Hello everyone, welcome back to the National Television Network Live Broadcast of the City of the Senate for today, Thursday, the 10th of March 2022. I've heard so many instances where people who feel that they're so entitled to help people, don't you know who I am? So what? We all have the equal rights of citizenship. For conventional leaders, political, religious, social, civic, who are the drivers of both the vehicles of... Supplementary appropriation bill and the domestic violence bill. If they are fixated on what is immediately ahead, not at the next five yards or even the next five miles, but further ahead, conscious of the condition of the road and most importantly fixed to our ultimate destination. We all know instinctively where we need to go and what we need to do. During the period 20, 2001. Customs control and management amendment, the community tourism development and the agriculture and fisheries incentives amendment. It is the intention of the Honourable Ministers, the Honourable Senators that is to seek leave of the house when this bill is to go through all the stages at this setting. A number of Senators are already seated and anytime from now we should see the entrance of the sergeant at arms to begin this afternoon session. The morning session as so much debate on the domestic violence bill, the domestic violence bill is one considered historic and unprecedented and it is intended to provide much assistance and support that were not available before, not only for women, but for men and children as well. The supplementary estimate according to the Honourable Prime Minister is to address expenses that we experienced as a result of Hurricane Elsa and of course it would be for other unforeseen circumstances of either state. $5 million have been put aside for the agricultural sector to address damage to crops, livestock, etc. The Department of Infrastructure has received a million and this is to facilitate cleanups to various communities and roadways. The Department of Equity will receive $3 million to meet the needs of those affected by the storm. The Department of Housing will receive $1 million to assist those whose homes were damaged as a result of the storm. On the matter of the gender relations, the domestic violence bill that Virginia Charles O'Donnell Albert Poight indicated that the bill, once it's legislated, will speak to the intention as well as committing a domestic violence act. So even when an impression is given that you intend to commit an act, that would be violating this law. Among the acts cited were stalking, sexual assault, harassment in any form, economic abuse, meaning that denying the false financial assistance, forced confinement, to name just a few. They will also make provision for the Minister for Health. Well, the Sergeant and Arms has just arrived, followed by the President of the Senate. And so the session, this afternoon session, is about to commence. Honourable Senators, I believe when the House rose earlier on, we had just concluded the debate on the domestic violence act bill, the domestic bill. I believe now, I believe we had concluded that, so we should move on. I might call the Leader of Government and Business. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I beg to move for first reading. A bill shortly entitled Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement Amendment. Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement Amendment. Leader of Government and Business. Mr. President, I move that the Standing Order 49-2 be suspended to allow this bill to go through its remaining stages of the sitting. The Standing Order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the Honourable Leader of Government and Business to proceed with the remaining stages of the bill at this sitting. And I'll put the question, as many as I have that opinion, say I. As many as I have a country opinion, say no. I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it. You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I beg to move for the first reading of a bill shortly entitled Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement Amendment. Mr. President, just by way of background and context, I want to share a few thoughts on this bill being proposed. And the purpose really of this bill is to amend the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement Act Cap 1907, known as the Act. Way back in 1983, to be more precise, October 5th, Mr. President, the governments of Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kittisonivis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, all of these entered an agreement establishing a common currency known as the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank. The purpose of that agreement at the time, Mr. President, was to maintain a common currency in the region and among the territories of the participating governments. And to establish the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank as we know it to be the ECCB. The bank was given powers to issue and manage the currency and to safeguard its international value, to promote monetary and stability and sound financial structure. And also to further the economic development of the territories, all these are mentioned earlier, of the participating governments. And so this bill is essentially the intention was to give legal effect to that particular agreement that I referred to. In fact, at a meeting of the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Monetary Council in February of 2020, the Monetary Council approved an amendment to the Act to deal with conflicts and other legislation that the Act may have had. And as a result, the bill that we are proposing today is merely intended to give legal effect to that. And so without any further deliberation, Mr. President, I wish to present this bill for the consideration and concurrency of this Honourable House. Senator. Sorry. Senator, the question is that the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement amendment will be read a second time. Senator, the question is that the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement amendment will be read a second time. I now put the question. As many as I have that opinion say aye. Aye. As many as I have a country opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. An Act to amend the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement Act Cap 19.07. Close to. Insertion of new section 4A. Close to stands part of the bill. Close one. Short title. Close one stands part of the bill. Senator, the question is that the committee rises and the bill be reported. I now put the question. As many as I have a country opinion say aye. As many as I have a country opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Senators, I beg to report that the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement amendment bill went through committee stage without any amendments. Is that going in business? Mr President, I beg that the report of the committee be adopted and that the bill be read a third time and passed. Senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement amendment bill be read a third time and passed. I now put the question. As many as I have a country opinion say aye. As many as I have a country opinion say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Be it an act to amend the Queen's most excellent majesty. The only advice I'm concerned of the House of Assembly and the Senate of Senutia. The authority of the Senators follows. This act may be cited as the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement amendment act 2022. Leader of government business. Mr President, I beg to move for the first reading of a bill shortly entitled Customs Control and Management Amendment. Customs Control and Management Amendment. Leader of government business. Mr President, I beg for the suspension of Standing Order 49-2 to allow the bill to go through its remaining stages at this sitting. Senators, the question is that Standing Order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the only leader of government business to proceed with the remaining stages of the bill at this sitting. I now put the question. As many as I have that opinion say aye. As many as I have a country opinion say no. The ayes have it. Leader of government business, you may proceed. Thank you Mr President. Move for the first reading of a bill shortly entitled Customs Control and Amendment. Mr President, this bill before the Senate today seeks to approve, seeks approval for the repealing of section 76.1 of the Customs Control and Management Act number 7 of 2019. And after being presented to this Honourable House and Senate in 2019 that is on January 30th back then, and the Act was given the force of law on 11 February 2019. The Customs and Exercise Department Mr President, it imposes duties on the customs value of imported goods. And I just want to make sure that I go through some of those key issues to just elaborate on why these amendments are being sought. The customs value comprises cost insurance and freight which we call CIF. And the cost component includes warranty costs and also costs that the item may contain. Consequently the importers of goods under the warranty, they pay duties under warranty coverage where the value of the warranty is an identifiable component of that cost. Now if the goods are found to be defective upon or after importation, the importers have the latitude to re-export the defective goods for replacement and the repairs or for the repairs or outright refund by the supplier without cost. Now in such cases Mr President, the Cabinet of Ministers by virtue of provisions on Section 76 of the Customs, Control and Management Act sought to remit all refund duties paid on the defective item. Now the 2019 amendment that I referred to earlier was intended to give the Cabinet of Ministers the authority to remit or to waive duties on goods imported under warranty where the warranty exists. And the value of the warranty was to be included in the customs value on which duty was paid on the goods requiring replacement. Notwithstanding Mr President upon review of the text it was realized that the amendment was not only guaranteed, not only guaranteed the Cabinet the power to remit or refund the goods imported under warranty but also removed the Cabinet's general power to remit or refund. The Subsection 2 of Section 76, if we take a look at it of this act, it captures the intent of the 2019 amendment and it states any remission or refund made or authorized to be made under Subsection 1 may apply either to specific instances or generally or in respect of specified persons or to persons of a specific class and may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as Cabinet may see fit to impose. So Mr President the repeal of the amendment of Section 76-1 of the customs control amendment which is this bill is therefore being proposed and that is to rectify an inadvertent error made in the previous amendment. You would appreciate Mr President that it is necessary that the previous amendment be repealed as we are requesting as this bill is requesting to revert to the original intention of that provision so that Cabinet will maintain general powers to remit and refund duties paid as it sees fit and proper to do. Essentially this is what the bill is proposing, the amendment is proposing and that is done and so I present it therefore for consideration for this honourable Senate. Senators, the question is that the bill be read a second time. Senator Fede. Thank you Mr President. Just a few clarifications. I'm just seeking the cooperation of the leader of government business. Is it that we are here today to amend this bill to empower Cabinet to be able to refund duties? Very necessary, where it sees fit. Senator Fede direct your questions, such as please. To you Mr President. So I just want to clarify that I'm hearing correctly from the leader of government business. Could you please rephrase your concern? The question is, does this amendment seek to give Cabinet the power to be able to refund customs duties? Senator Fede. Okay, alright so we're understanding clearly. On that note then Mr President, I do find this amendment extremely perplexing. Because Mr President I don't understand that when you consider the need for there to be good governance, especially over the duties, financing, revenue, departments of government, why would a Cabinet seek to give itself this power? And I assume that this is taking away the power from the technocrats, the customs officials, which would have been granted or the power would have been vested into the customs department. Why not customs and why the Cabinet? I find this extremely perplexing because the best practices of good governance, Mr President, would suggest that policy makers should stick to making policy, but not the execution of policy. Mr President, in small legislators such like ours, you often find that the Parliament and the Cabinet are exactly more or less the same thing. So while the Westminster system seeks to create that separation of powers where the Parliament will come and to create some laws, in small legislators like ours, small legislatures like ours, small Parliament, you don't have that flexibility. Because more often than not, Mr President, you find that the exact same people who are the Parliament are in the Cabinet. And that is just a creature of having a small Parliament. But what I cannot understand, what is the motivation for a Cabinet that would empower itself to make such decisions? Why not just stick to formulating policy and allow the civil servants to execute the policy? The next thing I am going to perceive is that we will see that the Cabinet will then have the powers to grant the rest. We have to allow the technocrats to do their jobs and we should be responsible for articulating the policy, formulating the policy. But when it comes to the execution of that policy, I think that that ought to be with the civil servants. This is a very, very dangerous move by this amendment in what it is seeking to do. I cannot understand what would be the motivation that Cabinet would then vest itself with this power to be able to make this decision. I think that this undermines the separation of duties that would have otherwise exist by allowing the Parliament, which would most likely be the majority of parliamentarians on the government side to come and to formulate the policy. But you want to ensure that there are checks and balances and you want to ensure that there is a separation of duties. And if you don't have that, Mr. President, then I believe that you are going against the principle of good governance. So I hope that this situation could be corrected. This amendment does not have my support because this is a very, very dangerous precedent that is being set. Leader of government business. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have found it extremely strange that the opposition has finally come to appreciate the need to stress and remind this Honourable Senate of what we call best practice. It's ironic that best practice has become a very common term in the language of the opposition. In fact, Mr. President, what we have come to do today is to make the necessary amendment using the proper channels. We clearly understand the separation of the Legislature from the Executive. The Cabinet, being the Executive, had originally, before the amendment was made in 2019, that was the case. And all we are doing is instead of sitting in a Cabinet as an Executive and changing the conditions or the intention for which this piece of legislation was intended, we have decided as a responsible government that follows the rule of law to come to the Legislature, the Parliament, to, as I did mention, and I'll just repeat it just for the benefit of the Leader of Opposition Business, the provision here was necessary to repeal and revote to the original intention that the provision of the last amendment was made. That is what we are coming to do. The original intention is what we are returning to the Parliament, not in the Cabinet. The Cabinet of Ministers didn't decide to sit there and take an executive position like was done on many occasions in the government, in the Cabinet, where he sat. And I don't want to go down the line of so many decisions that Cabinet took that should have been made, should have been taken through the Parliament. So we are here, Mr. President, following this practice, coming to the Parliament, seeking the approval of the Legislature to make an amendment that reflects the intention that the bill originally had. That is why we are here today. That is why it went through the Parliament. It was debated. It's now in the Senate to get approval of Parliament to go back to the original intention of the provision. And so I submit this, Mr. President, and remind the opposition better than ever to acknowledge what I have always said while I was in opposition and now that I am in government that best practice is the way to go. So I'm happy that the Leader of Opposition Business finally recognizes the need for best practice. And I want to thank him for reminding us that we should. And we will continue to follow best practice because when we intend to tamper with legislation or to amend, we will do so in the Parliament. That is what the Parliament is for. That's why the eyes have it and the nose have it and we vote, we debate. And then we make the changes. So, Mr. President, I want to reassure the opposition that this is what we're doing and we shall continue to do in every instance because this government believes in due process and in the rule of law. And this is why we are here. So thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me this short rebuttal, but I thought it was necessary to clarify that in the interest of the Leader of Opposition Business. Senator, the question is that the Customs, Control and Management Amendment Bill be read a second time. I now put the question, as many eyes are of that opinion say aye? Aye. As many eyes are of a contrary opinion say no. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. An Act to amend the Customs, Control and Management Act Cap 15.05. Clause 2. Amendment of Section 76. Clause 2 stands part of the bill. Clause 1. Short title. Clause 1 stands part of the bill. Senators, the question is that the committee rises and the bill be reported. I now put the question, as many eyes are of that opinion say aye? Aye. As many eyes are of a contrary opinion say no. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Senators, I beg to report that the Customs, Control and Management Amendment Bill went through committee stage without any amendments. Leader of Government Business? Mr President, I move that the report of the committee be adopted and that the bill be read a third time and passed. Senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the Customs, Control and Management Amendment Bill be read a third time and passed. I now put the question, as many eyes are of that opinion say aye? Aye. As many eyes are of a contrary opinion say no. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. Be interacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, bound with advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Lucia, and by the authority of the CM as follows. This act may be cited as the Customs, Control and Management Amendment Act 2022. Leader of Government Business? Mr President, I beg to move for the first reading of a bill shortly entitled, Tourism, Community Tourism Development. Community Tourism Development? Leader of Government Business. Mr President, I move for the suspension of Standing Order 49-2 to allow this bill to go through its remaining stages at this city. Senators, the question is that Standing Order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow for the Honourable Leader of Government Business to proceed with the remaining stages of the bill at this sitting. I now put the question, as many eyes are of that opinion say aye? Aye. As many eyes are of a contrary opinion say no. I think the eyes have it. The eyes have it. If it is granted, you may proceed with the Leader of Government Business. Thank you, Mr President. I've been looking forward to this particular bill, Mr President. And apart from the highly acclaimed domestic violence bill, I think that this bill has been highly anticipated by St. Lucia and in this Honourable House. And so I seek to provide some observations and to seek to help enlighten and share some thoughts on why we have come to this Honourable Senate and we came to this Honourable House to pass this very, very important piece of legislation. First of all, Mr President, this bill is another progressive, signals another progressive step in the legislative agenda of this Government. And we believe that post COVID or as we live with COVID as we see that the tourism industry has reminded us that it is probably an area where we need to be a little more creative as our economy has at least for now become even more dependent. More dependent on that particular sector for its survival. And as a vulnerable developing country, we have to seek to find ways to ensure that our people get the maximum benefits of this fragile but very important industry. Mr President, I believe that the capacity of our small business micro enterprises are well placed to take advantage of our tourism product and this bill will ensure or will seek to ensure that this is facilitated. This bill, Mr President, also seeks to increase the unique, authentic features that our various communities offer. And hence the reason I will now deal with the first aspect which is the bill being termed the community tourism rather than what the previous terminology was. And even before we had what we used to call the village tourism, way back when our present Prime Minister was a tourism minister, I recall we had, and even if we could probably even go before that, we had what we called heritage tourism. And the idea was always to take the product and make it something that had a little more than the conventional hotels, sea and sand, you know, what everybody else has. So I believe that credit to previous governments, both governments, I think there's always been an intention to modify and improve the tourism product. And so we must not take away credit from anyone who would have found something to do to make it better. So I think the idea of village tourism was really to do just that. However, Mr President, in our local context, the village concept had a certain connotation. We know that we have what? Library, Ansari Canaries, Miku, Dennery, you know, we have villages and there's a certain connotation attached to a village. Even in the constituency councils, there was a time we had town and village councils and now we have constituency councils. That took away from any stigma or any particular difference in status that is assigned. And so the idea of village also had a specific limitation as to who it represents. And the inclusivity of this concept of community will encompass villages, rural areas, towns and everywhere else in this country. And we believe that the terminology is key because one of the major aspects of tourism is marketing. And if you're going to market a product, it has to have a certain appeal. Mr President, so the issue of community really was not just by chance, but it was very purposeful. One of the things that also does is that it gives an opportunity for each community who gets involved in presenting or delivering our tourism product to feature its uniqueness. I think St. Lucia is a small country, but if you go around this country, you will find that there are particular attributes that you can actually identify with specific communities. So if you mention Swazel, for example, you immediately start thinking about craft. If you have someone from Swazel sitting on my right, you cannot talk about Swazel if you don't, you know, engender the issue of craft, art, and pottery and creative handmade products. It is almost synonymous with the need. We have a member of our senate here from what we call the Mabuya Valley, with Henry North. You can't really talk about Henry North if you don't, that's why they call it the valley. There is a certain unique feature of history and our farmers are farming. Sports is a major attribute that you can associate with the valley. And even the people and the mannerisms, the way they operate, they're very resilient. You don't come to the valley and do what you want. They let you know that they're there. They're not going to slide on and, you know, they know how to stand up for themselves. And so there are certain attributes. If you mention Ansari Canaries, you have to talk about fish, because, you know, they are fish in village, and denry, and vio4. So all of the various communities have their peculiar characteristics. And I think what we can capture through that concept is to allow those who access those services to experience the uniqueness and the intimacy of each of these communities. I think this gives us a great opportunity for all who decide to enjoy our tourism product to experience something that is unique in each of our various communities in this country. Mr. President, we also know of the important architectural attributes that come with some of those villages, for example, even central castries. There are certain buildings and bits of architecture that are unique to certain areas. And you will only find those things if you visit specific communities. And so I think it offers that flexibility and that opportunity for us to market communities based on their uniqueness and what they offer. Mr. President, there are certain products that you can associate as well. I know, for example, the community where I'm from, if you have a sprained ankle or you have a bad back, before you are asked to or you are encouraged to go to the physiotherapist, you may be referred to a particular, you know, massage therapist. Some senior citizen, somebody will be able to apply some kind of massage to put the bone back in place. As a volleyball, I had all my fingers used to get cracked. And this old man would tell me, only a demi and he would put it back in place. And that kind of approach to medicine and medical practice. Some of it is a little unusual, but I think there is value in some of the things that we do in certain communities and that are unique to us as a country and as other people. So I think all of these features are captured and intend to be captured through that approach. Mr. President, sites and attractions would be a major discussion point with the Village Tourism Bill. And it really provides the government with an opportunity, along with the citizens, to really explore and develop the various attractions that exist outside of the usual souffle, the volcano and the pitas, you know, and explore more unique and intimate sites and attractions within the communities that we live in. And these provide viable opportunities for the people in these communities to be able to have a livelihood and depend on or to be less dependent on the other services. So, for example, Mr. President, I'm going back to the Mabia Valley where we have a very rich culture of agriculture. I think there are some practices that a tourist might be very thrilled to observe that they may not have known can be used to really develop a product. We now have the, I think, the chocolate experience where you basically can see how this thing starts from the pod to the chocolate. And this is just one, but I'm sure that there's a foreign making and all of those things where you really can have, somebody can really be thrilled by being able to experience what we as locals take for granted because we do it all the time. Mr. President, I believe that it would be a good alternative, for example, in the valley than what we heard about bananas to France. I think bananas being processed and being marketed and being used for different purposes would have served us well. Mr. President, I also want to move to the area of who really can qualify and who really can participate in this opportunity. There are persons who live in certain parts of this country, but they do not have the capacity to invest in, let's say, a 12-room or 15-room small hotel. They just don't. They may not have the land and the finances. But this bill affords residents of regular communities in any part of this country who may have an existing home or structure and may want to just add a few rooms to take it up to about six to ten or eight rooms to provide some kind of accommodation for visitors who may not want to go to a five-star hotel or to some traditional resort and want to just experience the comfort and warmth of a particular community. There is a level of authenticity and intimacy that is available if these are explored. That also can bring about an increased level of economic activity because there's no way you can have guests living in a small ten, eight-room apartment in a library who will not spend something or who will not find another reason to explore something that another person in the community can offer. And so it allows economic spillover for other residents of the community. And I think these can also be accessed through what this bill offers. Mr. President, don't forget the cuisine and the community entertainment. There are some things we do as, you know, solutions and we just think it's normal. But for others, it's real entertainment. The way we socialize, you know, for somebody who is not used to it can really get serious value in it. So just being part of a community's daily routines can give a visitor or someone who is not used to the environment a completely new experience. People who pay large sums of money in areas in Africa just to go into a certain area to experience what has been done there, just to live among the natives and the locals. Just that. No deliberate intention to impress them. Just spend the day socializing at the locals. Mr. President, I think there's also opportunity for localized operations and to build capacity. And the Caricum Development Fund that was secured, the nine million dollars, really would be an opportunity through this initiative to provide access and financing to people who would not otherwise be able to access finance to take advantage of this product. Mr. President, the Caricum grant that was given, I think it was about nine hundred thousand dollars, to focus on marketing, branding, infrastructure, beautification and so on. I believe that the three pilot villages will answer the canneries, Rosalie and Sufer. That was in itself a pretty good initiative. And we cannot, I mean, we have to commend the governments who have gone that way. And I just think that this allows us to go a little further. That reminds me of the Ansteri canneries, Fish Fries, that I think one famous Cipriano-Lancico initiated. And that grew. I think that was one of the biggest. And then Henry Fish Fries came along. Those types of initiatives really are a little bit of what we can do. Just gives us a little idea of what we can do if we are prepared to really give community tourism what community tourism deserves. Now, Mr. President, as with any other initiative, you have to anticipate certain challenges when you endeavor to do these kinds of things. And one of them would be security. I think any tourist who would be given the opportunity to experience full community interaction will have, you know, you need to feel comfortable and safe. And one of the things that we would need to consider in this legislation is, as was suggested earlier by one of the independent senators, there has to be a backup provision made to ensure that this thing doesn't just come through legislation, but it works. And so things like insurance need to be considered for persons who desire, for example, to access loans, to be able to have small apartments or additional rooms to their homes. And so the facilities, the provisions in this legislation allow for prospective tenants to be able to upgrade their existing facilities with the necessary tools, the necessary amenities that would qualify the investment to be able to gain insurance. Presently, I think a lot of people who would want to participate may not have the adequate accommodation allocations to be able to access insurance so that the guests who go there can feel that they have a certain level of comfort. And that is actually one of the objectives of this particular bill. Mr. President, there is a saying that the higher the stake, the more likely that the community will, the more likely that the community may benefit. We have an issue that we must pay attention to and that is crime. Any tourism product will be threatened if there is an issue where people do not feel safe. And I believe that when you take the tourism product into the communities where people live, there is a sense of ownership that they can develop. That if they believe they have a direct benefit in what you are doing in their neighborhood, that they feel obligated to protect it because that is their bread. And that is what our initiatives like the Derek Walcott Theater were supposed to do. There are some communities we know that traditionally we have had some challenges, but sometimes people feel left out of the picture. They figure that this is not for me, where is my stake? These people, I have no benefit in them and so I can decide to treat them badly. But if the average individual who is in Fuashou or who is in Miku or in Asia, if they feel that the visitor and the investment affords them a livelihood and there is something in it for them, they will be the first to tell you, don't interfere that person. That is our thing, let's protect it. They will be willing to defend it and to market it and to make it theirs. And I think this is an approach that this bill wants us to take. It wants us to allow our solutions to own this thing. It's not foreign to them, it's theirs. And so Mr. President, I think it's important that in the participation that we give some serious thought to that. Mr. President, I want to go now to two final issues. And one is, I want to link this bill to a particular area that this government made a very big focus during the campaign and we have endeavored to run with it in this particular state. And that is the youth economy. The youth economy was a big talking point in our campaign and we are committed to making it a reality for our people in this country. This bill will develop a beautiful relationship with the concept of the youth economy. And I want to draw to your attention Mr. President, an experience I had sometime last week when I attended a special meeting of the tourism advisory committee. And a particular young lady was a special guest at this meeting. And she, here's from the community of Denver, came to the meeting with her mom and had a product, a soap product that she offered and she presented. And I must give kudos to the St. Joseph's convent, she's a former student of the convent. And at this time I may take the opportunity to mention her name, Karima Nicholas from Denver. And I think the Senator Aziz was present representing the Hotel and Tourism Association. And he can attest to how impressed we were with the young lady's serious initiative where she has developed this product and she's aggressively marketing it and seeks to make a living out of it. That really encapsulated the youth economy. You have a passion for something, you make it something that you can make a living and a career out of. And there's no better opportunity than now for us to be able to marry the youth economy with community tourism because there are so many unique opportunities in the creative industries and elsewhere that young people can use in this particular instance to make it work for them. And I also want to pick up the Senator who at the time was acting in his capacity as SLHTA President and offered the young lady a membership. I hope I haven't spilled anything there. One year complimentary membership to the SLHTA and offered to assist in getting her to market her product. I mean I really was very impressed at her gesture and I want to commend the Senator albeit in a different capacity for recognizing the opportunity to lend this kind of support to a young lady, a very young lady in this country. And community tourism has its place for people like herself who have ideas and initiatives, but they need the support and we can marry that with the youth economy. Just going a little closer Mr. President as I wrap up to the contents of the bill, it really is not exclusive to villages but all communities. And we're not throwing away the concept of building on what the previous government was doing. I think it is commendable and we must build on it. There is also the idea that we're moving away from the franchise concept and moving closer to partnership in terms of the constituency councils and other community organizations partnering with the Ministry of Tourism and the government to make these initiatives work. On the section 4 Mr. President, there is the intention as well as section 9 for a board or an agency to be established to provide oversight. And I think in any organization like that, especially as it takes off, you need to have proper oversight. A CEO will be appointed and that gives it a proper structure. The incentives to be enjoyed by persons participating will include tax exemptions and benefits that are enjoyed by our existing larger enterprises. Mr. President, some of the major challenges we have to anticipate will be access to finance and I have mentioned that there will be some monies made available up to $30 million through loan and grant financing for individuals who intend to take advantage of this opportunity with very concessionary interest rates. And so Mr. President, there's a lot more that I would want to speak to about this but in the interest of time, I want to just highlight that this move to introduce the tourism, the community tourism bill is really a move to create a sustainable livelihoods for the ordinary solution who would not otherwise have had that opportunity if we have not gone that way. And it gives us, all of us, a chance wherever you are from, wherever your origin in this country to enjoy a fair piece of the tourism pie. And so Mr. President, I anticipate a very lively debate. I know we have a former minister of tourism in the Senate. I'm sure he'll have, as they say, he'll have to give his kutwe on this thing. And I'm looking forward to a very engaging discussion on this bill and of course for the support of this honorable Senate for this bill to be passed. I thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator, the question is that the community tourism development bill be read a second time. Senator Ferry. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I'm quite familiar with the principle of village tourism community tourism, whatever you want to call it. The principle, the objective, the intention remain the same. Mr. President, this came out of a motivation by the previous administration to do a few things. One is when we assumed office, we realized that the heritage tourism program had a very strong focus on sites and attractions. And the vast array of opportunities in the accommodation sector was totally excluded from what was happening in the development of the industry at that time. Mr. President, we wanted to get solutions more involved as business people within the tourism sector. We wanted to change the culture of our people just being workers and we wanted to turn them into strong, competent and able business people. Mr. President, in the year 2019, the social economic review reports that tourism contributed directly some $1.2 billion to the local economy. The economic review, Mr. President, interestingly said that this was as a result of food service and hotel accommodation services. So therefore what it captured was hotel, room nights and restaurants. It doesn't go far enough to capture the other spin-offs from tourism. Neither did it account for the already spiraling Airbnb trade whereby you have a lot of solutions already participating in that sector. More on that, Mr. President, in a moment. Mr. President, the village tourism concept, which has now been renamed by this administration as community tourism, when we demitted office, Mr. President, I want to inform you and remind you that the following was already done. We had already conceived and finalized legislation to bring to the House of Parliament. We had already identified three main villages, as mentioned by the Ministry of Parliamentary Secretary or the lead of government business. Those three villages being Souffre, Ansler and Grousley. Mr. President, you would see that considerable amount of work was done in making sure that we improve the facade of those villages and in the case of Souffre, the town. So in the case of Souffre, the square was completely overhauled. Now it's the best town square in St. Lucia. You would see the advancement of the Hummingbird Beach Project as we see thousands of people going to Souffre. But what the Hummingbird Beach Project created, Mr. Speaker, was an opportunity for several small businesses, for people to own restaurants and bars and to also create a good product so that people can move away from the established businesses but also to now embrace a part of our community. You would have seen the old Trafford facility, which was upgraded significantly to include a market in the town centre, the bus terminal to improve transportation for the community. In the case of Anslery, the lead of government business would know very well that work is advanced. In fact, 90% completed is a mini hotel for the Anslery village. There is a restaurant on the beach front, which he neglected to mention. And then, Mr. President, the complete overhaul and rehabilitation of the fish fry building, which was referenced, started by the previous administration while they served in a different tenure. So you see, Mr. President, it wasn't just stock. There was a lot of work being done to ensure that we get our communities ready for the actualization of village tourism. Mr. President, it must be said that the agreement which was signed with the Caricum Development Fund, it's an agreement of four million US dollars. Another agreement, Mr. President, was signed. I was very glad to have witnessed the signing between the former Minister of Finance and former Prime Minister, Honourable Alan Shastney, and the Executive Director of the Caricum Development Fund. Now, that came out of the understanding that small businesses, whether it's in tourism, whether it's in agriculture, whether it's in manufacturing, that these businesses, they have had a very chronic problem in accessing financing. So to get them started up, one of the first things we recognize is that you needed to have financing for these small businesses. So I was very happy when that came into being. The other thing we recognize was that you need to make competitive lands available. So very often you have tourism establishments that are dominated by foreign direct investment, which would have the best lands in the country. And what we wanted to do was to make sure that we bridge that gap between your local investments and also the FDI so that you give the small businesses a perfect opportunity to be able to invest and to afford lands. And so what we did is that we parceled out lands on the ANSAB project down in Viewfort, and the plans are there within Invest and Lucia, where the master planning of the area showed you where all of these little small block and parcels were already done so that people can really avail themselves and afford quality land on the beachfront so that day two can be competitive. Mr. President, I'm saying all of this why? Because too often what we tend to do when we think of community tourism, we tend to think of those niches where the return or where the revenue streams are very, very small. So we like to talk about craft. We like to talk about basket weaving and some of those things as beautiful as those things are. If we're going to make our people strong business people, we need to also prepare them to be owners of this industry. And the only way we will do that is by making sure that they participate and empower them to participate in the accommodation subset. Because obviously, Mr. President, what you will see is that the bulk of a spend or the cost of a vacation is in that subset. And so why not get our people into that as well? So I love all the other things that the Parliamentary Secretary would have mentioned, but we also need to create that environment so that we can have an influx or an increase in more people participating in that subset. Mr. President, the other thing we recognize is that concessions were a problem. The Tourism Incentive Act, in fact, says that you need to have as much as six rooms to qualify for incentives. If you have one or two, you don't qualify. Now, for me, this has been a big sticking point. And I thought that what the lead of government business would have done was to mention this as a ground shifting policy. Because for the first time in this country, this legislation will allow small business people to access concessions that they've never had in the history of tourism. And so in framing the legislation, the previous United Workers Party regime wanted to make sure that there's parity, Mr. President, between foreign direct investors and your local entrepreneurs. So that when you look at, for example, duty free on building materials that it becomes cheaper for the local entrepreneurs to now go and develop their properties. And the suite of legislation that we conceptualize were on duty free concessions, on a range of issues, building materials, fixtures, lighting, furnishings, and all the things that you need to get started in the hotel sector. The trouble I have with what is being legislated here in schedule, one of the bills, Mr. President, is the fact that this allows up to 15 years in terms of the duties that schedule one of this legislation would have given. But when you look at the tourism stimulus and incentive act passed by the Labour Party in 2014, it gives up to 25 years to foreign direct investors. Now, so here we have locals. You can get 15 years according to schedule one of this legislation. But in the tourism stimulus and investment act, the Labour Party, when they passed it, suggested that the foreign direct investment can get up to 25 years. Now, I have a problem with that policymaking because this is a betrayal of local small businesses. This ought not to be legislated.  So, I hope that schedule one in the list of legislation within the suite of incentives that are being offered that bring it up to the 25 years that you have in the tourism stimulus and investment act. And so, big problem with that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. President. Rather. Mr. Speaker, is in the other house. Mr. President, I must also bring your attention to, I think it's section 64 of the legislation which talks of the partnership. And it would suggest, it would be, it would suggest to me, Mr. President, that without a partnership, one will not qualify for the incentives. Now, the truth is, Mr. President, this legislation is coming whilst there are thousands of solutions already in this business. Airbnb, VRBO, Expedia, they've all made this possible and a lot of people have gone into this business without government and they have done perfectly all right. And so, what that has said to you is that you have people of different tiers, of different capacity. Not everyone will need government in their business. So, why then penalize the operator or the business person that is a solution that does not want government to be involved in their business? They have already shown us that they are able to establish their villa, their cottage or whatever you want to call the dwelling without you, without government help. So, therefore, what you do is collect, have them to collect the marketing fee as this has prescribed. You are getting the marketing fee from the tourism library from them already. Every single guest that comes to that dwelling through the airport gets, the government gets to collect $98 from their, just by their investment. Every single guest, there is vat on their consumption of wines and foods and other things while they're on island, rental car facilities, and a whole gamut of spin-offs and services that they require, the electricity that they consume in the room. So, there are so many different taxes. I have a problem in the intention of this bill to collect fees. This should not be collecting fees because as I've mentioned, Mr. President, you are already collecting the tourism levy through the tourism authority. They are collecting that monies for you. You're already collecting the taxes through the airport on the departure tax, the airport development taxes, plus the other fees, landing fees that people are paying, and all of the vat on their consumption, and plus on the room tax as well. There is vat that people pay on the accommodation. So, why are you going to charge a small business person, a fee, to run this facility? If the government is in fact seeking to raise revenue to run the facility, then what is needed is that you can make an arrangement with the tourism authority and ask the tourism authority as an option to appropriate those funds that the people coming through the small dwellings under this program and have that to be appropriated to the community tourism agency. That then will allow you to finance the operation of the agency if that is the intent of the bill, where it talks about the collection of fees and where it is the intent of the agency to be able to do so. So, taxing the people twice and overcharging them is something that I find is somewhat disingenuous and counterproductive to what is happening here or what this government is intending to do. Mr. President, on the page 14 of the bill, definitions, the definition of cottage means a detached dwelling consisting of three or more self-contained units that paid rental accommodation for guests. So therefore, Mr. President, by this definition, it means that if you have a single unit, you will not be considered a cottage. Mr. President, I just do not understand the intention here and why is it that you need to have three and why not one, why not two? A cottage is a cottage and so for branding, marketing reasons, someone may call their dwelling whatever they wish and why are we getting so complicated to try to define what is a cottage and what isn't? Page 16, definitions again, tourism accommodation does not include a hotel with 10 or more rooms. Mr. President, that is quite a small operation and I know of many, many, many small businesses that struggle with trying to manage 10 rooms. Very often it is a father and a son or a mother and a daughter that's trying to be reservationist, marketing person, finance accounting person because they simply can't afford to hire the requisite management help that is required. So 10 rooms is not a very big facility and so I would recommend that this threshold goes a bit higher because 10 rooms is still a pretty small business. I would look forward to hear what the hotel association has to say about 10 rooms. I know that the differentiation between small hotels and large hotels is fixed somewhere about 75 rooms I believe but this is 10 rooms is still very, very small and if it is that you are helping SMEs, small, medium-sized businesses then I think that if someone has 11 rooms or someone have 12 rooms then I think they ought to qualify if they do need the help. It depends on the capacity of the individual and it depends on the requisite experience that they may have had in terms of being able to manage or not manage this facility as well. So I think that that part of the legislation is ill-conceived and perhaps would need some refinement in that area so that we can ensure that we're not crowding out anyone and we are giving them the very best opportunity to be able to get the help that is so required because a big part of this Mr. President is to give management help to small businesses that does not have the capacity. 12, 14 rooms, someone of that ilk is not likely to have the capacity. So I think that the threshold here is really, really too low and is counterproductive. Mr. President, fees to be charged by the agency in section 79 is of much concern. I want to also, Mr. President, speak to the issue of the section of the legislation which talks about the, I think it's section 79 where the tourism authority, they will be registered to collect the fees on the tourism authority. I think it's section 79. Thank you. Section 74, 74. So we see here, Mr. President, that on the section 74, the person who has the accommodation dwelling will collect the tourism levy which is a head tax on tourists and they are two bands. I think that I can't remember the bands but one is $3 and one is $6 and I can't remember how many rooms. I can't remember what's the threshold and so therefore the room rate, I can't remember how it's levied. But I recall, Mr. President, that when we came to this house and we proposed this piece of legislation and we indicated that, listen, this is going to help with the marketing of the destination and all of us would benefit from whether we are a tour, an attraction, whether we are Airbnb dwelling or we promote an Expedia VRBO restaurant, whatever it is. We were hauled over the course. In fact, on the Facebook post of the member for Castries South in the lower house, you would see that he went on his Facebook and tweeted there that we were raping the people of St. Lucia and that this was, he said that this was unconscionable and this was unjust. So I'm very surprised, Mr. President, to see that the very same intent and the very same bill is being proposed here today to collect or to cause these little people, we were told them, who were trying to run a little apartment below their house. We're still going ahead and asking them to collect a fee on the government's behalf. I wonder what has changed and maybe the leader of government business can tell us what has changed from then to now and why has this all of a sudden now acceptable when it wasn't so long ago. I'm just very curious to know what is really going on in the policy making of this country these days and so if you can, I would really, really accept an explanation. So, Mr. President, I have no qualms with the principle of making sure that we bring tourism to our people.  And to create that enabling space to be able to do it was what our intent was all about. Now, we're having this discussion and debating this bill, Mr. President, at a time when there's a spiraling crime rate and the leader of government business did touch. I want to suggest that very firm and decisive action is taken to address this issue now because not only will community tourism or village tourism be affected, but the entire industry, Mr. President, is facing a severe threat from this rather heinous and horrendous situation that we have found ourselves in. And so, Mr. President, I want to thank you for your time and I want to say that I'm very, very happy that this legislation, of which I have personally done a lot of work, consultation and so on, and a lot of the supporting work to ensure that at least arrangement with offices and so on. It costs a lot of sleepless nights to make sure that we get to this stage. So I am quite happy to see that the legislation is coming to the House and is being passed. But I take strong objections to some fundamental parts of it, which I've outlined. And I thank you very, very much. Thank you, Senator Fede. Senator Prosper. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of the Community Tourism Development Act. Mr. President, I try to follow closely as my counterpart on the other side explained Community Tourism. My perception is that this bill brings a new dimension to tourism. He speaks of Souffre, Anslerie, Grozilly. Refer to these as villages in St. Lucia. And when he speaks of retrofitting places for restaurants, etc., it is still a concept of a village. We speak of Community Tourism and it takes a different dimension. And I am sure the leader of government business explained this eloquently, that we want to give a unique experience to the guest, whether it's a domestic guest or it's an international guest, because sometimes people from castries want an experience in François Jacques or an experience in Salty Bus. And they want to immerse themselves in the culture of the people from the community. So they don't necessarily want to go to the restaurant to eat. They may want to enjoy the food cooked at the community level at home. They may want to go to the river to go on a hike. The people from François Jacques are developing an agro-tourism pack. They are developing a camping site. So the visitor who wants to enjoy that authentic experience of the community can stay in the community at night time and enjoy a kutumba or a lasi wenal in the community. Enjoy a broth that's prepared on open fire or roasted breadfruit cooked in a kanawi. They want to enjoy that experience and they are willing to pay for that experience. But when you tell me go on to eat in the restaurant, it's not every visitor who wants to go to the restaurant. It's not every visitor who wants to go to that pack that you have developed by the beach in Souffre. Instead they want to remain within the confines of a small community and speak with the people, learn about the way they live, learn about the culture of these people, learn about the natural medicines that they use. This is what we talk about on this side when we say we are developing community tourism. So in Chauzele, the people from Chauzele can have an experience where they teach their visitor how to make a coal port. The people from Saudi bus may take them on the trail to the waterfall and they pay for that service. This brings a uniqueness of the community out. We are also looking at the economic value of these experiences as it offers an opportunity for local people. For example, the farmers can sell their fruits and vegetables in the confinement of the community. They don't have to go down to Souffre to sell it or go down to Vieffort. So the tourists are coming that way. They can sell their produce here, the crafters. And I don't understand how some people can feel that because you sell on a small scale, you don't make anything. I know my father is a businessman and he will sell the golden apple, he will sell the guava, he will sell the gooseberries, he will sell the bananas because at the end of the day, when you add it up, it counts. And instead of the little people in our... Because this is a government that cares about the people. These are the people who have been sitting in the community and there's very little economic activity. We are saying let's bring the economic activity to the community. Let them benefit from the tourism dollar. As little as some of us who have made the big money may feel it is, but it is significant for the little people, for the community people who are waiting, who may not qualify for a job at the hotel, who may not qualify to be a taxi driver, who may be just a craft hook of somebody who can make craft, or a young man who may have a talent, who may be able to sing Calypso and on the night of that event, he sings on the stage and he gets a stipend instead of sitting on the block and doing nothing. So we are saying that we want our people to take possession of tourism and not only the hotel owners, the restaurant owners in the villages and in the towns, but in the small communities, in the local communities. Mr. President, community tourism can provide opportunities for visitors to learn our local language. I remember going to Dominica to the Caribbean reserve and we were given a tour just to learn about how the Caribbean lives, just to see how they cook their food, just to enjoy part of their culture. We can do this at our community level and this is why we are looking at communities as opposed to individuals for cutthroat because the residents from Forsythia can tell you, I have been working with them on the Development Committee, and they can tell you that because they come together as community, they are able to get funding to develop the product in their community and that's very important. This is very important Mr. President. And two days ago, yesterday I was in Forsythia, there was a working session to help to further develop the product of the tourism part for Forsythia and I am sure that this is one activity that different communities can emulate to bring livelihoods to the people of St. Lucia. Mr. President, the member opposite spoke about accommodation and a hotel that has ten rooms is too small. We are speaking about community tourism. We are not thinking about the big hotels. There is a place for those people who want to build their big hotels but we are speaking about those people who may not have the capabilities to build a hotel that has more than ten rooms. It may be those people who just can build an apartment or those people who can provide bread and breakfast. They have a house that they can retrofit so that they can accommodate one or two guests, three or four guests. It doesn't matter. Right in Saltiba, there is a young lady who used to live in castries. She just used her grandmother's house, fixed it and tourists come there. They spend a weekend. They go on the hikes with her. She makes a livelihood out of that Mr. President. She does make a livelihood out of that. So we have to appreciate and probably some of us who don't have the experience of living in those small communities do not know. So I may have to excuse these people because they don't have the experience. They don't know what it is for the people of communities to make a livelihood. Mr. President, there will be tax relief. There will be exempt from duty. There will be tax. There will be levy. And the only thing that they'll have to pay is the vet and the member opposite knows that. So the incentive Mr. President will not only be for the foreigners who build the hotels on our islands and all the money goes back but for our people. This is a government of the people. This is a government for the people and this is a government that's ready to work with the people so that they can make livelihood. So we are providing the tax exempt that only the foreigners would get and the duties that only the foreigners would get for the small people of the country so that they can make their business out of the tourism product, Mr. President. So not only the hotel workers, the people who own the big hotels should be able to benefit our people as small as the business can be. We want them to be able to make, if it's 5% interest, not 100% interest when they get all our resources but they too can benefit from the tourism product. So this bill speaks of community as an area with a group of people who share a common culture of value and access common resources and institutions to carry out a business. It is not speaking about single people here, there and everywhere. We are encouraging the people of communities to come together to develop the communities to make livelihoods for themselves. We are encouraging young people who live within these communities who may have a skill to develop activities so that they can benefit from the tourism dollar. And I want the member opposite to understand this and don't come to this house and talk about I built a restaurant here and I built a park here. This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about what exists within the community that the visitor can enjoy as an authentic experience. This is what we are talking and I'm very happy that your attentive. Yes, this is what we are referring to. Yes, this is what we are speaking about, Mr. Siga. So within the community you already have the small bar. Within the community you may have one or two vendors and so what we want to do is to come together to develop that product so that all of them can benefit from it. So I think this is a very good piece of legislation and we should all come together and support it as opposed to looking for holes to punch our fingers through, Mr. Siga. Thank you very much. Mr. President, after listening to the discussions in the House of Assembly on Tuesday and the exchanges which have preceded me here this afternoon I think there is little more that can be said about the value which the tourism industry brings to our workers, our communities and our nation. We see it in the amount of revenues it generates. We see it in terms of the foreign currency it generates. We see it in terms of the employment that it generates. The data is sufficient evidence that at an academic level tourism is our greatest driver of consumption for an exchange earner and job creator for our people. But what we have here with the Community Tourism Development Bill is an opportunity to do things differently. It's an opportunity to approach old problems with a more evolved mindset. To do things in non-traditional ways and to do things that will benefit the average citizen who looks on at the huge investments made in the country and wonders where is my place as tourism grows from strength to strength year on year. We take great pride in calling the tourism industry a very resilient industry, the comeback kid able to bounce back from natural disasters, economic shocks and be able to drive our economy and we look to it for that. But unfortunately when you look at the discussions at a community level it tells a different story. On Tuesday the Minister for Tourism did an excellent job of chronicling the evolution of community tourism in Parliament and frankly it is my pleasure to support what was put forward as the maturation of this Community Tourism concept. I am very encouraged by the fact that there is no sparing of accolades and appreciation for what predated what is coming before the house right now. And so as we commit to building on our strengths clearly we can see that it takes us to a better place as a collective. One of the things though that we must be very cognizant of and discuss openly as we speak about the evolution of tourism and the potential of the Community Tourism Development Bill is the fact that for me it's always very gut wrenching to hear when I sit at community group discussions and community engagement dialogue and feedback from small operators trying to get into the industry. It's always very gut wrenching for me to hear the discussions about the lopsided growth of the tourism industry and the complaints that it is overly focused on attracting foreign investors and overly focused on the construction of hotel plants which buttress our shores and our beaches. And this week I have heard similar references from parliamentarians. We complain very often that our employees are paid low wages and forced to work split shifts too often neglecting their families to earn those low wages. I've heard the complaints that the tourism industry imports too much and procures too little from local manufacturers and producers. I've heard the complaints that its profits are expatriated and too little comes back into our economy. I hear the complaints that it rips and scripts our environment and marine ecosystems throwing them into degradation due to overuse and abuse. These are not sustainable ideals. These are not standards that we should be striving to leave as a legacy for our future and our children. They're not. My intention here this afternoon, however, Mr. President, is not to refute any of these claims today but to ask that we take equal responsibility as policy makers for this unsustainable model of tourism because it is a creature of our own making. We have fashioned it by enticing foreign investors to our shores with promises of free land, low wages, decades of renewable concessions to import from abroad instead of buying local. We've done that. Read the incentive legislation. It is very clear. And we've done that for decades. For decades. As policy makers, we are fully aware of the pros and cons of the all-inclusive model and the vertically integrated chains yet we are clearly embracing this model of tourism with open arms and proof litters our island on how forgiving we can be when these models fail us. Acres and acres of land raped of indigenous flora and fauna litter our shores. You don't have to travel far on a 238 square mile island to witness the unpainted rotting concrete structures still to see the proof. We will get more of what we incentivize. Therefore, we must incentivize the quality of investment from both at home and abroad that will do better. A quality of investment that will do better by our land, our light, and our people. And it was highly commendable to hear the Minister for Tourism recognize that the institutional and policy framework managing tourism needs amending to address this lopsided development. We must reimagine tourism's development. We must charge ourselves to think outside the box because we've been doing the same thing for too long. It has been failing. We see it every single day but we continue to put forward as exciting opportunities to excite people under a Community Tourism Development Act projects that we are proud of. I'm sure there are some benefits to what has been done so far under this Community Tourism Development initiative but now personally, I'm not really excited by it. No, I'm not excited by a ten-room bed and breakfast in Ansleray. I'm not excited by a waterfront restaurant and toilet block. I'm not excited by a fish fry building. I'm not excited by relocation of laundry from our shores but there is some value to the enhancement of the jetty. The reason why I'm not excited about it is not to condemn it. It has its place but under the Community Tourism Development concept we need to get ahead of the competition in our neighbouring islands. If we keep following fashion, we will never be a thought leader and here we have an opportunity with this bill to become thought leaders. To me, Mr President, the Community Tourism Development Bill and the proposed structure and intent of the Guardian Agency is a long-awaited beam of light that signals that we are hereby prepared to offer local investors the same financial, marketing, branding and operational support that we provide to foreign investors no less. No less. The bill signals an act of faith in our people inviting them to step up. It promises guidance to develop ideas and grow their assets. It promises them opportunities to pool risks and reduce operating costs. My goodness, how can one not see value in that? As we move towards establishment of the Community Tourism Development Agency, I believe that a narrative will have to be developed for each individual community taking into account some of the history of the community and the emerging demands of our guests. We cannot use a cut-and-paste approach. If it works in grossly, there's no guarantee that it's going to work in Choselle. So we've got to be sensitive and how do we create that kind of architecture by communicating with the communities? Unique experiences, for example, could be a steel-panned school in one village, a steel-panned school in one community, a local pottery school in another, plaques and signs made by individuals in the community plastered on historic buildings and sites are easy ways for communities to take ownership, beautify and add value and charm to conversations with visitors. I look forward to the day when we can boast locally-managed cannabis gardens. When our local chefs can create cannabis-infused cuisine and beverages, community groups can establish and manage petting farms, community groups can establish and even small partnerships, two or three interested entrepreneurs can establish flora and fauna sanctuaries, visitor information systems and projects of the like that will make visitors feel at home in our communities and make our communities feel a sense of pride and ownership that they're contributing to the greatest mover of our economy, the tourism industry. I'm not trying, Mr. President, to be prescriptive. I'm just raising these ideas because I have witnessed recommendations from international consultants to our shores whose recommendations seem largely disconnected from real community needs. The bill is a step in the right direction to create wealth-generating opportunities for our people. We speak a lot about tourism driving jobs and jobs and jobs and jobs, but look at the salaries that these jobs command. It's not good enough. To build a future St. Lucia on mass employment of that nature, it has not worked and there's no reason to think it's going to work for the future. So when we start having conversations with our youth and our entrepreneurs about wealth creation, I think we're going to get greater buy-in and we're going to attract greater, more sincere interest. People need to embrace this gesture of faith and empowerment by holding themselves ultimately responsible and accountable for its success. I trust that the ideas and requests for partnerships will inundate the Ministry of Tourism and I'm happy that we have shifted the terminologies to ones which are more sensitive and to ones which our communities are more in tune with and feel a more intimate connection with. Concepts like shifting franchising to partnerships and village concept communities. I think that will have a greater attraction. The potential of what this bill proposes, however, will be challenged, Mr. President, by crime. It will be challenged by harassment and it will be challenged in some instances by mismanagement as owners go through their learning curves. But we must challenge ourselves to ensure outreach, communication and training in the soft and emotional intelligence skill sets which are so critically needed to ensure its success. It's not going to be an overnight sensation or an overnight success. We have much to do. This industry has grown by leaps and bounds over the years, but there has been a very similar contraction in sympathy and empathy and respect for the industry. That tells us something. It tells us that even though the medicine you say is good for me, it is bitter, bitter, bitter for me to swallow. If we get this right and if we learn from our past experiences, we will see a more balanced ownership of tourism enterprises. We will see increased visitor arrival numbers. We will see increased spend per guest. We will see increased food security as we deploy our lands and our people who are so gifted to produce on Arbor lands to feed this industry. We will see economic diversification outside of and even within the tourism industry as we try to tap into new niche markets. We will see development of our human resources, risk mitigation for our small enterprises, greener and more sustainable tourism practices and a society and a people who are more resilient to exogenous shocks. Mr. President, through this bill, I look to the future with excitement and optimism and therefore wish to add my voice to supporting it and the hopes and aspirations enshrined within it. Thank you. Certainly. Mr. President, after listening to my colleague independent senator, I could not help but recall some statements made by a former independent senator, Mr. Adrian OJ, during the Sir Arthur Lewis lecture of 2020, I believe it was, where he indicated that the problems faced by small countries generally and St. Lucia in particular, because he was speaking largely in the social context, is not a lack of vision and not even necessarily a lack of resources but very often a lack of will and hearing the passionate manner in which my colleague senator spoke about the tourism industry, its potential, the future development that it can bring to our country and convinced even more so that Mr. OJ is correct. The vision is clearly present. It's within our midst. But for whatever reason, we have not seized the opportunities. We have not seized the, we have not addressed the challenges, sorry, in that sort of forthright and honest manner and with an intention to overcome them. I listen to my colleague and I hear his passion for the industry. I hear his hope for what may come out of this bill and its potential and I think I can do no better than associate myself wholeheartedly with the comments he has made. This bill offers the potential, if we have the will, to grasp the opportunities it provides to be a sea change in the tourism industry and in St. Lucia as a whole. The point has been made both in this chamber and without that in a number of circumstances that do not see for themselves the benefit of tourism. It's an other sort of industry. We look at it from afar because we can't get access to the hotels. We can't get access to the beaches. We can't get access to the services provided by those institutions. They're always targeted for others. And then when we work in the industry, again, we are not part of the decision-making generally. We are just providing a service. So again, it has that othering impact. And if something is other to you, it's external to you. You don't have any connection to it. You don't see the value of it. And so therefore the attacks on our visitors, therefore the harassment our visitors see, experience doesn't bother us for the most part because it doesn't involve us. Again, it's external to us. Senator Polius, not Polius, sorry, Prosper made the point that hopefully as part of this whole community tourism, the understanding of domestic tourists and the value of domestic tourists could be improved. And if there is to be a silver lining from this whole COVID pandemic, I believe it's the reality where persons were forced to look for diversion in St. Lucia to realize just how beautiful our country is, to realize just how much opportunity there is to explore the concept that there's nothing to do in St. Lucia has been shown to be a lie. But we have to feel that we are part of and able to enjoy these things. And quite sadly, as my colleague independent senator pointed out, thus far for the most part, we have been kept outside of these things. So we've not been able to enjoy our country as much as we should have. We've not been able to enjoy the tours and attractions in the same way as our guests do. But hopefully this bill or this act, because it's going to become an act, will encourage us to be participating not only in terms of providing the services, but perhaps more importantly for a number of persons enjoying those services as well. And so, therefore, we become fully part of the tourism industry, both as consumers and as providers. Because in a number of conversations, it's always in terms of provision, but not in terms of consumption. And I think that linkage has to be made because we're not going to enjoy the fullest benefits from the tourism industry unless we are on both sides of the coin. That being said, there are concerns, because you know I always have concerns with legislation. So there are some concerns with the bill itself and also perhaps the policies and the potential pitfalls that arise from it. Like the lead-up opposition business raised, I'm a little concerned that to access the concessions you must be partnering with the government or partnering with the authority, with the agency, sorry. I think again, there's always a tendency perhaps to over-correct and over-compensate where government has not been necessarily involved in the development of industry to jump in and try to subsume it. The Airbnb industry has developed in Senusha largely without any government involvement. A lot of the tourism attractions have also developed without direct government involvement. Persons have done things on their own and so therefore the legislation should seek to be facilitative, not directional, not controlling, not overly bureaucratic. And if I have a business that's already thriving, that's already doing well, and that all I need to go this extra mile is not so much the requirements to be part of a partnership, but merely to access some of these concessions. I may not even need financing from the government, but just the tax concessions might be sufficient for me. Why do I then have to be part of a partnership to access that? There needs to be a little bit more flexibility built into the legislation so that I can choose the path that is best suited for my business. It should not be a situation where the government is telling me that this is what I must do. And so therefore I think we need to perhaps take a step back and look at that again and give persons the opportunity if they need the assistance, if they need the guidance that comes from being part of a partnership and the technical resources that come with that, that is all well and good. But if I don't need it, because in a lot of cases, the persons who have actually gotten involved now in Airbnb are fully professionals. They're consultants in marketing, they're consultants in construction, they're consultants, I mean, export, sorry, in construction. They know their business, they know what they're doing. They don't necessarily need the government's support in terms of marketing support, in terms of branding, in terms of all these things. But they may benefit from the concessions. And so therefore I suggest that we look at that again and make it a little bit more flexible in that sense. I do also echo the concern, I don't know if it was concern necessarily he was raising, but it's a concern for me, in terms of the tourism levy being imposed on the accommodation stock regardless of size, regardless of location, regardless of the business involved. I do recall that there was tremendous uproar with regard to that particularly in relation to the Airbnb suppliers where persons are thinking, but all I have is one apartment or two apartments. Now I have the headache and the hassle of collecting the tourism levy and how that is going to impact my business. I don't think that those concerns have changed and so therefore this is something again that we need to look at and think of very carefully and the impact that it may have on the very industry that we are trying to grow and develop. I also have a more general and perhaps theoretical concern with regard to commodification. St. Lucia is a unique Caribbean experience. Our people are special. I think anybody who has ever been part of an organization that is regional has had the experience of the excitement of persons coming to St. Lucia. They look forward to St. Lucia because we are hospitable people. We go out of our way to entertain. We go out of our way to make people feel at home and I would hate that in the development of the community tourism that we make things so rigid. So bureaucratic is not quite the word I'm looking for but it is part of it. But that we lose the authenticity of being St. Lucia and having the St. Lucia experience that we begin to commodify things to the extent that it becomes so standardized, so to speak. That we lose the flexibility, the extemporaneous nature of being St. Lucia and I think that's just something that we need to take into consideration in developing our products and again in these partnerships that we're not trying to pigeonhole things and people into an arrangement where they lose the spontaneity and the authenticity that I think separates St. Lucia and the St. Lucia experience from the tourism experience in any other country in the region. I would also wish to sound a note of caution to ensure that when we are approving, recognizing these community businesses that we are not concentrating particular businesses in particular areas so that we are creating enclaves of tourism, of tourists within our communities. So it doesn't become a situation where we are replicating for example, a grozily in library or a grozily in Souffre. We make sure that persons who are coming into the communities are genuinely enjoying the communities and being part of the communities and not that they are trying to segregate themselves away from the community but just saying that I'm in the community if you understand the distinction I'm trying to make. We need to make sure that whatever we are putting forward remains genuine and indigenous to us. I again also have a more general concern in terms of ensuring that when we bring these community businesses into being that we don't import unnecessary inflation into our communities. I'm sure we've all had the experience of going to certain places one time and the prices of things are X. Suddenly it becomes popular with tourists. The prices then start to become Y. One does not expect to pay Rodney Bay prices for example in Dennery but it can and does happen in some circumstances where persons figure well I'm in it for the tourists. The tourists have US dollars. They'll pay me 3 US dollars for a bear so therefore all my bears are going to be 7 dollars a bear. I'm not saying that persons must not benefit from the industry but then there is an impact on the community as a whole and we need to just again be careful and when we're implementing these things that we have safeguards to ensure that we are not because you don't want that othering now to move into the communities as well where I can no longer go by the village restaurant or the village bar and buy something because all of a sudden the prices have become US prices. We need to make sure that while yes we are getting persons into the tourism industry as a community that we are not excluding persons in the community who may not happen to be part of or choose for whatever reason not to be part of that industry and again my colleague independent senator made the point that we have created for ourselves the monster that we are now seeking to fix and to correct and I could not help but notice that again we are seeking as part of the development of this community tourism industry to give people incentives and that seems to be our answer for anything that we want to do in this country so the large hotels get incentives the small hotels get incentives manufacturers get incentives and I just want again to sound a word of caution that it seems that we are unbalancing our economy when the major productive industries within the economy don't pay any taxes don't contribute other than by basically just paying salaries to persons we are not getting the full benefits of those industries and if I may say somewhat selfishly I begin to look with concern because it means now that as a taxpayer the burden of all the public well the debt is one thing but all the public services are falling on me I am paying for the roads that the manufacturers are enjoying I am paying for the roads that the large hotels are enjoying I am paying for the roads that now the community tourists will begin to enjoy so the question then has to be asked what are we doing overall in terms of our fiscal arrangements how can it be sustainable that we are granting concessions to almost all industries and again I notice somewhat selfishly that in terms of services attorneys were left out of the list of persons who get incentives but accountants get incentives doctors can get incentives engineers can get incentives virtually all business persons in St. Lucia can find a way of getting tax and other incentives in St. Lucia we cannot continue to develop our economy in that way or if that's what we're going to do we have to to my mind let us level the playing field and remove these taxes and customs duties and everything for everybody makes St. Lucia in essence a free state and let us then just dwell and live on perhaps that or some sort of sales tax now I'm just to write out there as a concept but I think it's very important because every time we come to Parliament I note with legislation aimed at developing a particular sector there is always a tax incentive regime attached to it and if we keep reducing the income tax base or the tax section base sorry how is government going to operate where are we going to get the revenue from it means that we're going to keep squeezing the fewer and fewer persons who are actually paying some tax and that is something I think we need to look at on a macro level that being said Mr. President as I stated when I started my remarks on the bill I can do no better than associate myself with the comments made by my colleague independent senator and so I support the bill for the potential that it has the potential to change the direction of the tourism industry in Senutia to hopefully and I'm holding on to that hope make it more equitable make it more balanced make it more beneficial for our people as a whole make it more real to the persons who operate within the communities and hopefully if those economic benefits can start to trickle down to the common man and before closing I just wanted to make a comment again Senator Prosper made a comment about persons who are just crafters now I know she didn't necessarily mean anything negative by it but I think there is always or seems to be generally in society the idea that unless you have a big job or something that earns a lot a lot of money somehow you are less than you are just I think we need to recognize that everybody contributes to the success of Senutia in the same manner everybody contributes when we fail there is no one person who is responsible it doesn't matter how big and important your job may look or seem or how small or insignificant it may seem we have to recognize that we are all in this one boat together we all have to contribute and we all have to pull together and that we all have to value the contribution that each person makes equally and we need to stop evaluating things based solely on economic value there is a lot of intrinsic value in a lot of the things that we do and we have to appreciate that and help persons develop and foster those things I just wanted to just touch on that before I close but as I was saying I hold the hope that this bill encapsulates and I trust that the implementation of the bill will live up to the promises that the bill makes on paper and that we will begin to see in short order the benefits that having persons involved in tourism at all levels can bring to Senutia Thank you Mr President Thank you Mr President I intended to have responded in two parts but I noticed the leader of the opposition business can't seem to stay hit and run it suddenly disappears and comes back so I will attempt to address two concerns raised and before I do so I want to thank my colleague Senators who shared their thoughts and made a contribution to this bill Senator Prosper as well as the two independent Senators who added very instructive contributions in different focuses but gave us quite a lot to think about in fact I have a page well populated with notes that I made out of their suggestions and I think what it will do is that it will provide us with more content to take into consideration at the implementation stage of the bill as we know these pieces of legislation generally guide practice but they do not necessarily limit us as to what we can do so just two things from the points that the opposition senator raised it is very good to know that opposition sometimes can teach lessons to us and I was very happy to hear him talking about foreign investment that the Senators Labour Party gave incentives, 25-year incentives to foreign investors at least the language has changed from being anti-investment and that this government is not anti-investment so I am happy to hear him say that and I also like to note that if there was a certain need to make changes in the legislation that he referenced I think all of us know he was the former Minister of Tourism and he sat on it for five years plus but we will do what needs to be done but Mr President I wanted to just briefly comment on some of the observations made by the two independent Senators one of them was the issue of not enough having it's not enough to have concrete and steel and I want to associate with that statement I think the independent senator is right there there's lots of evidence of what we may have thought of as investments in tourism that are just lying around and very little value is placed on it and I think this bill is more entrenched or more interested in asset growth rather than structures being placed in ad hoc places and the reduction of operating cost I take that very well I think this is a very important component that we need to explore by bringing the product to the people the independent senator also mentioned the issue of uniqueness and the features of the communities I like the idea of the locally managed cannabis garden I kind of thought of certain communities I shall not name where that is probably already a concept and now our communities can feel more empowered to be able to explore that because I had a conversation with what's his name Prince Kilash some time ago he came to visit myself and Minister Hillay at the ministry he had some brilliant ideas for development and business and it was very interesting some of the things that he has been able to experiment with uniquely because of the type of product he offers and I was pleased to hear the prices that our guests are willing to pay for certain experiences with some of our unique products so I welcome that suggestion and I think it is well noted I happen to be a part of the Ministry of Tourism it's going straight back to our department for consideration I also wanted to thank the independent senator for the concept of encouraging that we find ways to increase spend among our guests and that is key to the success of this bill and the issue of wealth generation versus what we consider those menial jobs when someone, a young person, or a solution can see real benefits in owning their own small business I think it's interesting it's interesting to hear that this is something that we can encourage so Mr. President, I believe that some of the suggestions made were very well intended and we know that this bill will never be perfect and we are prepared if we have to return to make amendments we will but in the implementation process I think we will have to take this into consideration Senator Lee made some very interesting observations as he always does and he made a reference to the tourism incentives and I think the issue of incentives is that not only that this bill offers them but the tourism, as we speak there are incentives being offered particularly concessions and so I think it's important that we acknowledge that Mr. President, at this time I think I need to pause and move a motion standing order 9.3 to suspend that standing order to allow the senate as we know to be able to sit beyond the hours of 6 between the hours 6 and 7.30 so at this point I will pause to ask that we suspend this standing order to allow for this Senator, the question is that standing order 9.3 be suspended to allow this house to sit past the hours of 7.30 and I move the question as many as are of that opinion say aye as many as are of a controversial opinion say no I think the eyes of it, the eyes of it you may continue Senator Thank you Mr. President I would never want to be in breach of the standing orders or to bring the senate into any form of controversy Thank you, honourable members for allowing us to move into these hours I think we've been having a very productive day so Mr. President, going back to the references made by Senator Lee I think that some of the amendments some of the suggestions that he made can be captured through the current incentives act of bill that exists but he did mention something that I thought was very interesting when he made reference to not encouraging enclaves that is true and if we do that we would have lost the true intent of the bill one of the ways I believe we can achieve that is by sticking to the uniqueness of each community we don't try to duplicate something that is somewhere into another community respect the uniqueness and stick to it the part about prices I heard him say something like Rodney Bay price and I mumbled something but what I was actually telling him is why do we have a Rodney Bay price in the first place that is exactly what we don't want to happen I think the focus should not be on just pricing and profit but on experience it's better that someone is satisfied that he's getting something good for his book and not necessarily trying to exploit anyone if he values what he's doing he or she will be more satisfied with what he makes than trying to exploit and maximize profit and lose the real meaning of the product so I think this we have to protect and that can be done through proper communication proper marketing and education as we deliver on this bill it will not necessarily be captured in the legislation alone but in terms of education we want our people to understand the whole focus of the bill it's about the experience that's the focus and finally he did mention the issue of the incentives galore I just wrote it down as incentives galore I think in a previous sitting we did make mention of the government's intention to review its tax regime as when we first came with the last bill I can't remember the name of the bill but it was some amendments made to one of our tax related legislation it will be part of our bigger tax review policy he did mention some of them we have a number of taxes on many different things and it calls for us to review that and find ways to have more balanced equitable and simpler tax regimes that can allow the government to collect revenue but not over burden certain sectors or not have double taxing or duplicate taxing and I think that's a very interesting observation that can be captured through a more comprehensive tax regime review by the government not necessarily only in tourism but in other sectors so I thank him for these observations and I assure him that going forward we will take them into consideration we will not tell anybody to try to speak and they have lost their right to advise this government will listen to the people whether it's the opposition whether it's independent senators or the man at Constitution Park if you have an idea and it has merit we will welcome it so I thank you again and I look forward to your continued support for the constructive bills that we bring to the South Senator, the question is that the community tourism development be read a second time I now put the question as many as are as many as are of that opinion say aye as many as are of a country opinion say no I think the ayes have it the ayes have it an act to establish the community tourism agency and to provide for the proposal of a partnership agreement tax relief, registration and monitoring of an approved partnership business and for related matters senators we shall be taking bill in parts clause 2 interpretation clause 2 stands part of the bill part 1 clauses 3 to 44 administration part 1 clause 3 to 44 stands part of the bill part 2 clauses 45 to 62 partnership agreement part 2 clauses 44 to 62 stands part of the bill part 3 clauses 63 to 78 tax relief, registration and monitoring of an approved partnership business part 3 clauses 63 to 68 stands part of the bill part 4 clauses 79 to 82 miscellaneous part 4 clauses 79 to 82 stands part of the bill section 2 lists of taxes section 1 stands part of the bill section 2 section 36 oath or affirmation of secrecy section 2 stands part of the bill clause 1 short title clause 1 stands part of the bill Mr Chair before you move on just one quick thing under the interpretation come grounds I believe it should be portable water not portable water where is that come grounds under section 2 section 2 the definition of come grounds wait one second so I just think there is a spelling error there there is literally mean water section 2 page 12 yes page 12 so we have come ground means an area covered space that is equipped with toilets portable water I think that should be portable water oh portable just remove the R portable water one second portable water just one second thank you Senator Aziz I was just trying to ascertain whether changing this from portable to portable would have had any legislative implications as far as the bill making its way through the house but I have been advised that it would not so the question is that sorry again one of my apologies one other observation we were given a list of amendments from the the house and clause 5 clause 5 yeah which said also the agency which one is that that is on the amendments I am not sure we are there so from portable to portable there we are clause 5 that is from the house yeah that is not us yes under that section Mr. President under clause 5 to be under powers of the agency we are supposed to delete the number 80 and replace with number 89 that would be on that is also saying that is an error because there is no section 89 it should be 79 what is section 79 some page section 89 oh some page 17 okay page 5 clause 5 to be page 17 page 17 5 to be okay 17 to be is 80 right so you are correct that should be 80 and not 89 it should be delete number 80 and replace with number 79 so it should be delete not 89 number 80 under section 80 that should be why 79 why I don't get it why 79 section 5 deals with the powers of the agency and speaks to where is it 5 clause 5 to be right it currently reads without limiting the generality of the subsection 1 to be charge and collect fees under section 80 but the section that deals with the collection of fees is 79 there you go so I don't know whether this was just an error in printing the correct the amendment or whether it is genuinely an error that they put 89 what does 80 say is there 80? schedule 1 and 2 schedule 1 and 2 let's schedule 1 and 2 schedule 1 schedule 1 and 2 let's schedule 1 let's schedule 1 and 2 let's schedule 1 and 2 let's schedule 1 and make sure what oh, there you go schedule 1 so 52 I think 80 might be correct, because 80, you see, one schedule, one could be applicable, but not 2 is just you. Yes, so if you go back to 5-2-B, it speaks to collecting and charging fees. Yes. The only section that speaks to fees is section 79, which is hidden fees. So I would say I don't know if the amendment I was sent to us was merely that an error was made and 89 was put instead of 79. And the correction had already been made to 79 in the lower house. And it is, I do not want to take the liberty of doing that when that may not be the intention. Okay, well, okay, we have been advised that it should be 79. So we will make that, not the amendment, because that is what it was meant to be from now. So we will make that adjustment, almost the amendment. Right. So, there we go. I will close one. Okay, with that being taken care of. So Senator, the question, therefore, is that the committee rises and the bill be reported. And I put the question, as many as have that opinion say aye. As many as have a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Senators, I beg to report that the Community Tourism Development Bill went through a committee stage with amendments without amendments. Leader of Government Business. Mr. President, I move that the report of the committee be adopted and that the bill be read a third time in the past. Senators, the question is that the report of the committee be adopted and that the Community Tourism Development Bill be read a third time in the past. And I put the question, as many as have that opinion say aye. Aye. As many as have a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We are connected by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, banned with the advice and consent of the House of Assembly and the Senate of St. Pusher, and by the authority of the same as follows. This act may be cited at the Community Tourism Development Act 2022. Leader of Government Business. Mr. President, I beg to move Opposed Reading, a bill shortly entitled Agriculture and Fisheries Incentives Amendment. Agriculture and Fisheries Incentives Amendment. Leader of Government Business. Mr. President, I move for the suspension of Standing Order 49-2 to allow this bill to go through its remaining stages at the city. Senators, the question is that Standing Order 49-2 be suspended in order to allow the Honourable Leader of Government Business to proceed with the remaining stages of this bill at this sitting. I now put the question, as many as have that opinion say aye. Aye. As many as have a contrary opinion say no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. The leave is granted, Leader of Government Business. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I beg to move for the first reading of a bill shortly entitled Agriculture and Fisheries Incentives Amendment. Mr. President, I was very pleased to witness the inaugural presentation of the bill by our Minister for Agriculture two days ago when he presented this bill. He had a very interesting presentation and I have extracted from it as well as from the contents a few salient areas or points that I wish to share and present for consideration as we seek to pass this bill. Mr. President, one of them is that the bill addresses or seeks to address the practice of requests being minimal as they are. In some cases being sent to the Cabinet for approval. And some of those can be dealt with without having to spend hours, for example, to grant a concession to an individual for a pickup or for other small incentives if you like. Mr. President, it also allows to reduce some of the red tape that can be so frustrating for persons applying, fishers, farmers applying for incentives and benefits. It also seeks to address deficiencies in the current incentives that we provide and now we have to consider such areas as CMOS farmers, chainsaw users, those persons who engage in new and let's say non-popular or the non-conventional agricultural and farming practices. The bill also, Mr. President, seeks to include fishers in the basket, so to speak, of those who contribute to the agricultural development of this country because in the past most of the incentives have been enjoyed by farmers. And I think it is important that we bring fishers on sort of a level playing field where they too can benefit because some of the decisions we have taken in the name of agriculture have affected them but they have not always enjoyed the benefits of their trade. This bill also allows the Permanent Secretary, Mr. President, to approve incentives or particular values between $100 and $20,000 which also takes away from the tedious stress it puts on Cabinet to have to deal with incentives with that value. So it empowers the Permanent Secretary, the public servant, to be able to do that without us having to do it through the Cabinet. Mr. President, the bill also allows for the establishing of a committee to approve the incentives if they are valued above $20,000 but up to $100,000. That too gives a certain level of flexibility and objectivity. It also removes political red-tip in some cases and allows for a more efficient response to requests that are coming from our farmers and fisheries sector. Mr. President, the bill also seeks to include areas such as greenhouses and hydroponics that were traditionally not offered in the past. It continues for some of our farmers who want to go into new areas. It also seeks to include incentives on vehicles, duty-free, for fishers who have traditionally not enjoyed those. And I'm very pleased to hear that because when the gas tax was imposed, I remember some time ago, the fishermen were paying gas tax and everybody was saying that they don't use the roads. When the tax benefits were going to be used to fix roads. So I'm happy that the fishers are getting serious consideration when it comes to these incentives. And that is a key component of this bill. It also seeks to help our farmers develop and improve the product quality and the efficiency that they can have in the industry. Mr. President, there are quite a few details that speak to the benefits that our farmers and fishers will enjoy because of this bill. But I summarise basically those that were salient and brought direct benefits to particular sectors, especially farmers and fishers. And so, Mr. President, I put this forward and ask that the House gives it due consideration and approval for the interest and benefit of our farmers and our fishers. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator, the question is that the agriculture and fisheries incentives amendment bill will be read a second time. Senator Sharvi. Thank you, Mr. President. We've had a long day, so I'll attempt to be as concise as possible. But it would be remiss of me not to lend my voice to the bill before us, Mr. President. I stand in support of the amendments to the agriculture and incentives act and like the government, the leader of government business in his presentation, I think that this amendment will bring some much needed relief to our farmers and fishers that is necessary for the development of the sector. As I say that the words of Senator Lee in the treatment of the previous bill, it also comes to mind that we seem to be giving a lot of incentives that draws away from the pool of government revenue. But when we sometimes look at the benefits that can be derived within the particular sector and the type of development that can happen by giving these incentives to the sector, we also understand why sometimes these things are necessary. One of the things that struck me in terms of the construct of the amendment, Mr. President, is the inclusion of the change in the language and the terminology to include specifically fisheries. So in the current incentives act, a lot of it speaks to agricultural incentives. And incentives to agricultural produce and agricultural products, for example. And the amendment seeks to change the language to include fisheries, which is sometimes a much forgotten sub-sector and I hate to use the word sub-sector to refer to it because I think that it has just as much equal value as the other sectors, the farming counterpart, the tourism sector. I think there is so much equal level on, in some cases, even greater value to the fisheries sector. And so though I've been cultured to refer to it as a sub-sector, I always have a fight with my chief fisheries officer and my deputy using that terminology. And so I am very pleased that the amendment seeks to include the language fisheries, which means that there is a concerted effort to ensure that the fisheries sector is as much included in the agricultural basket and in the agricultural sector of our economy. I think as well that some of the areas that are looked at where incentives will be issued or can be issued in terms of aquaponics and hydroponics and apiculture. I think what this does is that it really, Mr. President, modernizes the agricultural and fisheries incentives because we can appreciate that a lot of our traditional forms of agriculture and fisheries, a lot of our people have moved away from these traditional forms. In some cases not necessarily because they've wanted to do that, but because conditions such as climate change have forced them to move in that direction in order that they are able to sustain themselves and continue to make a livelihood from the sector. When we look at the fishing sector, for example, climate change has affected the fishing sector in a very profound way. The waters are getting warmer. The fish is migrating further away from the shore. And so our farmers have had to find creative ways to continue to remain relevant by venturing into these other areas. And so the amendment to the Agriculture and Incentives Act, I think what it does is that it takes that into consideration and recognizes that it is necessary that we give our farmers and our fishers that level of support as they diversify their business to ensure that they remain relevant and continue to make a livelihood from the sector. I'm also pleased with the amendment to Section 5A where the Permanent Secretary has the responsibility to review for the approval of request applications for incentives. And like the leader of government business indicated and I want to echo it, what that does is that it draws away a bit from the time and the bureaucracy of the issuance and the review, the review and issuance of these incentives. It can be very onerous sometimes for the fisher and I forgive me, Mr. President, that I will be sort of biased in my presentation in terms of the fisheries sector because fortunately or otherwise that is the sector in which I, on a daily basis, make a contribution too. And so it can be very strenuous when a fisher perhaps purchases an item of such a great value. Perhaps a few books from a study in Miami and then it takes a number of days before it can be looked at and it can be reviewed, the application can be reviewed for approval. And so what that does is that it limits the amount of time and so it tends to be a little more palatable for the fisher to conduct his business and so I'm very happy with that move. One of the sections of the amendment do that we seem to be having a little trepidation with although in conversation having received the document that we've been assured by the minister as well as the Office of the Attorney General that it is something that we can perhaps look at a bit further is we seem to have noticed an inconsistency when it comes to the provision for a motor vehicle, a commercial motor vehicle that is in the amendment to section two. Section two, yes, section two. It speaks to the commercial motor vehicle, it gives what it includes and but in that section that this is used solely for the transmission of agricultural produce, inputs and processing equipment. So when I looked at the piece of legislation I recognized that there was a bit of an inconsistency with the previous change in the language because it does not actually include fisheries. And so we were assuming that it may be an oversight and like I said I have brought it up to the minister. I've discussed it with personnel of the Department of Fisheries and I have been assured that perhaps as a later date there are some in-house things that needs to be done and so we can always come back and look at an amendment. But I think it's important it is something that has come up from the angle of the fissures. I remember quite clearly during the zoning of the country once we were dealing with the management of COVID there was an issue with fissures getting from one part of the country especially from the south of the country to the north to sell the produce given that the situation that existed and they use pickup vans, they use some of them have gone into processing of fish and they too use vehicles refrigerated vans and so on in order to enhance the livelihood in order to enhance what they offer and I saw this as well is important to them. Like I indicated Mr. President I have been assured that this is something that we can look at a little further that we can explore a little further to include them as well under that change and so I look forward to that. I think as well with this amendment Mr. President it gives the agriculture and the agriculture and fisheries sector an opportunity to grow and develop in itself and I think we cannot not at this point understand the value of that part of our economy because having gone through and still going through the period of COVID I think a lot of it has come even more to appreciate the importance of food security in our country. Our farmers and our fishers continued to roll down the fort during these trying times and when we saw supermarket shelves becoming empty when we saw the delays in shipment and in bringing goods into St. Lucia our farmers and our fishers continued to ensure that there was food on our table and they have to be applauded for that. We did not get out of the COVID situation we did not get out of the contribution of our farmers and our fishers to make food in this situation because we did not get out of the situation we did not get out of the situation we did not get out of the situation we did not get out of the situation but we still have the food and we still have the fish and I think this amendment makes it a little easier for them to be able to appreciate appreciate what they do as a business, given the fact that they have been considered to have a more efficient manner to access incentives under the Agricultural and Incentives Act. And I'm hoping that they, this is also a clarion call to them to take advantage of what is being offered, to look at what they currently do and to determine how they can enhance it. In one of those sections in the amendment, it speaks to, I think it's the one that looks at the motor vehicle, it speaks to the farmer or the fisher, being able to show how, having received that concession, it will help enhance their productivity and efficiency. And so it's an opportunity for them to start looking at what they do as a business and try to determine how they can move away from the hand-to-mouth mentality and the one-day millionaire mentality that some of them have to start to look at it as a business. And I think a lot of our corporates, our fisher and farmer corporates around the island have also been given an opportunity to impress upon the members and those they serve to ensure that they do that. And seven speaks to a committee currently called the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee, which will also have responsibility to review applications for incentive. Again, moving away from the bureaucratic and time-consuming process, if it has to go to Cabinet, and earlier one of my colleagues spoke of some of the powers that Cabinet seems to want to have. And I'm pretty sure he might be very impressed with the fact that this bill now gives the permanent secretary and the committee responsible for the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee the authority and the ability to review some of these applications up to a particular threshold. And again, I just want to close by saying that it is my opinion that the bill seeks to begin the modernization of an age-old legislation that has existed, both in terms of the Fisheries, Agriculture and Fisheries Act and the Agriculture and Fisheries Incentives Act, which is a bit newer. So I think it's a bit inclusive and progressive. And I look forward to its implementation, Mr. President, and the acceptance and how it can really impact our agriculture and fisheries sector that is sometime forgotten or not shown the due appreciation for its contribution to the economy and to GDP. I thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. It's been a long day. I wouldn't be very, very long. Mr. President, I remember very well when this came to Cabinet, in which I served. And we did so, Mr. President, started the full dialogue on this out-of-the-need to lessen the bureaucracy that sometimes would characterize the whole business of administering concessions, whether it's tourism or agriculture or manufacturing. And so we began with this sector in ensuring that when policy makers may come and prescribe and say, well, this is the overarching set of rules governing the incentives as it relates to the fisheries sector. And then the said piece of policy is then being administered by a permanent secretary and a group of staff in a respective ministry, for example. And why does it need to come back to Cabinet? The amount that we had proposed then was actually $50,000, because we felt that it's going to be hard to find a suitable or appropriate vehicle below that threshold. So it is the government's prerogative to decide how they want to set the cap. They have brought it here at $20,000. I believe that this is unfortunate, reducing the original sum from 50 to 20,000, at which it can be approved at the PS level. Because you want to make sure, Mr. President, that there is enough space for the fisherman to go out and get a vehicle. And it's going to be hygienic. It's going to be appropriate for him to go out and sell his catch. So I think that that particular change is unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, the legislation also talks about the need for fishermen to create their cash flow and finances. I think that this may be on some fishermen. And maybe we need to have some flexibility here again, because we're talking about very small businesspeople. And the same principle applied while we were debating the Community Tourism Bill and the need to have that support system. Because very often a one-man type family business is going to sometimes have very limited resources. And you can't expect all of a specific skill set to come from one individual, in most cases, managing a fishing business. And I think we have to take into account the realities of that sector. So I believe that this well-intended piece of legislation by this mere measure could make it somewhat difficult for people to access the concessions that we intend to give. I'm also looking at the explanatory note. And number five speaks to the fact lower down towards the end. And it says it reads that a new Subsection 3 is added to Subsection 3 of the Act to clarify that incentives for a commercial motor vehicle cannot be requested unless there is proof of improving efficiency of production and increasing profit through the technology that should be through technology or an enhanced product. Again, I think that this is very inhibitive. I understand what the government is trying to do, but I always believe that less bureaucracy, we should seek to facilitate rather than inhibit or to set up bureaucratic hurdles in the way of small business people accessing help in terms of incentives that we're trying to give them. So those are some of the things that I pick up, Mr. President, that I would like to add my voice on. And I would want to ensure that maybe the next time that the government may consider this particular piece of legislation that these things could be considered or maybe even here today at the committee level to see how we can make life that much easier for our fishermen. I want to echo the sentiments by the Senator Shallary who indicated the important rule that our fishermen play. I would appreciate that very well, Mr. President, because having worked with a number of fishermen in Ansler River previously served as MP, you had a very firsthand appreciation for that sector and the realities of that sector and the painstaking efforts that in a lot of cases, a hundred percent of the time, small businessmen who make a lot of great sacrifices against a lot of headwinds. You're talking of issues of lack of technology sometimes. I remember we had this initiative with the Taiwanese to ensure that there was safety equipment to help aid the fishermen so that, you know, the perennial problem of people going out at sea and not coming back and being lost and not knowing where they are. So there were significant work being done in that sector to help to shore up the capacity of the fishing industry, both from a safety perspective, communication radios as well as compass and GPS systems. We started that project and I hope that this is something that this administration will continue as well so that we will have a total coverage of those safety issues and improving the general capacity of our fishermen island-wide in the west, in the east, in the north and in the south. But the point is is that you have a lot of people who would find it difficult to access financing and the concessions are very important because the cost of them setting up their businesses are so onerous and is very, very hard on a number of these fishermen that we would need to do everything in our power to lessen the burden and lessen the bureaucracy so that they can access it quicker. You know, Mr. President, I'm sure that you would agree with me when I tell you that governments, successive governments over the years, they've had this habit of frustrating people. Sometimes upon applying for assistance, some people just don't even bother because they find that the hurdles that we put up, the bureaucracy that we put up and so sometimes legislation that we may bring forward or pass can defeat the whole purpose of what we're trying to do and what the original intent of specific legislation is and so I'm just really tired of people getting frustrated because of the system, because of the bureaucracy, because of the slow pace at which it takes for people to be able to access help from the system and what we should be doing is to come in and to ensure that the fishermen and all of us so value and all of us appreciate their contribution to food security and all of those wonderful things that have been mentioned here on the government side that we will make it easier for these individuals to access the help that they so badly need. I believe that the fishing sector can thrive if we allow for more facilitation and if we allow for a better enabling environment certainly there can be more efficiencies, there can be higher profitability, high levels of production and all those wonderful things that we all want can come out of it if we give a very, very, very analytical look at the bureaucratic hurdles that we may sometimes set up. So a good bill for me overall, I don't have a problem but I do have a problem with which the fishermen are able to access this, too many conditions that are being placed and I think that some of these conditions are above the reach of small business people. Thank you. Leader of government business. Thank you Mr. President. Let me just thank members who contributed and I noted the contribution of the leader of opposition business a little different this time around, well appreciated. I just want to reassure him that our government is not in the business of stopping anything or any initiative that any previous government started that is a good one. We seek to build on the things that are working and that are good like we have done with some of the bills that we passed, for example the the Communitarian Tourism Development Bill that we passed today is building on previous legislation. I just want to end by saying that there are two bills today that the timing aside from the domestic violence bill that we passed earlier Mr. President, these two bills that we that we just we just dealt with that is the Community Tourism and this bill the Agriculture Fisheries Incentives. It is by no accident that they have been brought to the table today at the same time. We must understand that the backbone of this country for a long time was agriculture and still remains a very important part of our national development and that while we accept that tourism has become a lot more potent if we want to have a better word particularly with the given COVID challenges and the need for the economy to get a boost all the nice arrivals and all these figures are great but we must always remember that these two industries complement each other and there must always be a balance in our policies, our practices, our legislation and the implementation of our programs when we are going whether it be tourism