I wish to remind honourable members that when the house last rose, we were on bills and I think I did at that time recognise a way. Mike of the honourable member for Viewfort North. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I wish at this point to thank God and also continue to thank the people of Viewfort North for their support, and also thanks to my colleagues. Allow me, Madam Speaker, a very short time, some latitude to express the sadness that we continue to feel for the people of Souffre, and also the people who use the Souffre Hospital, Madam Speaker. It is a very important and fundamental. It's a time when all of us, our hearts, must go out to the patients, the staff and the residents of Souffre. We continue to encourage all solutions, Madam Speaker, to pull together and to continue to encourage the government to do the best that it can at this time with resources to ensure that the people of Souffre get back their facility as soon as is practicable. Very important, Madam Speaker, especially with what is happening with the St Jude Hospital and others. I would have thought that the Prime Minister would take the opportunity this morning to speak about the Souffre Hospital fire, but I guess Grindberg is more important to him. Madam Speaker, this bill for consideration, the Airport Development Bill of 2017, is for the development of proposed airport facilities. Madam Speaker, I might assume that my first statements were not heard. I'm just hearing the mic, the system now. I just want to be sure. It has only just come on. Honorable Member, I'm so informed that it was recorded. I'm receiving a feedback. I think it became louder, but not that it was not recorded. Please proceed. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The bill for consideration is the Airport Development Bill of 2017. And Madam Speaker, as indicated before by my colleague from Kastri South, Member for Kastri South, this bill speaks to the development of airport facilities. Madam Speaker, we agree that airport development is important for economic growth. And our actions, when we were in government, indicated that we were very serious about the development of the Iwanora International Airport. A little later on, Madam Speaker, I will speak to the issue of the 2015 Iwanora International Airport Development Act, which will be repealed as soon as this bill becomes an act. And it's very interesting, Madam Speaker, that the 2015 act speaks or refers specifically to the Iwanora International Airport, but this one speaks to just airport development. And later on, when we go through the clauses, I will explain, Madam Speaker, why I am confused and why I cannot trust what this government presents, because there is always innuendo and hidden meaning. Because in this bill, when we look at some of the clauses, it refers to airport facilities, not airport. So we'll come to that. Madam Speaker, we always say that the Iwanora Airport is important, and we believe that it is important to develop the airport. Our government takes you to develop the airport. It is not only us, but everyone agrees that this bill is not for sale. Madam Speaker, let it not be said that our side does not want to develop the Iwanora International Airport, because we were well advanced in our process of developing the Iwanora International Airport. Madam Speaker, Section 3 relates to charges, extra charges, taxes on tickets that will be purchased, and extra charges on tickets to the tune of $94.85 EC more for St. Lucian's. Section 3 relates to an increase in the price, an increase in the ticket price as a result of the charges that will be placed because of this act. Section 11 relates to payment of a development charge to an authority. Section 12, Madam Speaker, speaks to debt servicing. And since we are talking about debt, it points to the government's intention to use debt financing to develop our airport facility projects, of airport improvement projects, rural, in St. Lucia. So Madam Speaker, it points to the government's intention to use debt financing to develop the Iwanora International Airport. Madam Speaker, Section 13, the Airport Development Fund, they're coming into force of this act. The government has indicated that this act, Madam Speaker, will come into force on January 1st, 2018, 25 days from now. So on January 26, 2018, the government has said that it will change the way we develop Iwanora Airport, and that it will make us more likely to travel on January 25, 2020, 25 days from now. So Madam Speaker, if I am allowed to follow from where the member for Cassie South left, this means that in 25 days, without any declarations on the debt by the A&C Port Authority that passengers will be charged an additional $94.85, 25 days from now. Those going to Barbados, to Trinidad and Tobago, Sakikale, Dominic, Antigue, etc. How then does the government explain, or unless the government intends, Madam Speaker, within 25 days, to give to the people of St. Lucia the explanations and different explanations that the Prime Minister so wants for many different things. In 25 days. So will the government, is the government saying, Madam Speaker, that this act will come into force before the explanations are given about debt financing and all of that? Does it mean that the A&C Port Authority is in negotiations? Madam Speaker, it is very important for those questions to be answered. Section 12. Section 12 relates to debts, Madam Speaker. It relates to the development charge for airport projects. It relates to the lock box accounts. And I reiterate, Madam Speaker, section 12 relates to airport projects. If you want to know the international airport, its government relates to facilities, different CJs. So must also say young airport, obey day airport, obey to airport geographic. Subsection 7, under section 12, Madam Speaker. The authority to ensure that the revenue is not less than sufficient, Madam Speaker. It is being said, and the Prime Minister can refute it, that this airport will cost approximately 406 million EC dollars. 406 million EC dollars. Is this true? As if we are going to take 406 million EC dollars. As if we... This means, Madam Speaker, if this is true, this government is asking the parliament to add to the debt stock of St. Lucia, 406 million dollars, to redevelop airport projects in St. Lucia. Has the government taken a decision, Madam Speaker, to develop the George F. L. Charles Airport? Is there an airport development section to DSH that will be paid for through this act? And we've all seen the renderings, Madam Speaker. There are no explanations to that. I say, Madam Speaker, that earlier I said that when the Prime Minister comes to this House, or when he makes statements, public statements and commitments about projects in St. Lucia, there is clear evidence, Madam Speaker, that what he says, whether it's in the House or outside of the House, does not match the reality. It doesn't, Madam Speaker. And I believe that this, with the proposals in there, will not match the reality, Madam Speaker. And there are several of them. And one of them happened just this morning, Madam Speaker. And I'm relating to the bill, I'm relating to the proposals that are in the bill, and why I don't believe those will match the reality. This is not a government, Madam Speaker, that speaks and acts in the way that it speaks, Madam Speaker. And they do it bold-faced. They are brazen. They are arrogant about the way they do it. And they do it in the faces of people who affected, Madam Speaker. I'll give you an example this morning. I'm very pleased that the Council of Persons for differently-abled people came to the House. Very nice. And we welcomed them, and we did what was necessary as parliamentarians. But that's the kind of hypocrisy that we have, Madam Speaker. There is a Prime Minister of a country who speaks glowingly about having parties with children, and who speaks to the very people right in the faces. And you have Mr. Avril on television day in, day out complaining about assistance from the government, the School of the Blind Welfare Association. Very, very simple example. Right there in the faces, Madam Speaker, the pronouncements that are in this bill will not match the reality. Because it is the habit of this government, Madam Speaker, to do those things. And there are many other examples. There are many other examples. This morning, the Prime Minister asked about those who are there to come and clarify and come and say things, present documents and all of that. Up to now, this government cannot say which is the correct DSH agreement. Up to now. When we try to present it in the House, they try to block us, Madam Speaker. When the member for Castry South brings a document, they try to block us again. We cannot talk. That is the history, Madam Speaker. So the very words of the Prime Minister this morning, that the nation remains in the dark on this matter, and I quote what he spoke of. The nation still remains in the dark on the DSH matter. Weponsah. Madam Speaker, I'm concerned about this bill because it speaks to airports. It speaks to airport facilities. And in the renderings that were presented by the Prime Minister, there are clearly facilities around Sandy Beach in the renderings, if you thought, that are extremely close to the airport. So if we are speaking about development of airports, I need to ask whether the pronouncements of the Prime Minister on the DSH deal and what we saw close to the Iwanora Airport, how does his airport, his plan to redevelop Iwanora, affect this? Kim and Nye say drawing nowhere. To say sky-rise building on the Sandy Beach. Where Iwanora Airport. Kim and Nye say that they can affect this. Again, the people of St. Lucia are in the dark. No offence where the Prime Minister came out of ecla-eclazism. No offence where to do. Madam Speaker, this is the same Prime Minister who said later this year, how many days we have left in the year, that phase is one of his DSH project. We have been employing 500 to 800 people, free to four jobs for each store of bread. And today is the fifth of December. So how can we, Madam Speaker, believe that these words are, these things mean anything? Madam Speaker, we await the announcement of confirmation for the financing of Iwanora International Airport. We await. In 25 days it will be the first of January. There is so much more. Claiming we made 680 on gas now. You know, the fishermen are now paying 13,500 a year. The farmers 6,000 more a year in taxes. And the family with a small car paying over 4,000. Calculate it. So here we are, Madam Speaker. The government that complained about debt, debt, debt. The Labour Party is putting this country in debt. And debt will choke us and cripple us. Memcouverd ma'am, Madam Speaker, over 400 million in debt to finance the airport. Yogai puetela jonsala. It means that if you divide it by the population of Senusia, every individual immediately has 2,247 dollars of debt added to the personal debt. 178,000 and 15 people in Senusia. That is the additional debt. Every child, everyone who has counted in the last census, like Yogai puetela, about debt. When we had an option, Madam Speaker, that would not have placed Senusia in that debt. Madam Speaker, could we have developed the airport and avoided the debt? Could we have done so?   But no, they choose to go together. You are the government. You know better than everybody else. But we are going to come to that, Madam Speaker. Section 12, Madam Speaker, relates to the authority and showing that funds are sufficient to service the debts. So in section 12, the authority of Yogai set up, Madam Speaker, is not enough to serve the debt. It is not enough to serve the debt, like I said before. The questions are, it looks like everything is within your control, Madam Speaker. It looks like arrivals, tourism arrivals. It looks like, you know, external factors, external shocks in international markets. All of those things are within your control, it looks like. And is there a mechanism, Madam Speaker, to generate revenue for debt payments if we have a major problem? I don't know where the government will address this. Where? Isn't there a contingent liability on the state?  Madam Speaker, isn't it? I know I don't understand anything about finance. You know a lot about finance. I thank you for that. I don't understand anything about finance. All I know is how to be honest. That's what I know. I don't understand finance. Thank you for that. You understand finance. I'm happy you said that today. You understand money. That's what you see the contingent liability on the state, Madam Speaker. See, it's in progress, that's what you have to pay. You see a lot about finance. I don't understand anything about finance. I don't understand anything about finance. I'm honest, I'm honest with you, Fortnough. You know you're talking about finance. But I mean the parliament had to represent the people of Fortnough and I would not stop talking I'm talking about finance because you think I don't understand anything about finance. You're hardy. Madam Speaker, the question in all of this is why?  Who am I, this little boy, from Viverton of To Know Anything About Finance? Yes. You are guru on finance. What would be Sartel, man?  Madam Speaker, the question in all of this is, why does this government, with the member for Kastri, Salvis, and the prime minister who are ministers, who are close to the developments in the Iwanora redevelopment project between 2008 and 2011, why would they go back that route? Why? Why? I heard earlier, Madam Speaker, Pukisa yomemkite evolve, yomemkite lak, Pukisa yoveme abagaisala, Baikilis evepukilis, and why? And earlier today, Madam Speaker, I heard a member, the member for Kastri's North, said, we can do it ourselves, and they all clapped, oh, we can do it ourselves. I guess he was missing the other part. We can do it ourselves for ourselves. We can do it ourselves. It looks like it's the $300 million and $400 million projects we can do it by ourselves, so we're keeping it. Let me give you some small examples of projects that we could do by ourselves, and we're running away from it. They're not even half a million dollars. The Fuanasun Center, big guru, minister of agriculture. Huh? I scared of him. I scared of him. Ask him to speak before me in the parliament. That has never happened. He'll never do that. That's the challenge. Madam Speaker, it is the big projects, the $300 million projects that we can do by ourselves. What about the Fuanasun Center, working with the Royal Women's Network? Huh? It's not making profit, so don't do that. We can do that by ourselves. What about marketing board? We can do that by ourselves. It doesn't have $300 million. What about the fisheries thing? They are problems there, yes? But no, we cannot do that by ourselves. Radio solution. Radio solution. Problems. Don't pit. We don't have to do that. But go to the people. $200 million. We don't have to do that. Madam Speaker, I'm just explaining the inconsistencies, because they know about finance, and they can do it by themselves. They're $300 million and $400 million. They're $300 million and $400 million. They can do it by themselves. All doors can be opened. There's nothing that I say that I don't have all documents. Trust me. Every single one of it. Madam Speaker, having had all the experiences of the Hironora Airport project and the Council of Slasper, why would the government place a debt of $400 million on the people of St. Lucia? Why? Why are bought a process and pay a fine? Why? I say to you, Madam Speaker, that the very countries members of this government go to in the Caribbean to get advice and to see what they do. Those countries use these same methods by the IFC. Why is it that this government is not adopting this one? Why? Why? And those questions come against the backdrop and the background of all of the hidden agreements, the DSH, that nobody can know if this one is authentic or this one is not authentic. That demolition or not demolition of hospitals, all kinds of things hidden. Whether they are going to repurpose or not repurpose. So they also demolish plans for PPP for Hironora. They demolish before the administrative center, demolish plans for Sufres Square, demolish St. Jude, they want to demolish. Now they say it's not demolish. But they are demolishing the diamol at all. They are not demolishing this one. They are looking for a PPP for a diamol at all. Thirty something million dollars, Madam Speaker. And what are the compelling reasons for stopping the process? The employment would have been created. The airport would have been built. And again, Madam Speaker, our debate with the government is under methodology. We both agree that the airport must be built. I have said so before, my colleagues have said so. But there would have been international advice and oversight. Now that's the difference. There would have been international advice and international financial oversight. We would be following international trends and regional trends. But this one, we can do by ourselves. Of course we can do it by ourselves. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that there can be no extraordinary reason for the government to have changed the process. They should tell us. They should tell us why. If they speak of employment, well, I heard the member for Hans-Larry Connery is talking about employment. That employment has been reduced to 16.4 percent. He forgot to say that they continue to use the STEP program to employ people. They forgot about the STEP program. But you should also say that. You should say that. You should say that. Where are the toilets for the ladies in the STEP program? Go to the toilet, Madam Speaker. He spoke about employment. The member for Hans-Larry Connery spoke about employment and stimulus and all that. They spoke so gloingly about STEP. It's a waste of time. You know, ladies are bending by the road and all kinds of things. There are no toilets. But you cannot find answers for the employment in this country. You go to STEP. And we are not decrying STEP, Madam Speaker. We use STEP. And you now realize that what you said about STEP was not true at all. So, Madam Speaker, we continue to ask the questions to the government. Why the change? Why? Two things simply because we can do it. Is it simply because we can do it? We choose to do it ourselves because we know we can do it, Madam Speaker. Do we do the things knowing well that the same process was followed with some of the same actors and we received advice as a government and there are lots of pending things in documents that nobody wants us to talk about. And we have the same actors shouting in the parliament, the same things, to go back and do the same things that we advise not to do. And we're doing it because we can. Madam Speaker, in the Prime Minister's statement when he addressed the House during the budget, he said that the Iwanora International Airport will be within the general development of Euphotown, which he called in his speech, a ghost town, always insulting us. He called in his speech, a ghost town. How does that relate to the town of Euphot, as he said before?  So how does this airport development, how does it relate to the town of Euphot, in relation to what is in the bill? And Madam Speaker, I really want the government to answer this question. Are we developing airports or are we developing the Iwanora International Airport? Are we developing airports or are we developing the Iwanora International Airport? The bill speaks to airports. You believe in another one? We just want to know. We just want to know. So Madam Speaker, we know also that there are obvious criticisms, especially by Bretton Woods and others. There are criticisms of the IFC, there are criticisms of the IFC, but what we want the government to do, we want the government to explain to the people of St. Lucia why the process was changed, why was the process changed. And we are not confident, Madam Speaker, with the same players, that so many international people and agencies are asking questions about. We are not confident that these same players will give us a different result. I am very, very confident now, having heard the statement that this one we can do by ourselves and seeing what they have done with the marketing board, Radio St. Lucia, and all these agencies that they could have done something about, I am not confident, Madam Speaker, that this project is being done simply, simply because we can do it ourselves. I am not confident of that. I believe, Madam Speaker, that there are other reasons, and as a parliament, we have a responsibility to the people of St. Lucia, just as the Prime Minister keep asking for answers for the government to provide the answers. And as I take my seat, Madam Speaker, I wish to say that none of those things faze me, none of them. The troops, the thinking, if it's not on the sun finance, opening of doors, none of them faze me. We are here to do the people's work, and we are going to ask the questions on behalf of the people. They are hiding things. DSH, the arrogant, want to make us cry. Dolphin Park, there are so many examples, they victimize international trust, and so many others in this country, and they want to come here and talk about, if you know anything about finance, and troops, and so on. That is all they can do to respond, Madam Speaker. They cannot respond to the facts and the questions that we are asking them. So they will go all around, open door, and talk about this and that, and all kinds of things. But I say to you, Madam Speaker, we will continue to ask the questions, in all quarters, every single quarter, for them to provide those answers. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Honourable Minister, in the office of the Prime Minister with responsibility for tourism information broadcasting. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I sat here amused as I listened today the profits of political heresy. I know that you are a praying woman, Madam Speaker, and I know that you will appreciate that the Good Book did talk about false profits, and profits of doom and gloom, Madam Speaker, in moments and eras of opportunity and hope for our country. And so, Madam Speaker, I rise today very proudly to give support unwaveringly to this bill. Madam Speaker, I do so because I see, Madam Speaker, the opportunity in this airport. And I feel the plight, Madam Speaker, of all the workers and all the people who are associated with airlines. When you go to the Urinora International Airport on a weekend, in the peak periods, Madam Speaker, you will see the cumbersome nature. You will see, Madam Speaker, the confusion. You will see, Madam Speaker, a facility that is overutilized. And so, Madam Speaker, as we have outlived the capacity of the existing Urinora International Airport during the peak periods, it stymies our potential, Madam Speaker, to expand the earlier capacity of this country to grow the tourism industry, grow the GDP of the country, create more jobs and prosperity and opportunity for small businesses. Madam Speaker, without their favorite program, the DSH Project, St. Lucia is poised to explode with room expansion. And, Madam Speaker, if we will successfully implement these projects, if we will, Madam Speaker, successfully accommodate the expansion of the room stock which we are expecting, then, Madam Speaker, we must plan for the future. And we see, Madam Speaker, that the expansion begins as immediately as December 15th, with the reopening of 115 rooms at the Harbor Club Hotel, soon to be a Hilton branded property. Madam Speaker, earlier we announced that the hotel on the Redway Beach, known as Direct Resorts, are planning to expand the beachfront facility with 350 additional rooms with two exciting brands, the Hilton and the Curio. Madam Speaker, in the constituency of Choselle, there is an additional 250 rooms being planned for a spanking Fremont Hotel. Madam Speaker, we've just had an announcement. Madam Speaker, on a point of order, this morning you so guided me that we should only refer to the specific clauses of the bill and nothing tangential or anything associated. I trust that the same guidance will be given. And so, Madam Speaker, as I continue to establish why this project is so necessary and why this bill is so important, Madam Speaker, I want to continue to reiterate the need for us to plan for the future. And in the constituency of Choselle, there will be a five-star Fremont Hotel. And Madam Speaker, the developers are very close to breaking ground and we expect construction to start in the new year, where they will build 250 rooms. And I know that my colleague parliamentarian from that constituency can't wait for this to happen. Madam Speaker, we had seen last month during the World Travel Awards that AM Resorts, powered by the Apple Leisure Group out of Chicago, has announced to the world that they plan to build 500 new rooms in St. Lucia at Canels Bay on the east coast of the country, Madam Speaker. The two brands that they will use, Madam Speaker, will be Dreams and Secrets, brands that are well known and well established across the travel community. And so, Madam Speaker, as we prepare for all of this and these expansion in the room stock, we must, Madam Speaker, plan for the future. On the Pigeon Island causeway, we see that there are more opportunities for jobs. More opportunities, Madam Speaker, for St. Lucia to expand its tourism growth. When the Sandals Resort chain is going to start a six-star resort in the LeSous brand, which began in Grenada and that, Madam Speaker, will be a project comprising of 400 rooms. Madam Speaker, the government of St. Lucia is also in advanced negotiation with Cabot Lodges out of Canada, Madam Speaker, for 85 rooms and 250 villas. A total, Madam Speaker, in the development of 335 new keys, Madam Speaker, in the former Raffles site at Cap Estate. Madam Speaker, Hotel Chocolat, which has done a phenomenal job in helping to promote St. Lucia as one of the leading super brands in the United Kingdom, has announced 67 villas, Madam Speaker, in their expansion. Now, that's a total of 1,797 new room spending to come on-street, almost 2,000, or a 50% increase in the room stock. Tell me, how come we do not need to have a new international airport? Why isn't this project urgent? Madam Speaker, I feel so sorry for the citizens of this country as they try to commute through castries. When we see several cruise ships coming through the port castries and the type of congestion and the type of clogging that is caused and the type of inconvenience, Madam Speaker, but you know why that is so? That is so because we have allowed Tongue Planning to go awry in our country and, Madam Speaker, as the country was expanding in cruise numbers, no one did anything about making sure that the traffic arrangements were adequately addressed. We cannot afford the same mistake with the airport development. We must plan for the future, Madam Speaker. That's what we're doing. And so, Madam Speaker, permit me to also speak to the people of St. Lucia to tell them about the amount of jobs that will be created once these impending projects are implemented. Madam Speaker, the direct job impact would be 3,594. The indirect job impact is estimated, Madam Speaker, to be at 2,695 or a total of 6,289 new jobs, Madam Speaker, once all of these projects are implemented. Madam Speaker, we must give investments to this country a chance. We must say to the world that we are serious about tourism development. We cannot allow smaller, less-recognized jurisdictions or tourism destinations, and we are people who are doing tourism a lot less than we have been doing tourism to outpace us and introduce international airports and to give themselves a competitive edge. We cannot afford to do that. And so this bill, Madam Speaker, has become absolutely necessary and I rise to give it my fullest support and I impress upon my colleagues to do so. Madam Speaker, in our quest to develop our country, my last point, we are attempting, Madam Speaker, to advance the conversation when it comes to tourism's economic impact beyond jobs. But, Madam Speaker, with our Village Tourism Initiative, which we hope to start to the end of January, I'm happy to announce that the Caricum Development Fund, the Board has met and has approved the funding for St. Lucia's Village Tourism Program for $2.7 million. But what this will do, Madam Speaker, it will give the people of Labry a chance. It will give the people of Ansleray with Village Tourism Initiatives a chance. And the people of Choselle and the people of Grozelaide and the people of Souffre an opportunity to also participate in the expansion of the tourism sector, Madam Speaker. When we launch the Village Tourism Initiative, they will be called upon. The framework, the environment will be there, Madam Speaker, for them to open up small ins, guest houses, and participate, Madam Speaker, with a new trend, led by booking engines like Airbnb and Booking.com and Expedia, Madam Speaker, also giving small industry within the tourism sector a chance to compete and a chance to participate in the wide-ranging economic opportunity that exists for the development of the sector. Madam Speaker, the records show that the non-traditional accommodation sector in St. Lucia is also growing at a rapid rate. And so while we are not able to trace the amount of people going to villas and other alternative accommodation, Madam Speaker, estimates suggest that this sector is growing by 11% per annum. We must, Madam Speaker, therefore plan for the future, implement this bill. And so, Madam Speaker, I'm very, very pleased with the framework that has set out for the establishment of this bill, where it clearly suggests that the money is going to nothing else but the development of the airport so that we can expand the airlift capacity of our country, grow tourism, grow the GDP numbers, create economic opportunity for our people, create jobs and opportunities for small businesses to provide ancillary services. Madam Speaker, I thank you very much. Honourable Member for Henry North. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise to make a very brief contribution to the debate on the Airport Development Bill. But, Madam Speaker, in much the same way, you granted the latitude to the Member of Parliament for Castries North to preface his contribution on the bill by acknowledging the presence this morning of the members from the San Lucia National Council for differently abled persons. I want to take the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to say that since the last time we met as a parliament, there have been a number of developments in our country that I seek your permission to mention very briefly as a preface to my contribution to the debate on the bill. I will mention just three, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I want to commend the Royal Central Police Force for successfully staging Police Week 2017. The highlight of which, Madam Speaker, for me was a chute service held at the St. Michael Roman Catholic Church in my constituency, which was immediately followed by an absolutely flawless parade in the same community to the delight and enjoyment of onlookers myself included. Madam Speaker, also last week they held the Miss Police and Allied Services pageant, and that was won by a constituent of mine representing the previous last in the unit in the Ministry of Agriculture. And so, Madam Speaker, I think it is fitting today to commend Commissioner Mosheri, his deputies, Miss Henry, Mr. Daisy, and of course, the four assistant commissioners as well as all the other hard-working police officers whose duty it has been to keep us safe in this country. Secondly, Madam Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate on my personal behalf and on behalf of the entire sports fraternity of our country, a 16-year-old cricketer from the community of Bogus, constituency Babono, who is a student of the Babono Secondary School. He goes by the name of Kimani Melius, Madam Speaker. Kimani has been selected on to the West Indies on the 19th team to represent the West Indies, Madam Speaker, in the youth World Cup scheduled to bowl off in New Zealand next month. Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hundreds of students from the Sao Paulo East Community College who graduated from that institution on Sunday. Madam Speaker, it was rather disappointing and as I walked through the crowd, you could have heard the expressions of disappointment from those in attendance at the fact that there was not a single government minister in attendance. But be that as it may, Madam Speaker, I want to wish all the young students who graduated all the best in their future endeavors. Madam Speaker, as it relates to the Airport Development Bill, I want to state from the outset that I support any program that is meant to improve the existing airport in Viewfort. Madam Speaker, I firmly believe that there is a need for improvement. However, when the United Workers Party came into office, Madam Speaker, in 2016, they found an existing arrangement of financing modality, which in my opinion, Madam Speaker, offered more to St. Lucia as a financing option than what we are entertaining today. And Madam Speaker, in my very brief presentation, I will attempt as much as possible to reiterate some of the points that were made by the colleagues on this side who spoke before me. Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is on record stating that the country is broke. This is not a new phenomenon. It is something that we alluded to when we were in government. So we are not surprised and we are not ascribing blame to anybody in terms of the financial situation that confronts our country today. But if an additional loan, Madam Speaker, of over $400 million, Madam Speaker, that cannot be in the best interest of the people of St. Lucia. Madam Speaker, the PPP arrangement or the Public-Private Partnership arrangement that we spoke about as an administration is a modality that is being embraced by countries all over the world. And when you research airport development, Madam Speaker, with a specific focus on the financing arrangements, you will, Madam Speaker, discover that the PPP arrangement is the preferred option to finance. And, Madam Speaker, while engaging in some research and making a comparative analysis in terms of the different financing options available to countries, Madam Speaker, I was astonished to see that countries such as India, one of the leading economies in Asia and of the world, Madam Speaker, have given even new meaning to the PPP approach in relation to financing airports. And there is a lot that can be deciphered, Madam Speaker. There is a lot that you can chew on when you look at the different airports that have been upgraded in places like India and the benefits that they were able to derive from the PPP arrangement. Madam Speaker, if an additional loan of over $400 million, not only will it further exacerbate an already bad debt situation for the country, Madam Speaker, but that particular borrowing option can be used to do so much, Madam Speaker. That borrowing option, Madam Speaker, can be used to commission the hospitals that we've not been able to commission as a country. And in much the same way we've said that we're not going to politicize crime, I believe health care to Madam Speaker should never be treated as a political football. And that when the hospitals, if commissioned or when commissioned, they can only benefit sentlosions and illnesses, ailments, injuries do not come up on people because or based on your affiliation. And so Madam Speaker, I'm saying in an environment where the cash flow of the government is already so depleted, I would prefer the government of the day, Madam Speaker, embracing the PPP where that extra financial burden is not placed on our people, but instead, Madam Speaker, it is shared with a private entity thereby giving us greater spending flexibility in terms of the monies that we're able to raise. Madam Speaker, very recently I was told by a very senior person in the public service that the Ministry of Finance has actually instructed or they've hinted that programs to be financed by bonds may not happen because of the situation on the market. And I'm saying this, Madam Speaker, vis-à-vis an additional $400 million that we are going to borrow to construct an airport. We have hospitals, Madam, two hospitals as I said, Madam Speaker, that are yet to be commissioned. We have facilities that are in dilapidated states. We have roads, Madam Speaker, that are in chronic states of disrepair. And, Madam Speaker, all I am trying to impress upon the minds of colleagues in this honorable House is that to borrow an additional $400 million to finance an airport is not the best way to proceed in this particular situation. I said at the beginning that I support any move whatsoever to rehabilitate to upgrade and to modernize the airport. We need it. We need to give character to the airport. And somebody said earlier this morning that the airport is the first point of interface with visitors and the destination. And, Madam Speaker, I am always happy to know that St. Lucia can take the lead on the sub-regional level and at the original level. And if we are lagging behind in terms of airport infrastructure, Madam Speaker, I believe that this too is justification for the upgrade that we are looking at. But to put an additional $400 million on the existing debt portfolio cannot be in the best interest of our country. Madam Speaker, the previous arrangement for financing the airport which we met when we mean to government was one that we decided to do away with because after carefully examining all the critical components of that arrangement, we thought that it was inimical to the people of St. Lucia. And that is why we opted for a PPP. But today, Madam Speaker, one has to ask the question, what is the motivation? What is the motive? Why is it that this government is so hell-bent on resorting to an arrangement that had already been discredited? Madam Speaker, in the process of forgoing the PPP which they found there, I'm being told that St. Lucia has been asked to pay a penalty to the IFC of over one million US dollars. And in an environment, as I said, where money has had to come by, there's a lot that we can use 100 million US dollars to do in our respective constituencies as parliamentarians and in a country, where there is so much to be done and where the people are demanding so much of the government. So Madam Speaker, as I said, we have supported a lot of governments to fight for money, we have supported governments to plan what they want to do in the first phase. But that's what we have said, Madam Speaker. It's a government that has no money to do in the first phase. And the government has a loan that has cost more than 400 million dollars. The government has invested a lot of money in it and it has cost a lot of money to do in the first phase. But that's a lot of money to do in the first phase. And that's what we have done in the first phase. But Madam Speaker, as I said, we have to judge the government that we have supported the government to do what they want to do and that has cost a lot of money to do in the first phase. And that's what we have done in the first phase. And that's what we have done in the first phase. And that's what we have done in the first phase. And that's what we have done in the first phase. Thank you Madam Speaker and Thank you Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to make my contribution on this bill Madam Speaker Madam Speaker, during the course of this morning, we are heard a lot from those on the other side Madam Speaker you would allow me some attitude to respond to some of the statements that have been made by those on the other side as far as the agro processing center, the fish marketing cooperation. It's an issue of marketing board because we spoke about it. Because Madam Speaker, while we were discussing the bill and a member from UFOT North took the latitude to speak to these issues, I think it's appropriate as a minister responsible at least to clear the air on his concerns. Madam Speaker, you heard that's why you don't speak before me. But also Madam Speaker, in this honorable house is not what time I speak. Number one, number two, number three is on what section of the house I speak from. And that's what's important. But Madam Speaker, I stand to give support to this bill. And Madam Speaker, I will endeavor to answer some of the questions that have been asked. You heard that we are wicked governments by the member from Karsui South. You heard that we are taking a loan for $400 million dollars. And you heard that based on his contribution that his government, based on the intention and proposal as far as the development of the airport is concerned, was not incurring any debt. Madam Speaker, I would speak to these matters. Madam Speaker, member from UFOT North said that they were serious about the UFOT airport development. They were serious about the UFOT development project. He said that they were well in an advanced development stage. And of course, he spoke to Wincrisen, and you refer to section three, Wincrisen, the moneys that people would ask to pay as far as what we're going to put on the ticket. And government is taking a loan. And Madam Speaker, I suddenly asked myself, is he correct? Is the members on the other side, are they correct? I'm suspecting that they are not remembering, Madam Speaker, during the time what they did. And I had the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to discuss in the in the upper house my concerns as to the changes that they were making as it pertains to what they form. I had the opportunity to discuss that. And sometimes, in fact, a while ago I was saying to myself that the member from Cassery's south would not be aware, because he's still new in the game. But upon reflection, Madam Speaker, I'm sure he'll remember, because we all know that he was involved in writing the many speeches that the then Prime Minister would have delivered in this house. He would be aware of it. Madam Speaker, let's make, let's do some comparisons. The Hironora International Airport Development Bill that was presented to make changes to what they formed when they came in 2011, which was presented in this Honorable House 2015. They came in 2011, but they came to this Honorable House in 2015 to speak about the Hironora International Airport Development. And if we hear that we are well on our way, we're in an advanced stage of development. So I would like myself, I would like myself, Madam Speaker, if that the pace of that development really sends a signal out there that we are well on our way, four years afterwards, four years afterwards, Madam Speaker, they came in this Honorable House and passed a bill, but we were on our way and we understand and appreciate that the impact, the positive impact that the Hironora Airport would have on our development. But Madam Speaker, we all know that those on the other side just like to talk and talk and not talk. Madam Speaker, remember from Cassery's south spoke about the IFC and the World Bank and he spoke about how our ideas is going to cost the government four hundred million dollars. But Madam Speaker, in this very bill that's submitted in this Honorable House in 2015, and if you allow me to make reference to this bill, Madam Speaker, page five of the bill, the Hironora International Airport Development Act, speaks to an act to facilitate a public private partnership between the government of St. Lucia, the St. Lucia Air and Sea Port Authority on a concessionary for the development of the Hironora International Airport and for related matters. That's what you are presented in 2015. Now Madam Speaker, let me make some comparison. Page nine of that bill. Page nine, Madam Speaker. Number 12, content of concession contract. What type of contract that they propose and they pass to go into with the concessionary, Madam Speaker. And 12 B, and that is why I'm supporting the bill that we bring back here, and that is why we're going back to what we started. Because it's better for St. Lucia and it's more beneficial for St. Lucia. 12 B, Madam Speaker. 12 1B of that bill. For that act, thank you. Subject to paragraph C, the concession contract shall not exceed 30 years from the date of execution with the option to extend the term as agreed by the parties to the concession contract. 30 years. So it is, you are coming, you came to this parliament and passed an act to give a contract to a concessionary to run the airport for 30 years with an option to continue with their running that airport. Now Madam Speaker, let's do some maths because we told them they could do the maths. When the Prime Minister addressed, the then Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, when he addressed this honorable house, that's Dr. Kenny Anthony, in 2011, Madam Speaker, in 2011, and I'm quoting him, I'm quoting him, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, he said that for the year 2011, 2012, page 49 of his budget address, he said for the year 2011, 2012, the government was expecting to raise 10 million dollars, 10 million US dollars, 10 million in 2011, 2012. Madam Speaker, 10 million, I'm not using that as an average. At the rate of 25 US, it was 35 US per passenger. Now if you use that figure, Madam Speaker, as a benchmark, and that's, I mean, I'll come to it in a while, but if you use that figure as a benchmark, with 40 years contract arrangements, Madam Speaker, how much are we giving away to the consensual, to the consensual? How much? How much are you giving away? How much are we giving away? So it's not to our benefit, it's not to our benefit, Madam Speaker, for us to manage this facility, because we're giving away twice the cost of the airports. Madam Speaker, I'm coming to that. We do give it away at twice the price of the airport, at 45 US dollars per passenger. All right? So to me, it makes more financial sense, this only thinking of this government, to review, to review what we form, and to say, look, we are losing 100 percent, because if you talk about 400,000, 400 million dollars alone, what do you do to calculation, Madam Speaker? It will be 300 million US dollars, which will equate to almost a billion dollars. So isn't it better for St. Lucia, Madam Speaker, for us to say, look, let me review, and let's go back to a situation where solutions can benefit. Isn't it better? But Madam Speaker, that's not all. That's not all, Madam Speaker. Number 16, part two, fees and charges. Number 16, in addition to the fees and charges, which was at the time 45 US, which of course, Madam Speaker, I want to inform this on our house. That's why it's 45 years during our time. And the members of the fourth north talk about we increasing it, we increasing it. They pass a memo, Madam Speaker, in cabinet number three, eight four of 2015, June of 2015, to increase it to 55 US dollars, using cabinet 55 US dollars. So you move it from 35 and you brought it to 55 US dollars. So here it is, Madam Speaker. Here it is, Madam Speaker. Here it is, Madam Speaker. We are saying that, look, we're going back to 45 US dollars. And we're hearing that. We're hearing that we increasing it and people are going to travel. But Madam Speaker, I want to say this afternoon, I'm going to say this afternoon, Madam Speaker, that when they came in, based on the address of the Honorable Prime Minister in 2011-2006, they got in the lock box, Madam Speaker, and that these are the words of the Prime Minister, they got 17.7 million US dollars in the lock box. That's what the Prime Minister said in his address, 2014-2012, 2011-2012, 11.7 million dollars. So, you know, Madam Speaker, if you had to continue with the 45 US dollars, you know, by now it would appear of the airport, it would not be any debt on government. It's a debt on persons traveling through the country. So when they stand up and say, look, we are taking additional debts and we're running the country into more debts, they're just misleading conclusions, Madam Speaker. They're not that well, they're just misleading. Madam Speaker, and that's not all. Apart from the 55 US dollars, they were going to give the concession. Madam Speaker, apart from the 55 US dollars, they were going to give the concession, which worked out to be, if you multiply it by the time in 2011, when you look at the visitors arrival of 980,000 persons average. Right? But in 2011, there's 1.09 million people going through central. So you saw an increase in the visitors arrival. If they had continued, Madam Speaker, and the solutions are smart, that's where they would them out. Because if they had continued, Madam Speaker, there's a section there, navigation and communication charges. That also was going to the concession. In addition to the fees and charges of 55 US dollars, they were giving the concession to Madam Speaker, the navigation and communication charges. And these charges would be determined by the minister of finance. In addition, Madam Speaker, on page 12 of that act, which is the passing parliament, they have a section, other fees, other fees, Madam Speaker. And they said that the minister of finance with discussions with the concessioner could discuss and agree on other things. So, Madam Speaker, we're in a situation right now that we've been told that we're going to have a lot of money. If we continue to have money, we're going to have a lot of money. That's why we've done it by ourselves. And this is what we're going to do today today. And therefore, we're going to achieve a lot of things that we're struggling to achieve, that is what we're going to do today. And that's why this act is what we're going to do this April. But, Madam Speaker, I know that solutions understand and appreciate And of course, accept our model and they would give us the support that is needed as far as the development of this import is concerned. So I want to say, Madam Speaker, that while I'm supporting the bill, there are two sections of the bill I feel that needs to be reviewed. There are two sections I believe needs to be reviewed, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the section of where we're going to charge the carrier and we put a fee of $500, I think we should put a percentage of the ticket. I know why, Madam Speaker, the next 10, 15 years, you might say that $500 is slow. But if you have a percentage of the ticket, at least we have a more sustainable system as far as the collection is concerned. And Madam Speaker, the other section I want to speak about, and I think I'm hoping that we can discuss that at the community stage, is in the schedule which I agree with the member for Castries South. I think that we should look at including some other categories in the schedule to be given some leverage as far as exemption, as far as the taxes concern, especially the support people. Like we heard a while ago from the member from Castries, from Denver North, we have Mr. Melius from Babylon. And I want to congratulate Mr. Melius from Babylon. And I'm sure there are a number of other persons from Babylon that will follow him. There's a gentleman from Ghana doing very well under 15. These are the individuals who need to support Madam Speaker. So I'm hoping in the community stage we can make these changes. But Madam Speaker, I want to say that I support this bill and I will not waste time going into marketing. But Madam Speaker, I'll spare you this. I'll take it at a different time because I'm sure the member here would remember the statement by his Prime Minister in 1998, 1999, about power-stated agencies. You remember that. So I'll spare you this at some point in time. Madam Speaker, I want to thank you very much for your attention. Honourable leader of the opposition. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the discussion today is about attacks. And that is the reality. We're talking about attacks and we're talking about increasing the tax to people who travel into this country. And we're also speaking about taxing tourism. Madam Speaker, I want to just begin by quoting for you from the IMF concluding statements of 2017, the article four. And it said, Madam Speaker, on point two, the short-term outlook is mildly positive but presents some risk. Early growth is expected in 2017, primarily on accounts of continued strong performance in construction agriculture. The overall outlook appears uncertain as positive developments in tourism, they express the expected increase in the number of hotel rooms and the opening of new direct flights from the U.S., may be stifled by the impact of the new airport tax. That wasn't said by me, it was said by the International Monetary Fund. So, Madam Speaker, we're talking about attacks. And it's very interesting today, Madam Speaker, and they say God works in mysterious ways that there are serious things happening in the amount of taxes throughout the world. The EU, Madam Speaker, has just blacklisted St. Lucia as a tax haven. And that happened today, this morning, St. Lucia has been blacklisted as a tax haven. And the finance minister for France, Mr. La Mer, he made the point that countries that are blacklisted may lose access to EU funds. So we sit here in our chairs of glory where we can attack people, where we can victimize people, where we can laugh at people, not understanding that there is a reality that exists in the real world and we cannot escape that reality. So in spite of what we say here, when we do not use our taxes, our tax policy and in effective way, we get blacklisted. And when we get blacklisted, as the French Minister of Finance said, we can lose access to EU funds. I wasn't the one who said it. If you go into the New York Times and we laugh at these things, because we will be so strong, we run these countries, so we're strong, we're powerful, it was said in the EU, St. Lucia is blacklisted. We have to do that blacklisted, Mr. Speaker, Madam Speaker. But honestly, if we talk about taxes, I want to ask the government, what tax have they reduced? What tax, the only tax this government has reduced is violence. They have increased the tax on petrol. They have increased the tax, the departure tax. They have even taxes in the courts have increased. What taxes has this government reduced to be speaking about taxes, taxes, taxes? The only taxes government has released is this government has put St. Lucia at risk in that they are boasting about taxes that impact on firms opening the head offices in St. Lucia. And what happens, Madam Speaker, is that there's got to be something called ring fencing in the tax jargon. You cannot ask people to give you incentives, give you concessions, give you money, and then you are creating a tax haven for them in your country. Now these are things we have to sit and we have to discuss, not if arrogance and if scorn and if contempt, we have to discuss it, Madam Speaker, because today, in spite of what we say in this Honourable House, in spite of the amount of jobs we can give in this Honourable House, fact is that St. Lucia has been blacklisted by the EU and it's a fact that we have to deal with or else we will suffer the consequences. So Madam Speaker, I want to make the first point. What we are doing is we are imposing a tax. And secondly, St. Lucia has not taken any measures to reduce any taxation, as we say all the time. Only what we did, we reduced that by two and a half percent. We've put a petrol tax of 150 and we've also increased travel tax, Madam Speaker. That is a fact. The merit and the merits, I don't want to go into it now, but it's a fact. So when we speak about taxes, we must be careful what we see. Madam Speaker, if you have members on the other side, you will think that the PPP arrangements are arrangements made in hell. Jamaica, a favourite country, a country where we boast about, we want to follow. The Sancta International Airport in Jamaica is built with a PPP award, a 30-year concession for the Sancta International Airport and that agreement was entered in 2003. The Sancta International is built on the PPP and Sancta International Airport got the award, Madam Speaker, of being one of the best airports in the world. So we sit here and we criticize the PPP as if it's a set of madfellas and we're crazy. And I want to deal with some of the things the Minister of Agriculture said in a while. Because you see, Madam Speaker, the reality, we can talk, we can victimize, we can laugh at, but there are certain things, certain realities that hit you in government which you have to deal with. And the blacklisted is one and there are more to come. So, Madam Speaker, the airport discussion began from as early as 2007 when the government changed. 2007, when in our manifesto at the time, we said that we were in favor of doing some work of improving the airport. But this government began negotiations on the airport from 2007. And they left government in 2011 and they hadn't built, no airport is yet, they hadn't built the airport. So the point they're making is you come and you tell us that we started in 2012 and we didn't finish in 2016, but you started in 2007 and you did not finish in 2011. Let's find out why. You had the airport development tax. You said, and you said, you'd have had $50 million in your account. Wait, what, any money? And I want to go back to the Minister of Agriculture and be famous in a while because you know, Madam Speaker, when we try to score cheap political points, we must know people are listening to us.  I live in very often. If you borrow $200,000 a month and you pay back $2,000 a month, right? In one year, you pay $24,000. In 20 years, you pay $480,000 or $20,000. So your logic of the interest, the interest is that yes, more than that. You don't have a mortgage. Interest compounds, yes. You see, that's the problem. You're not living the world of reality. You see, you're not paying mortgage. Probably that's why. If you had a mortgage, you would know. That's the problem. You don't have a mortgage. If you had a mortgage, you understand that, and the bankers inside it, the bankers will tell you, if the bank, the mortgage, your mortgage will increase. More than that. More than that. And that's the difference.  It's more than that. So you see, so when you talk about collecting money, the $10 million a year, and you have that amount of money, and you say you must rethink it, but I come into this now. So, man speaker, that's airport development tax. They imposed it. They imposed it, and they said they had anything they want to see and see, because they have been seeing figures, anything they want. See whatever you had. I had a complaint about it. Why didn't you build the airport? Why didn't you begin the airport? And that is what the member of the country is saying. There were factors that caused you not to be able to build the airport. And that is the point, which you came back later. You had your lockbox. You had your loan. You had everything. You had everything. Things were set. You had the government. You could have gone your way. Why didn't you study the airport? You did not study the airport, because there were factors which you don't want us to talk about. But you have to come to the house when you're going to build the money for contingent liability, and we will discuss it. Why didn't you not begin construction of the airport when you had everything in place? You had the lockbox. You had the airport development tax. You had, why didn't you build it? I'm coming to you just now. You're in a hurry. Why are you so aggressive? Relax, relax. So, you had everything in place, but you didn't study the airport. There must be a reason. We'll come back to that later. So, we have bought the other way, as if the PPP is such a mess. Six airports in Brazil built by PPP. India, the Delhi airport, and the Mumbai airport built by PPP. In Costa Rica, airports are built by PPP. In Bahamas, airports are built by PPP. The IMF has recommended to Barbados that they should try to get a PPP arrangement for the airport, for the simple reason that airports need to be managed professionally, and they need to be managed in a certain way that will ensure that they are not drained on the resources of the country. So, the way you do it, Madam Speaker, is that you get the expertise to put their own money into the airport so your treasury is not burdened with that debt. So, you put the private sector, they invest the money, they get their returns, and your effort comes back to you.  In Singapore, a country that they always talk about, airports in Singapore on the PPP arrangements. The PPP arrangement is a new way where governments get, ease themselves out of the financial burden and put themselves in the arrangement with the private sector so they can reduce their debt. That's what it's all about. It's not a mystery. It's not because we wicked. It's not because we don't want to do it. We do not do it because, first of all, I want to make it abundantly clear that there was no agreement to build any airport in St. Lucia. When we came into government, there was no agreement to build any airport in St. Lucia because, because A&M, who had to put in $23 million, A&M failed the due diligence and the douche bank refused to lend us the money. And that is a fact.  That is a fact that you have to live with. So, Madam Speaker, A&M failed the due diligence because the arrangement that they had before was A&M would have to invest $23 million to put as their part of the bargain. And the douche bank would lend them the remainder. When the due diligence was done on A&M, the douche bank said, we're not lending them the money again. A&M failed the due diligence and the deal fell through. So there was no arrangement. There was no agreement to build any airport in St. Lucia where it came about. No agreements. And as we say, because this morning I heard, this morning I heard, Madam Speaker, that Grindberg was never discussing his own house, never discuss my, I sat right there. I heard a member for Central Castries at the time. He spoke for about two hours on Grindberg. And at that time, Grindberg was made a document of the house. The agreement was made a document of the house. And I have the agreement here with me today. The agreement nobody can find. That's the agreement there. I found it in the agreement in the house of agreement, but we were told that was a complete secret. Nobody knew about it. The member for Central Castries, he spoke volumes and rims about Grindberg in his horrible house. But we say nobody knew about it. Let's move. Madam Speaker, PPP. And the member for Castries North said they chose to do it their way. No problem in government, you win elections, you in control. Go ahead, do it your way. Question, Madam Speaker. Let us look at some of the realities of the PPP and some of the falsities and the falsehoods that we are seeing on the side, Madam Speaker. When discussions began on the development of the airports, because the deal between A&M and the Douche Bank had fallen through, the government of the then St. Lucia Labour Party began discussions with the World Bank with a view to building, improving the airport terminal. Madam Speaker, there is an institution in the Canadian government called Global Offense Canada. That institution provided 1.8 million US dollars as a grant, as a grant to Slasper. And that grant was to cover the transactions course on behalf of the government of St. Lucia for a team of specialized consultants to implement the project. Not no fellow around the place, specialized consultants, and these consultants, serious global consultants, they were the ones. And the Canadian government gave a grant, not alone, what St. Lucia had to pay was only 250 US dollars to put that whole deal together, so at the IMF, 250,000, sorry, US dollars so they can put that whole deal together so we can get the construction, the concessionary agreement for the airport, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, after discussions, I must understand, that was not a secret, you know. These discussions were held in public. The taxi people were contacted. The Chamber of Commerce was contacted. The leader of United Workers' Party, he had the privilege of having a discussion with the people who were put in a transaction together, so it's not new to him. He was there at that time, he was leader of the United Workers' Party. He had discussions with the IFC on the implementation of the PPP, so it wasn't something that happened in secret. It wasn't something that we put under the table. All the state dollars, there was a communication strategy that was put in place to discuss the PPP arrangements for the government of St. Lucia for the last month and it wasn't any secret. So, hence what the concessionary agreement was, Madam Speaker. And it's important that we go there because, you know, I wouldn't have mind if the government came and said, and I come back to the development bank situation. I was in the opposition, the development bank. I said to them, listen to me, you're in government. You want to go to the development bank? Do you want to go to the development bank? These are my concerns, but I didn't cast a gate and call them this and this. I didn't do it because it is their choice. So the government says, that's my choice. In spite of all the problems with A&M, et cetera, I still want to go this way. That's your business. But do not come here and pretend as if the PPP arrangement is something that came from the sky and because we're so wicked and we're so inefficient and we didn't get it done. That is why we don't have a network. That is not true. And let me say some further facts. The PPP arrangement, Madam Speaker, would have given the government some fiscal space because what has happened is that with that, with their arrangements, some fiscal space, with their arrangements, with their arrangements, you would have put a debt on the government of Senusia and also contingent liability. So you have a debt in real terms and you have a contingent liability, Madam Speaker. And we thought at this time it was not good economic policy because of the limited fiscal space to impose that kind of debt burden on the people of Senusia. So here's what the government is all about. Here's what the government is all about, Madam Speaker. It was a 40-year concession agreement on the reslasper and the government of Senusia would retain ownership and regulatory oversight over the Hibonora international efforts through a concession, fee, revenue, and corporate income taxes paid by the private investor. Should a private investor not get our airport for free, he would pay, he would pay a concession fee, revenue, revenue sharing, and corporate income taxes and over the private investor in the arrangement that we have would not have caught the airport free for 40 years. For 40 years, he would have paid a concession fee and his revenue and corporate income taxes. And it was calculated that over the life of the agreement for 40 years, an estimated one billion dollars of income would have been incurred would have been incurred to slasper and five version 80 million dollars worth of income taxes. That is the agreement that was on the table. So it is not fair to say it is the agreement. You have it, you know it. So it's not fair to say that it is not fair. It is not fair to say it is not fair to say it is not fair to say it is not fair to say it is not fair to say it is not fair to say that that PPP agreement would have gone is just something that's not true. St. Lucia would have got a billion dollars of revenue and five version 80 million dollars of income taxes from that agreement. Further, for the entire life of the concession, the private investment speaker will be responsible for the entire airport business and will design, construct and finance any improvements necessary for all the facilities including a new terminal building, a runway, a runway, taxiways, apron expansion and improved power station as well as operate and maintain all these facilities according to detailed performance criteria and international civilization standards. Also, my speaker, this concession had arranged a 30 year plan for the development of the airport. So in the 30 years, there would have been marginal improvements in the airport without this and Lucia government having to pay one cent or including one inch of liability. Now, my speaker, so, my speaker, when you have PPP arrangements, my speaker, you see, my speaker, we believe and I don't want to be sidetracked. We believe that we can talk gleefully about facts. When we know it is right, like St. Hansi, Granburg was never discussed in the house when it was discussed for two hours. And we believe we can say these things and people will believe us because of the political affiliation. But the reality is, these things can be proven.  For the man's speaker, they talk about the timeframe. They talk about the timeframe. Now, the only reason why, the only reason why that these things take time is because you are dealing with large projects, you deal with a lot of money, and you do not want to have to make all these phone calls. And you're dealing with a PPP with a tendering process that is very transparent and transparent and open. So you find nobody has to call the tenderer. So it was not days before it goes to the tenderer's board to call the tenderer and say, check that for me. That doesn't happen in these processes because the private sector, the private sector body that is involved wants complete transparency because these day are the ones who are spending the money. And that's the point I want to make. Since the private sector investor is spending the money, he's ensuring that all the eyes are dotted and the teeth are crossed because it's his money.  But in that model, in that model, in that model, in that model, in that model, you have a free rein, direct award here. Fresh that here. Everything you want. You have a free rein. You can do anything. It's a free rein.   But in that other model, a model that the Jamaican government followed, a model that government in Singapore followed, a model that government in the Bahamas followed, the private sector investor has his money, so he protects his money. So we politicians, we stay away from that. Only what we have is oversight, oversight to ensure that the regulatory functions of the airport are properly done. That's all we have, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, in that process, for the 40-year life of the concession, the investment program is estimated there would be 180 million US dollars in new capital investments, 90 million in maintenance given a total of 208 million dollars. Under the concession contract, the private investors required to complete the mandatory construction works totaling US 80 million within 40 months of the start of the concession. For the benefit of the government of St. Lucia, the concession contract requires the private investor to post a completion bond to compensate the government of St. Lucia for any delays of violations of performance requirements. These were some of the safeguards that were built into that concessionary agreement. So you can have no cost overruns, you can have no delays, you can have any, because it's the private sector person who is investing the money, but at the same time, your airport still belongs to you and you make a billion dollars in fees and find 80 million dollars in taxes. And if you had, and you know, Madam Speaker, because we know everything about finance, because we've got, we know so much, we are so powerful, we are so powerful, we laugh at these things. But you have to go and check for yourself and look at the agreement, the government of Jamaica, the Jamaica government that you follow, look at the sanctions agreements, you'll see what's there. That is called a PPP, public-private partnership. And the reason for that is because you, the country, does not have the burden of the tax, Madam Speaker, further, Madam Speaker. The proposed PPP structure does not require the government of San Lucia to raise any financing for the development of the airports. As a result, the project has no negative impact on the government of San Lucia's debt position. Now, listen to the argument. The argument is you put an airport development tax and very simple. In the life of simpletons, the airport development tax will be back for the airport. That is the life of simpletons. The airport development tax will pay back for the airport. If life was so simple, if things are then so simple, a lot more things would happen. It's not as simple. It's not that simple, Madam Speaker. And that is why the IMF and the World Bank have recommended for major and for structural projects of that nature, you go to PPP arrangements. First of all, to remove any cloud of doubt. So all the issues that we don't, we do not want to speak about would not arise. All the issues that we are afraid to speak about will never arise. Will never arise. There will not be any documents. There won't be any inquiry. There will be any letters we can find. There will be letters of nature because the burden would have not been on the government. So you would have protected the government and the country would have been protected because the country would have had less debt, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, we move on. We move on. There is the financial agreement, arrangement, that they want to make you believe everything would go to the concession, everything. The concession will get nothing. How is the agreement, how is the concession agreement that was in the concession agreement? Apart from the $1 billion and a few revenue of $1 billion and corporate in the tax of $80 billion on this counter over the life of the concession, the concession will collect and remit monthly to slasper all passenger security charges and navigation and communication charges. The concessionary will collect and remit monthly to slasper all passenger security charges and navigation communication charges. These two charges are for the direct use and benefit of slasper and the government of solution. The concessionary will also collect, receive, and retain all the remaining fees and charges, excluding the two charges mentioned above during the concessionary period. The amount of these charges is set in line with the regraging mechanism in the concession agreement and is reviewed and approved by slasper. The concessionary will also collect and return the erinetic, the non-erinetical revenues generated from commercial activists at the airports. So, ma'am speaker, what that means? There'll be a revenue sharing between the private sector and the government. And in that deal, because the private sector, because they've set up a performance bond, they wouldn't show that it doesn't fail because they would bring their expertise to the development of the airport institution. And we would benefit by getting a billion dollars and 580 million dollars of income tax, ma'am speaker. The transaction process, ma'am speaker, included a comprehensive due diligence evaluation of solution and vision sector, including both the HIA and dot FL charge airports with the objective of developing an appropriate transaction structure and the marketing and tending of the transactions with the investors, ma'am speaker. At the time, when this government gave it the power, the bidding process was almost complete. Slasper's fight had finalized negotiations with free, pre-qualified investors for successive markups to the draft concessionary agreement, ma'am speaker. But, ma'am speaker, the transaction structure, three major airport developers, three major airport developers had showed interest in human or international airport, three major airport developers, ma'am speaker, because they had seen the document, they had seen what we were offering, they had looked at a complete study of the international tourism industry, of the use of the airport, of how many passengers would come, they done a foreign analysis. And three, the tender process was launched on July the 7th, 2015. For those of them that say we did nothing. July the 7th, 2015, the tender process was launched. And three of the world's biggest airport developers had showed interest in human or international airports. These, these airport developers were Vinci, Vinci, a consortium of Vinci airports, Vinci airports, they operate 24 airport facilities in Portugal, Cambodia, and France. On April the 1st, 2016, Vinci acquired two other airports in Japan, making the company one of the world's top five airport operators. That company showed interest in international, so the government, the government was so bad, we are doing so many things, that company showed interest in international, so these people are stupid. SELICOR, SELICOR is a Hungarian company with principal businesses is to make investments in airports and airport related businesses globally. SELICOR controls airports in Argentina and operates more than 30 airports in Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, and Italy. That company showed interest in solution. Then there is ASSU HEISTA, is a New York Stock Exchange company trading that exchange, a New York Stock Exchange company, that manages the Mexican, the airport in Mexico. They also showed interest in SELICOR. These three companies showed interest in SELICOR. And after, after all the due diligence, after all the discussions, after the tendering process, one of them dropped out. So in the end, Vinci and SELICOR were the two companies that were interested in the concessionary arrangement with the United Arab Emirates these two companies. But they tell you about the timetable. Now, all that's happening, there are no issues. You have no discussion about who asks who questions. We care, there's no question and don't say that. There's no question on you can't find things in the Attorney General's office, not all that nature. There's no question on who is investigating, who for what. There's no question, no question. These things are happening. They're happening in a professional manner because world global firms are on the verge of coming into an arrangement with the government SELICOR. Global firms, not firms like A&M that failed due diligence with the douche-bank. No, not these firms. Global firms, global airport development firms are the ones who interest in SELICOR. Here is the time frame. And you know, I take time to go through these details because I know in the responses that is what's going to be thrown. There is not going to be any meaningful, there is not going to be any meaningful discussion on what I've said. Just do it. It's just do it. Yeah, it's not doing it. Now, Mr. Speaker, look at the, look at the timetable, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I'm afraid of do it. I'm a clean guy. I'm afraid of do it. I don't deal in do it. Issuance of final bid documents will happen September 2016. Receipt of bid. Remember, I told you, Mr. Speaker, that the tendering process was launched on 7th of July 2015. That's when it was launched, Mr. Speaker. Receipt of bid, Mr. Speaker, end of September. Evaluation and award of concession, mid-October 2016. Commercial closing, sign of concession agreement, mid-November and final close in May 2017. That was a timetable that had been set up for UNO international efforts. That was a timetable. And with all these things happened, all these things happened, without any fanfare, without any confusion in the bidding process, without any phone calls, without 130 phone calls between November and February, all this is happening, without all that. There was no need for these things because the whole process was transparent. The whole process was clear. The whole process was put together by slasper, with little involvement of politicians, by the professionals of slasper, after communication and discussion with the private sector in St. Lucia who agreed to the process. There were meetings at the Chamber of Commerce, there were meetings with the Taxi Association, there were meetings with stakeholders where the process, where the transaction module was discussed. And there was broad agreement. There was broad agreement, Madam Speaker, that the PPP arrangement was the best arrangement. And in that arrangement, Madam Speaker, the United Workers Party went forward. They held discussions with the IFC. They were held against the IFC. And the IFC explained to them what they were doing. Because we were not reinventing the wheel head. They make you believe as if we are reinventing the wheel. That we are the first persons in the world to do that. That was not the case. That is happening in several places in the world as we speak, Madam Speaker. So, Madam Speaker, there was no attempt to interfere in the building process. St. Lucia's name would not have been where it is now. There had been no discussion on who did what when. There had been no need for the Prime Minister to have to launch an investigation on a matter that is in the public domain. There had been no need for that. There had been no need for any of these things, Madam Speaker. We would have come here and we would have reintroduced the airport development tax because, as you remember, it was not, it was put at zero. But the argument was when they work on the airport started, then the airport development tax would have been reintroduced. So, this bill, there had been no need for this bill because the bill that was repealed, all we had to do is we would have to change the zero and put the figure that you wanted for the airport development tax. So, in principle, in principle, Madam Speaker, what we were trying, we, the bill, the airport development bill, the charge was turned, was set at zero. It was set at zero. That's what it was. So, Madam Speaker, what would happen is that we would not have had all the confusion that we have now. There had been no need to seek any assistance on the mutual legal assistance treaty which was signed in 1996 by the government in Idaho with the Spartans. There had been no need for that. There had been no need for them to have any private investigations on any evidence that was asked for in the mutual legal assistance treaty. There was no need for that because the whole process was transparent. The whole process had been discussed with the private sector. The whole process was discussed with Slasper. The ball of Slasper was on board. There had been no need to seek any mutual legal assistance. There was no need for that, Madam Speaker, but we come here today to speak about the process that was started by this government. That was obviously flawed. That did not, they started from 2007. They left government in 2011. They did not do it. When they got near doing it, the douche bank says, we're not financing you because one of your partners has failed the due diligence test. So, they had, they did all that, used all the government money for all them phone calls. And we had nothing. We had nothing. The country had nothing. So, when we came to government in 2016, there was no agreement. There was no agreement to build any newer potential. So, we had to start from scratch because that deal they had had fallen to. So, between 2011, and they like to talk about time frame, St. Jude. Why are you like in St. Jude? They have to talk about time frames, St. Jude. But we want to go in, we want to go into time frames. Between 2011 and 2016, you had no deal to build any airport, although you had the airport development tax. So, if it was just simple, if it was so simple, just put the tax and the bill airport. Why didn't you start the airport? Why didn't you start the airport? And all the confusion. And, my Speaker, I will take your, that will come in the meantime because, Mr. Speaker, I will not, I will never go against your ruling. So, I will not say all the issues that related to the request on a mutual legal assistance treaty. I will not go, I will not go into that at this time, my Speaker. But all that will not be necessary because, my Speaker, when we sit here in our, in our, in our throats, in our legal countries and because we're in government and we can victimize people and we can make people cry, that we believe we can do whatever we want and laugh at people and scorn them and treat them with contempt and treat them with disgust. The reality has the reality that hit us now with the EU black listing solution as a tax haven. That's the reality of the deal if, so anything we get up and we say, hey, and if we control and we laugh at and we, and we, we even victimize and we believe that people here are, you can victimize them, you can laugh at them. The reality is you have to face that. And even though you like it or not, you have to face the EU that has black listed solution as a tax haven. That's what you have to face. And that's the reality we have to face. So, my Speaker, the back, so the effort development and put it to this government to rethink, rethink on taking a loan to build the airports. There's been too much confusion relating to airports in Trinidad and Tobago. Up to this day, under the same mutual legal assistance treaty, there are people in Trinidad or the United States for the airport construction. There are people, I want to say, I love St. Lucia. The member for Answer Academy said that I said about the jobs. Why don't I, you don't even think I wouldn't be happy if St. Lucia has full employment? I'd be the happiest man in the world. I would be happy if St. Lucia has full employment. If every boy in Trinidad is walking, I'd be happy. I want to be happy for that. So, why do you think I want, I want St. Lucia full employment? I've been my seat more, better. So, I want full employment for St. Lucia. So, the point I'm making to save St. Lucia's good name, to save St. Lucia's good name as far as this airport thing is concerned, I'm urging this Prime Minister, Mr. Prime Minister, I'm urging you, I'm urging you, rethink that model to not be misguided because the PPP arrangement is the best arrangement for St. Lucia at this time based on our fiscal situation and based on what has happened to airports in this region. Have a look, read, think, talk to your colleagues. They will tell you that all of them regretted that they ever built the airport. All of them regretted that they did not take a PPP model to build an airport. The government of Barbados right now is being told by the IMF to sell the airport on a PPP model. You have a problem with VG airport, you don't know what you're doing with it. You lose money at VG airport, but you can't, that's the problem you have, that's the real problem with VG airport. So, the whole business of airports is complicated business. It's not as simple as a minister sit down here and attack people and say whatever he wants without any facts and sing to the gallery. It's more serious than that. Airports are problems. Airports need export management. So, I'm saying again, that this bill, this bill would have been relevant, would have been more acceptable to us, would have been more trustworthy, going to the member of cash reserve if the airport was being built on a PPP basis. I am saying, I don't trust that process. I do not believe based on evidence that I have before me, based on evidence of airports in other parts of the region, I do not believe Mr. Prime Minister. And Mr. Prime Minister, you must sometimes listen to the other side, because you know, even though you're big and powerful now, time flies, in 2018, you must listen to the other side. And I'm saying to you, rethink this arrangement, where you're going to borrow $150 million to build an airport, because you will find yourself in major problems. And I love St. Lucia. I don't want any St. Lucia, whether he's either your labor, to want to go to the states on the mutual legal assistance, where he can't travel to the states, because he wanted in the states for questioning. I don't have any St. Lucia. I want St. Lucia's good name to be preserved. And if you notice, and if you notice, what I'm saying to you, if you play, you don't understand what I'm saying, I do not want any St. Lucia to be wanted in the states under the mutual legal assistance treaty that the government signed in 1996. And I'm saying to you, that because of the history of airports, when the neighboring country, several of these people are wanted in the states for the same airport construction, under the same mutual legal assistance treaty, they wanted in the states for airport construction. Save St. Lucia's rights. Save St. Lucia's that discomfort. Save St. Lucia's that problem. Save St. Lucia's that embarrassment. Pull back. You want to stop the speakers when you're talking?  But I don't understand this. How are you going to stop me?  So why do you want to stop me when I'm speaking reality? Yes, true. I'm saying to you, save St. Lucia's that embarrassment. Save St. Lucia's investigation on the mutual legal assistance treaty. Save St. Lucia. Change your mind on building this airport for the way you want to do it. You have the IFC will come back. The World Bank, where you're going for all the money for the DV, the DVRP, etc. The IFC is a body of the World Bank. They will understand you. They will forgive you. Go back. Go back to the PVP model to save yourself and to save St. Lucia and to save embarrassment for some members of the government. I thank you, Mr. Mansi. Honorable Minister for Economic Development, Housing, Urban Renewal, Transportation and Civil Aviation. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I thought the rules were clearly established earlier in terms of the debate and where it was supposed to lead to on this airport development bill. Madam Speaker, in listening to the presentations on the other side and listening to the member, the leader of the opposition and member for Cassie East, at some opportune time, Madam Speaker, I hope that he can respond. He indicated that the IFC, which was engaged, was being paid by a Canadian company and also that the payment from St. Lucia was to about $250,000 to the IFC. Madam Speaker, I'm baffled. I'm baffled because I have a document that indicates projects funded by the Airport Development Fund. Now, Madam Speaker, at another time and another place, it was brought to my attention that the member, and I don't know if it's true, that the member said on some talk show there was no airport development fund in any log box. I wouldn't think the member would say that, and so I have not been able to substantiate. But, Madam Speaker, if IFC is the same as international financial cooperation on the breakdown of expenses from the airport development tax, there is an amount development of HIA paid to the IFC, $3,814,832.85. These are funds that are highlighted as being paid to the IFC. Yet still, I heard the member for Cassie East say that only $250,000 was paid to the IFC. Madam Speaker, I'm speaking on a point of clarification. I said, Madam Speaker, that the government has spent $250,000. In addition, the Canadian government through global affairs Canada has provided funding of 1.8 million US dollars, that's what I said. So, Madam Speaker, that begs a bigger question. If the Canadians paid 1.8, all right, provided funding. So what did they provide the funding to do? They provide funding. I would assume the funding is provided to pay for the engagement of the IFC. And then we would have met the shortfall if there was a shortfall of the $250,000. So I am asking, I am asking, Madam Speaker, this amount to the IFC, now this is projects funded by the airport development fund. The IFC was paid or the project funding for them, from the development fund, not from the Canadian fund, not from Salzburg Airport Development Fund, the ADC. Now there was supposed to be a lock box, but apparently somebody broke the box because the amount of expenditure I saw. And I'm coming down to that, Madam Speaker, because you see, we have a responsibility in this House when we speak to present the facts. And contrary to what they may say on this other side, they've not been able to prove that anything that I have said here is not factual. Okay? So, T.Y. Ling International joins for HIA redevelopment, $5,730, $529.85. Construction and industrial equipment limited. Expansion of HIA apron. $8,741,393.41. Construction and industrial equipment again. CIE. Rehabilitation of Turning Bay at HIA. $9,357,284.98. Energy dynamics. Standby supply and switch up grid. HIA. $1,029,440.09. Condor new energy equipment company limited. Standby supply of switch up grid. HIA. $573,796.29. FDL consults. Environmental site assessment, HIA, $162,152.22. So, Madam Speaker, when the member for Castries is a leader of the opposition comes to this honorable House and make us believe that IFC was granting St. Lucia a favor. Their engagement only cost us $250,000. So, if the Canadians provided $1.8 million and St. Lucia provided $250,000, and these are US dollars, and yet still from the airport development tax, which was supposed to be in a lock box. Now, Madam Speaker, why did we come to this honorable House and create a lock box? A lock box meant that no minister had the latitude to go and direct how that money should be used. That is why it came to Parliament, and Parliament made a decision that the money would be there, and the only reason the money would be used is for redevelopment of HIA. Now, I have a member for Castries South talking about, I see airports there. So, what are these airports about? You thought it was HIA redevelopment. You thought not? No, the member for Castries South spoke about that. So, Madam Speaker, if the money was in a lock box, at what point in time did the then government report to the people of St. Lucia how much money they found in the lock box? You talk about transparency. You talk about what you did and the people ought to know because this is the people's business. At what point in time did you report to the people and tell them we found $50 million in the lock box? And as a result, we have decided that we are going to use this money to do the following things. And I remember sitting where they are there, Madam Speaker, in opposition. When these projects came up, I raised and Hansard will show, Madam Speaker, that I raise questions about that in the house, ask them what answers did they give. Go back to Hansard and show where you answered the questions that were posed about this. Yes, but I choose not to. I choose not to. So, at the end of the day, the record speaks for itself. So, the member for Castries is today said that they paid $250,000. So now, Madam Speaker, this warrants an investigation. It warrants an investigation. It warrants an investigation as to why $3,800,000 was paid. Now, Madam Speaker, some people think that an investigation is a bad thing. I think that an investigation is the best thing that happens because when an investigation takes place, it is not politicians that judge you. It is the facts by which you are judged. Madam Speaker, in due course, in due course, Madam Speaker, there were even documents. I can't wait documents. So, all the phone calls they mention in Madam Speaker, it's not how many phone calls you make. What's the content of the phone calls that you make? What is recorded? Speaker, every email that I send for five years in government is there. Every phone call that I made is there. You couldn't come up with anything. Zero. But you know, Madam Speaker, they want to make you believe. They want to make you believe. And Madam Speaker, I'm not afraid of that subject.  Because you see, you don't go to a store and buy honesty. You don't go to a school and learn honesty. And the people who want to speak about honesty ask them what happened to the cow's atmosphere. Ask them if they can account for it. You see, Madam Speaker, but coming back to where we are, they want to make you believe that we are not capable in St. Lucia. Now, Madam Speaker, some people don't trust themselves. And I can well understand why they don't trust themselves. Because you know why they don't trust themselves? Because they know that they get the chance to lay hand on something, what they will do with it. I trust myself. Zero. There's nobody in this world that I trust more than me. Okay? So at the end of the day, at the end of the day, I didn't ask you to trust me. I'll tell you who to trust. You said you trust the member for Cassary's North. Well, the member for Cassary's North today spoke in this honorable house and he is the one spared in the airport project. So why not trust him now on this one?  You all said it was sitting right there. So conveniently, conveniently, we trust people. So today, Guy Joseph don't have nothing to do with the airport redevelopment. But at the end of the day, you see, it was never about Guy Joseph. It was about opposition to the development of the airport for the people of St. Lucia. That is what the discussion has been about, Madam Speaker. Now, Madam Speaker, the member for Cassary's is given a elaborate presentation about a document about the agreement that was only known to them. Ask him as member responsible in the previous government for port services under whose direct jurisdiction the airport development found itself. How many times did he give these details to this honorable house or to the people of St. Lucia? Also, Slasper doing it now as you are in government. When I was in government, it's me that was doing it, not Slasper. I always make phone calls and I will continue to make phone calls. But you see, Madam Speaker, here's the part of the equation that we are not dealing with. Ask them why it took four years for it to surface. Ask them, why did it take four years to surface what the deal was on the HIA airport? You know what happens, Madam Speaker? I don't need to be a fortune teller to figure it out. With the UWP government, everything we do is out there in the open. So I heard them talking about DSH, DSH, DSH. When the Prime Minister signed the agreement for DSH, he did it on television for everybody to see. When the letter was signed for Ensworth, Asworth for the 400, 4000 acres, ask them who knew about it. When the Greenberg was signed, ask them who knew about it. Ask them about Roschamel, who knew about it. You see, Madam Speaker, this UWP government will always be criticized by the opposition because we don't do things under the table and we don't hide to make negotiations. If we're negotiating, it's out in the open. There was nothing about HIA that was either. And you know, Madam Speaker, what is interesting? Ask them, why all the invoices that was paid under their watch to Robert Linguist was deleted from the Asicudo system, the government system at the Treasury? Ask them, why every invoice paid was deleted, not from SmartStream. No, Asicudo is with the airport, with Slasper. SmartStream. Thank you. SmartStream. Ask them. But you see, Madam Speaker, they didn't know that I had all the copies before they deleted. I had it. So, Madam Speaker, we hear them talking about now we have to pay the IFC one million dollars. Ask them how much they paid to investigate me, over a million US dollars. The phone calls that they are talking about did not even come to a hundred thousand dollars, but they spent a million dollars to find out what was said on the phone calls. And they found nothing. So you think? But I have said, Madam Speaker, I have said in this house, I welcome an investigation. You know why I welcome an investigation? Because the investigation will set the record straight. Why are you all afraid? Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, I know you will tell me, I know you will tell me that may not be parliamentary language. I think there is a little too much cross talk across the chamber, please. Honorable Minister, please continue. Madam Speaker, after, you see, we're talking about the airport and we're talking about the model for the airport. And the members opposite want to criticize the model adopted by this government. But let me make a point, Madam Speaker. I have so much about investigation. When the investigation was completed and nothing was found, the member for Castries East met me upstairs in Milan. Nobody said to me, you sucker, we know you did things, but we just care fine. Madam Speaker, that never happened. He's not speaking the truth. I don't even, I don't even speak to him. Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, I told him, I told him continue searching. If it is there, you must find it. Obsess the lounge. Obsess the lounge. After you all got the report, that's last one, you all found nothing in it. But Madam Speaker, I will have my day. I will have my day because, Madam Speaker, when this Labour Party decide to attack you, so they want to make you believe, I heard the members opposite talking about, oh, we're going to get an airport and it's not going to cost us anything. Madam Speaker, any St. Lucian believe that there is somebody out there in the world who's going to build an airport for us that costs $400 million and it will cost us nothing? Now, I'll take on the member for Castries East on the figures that he was presenting there. He said they are going to pay taxes to the government. Concessionary would pay taxes of about 500 plus million. Now, Madam Speaker, our tax rate is about 40%. If our tax rate is 40%, now tax is paid after your gross, then hold on. You net out your expenses and what is left, earnings before tax. EBT, earnings before tax. Okay? Yes. For you, Madam Speaker, for you to pay 500 million in taxes over the life of this project to the government would mean that you have to make a minimum of $1.5 billion profit. And I want you to challenge that. Challenge it. Stand on a point of order and challenge it. That, yes, if you're going to make, if you're going to be paying taxes and your tax rate is about 40% of your profit, then obviously, then obviously, so the IFC can give us a model where one company can come in here, run our airport, make $1 billion for themselves. Now, that billion is after expenses. I want the people of St. Lucia to understand that. That is after they paid for the airport because the airport is part of the cost of doing the business. After they've paid management, after they've paid for the full operations, they've taken off all of the expenses. They have a profit of $1.5 billion. And that would be at 43% and one third percent to make it $500 million. And the member for Castries East want me to believe that we're getting an airport free of charge. No wonder St. Lucia ran bankrupt under them, Madam Speaker. Because it is obvious with that kind of reasoning. And when I said to a member, you don't understand anything about financing, they want to tell me, oh, is you that's the guru? I not no guru. What I know is how to use money to gain wealth. And if you understand anything about wealth, you would understand that wealth is what you have when you have no money left. I know you can't understand that. You won't understand that. You're at West Indus Creek at bankrupt. Madam Speaker, most of the countries mentioned here, Madam Speaker, most of the countries mentioned here, where you have these arrangements. Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk about India. How many thousands of airports are in India? You know, when we make comparisons, let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Don't you compare apples to bananas? And try and tell me, okay, let's use that model. Now the IFC, I want to deal with the IFC. Tell me who in the IFC is more honest than the people of St. Lucia. So IFC can come and tell us what to do. They transparent, they above board. You want me to tell you about the IFC? And if they want to challenge me, Madam Speaker, they can challenge me. When I inherited the project on the Wasco that was headed by the same IFC, ask them what happened. And the gentleman who was in charge of the project asked him why they transferred him all the way to Africa. I leave it as that, Madam Speaker, because when somebody is not here to defend their name, I am careful as to what extent that I go. But don't come and make it look like IFC is some kind of saint organization. I met with the IFC when the leader of the United Workers' Party. I was at the meeting with the lawyers representing the IFC and Salaspa right at the boardroom at Salaspa while I was in opposition. And the basic question that was put to the representative of the IFC, what is the benefit in your model force inclusion? And ask him if he has answered that question. And up to now, he cannot answer that question. Because, Madam Speaker, we are not building an airport and we heard they said, oh, I was happy to have today there was no deal on the airport. All the time I thought I'd make a deal somewhere with somebody to build the airport because I heard them say that so much as wondering if I made a deal. But today I heard the member for castries say when they came in, there was no deal. There was no plan to go ahead. Everything had fallen through. Why did everything fall through? Because the government set a standard by which the airport would be built. Anybody coming to the table had to provide financing below 6 percent and there would be no sovereign guarantee. No sovereign guarantee and below 6 percent interest on the law. And anybody, anybody who came to this matter, if you could not meet that requirement, there was no arrangement with the government. And that was a decision made by the cabinet. That was not a decision made by a minister or by slasper. If government of St. Lucia had to support the project, it had to fall within a certain scope of the financing arrangement. So, Madam Speaker, we came to this honorable house and I've heard so much about the airport development tax and the impact on travel. Madam Speaker, the member for Babonu touched on it. What the members over there, what they are not telling you, Madam Speaker, is that under the United Workers' Party government, we introduced an airport development tax of $35 to build the airport. When the airport was completed, Madam Speaker, because we had put in a 20 percent on the earnings in the event that things had gone bad a year or two and you could not meet your payments, so there was a 1.5 cover, 1.2. So over a 10-year period, you would have accumulated enough money to pay for an additional five years if you had a drop in passenger arrivals. So at the end of the project, when we would have paid for the airport in full, the government of St. Lucia at the $35 would have had in excess of two, not the government, slasper would have had in the log box in excess of $200 million. Now, Madam Speaker, how do concessioners work? How do concessioners work? This is what the Labour Party government offered the concession. Cabinet considered a memorandum dated 25 June 2015 and noted the intention of the Minister of Infrastructure, not Madam Speaker, who it is referring to, and noted the intention of the Minister of Infrastructure, port services and transport to accept the recommendation of the Council of the St. Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority to increase. I'm not sure that's the right word because the way they speak about them, Madam Speaker, as if there was no intent to increase the airport service charge to facilitate the HIA public-private partnership transaction as follows, and that was dated 29 June 2015, Madam Speaker, an increase in the airport service charge in the amount of US $40 per passenger and increase in the airport service charge in the amount of US $30 per passenger, the new airport service charge will be US $55 and the Minister of Finance will determine the effective date of the new airport service charge. So my question to the members of you, what is it you are debating in the House today? What is that argument? What is it that you want to say to the people about the airport service charge? Because we were doing it for $45. You, in your brightness and your wisdom, decided $45 was not enough. So you offered the concessionary $55 per passenger. Now if you take the maths done by the honorable member for Babonu, at the number of passengers that we have, so if nothing changed in St. Lucia at the $55 per passenger, if there was no additional passengers coming to St. Lucia, the concessionary would make in excess of $800 million over the life of that project. Now tell me something and I will give you an example, Madam Speaker. So they say, don't put that burden on the people of St. Lucia. Let me take street lighting as an example. This same government went and negotiated with Caribbean Development Bank to take a loan of $11 million to change the street lights in St. Lucia when you have hundreds of companies out there who are willing to come and install all the lights for you and you pay them based on the savings that you make from the electricity bill. They did not go that way.  They will not tell us what the negotiations behind the closed doors were. So they will check the phone calls and check the records and find out when they've been in government who has controlled the pesticides spraying at the airport and at the seaport. Find out who are the people behind the scenes who negotiate and what they negotiate for. Take Grindberg as an example. It was mentioned by the member for Castries East. Take Grindberg. Where were the documents for Grindberg at Earl Huntley's home? No way in any government office. They said there's investigation on me. No document can be found in government. No government office can show a piece of document. So I assume it's at somebody's home and it will surface one of these days. But further to that, Madam Speaker, the member for Castries East went into elaborate detail of an agreement. Ask him where the agreement came from. Who was holding it? Huntley was still holding the agreement? You see, if you want to be upfront with the people of St. Lucia, be upfront. Don't present the information when it is convenient to you to present it to the people of St. Lucia. So the IFC had no scent. And I heard somebody said it. Go and check the record of the IFC because what you will find out is that a lot of times these institutions come here and they want to tell us what to do and how to do it. But the places where they come from, they cannot say what to do and how to do it. So do I have questions about the IFC? Of course, any organization that would lead a country in this direction, I have to question. I don't question whether they were following the right process for contractor selection. And if that was so attractive, you talk about Vinci, but Vinci has met with the government. And you know what Vinci said? $55 is not enough for them to do the project. Okay? $55 is not enough. So if they are saying $55 is not enough, no wonder based on what the member for Babono highlighted, there are other models of payment that would have been brought in. So Madam Speaker, an airport that is supposed to cost us, and I've heard the numbers, all of a sudden they stick on $400 million. When they came in, when they were in opposition, they said we are wasting money. That's too much money to spend on the airport. They need to spend less. So I heard they were looking at $88 million. So I wonder how $88 million U.S. can amount to $400 million easy. And after they drop the price of the airport, Madam Speaker, which means that they were dropping the size of the footprint of the airport, you know what they did? They increased the amount of money so somebody was not making money. It would be good, Madam Speaker, to investigate who would be affiliated to the concessionaires. When the concessionaires come and operate, who would be their partners in the operation? And Madam Speaker, I'm not afraid to speak because you can search what you want about me. You can only find what is there, as I indicated to the member for Cassie's East. So Madam Speaker, the lock box, I want to ask the members who broke the lock box. And how was the money for the lock box being used when we came to parliament and we made a decision that Ayata would collect the money and the money would go towards the development of the airport. Madam Speaker, I have confidence that the people of St. Lucia can run the airport as effectively as any concessionaire from anywhere in the world. Over the side, Madam Speaker, our people do a great job when they have the worst of facilities. They make do with what they have. They try their best. And when something good comes, we believe that the people of St. Lucia are not good enough for you. And that's my problem with the model that they are bringing.  They bring a firm from outside. You know what they do? They bring in a general manager for the airport from overseas. And where you are paying the St. Lucia $10,000, they will pay that person $40,000 with all kinds of allowances. Because you know what? It's not their money. Contrary to what the opposition want to make St. Lucia's believe, every dollar of tax that is charged on everybody coming to this country is money that belongs to St. Lucia and to the people of St. Lucia. Every dollar. So don't come and make it look like all of a sudden the airport development tax is not our money. That's somebody else's money. Madam Speaker, we understand the fiscal situation and the space that we have. We are not going to be reckless. I'm just going to take a loan for $400 million and say just build an airport. But the latitude that this airport development tax gives, Madam Speaker, it allows us the latitude and the liberty to create more fiscal space for the government to operate. Because, Madam Speaker, if I were to apply the $55 that they have there, we could get the airport built and we could get the seaport built. Or we could get the airport built and we can get the highway built under that same arrangement. But when you bring in a concessionary, what benefit do we have from the concessionary? Madam Speaker, in business nobody comes in business to make a loss. There are unfortunate circumstances and situations that may develop. So that is why these concessionaries, when they want to come in, they want to milk everything up front, Madam Speaker. They want to make as much and you can't blame the concessionary. That's what people are in business to do. But it is the persons you put in charge of your business that have to make the decision so that the decision can benefit the country. And so, Madam Speaker, let's examine the model and I'm happy whether debate went. Let's look at the model proposed by the members opposite when they were in government. Madam Speaker, the IFC has been engaged. The IFC did some work. How would the airport have been built? How would they have built the airport? They would get a PPP arrangement, but that PPP arrangement would have the concessionary running the airport. The difference with us, Madam Speaker, is we still want a PPP arrangement, but we are going to manage our airport. Slasper has done a good job in managing the airport. And if anybody's salary should be 40,000 U.S., then let it be a solution who is employed by Slasper and not some foreign person who comes there and occupies the top job at the HIA airport. And go and check the records. You mentioned Bahamas. Go and find out what the airport development tax is in Bahamas. Yes, we went there. We saw what it was. And we saw how much it was going up incrementally. So when you want to come and say that, look here, yes, I went to Bahamas previously when I was in government. Not this time. I'm not involving the airport this time. So I'm just saying to you, Madam Speaker, if almost $54 million had been collected in just the four years, can you imagine that? And that is where when we make mistakes as politicians, we must be big enough to come and say we made a mistake. The Labour Party made a major mistake. And the financial woes that we are in St. Lucia today, they have contributed in a very meaningful way to this. Because the passenger counts have not reduced as a result or has not increased as a result of removing the airport tax or having the airport tax. That did not change the number of people. The announcement was made from January this year that the tax would be increased. And the percentage is already there. Increased numbers of arrivals in St. Lucia. And Madam Speaker, what they are not telling the people of St. Lucia? Let's look at it. All other countries. We were cheaper than all the other countries when they were in government. And the country's numbers were going up in terms of the the airport tax was higher than us. And they had more arrivals than we had in St. Lucia. Something is wrong. Something was definitely wrong, Madam Speaker. So they proposed 30 years concession. And the person has an option to continue. So can you imagine the HIA airport? If we go into this arrangement in 2018, and you add 30 years to that, in the year 2048, Madam Speaker, we will still not be in charge of our airport. And when 2048 comes, that person running the airport has the first right of refusal. So at what point? You just presented that, but you just said the arrangement was for 40 years. They have a first right of refusal. Oh, it's in the document. Madam Speaker, I was just rephrasing. I was just rephrasing. But I understand that the basic thing is if you have the option to renew, the option to renew is the same as the first right of refusal. What did you say? Madam Speaker, subject subject to paragraph C, the concession contract shall not exceed 40 years from the due date of execution with the option to extend the term of the agreement by the parties in the concession contract. Madam Speaker, you see, how can we trust what is said on this side of the house? It's in their document, you know. No, I said the agreement that you are presenting there. It was never presented. The details that you presented there, you alone have it, or maybe it might be at Huntley. That's what I said. It's not her. It was never presented. But you see, you want to play as if, Madam Speaker, the member for castries is one to pretend as if I invented something. And you see, she must have them at the Lame, Madam Speaker, with a document. His document, he would have said he never said that. You are getting out of the speaker. So, so, Madam Speaker, when we go into these long term arrangements, these members must understand that they have implications. A good manager will tell you, Madam Speaker, that these arrangements are very cumbersome. That's too long term. If we, if we did not have the capacity to introduce an effort development tax that could raise sufficient money to build the effort. Now, Madam Speaker, here's what they are afraid of. What they are afraid of is corruption. What they are afraid of is somebody going to make a bobble. So you don't trust the board of slasper?  How many persons, how many persons from the government? Some persons, okay? Madam Speaker, when I was minister for communications and works which included port services, slasper was headed by the PS of finance who is from the Ministry of Finance. The deputy chair of slasper was the PS of communications and works. And ask them for all the years they were there. Who was? Yes, but get my point. Ask them who was my PS at the time. And who was the deputy chair of slasper? And ask them, ask them if I could influence that PS to make a decision that would benefit me personally on the board of slasper. I want them to answer that question, Madam Speaker. You see, Madam Speaker, it is easy to paint a picture of people and to make people believe that you are what you are not. But I always say, Madam Speaker, I'm a simple man. What you see is what you get. I don't have nothing to pretend. I don't have nothing to hide. So did I make calls? I make calls to everybody I interact with in my government. Every investor who comes to St. Lucia and I engage with them, I have conversations with them. I don't send nobody and speak on my behalf. For them to say it's not me that did this. You see, Madam Speaker, some people, some people find it convenient. And I know, Madam Speaker, truth, yes, truth and honesty is not something that is loved and appreciated. Because when you straightforward, Madam Speaker, you always find yourself in problems because you say the way that you see it. So when I see the presentation by the members, I have to believe, Madam Speaker, that there was a fixer somewhere. There was a fixer. There's no way any man in the right mind would give a concession for the airport where a man would make a billion dollars net profit in 40 years on little St. Lucia, on little St. Lucia, a billion dollars. Now, Madam Speaker, these figures associated with air travel remain growing. When we did our calculations, it was a 1% growth projected per year. For this year alone, I heard the members say, we have 14% or how much for one month. So imagine we project. So that's like covering 14 months in 14 years. Madam Speaker, I want the people of St. Lucia to understand that the decision being made by this United Workers Party government is a decision that's going to benefit St. Lucia. It is not going to give a foreign entity to run our airport and to get the cream and to leave the crumbs for us. That is the difference. That is the difference in the two models.  So we can agree to disagree on who becomes the contractor. But you go to the contract at a price. Now, I can see why they are afraid. You know, Madam Speaker, and I don't blame them. One's beaten, twice shy. You know why they are afraid? Madam Speaker, they signed cost overruns on Rochamel before Rochamel started. Before the hotel was built, they signed an agreement to cover cost overruns. When the southwest coast road was being built, a contract was issued under that government over there when they were in government. The members opposite. For $43 million, the project ended up costing over $100 million. Madam Speaker, NCA, as they were Henry Charles, have the NCA reported here, Madam Speaker? Have the report done by the commission of NCA? So much money unaccounted for. Radios for the police. Money was sent to the U.S. Up to now the radios, they come back the money, they come back here. Nobody has accounted for that. That happened under their watch. St. Jude, Madam Speaker, they spoke about St. Jude. A project they said a state of the earth hospital would end up costing $60 million. And they said it would be opened in August of 2016. Final date. Everything is on stream. $180 million later, Madam Speaker. Go and look at St. Jude. So of course you have to be afraid of building the airport. Of course you cannot trust yourself because you have shown that you do not have the capacity and the capability to deliver on anything you promise. So of course if you started the airport at $400 million, it would end up at $800 million. So no wonder, no wonder the investor was saying, I don't want $35 to work with you. I want $55 and the $55 is not enough. You think it's on us alone the investors doing their research? They must have done their research on you and understand who they're dealing with. So Madam Speaker, when these members come here and they want to portray that they are managers and we don't know what to do, Madam Speaker, this airport development bill is a simple document. The members have gone everywhere. They have tried to say they're investigating me, Madam Speaker. And I am so happy to be investigated. I'll give them a trophy for investigating me. I'm going to present them a trophy because they've solid my name and they acclaim my name, Madam Speaker. That is what is happening. You see, when people talk about being blessed, I don't talk about being blessed. There are people who wonder if it's tomorrow they are blessed. I don't know who blessed them, but I don't come and talk about blessings that way. I don't come and talk about blessings that way. So Madam Speaker, how do concessions operate? They come to maximize profit and one way of maximizing profit is to inflate operating costs. It's easy to do that, Madam Speaker. You can inflate the operating costs. How can you tell them they cannot pay their manager $20,000 or $40,000? They tell you for the quality of person that I want, that is what it is. How can you tell them that they cannot introduce it? So we know these things. We have to cater for that. Did we, in the agreement that the member for castries spoke about, I want to ask him, show me where there was a clause in the agreement that limits the cost of operation. That the cost of operation should be a percentage of the revenues collected and that it cannot go beyond that. Because that's what good negotiators do, Madam Speaker. You set a cap that I know that you cannot go beyond a certain point, but when you do this thing, cut, when you leave it open, what is going to happen, Madam Speaker? So the position taken by the United Workers Party government is to still go into a PPP arrangement, but for the construction of the airport and to be able to use the airport development tax to pay. And you can calculate that. That's not high science. You can calculate that. If the percentage for the load is 6%, spread over a 30-year period, which is the cost of the financing, you know what the airport is going to cost you at the end of the day based on the final price. So you're going in with your eyes open, with the concession arrangement, you are going in blindfolded because you don't know what you are getting into. So Madam Speaker, members opposite, you know what we are doing is the right thing. It is the right thing for St. Lucia. It is going to bring benefits to the people of St. Lucia. Madam Speaker, the airport alone would create 900 new jobs in view for it. Without DSH, without the hotels, without anything, just the expansion of the airport would create 900 additional part-time and full-time jobs at the airport alone, not the construction part, you know, when it is completed, Madam Speaker. So we know that we are in a position to make it happen, Madam Speaker. And I support this bill being presented by the Prime Minister, this motion, Madam Speaker, to allow the country to implement the next phase of the airport development tax that will be used by St. Lucia to finance its airport project. And all the benefits will remain with the people of St. Lucia. Thank you. Madam Speaker, can I beg that we suspend the House for 40 minutes? Half an hour? Half an hour? Until 5.30. Honorable members, the question is that the House be suspended for half an hour, that we take some tea break and resume to complete. As many as of that opinions, yeah? As many as of a country opinions, you know? I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. This House is suspended until 5.30.