Okay, one leaves and one leaves. Honourable members, when the House last rose, we were on the subject bills on the order paper. Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business. I beg to move for the first reading of a bill shortly entitled the Airport Development Act. Airport Development. Honourable Prime Minister. I beg to move for the suspension of scanning order 482 to allow the Airport Development Act Bill. Airport Development Bill. Sorry. Airport Development Bill. Sorry. Airport Development Bill to go through its remaining stages. Honourable members, the question is that standing order 482 be suspended in order to allow the Airport Development Bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. 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. Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business. Honourable Speaker, I beg to move for a second reading of a bill shortly entitled the Airport Development Bill. Honourable Speaker, when I presented my budget address in 2017-2018, I informed you that my government had decided to bark upon exploring alternative financing arrangements for the development of the UNORI International Airport with the context of the broader vision of a development for view forth. This bill, the Airport Development Bill provides for the development of the airport. It repeats, it repeals the UNORI International Airport Development Act number seven of 2015. This act was specific to facilitate a public-private partnership between the Government of Saint Lucia and the Saint Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority and a concessionaire as proposed by the International Financial Corporation. The bill levies an airport development charge of US $35 on all travelers on the purchase of an airline ticket for the purpose of making payments for debt service requirements of a debt arrangement to implement airport facility improvements. Where a debt arrangement is entered into, the authority shall set up a lockbox account which will be collected from the development charge are transferred. Madam Speaker, this bill proposes the establishment of an airport facility development fund which consists of the development charge and the interest on the development charge that exceeds the debt service requirement of a debt arrangement. Madam Speaker, you may recall in February of 2011 the Airport Development Act Chapter 15.4 came into force but was subsequently repealed in June of 2015 following a zeroing of the airport development charge in 2013. Between February of 2011 and August of 2013 the fund had accumulated almost $50 million. Madam Speaker, much has been said about the taxes imposed on the airline tickets for travel in and out of Saint Lucia. For maybe to inform this honourable House of the taxes that will be applicable with the proposed implementation of this airport development tax. The airport service charge, the slasper will be $12.60 US. The government of Saint Lucia recurrent revenue of $10.50, solid waste $1.50, tourism marketing $10, and a sinking fund of $16.78. And the administration to collect, to collector which is an estimate of $1.62. So the total amount of the airport service charge will be $53. The airport development tax facility would be $35 and the security charge of $5 and a passenger facility fee of $5 for a total of $98. The highest tax payable will be $98. In other words, when all various tax types are considered including what is proposed here today the cumulative taxes will not exceed US $98. It means there will be no need to make adjustments to some of the taxes that are already in effect to achieve this. So Madam Speaker, as I indicated, we had already come to the House to pass this motion, this bill to put on the $35 tax. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, exactly as indicated by the former Prime Minister and the representative from View Fort South during that said presentation that what we needed to do was to repeal the previous act imposed by the former government which would have set up a vehicle for this public sector, private sector arrangement. So in repealing that allows us now to take the $35 and put it back into this lock box facility that we're putting, that we put in place. We have been working with IATA, we've been working with the airlines and we're hoping to have this new tax start on January 1st, Madam Speaker. And there's been much of an outcry as well, Madam Speaker, about the potential impact on our arrivals and while there was obviously some concern expressed by some of the airlines, we have seen that their numbers continue to grow from strength to strength. So we've already implemented part of this tax to $58 which included the $25 previously and now the additional amount has already been implemented and now all we're doing is going to now start the $35. In terms of competitive this, Madam Speaker, most of the countries have taxes in excess of $85. In fact, some countries have it in excess of $115. The recent airport in Bermuda which is just being done, raised their tax to $100. So we believe that we're in line with all the other destinations and we believe that putting this $35 in a lock box at this time, Madam Speaker, will go a long ways in able to secure now the implementation on the construction of a new airport. Honourable members, the question is that the Airport Development Bill be read a second time. Honourable member for Castery South. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this is a very troubling bill. It is probably in many ways, Madam Speaker, almost insulting to the people of St. Lucia and the Parliament of St. Lucia for this bill to come before this Honourable Parliament at this time. Madam Speaker, there's a lot that can be said about the proposed airport development. And I'm sure, Madam Speaker, for the next few hours, a lot will be said. And I have a lot of sympathy for you, Madam Speaker, for the tribulations that you will go through in the coming hours, Madam Speaker. But, Madam Speaker, it's a consequence of not having a deputy Speaker in this chamber that you will have to suffer the consequences. But I do express my sympathies to you, Madam Speaker. In the previous United Workers Party government, headed by the member for Kastri's North, there was a proposal and there were plans to redevelop the airport, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, it never came to fruition. And at that time, Madam Speaker, there was a lot of talk as to why it did not come to fruition. There was talk of corruption. There was talk of attempts to bribe public officials. And, Madam Speaker, it is a narrative that continued for many years after. And in this Honorable House, Madam Speaker, I've heard a frequent and repeated refrain about Mr. Jufali and Madam Speaker, I took to reminding a particular member of this House, the member for Kastri's South is, that I would not answer him unless he answered a popular talk show host who had made some very startling revelations or accusations. But, Madam Speaker, let's put this out. Madam Speaker, I want to first of all deal with the concept behind this bill. Because when the then Prime Minister Stevenson King did not sign the A&M agreement, if we go in accordance with what we've heard as spouts in public by Richard Federick and never denied by the Liber Party when it came into government, decided to choose a different route. The Liber Party argued that rather than the Government essentially taking a loan for a hundred and fifty million U.S. dollars or there about, Madam Speaker, which is four hundred million Eastie dollars, the Liber Party argued that was too heavy a burden to be borne by the people of San Dosia to increase our debt by four hundred million dollars. That instead it would choose a different route, a different concept. And may I add, Madam Speaker, to choose a route and a concept which was now becoming the acceptable way of building airports and managing airports. The Liber Party did its research and contacted the World Bank to assist in the way forward and leader the opposition when he speaks later on will go into greater detail as he was at the centre of it. I was still somebody outside the margins of parliament. But Madam Speaker, through the IFC and you must note, Madam Speaker, the IFC as a private sector arm of the World Bank is trusted. There is confidence in it. There is no issue of corruption. There is no issue of bribery. There is transparency. There is accountability. The Saint Lucia Government engaged the IFC and went through a very long detailed process to come up with a model and a financial arrangement and a selection process that will have the best deal for Saint Lucia. The best deal for Saint Lucia. Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and other officials, the Minister of Economic Development from Kassafis, they all go to World Bank meetings. There is confidence in the World Bank. We believe in the World Bank. We take loans from the World Bank. We have a relationship with the IFC. We believe in the institutions of the World Bank. We have no doubt in our mind that there is no corruption. There is no bribery. There is transparency. There is accountability in the functioning and the operations of the World Bank. It is that institution created together with the IMF to oversee the global economy that is the stature and the respectability of the World Bank and by extension the IFC. So when the government of Saint Lucia engaged the World Bank and started a process it was done if an institution that nobody had any doubts about its credibility, its integrity and what it stood for. And after many years Madam Speaker of research, of discussion it was agreed with the IMF with the IFC on a particular arrangement that would see an airport being built in Saint Lucia that would not cause Saint Lucia taxpayers and most importantly Madam Speaker the future generations to have to carry the burden of a loan of $150 million that's $400 million Madam Speaker that there was an arrangement of the World Bank Madam Speaker by extension through the IFC to provide us with a modern airport Madam Speaker and we would not have to worry about paying back any loan Madam Speaker so we had an arrangement for financing and for managing of the airports we would manage a selection process and come up with a preferred company that would do the construction and manage Madam Speaker we would not have to pay a cent and Madam Speaker if I am wrong members on the other side can correct me Madam Speaker think about it this country would not have to borrow $150 million US dollars and when the leader of the opposition speaks in more details we are actually going to earn money Madam Speaker so not only would we not have to take a loan and repay it but we would also be earning money Madam Speaker so again Madam Speaker the leader of the opposition will give you verse and chapter and the question has to be asked Madam Speaker why in such a context would we come back to a political reject the World Bank and the IFC have to pay a fine to the IFC for abandoning the process because you would appreciate Madam Speaker there are consultants involved there are expenses involved for them to be able to have been engaged with St Lucia we would reverse that and we would go back to an old concept where St Lucia would have to borrow $150 million US dollars Madam Speaker that troubles me it really really troubles me but because Madam Speaker this model is what is becoming the acceptable model in the world Gatwick Airport Madam Speaker I know you are familiar with it is not run by the government of United Kingdom Madam Speaker this private sector involvement Dubai International Airport Madam Speaker Madam Speaker recently Montego B was rated the best airport in the Caribbean who runs Montego B Madam Speaker who runs it it is not the government authorities or satry body in Jamaica Madam Speaker this is becoming the model Madam Speaker so then we are working with one of the most respected institutions in the world outlining a process that globally has regard and respect because of the absence of any corruption and with transparency openness and we are abandoning that model Madam Speaker and we are going back to a model where we have to borrow $150 million Madam Speaker you can understand why I am troubled by this now I know members on the other side were not all some members or couple said that our level of comprehension is rather low you know and one member even asked me what have I ever done to have any success in life well I know I did well Madam Speaker I am not exactly consider myself the dumbest guy on the block but I am failing to see the logic in it Madam Speaker it troubles me why would you abandon the World Bank the IFC you would abandon the model that is now becoming the prevailing model in the world why would you abandon a situation where you don't have to take a loan of $400 million why would you abandon that Madam Speaker why how do I explain that to my daughters Madam Speaker how do I explain that to the young people before I show Madam Speaker you know in Monkey Tong in Mario how do I explain to them that this government see a compelling logic in abandoning the World Bank and the IFC abandoning a model that is working globally abandoning a situation where they don't have to borrow a cent to want to borrow $400 million and in debt this country Madam Speaker I am lost Madam Speaker I am lost Madam Speaker but Madam Speaker it becomes even more disturbing Madam Speaker because I need to go back to how I started Madam Speaker because we would have heard Madam Speaker repeated often Madam Speaker that the reason why the project did not get started Madam Speaker is because it was not signed by the then Prime Minister and he has a chance today Madam Speaker the member for Castries North Madam Speaker has a chance today to probably speak on the issue well not to probably speak as a chance to speak on the issue and see whether or not a lot of the allegations made were true because we have heard the allegations over and over now Madam Speaker when people say things about you that are damaging libelous slander whatever it is you have recourse Madam Speaker but there has never been any public denial not by the member for Castries North because he has not really been accused of any wrongdoing but the member for Castries South has been accused over and over Madam Speaker over this very project which the Labour Party when it came into government abandoned he has never denied it and today he has a chance to deny it Madam Speaker because Madam Speaker if we are going back to a model a project that was tainted Madam Speaker it makes it even more damaging and disturbing to the people of San Lucia Madam Speaker because not only are you abandoning a project that was started by the Labour Party that compels you to continue with it but you have defined all logic and you are going back to an old model but that old model was tainted Madam Speaker it was tainted because there was enough talk in public about what happened then and why it was not signed don't the people of San Lucia need to know whether there is any truth in this Madam Speaker if those allegations are being made boldly brazenly on public television first day after first day after first day and nobody is denying it Madam Speaker and you are asking us to go back into this same kind of arrangement where the government is taking a loan to choose somebody a contractor to build the airport Madam Speaker Madam Speaker I rise in a point of order standing order 355 the member for Castree South I would like to posit Madam Speaker it is clearly imputing improper motive Madam Speaker while he is using the word allegation to find it very irresponsible Madam Speaker and disingenuous to actually insinuate that another member of this honourable house Madam Speaker has done something fraudulent and Madam Speaker I don't think that this is proper what's the improper motive Madam Speaker he is constantly suggesting that another member of the house has done something fraudulent and is claiming that he mentioned words like bribes he mentioned Madam Speaker if he cannot substantiate the allegations then they need to remain where they are as rumours and I think that we ought to be responsible in the house and when it comes to an individual's repetition I don't think it is proper to keep strongly insinuating that something wrong was done he went even to suggest that the former prime minister refused to sign a document in the name of a contractor Madam Speaker I think that this is improper unless he can substantiate the point then... Honourable Minister I think the honourable member who falls due respect is staying clear on the periphery of where he is going I am listening and he is staying clear on the periphery on the borders cautiously by his words Honourable Honourable Honourable Honourable Honourable Honourable Honourable He has refused to sign a contract awarded to the airport a specific company if he is going to go that way he needs Fs Please go your allegations imputing is not not being proved is making a reference repeatedly making a reference to questions being asked of the Honourable Minister and member for Kastu South East. Yet what he seems to be asking is why has he not refuted allegations being made about him? I am paying close attention to it. Thank you. Please proceed Honourable Member for Kastu South East. Madam Speaker, so much has been said about Westinist Cricket, about Joufali, Madam Speaker. And then today, because I make a simple statement that there has been so much said on public television every first day by a particular talk show host about the member for Kastu North to a lesser extent at the member for Kastu South East. But the member from Kastu South East, not a member from Kastu North has chosen to deny it. And I said it creates, Madam Speaker, a lack of confidence among citizens, Madam Speaker, when they hear such serious allegations being made and nothing being done about it. But Madam Speaker, the member for Answered Canaries asked me to provide evidence of why I believe, why I believe that they may have been conduct that's not acceptable, Madam Speaker, either in accordance with our laws or what is expected of a public official, Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker, with your permission, can I make as a document of a House the documents that have been circulated, including the letter from the Attorney General of St. Lucia to the U.S. Department of Justice. Madam Speaker, I was asked by a non-rule member to provide evidence as to why I may have believed that something happened. And I would like your permission, Madam Speaker, because I want to read from it, Madam Speaker, to indicate, Madam Speaker, why, Madam Speaker, there is reason to believe that something untold happened. Listen to me carefully, Madam Speaker, there is reason to believe that something untold. Let me tell you something. I need to say something, Madam Speaker. I am not gloating over any situation that any member find themselves in, Madam Speaker. I am not doing that. I am not doing that. I have been accused, Madam Speaker, and that particular member and other members have taken particularly at spreading rumours and saying things, Madam Speaker. But, Madam Speaker, I have always stayed focused, Madam Speaker. I'm not taking any pleasure or delight, Madam Speaker, but this is the Honourable House, Madam Speaker. And I was not going to go down that road, Madam Speaker. I was going to just argue and debate along the margins. Like you said, Madam Speaker, I was going to remain along the periphery of the issue, Madam Speaker. But the Honourable Member from Ansley Canary's, Madam Speaker, he has opened the door and he has asked me for evidence, Madam Speaker, as to why I would believe that the Honourable Member may not have acted properly. Madam Speaker, I want to read from the documents I have before me. Honourable Member for Castries South, the Honourable Minister of Responsibility for Tourism has asked you for evidence. You said, Herit, for the first time I'm hearing today about documents being circulated in social media. Document circulating in social media, I want to posit, does not lead to the veracity of an allegation and that depends on, it's not just a matter, a document widely circulated. It can be, because once it gets on social media, it will be widely circulated and it can be circulated to 20 million people. That does not mean that the document is true as to its content. So for you to say you're producing it as evidence cannot hold. You may say there is a document circulating in social media or wherever being widely circulated and that you may ask questions about. However, whether that document, the authenticity of that document and the veracity of that document cannot be used to determine or to say that it is in its nature. I want to make that point clear. Madam Speaker, you referred to documents on social media. I actually got it in a file, Madam Speaker. I didn't get it on social media. But not with standing at Madam Speaker. Not with standing, Madam Speaker. I got it in a file, Madam Speaker, not on social media. But Madam Speaker, listen to this. Let's get it clear. He asked me for evidence of why I seem to be implying what I was implying and I'm going to provide the evidence. Madam Speaker, I rise in the point of order. What's that? Point of order, Madam Speaker, 35-2. Madam Speaker, yeah. 35-2, Madam Speaker. 34A, sorry, Madam Speaker, 34A. Madam Speaker, the Honorable Member from Castree South clearly said the document was circulated online. Clearly said it. He said the document being circulated. So he's got to make up his mind. It's either that he got the document from the U.S. State Department as he would like us to believe, or he got it on Wikipedia as he would normally get all of his information. So please make up your mind, Honorable Member. You have to come with a solid source that we can accept. Honorable Member for Ancillary Candidates, your point is made, okay? So I'm saying Honorable Member for Castree South, I have made my point on the document. Now I think we need to get serious as to, and to then lift up a file and tell me you got it in a file. I mean, please, let's move on, please. Madam Speaker, I'm not debating the authenticity of the documents. I was asked to provide evidence of why I was making certain statements, Madam Speaker. But Madam Speaker, if the... So we're playing with words here. I want you to respect to the back and forth. We're playing with words there, and hear the words. I was asked to provide evidence as to why I believe. Yes, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, when the Honorable Member would suggest... Honorable Member for Castree South, please proceed. You know, Madam Speaker, you know, you would suggest I get my information on Wikipedia. Madam Speaker, you know, if the Honorable Member has any doubts as to the authenticity of the document, the Attorney General of St. Lucia is right there. Who sits in cabinet with you. Who sits in cabinet with you, but he's right there. You can ask him, Honorable, Madam Speaker, through you to Honorable Member, whether or not as Attorney General, he can establish from the files of the Attorney General, chambers that such a letter exists. The letter I'm going to read from. But he's the Attorney General, Madam Speaker. But Madam Speaker, let me continue to read. Madam Speaker, a point of order on elucidation. No, I'm not... The fact is there is no such files in your Attorney General's office, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, you're the Attorney General. Okay, so Madam Speaker, let me read from the letter that the Attorney General, at the time in the year, I'm reading it's up to the individuals in question to deny whether the accusations made they ever happen, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I want to ask that those documents... I have ordered in this Honorable House that if members are going to read from a document, it must be circulated to members. If members are going to refer to a document... Madam Speaker, we've been down this road before, Madam Speaker, in which you make reference to Erskine's. And Erskine says that documents where you cannot determine where they came from, that all you can do is cite them. But citing is not placing them in the House. Citing? So you can make reference to it, but you can cite it, but you cannot make it a document of this. Because we do not know the authenticity of those documents, Madam Speaker. Well, that's the last time I will yield to you there. If you cannot get it right, then you're out. Erskine, Erskine, Page 4... I won't yield to you in multiple respects. Madam... Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition, published by LexisNexis, Page 447. There is no rule to prevent members not connected with the government from citing documents in their position, both public and private, which are not before the House, even though the House will not be able to form a correct judgement from partial extracts. That was widely circulated before, a few months ago. Okay? So you can cite the document. There is nothing preventing the cited document from making the rounds or being given to members also. So Madam Speaker, am I hearing in this honourable chamber that the Prime Minister is saying that the Government of St. Lucia did not write to the US government? Because I am saying that it is very easy to establish whether or not the Government of St. Lucia wrote to the US government. I'm saying it's very easy to establish that. And the Prime Minister is saying that he can establish that there is no record, there is no record of this letter in the Attorney General's chambers. Now the Attorney General is here, Madam Speaker. Can I proceed to cite since I cannot make a document at the House, Madam Speaker? I have given your staff to me. I just happened to have had a backup copy in case what happened now... Circulate, please. When it is here. Do you want to take a recess until the copy is done? To move to another point and come back. Okay, Madam Speaker. I will move to another point and come back. Madam Speaker, so let me move, and I'll come back to this point, substance of the bill, Madam Speaker. The substance of the bill, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I need you to help me understand something about the bill, and I'm glad that your Attorney General is here. Because the bill says, Madam Speaker, that it comes into effect, Madam Speaker, on the first day of January 28th, on the first day of January 28th, and I want you to follow me because it might be a very simple explanation that the AG can provide, Madam Speaker, when we go into committee stage, Madam Speaker. It comes into effect the first of January 2018. And listen to this, Madam Speaker. Section 11, Madam Speaker. The payment of development charge to the authority. A collector shall pay the development charge into and place the development charge to the credit of an account at a bank approved by the authority of the consent of the minister. It is assumed, Madam Speaker, that when the monies are collected from the airport development tax, it will be placed in an account at a bank approved by the authority with the consent of the minister. That service, 12-1 says, subject to this section, the development charge, is for the purpose of making payments for the debt service requirement of a debt arrangement to implement airport facility improvement projects. So the money that's going to be put into the accounts, once this comes into effect on the first of January, that money goes into an account and is used to make payments for the debt service requirement. So the money goes into this account from the first of January and is used to make payments. 12-2 says, the authority may enter into a debt arrangement for the purpose of carrying out airport development projects on terms mutually agreed between the authority and the lender. So it says the money will go into an account from the first of January. It will be used to pay the debt service arrangements and it says the authority can't go into such an arrangement. But then it goes on. Where a debt service arrangement is entered to under subsection 2, the authority shall set up a locked box account into which money is collected from the development charge transferred. Is 12-3 suggesting that it is only when the debt service arrangement is entered into that that account can be set up and therefore only 10 monies can be collected and it probably explains why under the previous Labour Party, Dr Antony had stopped the collection of the money and Dr Antony, the member for Viewport South had argued that you could not go about collecting monies if work had not started and there was no arrangement for the airport to be built, that you could not be charging people a tax for debt servicing for airport reconstruction when there was no debt service agreement in place and there was no reconstruction taking place. Pardon? I'm talking about the airport redevelopment. I don't know, but I'm telling you I don't know. I'm talking about this. I can only talk about what I know. According to the member for Answers, is Wikipedia I get my information from? That's from Wikipedia, Madam Speaker. What I want, you could raise all your other issues and even if it had been done that was wrong, if it is wrong then we should correct it now. It may have been done by either party and it was wrong but if it has been done wrong now and we can correct it, let's correct it. Let's correct it. So don't tell me it may have been done before and it was wrong. So Madam Speaker, I just need an explanation. Is this suggesting that that lock box account can only be set up when a debt service agreement and arrangement has been entered into? And I would want to ask the question and Madam Speaker, it might be a very simple answer. I'm not a lawyer. Unlike some people I don't pretend that I know how you draft those things. I only apply common sense understanding to it. But it seems to suggest that it is only at that point and therefore for it to be into effect on January 1st, 2018 as against what section 12.3 says. I raise the question and I ask for some clarification, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I then move to 23. Regulations, Madam Speaker. Because the Prime Minister earlier today and I think the Member for Kashi's South East made a you and cry about regulations for CIP and it did not come into this honourable house. I'm sure you recall that, Madam Speaker. And it has been said over and over by the Prime Minister that the regulations never came to the House for approval and I ask the question, Madam Speaker, will regulations for the management of this fund come to Parliament for approval? Yes, you are promising that it will. Because, Madam Speaker, if it comes into effect on January 1st, again, does it? Madam Speaker, you're a lawyer and the attention is there. I assume it can come into effect without regulations being approved? That's not what I'm asking on the premise. We talk about regulations, Madam Speaker, because you've given the promise that the regulations will come before this House before the Act comes into operation. And you know why it has to come before, Madam Speaker? Because if monies have been collected from January 1st and I posted the view and I temper it by saying I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a legal draftsman, this is my common sense understanding of it, that you cannot start collecting fees and putting in an account until you have a debt service arrangement in place from my common sense reading on this. The regulations will say how that account will be set up, who are the signatories of it, what the monies will be used for, where the account will be established, and how that account will be administered, will be audited, Madam Speaker. The regulations will say that. So who are the people who are going to sign for the payments and the disbursements of monies from that account? Who are the people? And remember we're saying all of that in the context of an arrangement that existed before that is heavily tainted, Madam Speaker. Heavily tainted, and remain on the periphery, Madam Speaker. It's heavily tainted. Who, Madam Speaker, where will this account be set up? Will it be set up in Dubai? In Jersey? Where is it going to be set up, Madam Speaker? Because you're talking about 150 million US dollars, Madam Speaker. Under what conditions, Madam Speaker, will monies be disbursed from it, Madam Speaker? There are a lot of issues that have to be dealt with in the regulations, Madam Speaker. And for all the criticism that was made, that were made, Madam Speaker, about regulations and regulations, and you all had regulations that didn't come to Parliament, will the regulations come to Parliament to be debated, Madam Speaker? And that's important, as I said, for a process that has been tainted, Madam Speaker. Then, Madam Speaker, the Schedule II speaks of the travellers that are exempted from the payments of the Development Charge, Madam Speaker. And, Madam Speaker, I know they have to be exemptions, and some people will be exempted, but why are some included there? But the young people that will represent St. Lucia by going and playing football overseas, cricket overseas, why are they not exempted, Madam Speaker? But, Madam Speaker, exempted... D? D says... Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Hold on, Honorable Member. No need to get too hyper. Hold on, Honorable Member. Hold on, hold on. Come in after this, hold on. It's going to be a long night. Here's what he says, Madam Speaker. A person signified by a minister or opponent secretary of a ministry to be travelling on the business of government. Now, Madam Speaker, if a technical officer goes to a meeting, that's a business of government. If a permanent secretary goes overseas, Madam Speaker, are you now saying to me that a youth club going to St. Vincent is on the business of government? Is that what we're saying? Is that what you're saying, Honorable Member? That's what you're saying. Madam Speaker, if that's what it's meant to be there, I would prefer we have more specific language because when the young people travelling for sports, a youth group travelling, and they are told they're not going on the business of government, Madam Speaker, because do you know, Madam Speaker, there are sports persons in this country who cannot get time off to go and represent St. Vincent overseas? During my time. That could never happen, Madam Speaker, during my time. No sports person chosen to represent St. Vincent could ever be denied. Madam Speaker, look what I'll say I don't have a memory. Do you remember Brian Stevens, a cricketer? You still work at a bank, Scotia Bank, and he was denied. I'm sure the member from Cassius North will remember that. We stood up as youth leaders and cried that that must not happen in St. Lucia to go and represent the country in sports. And the member from I know he has a lot of sympathy for that and he will support me to amend the schedule to include persons travelling to represent St. Jaffer sports or youth groups, Madam Speaker, because there is an inclusion, Madam Speaker, listen to it. A person signified by a minister to be guest of the government is exempted. So all a minister has to say is that a person is a guest of the government and they are exempted from paying for development charge. But a young person going to represent St. Lucia is not included in here, Madam Speaker. You want specificity, yes. Greater specificity. So Madam Speaker, I ask that this be revised and at least be made to include some of the persons who bear the burden of representing St. Lucia. Madam Speaker, I'm open. I was open by now. I could come back to the point which I started on but has not for some reason the documents have not written. But Madam Speaker, the documents and I'm not going to cite them directly but I'll speak to them, Madam Speaker. Because in the documents that have been printed for circulation, there is a letter from the Attorney General of St. Lucia to the United States Government asking for assistance and making a claim that there are two persons of interest for committing specific crimes, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, that is very serious. Two persons identify Honourable Guy Joseph and a gentleman by the name of what's it, a censor. I'm not familiar with all the details, Madam Speaker. That is included there, a request from the Government of St. Lucia to the United States Justice Department, Madam Speaker. But that is very serious and shouldn't the Government issue a clear statement on this, Madam Speaker, to either deny that there is no authenticity to this letter, Madam Speaker, or to give an explanation and to say, look, everybody is innocent until proven guilty and therefore the Honourable Member, let us see how this unfolds. But then there's a second letter, Madam Speaker, from the U.S. Department of Justice saying that they have reviewed the request under DOSI and they believe there is probable cause. I mean, I've read it wrong Madam Speaker, but that's my understanding. So when a member from Antwerp countries asked me where is the evidence for you to be saying some of the things that you say you believe that's the evidence and Madam Speaker I was not going to go down that road I was going to stand up very free but he has pushed me over that line Madam Speaker, pushed me over that line. And then Madam Speaker there is a third letter Madam Speaker you may not be an honourable person but trust me I can speak about the issues without sharing it. I was not going to share it but I was going to speak about the overall picture Madam Speaker and there's a third letter Madam Speaker a third document that's filed in the courts Southern Florida Madam Speaker appointing a commissioner to obtain the evidence Madam Speaker now Madam Speaker Madam Speaker, I'm standing on a point of order 355 the member from Antwerp 355 the member has chosen to mention my name to call me by name citing some document that he is speaking about that we have no knowledge of the authenticity of this document Madam Speaker I'm not among those who make an issue about these things I can object I have chosen to place on record that the member is saying things that is imparting improper motive to me but that's not the issue for me Madam Speaker the issue is when I stand up to speak and I am free to cite anything that I want whether it be my thinking whether it be my reasoning whether it be my interpretation because he said he doesn't care if that's what it is saying that is his understanding and Madam Speaker we are setting a very bad precedent in this house on allowing members to impart such he knows somebody is innocent until proven guilty an investigation if there's an investigation there's an investigation are we drawing a conclusion and is he saying that it's in the court and if he is saying it is in the court then is it appropriate to debate it in the parliament when other people whose matters are before the court are being told that the matters cannot be debated and discussed so Madam Speaker I'm placing this on record not because I'm concerned about allegations of what is said but that the record can reflect what has happened and what is transpiring in this honorable house that when I tried to speak on certain subjects in the past I was told it's of Judike it's before the court so you're saying it's before the court it's all your interpretation it is all what you suppose it to be and you can just stand in the honorable parliament of St Lucia and make all your allegations so Madam Speaker I am placing this on the record and I'm saying that what the member for Kastri South is doing is imparting imputing improper motive and that he should refrain and withdraw the statements that includes my name Madam Speaker Honorable member for Kastri South your whole debate or discussion your presentation seems to be centered around an honorable member of this house now 355 no member shall impute improper motives to any other member of either chamber of the house and 2, no member shall refer to any other member by name you referred and members generally note that as well 356 no member shall refer to any other member by name your entire presentation is centered on one subject I'm speaking and I wish to say generally it is really amazing how members generally are in this house and fly all manners of accusation against each other all manners of accusation against each other and and when it suits them they smile they clap they take it for just and laugh it away and say it is Pekong where do we draw the line regarding the Pekongs in the house where do we draw the line with respect to Pekong where do we draw the line and I have said it before it has gotten out of control and it is a back and forth constantly of saying that when that one said that and when that one said that and when that one said that is the line going to be drawn is that line going to be drawn and honorable members do not realize they make it so difficult now to navigate because it is the lines there is no clear cut line it has become problematic it has it has become problematic and I will call again having regard to the rules of the standing order which binds you all in this house please stay within it and have respect one for the other in what we say and how we say what we see Madam Speaker I believe you are being... Madam Speaker I am standing on the point of order 355 I requested that the statements that the member for Casteries South made referring to me be withdrawn be struck off from the record because Madam Speaker I don't know I don't know that a member has a right to come to dishonorable house and say if he reads something that is how he interprets it and then imputes improper motive to say that there was some deal that went down Madam Speaker people can ask questions statements people can make statements but to impute improper motive in this manner the member has been on the case of statement made by talk show host I don't listen to talk show so I wouldn't know what statements are made and I am not interested in statements that are made people have to be able to substantiate in dishonorable house and if this house has come to the point where anything I have out there I can bring it out I can pull up my phone now Madam Speaker and I can read a number of statements people have sent to me to respond to the member for Casteries South and I can read them but Madam Speaker that is not what the debate of the house is about the debate of the house must be substantiated and when the accusations are made if I ever stand on my feet Madam Speaker and I make a statement and I am directed to prove what I am saying or I am challenged if I cannot I withdraw the statement I apologize and I move on when I make statements Madam Speaker if I am sitting here I may send something across to a member but when I am on my feet ask them how many times they have challenged me to prove what I am saying is that so Madam Speaker my point of order stands that the member for Casteries South cannot impute improper motive in this manner calling my name and saying that is how he interpreted it and it be allowed to go down in the records because once it's there after today it cannot be removed so it must be dealt with now and when he can substantiate his source of information then there can be other debates that he can come in and say this is what it is but Madam Speaker I think I have that right that every other parliamentarian in this honorable house has to be given the opportunity at the appropriate time when there is proper information to deal with the matters that have been raised Honourable Minister for Economic Planning I wish to respond to you accordingly and I wish to note also Honourable Member for Casteries South Honourable Member has cited that you impute improper motives to him regarding what you have said and he wants a withdrawal and I'm going to ask you to withdraw statement made imputing improper motives as regards and also there was a point made earlier by him that there was a reference to something in the south Florida courts or something if it is in the south Florida courts or whatever that we have no knowledge about and if it is in the courts it is subjudickey now the Member is saying he does not know anything about matters being in the Florida courts against him okay now your assertions I mean these are not just these are not just may pick on but I'm sure you would understand that these go serious to one's integrity and a Member's standing so I really think it is you are going down a thin line and improper will not allow unless unless you can prove what it is you are saying and it cannot be that this is what you believe it cannot be this is what you believe or this is what is reasonably held by yourself regarding those very serious allegations okay Madam Speaker just help me out what are the comments that I said what are the comments that impute improper motives can you just say what the Speaker she asked me but I do what comments Madam Speaker just help me out let's forget the noise for now Madam Speaker Madam Speaker what did I say and the honourable Member from kind of assist me to make that I impute improper motives let me understand exactly what it is that I am truth be told I would like the honourable Member to actually give clarity and be and be specific as to what what were the statements made that fell foul of of five let's let's deal with it specifically Madam Speaker the Member from the time he started and as you indicated he said he was walking the borderline or you said he was walking borderline the Member for Ansler Ray Conneries raised a couple of objections don't worry about opening the door we don't need the door open the Member for Ansler Ray Conneries south has been going down the road of he made reference to what a talk show host has been saying he's made reference I will tell you what the talk show host say in time and I will tell you what's on my phone in time further Madam Speaker the Member has further indicated that there are matters in a court in Florida and then he cited my name and another individual's name imputing that there is some fraudulent activity that has taken place and it's in the process of investigation and it is before the court now Madam Speaker if that is not imputing improper motive to a fellow member of the house then I don't know what is so I don't know whether the Member want us to replay the tip of what he said to delete what needs to be deleted but Madam Speaker the entire last five minutes of the Member's presentation has been in relation now I would not say anything if he had not called my name but from the time he said Guy Joseph everything that preceded that and everything that came after that imputes improper motive to Guy Joseph for something and Madam Speaker the most striking thing about what he said is he read a letter and then that is he is not sure that's what the letter I said but that is his interpretation that is how he understands it Madam Speaker that all of these statements needs to be withdrawn so Madam Speaker let's listen to this this is becoming almost like a circus Madam Speaker I said Madam Speaker that the first document and we had in an exchange Madam Speaker Madam Speaker I said Madam Speaker that the first document was a letter from the Saint Lucia to the General to the US Department of Justice let's follow it Madam Speaker where I am imputing improper motives because Madam Speaker you are a lawyer and you know what it is to impute improper motives so Madam Speaker I said do not bring me into the debate Madam Speaker I sit here as Madam Speaker not an attorney well okay Madam Speaker you're the presiding officer and you interpret this and in order so help me understand what's improper motive Madam Speaker this letter was a letter from the Saint Lucia to the General to the US Department of Justice in that letter Madam Speaker they made reference to two individuals and I named the two individuals is that improprietive all I am saying is that the letter named two individuals I then went on to explain Madam Speaker that the US Department of Justice wrote Madam Speaker indicating that they believe having assessed the dossier that there was probable cause and there was a reason to to the request by Saint Lucia and that in itself is where the danger is to the request that's improprietive that is where the danger lie Madam Speaker I didn't see where you have then asserted you have then asserted that the letter then says that there is probable cause Madam Speaker the letter says that but Madam Speaker let's move on Madam Speaker Madam Speaker on a point of order point of order 41 standing order 41 Madam Speaker I have sat here for a very long time listening to the member for Kashmir South argue on the ruling of the speaker order when clearly standing order 41 states that there should be no appeal or review on the ruling of the speaker of the House and it happens time and time again and it goes on and on the member needs to know his place he is not the presiding officer in the House Thank you Honourable Minister and my mic is on and I will again say herein lies my difficulty and y'all I'm here make it very challenging my job extremely challenging more challenging that it's supposed to be I rule on something it is challenged another member picks it up another one picks it up another one picks it up so from now I will choose to ignore and say that I have rule let us move on once I've said that it is final now Honourable now Honourable member for Kashmir South I will repeat that y'all very words and you're reading a document that no one has access to and I started out by saying the veracity of that document cannot be substantiated and you're reading and you continue to read and now you've said you're up to three letters now you said something about unless you said something about the Florida court Madam Speaker of all due respect Madam Speaker and I've been very Madam Speaker of all due respect I did not say there was a court I want to hear the clarification on that because unless I'm hearing wrongly there was something said about the Florida court Madam Speaker there is a difference between saying there is something said about the Florida court and I'm saying that there is a court case I said Madam Speaker there is a letter written to the court in to appoint a commissioner to gather the evidence I did not say there was a court case larger against the Honourable member but Madam Speaker let's make life easy can I move on and you rule if you rule to strike it out from answer that's fine Madam Speaker because Madam Speaker we live in an age of technology I always remember that but Madam Speaker you rule we live in an age of technology I will say that the member has made a point that you're imputing improper motives and let that be struck off the records Thank you very much Madam Speaker I'm not the one who does this I can also... Honourable member please take this Thank you some time ago I intimated here that I will abide strictly by rules and I will ask you to leave the chamber and every time a phone a cell phone since my ruling has rung in this house it is by a stranger of the Honourable member I will ask you to leave the chamber and every time a cell phone since my ruling has rung in this house by a stranger of the Honourable House of Assembly at the time and it has come from these two corners it has come from these two corners and not from members on the floor so I take strong objection to the sucking of your teeth because I've asked for your phone Honourable member for Castries South please proceed Thank you Madam Speaker we took a long time to get here Madam Speaker Madam Speaker schedule to end at 18 minutes past 9 we will add 20 minutes on to that clock Thank you very much Madam Speaker but Madam Speaker let me say you've been very unfair to me Madam Speaker in this presentation first of all Madam Speaker Honourable members I have a right as an elected member to express my views I am not challenging you Madam Speaker I am expressing the opinion of you I have described my presentation has been entirely centred on the urban member it's not entirely correct I have cited the contents of the bill I have spoken about the PPP model and one aspect of it had to relate to the previous experience that we had so Madam Speaker I feel it's been a little unfair to describe my presentation Madam Speaker on a point of order once again Madam Speaker on a point of order Madam Speaker on a point of order 41 there's no point of order 41 you all want to take over the house or what the standing orders Madam Speaker when I stand on a point of order you shut up yes no that is unparliamentary honourable minister yes Madam Speaker my apologies I just wanted to point out to the member for Kastri's east and Kastri's south that when a member stands on a point of order that's right Madam Speaker a point of order 41 standing order 41 I would like to read for the benefit of the member of Kastri's south Madam Speaker that the speaker in the house and chairman in a committee shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order of the house and committee respectively and their decision upon any point of order shall not be open and shall not be reviewed by the house Madam Speaker again and again the member keeps questioning your rulings and he's telling you that your ruling is unfair that is out of order and you should ask him this is from doing so Honourable member for Kastri's south what the Honourable Minister said is very correct I don't know whether you do it deliberately or whether you're not even aware that you do it but it's almost constant and I would ask that you desise from doing so the fact that when I make a ruling you are not pleased with it and you stand up and say that you're not pleased with it that in itself is out of order I am letting you know can we please proceed Madam Speaker I can still afford to laugh and see the lighter side of such Madam Speaker you know but it will not deter me Madam Speaker it will not deter me from making the point that I have to make Madam Speaker and even if I am told to shut up and know my place Madam Speaker I will still speak in this house Madam Speaker because the people of St. Lucia want us to ask those questions and we will not shy from it Madam Speaker and if I say that I am treated unfair that that means something so wrong Madam Speaker I apologise to you if I offended you Madam Speaker but I know you've had a long day Madam Speaker I know you've had a long day but it's going to get even longer Madam Speaker so Madam Speaker I was making the point about the previous experience with the airport development Madam Speaker and all the allegations that were made about that previous experience Madam Speaker and I made reference to what a particular talk show who said Madam Speaker and I asked a simple question Madam Speaker is it right for us to abandon the PPP model is it right for us to abandon a reputable agency like the World Bank and the IFC is it right for us to abandon an arrangement where we did not have to borrow 150 million US dollars Madam Speaker and instead we would earn revenue and is it right for us to abandon all of that and for us to go back in an arrangement where we were borrowing 150 million dollars and I asked that question Madam Speaker and Madam Speaker I had made the point that the previous experience was tainted Madam Speaker it was tainted and Madam Speaker I am asking the question a more important question if the previous experience was tainted the compelling logic was that we should not abandon what was in the best interest of St. Lucia Madam Speaker sorry