Senators, when the House last rose, the question is that Parliament authorizes the Minister responsible for finance to borrow EC $25 million by way of credit. In this resolution, referred to as the credit from the Bank of St. Lucian Limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget, be it fully resolved that, A, interest on the principal amount of the credit is repayable at a rate of 6 percent per annum and be the principal amount of the credit is repayable in the amount of EC $210,964.21 per month, inclusive of interest for 180 months. Minister for Health. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am just providing some elucidation to our fellow Senators in terms of some of the issues that they raised. Senator Henry mentioned that our Prime Minister said that he will make St. Lucian's self safe again, and he feels that this is a violation. And I sort of ask myself, how can somebody feel a Prime Minister making a nation safe can be a violation in any kind of way? But I just want to assure the Honorable Senator that it is the intention of our Prime Minister and his Cabinet to make St. Lucian's safe. And of course, pronouncements like that, when one makes pronouncements like that, especially the Prime Minister of the country, I believe the Honours is on us to hold him to it. So I would not in the first instance doubt what he has said or his intentions. Instead, I would prefer to hold him to that claim. Senator Ferdinand, of course, I have to concur with a lot of the issues that he has raised. And of course, we may well be in a similar position in that we are both newcomers in terms of the politics and of course the mess that we have inherited we did not create. So I understand the sentiments that he's expressing in terms of the education system in St. Lucia. It is in a total mess. We, of course, came into office and found it that way. We are working very, very hard to try and resolve some of those issues. As you are well aware, when we came on board, Sir Arthur Lewis Community College was in total disarray. The structure that housed that college is in decay. The programs, of course, need to be revamped. There were all kinds of issues. And this is what has led us to move to the George Charles facility and move the children out of George Charles to the Marigold Secondary School, of course as a temporary measure. So I am just indicating to you that we are working on these issues. They are not issues that are easy to resolve. And this is why I suspect the former regime could not resolve them, although they were there so much longer than us. So and as a principal, you as a principal, I understand the care and your sentiments when it comes to our education system. So I really have to stand here and sympathize with you, knowing what it is that we have inherited. You touch on some very sensitive sports for me. When you speak about special needs, I have been lamenting for years in St. Lucia that our special, we do not have a comprehensive special needs program for students, for kids. So much so that our special needs children have nowhere to go past the age of 13, 14, 15. We have the Donata School, which for a long time needed assistance. And I find that was very long in coming. We have the Lady Gordon Opportunity Center. And up to last week, when we came in, the playing field had been destroyed by the Christmas Eve truck or I don't know if it is the hurricane prior to that. And that playing field, the children couldn't use the playing field. So the mayor of Castries has moved to fix up the wall that had collapsed that was preventing the children from using the playing field. So I said is just to show you how a lot of these very few facilities that we have for special needs children are again neglected. And I do not know if it is because we are so insensitive to the needs of our special needs persons in St. Lucia. Oftentimes we see in the mental health system where these special needs people end up in our mental institution. And I really do not know how that continues to happen and nobody pays any attention to that. So we as a government has started the dialogue on addressing some of the gaps in the mental wellness system. And this is why I'm saying some of these workshops that I have been on some of these conferences and everything. And I think throughout the world, they are looking towards moving in the direction of community mental wellness. Because most of the countries have realized that this institutional institutionalization of persons with mental illness is really not working. So the recommendation now is to move to community mental wellness. And our prime minister is of course very, very supportive of any initiative along that direction. So it is now for the Ministry of Health to put the necessary plans and strategies in place to address those issues because I know that the prime minister is going to welcome all of those plans for the country. Now I also need to inform you that Senator Ferdinand, that people do not pay for dialysis at Victoria Hospital and St. Jude's for the most part. If somebody of course want to do need something, we accept it. But the majority of people who are on dialysis, and I say the majority, a lot of people who can't pay their way, most of them are utilized up in your hospital and so on. But the majority of our people at Victoria Hospital, they are not able to afford the dialysis. So that is given to them free of charge. We also have an assistance program where we assist four people, people who are not working, to access health care. Of course we would like to be able to do a lot more because we are of course running, of course, usually over the budget that we are given because we have so many people coming to us for medical assistance. And this is why now the majority of countries in the world is realizing now the emphasis should be on preventative care as opposed to governments carrying the burden of the health care bill because it really is unsustainable. So I just wanted to elucidate you a little bit on some of the good things that this government is looking at and has decided to embrace in a very real way. So I am begging for your patience, for the patience and indulgence of the people of St. Lucia while we try to address these issues, these health care issues. And this is why I spoke about the medical insurance, the national medical insurance plan because what you find is a lot of the people who really need the care cannot afford it. But then the lifestyle, we have to look at lifestyle and we have to look at changing our lifestyle because the burden belongs to every one of us, not just governments. Thank you, Mr. President. Leader of government business. Mr. President, I would just respond to a few concerns that Senator Ferdinand brought up and the first that I want to respond to Mr. President, but before I do so, I just need to remind the Senate and the general public that the theme for our campaign, last campaign, was change. And change is something most times, Mr. President, that people tend not to accept. Especially, Mr. President, when things are when they are used to doing things the same way over and over again. So when change comes, Mr. President, nobody wants change. I say this to say, Mr. President, because this government realizes that if we are to move beyond where we are, we must be creative. Creative in the sense, Mr. President, understanding the global environment in which we live, the global economic environment. And if we have to move forward, Mr. President, we must change. We must be creative in our thinking. Our policies must reflect change. And change come out, your change come as a result, Mr. President, of where you want to go. The vision that you have. And we realize, Mr. President, that it cannot be business as usual. So this administration, Mr. President, has embarked on a number of creative thinking policies. And one of which, Mr. President, is that of the IBC, International Business Corporation. And I know Senates of Food made mention of headquarters and stuff like that. Spending money into building headquarters and blah, blah, blah. Mr. President, the IBC Act or legislation is not new to St. Lucia. It's not new. You're right. I didn't say, you didn't say blah, blah, blah. It's just our local language and et cetera, et cetera. Again, it's interpretation. The IBC legislation, Mr. President, is not new. And in the past, what we, the way this legislation used to work was that international businesses used to register in St. Lucia, of course, for the gain of income tax and so on. But we realized, Mr. President, that this legislation could be modified to give us some advantage. And what do I mean by that, Mr. President? We made some changes to it, Mr. President, to allow not just a business being registered on paper in St. Lucia, but having the headquarters. So we created a portfolio of incentives to attract the physical headquarters of these corporations in St. Lucia. Now, Mr. President, I have heard many times that the government gives given incentives given away, given away stuff. Mr. President, what are we giving away? If we are saying that we will provide you with these incentives, should you come in, there is nothing we're giving away, Mr. President. We are just making investment more attractive to St. Lucia. Because without the incentives, Mr. President, headquarters will not be coming to St. Lucia. Now, what are the advantages of that, Mr. President, of such piece of legislation? If you have corporations having headquarters in St. Lucia, it means that people are coming to St. Lucia. Not just coming, but coming to work, coming to live, coming to rent, coming to buy stuff, coming to consume. And all of these activities, Mr. President, is good for the economy. Just imagine, Mr. President, that we just have 20, just 20, 20 huge headquarters in St. Lucia, international businesses in St. Lucia. Do you know what that can, the effect this can have on the rental, on rental in St. Lucia? Just imagine the spillover effect, Mr. President, the multiply effect of such. So I'm saying this to say, Mr. President, that this is just one of the creative ways that the government has undertaken to attract investment, to attract economic activity, to school economic activity in St. Lucia. So if you have more private individuals or individuals building more rental homes, it means that my fellow colleague and others in his area, construction and supplies will benefit. More employment is just a multiplicity of economic activities. Just this one piece of legislation. Also, Mr. President, we came in and we found a piece of legislation, the CIP. We came and we found it. And we are saying the way we found it, Mr. President, would not have made St. Lucia competitive. Now, the senator, Senator Furrigan, he raised the issue about we going to borrow $40 million at 6%. And while doing so, we are offering 2% for investors. Mr. President, the CIP funds will also be accessible to the government of St. Lucia, not just the foreign investors. And the creativity, Mr. President, with this piece or that clause in the CIP legislation is again attracting investors to our shores. Without the 2%, most likely they will not be here. With the 2%, they will be here. And when they come and invest, the benefits are just great, will be great. Again, change, creativity. Also, Mr. President, the member, the Senator Furrigan made mention about the education system. And of course, he'll appreciate very well, I mean very much so, the educational system. He understands it more than us here or anybody here in the House, in the Senate, because he was a school principal. But Mr. President, we always emphasize, in fact, my government always emphasize the fact that the educational, the education system is not just the physical school or the infrastructure, the physical infrastructure. It also involves the curriculum. For example, Mr. President, when we came into government, we had 30 million US dollars, in fact, there was 30 million US dollars approved by the CDB to renovate five schools, 30 million dollars US, approximately 80 million EC dollars to renovate five schools. And the question was asked by the Prime Minister, what will be different? What will be different? Is it just the regular renovation of schools or what drives that renovation? Is there a vision, is there a curriculum that you have in mind that will guide the construction or the design of that new school? And the answer was no. The answer was no. So it's not like, Mr. President, we are neglecting the renovation of schools. And no government should ever neglect the renovation of schools. All we are saying is that with the renovation, with the renovation, let's work together simultaneously, let us improve on the curriculum. Because as I said earlier, the world around us has changed and so must our school curriculum. Mr. President, the senator also asked about the use of the 40 million dollars that we are here seeking authority for to borrow. Well, broadly speaking, and based on the resolution, it says for capital. Now, I know he wants more detailed information about the capital, but this has never been the practice in the lower or upper house. Okay, number one. Number two, as I said earlier to the independent Senator Ujie, that in the event that any member wants detailed information, Standing Order Number 15 provides for the process. And any information you need, detailed information you need from this government will endeavor to provide you such information as long as you stick to the process as outlined in Standing Order Number 15. And just lastly, Mr. President, not very serious, but the member, Senator Ferdinand, apparently because there has been a misinterpretation, maybe deliberately so, of barking dogs, apparently he doesn't want us to use this anymore in the house. I don't know why we shouldn't use it, Mr. President, because it's a metaphor. And it was, you know, you cannot take a good thing, you cannot take a good thing, interpret it badly and saying you should never use it again. These are metaphors. And by the way, Mr. President, we did not use the Prime Minister never use barking dogs in the house. It was interpreted as mischievously like he used it in the house. A question was asked by the press, the communications director at a press conference. Mr.  And the Prime Minister said it's not every barking dog that barks you have to answer. But never call somebody barking dog. Mr. Senator, I don't think anyone has an issue with the use of metaphor. The use of the metaphor must be such that you do not give the impression or the perception that you call in anyone to use your metaphor, a dog. Okay? So that is, I think that's the only issue here. It's not that you cannot use your metaphors, because we know that they are part of our English language and we can all use it. But what we're saying or what is, I think, the temp was is to not use it in such a way that to give that impression. Okay? That's Mr. President, if I had understood the way that you explained it to me here, I would not have been trying to explain it right now. My interpretation was like he was saying, don't use this in the house. That was my interpretation. And I'm saying it is not right to ask for such, because we should not do it with metaphors, especially if the metaphor is not calling somebody something that is derogatory. Okay? Mr. President, with these three words, I take my seat. On noble senators, the question is that parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow EC $25 million by way of credit. In this resolution, credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from the bank of solution limited for capital expenditure to finance the 2017-2018 budget. B, it would have resolved that a, interest in the principal amount of the credit is repayable at the rate of 6% per annum. And B, the principal amount of the credit is repayable in the amount of EC $210,964.21 per month, inclusive of interest for 180 months. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, C.I., as many as are of the country. Opinion C, no. I think the high is out of it. The high is out of it. Leader of government business? Mr. President, I beg to move the following motion, standing in my name, finance administration act resolution of parliament to borrow for capital expenditure, solution disaster of vulnerability reduction project. Whereas it is provided by section 39.1 of the finance administration act capped 15-01 that the minister responsible for finance may by resolution of parliament borrow money from a bank or other financial institution for the capital expenditure of government. And whereas it is further provided by section 42.1 of the finance administration act capped 15-01 that there shall be charge upon and paid out of the consolidated fund, debt charges for which the government is liable. And whereas the minister responsible for finance considers it necessary to borrow an amount equivalent to US$1,620,000,000 by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit. From the International Development Association to finance the solution disaster vulnerability reduction project. And whereas the maximum commitment charge rate payable on the un-withdrawing financing balance is 1.5 of 1% per annum. And whereas a service charge is payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of A, the sum of 3.4 of 1% per annum plus the basis adjustment and B, 3.4 of 1% per annum. And whereas the principal amount of the credit is repayable on each 15th of May and 15th day of November. Commencing on the 15th day of May 2027 too and including the 15th day of November 2036 at a rate of 1%. And commencing on the 15th day of May 2037 too and including the 15th day of November 2056 at a rate of 2%. Bit resolved that parliament of the rises the minister responsible for finance to borrow an amount equivalent to US$1,620,000 by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit. From the International Development Association to finance the St. Lucia disaster vulnerability reduction project. Bit further resolved that A, the maximum commitment charge rate payable on the un-withdrawing financing balance is 1.5 of 1% per annum. B, a service charge is payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of 1, the sum of 3.4 of 1% per annum plus the basis adjustment and 2, 3.4 of 1% per annum. And C, the principal amount of the credit is repairable on each 15th day of May and 15th day of November. Commencing on the 15th day of May 2027 too and including the 15th day of November 2036 at the rate of 1%. And commencing on the 15th day of May 2037 too and including the 15th day of November 2056 at the rate of 2%. Mr. President, it is no secret that we in the region including St. Lucia are in a very vulnerable geographic location. If we ever doubted such Mr. President, the category five hurricanes that passed through the region in the last few weeks clearly brought to our attention the importance of reducing our vulnerability to natural disasters. We may not be able to prevent it Mr. President, in fact we cannot prevent them from coming. But we as a country, we as a government can help to reduce the impact that such disasters can have on our infrastructure. For Mr. President, if we do not undertake these preemptive measures, it would be costly in the long run. Our economies Mr. President, not just in St. Lucia but throughout the Caribbean, rely heavily on agriculture and tourism. It means that Mr. President, not if but when a natural disaster hits the shores. Not if but when. We want to ensure that the recovery, our recovery, is quick. Not reconstruction but recovery. And Mr. President, you can achieve quick recovery if you have solid infrastructure. Because if our roads are damaged, if our airports are damaged, if our schools are damaged when we have natural disasters Mr. President, the recovery could take even longer. So in the wisdom of this administration and even the previous administration, they saw the need for approaching this institution to help reduce the vulnerability on our infrastructure. Mr. President, it was not too long ago. I think it was like three weeks ago there about that I was part of a delegation that went to the IMF World Bank meetings. And of course, that's an annual meeting or not really annual. You have two meetings, one in the spring and one in the fall. And time and time again Mr. President, the area of focus changes depending on what is, I would say, popular or relevant. And of course, it did not take us by surprise, Mr. President, that the hot topic, in fact the main topic of that meeting was about disaster, vulnerabilities, climate change, climate adaptability. I wasn't surprised, Mr. President. I wasn't surprised. But Mr. President, we as a Caribbean bloc, we went with one voice, one voice. And we were basically saying to the authorities that we are vulnerable. Time and time again, natural disasters have cost us millions of dollars. And I recall Thomas very vividly, Mr. President, that a loss and damage assessment that was done. It was close in the region of 900 million dollars, 900 million dollars. And at the time I think our GDP but our budget was about 1.3 million dollars. So just about 400 million dollars short of our national budget. The damage and loss assessment, 900 million dollars. So we can have a vibrant economy today. And in just one day, we could just be totally destroyed. And of course, Dominica is such an example. And the BVI. Mr. President, I am happy that we are able to access at low, very reasonable, very long periods, very long maturity period at very low interest rates. A remarkable concessionary rate, Mr. President, to undertake such an important project. And Mr. President, I recall also at that meeting, the IMF World Bank meetings, that we were lamenting the fact that over the years we have graduated, in fact they have graduated us to middle and upper income economies. And because of that, Mr. President, concessionary lending or borrowing rather, from these institutions have become more difficult, more difficult. So there was an upcry by the heads of the, of Caricom and the Caribbean Islands in general to revisit this graduation. It was only yesterday the prime minister of the records said to us that apparently our cries have been heard. Our cries were heard and there is that revisiting of our states from middle income to something lower. Which is better, Mr. President, much better for us. Because Mr. President, you would go to these meetings and you would hear that there are millions of dollars available. There are many funds available to vulnerable states like St. Lucia. But the problem that we always encounter is the access to these funds. Access to these funds. And what most times impedes that access is our middle income status. And I recall very clearly, Mr. President, that the prime minister of Antigua in our caucus, he said that not necessarily, it's not necessarily the rates of interest that we are concerned about for the general terms. The general terms. That is, Mr. President, that today you may face these international institutions, take a loan of an ability reduction loan, a loan to build a bridge, and so on. And tomorrow that same bridge that you borrow money for gets destroyed. What do you do? What happens? You have to borrow money on top of that borrowed funds to build that very same bridge. So we were crying out and saying, Mr. President, that part of the terms of the loans that we sign up to, we need some moratorium after disaster. So if I go to the World Bank or IMF to get some monies to build a bridge, the bridge destroyed, give me 10 years before I actually start paying on that loan, because I need another loan to build that very same bridge. So not necessarily the rates, but the terms. So Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are here today to borrow this important project called the Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project. Thank you. Senator, the question is that parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow an amount equivalent to U.S. $1,620,000 by way of credit in this resolution referred to as the credit from the International Development Association to finance the San Lucia Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project. For the resolve that A, the maximum commitment charge rate payable on withdrawn financing balance is one half of 1 percent per annum. B, a service charge is payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of one, the sum of free forks of 1 percent per annum plus the basis adjustment. And two, free forks of 1 percent per annum. And C, the principal amount of the credit is repayable on each 15th day of May and 15th day of November 1, commencing on the 15th day of May 2027. Two, and including the 15th day of November 2046 at the rate of 1 percent. And two, commencing on 15th day of May 2047. Two, and including the 15th day of November 2056 at the rate of 2 percent. Leader of opposition business, Senator Joachim Henry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. At the extremely brief, since most of what I've had to contribute to this, the motion of borrowing I've said it before, but permit me, Mr. President, to just make a few points with the summary overtures that has been made by the leader of government business. And that I, one of it is the issue of questions before formal questions. And I listened to the discussion in the lower house of that same statement being made that provision is made in the standing orders on the section 15 for formal questions to be placed before the house. And of course it's a provision that media opposition decide to make use of. And of course it would only lend to the quality of the bit and information sharing within the parliament. Notwithstanding, I believe it is the responsibility of the government to volunteer information as they have it and should not rely necessarily on the opposition formally asking questions. If you are a bearer of good news, you would always want to share such news with the general public. And I dare ask the government side that if that they should not depend or wait on a formal question being asked for them to volunteer such good news that they have to present to the people of this country, if I suspect it is good. And that suggests, it suggests that I listened in the manner of debating, some questions are rhetorical and don't have to answer. In fact, I think most questions are asked during the course of the debate hardly have answered. And of course the both sides have the prerogative to choose to answer, not to answer or to try to answer the best within their own ability and knowledge that they have. When it comes to formal questions, it's different. But if specific information, the government has specific information as it relates to the performance of the economy as he has provided some guidance in terms of the reporting mechanism quarterly or biannually on the performance, that is welcome. But in addition to this, I think a bearer of good news should volunteer such good news. I also wish to add to this that I once placed, and not to in any way insinuate that the member on this side is not serious concerning the issue of formal questions, but I once came before this house and placed a formal question before the Senate, and that has yet to be answered. As a matter of fact, it was not answered. So again, the member on this side is aware that a formal question was placed before this house. And some months ago, and it was not answered and no attempt has been made to answer a specific question relating to the terms of reference that led to the audit of the St. Jude Hospital. So it is evident that the issue on the attitude towards answering questions, I'm not saying that is not consistent, but I would hope at the opportune time that the member of government business would use the opportunity to bring this back to this honorable house and provide answer through you, Mr. President. And I'm sure the distinguished president would allow this to happen consistent with the rules of this house understanding all this. Well, of course, and as a point of making, if I should not force or cause on this side to answer questions if we are part of a debate and we collectively are responsible to account to the people. And I think in as much as there's provision made within the standing orders to ask questions, I think it is the responsibility of the government in power to volunteer information through this house to the people of St. Lucia and should not be forced through the standing orders of this house. Mr. President, I also need to you know respond to some extent to the question being made about the government of the Labor Party left this country in a mess. The word a mess have been used over and over. I have no basis within the standing orders to ask for the members and decide to be more specific. But I think it would be to be disingenuous to suggest that the same side of the spoke about the challenges, the approach, collective approach to getting loans. They've made the point that on the international scene, we are not dealt with as a government, we're dealt with as a country. And then the effects certain pronouncement can have on the business of this country. And to consistently say that the former administration left this country in a mess, I'm wondering to what extent that this could be very well affecting how external donors react to this administration when they go to borrow. Because in the business of borrowing, you look at you have to do a risk analysis. And if you're suggesting that this country is at risk from one administration to the next, your cost of borrowing would be higher. I suspect when this administration leaves the show of solution venture to the business, I think they are saying otherwise. Because the position of this economy upon they taking office based on pronouncement made in writings by the IMF suggests otherwise. There were signs of recovery and we understood and made difficult decision because we had to make difficult decision and we did it to the benefit of this administration. So you are happy to come and find a country where now there's that. You didn't have the guts to put that. But as evil as you said it was or you agree that it was oppressive, you said that you would reduce it and remove it entirely. But that sits to be removed from your narrative. You no longer saying that you would reduce it and then you would replace it with something better. I think you could choose to forget everything that you have said on the campaign trail and some other things. But Hansard is there on one of these days. I will select the specific quotations made by this side of the house as it relates to that and some of the tax regime that exists. Again the point was made on this matter of borrowing of the vulnerability of this country. And I will speak more about the issue of risk and the issue of procurement when we move into the bills. But Mr. President, for anybody who is into the business of infrastructure development, whether you are quantity severe like myself or an engineer or an architect, if you are related to this field, you would understand that a significant part of infrastructure is what you call the maintenance component. And the issue of whole life costing is a discussion that we must have in this house. Because it's easy to say that you will go to the bank and loan $10 million and build a bridge. Or $80 million and build a Rosu Dam. But what is the cost of maintaining the dam? It might cost you $80 million to build a dam and $5 million annually to maintain it. Multiply the life of the dam might be 40 years. If you multiply 40 years by $5 million, this is $150 million in the life of the dam to maintain. But whereas you spend only $80 million to construct it, the issue of whole life costing, owning and operating assets and infrastructure is a serious discussion. And that is why some of the more developed countries have moved away from government, constructing and owning these assets. That is why the issue of the bold, built-on lease and transfer, concession contracts, public-private partnerships, PFI's, public-private finance initiatives, and all the various concession contracts have made it into the world that the developing countries have moved away from the public sector looking for money to do things. During my time in the public service for 25 years and participating in the BNTF program over the years, basic need trust fund, every time we went to, right now we are on BNTF cycle nine. This program, the BNTF program, has been in Central Asia for the past 30-something years. Basic need trust fund, responsible primarily for basic needs, access, water, mainly. They spend some money in the education sector. It has been said that every time we go back to BNTF to implement programs, we usually spend, use monies to maintain what they have already spent, what they have built in the past. Hardly ever you find the opportunity to construct a new road because we continue to maintain because we do not have monies in our budget to maintain our existing roads. Have you seen the state of our roads? Of course. So we are challenged not by just this country, by the region, because the 10 borrowing member countries of the Caribbean Development Bank are singing from the same hymn book. That is the reality. So when I'm speaking, I'm not speaking just from a St. Lucia standpoint, because we tend to believe that the politics in this country only resonate in this parliament, but there's a regional context and there's an international context of our politics. So the islands in the region, in this part of the region are challenged by maintaining our infrastructure, our roads, our schools. We are challenged. But this government came in on the verge of chastising the last administration for saying monies putting the budget for maintaining schools that was inadequate, inadequate. And what they did in their budget, they have put less, woefully less. That's what's in the budget. So you take the budget of the Labour Party and you look at the amount, and using that as an example, the amount allocated from school maintenance, it is more than what was allocated in this budget. Why? Because you do not have the fiscal space to man over and then you are prioritising. So don't say that the last administration left this thing in a mess. Your priorities are probably different and you are speaking of programs that are just continuing. The DVRP project in terms of disaster risk, vulnerability reducing risk, and making us more resilient. I am suggesting that it's one of the things that I've never had an opportunity to participate in, in the broader discussion. But I think it's something that needs some serious discussion because sometimes when we invest on sub-projects, enough is not considered. Especially when the main consideration for an infrastructure project is influenced by the political sensitivities. And it doesn't take into consideration the other important factors for our special development and the issue of risk and other vulnerabilities. So sometimes we spend money and as soon as it rains, of course we're not surprised that it will be wiped away because consideration, we didn't take enough consideration as to we should not have invested the money's head now because upstream we should have done something that sort of thing. So there are a lot of discussion and I would hope, I would hope and I'm not here to just criticize and I'm not criticizing, I'm supporting initiatives as we move on with the business of this country. I'm supporting these initiatives because I have to we cannot switch off the life of this country and stop everything that's going on. Of course you have to continue but it was to not make the statement because St. Lucians do not believe what you're saying. They say that is just political terms. Oh yes, they left it in a mess and we come in there and we're trying to get it back on its feet and this sort of thing. They have heard such statements before many years ago and the pendulum perpetually swings from one side to the next. So that's not necessary. It's absolutely not necessary because people do not believe that. Finally, finally, I'm still making this very important point. Vulnerability index, index, indices as it relates to our per capita income and the indices as it relates to corruption and leakage in our finances. It was the prime minister who said yesterday as it relates to our water sector, 50% of our water we cannot account for it through leakages, through maybe spaghetti pipes and water. I believe that the issue of corruption in the region in the borrowing member countries of the city of the Caribbean Development Bank and how we do business can reduce or cause significantly or allow us to manage our fiscal space a lot better. And one area that we could look closely when it comes to corruption is that of procurement. Let us look at the traditional approach of doing business in the past where you hire the architect and he designs the building, you prepare bill of quantities and you invite persons to tend the traditional approach. Let us look at the other forms of contract that is being used, the government's forms of contract. Let us look at also the issues of how we deal with the private partnerships and see where there are benefits. That instead of looking for monies to do certain infrastructure within your economy, are there benefits or advantages in getting a concession to finance, to own and to operate and to transfer over 40 years when you are better able to maintain. Because based on the pronouncement of the leader of government business, he made a statement that when a storm comes again, you can hardly ever recover because you have lost your infrastructure. That is important. But can you imagine that you built an infrastructure that is supposed to last 40 years and I saw the dam in Puerto Rico, I think it is in Puerto Rico, was threatening almost an entire settlement because the hurricane went through and not that it significantly affected the dam. Can you imagine that your dam or major infrastructure is failing as a result of a hurricane and look at the impact of that dam failing, you have to relocate an entire city or an entire village and settlement of people. If that dam is owned by the government, then the government need to come up with money to fix it, like he said. But what's about if it was a concession contract where the dam was owned by a concessionaire for 40 years who built, operate and exploited for it to be paid back and to return it during that 40 years, the risk has been transferred to the concessionaire. And this is why when we get to the issue of discussing the effort, taxes, Mr. President, I will state why there was wisdom in approaching a major infrastructure undertaking that would cost half a billion dollars, 50% of your national budget through a concession contract than to ask for a contractor to do it under the traditional approach of building construction and expose yourself to on the risk of the construction, risk of design, risk of operating, and risk of maintaining. And the risk associated with owning risk analysis is a serious consideration in modern day's business.  What risk is it? What risk are you to the insurance company? How often you have had accidents in community resilience and having a more resilient society? The approach to how we procure infrastructure is a significant consideration. How you buy it. Do you go in town and buy it with your own money? Or do you send someone to buy it or own it and transfer it with you? The issue of resilience, importantly, this country and the region must pay attention to corruption. And when I speak of corruption, I want, I'm not speaking it in terms of, and I don't want persons to get like I'm asking for crooks and I'm talking about processes and procedures that inadvertently lead to wastage, not adhering to proper rules and procedures, violation of correct procedures. You understand, these are, and I'm not sticking off my head, I am sure that as the leader of government business have ventured into the corridors of the IMF, the World Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank, the issue of corruption as an index in business is real and it is being discussed. But there are some things that we do not have, sometimes the political courage or the way we fall to maneuver and to face it head on. True change will only come to this country if we can stomach and face what is real and what is true for true change will not come across if you just label and say, they left the country in a mess and then you're trying to buy and weave your conversation through the minds of those who cannot or would not consider everything properly. Mr. President, I wish to rest my case on this motion and I support and I know this side of the house, we do support these initiatives as it needs to reduce in our vulnerability, but let's, we need to step up this game. We need to get into the rigors and into the activities that would lead us to have in having true resilience as we continue to develop this country, but correcting mistakes we have made in the past and move to a higher ground so that we could have true resilience. Thank you. Minister and Ministry of Equity, Social Justice, Empowerment, Youth Development, Sports, Culture and Local Government. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I listened to the opposition leader and I was a little baffled because I would have thought that perhaps if his team had done the risk analysis, they would not have been in opposition today. And we are here because Mr. President, the people of this country decided that they didn't have the confidence in the previous administration so they voted for this team which has been able to achieve just a few simple things to set the tone right in our relationship. So, Mr. President, in the last year we've seen a tremendous amount of work being undertaken in some of the key sectors of our economy. Focus on doing what? Building confidence. Building confidence because the country, people had lost confidence in the systems, they had lost confidence in the government and we must put that in our heads. And what we have focused on now is rebuilding that confidence, rebuilding, rebuilding. And the way you rebuild is to achieve things step by step one at a time. That's how you rebuild. And so the reduction in the past, the meeting of the five to stay alive, the pledge of five to stay alive, meeting all the targets in there, the stabilizing of the economy, and you heard our eloquent leader of the government business explain how the system of loans and bonds have been handled by the previous administration, the improvement in the employment figures, the increasing tourism arrivals, the stayover arrivals, the appointment of a DPP, the re-establishment of our sinking fund because as a country we've been running on empty for a number of years. What we want to do in this government is to ensure that there's a reserve pool so when things go bad we have that little reserve to go to. These are the little things that help the country and help the citizens of this country to develop confidence in a government. The establishment of our events company that was so able to work with the national cultural development foundation, also the progress center to deliver good quality events for the juniper oil and of course the arts and heritage. So all of these little things, simple things are things that are designed to build confidence and these things are small things but they make big changes to the way we feel about our society and our leadership in this society. We are proud that we've been able to achieve some simple things, it's not what we want to yet but we are proud that we've been able to achieve this. My name Mr. President is only been 16 months, only 16 months since this government has been in office. Progress is incremental and we must always remember that one step at a time and that's what we want to teach the children of this country. One step at a time we cannot just rest to the top, it takes time. We had to reconstruct the foundation, we had to reconstruct the foundation and we're happy that we're here. You know I attended the entry post secondary school graduation some time ago, maybe about two weeks ago and the theme for the graduation ceremony was small actions, big changes and that's the kind of message you want to give to our youngsters. You can start small and if you start small and you achieve those little goals you will get to the big one and we're working on the big one but to get to the big one we're working on the small ones. We have five years to go as a government and I'm satisfied that within the first year we've been able to achieve the basic goals that we set for ourselves to ensure to ensure that we realize the goals that we've set in this wonderful manifesto for the people of this country. So Mr. President we are on the right track, we're making the changes, we're feeling the results, the Chamber of Commerce has said it, the Solution of Hotel and Tourism have said it, all the key players in the society are saying it that they're seeing the difference. We need people to stay with this government so that we can continue to realize the goals that we have set out in this document for the people, by the people and of the people. Thank you Mr. President. I think I've picked up the operative word for today regarding the members, senators on the government side and so I think I can use that as a cue for the next few words and that is confidence, confidence. I suppose with all that confidence our civil servants can now expect an increase at the next set of negotiations but I'm just to mention because there seems to be so much confidence and I just want to, I heard my colleague just mentioned one step at a time. I agree with one step at a time, it's a principle that I have taught my students and I teach my children but I have to caution on a word of caution say as I did in my last, the last thing of the house, we have to lead by example, we don't tell people one step at a time and then they see surrogates of the government shooting to the top without taking those steps and I said it the last time in the house, I don't think I need to elaborate. In two weeks, being able to get government funded training and get past people who have taken 25 years to get degrees and training, that's not step by step so we need to be careful when we make those very nice associations and we're not backing it up with our actions step by step. Right? Anyway, back to the substantive motion Mr. President, the leader of government business did mention that the former governments had two basic approaches to bring in revenue and with respect to the DVRP, the Disaster Vulnerability Reduction Project, where we're asking for approval to borrow 1.6 million US, about a little over 4 million EC dollars in addition to what we've approved before, I see the very same pattern. I want to ask the government whether they've found another formula that is different from what the leader of government business said that the previous government was using to bring in revenue. He said two methods, taxation and borrowing and from what I've seen thus far, I see nothing different. We are here borrowing, borrowing, borrowing and we have also not just taxed what the previous government was doing and we talk about that 2.5 percent but I'm not even going back, we've ventilated this thing already but we've added two new taxes, taxes that were not there in the previous administration, the excise tax of 1.50 on the gas and the airport development tax that we've spoken about. So I don't see a new formula, it's still taxes, taxes, taxes and borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. Okay, so until the government can show convincingly that they have developed a very good reliable, a very reliable alternative revenue stream that the country are not just saying it nice in the house, that the country can see that it's working, let us not point fingers on the other side. Now with respect to this disaster vulnerability reduction project, I think it's a very good initiative to provide your country with that kind of, if you call it backup system, knowing that we live in a region where we're very vulnerable to natural disasters and so I have no difficulty with the idea but I believe that if you're going to do that, we must make sure that that disaster vulnerability reduction is properly articulated so people can understand what we're seeing. I will use two examples to illustrate that Mr. President. The Prime Minister made reference to schools not being used, he doesn't believe that schools should be used as shelters, emergency shelters and I don't have an issue if the Prime Minister feels that we can provide additional security, additional shelters in the event of natural disasters. As we have it right now, schools are on churches and other public buildings are being used around the country and I would welcome any improvement in that regard but to suggest that schools should not be used and we should build additional shelters. So what are we going to do with the schools? Isn't it good that we already have them and we should try to bring them up to a standard that meets basic safety requirements in the process making it better for the students and teachers to use and as well making it more likely that they will be safe as shelters in case there's a natural disaster. I think that this is a very strange statement. While I believe it is a good idea to add to what you have, I have no problems with building new shelters, get me correct but I hope it's not an excuse for not having paid attention to the condition of our existing schools and public buildings. So I would like the government to explain or to tell us why there is any discussion taking place about not using schools as shelters because they are and have been used, they have never been adequate and of course we can add but I hope it's not a matter of using that as an excuse for not doing what we need to do with schools and other public buildings and bring them up to the standards that I expected. Another example Mr. President regarding the DVRP, I heard the Minister for Agriculture. Now I come from a community where most of the residents depend on the returns from the agriculture, the practices in agriculture to make a living, my parents included and the Minister for Agriculture was talking about beating its chest in the process, not just seeing it but beating its chest and seeing that they're providing those incentives for farmers and giving them fertilizer and I was wondering whether the minister was really speaking to disaster vulnerability. What does the provision of fertilizers have to do with that? I can understand things like drainage and making lands available to farmers in areas that are less prone to landslides because some of our farmers especially in the area where I live, microsoft, close to the rainforest, a lot of slippery slopes and you know mountainous you know the angles and so on it's a bit dangerous for some people to try to cultivate crops in those areas and people who have no other choice but to have their farms near river banks so that any little flood their crops get washed away. I would have welcomed an idea and I think it was mentioned as well to be to be credit to him to make some effort towards improving the farmers ability to access farmlands in areas that are less prone or less vulnerable to landslides and other natural disasters but to tell to beat your chest and say that you are providing inputs and fertilizers as if that is some kind of disaster you know vulnerability reduction. I would want well he's not able to do that but I had to make that observation. Well maybe the need of government business will elaborate but at the time I didn't see how that was related to disaster reduction vulnerability reduction. I will I will elaborate on that one on that one in Creole because I want to speak directly to the the the farmers who may be listening and may prefer to to to have that said in Creole. So Well, we're putting a problem, and the piece of government that I've made to help the situation to be settled and to make it so that we can not suffer too much if we're not in the cycle. But the Prime Minister said that if it's not necessary to save lives and to help the people who are in the cycle in the bad times. I said that if we're more to help the people who are in the bad times it's not necessary to eat it's not necessary to eat it's not necessary to eat it's not necessary to eat it costs much The Prime Minister aims to act better so I want to say that some of the recommendations and some of the suggestions that I have heard I'm not sure That especially the one to do with really speak to disaster vulnerability reduction. I have no problems with giving farmers a brick and making it cheaper for them to access fertilizers and inputs, but to use it as an example to make reference to, I don't get that one. But the essential point here, Mr. President, is that I am hoping that the idea of schools not being used as shelters is not an excuse for not repairing the schools. And by now, after 18 months, 16 months, we should have seen some effort towards doing that, especially when the minister made a lot of noise, about 13 million in the budget not being adequate for school maintenance. And now, after the 16 months, 900,000 being allocated, and of that, correct me if I'm wrong, because I think we can safely make that point that up to August of 2017, only 100,000 had been spent on school maintenance. I think that this is woefully inadequate, and with disaster vulnerability reduction, it's not only for the communities, the schools serve several purposes. They serve, some schools are community schools. They are not just learning institutions, Mr. President, they are also community facilities. They have all kinds of activities that go on there. After school, after school, night classes, meetings, all kinds of activities. Some communities only have one place. I could think of a community like VJ. In VJ, that school is almost the center of every other activity. There are several different things that go on at the schools. So we should never look at a school as just a building where teachers and students go for learning and teaching. It has multiple uses, and I think when you fix a school, you are fixing more than just a place of learning. You are fixing a facility that the entire community, especially in the rural communities, where they don't have alternative venues, you are fixing and improving the quality of service that you provide for an entire community, and in some cases, multiple communities. So we must be very careful when we speak about schools not getting the attention and that we will focus on building other things instead of making sure that what we have is up to standard. So I will rest my case on that matter, Mr. President, and hope that as we go along, some clarification and clarity is given to that discussion. I thank you. Leader of government business. Mr. President, I will endeavor to provide some clarity to what the member opposite, the senator putting on, seem to have probably misunderstood. I want to provide some clarity on what I said earlier with regards to the government's approach in terms of boring and not just boring, but boring in such a way that will assist in putting our death situation on a sustainable path. And the new formula, Senator Fudanon, is not that of the government saying that it will not borrow, but the method in which the government will borrow is what's important here. I stated clearly that as part of the government reducing on its debt portfolio in the future is, first of all, the government intends to, when negotiating the loans, the bonds is to extend the maturity period. And secondly, try to get the best interest rate as possible. And thirdly, Mr. President, we will be taking loans, bonds that are amortized, so to speak. What I mean by that is that you pay your principal as well as your interest rates. So that's the new formula I'm talking about, Mr. President. That's the new formula. He made mention, Mr. President, the member, Senator Fudanon, also mentioned that we have introduced two new taxes. I must make it clear, Mr. President, before I go there, I need to make reference to the Bible here, the United Workers Party Bible, not the Holy Bible. That's a contract that we sign up with the people. Very familiar with this here. And Mr. President, we have never said that taxes are not important. We have never said that we will not tax the people of this country, because as you reiterated that taxes is just one source, or taxation is just one source of revenue for the government. The other source is borrowing, and yet another source grants. So taxes, we just can't run away from that. However, Mr. President, we believe that in applying the taxes and the configuration of your tax system, if not properly constituted, can have a very serious impact. It can numb your system, economic system. By way of analogy, Mr. President, a tire, a tire, your car tires, they have a certain level of air pressure, every tire, a certain level of air pressure. If you don't put enough air in that tire, your gas efficiency could be very, very low. And you may not even be able to drive that car. Just imagine your gas, not a gas, but the air pressure is zero. It means that all you have left is your wheel, right? The car will not go anywhere. Now, what happened over the years, Mr. President, in the last, in the five, the last administration? We saw a rapid increase in the air pressure of these tires. A rapid increase in the air pressure. And these tires, the tire was on the verge of exploding. It was on the verge of exploding. And probably St. Lucia's, what are they called, RPIs? The pressure, PSI, PSI, PSI. Maybe it was just 30. But the level at which we came and found it was 29.9, about to explode. And we are saying here, we just cannot, we just cannot put more pressure in that tire. We just could not, Mr. President, increase taxes at the time. And what we are saying is that that pressure had to be released just a little bit. Just a little bit. Just a little bit to save that tire, to save that car, and to save that driver. So we reduce it, reduce it, let's say to 25 PSIs. And we are saying now that we have enough space, we have enough room, we have enough to reconfigure the taxes in this country. So that's why, Mr. President, we reduce the VAT, the VAT from 15% to 12.5%. And we said, Mr. President, that we will not borrow any money, new money, that is, if we do not have a new revenue source. And therefore, that's why we increase the excise tax from $250 to $4. And also, we ensure that we will not allow the price of fuel, not fuel, but gasoline to go beyond 12.75 cents. I mean, 12.75 cents. If after the analysis, after the calculations, if that's the case, we will absorb it in the increase. So that's why I said that even though we said that we will increase the excise tax by 150, it doesn't mean the government will collect 150 every time. We said that, I said that. And there was a lot of confusion by many who didn't understand. So Mr. President, I am saying again that taxation is important, but the method by which you implement these taxes could either hurt or benefit the economy. And with that knowledge, Mr. President, that's why I wrote in this manifesto. And I always emphasize I wrote, I know why. I know why, you know. I know why, because it was once said immediately after I resigned from the labor party that I couldn't even write a manifesto. Propaganda again, you know? Propaganda again, you know? That's the reputation. It's written here, Mr. President. Here this, Mr. President. Taxation should be a product of increased economic activity and not an entitlement of government. You hear that? Taxation should be a product of increased economic activity. What do I mean by this, Mr. President? You earn taxation when you increase the economy. You don't try to increase taxation to increase economic activity. It has to be earned. It must be earned. So in other words, as you increase the economic activity, it will naturally generate more revenues to the government. So when your business, Mr. Senator, when your business and others, when there are more economic activity at your stores, it will generate more revenue for the government because there are more things happening in the country. And government, and I said it is not an entitlement because government just believe that taxes are just theirs. The government is just there to tax. So Mr. President, it also says here, I will not read the others, but a new United Workers Party administration will undertake a full restructuring of the tax system with the aim of increasing overall national consumption. So Mr. President, that's what we're doing. That's what we're doing. We believe the system, the tax system, is very inefficient. The administration of the tax system is very burdensome, hence the inefficiencies. Perhaps the level of taxation, not perhaps the level of taxation, we believe, is too burdensome. And the CDB, the CDB reports emphasize that. One of the highest tax jurisdictions in the world close to Denmark, it showed it. So we never said that we will not be taxing. We said, yes, taxation is important, but it's the way you configure your taxes. If you put too much here, too much here, too little here, too little here, it will not work efficiently for you. So, you make mention of the taxation of the airport, we'll come to that, we'll come to that. And if a government can shift the burden from its local consumers as much as possible to visitors, it's better, it's better. I'll come to that, I'll come to the airport tax very soon. It's better, and that's what we're doing. Claiming that we should not have an increase in the airport tax, so how would we fund the airport? How would we fund it? Should we put more taxes on the people of this country? Should we? Mr. President, I go further. In fact, I will stop here, and I will, well, on this note, I will stop here, and I will speak from this when we get to the other bill and the other motion. But Mr. President, before I sit down, I also want to speak of the, well, actually comment on the statement that the Senator, or Senator Fudnon, he actually said that the Minister of Agriculture doesn't understand why he would be talking about fertilizer when we are talking about vulnerability reduction. I believe it was disaster vulnerability reduction. I was here, I listened very attentively to the Minister at the time, and the Minister did not say that fertilizer is a disaster vulnerability reduction, or the usage, because Mr. President, in a disaster, there are three hours, there are three hours in a disaster. You have relief, that's what's supposed to come, immediate relief, and you have recovery, that's intermediate, and long-term is what we call recovery. So relief, recovery, and reconstruction. Relief, recovery, and reconstruction. And the Minister for Agriculture, Mr. President, was referring to the first hour, which was relief, because in a natural disaster like a hurricane, Mr. President, of course, our crops will be destroyed, and most farmers in this country do not have crop insurance. A shy farmer certainly see a pre-hurricane, get your show, get your show, because the upon need, ask the most, say see a good Macavini, good Macavini, a day, say for Manu, access, Minis, agriculture, the year, our house, Paloma, our kite, Paloma, let's certainly see hand a hurricane. Fignu, Padashina, Tufikdu, Quasé, Exinu nipu, recover, Vitma, Fama Buizien, Sipo, Sipo, Exinu nipu, Sipo, say Guanu, so Minis, agriculture, one of the best ways of assisting the farmers of this country is by assisting them with fertilizer. And plants. And plants. So that is the first stage of a natural disaster, which is the relief. And of course, the relief moves into recovery. Now, Mr. President, I, I was, I, I, I don't know, I was a little, I'm thinking whether or not I should really speak on that, on that topic that has been raised by the opposition, Senator of the opposition, the leader of government opposition, opposition business. Because there is what we refer to as, what is referred to as corruption index, corruption index. And most times it's not really corruption, it's perceived corruption, perceived corruption. I have decided to say something on this one, Mr. President, because perceived corruption can have serious impact on the level of foreign investment in our country. And I believe, Mr. President, that when politicians, when politicians for political gain, Mr. President, try to tarnish the reputation of other senators, not senators, but parliamentarians. That's dangerous. It has serious international spillover effects. So when you have, Mr. President, documents circulating on social media, accusing members and member of corruption and the sickening intervention of other foreign governments, you believe it is just the individual that you may affect the country? Is the country?  So we have to be more responsible as parliamentarians. And that's what I said. Our actions, our actions will determine where our love is. And if our love is for country, we will see beyond this individual, beyond this individual, and the impact it'll have on our country. So all these allegations, all these allegations, you think it's affecting members here? It's affecting the country, our corruption index. So Mr. President, the member opposite also speak of leakages, leakages. Mr. President, there are many forms of leakages in our system. Today, we have the leakage of our, of our tax dollars been leaked to a prominent lawyer in Washington DC, who is representing the government on the Grinberg affair, as a leakage, that's a wastage leakage. There is such a wastage leakage. And I don't want to use the word corruption here. Too strong a word. When you had to think of what really happened and what we are paying for today. I don't want to use the word corruption. And I am not to show if when the corruption index was put together, if this was one of the factors that was considered. Speaking of leakage from our system, Mr. President, when you have a hospital that was burnt eight years ago, was it? Nine years ago. The recovery or the renovation of this hospital was costed at $15 million. And Mr. President can move from $15 to $50 million. And then from $50 million to $118 million, Mr. President, let's speak about leakage. And maybe, maybe, Mr. President, maybe corruption, maybe, maybe, but we'll find out later on, Mr. President, we will find out because we will do the investigation. We will undertake the investigation. This government owes it to the people of this country to get underneath what happened at St. Jude's. We must. We must. For Mr. President, $118 million was spent on a hospital that was supposed to be renovated at $15 million. The scope was changed, yes, to $50, but now $118 million. And based on, Mr. President, based on the physical audit structure, is not even 50% complete, Mr. President, not even 50%. And the 50% that is completed, Mr. President, is not even fit. It's not up to standard. So, Mr. President, when I hear the word leakage and I hear the word corruption on this side, Mr. President, this came to me. It struck me very hard, Mr. President. It struck me very hard. And I just wonder, I just wonder where our debt level would have been, Mr. President, without this disaster called St. Jude's.  Not even a proper hospital. Not even after $100 million was spent. They can have a proper hospital, Mr. President. Leakage, leakage, corruption. And then, Mr. President, when you have leakage, there's what I call sunk cost. Sunk cost is when you spend something, you can recover it. Okay, you spend, it costs you something, you spend money on this, you can recover it. It's gone. And then, Mr. President, I'm hearing about school maintenance. Without a St. Jude's, Mr. President, most likely we'll have had monies to maintain our schools. It's gone. Without a $3 million that was spent, Mr. President, to go after a fellow parliamentarian. To try to find him guilty of so-called corruption. $3 million, Mr. President. You know how many schools this could have renovated? Talking about leakage, Mr. President, we're talking about corruption here. Perceive corruption. We're talking about leakage. You see, Mr. President, everything has what they call, when you spend money, it has what we call an opportunity cost. If you spend it here, you cannot spend it here. Because we already spend it here.  Anything. Even destroy the reputation and affect the corruption index of our country. That's the extent. That's the extent. So politician, great other politician, affecting our country, the people of St. Lucia. Is that responsible, Mr. President? Is that responsible? Mr. President, I just wish these two words never came up. I'm glad they did. I'm glad they did. I also heard, Mr. President, and I believe and I support what the member or senator put in and said about just putting people in the public sector and the public service. But I have to remind him. I have to remind the member, the senator, that culture. That culture. Of parachuting people in the public service. From outside the public service, into the public service, started in the mid 1970s. To be exact, 97. Is it right? I agree, it's wrong. It is wrong. It is wrong. Absolutely wrong. So we have to be careful when we accuse people. I'll be very, very, very careful. If it's wrong, it is wrong. Now, I will briefly comment on the leader of government, the opposition business, leader of opposition business, Senator Joachim Hinton. I remember, Mr. President, right before the closing of the old parliament, he brought a question about the St. Jude's audit to the house. And I think based on the standing order, Mr. President, it says that I was supposed to have presented a response by the next sitting. And guess what? The next sitting was actually the new parliament. And if I'm right, Mr. President, if I'm right, you cannot bring a new, you cannot bring an old question in a new parliament. Okay, you can't bring a new or no question into a new parliament. And guess what? Even though I had brought this, the response, I would have been talking to chairs, empty chairs, because the members were not present. They were not present. In fact, I would say that the boy caught it. So we are very open. We are very open. This side is very open to any question or questions that you may have pertaining to any of the bills or the motions that we will be presenting here in the future. As I said, I appointed you to standing order number 15. You can ask your questions. The standing order didn't say that you cannot ask questions. You are free to ask any question you want. I won't say any, but questions that are relevant to the bill or motion or resolution that we're presenting, but we are not obligated to give you an answer based on the question you asked here. However, we are obligated if you follow the procedure in the standing order 15, we will gladly provide you with any question that you may have in the future. Thank you. Senators, the question is that parliament authorizes the minister responsible for finance to borrow an amount equivalent to US $1,620,000 by way of credit. In this resolution referred to as the credit from the International Development Association to finance the solution disaster of vulnerability reduction project. Be it for the resolve that, A, the maximum commitment charge rate payable on the un-reviewed drawn finance balance is 1% or is one half of 1% to the anum, B, the service charges payable on the withdrawn credit balance that is equal to the greater of one the sum of three-fourths of 1% per anum plus the basis adjustment and two, three-fourths of 1% per anum and C, the principal amount of the credit is repairable on each 15th day of May and 15th day of November. One, commencing on the 15th day of May, 2027, two, and including the 15th day of November 2046 at a rate of 1% and two, commencing on the 15th day of May 2047 two, and including the 15th day of November 2056 at the rate of 2%. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion. See, I, as many as are of the country opinion. See, no, I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. We don't go man business. Mr. President, I beg to move the following motion standing in my name. Value at a tax, value at a tax act, resolution of Parliament to approve draft value at a tax amendment of schedule three, order. Whereas on the section 109, 1A of the value at a tax act, capped 1542, the act, it is provided that the minister responsible for finance made by order published in the Gazette amend the schedules to the act. And whereas it is further provided on the section 109, two of the act that an order made pursuant to section 109, one of the act is subject to an an affirmative resolution of Parliament, except where the amendment is to customs tariff headings only. And whereas the minister responsible for finance six approval of the draft value at a tax amendment of schedule three, order, to amend schedule three of the act by affirmative resolution of Parliament. Be it resolved that Parliament by affirmative resolution approves the draft value at a tax amendment of schedule three, order, which amends schedule three of the act. Honorable senators, the question is that the Parliament by affirmative resolution approves the draft value at a tax amendment of schedule three, order, which amends schedule three of the act. I now put that question as many as are of that opinion, see I? As many as are of a country opinion, see no? I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. Bills, leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to move the first reading of a bill shortly entitled, Inverse St. Lucia Amendment. Inverse St. Lucia Amendment. Leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to move for the suspension of standing order number 49-2 to allow the bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Honorable senators, the question is that standing order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the honorable leader of government business to proceed with the remaining stages of the bill at this sitting. I now put the question as many as are of that opinion, see I? As many as are of a country opinion, see no? I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. Bills granted, proceed honorable leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to present for second reading of bill shortly entitled, Inverse St. Lucia. Honorable senators, the question is that Inverse St. Lucia Amendment bill be read a second time. I now put the question as many as are of that opinion, see I? As many as are of country opinion, see no? I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. An act to amend the Inverse St. Lucia Act, number 14 of 2014. Senators, the short bill, so another procedure. Clause two. Interpretation. Clause two stands part of the bill. Clause three. Amendment of section four. Clause three stands part of the bill. Clause four. Amendment of section 17. Clause four stands part of the bill. Clause one. Short title. Clause one stands part of the bill. Honorable senators, the question is that the committee rises and the bill be reported. I now put the question as many as are of that opinion, see I? As many as are of a country opinion, see no? I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. Honorable senators, I beg to report that Inverse St. Lucia Amendment bill went through committee stage with no amendments. Honorable leader of government business. Mr. President, I move that the report of the committee be adopted and the bill be read a third time and passed. Honorable senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the Inverse St. Lucia Amendment bill be read a third time and pass. I now put the question as many as are of that opinion, see I? As many as are of a country opinion, see no? I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, then with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Lucia and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited as the Inverse St. Lucia Amendment Act 2017. Leader of government business. Yeah, Mr. President, I beg to move the first reading of a bill shortly entitled Income Tax Amendment. Income Tax Amendment. Leader of government business. Please ensure that you turn off your light. Yes, yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, I beg to move for the suspension of standing order number 49-2 to allow the bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Honorable senators, the question is that standing order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the honorable leader of government business to proceed with the remaining stages of the bill at this sitting. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, see I? As many as are of a country opinions, you know, I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. Honorable leader of government business, you may proceed. Mr. President, I beg to present for second reading a bill shortly entitled Income Tax Amendment. Mr. President, as I alluded earlier, that the government's attempt or the government's approach to reforming its tax system is deliberate, well planned, well thought out. The Land and House Tax Amendment this afternoon, Mr. President, I sit down in his presence, okay? Honorable senators, the question is that the Income Tax Amendment bill be read a second time. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, see I? As many as are of a country opinions, you know? I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. An act to amend the Income Tax Act, capped 15.02. Again, senators, this is a short bill. Close two. Interpretation. Close two stands part of the bill. Close three. Amendment of section seven. Close three stands part of the bill. Close four. Amendment of section eight. Close four stands part of the bill. Close five. Amendment of section 18. Close five stands part of the bill. Close six. Amendment of section 19. Close six stands part of the bill. Close seven. Amendment of section 40. Close seven stands part of the bill. Close eight. Amendment of section 73. Close eight stands part of the bill. Close one. Short title. Close one stands part of the bill. Honorable Senators, the question is that committee rises and the bill be reported. I now put the question as many as are of that opinion, CI. As many as are country opinions, you know? I think the eyes are it, the eyes are. Honorable Senators, I beg to report that the income tax amendment bill went through committee stage with no amendments. Honorable leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg that the report of the committee be adopted and the bill be read a third time and passed. Honorable Senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the income tax amendment bill be read a third time and pass. I now put the question as many as are of that opinion, CI. As many as are of a country opinions, you know? I think the eyes are it, the eyes are. Be interacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, banned with advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Lucia, and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited as the income tax amendment act 2017. Leader of government business. Before you proceed, I'd like you to take note of standing on the line. Okay, very well. You may proceed. Very well. You may proceed on the honorable leader of government business. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I beg to move the first reading of a bill shortly entitled, Land and House Tax Amendment. Land and House Tax Amendment. Honorable leader of government business. Mr. President, I beg to move the suspension of standing order number 42-2 to allow the bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Repeat the standing order. Mr. President, I beg to move the suspension of the standing order of standing order number 49-2 to allow the bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Honorable senators, the question is that standing order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the honorable leader of government business to proceed with the remaining stages of this bill. At this sitting. I now put the question, as many as are of that opinion see aye. As many as are of a country opinion see no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Leave is granted. Continue. Mr. President, I beg to present for second reading a bill shortly entitled, Land and House Tax Amendment. Mr. President, I think I was going ahead of myself earlier because apparently I was just too excited to give my brief comments about this land and house tax amendments because Mr. President, I'm always, I feel good when I know that this government is providing relief for the people of this country. And this is just a continuation of the relief that we have started. We started when we took the reins of government June 2016. And Mr. President, as I said before, that the five to stay alive was not a gimmick. We made the promise because we believe in the promise. We believe in the outcome of the promise. We believe that the people of this country needed tax relief. And we look at the various areas in which we believe that it was needed. And one of the areas, Mr. President, that we believe that such relief was needed is that of residential, residential land and house tax. You see, Mr. President, as I said before, and I read from this manifesto, it says here a new United Workers Party administration will undertake a full recovery of the tax system with the aim of increasing overall national consumption. Now, Mr. President, this amendment will provide for the people of this country land and tax relief for three years because we said it here. We said it right here. We said that a United Workers Party government intends to relieve all citizens and residents of St. Lucia from the high cost of living experience in the last five years, excluding last year from June. Hence, we will undertake the following measures. And one of the measures, Mr. President, that we mentioned was that granting residential property tax exemption for three years. And very importantly, Mr. President, and thereafter, it will be assessed. In other words, Mr. President, coming into the Ministry of Finance, I have met with the income tax professionals there, and more specifically, I have met with the division or the unit responsible for land and house tax. And Mr. President, in St. Lucia, we have an approximately 60 or 60,000 households, 60,000 households who are potential taxpayers. The pool of taxpayers in terms of house, houses here, homes, 60,000. And Mr. President, a mere 25%, only 25% of these households actually pay residential taxes. 35%. There are many reasons for that. And one of the reasons, Mr. President, is that the staff has not been able to go out and reach the untouched homes. Which means, Mr. President, that there is a gap in the potential revenue we can actually receive as a government, a huge gap, because out of the 25 million, the 25,000 who actually pay the land and house tax, we only receive about $5.2 million annually. $5.2 million. Which means, Mr. President, that we could be collecting, we could be collecting in the region of $12 to $13 million annually under the current system, under the current system. Now, on my desk, at the ministry, the Indian Revenue Department has provided the government a proposal as to how we can better the system, improve the system, make the system more efficient. And it's only this morning at a discussion, discussion with a senior member of that department, and I showed her that I will and we will as a ministry take a look at the proposal because it is very important during these three years of non-collection, Mr. President. Unless in non-collection, I'm talking about for years 18, 19, 20. The units responsible for land and house tax will be reformed, will be, I would say, restructured, and will be ready for when we start the recollection of land and house tax. And we are hoping that with this change, with the change that we will undertake, it will be more efficient and of course, we'll be able to generate more revenue for the government. Now, I know, Mr. President, that there is a tendency to misinterpret. I never use anything like increased taxation for more revenue because efficiency is supposed to bring more revenue, efficiency. Now, Mr. President, I wanna make it clear that it doesn't mean that if you owe, the public owes, a household owes, the government for any preceding years, including this year, that you exempted, that is very, very clear. Whatever you owe the government, you owe the government. In fact, Mr. President, as part of the relief, again, we had a tax amnesty, we had it. I think it expires sometime in February of next year because the government understands that if you under pressure, if you under pressure, financial pressure, and we saw it, we saw it, Mr. President, we understood it. We sort of need to bring relief to the people of this country. So we had a tax amnesty.  Three years, it's here, right there, Mr. President, and we're not just doing this, Mr. President, just to say we are keeping a promise because you can put stuff in a manifesto, do these things, and have very little impact on the economy or in the lives of the people of Central Asia.  And that's why, Mr. President, I am excited and this government is excited that what we are undertaking, what we are presenting to the Senate today, is for the benefit of the people of St. Lucia and the benefit of all taxpayers in this country. Thank you, Mr. President. Honorable Senators, the question is that the land and house tax amendment be read second time. Honorable Leader, sorry, Minister for Home Affairs, Justice and National Security. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I stand to request the suspension of standing order 9-3 to allow this house, to allow this honorable house to sit between the hours of six o'clock in the afternoon and 7.30 in the evening. Honorable Senators, the question is that standing order 9-3 be suspended in order to allow the house, the Senate, to sit between the hours of six and 7.30 this evening. I now put the question, as many as are of that opinion, C.I., as many as are of country opinion, I think the I is of it, the I is of it. Honorable Leader of Opposition Business. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'd like to stand and give my support for any relief, any form of support that would go towards the people of St. Lucien in the form of, I think, property tax for the three years stated there, 17, 2017, 2018 and 2019. For the years, 17, 18 and 19. And therefore, the government business need to consider that this year is included. And based on your contribution, earlier on you said that they need to pay taxes. So it is for this year. So yes. Mr. President, certainly, and I'm sincere about it, I own a home and when it comes to paying taxes and filing your returns, sometimes you struggle to meet the payments and of course, property owners and household owners would be happy to get some grace in doing so. When I listened to the member from the side, he said that every year, collection of about $5 million is made. So they're going to forgo the collection of $5 million for the next three years. But he also made mention that they can realize greater revenue if they wider the pool of persons to pay property tax and to increase the efficiency of property of collecting taxes. Mr. President, I speak on this matter and I would ask any administration when we embark on property tax, as somebody who's involved in the property market as a value of properties, also seen how people construct buildings, I've always been a bit concerned as to how fairly we can collect tax revenue on households, especially when there are some people and of course he indicated that they need to go into the crevices of certain places where you could reach certain households. Mr. President, there are some people who own reinforced concrete structures and of course my dear colleague on this side would agree with me that whereas you see that they own the structure, the means by which they construct the building doesn't suggest that they can pay taxes other persons can pay because of how culturally we build our homes. And therefore there will always, if this thing is not taken into consideration in a way that is socially responsible, when we embark on putting the efficiencies in place and not considering everything that needs to be considered, we could be hard on persons who may have homes but through sweat equity and other equipment arrangements and just apply a taxation on them. So I was about to ask the question, whether the objective of this is to prepare and to have a more efficient mechanism for property tax as against giving relief to property owners because as the indicated that is only approximately $5 million annually that is currently being collected from property tax. So I support this. I think a number of home owners would welcome the idea of having the relief for this year, next year and the year 2020, 2018, 17, 18, 19, of course I welcome this but I'll tell the minister, the government, the leader of government business, as the professionals speak with you on the issue of property tax. Evaluate and consult the property professionals. There is the organization of quantity and valuation surveyors. They are construction professionals. Well, you're offering me a job. But I'm saying that it's important that we do this consultation because I've had to value properties for relocation purposes, Mr. President. For example, when we did Rosendorff, persons from Tetshime into Bel-Air and the assumption, it's easy to make an assumption that the fact that somebody have a concrete structure that their well-being and the ability to pay for certain things is of a certain standard. And sometimes when the professionals live to assess, persons are slash based on one standard or one approach across the board and sometimes it's unfair. So if your objective is not to just give relief but to increase your efficiency so that in the future you collect more, not by raising taxes, you said, but by putting more persons into the tax pool, you need to take some things into consideration. And one, where the persons of a threshold of $150,000 should ever pay tax. Where the people living in a certain location, in a particular locality where we have a high incidence of indigence, should pay tax. Where the persons with plywood structures that is patty team but pat should pay tax. So a lot should be considered so that when you are being efficient, you are also being socially responsible. But we support any initiative to give relief to the people of St. Lucia. Thank you. Senator Anga. Thank you, Mr. President. Just very quick on the matter of a hallucination I just to indicate to the leader of the opposition business that when he made the request that special consideration be given to persons of the timber houses and the plywood houses and persons of homes of value of $150,000 or less. I would like to draw his attention to the existing London House tax regulation on the section two in which indicates that an owner whose residential property has an assessed market value of less than $200,000 is exempted from the payment of taxes. So that is already there, that has already been established. And so I think good consideration was given to the persons who are within the low income bracket to be exempted from tax. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senator Fadina. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Very briefly, having heard from the leader of the opposition business and very eloquently clarified with the tax, if you can call it the cap of $200,000, I have no difficulty with any relief. Relief is a great word these days. Any form of relief that the government can provide as a consumer, as a citizen, I am very happy to hear the word relief in any form. But we have to ensure that the relief is genuinely relief. When I look at the period of three years, I ask why three years? Why can't we get relief full stop? If there's a reason why it needs to be a three-year initiative, then explain that. Because of course you don't want to be irresponsible in providing relief. Some relief is temporary and that's understood. And it goes back to the very same point I made earlier that when certain statements are made, it is important that it be explained. And the issue of using the standing orders provision to write, to ask questions, we understand that. But it is easier if these are done without the formal written questions and we're not asking written questions. We're just saying, just be a little bit more specific and forthcoming. And the other thing I just want to ask quickly, while I appreciate that we already have an existing situation where persons in, we can consider the low-income bracket of under $200,000, the property worth, are not paying taxes. I can see some persons in the higher-income bracket enjoying great cuts or great returns that may exceed millions in the next three years. And some of those we want to ask ourselves who among the top three real estate owners in St. Lucia, who are they? And so I just want to suggest that while we all welcome relief, there may be some more benefits beyond just the average St. Lucia enjoying relief. And if you look at the equity, now I want to use the word equity and not equality. I've said that before. Giving everybody the same thing doesn't necessarily mean that everybody benefits in the same way. Because if you already have more, then you get more when you get the same cut with everyone else. So if you have a net worth of $50 million in terms of your property, you can calculate that break in three years, you might get the return of maybe $15 or $16 million back as opposed to someone who owns a property of, say, $350,000, what exactly is their return and what value it is to them. So I welcome the relief, but I also question the length of time, the period could be a little longer. And of course we're now into the year and a half almost into the first term in the government's term and it will end just before the next election. There's some strategic issues there and I just want to say that we can read between the lines and maybe to avoid ambiguity, that could be explained. But of course I do welcome the relief and I raise these issues to stimulate and provoke the minds of those of us on the side and to say that when we bring relief, let it be relief with equitable value to all of us and there be no other ways or no other benefits that some of us will not enjoy. Okay, so Madam, from the opposition side, we will always welcome any relief that the government can provide. Leader of government business? How good and pleasant it is, Mr. President, when reverend can dwell together in peace and harmony. I am so excited, excited, Mr. President, that even the opposition sees the benefit of the proposed amendment to the Land and Tax Act. Senator Putnam asked the question as to why couldn't the relief be permanent? But I just want, Mr. President, I just want to remind him that the government needs money, government needs revenue and there is always an opportunity cost and if we don't spend, if we don't collect monies in one area, we'll have to collect it elsewhere and if that elsewhere is not generating enough, we will have to adjust the taxes upwards. So I think it is something that I don't think the government will consider. I don't think any government should consider at this point in time that we should have permanent relief on land and house tax. I believe the three years, just sufficient, Mr. President, because we have a lot of people who actually owe the taxes and we believe that three years should provide sufficient time for them to catch up with the payments. What I, my caution to the residents, the homeowners, is that do not see year 17 as a free year of not paying taxes, not taxes, but land and house tax. But in as much as possible, they should either pay what they owe with that break they're getting if they're up to date with their payments, they could set aside what they would have paid in 17, 18 and 19 and for future payments, for future payments. So I just wanna caution, just that I would advise, financial advice for homeowners. It's not, it's a free, but not really free in the sense that you will pay in the future. More or less like a savings for the future. Mr. President, the presentation here today is, it's not about, it doesn't speak about any amendment with the system, but just the rate. As I said earlier, well, my colleague here, Senator, mentioned that the current system or the current act speaks of the exemption of households that are less than $200,000, a market value of $200,000. Well, that's a current. Going forward, we don't know. I have not taken a look at what the proposed changes are. Okay, so this is not about method of calculation. It's not about exemptions in the future. It only speaks of the exemption for the three years, 17, 18, 19. I mean, Mr. President, I just wanna make a correction earlier, a correction. I stated earlier that the exempted years, are years 18, 19, and 20. This is incorrect. It is 17, 18, and 19. Thank you, Mr. President. Honorable Senators, the question is that the Land and House Tax Amendment will be read a second time. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, CI. As many as are of a country opinion, you know. I think the eyes have it. An act to amend the Land and House Tax Act Cap 15.13. Senators, you would have, you should have received the proposed amendments to the amendment bill. Opposition members, you received. And in fact, I had circulated a footed document to show all that amendment featured within the substantive legislature. We all understood. Clause two. Amendment of section seven. Clause two, as amended, stands part of the bill. Clause one. Short title. Clause one stands part of the bill. Honorable Senators, the question is that a comment arises and the bill be reported. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, CI. As many as are of a country opinion, you know. I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. Honorable Senators, I beg to report that the Land and House Tax Amendment Bill went through committee stage with amendments. Honorable Leader of Government Business. Mr. President, I beg to move the first reading of a bill shortly entitled. Mr. We're still on the Land and House Tax. Oh my God. Mr. President, I beg that the report of the committee be adopted and the bill be read a third time and passed. Honorable Senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the Land and House Tax Amendment bill be read a third time and passed. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, CI. As many as are of a country opinion, you know. I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. Be it an act by the Queen's most excellent majesty, ban with advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Lucia, and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited as the Land and House Tax Amendment Act 2017. Honorable Leader of Government Business. Mr. President, I beg to move the first reading of a bill shortly entitled, Airport Development. Airport Development. Leader of Government Business. Mr. President, I beg to move for the suspension of Standing Order Number 49-2 to allow the bill to go through its remaining stages and past. The remaining stages at this sitting. My apologies. Honorable Senators, the question is that Standing Order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the Honorable Leader of Government Business to proceed with the remaining stages of the bill at this sitting. I now put a question as many as are of that opinion, CI. As many as are of a country opinion, CI, you know. I think the eyes have it, the eyes have it. This is granted. Proceed Honorable Leader of Government Business. Mr. President, I beg to present for second reading a bill shortly entitled, Airport Development. Mr. President, you may recall that when the Minister for Finance presented his budget address for the 2017-18 fiscal year that he informed us that his government had decided to embark upon exploring alternative financing arrangements for the development of the Uranura International Airport with the context of a broader vision for the development in the report. This bill, Mr. President, the Airport Development Bill, provides for the development of the airports. This bill, Mr. President, repeals the Uranura International Airport Development Act number seven of 2015. This act was specific to facilitate a public-private partnership between the government of St. Lucia and the St. Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority and a concessionaire as proposed by the International Financial Corporation. Mr. President, the bill levies an airport development charge of 35 US dollars 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 log box account into which monies collected from the development charge are transferred. Mr. President, 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. And Mr. President, you may recall, in February 2011, the Airport Development Act, Chapter 1540, came into force but was subsequently repealed in June 2015, following a zeroing of the airport development charge in 2013. And Mr. President, much has been said about the taxes imposed on airline tickets for travel in and out of St. Lucia. Permit me to inform this honorable Senate of the taxes that will be applicable with the proposed implementation of this development tax. Mr. President, the airport service charge of 53 US dollars will be divided to serve six purposes. $12.60 will be allocated to, oh yes, last one, $10.50 US will be going to the government recurrent revenue. $1.50 US for solid waste. $10 US for tourism marketing. Mr. President, $16.78 US will be going into a sink in fund. And $1.62 will be going to the administration to collect it. And then we have the other category, Mr. President, which is the airport development tax. And of course, as I said earlier, this tax is to facilitate the airport facility development. And we have the security charge of $5 US and another $5 US going to passenger facility fee, given a total of $98 US. In other words, Mr. President, when all various types, when all various tax types are considered, including what is proposed here today, the cumulative tax will not exceed US 98 dollars. It means, Mr. President, there'll be the need to make adjustments to some of the taxes that are already in effect to achieve this. Mr. President, among the allocation of the 98 US dollars is what we refer to as a sinking fund. And I believe that I have explained what a sinking fund is, where it originated from, the concept behind a sinking fund. And it is in line, Mr. President, with the debt strategy of this government. As we speak today, Mr. President, we have a portfolio of debt instruments that rule over from year to year. In other words, Mr. President, while we pay off our interest rates on a monthly basis on our existing debts, when that debt matures, Mr. President, we still have a debt. That's the principle. So as a government, as a strategy in reducing our overall debt burden, we have instituted a sinking fund. You may recall, Mr. President, that is the culture, the habits, the prudent practice of this government, this United Workers Party administration and previous ones to always have a sinking fund. May I remind you, Mr. President, of the concept of a sinking fund. It started with the individuals who own boats, ships. And in the event of these ships sinking, they set aside a portion of the savings, a portion of the revenues, a portion of the profits as an insurance against sinking ships. Hence the word sinking fund. Hence, I believe it is prudent. It's the wise thing to do that if you are running a country, if you are running a government and those individuals who put our constitution together, they saw the wisdom of putting that sinking fund in the constitution, it's there, still, Mr. President, the last United Workers Party administration left $20 million in a sinking fund. $20 million, again, the practice, the culture of this of a United Workers Party government to always have a sinking fund. Because, Mr. President, you never know when the ship will sink. So we always had that back up, always. And unfortunately, Mr. President, when the last administration left government, when they left, when they were voted out, because leaving is a voluntary, but they were voted out, the sinking fund was zero, zero. So Mr. President, you see, Mr. President, for you to be thinking of a sinking fund, you must have a broader vision. You must have a broader vision because you will not just set a sinking fund aside, just for set it aside for sake. But because our vision, because our objective is to bring our debt situation on a sustainable path, the question is how do you do it? How? And the question how will drive the policies. And I alluded earlier as to the various strategies and policies that the government has undertaken, will undertake to bring our debt on a sustainable path. And the sinking fund is just one of those strategies. Mr. President, as I alluded earlier, that the government has a choice of either taxing its people or taxing visitors. Now, I remember clearly that my colleague MP from Anselary, that when the analysis was done by the ministry of the likely impact of this change or this increase in the taxes, airport development tax, he was very nervous, very, very nervous. He was nervous because he's a caring and he, the guy, is passionate about tourism. He was concerned that the impact will be negative. I said to him, I had to remind him in economics, one plus one is not necessarily two. One plus one could be 11 because of the dynamic system, dynamic economic system. And yesterday we had a laugh. We had a laugh and we had a laugh in cabinet because he is reporting, Mr. President, the positive outlook of our tourism industry in Central Asia. Future bookings or advanced bookings is up by 15%. Tourist arrivals, 10% thereabouts. You see Mr. President, again, may I remind the leader of the opposition, not this opposition, that economics is not math. You need math to understand economics because most of the theories are mathematical. I explain mathematically, but economics is not math because Mr. President, when we said that we're going to increase it, there was, again, there's nothing that this government does, has done, that there has not been criticisms. And we understand that. But sometimes the criticisms are just laughable, very just absurd. We have a product, Mr. President, a tourism product, that is what we refer to as very price insensitive. The price elasticity, that means simple terms, Mr. President, that a change in price will not change the quantity demanded or very little change. So if the price goes up by 10%, quantity change might just go down by 1% or maybe zero, because of the uniqueness of our tourism product, hike in the price will not cause people to shy away from our destination. And price is just one basic factor that affects demand, especially dealing with our tourism product. Quality is what I'm talking about. Quality, if you have a very high quality product, an increase in the price will have either zero or very little change in its demand. In fact, based on the advance bookings that the Minister of Tourism has spoken about, it clearly shows that there is more to the price of our product. And there is another factor, Mr. President, is what I refer to as, or not what I refer to as, but what is very important is marketing. And we have changed our marketing strategy. So again, Mr. President, and that's why in economics, we always use the term paribus, ceteris paribus. Ceteris paribus, Latin, all other things remain the same. If all other things remain the same, but in an economy, not all things remain the same. For simplicity, we always say this in economics, but it is a dynamic system. And that's why we're not afraid, Mr. President. We're not afraid to shift the tax burden away from the people of this country and allow the visitors to pay. And Mr. President, you know, my last tins or my tins in the Turks and Caicos Islands are the chief economists there. I remember clearly, Mr. President, when I first went there, I was looking for income tax, looking for corporate tax, looking for sales tax, looking for VAT, absolutely zero, zero, zero, everything in the Turks and Caicos is imported, everything, and what do they have? The taxes, the main sources, the import duties, and hotel and tourism accommodation. So the burden of taxation is on the visitors, the burden, but we are not in a position to do that as yet. And we believe the philosophy of the Nerewaker's Party is that if you can shift the tax burden from the people to visitors, it's better, it's better, because what you're doing, Mr. President, you are empowering the purchasing power of the local people. And if you do that, Mr. President, you'll have more people going to the stores and buying more and buying more and more frequently, increasing the level of sales, increasing the level of jobs in the country. That's the thinking we have, Mr. President. So whatever we do as a government, there's thinking behind it, there's real thinking, there is strategic thinking, and I know sometimes it bamboos the opposition. They're bamboos because it's a new way of thinking. It's a new, a new and better way of thinking, Mr. President, what I have learned over the years, over my close to 50 years, very close, you're saying that you thought I was already 50, do I look 50? Anyway, Mr. President, we're close to 50. That when you don't understand something, you ask, you ask, you ask, do make noise, to make people think you know, because you will leave not knowing. And anyone who has taken classes with me going to college or whatever, going to college, they would notice that I speak very little, speak very little, very little, but pay attention and ask questions. That's how you learn. So Mr. President, we're gonna present these kinds of policies and just kind of thinking, and you had a noise from over, from over, you know, noise, you know, sometimes I am very, I feel sorry. You know, that's me, that's my nature, Mr. President. That's why you'll never hear me quarreling. I don't quarrel. I don't stink mud. I don't judge people. I don't call people names. Because Mr. President, I was given a name called Ibaldas, a name called Ibaldas, which has been a very common name lately. But Mr. President, my godmother gave me a very good name because it's from the, it's a German name, Ibaldas. Ibaldas means, Mr. President, peace of mind, of mind. And I carry that character with me in government. That's who I am, that's who I am. Which means that, Mr. President, I'm bringing this to say, Mr. President, that when people get criticized, sometimes we have to understand where the criticism, why the criticism, and where it's coming from. Because sometimes what you do as an individual or as a government exposes the weakness of others. Because the question is, why couldn't we have done so? And these guys are doing this.  But as I said before, Mr. President, we are focused as a government. Mr. President, also, as I said earlier, the development of the UNO International Airport, the development of the HIA is built in the context of a broader vision for the development in viewports. Very, very important, Mr. President, very important. I'm just wondering why was there an airport in viewports? What was the vision behind building an airport in viewports? What is the vision? I don't believe it is just because of the topography of viewports. There must have been, Mr. President, a vision for viewports at a time when the HIA was built. Mr. President, the airport in viewports must be upgraded, must be brought to modern standards because this administration, this government has broader vision, broader plans for the people of the South.  That's the South. We have an airport, international airport, and viewports is the way it is today, Mr. President. Every attempt of this administration to bring relief, to bring development to the people of viewports stern opposition, stern opposition, stern opposition, what have the people of the South done to the Labour Party? What it is, what is it? Every move this government tries to make to develop the South is always an attack, an attack, an attack governed the country for five years, five years, and yet still at the end of the five years we are left with no hospital, is like the people of the South have been punished, a million dollars spent, and a hospital is 50% completed and the work that has been done is substandard to the point where the audit report, the audit report is asking or recommendation is to break down certain partitions and if you have to try to break it up to standard it'll cost you an additional 100 million dollars. I'm just wondering, I am just wondering have the people of St. Lucia elected the Labour Party in the last elections, how much more money would have been spent on the St. Jude's Hospital? I'm just wondering, but what we did, Mr. President, we had to halt the works, we had to, and had to take stock of what work, the amount of work and the quality of work that was done on St. Jude's. As I said before, Mr. President, as I said before, Mr. President, I'm speaking in the context of the South development, the importance of an airport, the importance of an upgraded airport, a modern-day airport, an airport that meshes with the vision for the South or, Mr. President, we owe it to the people of this country. We owe it to the people of Newport and the South, Mr. President, that we must hold the people or the people who are responsible, I would not use any corruption, Rodea, Mr. President, I will not, I'll refrain from doing it, but an account must be given for the $118 million that have been spent on St. Jude's, one without a St. Jude's, and that's why we are currently, we are currently engaging a forensic auditor, a financial auditor to undertake this study, this exercise. Leader of government business, we are now out of quorum. Leader of government business, you may proceed. Mr. President, I remember when I was flying from Miami to St. Lucia, I met a couple from one of the mid-mid-mid-mid western states, I just can't remember, but a couple was coming to St. Lucia on a honeymoon, and I always try to have a pitch for St. Lucia, and I was giving them my little history about St. Lucia and how hospitable we are as a country, as a people, rather, and then I told them where would they be staying, and they said to me that I would be staying at Sander's Halcyon or Sander's Regency. I said, oh, okay. I asked them, do you know, do you have someone picking you up? Yes, I believe I do have someone picking us up. I offered them, I told them that it would be good if they get out of their airports, and I can take them around the island and show them the beautiful places and scenes of St. Lucia, and they were very pleased. Yes, please, yes, yes, yes.  And then, Mr. President, I asked myself the question, why can't visitors coming from four, some eight hours, some four hours, some five hours, just get out of the airport and drive to a hotel 10 or 15 minutes away. Why isn't Viewfort providing such? Why hasn't Viewfort developed in such a way that our visitors do not have to leave Viewfort and drive to the north for an hour and a half, sometimes two hours, depending on the speed? I'm talking about the quality of our tourism products, and these are little pieces that are very important. Mr. President, I will say it again. The HIA development, the development of the HIA is in the context of a broader vision for the people of the south, broader vision. Important, Mr. President, and I remember during my presentation, I made it clear in the house that the development of Viewfort is supposed to be something that is supposed to be very strategic. In fact, our development for Viewfort is strategic. And we know, Mr. President, we know what has happened to Viewfort over the years, and for those in him, and before I'll say it again, the structural change in our country, structural change from bananas, not bananas, but from agriculture to tourism. We saw a depletion, a depletion, an exodus of farmers from the south and the neighboring southern districts coming to castries for jobs. Banana's agricultural sector was almost dead, Mr. President, and the farmers at the time, the banana farmers especially, they were the ones supporting the economic activities in the south. They were the ones keeping small businesses open in the south. So when they get a weekly check, Viewfort was the landing space and place. Viewfort was vibrant, but what happened, Mr. President? We moved from tourism, from agriculture to tourism, not taking into account how it impacted the south. Nothing was done, no plans for Viewfort at all, Mr. President, no plans at all. And you had the young people migrating in jobs in castries. Putting pressure on the physical infrastructure. And that's why you had an upsurge, Mr. President, to some extent, to a large extent, an upsurge in crime in castries. What's happening now, Mr. President? Where has the crime moved to? Where? In Viewfort? In Viewfort? Go to the Boy Student Center, you'll find out where the majority of the boys are from. In Viewfort?  I don't know if you have that, but I used to fight a lot going to school. I don't think so. I used to fight a lot, but up to age 12, I was done with that. I never lost a fight though, never lost a fight. Never lost a fight. You know why? You know why, Mr. President? I always get the first punch. It reminds me of these kind of fights, Mr. President, touch me, you should, I'll do to you.  You know? An opposition that incites violence, or because we have a vision for the south, or because of that, feel as an opposition, Mr. President, that all your efforts have resulted in investors running away from the south and running away from St. Lucia. How would you feel as a country? How would you feel? How would the people of the south feel? The people of people feel? Do you think they're supporting such a thing so? I don't think so. And Mr. President, and when the prime minister decided, when he decided to have the swearing in ceremony in viewfort, the opposition believed it was politics. They believed it was politics. They may have been some political gain here, but the objective wasn't politics. It was very symbolic. It was symbolic of a new viewfort. Because, Mr. President, you had an MP from viewfort who had been the prime minister for 15 years, and never thought of having the opening ceremony or the swearing in ceremony in viewfort. Bring the parliament, bring the service, bring the ceremony to the people of viewfort, and that's what we did. It was very symbolic, very symbolic, because we understand the importance of developing viewforts. We understand the importance of developing and improving the services at HIA. Mr. President, when I get off the plane, whenever I travel and I come through viewforts, and to see the number of visitors, I mean, that's the first way to introduce your visitors to your country, starting in such a long line outside and hot after eight hours in the air, some of them, that's the way you introduce your people to your country, and then another hour and a half to two hours drive north. Okay? Which means the first two days of the four-day convocation is asleep. Just don't me, Mr. President. This HIA, the development is necessary, very necessary. Had we gone with the previous proposal of the HIA, Mr. President, we would not have had a sinking fund, because all the money would have been to who? The operators. No sinking fund. No marketing monies for our tourism, but we are saying we can do it. If we can do it, let us do it, because it is not just about the development of the airport. There are other areas that we fix. And why not use the revenues from this tax to take care of these services? Why not, Mr. President? I am very passionate about this, because viewport, the people of the South, have suffered long enough for too long. The barbecue chicken, the grilled fish, the stew pork, the stew and curried goats have been placed underneath their noses. Mr. President, they take the smell of it. They salivate to the point where they have to catch it. So much is coming out, and leave them hungry. Leave them with nothing. And when help is coming, when help is coming, they're trying to bring down the helpers, the rescuers, this government, trying to fight this government, that must stop, Mr. President. It will stop, because the people of the South have suffered for too long. Thank you. Honourable Senators, the question is that the Airport Development Bill be read a second time. Honourable Leader of Opposition Business. Thank you, thank you, Mr. President. I sat there and I listened, and I thought at some point in time, the Leader of Government Business probably should attempt crying out here some tears so that he could appear more convincing. But he has not convinced me not one bit, and I know the people of U-Port are not convinced. We're not. This government reminds me, Mr. President, of a tailor in Jamaica when I went to school. I have no idea what you're talking about, because when I went to school, I was very tired. When I went to school, I was very tired, I couldn't understand what I was saying. I didn't know what I was talking about. I didn't know what I was saying. So I looked at myself and said, who are you? I looked at myself and said, I'm very tired, I'm very tired. I am very tired. I am tired. I'm very tired. I'm very tired. I can't understand what the speech to be utilized is. I'm very tired today after trying to keep money back, tell what has come to be agreed. I can't understand what the speech to be utilized is. Take this opportunity to take hold I'm going to go back to If you want to do a investigation, you have to do it, but I have a question. I have a question. What is this? What consideration do you have to make to decide who did the investigation? After hearing the investigation, why? What is this? Mr. President, I would like to say something important. The government has changed the way we approach the general government. We have to look at the whole world. We have to look at the whole world. We have to look at the whole world. We have to look at the whole world to understand the whole world. The country has spent $100,000. It is a terrible government. We have spent $10 million more. A terrible government. We have to experience this. Mr. President, what is your consideration? China has given us a million highway. We have to spend $1 million to enter the country. We have to understand what is going to happen. With this money, the government has to ask a question. I will say it all in one word. Because with this money, everyone who wants the government can do the investigation. Investigation. I'm value for money. We have to be able to I'm going to give you an option. Mr. President, unhospital, unhospital, it's a project that is sensitive, that is special, and unhospital is a new one. It's about 10 years. Development years for new hospitals about 10 years. Check the number of PFI projects. It's about 10 years. Development. When the hospital problem. I can play with you. I can play with you. I can play with you. I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm We must have development that you see the issue of the effort and effort development and recognizing the contribution made by the former administration on the way forward for view for international effort.  Take Jamaica, take the Sunstein International Airport. I used to go to school in Jamaica and I know what it is to get on the airport in Jamaica and the condition at Euronora, at my time going to school in Jamaica was far much better than at Sunstein International. It was, it was, I don't know what you're talking about. I was saying this condition of the of the airport even as it stands now back then at the Sunstein International. You know what happened to Sunstein International? They have put it through a PPP and it is right now through a 30 years concession contract and it is being operated by a concession. In London, in Delhi, in Costa Rica, a PPP is private, public private partnerships. Why? Why? By the World Bank through the FIC, they recognize that it is an ideal and has tremendous benefits. I can review some of them. Exploring PPPs as a way of introducing private sector technology and innovation in providing better public services through improved operational efficiency. These are one of the benefits. Supplementing limited public sector capacities to meet the growing demand for infrastructure development. Long-term value for money through appropriate risk transfer to the private sector over the life of the project from design construction to operation and maintenance. Benefits of PPPs. This is what the Labour Party embarked on and established. So when you take, when you take the approach that the Labour Party embarked, you're telling me that the approach of the Labour Party to develop the Euronora International Airport through a PPP is to the detriment of viewportions and viewport. It was in the Prime Minister's office then when Senju was on fire. I was in the Prime Minister's in the cabinet room. As a matter of fact, we just, we were about to establish a new water project under the BNTF and the water tank of $400,000 was already on site. We had to abort that, that, that, that, that, that arrangement, but we were called into the cabinet room because the Prime Minister knew we had that on the ticket. And I sat in that room and I listened to the contributions from Pahu, from the Taiwanese and from all those who made contributions. And I listened to the then Prime Minister and his dilemmas to how difficult it was for him to move forward. When the world all over was sending, making donations, some of which was valuable, some of them that was not valuable because Mr. President, when you're building a hospital and other countries, friendly countries want to assist you, they either send you an autoclave that you do not have persons to maintain or they send you equipment that the, the, the, the, the supplier of maintenance materials is one you will not get or the doctors would tell you when it gets there, that's not good. We're not using that anymore. But friendly countries usually donate.