 I wish to remind Honourable Members that when the House last rose, we were debating the Airport Development Bill. Honourable Member for Library. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise to add my voice to the debate on the Airport Development Bill. And I shall use, as my context, Madam Speaker, the contribution made by the member for Cass Rees North, where he spoke about the intentions of the Government to build a first-class airport. He alluded to airports in Barbados, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Antigua. He referred to health facilities and many other aspects of the airport development. And so in my short presentation, Madam Speaker, I would like to reconcile the financing of the Havana Airport redevelopment in the context of the DSH, as well as the St. Jude's development. Because it's quite relevant in that particular construct. Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot be talking about airport redevelopment, and he does not respect the need for the St. Jude's Hospital to respond to, among other things, aircraft emergencies, especially when it comes to mass casualty situations, and exporting aerodromes in Chapter 9, paragraph 9.1 states. It's an international civil aviation organization and document. And I quote, that an emergency plan shall be established, and that the plan shall coordinate the response of all existing agencies, including medical and ambulance services. Madam Speaker, in a previous life, I used to be an air traffic control officer. And I know from the tower, the very first thing you do when you come in the morning is to ensure that the lines with St. Jude's, as well as the fire service, are functional. Those lines would have to be open in the event of an emergency and aircraft incident or accident. So that St. Jude's Hospital is not only there to serve the St. Lucian public, but also our main medical facility in responding to aircraft emergencies when the need arises. Consequently, I'm notwithstanding the fact that we inherited a scope of works that was like a moving target. With no ready financing, we worked on St. Jude's throughout our four and a half years in office by mobilizing funding from outside. While it was not completed during the four and a half years, it was stopped by this uncaring and insensitive government. We have been calling upon the Prime Minister and the government to complete the St. Jude's Hospital urgently for the following reasons. One, the stadium is not a hospital. Two, that the water, sanitation, and hygiene, what WHO would call WASH, at the stadium is not appropriate for a healthcare facility of that magnitude. Three, consequently, the stadium environment compromises the ability to provide safe and quality care and places both those providing and those seeking care at considerable risk. The stadium is falling apart, Madam Speaker. A physically threatening environment is also created at the stadium. The St. Jude's Hospital has, from its birth, played a pivotal role in providing care for uninsured persons who simply cannot pay for the medical bills. The St. Jude's Hospital is an integral part of the Southern Community framework. This hospital plays a major role in the social and economic vitality of the country, particularly the Southern part of the island, that only the St. Jude's Hospital would be in a position to respond to aircraft emergencies. You cannot deal with surgical centers because they provide surgery for persons who do not require hospitalization. You cannot do it in a doctor's office. Urgent care clinics will not suffice in that particular matter, and nursing homes for long-term care will not suffice in that particular context. The hospital would provide short-term care to patients with serious medical conditions. And of course, a hospital would have a spectrum of talents, physicians who are trained in different areas. You'd have well-trained nurses and specialized equipment and emergency situations and rooms to deal with situations of that magnitude. The United Workers' Party administration, from the time it got into office, it stopped work on the hospital. We need a hospital to respond to mass casualty. It has been stopped, and you're hearing about repurposing. The minister once talked about demolition of the hospital, and you're hearing all sorts of things. Update has been stopped for no reason. And unlike when we got into office in 2011, we didn't have any financing for the medical facility, but when they came in, they have millions of dollars to continue the works. And stop it, and nothing is happening at St. Jude's. After numerous warnings by the opposition, failed to alter the posture of this government, the people have begun to march. As a party sensitive to national mood, we provided leadership in calling for the government to complete the St. Jude's Hospital, to resist the alternative use of the hospital and finish the hospital so that it could provide the services, not just to the public, but in the event we needed it for Hewannora International Airport. Instead, Madam Speaker, of the government accepting the call of the people of this country after the march, United Park, which is the arm of the United Workers' Party, the PM and his United Park, so nothing else to do but to attack the member for library, have photographs on the page indicating that I have a $2 million mansion and that I use St. Jude's material and I use St. Jude's funds to construct a $2 million mansion. Madam Speaker, you see where public funds are concerned? I believe that we should always, as members of parliament and as ministers, utilize public funds for the purposes intended. And I state categorically in this House, and I say to the leader of the opposition, if my family home utilize just one half-inch nail or one penny from St. Jude's funds, he must get rid of me with immediacy. We must develop a gross intolerance for corruption. On a point of order, 35.5, no member shall impute improper motive to any other member of either chamber of the House. Madam Speaker, the member said that the PM and the United Park is involved in making statements about his House and material for St. Jude's being. I think that is imputing improper motive to a member of the House. I don't know that the PM ever said anything in relation to that. May I proceed, Madam Speaker? May I resume normal navigation? Normal navigation cannot, unfortunately, move yet, sir. A point of order has been raised, unfortunately, that you're imputing improper motives toward the Prime Minister in respect of a legend that he supposedly is championing articles derogatory of you regarding, well, I'm paraphrasing, regarding your family home having been, having used St. Jude's material. Is that what you said? But you actually mentioned the Prime Minister. Had it been the United Park, yes, but you actually called and mentioned the Prime Minister. Honourable member for Labry, the reference to the Prime Minister in relation to the allegation that they assert that they are making assessments or allegations regarding your home being St. Jude's material being used for your home, I think, is out of order. So you may resume navigation, but keeping the Prime Minister out of it in your statements regarding something that is really so, it's actually Castanus Purshans. Now, if, for example, you can say the United Park, if the United Park attacks you in that way, if you've read the article and United Park attacks you, but you have no evidence that the Prime Minister is involved in the attack of putting articles in United Park. Okay. Resume normal navigation. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In resuming normal navigation, I will have the Prime Minister to disembark from that particular journey. So you asked me to navigate without him. Madam Speaker, I am standing on a point of order again, Madam Speaker. Same 355. When improper motive has been imputed to a member of this honourable house, I think it needs to be struck off the record, Madam Speaker, because the records will show that the statement was in relation to the Prime Minister. And I think that that part of the statement, he can say what he wants about United Park, but an honourable member of this house, that statement should not be made. The statement will be struck off in so far as the name of the Prime Minister, the reference to the Prime Minister is made. Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Anything could be struck off. But the point is, I challenge those who are busy maligning me on Facebook to come with the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence to substantiate the claim. But I'll say something to you, Madam Speaker. The member for Labry was raised in a family that was never involved in corruption, never involved in drugs, never involved in voodoo, or any type of things like that. The instrument of the wishes of the people of Labry was born at Martin Lofer Street on the 20th of March 1967 in a 3,200 square feet home, big wooden structure. We were not among the petty bourgeois of the village. We were among the grassroots working class of the community. And at no time, at no time, Madam Speaker, my family ever got involved in anything. My father, George Stephen Fletcher, worked all his life from Marsha as a regional manager with farmers. Nobody ever point their finger at him. My grandmother, Attilia Fletcher, who used to take me along to the Adventist Church with her, instilled some out of the ordinary values in me, which will not permit me, Madam Speaker, to engage in any wrongdoing. I know that wherever she is, she migrated voluntarily to the silent continents of eternity. And she's pleased that I am not involved in corruption. And I will never tolerate any corruption. You have never heard me stand in this house and call anybody corrupt. And I will come momentarily to my central reason, Madam Speaker, for indicating that. But I'll tell you, I know when you're in politics, people will say things about you. But I want, when they are coming with the allegations, that they come with evidence. Evidence to substantiate it. Because I can say to you, I know how we are going to proceed in that regard, Madam Speaker, with that issue. And this is not the last time you will hear of that situation. But you see, snap a photo of a house where my family lives and talk about $2 million. Madam Speaker, that's for the records of this house. My family never paid $2 million for house. They didn't pay $1.5 million for house. They didn't pay $1 million for house. They didn't pay $500,000 for house. And that house was paid and purchased with legitimate funds. They are financial institutions and renovated with legitimate funds. Not one penny could not be accounted for. So I want when those who are snapping photograph and making all types of things ask the question that they can answer. I have no dealings if sentiers. I have no dealings if no contractors sentiers. Simply because I went to the press conference as first deputy political leader of my party to get the chairman of the party and led that particular press conference about the march. We need to make an example out of you, the member of a library. Just like the Arab chief on his Spaniola that fled from his Spaniola to Cuba in 1552, the Spaniards caught him in Cuba and burnt him alive in the presence of the other Indians so that the other Indians won't think twice. Yes, the other Indians would not rebel. But I'll tell you something, Madam Speaker. All my fear is in the direction of God. I'm a God-fearing man. And everything I do, I do it for the glory of God. And if God has already written in his book the exact moment of my birth and the exact moment of my death, but make sure in representing the people of my constituency and the people of St. Lucia that I shall have no fear. I fear none of them, whatever they come with. But I'll tell you, I have a responsibility to defend myself in such encounters. Now it looked like big house is for some people. It looked like it's only UWP that must live in a big house. Big house seemed to be something for members opposite. I never live in a small house. My mother never lived in a small house. My brothers and sisters never live in any small house. So I want people to understand that you'll not tell me where to live. It's just like the UWP's philosophy some time ago when they went office. All scholarships were given to the friends, that poor people's children are not deserving of opportunities. The laptop program for the poor have been taken away and given people that can afford. That is your attitude. But I'll tell you, if tomorrow I can buy a helicopter, it's within my means, I'll buy my helicopter. Don't ever believe that I cannot account for what I have. Madam Speaker, I was not roaming the streets and byways of this country when I entered politics. From being on air traffic control, I served as the assistant airport manager. I served as acting airport manager when I left. When I came from England, I went to the highest office in civil aviation in this country where I resigned to enter politics. I stayed 18 months out of a job before elections was called in December. And I took care of my mortgage, I took care of my students' loan, and I took care of my affairs. I took care of my affairs. I did not enter politics because I wanted fat professional salaries. I did not enter politics because I wanted a happy rest. My people called me and so I responded. And I knew that I was actually climbing to the pinnacle of political sacrifice. So when you come for me, just know I'm not a novice in politics. In fact, my training in aviation and air transport taught me a few things. When an aircraft is in flight and in the context of the airport redevelopment, when an aircraft is in flight, four forces act under the aircraft. Weight, lift, thrust, and drag. I knew that the weight of public office, the responsibility of my own commitment to my people, my family, my children, and other persons, to balance it would have dragged me into a lot of nonsense. But the thrust that I put in, I utilized my God-given potential to ensure at all times that the thrust that I put into it, with my talents, my skills, my commitment to the public welfare, that I will experience lift. And in that way, because of my energies, my skills, my commitment to the public welfare, when we were in office, I was able to do things for my constituents and do things for my country. So instead of taking materials from St. Jude's, instead of taking monies from St. Jude's, and I don't know how that was possible, I actually negotiated for millions of dollars for St. Jude's, millions of dollars for the water project in January, in fact 13.32 million dollars in January because health facilities embrace the whole compass of preventive health facilities, good food, good water, good housing, and a clean and wholesome environment, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I said I'm not a novice in politics and I'll tell you, I was raised in the jungle of politics and I'm quite conversant with life in the political wilderness. In the words of Douglas MacArthur, we are always reminded of the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails when in opposition for almost 30 and broken years. Election after election, we were chilled by the wind and rain of electoral defeats. We fought through the forests of political oppression in my constituency and we were passing through the mire of shell-shocked roads of victimization. I am versed with the political realities on the ground, Madam Speaker. I knew I had to swim in muddy and filthy waters of UWP propaganda but incidentally my both sign is spices and I'm the fish so I can swim in difficult waters and when they are deep with sharks, God comes and He provides a bridge over troubled waters. So Madam Speaker, do not expect me in politics to have fantastic bank salaries. I will manage my resources, manage my affairs and allow God to take care of it. I will give all that I came to do to my people. I'll serve my country until God decides otherwise. Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot speak about airport development if it does not pay attention to obstacle limitation surfaces around the Hewanora International Airport. All structures around or in the immediate vicinity of the Hewanora International Airport must comply with obstacle limitation surfaces. Safe airport operations require a permanent monitoring and assessment of possible infringement of the OLS as prescribed by the relevant regulation contained in documents such as IKO and X4. Madam Speaker, to ensure sustainable future growth and the safety of aircraft and airline passengers, airspace surrounding an airport must be protected from inappropriate development. There is a question. With the DSH development that they are pushing, they are looking for development. How does that impact the amount of money that they are going to invest in the airport redevelopment? You want to put buildings in the approach path of an aeroplane that cannot work. How do we reconcile the DSH with what is supposed to happen at the airport? I think the Prime Minister, in summing up, will have to indicate to us what's going to happen. If we have to extend the runway to accommodate ever-streeties, which of course our runway needs to move to a new category, it needs to be lengthened and widen the parallel taxiway, because not only passenger comfort is important, but the passenger safety is also very important. Whether we are going to have a parallel taxiway, because 777 sometimes go to the turning bay and get stuck, if we have a parallel taxiway, it would obviate the necessity of those things. So I want to understand exactly where the Prime Minister is going with this mangeco chance to speak. You want money for airport redevelopment, but you want to put buildings of DSH all around the airport. You do not want to continue with St. Jude's. I want to understand what is going on, where these are requirements for you to operate an international airport. Well, I want the Prime Minister to understand that as long as they remain like that on St. Jude's, not completing St. Jude's, not working on St. Jude's, or they want to repurpose or they want to demolish, we are going to march. The Prime Minister must understand one thing. This is our primary facility in the south, our primary facility. We have resources available, complete the hospital. If you went somewhere in the world and you saw some hospital that you believe will improve health tourism in St. Lucia, find a piece of land and do it, but complete St. Jude's hospital. You cannot have people at a stadium, stadium falling apart. All sorts of things are happening at a stadium. It is because the Prime Minister and those who laugh, they do not need St. Jude's because they can take an ambulance and go to Miami and go all over the world and receive medical treatment. So they don't care. There is no urgency. The member for Cassie South is right through the four and a half years we worked, but why you stop it? You stop the hospital. You went to a witch hunt about some report, a report that could have asked my three-year-old son to do for you. You would only charge you about five dollars. You know, you're going to pay a lot of money to do a report, to find nothing, to find nothing, and you had a handover report. You had a handover report that was crystal clear. What is the problem in not proceeding with completing St. Jude's if this government believe that I am like the Iraq chief that they caught in Cuba and burned alive to send a clear message to the rest of the Indians. If you all think that's what you'll come and do in the South, you're not making a mistake. I'm a calm man, but I am concerned about the people I represent, and this is why we made sure throughout the four and a half years we worked to complete that hospital and you just stop it and you laugh as if, you know, that's no problem. Not having St. Jude's and having St. Jude's is the difference between life and death. Is the difference between life and death for the people of the South? If anything happens in Oje, anything happens. Is St. Jude's we have to go to? But you cannot have people in a stadium. If people, by the time they're going to see the doctor's stadium fall in a bath, the stadium may fall on them, the disease probably, that they went to the hospital to be treated. They cannot. So tell me what is going on here. Our national priorities are no consequence. We want to build an airport, but we want the usage to come. We want Jacqueline to come. We want you are keen to come and do all sorts of things. Now, Madam Speaker, let me make it very clear to this honorable house. I do not see this government interested in legitimate investment into this country. I see you're looking for political allies. Now, I remember what happened to Cuba on the Batista. Like as if a group of people involved, they're in government, they're involved with Jacqueline and Tewa King, as if those people are gods. And the rest of cabinet, the rest of cabinet appendages to the affairs of a little clique. That happened in Cuba, Madam Speaker. And Catherine A. Sunshine summarized it beautifully when she said, and I quote, Havana in the 50s became the capital city of organized crime. And anything goes Disneyland, run by the mob, and a major conduit for narcotics flowing into the United States, alongside the rocket and casino trade fueled by mob organized junkets from the mainland, the satellite rocket, prostitution, narcotics, and wholesale abortions spun into profitable orbit. Unquote. We cannot allow the government, Madam Speaker, to assume exclusive and complete control with a little clique of the political and economic affairs of our country. We must not become like Batista's Cuba, where the country belong to a corrupt ruling clique, foreign corporations and wealthy tourists. We must ensure at all times we put the necessary controls so that our island does not become a rogue state, Madam Speaker. Because any time you have those elements in office, in other parts of the world, we saw what happened on the Batista, because guided by the greed and the cruelty, they did as they pleased. They would stop at nothing, however odious and hellish in accomplishing the ends. They would commit murder against the exploited majority, the class order maintained by any means necessary. I do not want our St. Lucia to become like Santa Domingo during the reign of that dictator, Rafael Trujillo. Like Batista, Trujillo ruled ruthlessly eliminating opponents through exile, torture, imprisonment, and murder. Economically, Trujillo brought large portions of the Dominican economy under his control. And if I may reach out for sunshine again, Madam Speaker, and I quote, it was hardly coincidental that new roads often led to Trujillo's plantations and factories, and new harbors benefited Trujillo's shipping and export enterprises. Ultimately, Trujillo, along with his relatives and friends, owned well over half of the country's economic assets. By the time of his death, Trujillo was reckoned to be one of the richest men in the world, with a fortune estimated from several hundred million to a billion dollars, unquote. Madam Speaker, I listened to the debate earlier about people just accusing orders, crossfire, all types of things are happening here. And I'm saying to you, and I've said that before, for years I have been saying, you see when we give the outside world impression that politicians are corrupt and their corruption in this country, we are jeopardizing our chances of attracting legitimate monies into our country for our business. In order to preclude our country from becoming isolated and corrupt, we must ensure voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, integrity, and the legitimacy of the state and the rule of law, and efforts to expose and deal with corruption. Today, voice and accountability, what has happened to it? Like a great American once said, the spirit of democracy is flickering like a dying lump in this country. People are tortured for honest opinion. Where is Riani right now? Political stability. If the government does not listen, Madam Speaker, it will affect the cohesion and the stability in this place where we cannot make economic and social progress. When you are not listening to people, when they infer disagreement with the positions taken by you, integrity and government effectiveness with some kind of cluster arrangement, that doesn't make any sense. It doesn't work, a minister, in their minister, an upper girl kind of business. By upper girl, integrity and legitimacy of the state and the rule of law, we have no respect for our constitution. No respect. The government had a deputy speaker, tomorrow the deputy speaker resigned, and then they said, when it's convenient to them, they have a deputy speaker. They do us all types of things. Look, they have stepped the political operatives in the various constituencies. They are the ones running step. They fire people from nice program, and then they commit all their atrocities and come and ask the opposition to join them. If a government is not behaving in an appropriate way, if we come here and accept deputy speaker, you know what we are doing? We are giving legal sanctions to all what they are doing, and the international community cannot afford to view us in the same way, because we are not doing those things. And that is why for me personally, I will not victimize people. I represent everybody. When a government gets into power, it must obey the laws of the country, and it must ensure some peaceful coexistence between persons of different religious background, different political affiliation. We cannot cannibalize our own madam speaker. Madam Speaker, as I prepare to close, I want to speak on the efforts to expose and deal with corruption. And the reason why I would choose that subject as I close, Madam Speaker, it is because if we as a country do not deal with all of the issues of corruption, of perception that we are sending out there by always have some document, always trying to indicate that somebody has done something wrong, it's going to affect even NGOs in the country. Because if they believe that the society as a whole is showing some tolerance for corruption, then we are going to be penalized. And I do not believe that St. Lucia is what a lot of people portray St. Lucia to be. We are trying to make strides. You have hardworking people in the public service. You have hardworking people in the parliament. We are microcosm of the society. And obviously not everyone will be the same. So anti-corruption practices must be mainstream into our country's practices and conduct. This is why upon resuming office, in a not too distant future, numerous anti-corruption programs and projects will be put in place by our new Prime Minister, the Honourable Philip Joseph Pierre. In certain jurisdictions, government sectors responsible for the national crime prevention strategy establish respected program committees to work on corruption in the criminal justice system. For example, Madam Speaker in South Africa, by June 1997, the Code of Conduct for the Public Service had become part of the regulations for every public servant and was the subject of an ethics promotional campaign by the then Public Service Commission. The National Anti-Corruption Summit was held in Cape Town in 1999. The central purpose of the summit was to discuss the importance of eliminating corruption in both the public and private sectors and to develop recommendations aimed at improving the investigation and prosecution procedures, implementing effective and coordinated anti-corruption structures, reviewing the legislation and enhancing businesses role in the fight against corruption across society. We cannot just point to the parliament and always believe that we can just engage in some kind of things, put politicians at the corrupt. No, that's not the case. We, if we are going to deal with corruption, we are, we is not in the parliament to say, well, there's a corrupt set of people and everybody else okay. We have to discourage parliament, discourage corruption by ensuring that we do things across the board to be more transparent as a people. Involving businesses, organized religious bodies, the NGO sector, donors, the media, organized labor unions, academics, professional bodies and the public sector, the summit created a powerful platform for the national campaign against corruption through its recognition of the societal nature of corruption and its acknowledgement that the fight against corruption requires a national consensus and the coordination of activities. We need a new and improved legislative framework to deter corrupt practices. Again, I must refer to South Africa, a review and revision of anti-corruption legislation, the establishment of whistleblowing mechanisms, the establishment of special courts to adjudicate on corruption cases and the establishment of sectoral and national coordinating structures were recommended and implemented. A new prevention of corruption bill was developed, a protected Disclosures Act commenced in February 2001, while the promotion of access to Information Act came into force in February 2000. The National Anti-Corruption Forum was established in June 2001, the promotion and implementation of sound, ethical, financial and related management practices, a central database of corrupt businesses, the national directorate of public prosecutions and of course the African police have taken decisive and visible action against corrupt officials and white-collar crime. At the level of government, about 80% of cases reported in the media are in fact discovered by government. That I wanted to share with the parliament of this country. Madam Speaker, if there is corruption in our country, we need to deal with it. If we are not corrupt, we need to stop pointing fingers at people. You know, you get something and you're eager to just attack people. I don't engage in that. You see my children, I want to be a role model to my children. I don't want nobody when I leave this earth for them to say your father was this or your father was that. And I actually, under my tutelage, I raise my kids to respect others, to respect the law, do not insult people. You see, I come to the parliament, I will speak hard and I will tell you finish and do. But I refuse to attack people personally, but I want them to know that the same capabilities that they have to attack me or members on this side, we have it too. So when you're trying your long-range ballistic missiles, just know that we have that capability as well. Just know that. Just know when the little rocket men are sending the thing from that side, just know what you're doing. So, Madam Speaker, returning to the airport redevelopment as I close is to indicate one thing. We must never leave the door open to speculation as to what is happening in this jurisdiction. You cannot have one arrangement with the World Bank and for no reason you scrap it and then you come and, you know, the member for Kastri, South East, you know, you are a brave politician. I listen to you attentively and you did a number there on the IFC, you know. But I think we need to be a little bit more careful when we speak about institutions that we have to interact with in the future as we negotiate for us to create the fiscal space in our country for us to do our business. So, Madam Speaker, that's my only warning, but certainly I will never oppose any effort for the government to borrow monies to redevelop human or international effort. The tower is a hellhole. The tower is not good. We need to develop the technical aspects and so I have no difficulty whatsoever in monies being utilized to redevelop human or international effort. I thank you, Madam Speaker. It is always smooth for some turbulence. No, no, no, I didn't give any turbulence. Honourable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, not that my learned colleague, unfortunately, was the last speaker on the other side that I wanted to say anything specifically about him, but I'm always so entertained, Madam Speaker, because his knowledge of aviation sometimes, I think, gets in his way of really seeing the bigger picture. My learned colleague would understand clearly after being the Minister of Facilitation that it would be impossible for us to keep the airport open if we're in breach of any of the rules that IKO of has. So even in terms of designs and putting out things, Madam Speaker, clearly there is a process of planning approval and there are several amount of people that would have to be involved in those things. But for him to believe that the knowledge of civilization and what those restrictions are exclusive to him, Madam Speaker, always seems to amaze me. But anyway, I move on, Madam Speaker. But first of all, I'm going to, Madam Speaker, in no particular order respond to some of the things that were brought up on the other side, Madam Speaker, by my learned colleagues of the opposition. First of all, we saw a repeat of the same theme, the idea of threats and victimization and that we are being a wicked government. So it's amazing to me, Madam Speaker, that members on the other side, even the member that just spoke from the library, trying to distance himself from allegations that have been made. I mean, we started today with the member from Cass 3 South, even in the previous house and even today, attempting to bring up a document which has not been verified. But more importantly, more importantly, a document that he knows more about. Because in fact, Madam Speaker, it was his government that initiated that document. And they know very well all the details of that document. So in fact, the other side spent in excess of a million and a half dollars US, Madam Speaker. And going after who? Who are the cases that the other side started while we were in opposition? Let's see. Alan Chastney, a civil case against myself, indicating that I misfeasance and misuse of public office and misuse of authority. And the claim that what? That I caused the Sufer Town Council to spend, they said, 35,000 EC dollars. And that when one goes through the details of that, Madam Speaker, that it really came to the only discretionary expenditure that was undertaken specifically for the Third World Concert was $2,200 for catering. But not being satisfied with what the facts were. And then getting advice from their own Attorney General or Madam Speaker. Their own Attorney General gave them the advice that once funds were deposited into the Town Council, they belong to the Town Council. And why could they not accept that opinion, Madam Speaker? Because there would be no case, unlike other members who actually wrote letters to boards. There is no letter to say I asked or ordered or requested the Town Council to spend any money. So they decided, Madam Speaker, to go away from the advice of the Attorney General and spend, Madam Speaker, 500,000 EC dollars to attempt to do what, Madam Speaker, to recover what? Even if we take the bigger amount, 36,000 EC dollars, 500,000. And who are the two people, Madam Speaker, they chose to come after? Because there was a full report that they did on audit of the expenditures of CDP. And they had several people in that report, Madam Speaker, who there were some serious allegations against. But no, those were not the people they went after. The people they went after was Alan Shastney, and if I am to use my learning colleague's own analysis, who was the political leader of United Workers Party. And also Ezekiel Joseph, the then chairman of United Workers Party. Coincidence? You want to talk about victimization? You want to talk about threats? Madam Speaker, they didn't stop there. They spent a million and a half US dollars, went through all kinds of deviations in order to hide the expenditure, to hide the reports. Because the five years they were there, did anybody in St. Lucia ever hear the name bubbling? Did anybody in St. Lucia hear that there was a forensic audit taking place? Was there any update? Did anybody say anything? And when they got the initial report, and the initial report had nothing on my learned colleague from Cass Free Southeast, not happy with that, decided to now create trumped up charges. If in fact we are to believe the information we see, because what's interesting, Madam Speaker, is that when I saw the document online, like everybody else, I had to sit back and ask myself, Madam Speaker, is that a real document? Because I cannot imagine for one moment that when I became Prime Minister of this country, and the Attorney General, whose signature is purportedly on that document, who, Madam Speaker, and you will appreciate the difference, Madam Speaker, was a public officer and not appointed, because an Attorney General can either be a political appointee or the person can be a public officer. And in this case, she was a public officer. That when I came in as Prime Minister, that you would have, if I am to believe the letter, an ongoing investigation into one of my ministers, that you would have not sat down with me in the four or five months that you were there, and updated me on the report. It was also interesting to note, Madam Speaker, that the last payment that was made to Mr. Lindquist was made in July. And I can assure you, as Minister of Finance, nobody came to me and asked me whether, in fact, I approved the payment of 50,000 US dollars. Nobody asked me whether, in fact, I wanted to continue the investigation, Madam Speaker. So, when I see this letter, I have to ask myself, is it authentic? Is it legitimate? I also have to now look at the content of that letter, Madam Speaker, and ask myself some strange questions. But strange questions that, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition himself answered today. Because the letter says that there is an investigation into guidance. Records would show that the DPP's office has no records of any criminal investigation into guidance. Interesting. Interesting. None. Furthermore, the letter suggests that Minister Guy Joseph, as the Minister of Infrastructure, had the ability to influence the selection of the person. But we heard it from the Leader of the Opposition, who actually is in probably the best position to answer that question. Because he, himself, was a former Minister of Infrastructure. I will say for Mr. Joseph what he didn't say for himself. At the time, who was the Chairman of SLASPA? Because SLASPA is an independent body. SLASPA is a very strange and unique body in St. Lucia, in that the vast majority of the positions are what we call prescribed. Meaning that the Chairman of SLASPA is always the Director of Finance. That the Deputy Chair is always the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Infrastructure. That the Chamber and the Shipping Associations, the Attorney General's Office, all are asked to make independent appointments to that board. And it's an independent board. It is also unique, Madam Speaker, in that they are two Ministers that SLASPA reports to. It reports to, it reports to the Minister of Infrastructure as it pertains to the day-to-day operations, Madam Speaker, of SLASPA. And it also reports to the Minister of Finance in terms of financial matters. So for instance, the hiring and the firing of the CEO is done by the board with the approval of the Minister of Finance. So any allegations that the Minister of Infrastructure could potentially threaten the CEO to fire him is grossly inadequate. And again, I could not imagine that a sitting Attorney General would pen such an appeal. Furthermore, the approval of a contract by SLASPA, because SLASPA would go through the vetting process and when they select whatever company they want, the person that they go to for the Minister that they go to for the final approval, guess who it is? The Minister of Finance. And the Minister of Finance takes it to Cabinet. So in fact, when I see some of the things written in that document that is being referenced online, I cannot believe that a sitting Attorney General would have actually penned that letter. Furthermore, my lettered colleague from Cass Free South, he and I had a little cross conversation with him, is suggesting that there is an investigation into Guy Joseph in the US. Let me repeat what I've said before. There is no investigation into Guy Joseph. If we are to believe the letter is being correct, the Attorney General requested of the Department of Justice information, which is allowed to under the Exchange of Information Act. But in to justify that claim suggested that Guy Joseph was a person of under investigation and solution and gave those opinions. So again, Madam Speaker, I'm confused. I'm confused how one can write those opinions as an Attorney General. But that is for another day. And I felt it was sufficient to be able to answer because when we talk about victimization, and we've seen the extent that the former government has gone to to victimize people in this country, they should be the last persons who are pelting stones at anyone. You know, Madam Speaker, we talked about a lock box and there seems to be this confusion as to what the lock box is and the process. So Madam Speaker, when we were in government before, and I think that the suggestion was made, why would I be making any phone calls and why would I have been involved in any conversation with anybody? Well, if my memory serves me correctly, I was both the Minister of Tourism and also the Minister of Civilization. And I would have hoped that during your process, both the Minister of Tourism and also the Minister of Civilization were given an opportunity, I know you were, were given an opportunity to be guided, be advised as to what's going on and to be able to provide input. Because we can see how freely the former Minister of Civilization is sharing his knowledge. So I would have thought that the government being aware of that history that he has and that strong experience that he had, that he too would have been invited to some meetings and would have been given the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to share his experience. Like him, I spent nine years in aviation at Air Jamaica. So I'd like to think I know a thing or two, not everything, and hopefully as a Minister of Tourism in which the biggest user of the airport are going to be tourists, that I would have been engaged and I was very grateful to my government at the time that I was given the opportunity to be engaged. But we go back to the lock box. The purpose of the lock box, Madam Speaker, is to give confidence because they use the same lock box. The purpose of the lock box is to give confidence in the form of legislation. That the funds that we're collecting from Ayata, so Ayata is instructed, that's what we're coming here today. This is what's amazingly, Madam Speaker, is that we've gone on to extremes here and we are going to be coming back because at some point we will come back to the house and explain the terms of the agreement and what's the process that we're going to use for building the new airport. So you're going to have that time. We got a little practice run today, Madam Speaker. Doesn't really hurt anybody. But the fact is what we came here today was to approve the collection of attacks, to put the tax on so that there's this revenue. And in it we have an agreement which says that once we enter into agreement with a new entity, those monies will then be put into a lock box. Because that is what the developer is going to want to see. That we don't have the ability to give or not give his money. He wants to know that he's committed that of every dollar we collect, the $35 we collect goes into a lock box and it can only be specifically used for the airport development. And it further gives the government the ability of binding those funds specifically to paying back a loan. That's what we came here to discuss today. Very simple thing. And what amazes me, Madam Speaker, is we've spent an entire day having a debate about something that the other side themselves did. The difference is, Madam Speaker, we were honest. Yes, you were dishonest. Yeah, you were dishonest. You were dishonest, Madam Speaker, in the sense that, and let me explain myself, you were dishonest in the sense that who did you tell that you put the tax to $55? You made a cabinet decision. If the cabinet decision was so great and it's to the benefit of the people of St. Lucia, why the secrecy? No, you said you gave the minister of infrastructure the ability, yes it did, it gave the minister of finance, my apologies, the authority to implement the tax when he was ready. When he's ready. Not when the airport started, when he's ready. So it means you made the decision. What are you running away from? What would be difficult, Madam Speaker, in saying that publicly? But the fact is, it was for $55. U.S. No, Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, the tax of St. Lucia, and this is probably a good point to bring this up, the tax in St. Lucia was $25. And I think they plus they had some extra taxes that may have been, I don't know, $7 or $8 above the $25 security and some other things. The average tax in the Caribbean is $100. So St. Lucia was only charging $25. The rest of the competitors in St. Lucia were charging in excess. Oh, it's not. So Antigua's tax is not $100. Jamaica's tax is not $117. Okay. St. Lucia was $25. 25 U.S. dollars. Okay. Plus about $8. Right. And fees. So Madam Speaker, was the airfare to Antigua less or more expensive than the airfare to St. Lucia? And they were $75 more expensive than St. Lucia from the tax. Last time I checked it wasn't. So the question becomes, who is benefiting from that tax? People benefiting from the tax were the airlines. There's nothing wrong with that. If St. Lucia was prepared to charge $25, they made up the difference. And that's a good thing. But we've seen historically and again that if we increase the tax, it doesn't, it didn't impact our arrival numbers. And the question is why? Does it increase the tax from $25 to $100, which is $75? The average length of stay in St. Lucia is 10 nights. So that means that the added cost is $7.50 per night per person. St. Lucia is an expensive destination relative to a lot of other places. And that is not a significant number. But here's the important part that might, the other side seems to fail to grapple with. When they talk about that they were going to do the airport and it wasn't going to cost anything. It was costing the $55. That's what it was costing, the $55. And where does the $55 come from, Madam Speaker? $55 comes from Madam Speaker, the opportunity to increase the tax in St. Lucia and not make us less uncompetitive. So there was an opportunity. So when we talked about in our manifesto that we were going to lower the VAT rate and ultimately that we're hoping to eliminate the VAT and that we're going to replace it with, replace it, it's right there, written with a less burdensome tax. So when you put the tax on the airport for coming in and out of the airport, the more vulnerable people in your society who don't travel, don't pay the tax. So we saw that there was foregone revenue available to us. Foregone revenue of which the former government was prepared to just give away, apparently. So the question of why did IFC find us? I think that's the words my colleague used. It's a rhetorical question because in the agreement that they signed with IFC, it said that if we terminate early, that we have to pay this money back. And so when we weighed all the options and we sat down, we had discussions with IFC, we felt it was better to terminate the contract with IFC and as such, we paid them off. But my learned colleague from Cass Free Southeast has shown that in fact that we paid over $3.4 million in fees already to IFC. And if in fact that we had maintained IFC and not terminated their contract, there was a success fee of almost $850,000 they would have gotten, plus other fees. So to suggest that there was this level of benevolence and we ignored it is wrong. We like to use the word PPP. I like to use the word PPP. I believe in PPPs. But there is no one definition of a PPP. There's a multitude of options, Madam Speaker, that you have for PPPs. The fundamental difference between what we started in 2007 and let me remind everyone that in 2008 we had a massive recession. Also, let us remember that our government at the time was insistent on two things. One, that we were not prepared to give a government guarantee for the project and second that we put a cap of 6% of what we were prepared to pay for interest. So when the minister, when the former, when the leader of the opposition asked why the project didn't get off the ground, is because we imposed those restrictions on ourselves. In fact, if we were prepared to give up and give the government guarantee and we were prepared to go to 6.5%, we could have started the project. But we felt that we should not and we restricted ourselves and confined ourselves to those issues. You know, again, Madam Speaker, when people say things, I shiver. Whether they really believe it. So when I hear members on the other side say, we got into office and there was no contract and we got nothing. Really? So the $50 million that was in the fund, that's nothing? That's nothing? That's nothing? And if in fact they had left the tax that was already imposed and allowed it to accumulate money while they were going through this process with the IFC, they would have had an excess of $250 million, Madam Speaker, which means the amount of money that we would have had to borrow would have been less. The greatest travesty that happened in this country is when you removed the tax. And somebody said it on this side, that y'all cannot even be man enough to opt to that and say, you know what? We made a mistake. We made a mistake. Who was the tax affecting? Numbers in tourism were growing up. So when you say to me that it was going to cost, did anybody more come to St. Lucia? The opportunity cost of recovering that money, we cannot recover it, Madam Speaker. We have no ability to go back into time to recover that money. You talk about, you want to come here and tell me that you care and you were concerned about the people of St. Lucia? No, politics, politics, nasty politics. Because you were saying in opposition, you didn't think it was right to charge the tax and there was nothing going on. That is what you did. And you want to come here and you want to talk about people and cast dispersions on people, Madam Speaker? Nonsense. Total nonsense. Is that the same discussion I had with the leader of the opposition? We talked about we left a sinking fund of $200 million. Oh, why would you need a sinking fund? Okay. So what am I saying? All I'm saying, Madam Speaker, we continue to do that. So Madam Speaker, the PPP option, Madam Speaker, that we were concerned with. So when I was the leader of the United Workers Party, I was asked by the IFC and by SLASFA to come and meet with the Madam Speaker. I was accompanied by the former minister of infrastructure or communications and works. We sat down. The first thing that we said at the meeting, we said we are in support of the airport. We don't care what the design is and who designed it. We don't care who the contractor is. We're comfortable with IFC and the process that you're going to do for your procurement, zero difficulties. So proceed. In the process, they started indicating that in addition to build and design the airport and financing the airport, they were also going to give the people the management contract. And as a result of that, that they were going to charge a higher fee. So it went from, instead of charging $35, it went to the $55. In fact, in those days, if I'm not mistaken, it was $60 that they were originally talking about and possibly could be higher. So I said, okay, what is the added value that we're getting for that? Why would we do that? If, in fact, that this company has the expertise to manage the airport and can make all this fabulous money on the duty-free, because they were going to boost up corporate profits and everything else, I said, why don't, why don't you get paid off of that money? Why are you asking us to put in the extra $20 to pay for this fee? Well, they went all kind of round in circles. I said, just keep it simple. What is the added value? Because that's the fundamental difference. In our program, it was $35 to build and design and finance the airport. At the end of the day, the same people who are currently operating the airport, a broken down old airport, who are now beginning to give a modern airport, would be trained and supported to be able to run that airport. Because I hope that my minister, my colleague from Labry would agree that this is never going to be a major hub. I'm going to have some hubs to St. Vincent and the Grenada, maybe to Dominica and Mark Neek, but I don't see St. Lucia really being a hub past that point. So this is predominantly going to be what we call, he'll appreciate the term, a point to point airport. This is not an overly complicated, the volume of business will go up, but this is not a complicated airport to be able to run. And we believe that the solutions have shown a tremendous amount of capacity in doing that. But if they're not, I want to know how much that's going to cost. So we said to them in the meeting, okay, if you want to proceed down this line, why don't you allow it to go out as a design build finance? Because my colleague said, because he sat here and looked at me and said, I don't listen. I can equally say that we made a lot of recommendations and even listened either. And we made the recommendation, do the design build finance, when you complete the project, put out a separate bid for the management and allow the managers to tell you what the cost is and what the profit sharing is, separate it. And here's why. Why allow them to hide all that money? Why allow them to take $55 or $60, which is $800 million? Why would I give a foreign entity the ability of controlling all of that money? And I kept on saying at the meeting, Madam Speaker, our money. And they kept saying to me, it's not your money, it's the tax. I said, but the tax is in my country for passengers coming to San Lucia. It is the government and the peoples of San Lucia's money. And the fact that there is a space to put the tax in, more so, it is our money. And that's the point my colleagues on the other side refused to understand. That is the fundamental difference we're discussing here today. Hold on to your money. So when we talk about the need to do other things, $35 plus $25 is $60. So $60 of the $98 has been allocated. So it remains how much? $38 remains. That $38 is to help pay for the highway. That $38 is to help support other social programs that we have in San Lucia. Because we said, let us not just put the tax up to what we need for the airport. Let us put the tax up to what is competitive and let us take advantage of that opportunity, of that revenue that's not being tapped. In fact, one of my favorite institutions, the IMF, calls that revenue foregone. In this case, it truly is revenue foregone. And we've been losing that revenue every day by not having a tax that's on the same level as everybody else. Another one that's amazing to me, we talk about debt. So where my colleagues are absolutely correct. The formula that the IFC was recommending, and why they were recommending it, by allowing this third party to build, design, finance, and operate the airport and assigning almost $800 million plus of revenue to them, Madam Speaker, was so that the government of San Lucia can say they're not involved. And as a result, it doesn't be considered debt on the nation. But my colleague used a very interesting contingent liability. I'm saying to IFC, but if in fact the operation fails, the only entity that's going to jump in immediately and operate it, is whom? The government of San Lucia? It doesn't matter. The entity that has to take over and assume the liability is the government of San Lucia. You can't run away from it. And I'm certainly at pains to continue to argue with the IFC, with the World Bank, and even with the IMF at times. And this is something that my colleague from Castry Self continues to go back and forth with me when I said that I'm not going to increase borrowing. I said I'm not going to increase borrowing on the existing revenue. But I will borrow money by creating new revenue. And it's not the same because you have a tax that's assigned, a revenue stream that's being assigned to that debt. That is viable debt. There's a fundamental difference, Madam Speaker, in borrowing money, that mechanism, versus borrowing money from the consolidated fund. So you're overburdening the consolidated fund. So those are the fundamental differences that we have. Madam Speaker, I don't really want to belabor the point much longer than that. Other than the same, Madam Speaker, there's a big difference in terms of what we're doing and why we're doing it. We're talking about putting out $400 million. Of that $400 million, there was about a 20% added portion to be able to protect if there was any drops in revenue, versus giving $800 million to a third party, not only to build design but also to operate your airport. And we're not comfortable with that process. In terms of, Madam Speaker, what is the mechanism that we're going to use in selecting the person and the method that we're going to use? Very shortly, we'll be coming back to Parliament to announce that. And I think that my colleagues, if I am to take them for face value for what they said here today, Madam Speaker, hopefully that that debate will only last two minutes. So again, Madam Speaker, it's late. I want to say thank you very much. And I look forward to the support of my colleagues for this bill. I thank you. Honorable Members, the question is that the Airport Development Bill be read a second time. I now put the question. As many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I'd like to provide for Airport Development and for related matters. Honorable Members, the bill has about 20 something clauses. I don't think it is too many in number. So I think we should take it clause by clause because there may be suggestions of amendments therein. So the Sergeant at Arms is presently circulating at least an amendment to which which takes in the sentiments of Honorable Members. I think three Members spoke with respect to that. The Honorable Minister for Agriculture. I think the Honorable Member for Castries South, if I recall, and perhaps Honorable Minister for Equity. I'm not I'm not sure. But yes, there's the two. However, I took the opportunity beforehand to inform the Tony General and the Director of Legislative Jaftain who have acquiesced and quickly put something in place. However, that is for discussion and we will proceed when we get there. Close two. Interpretation. Close two stands part of the bill. Close three. Levin of Development Charge. Close three stands part of the bill. Close four. Duty of Carrier. Close four stands part of the bill. Close five. Prohibitation of boarding aircraft without payment of Development Charge. Close five stands part of the bill. Close six. Liability of and recovery from Carrier. Close six stands part of the bill. Close seven. Power to withhold clearance of aircraft from on-pay Development Charge. Close seven stands part of the bill. Close eight. Payment of Development Charge to Collector. Close eight stands part of the bill. Close nine. Designation of Collector. Close nine stands part of the bill. Close 10. Functions of Collector. Close 10 stands part of the bill. Close 11. Anybody has a point because I think I have a a note on that. There was a question asked the guy in that. Close 11. I have a note. Close 11 stands part of the bill. Close 12. Debt service. There are some question marks and I have some question marks there because of points raised in the debate. Debt arrangement to implement a port facility arrangement project. Some questions. Nobody has. Okay. Close 12. The point I had made is that as 12 free reads, it suggests where a debt arrangement is entered into in the section, subsection 2. The purchase shall set up a logs bar account into which money will be transferred. Does that mean that the money should only be collected after that arrangement has been entered into? It doesn't mean that. So the money has been collected and when you enter into a debt arrangement, that money will be transferred to the log box. Where is the money in the interim? In an account by Slasper. In an account by Slasper. But is that provided for? Yes. Okay. That's what 11 covers for. In section 11, a collector shall pay the developer charge into and place a development charge to the credit and account of the bank approved by the authority with the consent of the minister. Right. Now, this provides for what happens how the log box will be managed 12, 5. Correct. A and B. But it says nothing about how that money collected by the authority and placed in an account will be managed or any it's silent on it. Yes. The money goes into an account to be established by the authority with the approval of the minister. Right. And then once the money is in there, right, and then you enter into now the log box once because the log box is has to have the terms. So you can't establish the terms until you've gone into an agreement. So before the money, before the log, before the debt arrangement, there is no log box on the money. Log box. Correct. Correct. There's no log box. Correct. So Slasper can use that money if they want. Like they did before. No, that cannot be. Why? But that's what happened. When the money was into the account, your government came, the former government came into the office and spent $30 million of it. No, but what you're saying, Prime Minister, you're saying when you entered into the debt arrangement and the money is transferred into log box, only then does the log box concept come into play. Before that, the money is collected by Slasper and can be used in whatever way it wants. That's what you just said. It's for, it says here for the financing of the development of the airport. Right. Okay. Correct. That's what the, that's what the money is to be used for. Right. And it says that it can open up an account to be determined by the authority and approved by the minister. Yes. And then once you then enter into an agreement, then it gives the ability, the authority to create a log box and to assign those funds specifically to the financing of the airport. Right. So this, so this bill limits what you can do. But it only means what you can do after you've entered into a debt arrangement. No, it doesn't. It doesn't. You just told me the concept. The log box is specifically to assign the money to the debt. Right. But the log box only comes into effect when you have a debt arrangement. That's correct. Right. And before that, you're saying the money is in an account, in a bank, but this does not provide as to whether that money can be used or touched at all. It doesn't. It doesn't. There's no issue of amendment as yet. This is an issue of clarification as to what the clauses mean. They might be how a man I'm trying to understand how it operates. And if I disagree, I might want to suggest something otherwise. But madam chair, what I'm trying to do is to understand exactly what is provided for the simple by a naked and then we can always move on. What the prime minister is saying to me, yeah, is that when you, you can't get annoyed and sick. Not you, not you. I'm minister. Madam chair, let's proceed. Let's proceed. Because I'm second clarification. I know, okay, but, but, but, I know, but, I know, but, I know, but I know, but I want, I want to answer your question. Section 12, one simply says right there, subject to the section of development charge is for the purpose of making payments for the debt service requirement of a debt arrangement to implement airport facility improvement projects. And then it also then gives you the ability for the lockbox because the lockbox allows you to sign, assign that money to a third party. That's what the lockbox is doing. So it says there a lockbox account is set up on the section for is immune from and is not subject to any or available for any rights, duties, claims or others, except shall be administered by the trustee for the exclusive interest of the lender and for the purpose of the debt services. So the lockbox is really to facilitate the third party arrangement. But the agreement says that you can open up an account and the monies are only specifically to be used for the subject of the section. The development charges for the purpose of making payments for the debt service requirements and of a debt arrangement to implement the airport facility improvement projects. Correct me if I'm wrong, Honourable Prime Minister. I'm understanding that there is an initial account into which monies will be deposited as and when the arrangement is entered into monies will be transferred, a lockbox will be created and money transferred from the primary account into the lockbox account. Correct. So yeah, may be transferred but it is it is it is it is basically it is not shall but it is when and if the arrangement because it presupposes that there must be a previous arrangement for locks for lockbox to operate. And the point I was making but the lockbox concept of lockbox and the restrictive use of the monies only come into effect when there is a debt arrangement and the monies are transferred to the lockbox account. That's when the concept of lockbox is the point to the thing. I am asking in the in the initial series where it is an account. But Honourable Member perhaps for example it may not be that all of the monies initially collected actually goes into the lockbox. No, no, don't go there. The purpose is to raise monies for the financing of the development of the airport. Okay. The lockbox is just another financial instrument that allows the authority to develop a relationship in which it can assign the monies to a third party. The act is very clear that the monies to be raised are for the development and for the financing of the airport. Correct. Madam Chair, if I may. Madam Chair, my understanding of the procedure in the committee is for the purpose of making amendments. And I mean while I appreciate that a member may ask for clarification, the purpose of the member's intervention is to make an amendment. If the member does not have an amendment to make that has to be considered by the committee, I don't see why there should be so much back and forth. The member should have come here having read the bill and if he wishes to propose an amendment to do so and then allow the House, the reason we're going clause by clause is so that amendments can be proposed. The only purpose of, listen to what has been said there, the only purpose of committee is to propose amendments, not to see clarification, not to ask questions. This is what they, but Madam Chair, let's proceed. I think I was asking a question to clarify, submit to a highlighter point. But it is not an opportunity now to go back into the debate on whether this is this or that is that. No, no, no, yes. But the whole idea is to propose an amendment. You see, I think, okay, the whole idea of previous circulation of bills as well is that members are supposed to read and come here and when they say they have issues with it, sort, perhaps sort clarification on that and then by the time we get to committee, those issues would be dealt with in so far as one has already have a slight amendment or major amendment to it. So things raised as to how it is, it can be better, it can be better written if we have the opinion that it is not, it is not clear or clarity needs to be put to it, how we can change words and, and amend. The next question is about the budget and plan of action. 17th. That's part of the bill. Close 18. Budget and plan of action. Close 18th. That's part of the bill. Close 19. Accounts. Close 19th. That's part of the bill. Close 20. Audits. Close 20th. That's part of the bill. I am. Close 21. Annual reports. Close 21. That's part of the bill. Close 22. Amendment of schedule. Close 22. That's part of the bill. I am. Close 23. Regulations. Close 23. That's part of the bill. I am. Close 24. Repeal. Close 24. That's part of the bill. I am. Schedule one. Section 31. Rate of tax. Schedule once. That's part of the bill. I am. Schedule two. Section 32. Travelers exempt from payment of development charge. Madam Chair. Yes. Can I ask that one considers not just sports but youth and sports and to be approved by the ministry responsible for youth and sports. There are youth groups that travel every year representing us all over the region, all internationally and they too, like I had indicated, should be considered. Honorable minister of sports. Do we have? So it's youth and sports. I was thinking cultural groups as well. And culture. Cultural groups. Okay. So can we then say that after N, the insertion then would be a person who is a St. Lucia national citizen or resident proceeding abroad to represent St. Lucia for sporting. Culture. For youth and sports and for youth. Sports and cultural events. Yes. That sounds for youth. Sports. Sports. For youth sports. Oh. Oh. Events approved by the ministry. Approved by the minister, the responsible ministry. Approved by the madam speaker. Are we limiting that to youth or are we representing every? It's a youth group. It's a youth group. A youth group, a sporting group or a cultural group. No. Yeah, ministry. Education. The education is there. Education is there. Education is separately. I think you need to have groups. Madam speaker, I believe you need to have group. Youth, sport and cultural groups. Right. But what about the youth, sports or cultural? Group. The word group. But there's ability there for the minister to exempt anybody that's going on government, on government business. So a person going to represent us in the Olympics as a government business. No, but that's not the drafter. We have that. So they could probably set this up. Ministry of education, if you look at it, I. I. I. I. I. But you have this ability there. No, but I'm just saying it really does a person signified by the minister of ministry of ministry to be traveling on business of the government. There. Yeah, it does. Yeah. Can I make suggestion? Can I make just take away the word groups and put the word individual and parentheses put. The person who is a solution to a citizen or resident proceeded abroad to represent at a sporting event. All right. The amendment as advised by the attorney general and the director of legislative drafting would be as follows after and there will be a semicolon. Yes, I know a semicolon instead of a full stop after years and the insertion of an O. The all will read as follows a person who is a solution national comma citizen. All resident proceeding abroad to represent Saint Lucia at. I. So we have at colon. There is a colon after at. Okay. Dash. It's a dash. I Roman numeral I. A sporting event approved by the ministry responsible for sports Roman numeral II. A youth event approved by the ministry responsible for youth Roman numeral II. Cultural event approved by the ministry responsible for culture. So after Roman numeral I, we have a comma after Roman numeral II. There is a comma madam and then the full stop comes after approved by the ministry responsible for culture full stop. We've got that. Schedule II as amended to include O stands part of the bill clause one. Short title and commencement. I close one stands part of the bill. The question is that the committee rises and I report the bill as many as of that opinion say I. As many as of a contrary opinion say no. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Honorable members I beg to report that the airport development bill went through committee stage with an amendment to close to. Sorry, an amendment to schedule to. Honorable Prime Minister Speaker I move that the chairman's report be adopted as amended and that the bill be now read a third time and passed. Honorable members the question is that the chairman's report be adopted and that the airport development bill as amended be now read a third time and passed. As many as of that opinion say I. As many as of contrary opinion say no. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, banned 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 at the airport development act 2017. This act shall come into force on the first day of January 2018. Honorable Prime Minister. Madam Speaker before I ask for the House to be adjourned I just want to wish everyone first of all a happy national day on the 13th and but more importantly I'd like to wish all my colleagues in the House on both sides a festive Christmas and New Year's and please ask everybody to be safe and I look forward to returning to the House very early in the New Year. And Madam Speaker just to say it's pleasant having you back here and I hope you continue to recover and please be assured of our support. And again I'd like to now ask Madam Speaker that I beg that we move that the House stand adjourned sign it die. Honorable members the question is that the House this House sitting do stand adjourned sign it die. I now put the question as many as of that opinion say aye. As many as of our contrary opinion say no. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. This House sitting do stand adjourned sign it die. All right.