue of the fire arm dealers also having to deal with the firearms being seized if they're not following the proper procedures noted the issue of conversion of firearms and increasing the the sentence to life i also note this well i think senator stanislaus raised an issue with explosives that he had hoped that would have been included but i think if i am to refer to section 53 amendment section 53 on page 24 i think there's reference made to bombs we needs and so on which really are explosive so perhaps the terminology the specific term of dynamites or whichever example you reference wasn't mentioned but i think this is captured in that particular section so i thank him for that observation um the issue mr president that i think got a lot of treatment was the issue of the composition of the board and as was correctly stated by a former minister who spoke just before me boards in this country have always been appointed by cabinet ministers the former the leader of opposition business is a former minister and i'm sure that he appointed several boards in fact in fact i work in that very ministry now and i can tell you it's one of the ministries with the most statutory organizations attached and so he would have had countless boards that he would have over that he would have recommended or he would have appointed as a minister when the names were submitted to him so to suggest that the boards in some way should not involve a minister or politician in the first place i don't see any way that we have suggested that the members of that board are going to be politicians so i don't know if it is an expectation as a matter of fact mr president if you look at the um the section here i'll tell you if you go to the the um to page 11 of the bill and look at section 2b under disqualification it tells you who is disqualified and among and in that under under section 2b subsection a it says he or she has not been a member of the house of assembly it also says on page 12 that he or she has not been nominated nominated as a candidate of election and so on clearly that does not suggest that whoever is going to be on that board to serve along with the commissioner of police will or will definitely be a politician so i do not know what the anxiety is about the board it seems that all of a sudden the opposition is very fearful and worried about boards they were in the business of appointing boards and i i now notice the leader of opposition business is back as usual probably lost about what the discussion is and will want to interject mr president under the former ministry of tourism that i now serve in i'll repeat for his benefit this is one of the ministries of the most boards and he would have had an input he would have appointed several boards all of a sudden ministers can't appoint appoint boards ministers must not be involved in appointing boards who appoints boards who appoints boards so mr president i will move to the composition of the board which is another discussion point there seems to be a contentious issue about the three persons being added to the the the the the role of the commissioner to be able to decide whether or not a firearm license is issued mr president that does not in any way diminish the role of the police commissioner i want to assure the opposition that it does not the police commissioner is a member of this board and is the chair of this of this unit if i may call it that the police commissioner heads it and if we go to page 11 again the police commissioner not only chairs the board but if we read under his function under the functions of the members let me just get the relevant section section 21 section 21 it tells you that the police commissioner does does not only share the board but he has a casting vote in addition to his original vote so in the event that there is an indecision or a dispute in the votes the the person who retains the right to have the final see is still the police commissioner that is not left in the hands of any other person that tells you how important we believe as a government that the office of the police commissioner must still remain very relevant in that case all the board does in in in bringing in the other three persons is to provide an additional layer of scrutiny is anything wrong with that providing an additional layer of scrutiny if you are so concerned about that it's dangerous how dangerous has it been when you have had a police commissioner doing making the decision by himself and as was questioned who appoints the police commissioner as we speak in our constitution the prime minister has the authority to dismiss the commissioner as we speak in this constitution and it has happened before former prime minister the late sir john dismiss the commissioner because he had the authority to maybe it was justified at the time i was a student at secondary school when it happened this mr commissioner had him you know to resign or whatever he did so mr president the prime minister is a politician and if the prime minister has the legitimate authority to dismiss a commissioner then it tells us that our system allows for politicians to be able to make certain decisions that's why we elect them the people elect politicians to make decisions on their behalf but the politicians themselves if they are unscrupulous they have to be systems in place to keep them in check and if it is a suspicion that the opposition has because they expect the government to behave in the way that they may have behaved then i'm sorry but mr president if the the the government says that the the decision to bring in three additional persons they never said that it was going to be three politicians in fact it is suggesting that they should not be politicians it is very very clear in the sections i quoted that you have become so suspicious then it means you do not want an additional layer of scrutiny and therefore why was it okay that a single person could have done it before it can't be any less dangerous now mr president also the appointment of the additional three persons to the board in no way compromises or diminishes the role of the special branch in in terms of the process of approval of the firearm it does not and there is nothing there that suggests that as soon as you have these three persons added to the commissioner that the role of the special branch is no longer required it is not inferred or stated anyway so mr president they still have to do the investigation the due diligence still has to be done on the applicant by the board it never referred to it there was no statement in the in the bill that says that the special branch may or may not it never mentioned the special branch so everything that has happened is going to happen in addition to the three appointees so let us say mr president that there were no additional appointees as we speak the special branch still has to do its due diligence before the commissioner makes the appointment and so and so if the amendment does not suggest that this is interfered with the amendment speaks particularly to the board and its rule which comes into play after all the due diligence has been done it is very clear mr president we are trying now to in introduce things into the bill like was done this morning of course thankfully you were able one of us was able to pick it up and clearly ruled that the member had not was was trying to mislead the house they are not going to be allowed to mislead this honorable house by trying to introduce things that are not in the bill and I as government leader of government business will ensure that it does not happen let us let us stick to what the bill says if there is ambiguity you can ask for clarification and we will clarify but do not suggest that there is something in the bill that is not in there so the additional three persons on the board in no way interferes with the function of the commission of police or the role of the special branch they will still have their own function in fact it gives the commission of police exclusive power in that if there is any casting vote he has a casting vote so it does not diminish his role mr president I want to also address a couple of concerns raised by senator lee and he did mention something that has to do with the composition as well but of course not in the very way that it was raised by the opposition I think some of the expectations that and he did cited the youth economy in one of the examples and thought that it should also be the same for the for this bill mr president I believe that these expectations for example people should not be should not have declared bankruptcy should not be mentally unstable and be convicted of criminal offence and so on mr president in almost every single board every single board that is appointed in this country these conditions apply it is a it is a clear convention and expectation maybe if if there is need to actually insert it we will not argue that and we can have that considered for further review of course but it is a clear expectation not only with that board but any board you clearly if you have these things you will not be eligible to be considered for votes so mr president I think there was another another point that was raised by senator lee under section 14 when it comes to the repair of firearm licenses the same should apply for owners and persons who have illegal firearms I also noted at this time mr president I want to speak to the issue of the two issues raised by the leader of opposition business thankfully he's here to listen to my response first of all the leader of opposition business started by saying that he's not going to politicize the discussion on crime when he said it I took it with a grain of salt and thankfully I did because the very next statement he made was that he cited examples after he said he's not going to politicize it his examples were particularly examples that were uttered by previous prime ministers and previous politicians about crime but you see while he did so mr president he just pointed to what politicians said except for one thing he didn't remember the little statement with an accent that kenny didn't but I went he forgot that one because he probably knew who said it he repeated things that other politicians had said about crime but he forgot that one but at the same time he's not politicizing crime let's just stop this hypocrisy in this one come on mr president I was very fascinated when the leader of opposition business made reference to um what I I like it when we in this honorable house try to use best practice and make recommendations it always is welcome but it's interesting that he chose japan he read something there and these days what I see the the opposition seems to be an authority on everything they come and they try to lecture the the government with all kinds of prescriptions and brilliant ideas that I don't know where they were in the last five years but that's okay if the idea is good we'll listen even if it's coming from the opposition so the so the leader of government business decides that he's going to offer some a suggestion and he uses a model from japan and he goes on and reads some fancy thing well I wonder what inspired him to use japan as an example I wonder but one thing I'll tell him mr president that in japan in japan no acting prime minister has ever and will never sign 30 direct awards in one day that's a good model that I think you need to pick up on because that does not happen in japan so when he comes here with japanese um I mean we are in st lusia there are so many countries around the region there are so many models that we can I have no problem with a model just so you want to come from come to this house with selecting japan so when you choose your models please pick up the good practices that these governments have and maybe you can go back to one of your colleagues and tell them that that does not happen in japan I was hoping to hear some offerings that have some sociological and psychological basis I think sometimes in our discussions about issues in this country we are not inclined to pay attention and acknowledge proper scientific research and I think I heard the one of my colleagues speak about issues that present sociological and theoretical perspectives on what happens when you implore or you use punitive measures even in along the lines of education it's also known that sometimes punitive measures are not necessarily the best but there are times that they are necessary and I welcome those the important message in that submission I think and I think it most of it came from senator Reynolds was that punitive measures is supposed to serve as deterrence and when they serve as deterrence the deterrence usually don't mean that the behavior will not be repeated so you have to back it up with other things so you may be able to curb a situation for a while but if you stick to punitive measures alone it's not going to give you a long-term solution for the problem so you have to back it up with other more concrete and effective measures so I welcome that submission and I believe that the discussion on this particular bill today Mr president has raised a number of very important issues and has brought some serious consideration serious matters for consideration to us we believe that that the objective of this of these amendments is to help strengthen our fight in reducing the number of illegal guns and ammunition that get into the hands of the wrong people and I hope that even going forward that we can consider how we can strengthen the legislation further so that we can bring some measure of control sanity and regularize what happens with the use or misuse of illegal weapons particularly firearms and ammunition in this country I thank you mr senator senators the question is that the firearms firearms amendment bill be read a second time I now put the question as many as are that opinion say aye as many as I have a country opinion say no I think the eyes of it the eyes of it act to amend the firearms act cap 14.12 clause two interpretation clause two stands part of the bill clause three amendment of section two clause three stands part of the bill clause four deletion of section three clause four stands part of the bill clause five insertion of new part 1a clause five stands part of the bill president sorry apologies senator senator Lee I wish to propose the following amendment to two b after the existing clauses a and b that means which clause are you referring to which section so that section five to be disqualification one second it's on page 11 sorry section five to be right disqualification page 11 so after the existing section subsections a and b I propose that we insert subsection c has filed for bankruptcy in a court or is declared by a court to be a bankrupt an additional subsection d is declared by a court to be mentally incapacitated by reason of insolveness of mind and a subsection e has been convicted of a criminal offense except if the offense is one a minor road traffic offense or two is spent in accordance with the criminal records rehabilitation of offenders act cap 3.13 I think they have government business so president while I I note the concerns and I think we had a short discussion about this myself senator Lee and there is some merit in the argument but I think at this time we may want to consider those for another time and allow this to go through us is and perhaps do some reconsideration at a later date Mr. President I get to respond I can't remember what the process is in in committee whether it's just one statement you're kind respectfully Mr. President in response to the leader of a government business I believe since we are in the process of putting together the board and this legislation would be determined what the constituents of the board is I think it's necessary for us to deal with this amendment at this time to make sure that once we are constructing the board it is properly defined and properly constructed as my understanding is the lower house is sitting again August 8th which is next week I believe a week after so it's not it's not such a long space of time within which for this amendment to go back to the house for them to deal with and I believe given the opportunity they probably will agree that this is a necessary amendment I believe it it could be that they they may agree and it's true that we have a sitting soon but I would not want to propose the amendments we made now instead it would be better to allow for the lower house to deliberate on it and decide to make the amendments at a later date than for us to just make the amendments now means that it's going to have to go back and the whole process starts so I think we can still achieve the same objective well the decision really is for members to make so I will Mr. President I'm not certain but to me it has to come from the lower house to the upper house because if we have to amend it now I think so yeah if we have to make the amendments I think the entire thing has to go back to the process again the lower house and back here that is indisputable we understand that yeah any any amendments that are made here any amendments that originates from here causes the bill to go back to the lower house we understand that right I think the discussion was that whether in fact based on Senator Lee's proposal that the bill should not be considered the amendment proposed by himself should not be considered right here and dealt with rather than having it dealt with at the latest stage by the lower house but like I said this is a decision that has to be made so I can understand that you know maybe the government side may wish to consult with members in the cabinet from the lower house and you know whether the best thing might be to defer the bill and to allow the members to have that discussion with their colleagues and so they requisite amendments as proposed could be something that they would have had time to consult and then come back with a more definitive yeah but once it is passed here it becomes a bit cumbersome if we intend to do any amendments forgive me again mr president I'm not understanding well I mean I understand somewhat the objection but is it that we are going to abdicate our power and right to amend the bill because we think that there should be consultation in the lower house I mean as far as I understand we have the right if we see that something needs to be done to improve the bill to do it ourselves I don't think it should be a situation where we say well okay well we let them decide whether they change it or not and I think these are necessary amendments to this bill you are you're quite correct but like I was like I said before that decision is for y'all to make I cannot make that decision one way the other that is for y'all to make and in understanding all this does reflect that and as I proceed with the as I proceed basically you'll get the opportunity to say whether you agree or not agree and then we take it from there okay so so um clause so clause five stands part of the bill it has not no it's not it's not been amended don't don't forget mr president do I have to move a motion specifically or having made the proposal you now have to vote on whether my proposal is accepted or not when I move the question I say clause five stands by the bill members have to voice the approval of this approval I can't tell you what to say but but okay but I'm proposing an amendment to yes your your your your proposal is noted right but doesn't have to be addressed first before we decide when when when the question is moved then you get the opportunity to voice your your your your position yes no no yes and then we'll see basically how it goes excuse me senator Lee I I think perhaps you didn't really quite understand what I was saying members do have an opportunity to support or not support any aspect of the bill when and that is the reason why when I call when I move the question I says whatever clause stands by the bill you say a or you say nay that is your that is your opportunity to reflect your sentiment on the bill and those who support will support and those who don't support will not support because I'm reading um standing order 54 one second 54 54 one second you know what I'm saying now I think that my proposal for the amendment has to be disposed of one way the other and then so if it's voted down we'll find it and we want to whether five forms part of the bill but we having made the proposal I think it has to be addressed in some manner right well that is precisely what I was alluding to and that it can be dealt with in the manner that I proposed before I actually moved the question so so listen I want the political government business yes mr chair thanks for acknowledging me um I think senator Lee um I just wanted to senator Lee if I can address him mr mr chair um yeah Mike what I'm I need to call you sorry right so um the leader of government business was given an opportunity to respond to your proposal he made he did respond um suggesting a different approach um it is now for basically it's now for the members to decide whether in fact they favor your proposal or they favor his proposal before the actual question is really put so I will give the leader of government business the opportunity to respond and then we'll continue thank you mr president and I just wanted to reiterate to senator Lee that there are two ways to achieve the same objective it's really we can achieve exactly what is intended um but the the method that is proposing we'll still go back to the lower house and you know I'm I was my suggestion was that we allow the bill to be passed as is however the amendments can then be put to the lower house and they can bring it back for for the amendment to be made it doesn't have to take a month the thing is if we if we stop the bill now um it still has to go back and so passing the bill and then bring the amendments that you've made have been noted and we can still achieve the same objective so which is why I suggested that we go through and then bring it and allow the lower house to go back and make the amendments and then we come back and pass them um question mr president i'm sorry by the way sorry yes and by the way I did consider some guidance on council when will the bill come into effect if we are to go your way the you're suggesting please direct your questions from me yes for you mr president when will the bill come into effect if we have to all bills coming to effect after it has been given royal ascent okay so if the next thing is what is it the next two weeks you done with but I think that the lower house is already presided over the bill and yeah sorry mr president the lower house is already debated scrutinized and they have made all of their changes I think it's for us now as legislators to determine whether we're going to reject or whether we're going to endorse so um this is how the constitution works and I would like to uphold the constitution in that regard so let's go on to the various um clauses and we just you know you put the question and we'll vote that's it that's the obligation we have to the constitution otherwise I think we would be um in breach of procedure so the opportunity belong the opportunity the opportunity and the responsibility belongs to each and every member in the house so if you agree obviously you say nay if you disagree you'll say no and if there is need for a division then you'll call for a division simple as that so I will proceed clause five stands part of the bill madam clerk senator norrani as he's how do you vote as part of the bill yes as is senator dominique ferre how do you vote senator gibyan ferrinan how do you vote you hi senator lisa joy how do you vote here senator d lee how do you vote senator alvina reynolds how do you vote senator harrod sanislaw how do you vote senator kejiana to social rey how do you vote yeah senator the the bill will remain as is uh we had five in support and three against so the bill stands as is the clause stands as a clause five stands as is clause six amendments of section 15 clause six stands part of the bill all right clause seven amendment of section 16 clause seven stands part of the bill clause eight amendment of section 21 clause eight stands part of the bill clause nine insertion of new section 21 a clause nine stands part of the bill right clause 10 amendment of section 22 clause 10 stands part of the bill clause 11 amendment of section 24 clause 11 stands part of the bill clause 12 amendment of section 26 clause 12 stands part of the bill clause 13 amendment of section 27 clause 13 stands part of the bill Clause 14. Substitution of section 28. Mr. President. Senator Lee. I wish to propose another amendment to this section as well. Perhaps just for the record more than anything else. I would propose that section 14 be amended as followed. So it reached 28. Two, an offense is not committed under subsection one. If a firearm dealer, then we have A in brackets. Cells of firearm or subsection, sub paragraphs or I should say A. Cells of firearm or ammunition to a person. And at the time of the sale, the person purchasing small I is the holder of and produces a valid license. Small II is exempt from the requirements of this act under section 23. And then introduce another sub paragraph. B repairs, tests or proves a firearm or ammunition. That's page 19. Page 19 repairs, not resets. Repairs, tests or proves a firearm or ammunition. No, a subsection. So you would remember A and B as I and II. The existing A and B. And then add a sub clause B. So let me do it again. So we have 28, two, which begins an offense is not committed under subsection one. If a firearm dealer, we'd have a comma. Then sub paragraph A. Cells of firearm or ammunition to a person. And at the time of the sale, the person purchasing I, so we'd remember A to I or small I, is the holder of and produces a valid license. Then B would renumber I, I is exempt from the requirements of this act under section 23. Then we'd have a new paragraph B, which would then read repairs, tests or proves a firearm or ammunition. Second? B will be in a solution. Members, members, we can have cross conversations going on. If you want to make a contribution, please do so for me. Sorry, I'm so present. You had the floor, Senator Lee. I was just repeating for the clerk so she could take a note. Mr. President? Senator Fede. Yeah, I could see how the suggestion by the senator would actually strengthen the whole ethos of what we're trying to do and what the intent of the legislation is trying to accomplish. So I would want to support those recommendations. Senator Lee, the government business. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Again, the notes made there and the insertion of the section additional to the reconfiguration of the information makes a lot of sense. But again, I think the process, I would propose that we go the way that I propose in the first situation and deal with it in like manner. Mr. President, just a small submission that if we had to deal with it, are you suggesting lead of government business? True, Mr. President, Mr. President, is the member suggesting that we deal with it in like manner? What does that mean? Take it back to the law house or what are you suggesting? Leave us is without any amendments if I can get some clarity. Sorry, Mr. President, sorry. I'll just express my concern in sort of sending it back or waiting for the law house to deal with it means basically they have to bring an amendment, which means it has to go through both houses again, as opposed to us voting on this now, and then sending it back to them. Once they approve the amendments, the act comes into effect with the amendment. Senator, you are getting your wish. Your wish is that for you all to vote on it. You're getting an opportunity. Very, I'll express it. It is for the lead of government business and those on this side or this side to agree or disagree. I am giving, I have a duty to give you the opportunity and that's why the question is with each and every time. Hey, hey, hey. So I wish that there was another way, but that is the way it's done. So you are getting the opportunity. It's just that perhaps maybe you need more time to persuade your colleagues. But that's all I strive to do is to present it. So clause 14 stands out of the bill. Adam Craig. Senator Norani Aziz, how do you vote? Senator Dominic Firi, how do you vote? Senator Gibyan Ferdinand, how do you vote? Yes. Senator Lisa Jowari, how do you vote? Yes. Senator Di Lee, how do you vote? No. Senator Alvina Reynolds, how do you vote? Yes. Senator Harris-Sanislas, how do you vote? Senator Kajiana Tussaud, how do you vote? Yes. And by no clock, we've had five years and three nose. So the bill stands clause 14 stands out of the bill. Clause 15. Substitution of section 29. Clause 15 stands out of the bill. Aye. Clause 16. Incision of new sections 29A and 29B. Clause 16 stands out of the bill. Aye. Clause 17. Incision of new section 31A. Clause 17 stands out of the bill. Aye. Clause 18. Amendment of section 39. Clause 18 stands out of the bill. Aye. Clause 19. Amendment of section 40. Clause 19 stands out of the bill. Aye. Clause 20. Amendment of section 47. Clause 20 stands out of the bill. Aye. Clause 21. Amendment of section 50. Clause 21 stands out of the bill. Aye. Clause 22. Incision of new section 50A. Clause 22 stands out of the bill. Ayes. Clause 23. Substitution of section 52. Clause 23 stands part of the bill. Ayes. Clause 24. Amendment of section 53. Clause 24 stands part of the bill. Ayes. Clause one. Short title. Clause one stands part of the bill. Senators, the question is that the committee rises and the bill be reported. I now put the question, as many as are of that opinion say aye. As many as are of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Senators, I beg to report that the Firearms Amendment Bill went through committee stage without amendments. Leader of Government Business. Mr President, I move that the report of the committee be adopted and that the bill be read a third time in the past. Senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the Firearms Amendment Bill be read a third time in the past. I now put the question, as many as are of that opinion say aye. As many as are of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Lucia and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited as the Firearms Amendment Act 2022. Leader of Government Business. Mr President, I move that the Senate do stand adjourned, sign it aye. Senators, the question is that this House do stand adjourned, sign it aye. I now put the question, as many as are of that opinion say aye. As many as are of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. This House is adjourned.