 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, budget debates are always interesting occasions for a number of reasons. It's an occasion for a government to display its ministerial talents. It's an opportunity for members to share their philosophies, their beliefs, expectations, what's eloquently, and of course to speak of their ministries and their policies. Crucially, it is also an opportunity for members to highlight their constituencies. And in some circumstances to share their secrets with the rest of us. Secrets sometimes we may not even be aware of, but nevertheless we welcome and we are happy for these individual members. Most importantly, we are all on display to the people of St. Lucia. As they cast their judgments on our individual performances. It is an exciting time, Mr. Speaker, in the parliamentary calendar. It is truly parliamentary theatre and how much of that we have had in the past 24 hours. I remember Sir John in his first and last budget presentation after the 2006 General Elections in an obvious attempt at mischief and mirth, remarking that a highlight for him was the attire of some members of the Van House. I believe that on that occasion he spoke specifically of the splendor of the attire of the member for you for North. And of course also the member, the then member for January North as well. We all, I remember, erupted into laughter, Mr. Speaker. That helped to diffuse attention, which was laden and was very heavy. But Mr. Speaker, I take a moment to commend the people of St. Lucia. I am frankly astonished by the number of St. Lucia's at home and abroad who listened to the presentations. I used to think we politicians bored them to death. They were fed up of us. They were fed up of our gymnastics. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Even more intriguing are the numbers online, some of whom of course as you know engage in very robust debates depending on the individual they support. Or of course the particular political party that they endorse. Or for that matter the argument that they find favourable. When I look back, I think that the decision many years ago to televised meetings of the House have paid huge dividends. Even at the cost of fewer persons or in fact no persons at all joining us in the chamber to follow our proceedings. Say this not with any degree of disappointment Mr. Speaker but to say that we were just in time for this electronic revolution that has occurred when major adjustments were made by all in terms of how we received, how we handled and how we disseminated information. So Mr. Speaker, all is on display. Attire, ties, speechcraft, wits, parliamentary mannerisms and styles all of that is on display and available for commentary. It is also an occasion when choice political language is utilized. I'm sure that some revisit vocabularies in preparation for this debate to make sure these days that they have the right pronunciation because there's always dictionaries available to facilitate this process. But of course it is an occasion to carefully select your arguments and to insert in the political discourse that takes place specific items to provoke, to invite, to admonish to cause pain. And of course if you prefer the lighter side of it, just come for it. And so this morning Mr. Speaker, as I prepared for my turn at this lecture I had just about enough chance to hear my dear friend, the member for Swazel Salibas speak of the Sanders matter admonishing members on the government side about continuing to mention the fact that some $24 million in tax were cancelled for the Sanders chain. Now Sanders is a very sensitive subject, Mr. Speaker, always a sensitive subject. But the Arab member inserted this and I have always said in my conversations with him and I've always told him that you know whenever he is going to invoke my name he must tread with a lot of caution. He must be careful that he dots his eyes, he crosses his teeth and if he does that then he can be assured that all will be well. But unfortunately I don't know whether it is because of the advice he received the direction he got, he did not listen to what a friend had voluntarily offered to him to be careful to tread carefully. And so he mentioned me as he referred to a press release issued by the Sanders chain. Mr. Speaker, I must take the opportunity to respond because you see I have issued very few press releases since 2016. I have issued press releases mainly where my constituency is concerned and I find most of my press releases have been on subjects but they didn't to my constituency. But when the Sanders press release came out I did issue a press release and I found the release particularly egregious. And I want Mr. Speaker to touch briefly this press release to which I am referring to and of course to give the honourable member from Zezela a copy to remind him of what was said. I'll tell you what I found very egregious in the press release. It was the following paragraph in the statement issued by Sanders. Since the former prime minister was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding this matter it is very unfortunate that members of his party are among those being allowed to consistently misrepresent this issue to the public of St. Lucia. Sanders never and does not owe the government of St. Lucia any outstanding money. Rather this dispute with Inland Revenue over withholding taxes on insurance premiums was an old and exceptional matter that required resolution if Sanders was able to finance new investments on the island. Indeed the only purpose served by delaying it was to have the real, the expansion works that were planned for the Sanders grand St. Lucia. That particular part. And of course up to now I don't think those works that are spoken about are all the works that have taken place but put that aside for the time being because we know there were other issues involved including legal challenges. This paragraph contained in my view two insinuations which I totally reject as completely false. The first is a suggestion that despite my knowledge of the circumstances surrounding this matter I am one of those allowing members of the St. Lucia Libre Party among others to consistently misrepresent the issue. Secondly I was one of those involved in delaying the resolution of the issue and this served the purpose to derail the expansion works that were planned for the Sanders grand St. Lucia. I pointed out that these two statements in their imputations are false and highly defamatory for the following reasons. And I will very quickly go through what I said in that press release. Quote to start with the assessment to tax was made by the Inland Revenue Department. The revenue laws of St. Lucia provide for challenges to any assessment by any taxpayer who is aggrieved by an assessment or determination by the control of Inland Revenue. Three, as Minister of Finance I considered it imprudent and unlawful for me or the Cabinet to intervene in the determination of assessments by the Inland Revenue Department. Four, I was aware that Sanders had been assessed by the Inland Revenue Department a payment of withholding taxes on insurance premiums between the years 2001 to 2009 because I was approached by Mr. Richard Peteyking on behalf of Sanders on the issue. My position has always been very clear that I do not and will not intervene in these matters. Consequently I gave absolutely no undertaking to Sanders or any officer or representative of Sanders that a government which I led would intervene to resolve the complaint by Sanders in its favour. Sixthly, in all the years that I have served St. Lucia as Minister of Finance I have never intervened to direct the Inland Revenue Department in matters of tax liability. In fact for me it was sacred ground. I never ever touched a no Inland Revenue Controller could ever say I gave them directions on any taxpayer. I have always held the view that matters of tax liability between the taxpayer and the Department of Inland Revenue are sacred. No controller of Inland Revenue Department would say that I have ever directed the Department withdraw alter or change assessments made by the Department on any individual or corporate entity. The most that I have done is to urge a taxpayer and the Department to compromise and settle issues of liability amicably as litigation is usually a costly affair not only for the taxpayer but also for the government. Then finally I said if Sanders Resort International was so convinced that the professional advice which is said it received was right that all it had to do was to appeal the decision of the control of Inland Revenue to the Income Tax Appeals Commissioners established by Section 108 of the Income Tax Act Chapter 1502. It did not. Instead it appealed to and leverage the then government the Shastiah government to intervene and set aside the assessment made by the Department of Inland Revenue. That was the response of the statement. Now having said that Mrs. Vigour let me put on record that young Adam Schultz draws my admiration. I watched him grow as a young man and develop over the years and remember my several conversations with him sometimes in the presence of his father about his future and what the future is likely to bring. I have not had the opportunity to meet him of course since he's been elevated following his father's death but I just want to say that I regard him as a very decent young man. But there was a time and I regret Mrs. Stuart has passed on to the southern continent as a member of the library would say and so he may not have my utterances today or cannot have my utterances and I regret that but I will say this at one time I was Mrs. Stuart's favorite Prime Minister in region I was his favorite Prime Minister and the best Prime Minister for tourism at one time but it's no secret the relationship fell apart and it fell apart really for three reasons Mrs. Vigour and these are the reasons that I suspect is behind this rather defamatory statement and first of all the decision by the then government that I led when after labour code 4th century Mrs. Stuart opposed this vehemently why I could not understand or comprehend and that's a whole story by itself then of course that played out in the elections of course as you know in 2006 the second reason that we fell out was of course the re-entry of Sir John Compton into the political arena his old friend and it provided the perfect opportunity for him to redefine his loyalties no quarrels with that, no problems with that I understand these things and perhaps the third thing was indeed this tax issue because he himself came to me about it with his chief tax architect at the time made the request to me and I declined the request and told him that look I am sorry I can't entertain this because I do believe that the correct procedure is to appeal to the tax commissioners I don't get involved the relationship then just fell apart so when a member of a social introduces this issue in parliament when he introduces this issue he may not have remembered the background and provides the perfect opportunity of course to put the record straight and clear but I'm a man I have no ill will I have no malice I don't bear any anger or hatred and I'm accustomed to that I like the new Sander's chairman I think he is a very interesting young man and it is astounding that a young person at that age could be given so much responsibility for an obviously a world-class product product that has really changed tourism in the region it's an astounding accomplishment and so Mr. Speaker I am going to invite a member of a social to engage in a little reflection and to be far more cautious when he decides to enter the arena on the basis of such statements and such events this brings me Mr. Speaker to a sub theme of my presentation this afternoon and it had a direct reference to the issue of choice of political language and I wanted to say Mr. Speaker that one of the occurrences in the exchanges that take place in our parliament in the lexicon that we utilize what I sometimes describe as political myths we come to this house and we repeat things that are obvious myths and for one of a better term nothing more than political myths these myths Mr. Speaker are sometimes elevated to self-evident truth and perhaps to be clear Mr. Speaker what do I mean by myths in our political practice and political culture what do you really mean Mr. Speaker there are several definitions of myths the one that fits my purpose best is the one in the Encyclopedia Britannica which says that a myth is quote a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people to explain a practice belief or natural phenomenon and what I just was thinking it's a world view it's a part of a world view it's part of a world view it seems to explain a practice belief or phenomenon the more popular Wikipedia says myth is a folklore consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in society such as foundational tales or origin myths since myth is popularly used to describe stories that are not objectively true the identification of a narrative as the myth can be highly controversial so these are selected from the authorities as to what myths could be etc and of course if I say we use myths in our political discourse then I'm simply saying to you that you are repeating things you believe which are irrefutable truths about each other and of course the political parties you support and represent so let me draw some conclusions because this is because I don't want you to ruin me out of order and I know that you are listening very closely and want to find out where I'm going with this well I'll get them in a few minutes so the conclusions are a draw is that a myth is a traditional story of ostensibly historical event or event something existed Mr. Speaker to create it it unfolds part of the worldview of a people or we can add a society a political party an organization if you want it consists of narratives that play a fundamental role and in the case of a political party for the political party it's projections and it's arguments it's acceptance and non-acceptance Mr. Speaker and of course all the time bearing in mind and both definitions agree that it is a story that is not objectively true so when we come in this parliament and repeat and regurgitate myths Mr. Speaker we are really repeating things that are not objectively true you know but it is convenient for us to latch on and to say it with such conviction so in politics Mr. Speaker we do create our own folklore our own truth and as I have said before there is such a thing called political folklore political folklore the beliefs and things that surround the practice of politics Mr. Speaker and yes Mr. Speaker we create myths to give meaning or ascribe value and meaning to phenomena events that are really as we said objectively true but Mr. Speaker don't get me wrong myths do serve political purposes they record events or observations they give meaning they offer a ready made explanation of phenomena they help us get they confuse sometimes they destroy so embedded Mr. Speaker are these myths in the psyche of people and in their conversations that we elevate these myths to become what I said earlier are irrefutable truths and Mr. Speaker I am sure that if you are supporters of both political parties they will share popular beliefs and generalizations about each other which they hold to be the gospel truths or then that's the truth to make my point Mr. Speaker I will share with you two common generalizations that factually are really political myths which should be relegated to the dustbins of history and I am going to play it safe by using two drawn from our own political party one such myth is that crime always increases under the SLP because the SLP is soft on crime you had all the time another is that the SLP only cares about workers and the poor not the middle class or middle class professionals so pervasive is this latter characterization that the minister of finance was moved Mr. Speaker I pay seven of his presentation to declare quite rightly that quote this government continues to be guided and inspired by the philosophy and values of the founding fathers of our great party the Sintlusha Labour Party to open doors of opportunity for every Sintlusha irrespective of their social and economic standing in the society our party originated from the bosom of the labour movement and has consistently served the best interests of the workers in this country and that summarizes summarizes a philosophical tenet of the Labour Party that all represent and I am certain that this particular quote will resonate for a very long time today and of course in the years to come very well said today Mr. Speaker I plan to address one such pervasive myth the myth that of the two political parties the United Workers Party is the best manager of the economy and I believe you heard the member, the leader of the opposition a member for me who is south he is not disassociating himself from that view at all in fact I think that there is muted concurrence with it I do so Mr. Speaker because the former administration led by the member for me who is south was a chief purveyor of that myth even after the defeat of 2021 and Mr. Speaker I sat on the opposition benches in the last term as I heard the derision the ridicule the unkind remarks about the economy that was managed by the previous administration I'm sure Mr. Speaker honorable members will recall some of the choice statements that were made on these occasions but what was the reality Mr. Speaker I want to take the bold step of answering this particularly as it concerns this budget presentation and of course the information that has been presented to us in the last few days let us look at the performance of the respective administrations the Labour Party administration led by yours truly at one time the honorable member for south and of course the administration led by the former prime minister now leader of the office here member also for me who is south I will focus initially on these key indices growth rates, debt to GDP ratios, fiscal operations and after we have looked at these indices we are then going to consider how the resources of the state were utilized and already we have had pronouncements from individual members in their contributions to this house so the remit is simple who really is the best manager of this economy what does the historical record say what does this historical record provide who can the people of St. Lucia continue to trust to manage this economy to take us to the future that lies ahead these are the sub themes, the sub topics, the sub issues Mrs. Speaker Mrs. Speaker let's first of all look at what the former prime minister and the member for me who is south inherited in 2016 this is what they found and I must say Mrs. Speaker I have not wandered very far I didn't go into my archives because these social, economic and social reviews I do have problems with them sometimes to be honest and I have said so when I was on the opposition benches that's not going to change no I do have issues with them but I didn't go into my archives I decided for the sake of simplicity to use this so we are back in 2016 what was the inheritance and we are looking at Mrs. Speaker we are looking at the issue of growth rates for the five-year period the growth rate recorded during the tenure of the former St. Lucia Liberal Party government was minus 0.1 in 2012 minus 2.0 in 2013 1.3 in 2014 0.1 in 2015 and 3.4 in 2016 I have omitted the 4.3 growth rate in 2011 because a general election of course the United Workers Party was then in office because a general election was held in November of that year and that growth rate properly belongs to the United Workers Party of the member for castries north but we all know what happens subsequently because the moment after that growth rate the economy plunged and desalinated into decline and I don't think the member for castries north will ever descend that this decline was partly explained by of course a settlement of the then wage bill and in any event this was the period when we engage in some structural adjustment to better anchor the economy and yes we did we introduced VAT in that period many will remember of course to remember this the growth rate of 2016 was also a shared year between the parties but everyone knows that what was achieved and in particular year was determined by policies in the previous term now for the five-year period of the United Workers Party the growth rate recorded during the tenure of the UWP under the guidance of the member for Miku south was 3.4 in 2017 which as you know would have been created by the policies of 2016 2.9 in 2018 minus 0.3 in 2019 and then we plunged precipitously to a whopping minus 25.4 in 2020 and of course returned to a growth of 12.2% in 2021 and Mr. Speaker I am inviting you I think to look at page 91 where all of these statistics appear so you're welcome to visit page 91 to confirm that I'm not propagating my own myth but rather these are statistics from this now let me enter caveat and there's no need for us to fight over this you know because it's time we have to grow up in politics you know I remember Mr. Speaker I remember the years when we had September 11th in the US and the economies were plunged into decline no matter how I stood on the benches on the opposite side and explained the impact this had on tourism and the damage it caused the tourism sector I was ridiculed wrongly not just by the den opposition but of course by those interest groups in the society who felt that they had a shared interest in promoting the ideological interest of the then United Workers Party so in 2011 Mr. Speaker that chapter was a different chapter so for the five-year period of the United Workers Party we have these growth rates and in particular the decline of 25.4% is directly I wouldn't say directly is partly attributably partly explainable by of course what occurred with Covid to be sure as I said Mr. Speaker it is beyond doubt that Covid was largely responsible for this precipitous decline but the niggling questions remain why was the decline so severe why was it Lucia the worst casualty in the OECS and that's the niggling question three points may be made Mr. Speaker first the United Workers Party in 2016 inherited an economy that had stabilized after the adjustments between 2011 and 2014 to introduce that and contain expenditure by 2016 the economy had returned to growth adiatedly a little warm but growth was there and that's how it starts in 2017 when the member for Migusot was Prime Minister and in office after one year the economy grew by 3.4% and thereafter growth decelerated rapidly and that is another question why did growth begin to decelerate after a climb of 3.4% secondly in 2020 Mr. Speaker as we said growth declined by a whopping 25.4% the most significant decline ever in the economic history of this country worse than Hurricane Island in 1979 secondly as I said earlier there was a most dramatic decline in OECS it is really pointless to blame it all on COVID we're not going to get anywhere with that argument even when we concede that COVID had some impact some influence I'll tell you why it is true that by then our economy had developed tourism as this leading sector and it was a sector that suffered the greatest damage from the onset of COVID but the problem is the problem is that a country like Antigua has a similarly structured economy like ours this perhaps with a rider that we are slightly more diversified because of the manufacturing sector which I suspect is a little stronger or stronger than that of Antigua and of course we have some agriculture as well some and you know what has happened to agriculture's contribution to GDP in this economy so the question is why is it that they never experienced such a dramatic decline and we did and as I said we were a more diversified economy now Mr. Speaker what reasons can you proper for this what reasons can you give for this but I leave the issue at large I put it out at large deliberately for the time being Mr. Speaker because the plan is to return to it and the appropriate time the third point I wish to make I know this irritates the opposition intensely I irritate the opposition each time it is said the United Workers Party Administration was the beneficiary of a twice rebased economy during its tenure every time I say that they get upset every time and I am on record as saying the solution of the party has never had the benefit of a rebased economy how the civil servants manage it I don't even know to this day how they get it done but we all welcome it you know why Mr. Speaker we welcome it because it means major adjustments in the figures that are presented to the Honourable House so if you had a lower gross rate in a particular cycle you may find that gross rate inching a couple points up but you know Mr. Speaker it is well known that rebasing recorded higher measurable economic output will lead to a reduction in debt to GDP ratios so if you have for example if your GDP increases then what it does is that it allows some readjustment on your debt to GDP ratio and perhaps even make your debt to GDP ratio looking a little better whether of course by a couple of notches or otherwise so it's always welcome but you know Mr. Speaker I want to stick a pin here for the sake of history for the sake of the moment for the sake of the hour Mr. Speaker I pause to say that one of the highest if not the highest gross achieved after independence in the single year was 6.2% in 2006 achieved when the member for if you thought South managed the economy and I have a feeling it's higher than 6.2 because we have not got the rebase figures I don't have access to the rebase figures even if the Ministry of Finance suggests it may have been rebased but I've always known it's 6.2 before rebasing but that doesn't mean nor the Minister of Finance has yet to surpass that figure in normal times though the Omens look good for the current Minister of Finance to do so and why do I say normal times? Simply when an economy suffers a dramatic decline as happened with COVID with us you get a decline of 25.4% or you get a hurricane that totally destroys your GDP it is almost inevitably that once you begin to deal with the issues of recovery you will see your growth developing by leaps and bounds it's an inevitable process now of course they are taking sanctuary in that argument they are taking sanctuary in that argument and their response is well you know you got a 25 you got an 18% growth rate you got a 12% but it had to happen in any event attempting to deny the member of our castries is the skillful managing of the economy to have a loud room for that growth to take place and you want to understand what I am saying you want to understand what you are saying what I am saying just like Mr. Speaker when the member for Migos South held reins of the economy he can't explain what he did why the economy deteriorated so alarmingly and decelerated at the pace that it did prior to the entry of COVID so you get the next clue when COVID came around this economy was already in sharp decline it had decelerated to the point that COVID delivered to it a lethal blow because of the management of the economy by the previous minister of finance that's the reality and so on the economy did not have the pillars it did not have the crutches Mr. Speaker that it needed to withstand the onslaught of COVID and so we all had the indignity of a decline of 25.4% or there about some say 30% Mr. Speaker that's what in fact happened and I am not saying that the honorable member should have forecasted what would have happened because we didn't expect a pandemic but you know the problem is when you begin to explain the phenomenon as a issue you have to take responsibility and you have to take liability it is in your explanation that become critical and crucial of course I would want that history I would want that history to be treated as historical phenomenon but I cannot do so yet because the imputation still exists the consequences are not feeling it today and it is vital that our people understand what we are dealing with so much than Mr. Speaker for groceries let us now take a look at public debt GDP ratios and for that Mr. Speaker I want you to see page 115 of the economic social review for 2022 look at it Mr. Speaker now let us contrast and look at the ratios Mr. Speaker take your time, write it down if you want if you must in 2012 Mr. Speaker the debt to GDP ratio for St. Lucia was 61.1% in 2013 it was 62.2% in 2014 it was 60.7% in 2015 it was 61.5% and remember Mr. Speaker I am looking at page 115 of the economic and social review these are not figures I am inventing Mr. Speaker these are not myths Mr. Speaker these are raw figures in 2016 Mr. Speaker the debt to GDP ratio stood at 60.9% 60.9% now these figures are fascinating Mr. Speaker and I pause to ask who was the minister of finance in 2015 going into 2016 one but Mr. Speaker the reality is that when you look at the figure of 60.9% St. Lucia had virtually satisfied the benchmark of the debt to GDP ratio of 60% set by the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank set a benchmark of 60% for the debt to GDP ratio of its member countries and when I left office in 2016 St. Lucia had basically achieved that benchmark of 60.9% and I don't care whether they are saying is because it was rebased or it was not the reality is that yes but the reality is that I handed over I handed over to ourselves that was an economy that had returned to growth and a debt profile that was accommodating Mr. Speaker of course you know why because Hurricane Allen took over the reins of the ministry of finance you destroyed it that's why I'm telling you you had that growth rate and you couldn't understand when we on this side drew your attention to the I remember the arguments well when we drew your attention to the economy was decelerating when we told you so nobody had your argument I remember the member the member for ancillary countries no I will not say that word now he went way back in time to develop a profile that we were disasters but that's the reality now let us turn to the former administration led by the member of Amigos South listen to this good news in 2017 the debt to GDP ratio was 58.8% you're shouting I'll rebase you'll get in trouble you know you're a fella you know hey you know you're Paris Sartiman you shout the member for countries North says rebase 2018 it claims slightly 59.4% 2019 60.3% by 2020 with the onset of COVID claims to 98.1% and then in 2021 we see a slight decline to 85.9% but wait we haven't even added I suspect the drawdowns yet for the human or international airport but leave that alone for the time being currently as we speak the debt GDP ratio is at 69.8% according to the pronouncements of the Minister of Finance and what is contained in this economic and social review again Mr Speaker I pause to say that the COVID pandemic took its toll and no doubt the dramatic increase in the debt to GDP ratio in 2020 was not just a result of heavy borrowing but also the shrinking of growth in the economy so two things were occurring we began to borrow heavily ostensibly ostensibly to finance the fallout from COVID and all of us know what the money was used for and what it was not used for and I leave that for the other members to explore and at the same time and at the same time you also had the shrinking of growth in the economy ballooning of course your debt to GDP ratio but I want to make two points two points first the figures show that debt under the SLP was decelerating that's the reality debt under UWP while initially declining began accelerating takeoff the takeoff mode as the member for Labry would say aircraft is at the end of the runway the engines are revving up in preparation for takeoff that's what's happening that's the management of the member for Microsoft secondly debt GDP ratios change as growth changes so as the economy returned to growth in 2022 the debt GDP ratios improved and today is recorded at 69.8% that explains why it is at 69.8% now yes let us take a look at the fiscal balances the third the third criteria this figure for your guidance and out of our members I ask that you look at the economic and social review at page 112 for ease of reference I will only take one criteria and the overall balance I will go into the other balances in 2021 the overall balance plunged to minus 112 112 overall balance plunged to minus 12% 12.2% again the worst in the OECS why I leave that question for the jury now Mr. Speaker against that background member review itself you have 10 minutes left what are you saying Mr. Speaker exactly that I would hate doing this Mr. Speaker but I think I want an hour for safety's sake that journey that drives the leader of my business Mr. Speaker I wish to invoke standing order 30 to 10 to give the honorable member an extra hour to complete his presentation one of the members the question is that we invoke standing order 30 to 10 to allow the member review itself an additional 60 minutes in which to conclude his presentation and I'll put the question as many as other opinion say aye as many as of a country opinion say no I think the ayes have it please proceed member now Mr. Speaker I said that we were looking at page 112 Mr. Speaker and let us see what the overall balance was for the respective for the respective administrations the overall balance then years of the St. Lucia Liberal Party in 2011 to 2012 it was minus 5.4 in 2012 to 13 it climbed to minus 7.5 then it began to decline 2013 14 minus 4.8 2014 to 15 minus 2.9 and in 2015 minus 2.2% of GDP and the lesson here is that the member for Migu South inherited one of the lowest fiscal balances ever ever recorded in St. Lucia since independence minus 2.2% that was the inheritance and then in 2016-17 1 minus 1.5 times to minus 2 in 2017-18 goes to 1.0 in 2018-19 minus 3.7 in 2019-20 and then plunges to minus 12.2 in 2021 2020-21 and of course in 2021-22 minus 5% against that background Mr. Speaker let us then look at if you like the performance of the current administration and where they are very nice Mr. Speaker that the current administration is being judged solely on its tenure in 2 years 105 years yet and we have already noted that the growth rates in 2021 were 12.2% and in 2022 was a whopping 18.1% and we have explained why the growth rates were at that level we have already pointed out that the overall fiscal balances in 2021 was minus 12.2% in 2021-22 is down to minus 5.5% and in 2022-23 25% by any stretch of the imagination no matter what the angle of analysis this is a phenomenal achievement who have brought your overall balance down to minus 1.5% of GDP and in 2021 the growth rate was 12.2% as I said climbing to 18.1%-22 this performance as welcome as it is maybe does not mean that we should rest on our laurels at all, why? the authors of the economic and social view make the point at page 11 that the real GDP growth rate of 18.1% results in the stock of real GDP being only 1.1% below pre-pandemic levels so basically what is happening is that we are catching up with pre-pandemic levels but we are doing so at a dramatic rate that's the point that is the point this means that we have retrieved the lost ground and so the economy now returns to normal growth levels and the performance of the various economic sectors underscores the optimism in the future look at the statistics strong performance in the tourism sector total visitor arrivals doubled from 3106.75 to 736.955 in 2022 the overall visitor expenditure is estimated to have increased by 86.4% to 2.8 for billion dollars in 2022 value added in the manufacturing sector is estimated to have expanded by 11.4% in 2022 look at page 12 of the review real value in the agriculture sector is estimated to have recovered partially by 9.8% in 2022 look at page 12 of the review and despite the inflationary pressures the performance in revenue generation signals the economy has returned into pre-pandemic levels according to the social and to the economic and social review at page 41 available data indicate that total revenue and grants increased by 20.7% to 1.356.6 million dollars representing an estimated 21.2% of GDP but there is another key criteria that has to be employed in making this comparison and this measurement before we are going to arrive before we are going to arrive at a conclusion it is this which political party is responsible for the greatest wastages that have occurred in our economy they will tell you I have my sins they will tell you first of all there is short rochabelle and you know they will shout rochabelle they will shout that yes my government guaranteed 14.5 million dollars to save the den hotel and today the hundreds who are employed they will shout that they will shout that the other one they shout about is green book but we are reaching a point where we will be able to talk about that we are not far from that we are getting there because I have kept my silence over the years on this issue but we are getting there Mr. Speaker we are getting there then of course they will tell you about cost overruns and you fought for a road, a highway and no matter how you know Mr. Speaker those cost overruns were transparent measured by all in setup setup to investigate cost overruns and blah blah blah you know the history of that but consider the legacy of the former administration some of them have been itemized on previous debates in this house and I am only going to mention some look at the look of the contract oh my god 31 million and I am I am happy the people of you fought rejected the turf the local people elsewhere at one time you fought south persons were adamant that no turf of that nature would replace unexplained feeling before we have already explored the construction, the alternative hospital the construction of the box, 118 million has gone and god knows how much more is going to go into that box for the foreseeable future but 118 million dollars gone down the drain then of course the payment of the money to range the minister of finance has already pointed out the cost overruns I believe 40 million dollars US on piles isn't it US? on piles for the new terminal building at human aura we have the payment of the US 7 million for covid vaccines and Mr. Speaker then we have the 4.6 million dollars 4.6 million dollars to Narayan for commissioning the OKU EU hospital and I said that there is a 7 million for radical investment the Lockerbie 32 million and who can ever forget the payment of 3 million dollars to Ernest and Young for budget preparation who can ever forget those things all attributable and I'm not going to get personal and mention anything about hotel room and how much hotel room cost Mr. Speaker you see Mr. Speaker I used to get a lot of pressure from my cabinet a lot of pressure and I don't say this in any matters I'll tell you this there was a rule in my cabinet that all members travel economy class if on the arrival at the airport of the prime minister that the airline wanted to upgrade the prime minister they upgrade the prime minister and I have often had indignity they would give me an upgrade from human or international airport to my destination but when you see I'm coming back crap will smoke my pipe will be on to me if I travel on British Airways will be will be on British Airways will know anything about upgrade but I would say that the other airline was a little kinder in that regard and often made sure that they provided an I'm talking about I'm talking about Virgin and so Mr. Speaker I'm not going to go into the specifics but I will also tell you Mr. Speaker that members of my cabinet were furious that they had to travel in the economy and there were tears when there were moments of levity in the cabinet and I'm not talking about the cabinet there were tears how they would have to sit next to the toilets in the long flights in the long flights I didn't have the lock street at the former member hand I never had credit card to use in my life so when you look at all of this what is the verdict do you draw do I have to spell out the verdict absolutely clear what more variation what more argument they won they said Lucian has been beyond the best manager they said Lucian economy by far actions with the economy I made statements about that I did not recoil when the day came and it had to be implemented but goodness remember the blows that I took for it that's what matters you got to be courageous and when the times come so you make powerful and strong decisions for your country you must be afraid you have to do it for your country because you can't now having said all of this Mr. Speaker and having answered the question and responded to this political myth United Workers Party is a better manager of the Lucian economy I want to look at the overall picture and share with our distinguished colleagues two concerns I have identified two concerns but in my view none are insurmountable challenges the first is a decline in construction activities we are told in a social economic review at page 13 that real value added in the construction sector is estimated to a decline in 2022 by 12.6% due to reduced activity in both the public and private sectors partly influenced by additional price increases and periodic shortages of imported materials I do not accept that these are all of the most plausible explanations for this decline I think that the authors of the economic and social review are rather conservative in the explanations that they offer but I am confident that with the planned program of works announced in this budgetary cycle that construction will retain and resume its buoyancy in due course investment in construction is always the easiest and quickest way to excite growth and at the same time to bring peace and comfort in your community and your in-country and you know what Mr. Speaker what this is showing is that the real important thing is that there is room in the economy for expansion and for investment and so financing construction is key to nudging growth in the short term but I want to urge the administration to keep a close eye on the public sector because the public sector will have to play a part for this to happen to excite to excite increased construction activity we should not deny construction activity because we want to reduce expenditure on the capital balances to ensure that the fiscal balances are paid to be maintained the reality is that since your economy is returning to normal growth you need to grow that economy and you need movement in construction to let that economy grow in the short term that's the reality as I said Mr. Speaker the government will have to watch the public sector very closely projects like the cultural center and the administrative center for view 4 must not suffer the same fate as the last time and left to the closing days of the parliamentary term I expect the administrative complex and cultural center to be built in quick time because really you must be talking about $80 million in the economy quite easily for 60 million pre-COVID no no understanding that after COVID it will necessarily grow my second area of concern is the banking sector I had thought that a member would have lectured us a little bit on the banking sector right now I don't know about your meeting about banking sector I am concerned with what is written according to the economic and social review at page 15 Mr. Speaker the financial sector remains stable in 2020 and in line with the economic rebound there was increased commercial lending to the wholesale and retail sector for land and infrastructure development and for real estate purposes unquote the review says liquidity remains high credit to the private sector grew marginally by 1.6% in 2022 banks are lending therefore with greater confidence I'll be it cheaply Mr. Speaker these are welcome indicators all good news good news indeed however there are some cautionary notes that we must take heed three may be noted the first is the disclosure that higher levels of liquidity are prompting banks to continue to invest abroad while this has happened in the past and this is nothing new its continuation in these terms is bound to be concerning because really really that money should be diverted to this domestic economy at this time because the banks have a shared interest with the government of St. Lucia to see that the economy grows they are vital to the growth in this economy the second is the fact that despite the apparent increase in deposits credit grows remain tipped thus leading to a buildup of excess liquidity in the system the review puts it this way and I'm quoting from the review Mr. Speaker quote deposits continue to trend upward in the commercial banking system and credit grows remain tipped due to structural impediments which influence cautious lending policies leading to a further buildup of excess liquidity so the reality is even though people suffered immeasurably during Covid even though we had to face moratorium of our loans but the counter to that was that liquidity was in fact building up in the banking system to the point that we now have excess liquidity and the banks are exporting money to invest abroad to invest abroad that's the reality of all of this the second cautionary note the third cautionary note is this quote bank asset liquidity deteriorated as a non performing loan ratio rose further from 13.8% in December 2021 to 14.2% in December 2022 now this cannot be alarming it cannot be alarming Mr. Speaker for the very simple reason that with the onset of Covid and the adjustments during Covid this was almost inevitable however the authors of the review do not unfortunately identify these so called structural impediments but I suspect they are trying to refer to we all know that these impediments include the legal challenges of dealing with toxic loans and assets I suspect that in general that's what they are talking about I say this Mr. Speaker I believe that the time has come to deal with the issue of toxic assets within the banking system and the government needs to be facilitative by creating a more accommodating legal framework to allow banks greater flexibility in dealing with distressed loans and I'm not suggesting the OECCB model because that model is totally irrelevant to our needs and purposes and should be discarded at the earliest opportunity tell the central bank I said so if you have doubts too many homes are empty seized by banks and remain in their possession distressed when I drive through I am shocked by the number of homes that are just closed empty deteriorating why their distressed assets from toxic loans and what do they do they cast a huge shadow over the community it's a serious issue we need to go further and allow banks more flexibility in selling those assets as happened when ascendancy limited purchase toxic loans from the bank of Nova Scotia before it hurried departure from our shores after years of goodwill and loyalty and nobody likes me to talk about the Canadian banks and how they treated the people of St. Lucia so I rather use the diplomatic language that I use Mr. Speaker and say after their hurried departure from our shores after years of goodwill and loyalty maybe that will bring across the point a little more delicately and will not cause any undue anxiety on the part of those who send me messages after I make those statements the appearance of ascendancy on the market Mr. Speaker has in some instances allowed some refinancing of distressed loans and this is what the banks refuse to do engage previously loyal customers to restructure their loans to refinance their loans and perhaps what we need to do is to create a legal framework and a legal environment that allows the introduction of new entities to handle some of these toxic loans as I maintain Mr. Speaker banks must be encouraged to do more refinancing distressed loans but to all of this there must be one overriding caveat the time has come to protect consumers of banking services self-regulation by banks cannot and do not do the work not anymore we cannot rely on the banks to self-regulate themselves in the interest of consumers they will simply not do it all they are interested in is new legislation for credit risk so that it makes it easier for them to approve or disapprove a loan application they continue to be serious issues about how customers are treated by these banks I have raised this before consumers cannot look to the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank to provide protection there is too much of a history there I have championed a legislative framework that clearly specifies the rights and entitlements of consumers this framework could make provision for the appointment of what I describe as a bond sorry Mr. Speaker a banking ombudsman to hear and determine complaints by consumers Mr. Speaker it cannot be right or acceptable simply to ignore complaints by consumers even when those complaints come from lawyers compelling lawyers to turn to the courts for redress that should not happen but yet it is a frequent occurrence in the banking sector but these are areas of concern that I have selected on this social and economic review because I think we need to think about it but I'll say this to you Mr. Speaker no matter what criticisms may be level at this budget by its instructors there can be no question that this is a budget with a soul it has a soul consider Mr. Speaker the following extension of the tax amnesty for another year way above all penalties interest and fines if taxes are paid by May 1st 2024 no withholding tax on payments on contracts $10,000 and below I might have wanted to increase that to $15,000 and below PV components to be zero rated for value added tax the cost of installing a PV system will be allowed as an income tax deductible expense rebate of a dollar per gallon on fuel for registered fissures promise kept for government pensioners increase in the one-time allowance to teachers to purchase teaching materials from $600 to $1,100 and increase of $500 and how well I remember that one-off payment I must say this is a lot of generosity a lot of generosity whether minister of education he must have prevail for this increase to have obtained but that is interesting increase removal of 12.5% that on specified building materials for a period of 2 years and I must welcome this because the former administration and I did the same thing and what colourful stories emerge from that episode a lot of colourful stories but certainly welcome an extension of duty rebate on the HECOS to cost something correctional officers for one year when these benefits are considered alongside the benefits itemized by the minister of finance at pages 8 which I shall not review at this time then I have to say that while this continued generosity is commendable unprecedented and perhaps necessary in these times the question could well be asked whether we are not deepening and entrenching this culture of dependency in our society that thing not worries me it is that philosophical outcome it is worrying me but let us leave that for the political sociologists to consider and rebate another time so this with all this generosity how can one take unbridge by the decision to impose a health and security level of 2.5% on goods and services except on food items medicines, selected building materials building equipment and security equipment and increase the exercise tax on tobacco a known killer by 50% why should the opposition want to make that an issue and go back to the old political myth you see why I spoke about political myths that the labor government is a taxing government that's the myth and I'm sorry I didn't deal with that particular myth upwards in this presentation the so-called taxing taxing government but we'll come to that I'm sure Mrs. Speaker at the appropriate time Mrs. Speaker I believe that the shame of the poor quality of our health services need to be resolved once and for all we carry a shame in this country because of our poor health services and no offence meant to the minister and his stuff because he is trying exceedingly hard but the reality is that we do not have a health service that we can be proud of and we must correct this mistake we cannot continue Mr. Speaker to beg other countries to pay for health services for our people when will the trek to Martinique and the trek to Cuba and the trek to Barbados and the trek to Trinidad and for our sent citizens and our citizens need to understand someone has to pay for health care if you want it you have to invest in it the poor people of our country cannot continue to suffer the dignity of access to health care simply because they cannot afford it we have to bring an end to it Mrs. Speaker you know as well as I know that this health cost of health health care has skyrocketed Mr. Speaker that their medications costing $200 even $500 to treat certain medical conditions Mr. Speaker and further it is impossible for politicians to be financiers of health care for their constituents nobody in this house has the capacity to do so but of course if any of you have secrets that I don't know about share it with me tell me how I can cope with it how I can cope with it that cannot be right but we all know what the problem is true we have the issues of personnel and management in the health services but a fundamental problem has all the resources that has been the issue in health we have the doctors we have the nurses we have the facilities the problem is that we cannot finance our health care that's a crux of the problem make no mistake about it a level of 2.5% will not cure all of our problems but it is a start an important start and the government deserves the need support for it we are blindfold and supported the people of this nation when that was reduced by 2.5% by the former government it did a severe blow to revenue generation to support the delivery of key government services including health that was the effect that had beating themselves on the chairs we reduced that they had promised this because we abolished that and talked about sales tax but I reduced it by 2.5% to this day nobody felt the impact of the reduction by 2.5% if anything must increase the prices in the supermarkets they could even defend it and I knew they had more influence than I expected than we did at the time they used to say 5% to stay alive but I used to say 5% to die dead remember that famous phrase I died dead as my dear friend my dear friend but I used to say 5% to die dead and when and when we reduced but what did we do we simply replaced this loss of revenue by more boring this cannot continue let us face the problem and deal with it I have only one right one consideration one consideration my only issue is that consideration should be given to creating a dedicated mechanism for revenue generated to service health costs I am certainly not proposing another lock box mechanism I don't even want to head out word perhaps we can create a medical investment board an MIB so that solutions can be satisfied that the revenue generated by this levy is used for the purpose that is intended and for their benefit and I believe that this is something that should be considered a medical investment board that they consolidated fund their current general is directed that every dollar that is raised by this levy goes straight into that board I don't know the minister of finance in his wisdom attach security but maybe that needs rationalization to be honest with you I would much prefer just a health levy on its own but that's not the end of that I am not bothering to go there all I am saying is if we can prove to solutions that this dedicated levy is for their good and welfare for their health for the country as a whole then I am sure that their justification will be even greater now Mr Speaker the good news is that I am descending and getting ready to land I have circulated Mr Speaker I have circulated Mr Speaker I have circulated Mr Speaker and now I am descending to my correct level and Mr Speaker I have always been a co-pilot I have always been a co-pilot co-pilot in the co-pilot in the cabin of the member for cabin of the member for for lab resolved and of course he speaks often of his final approach so Mr Speaker in my final approach I want to consider some things in my constituency but let me start on perhaps a note of some a note of some disappointment some took on bridge on my comments when we debated the estimates of revenue and expenditure in the defense and protection of my constituents and even had the temerity to say that they wondered why I was never the prime minister of this country to do what I am now asking the government to do for before itself I am not going to name names or identify individuals who made those comments they know themselves and they held me loud and clear and those of course supported them in making those statements well you know I too wondered a lot whether these individuals were not aware that an administrative centre whose construction was started by the government which I led was really stopped and cancelled by the former government so what are you talking about I wanted to rather fail to remember on two occasions in 2011 and 2016 in 2006 and 2016 work had commenced to grant ownership of the lands of Bruceville to the people of Bruceville only to be stopped and chaired by an incoming UW administration so some of the things I asked for is nothing new the difference being I asked it from the back benches that's the difference I will make it absolutely clear that I will defend protect and advance the interests of my constituency no matter how much discomfort my comments may cause as a member of the castries east often used to say on the political platform put that in your pipe and smoke it my constituents deserve no less they have supported me for 25 years why should it be different from me because I happen to be an ex-prime minister and when I spoke of the debate on the estimates of revenue and expenditure I set out the agenda for my constituency I said then that in any debate on the estimates of revenue and expenditure a parliamentary back bencher has three bites of the cherry to plead for his constituency the first is to identify programs for his or her constituency in the estimates of revenue and expenditure as presented the second bite occurs when the minister speak and address plans hopefully for the member's constituency so you listen to them and the third comes statement itself and I said I will await the icing on the cake and Mr. Speaker I have not been disappointed I have seen the icing on the cake and the minister of finance deserves thanks and commendation he listened he understood he delivered better than repeat the minister of finance has announced that page 34 of his presentation I do so because I have a few comments one identification of available land for resettlement two dialogue with the owners of land in the town of U4 to empower home ownership three enactment of legislation to convert into a statutory cooperation in which land will be invested four psychosocial support for residents to deal with trauma and social recovery and enhance economic well-being in this regard the government will work closely with the NGO community five the establishment of information by specified ministries to provide help and guidance to citizens to access government services for example the Ministry of Commerce will establish a presence to assist citizens to access small business loans six special economic educational and sports programs for at risk groups construction of an administrative complex in our cultural center for the people of U4 and the south within the term this will fulfill a promise made to the people of U4 during the 2021 campaign end of code I want to just say Mr. Speaker some of these proposals require explanations or amplification first is the land issue in the town of U4 Mr. Speaker I I don't wish to be misunderstood because you know how easy it is Mr. Speaker the intent here is not something I have always said that view portions the people of U4 do not own their community they don't have assets in land they don't own the land most of them are renting or squatting on land that don't belong to them in the town the principal landlords it's the Catholic Church the Anglican Church and one or two private persons in the man what this is proposing it's really a discussion with the churches to say to them whether if they wish they are willing to sell those lands to the state not for the state to take over lands the state will not take over any lands but if they want to sell those lands to the state and the state will then rationalize the lands and make it available to the residents of U4 this is what it is all about and so I'm hoping that in the coming weeks there will be some engagement if the churches say no that's the end of the matter that goes no further it dies there the second is the construction of an administrative and cultural center for the people of U4 I can assure this honorable house that the people of U4 welcome the announcement particularly not just of the administrative center but of the cultural center this has been a dream for years for years our artists in the south deserve a home no Calypso tenders use as many kings and queens as the south Calypso tend and this year the same will happen our Calypso Indians need a home this discrimination has to end this allocation of all the facilities in the north has to end the Pallabri the member Pallabri has an HR I remember it was constructed during my tenure but U4 can't even shout about HR in DC every little community has an HR in DC I said to the minister of finance make haste later plan build the cultural center there must be no delay on that matter but mrs. speaker but mrs. speaker I am descending rapidly I know that the roads of U4 south were not mentioned by the minister of finance the residents of Continental Residency that had understandably expressed their disappointment to me last Wednesday was rough in my constituency but I believe that they are pleased and not in vain and have been heard I believe that some attention will be given to these roads this financial year mrs. speaker I have noted carefully the social interventions in U4 south in the wake of the killings announced by the minister of finance these days there are many actors in U4 south I thank all I appreciate the presence of all of them I have malice towards none but it seems to me that to avoid duplication uncertainty and chaos on the ground it is absolutely vital to convene as a first step a meeting of all the NGOs who are likely to be involved in the community in the days ahead roles and responsibilities must be defined and allocated I want no surprises in my constituency I don't want anybody whom I don't work in my constituency so it is important that all that that is just before landing I think it is vital mrs. speaker absolutely vital mrs. speaker that a meeting of all these NGOs should be convened as soon as final mrs. speaker before I leave my constituency and close let me touch on the issue of the view for port I welcome the foreign statement the prime minister of finance at pages 50 to 51 of his budget receipt quote I can assure saint lucians that there is no agreement to exclude cruise port development in view 4 in fact we are currently discussing various options for the development of cruise tourism in view 4 mrs. speaker this statement puts to the line the spirit statement of the member and I'm sorry he's not there that there was an agreement between global ports holding and the government of saint lucia that its investment in port castries and so far was to the exclusion of any port development in view 4 south I wish I could explain to honorable members what I endured and suffered after that statement by the member for microsoft everybody in view 4 south wanted to find out how is it that I could have allowed a government of which I am a back bencher to sign an agreement that excludes port development in view 4 and then I even call the minister of tourism about the smash or so concerned that I was and I told him he had to issue a statement or suggested he had to issue a statement I don't know if he took it seriously but it was a serious matter so mrs. speaker the minister of finance has made it absolutely clear and the case as I said the statement was even more egregious and I'm referring to the statement of the member for microsoft because it was alleged as parliamentary representative I allowed this to happen without a whiff of protest but you know mrs. speaker this is not the first sin of the member of microsoft in my constituency the member sins in view 4 are legendary there are many and I'm not even going to engage in too many specifics we all know that lands in view 4 was given away literally for next to nothing to to our king for his responsible development we all know that both says your farm is no more the meat processing plant no longer exists the abattoir is gone we spend millions to transport garbage from before the day glow incinerators incinerators were imported and none of them are in use at millions and I forgot to include that in my statement on wastage the lies of the cattle farmers of view 4 were destroyed never again will view 4 be the chief supplier of cattle to bexo and to mark never again never ever again that the lies were destroyed we have had to contend in view 4 with the fiasco sin jude and only recently Mr. Speaker during the members walk about in view 4 with one chain that his actions destroy the horse racing interest and activities activities I was not alone and you know pictures on their own can tell quite a story well you see all the little youths gather around and this had this one had touching and so on you know what I mean and so on all these things happening Mr. Mr. Speaker I find that wrong yes Mr. Speaker all these things happen but there is also a danger in this because they record you and you heard you heard a young man saying to the member of amigus of but you stop our horse racing which Kenny Antony had started for us and had done every year but yes but Mr. Speaker I want you to hear this you know Mr. Speaker this is a very serious matter and this explains some of the current difficulty and trauma that I have if these young men had been allowed to continue horse racing the one interest of many of them because that was their sole interest they may have stayed away from the gangs that have inflicted so much pain and trauma on the people of the boys now I don't know if I can touch them we are trying hard Mr. Speaker if we can encourage slasper just to let us use a little piece of land a little bit of horse racing to bring some relief to these young men to begin at least to say to them that there are people who care for them and that's the trauma of your thought they feel people don't care others don't care that's the reality but come to think of it Mr. Speaker we must come to place the ownership of what remains of the horse racing track which the member for Migu South once said will never return a profit in the hands of the government people of St. Lucia by negotiation otherwise it is time that that horse racing track be handed over to St. Lucia and if your working has any decency he will say he will say no sorry I will not put it in the past he will say take it belongs to you point I would even help him with the crew or Mrs. Speaker and maybe the member for Migu South should do the people of St. Lucia service and tell it to your working you give the horse racing track back to the people of St. Lucia and finish with that I don't know Mr. Speaker if the member for Migu South cannot produce irrefutable proof of his allegation about the port in Migu South then given the damage that it has caused to me in my constituency he should apologize to me in person and in public and to the people of Migu South the honorable member Mr. Speaker has inflicted enough pain and damage on the people of Migu South Mr. Speaker I thank you and I have nothing further to add