Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. As I did earlier, I intend to support with utmost brevity. The reason for that Mr. Speaker had a technician on standby from morning and I believe I need to let him go. But Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg you pardon. You know, I have become so unaccustomed over the last five years. I never heard the term Deputy Speaker. It was a term foreign to this chamber and now a lot of readjustments need to be made because the Labor Party has cured the defect that persisted for the five years of the United Workers Party. So Mr. Deputy Speaker, politicians for too long, too very long, rather some politicians believe they can fool all the people all the time. But this is not so. This is not so. I remember Mr. Deputy that sometime before the election of 2016, the then leader of the opposition, who earned for occupancy of the prime ministerial chair, led a set of persons who probably did not know better and whose ability to do research did not permit them, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy, to research for themselves the assertion that there was a six and a half, six dollars and fifty cents levy on every gallon of gas that was being sold at the pubs. And so Mr. Deputy, persons matched with the leader of the opposition in belief that there was indeed that six dollars and fifty cents on every gallon of gas. That turned out to be wrong. That turned out to be an untruth, Mr. Speaker. And so those are the kinds of politicians who believe that they can fool people and leave on misinformation all the time. But Mr. Speaker, not now. We live in an era where people seek to find out the truth. People have a greater zeal. They have a greater zeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the accumulation of knowledge. And it really pleases me when I walk through the little alleys in the cabaways in the stores, in the shops, whatever you want to call them, that there are levels of discourse that emanate from persons who we believe are unintelligent and uneducated. And the level of discourse that they have, Mr. Speaker, would fall to the surprise of most of you because they are in the know. They are politically savvy and they know everything of what is going on. Mr. Speaker, the last budget that was passed, the estimates, what the leader of the opposition did is that he extracted the two-and-a-half percent. And he clamored. He made a big brouhaha and we listened to the missive and the contents thereof articulated by the prime minister of loads and loads of lies, a barrage of lies, a barrage of untruths, and misinformation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And that is what he did. He was quite selective in deciding which aspect of such a good budget can cause public rancor, can cause disturbance, and can cause political instability in the country. And so he ran with it. He chose the two-and-a-half percent levy, Mr. Speaker.  They looked at the budget holistically. They did not, Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the opposition tactfully did, they did not extract what he considered to be disadvantages and left those tremendous benefits behind, Mr. Speaker. What did they do? They listened. They listened. And they all felt a sense of participation. They all felt, Mr. Speaker, that the budget contained a benefit that redound either to themselves, to their friends, or to family members, Mr. Speaker. And so they can no longer be fooled, Mr. Speaker, at least not by the leader of the opposition. And, Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised, I was, I must say, when I listened to the ordinary man and woman articulate what they felt of the budget. They did not only questions were put to them, Mr. Deputy, in relation to this very two-and-a-half percent levy that we now are debated. But they did not remember only the two-and-a-half percent, Mr. Speaker. They remembered the $600 increase to all teachers, bringing up the allowance to $1,800, $1,400, Mr. Speaker. They remembered the $2.50 rebate on gas for all fishermen, Mr. Speaker. They remembered the one of payment of $600 to pensioners, Mr. Speaker. They remembered the removal of that on building materials, Mr. Speaker. So they remembered quite a few benefits, the health care, Mr. Speaker. And they said, look, Govedmer Cabano O'Shai, Govedmer Salah Cabano O'Shai, Mayor Steele Nipu, Kui Govedmer. They understood, Mr. Speaker. They understood the philosophy of running a government. You cannot run a government and discharge your social responsibilities if you don't have the revenue streams to do so. And so, Mr. Speaker, HTS took to the streets. HTS took to the streets, Mr. Speaker. And you know what? The question people on a haphazard basis. It was not a situation where there was a congregation of supporters of either political party where you either get ye or nay. They walked the streets. They interviewed average men and women, average citizens in this country, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And I'm sure it will not surprise you that this government, the government led by the Honorable Philip J. Pierre, got a hundred percent endorsement, even with the two and a half percent levy, because you know what they knew what the intention of the government was, Mr. Speaker. And so, Mr. Speaker, I want us and I wonder why the world and the people in the diaspora to listen to what our average citizen of this country had to say without any kind of invocation, without any prior knowledge that they would be asked questions on the two and a half percent. And if this is not endorsement, Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is. Let's listen. Hello, I am Sola Jalfred. Welcome to the HTS EPOL. It's your opportunity to wane on the most pressing issues of the day. St. Lucia's Parliament passed the 2023 2024 appropriation bill, providing legal authority for the measures in the budget aimed at spurring economic activity and sustaining the 18.1 percent growth in the provisions outlined in the 2023-2024 budget. Among the popular measures are the removal of vats on building materials, the provision of free medication for diabetics and hypotensive patients and the elderly, those over the age of 80, providing the medications are available at the public health care facilities. However, the imposition of the 2.5 percent health and security levy on yet to be disclosed goods and services food exempted has created some anxiety. This levy is to fund two of the priority areas for this fiscal year, health and security. So we ask, do you support the imposition of the health and security levy? We took the streets to get your opinion, and here's what you had to say. Why should I not support something that is good? As a matter of fact, I have been wondering, even before the budget, how Prime Minister Pierre has been able to stareship the way he has without borrowing as has been the habit under the previous administration. So the 2.5 percent is one of the, I think, useful techniques or strategies if you want to raise revenue. And if that revenue being raised is going specifically towards health and to deal with security matters, I think that is a beautiful objective and I support it a hundred percent. With what the present Prime Minister has done for the fishermen, etc., I think it's collaboratively a promising idea. I only support it quite honestly if the intended income is the best interest of the people. And it's almost corruption free because we are pregnant with corruption. Yes, I support anything that the government can do to respond to take care of the country. I think I will support it. And in terms of the universal health care, I am a hundred percent supportive of it because too many of our older folks cannot take care of themselves when it comes to the health. Some of them are not able to. So I always wonder what happens and is why some of them die and they cannot take care of themselves. I am quite impressed that the 18.1 percent GDP that the government is looking at. This is a bold initiative for 2023 to 2024. However, the government at the end of the day has removed that of cement, steel, galvanized steel and building materials. And of course, yes, with the 2.5 percent levy that they're implementing, I think it's a bold initiative. It's wonderful. I applaud that by the government. I support it. I believe that it's necessary for the government to generate funds to carry out the operations going on, you know, with the cost incurring from more operations from the police and, you know, the fact that they're trying to make universal health care available to us. That's the reason for them implementing the 2.5 percent. So I feel like that's good. People 80 years and older won't pay for their medication. So it has its benefits to it. You know, sometimes you need to be a little more optimistic and try to see the bright side in things. Yeah, man, is it a country can run without tax?  You see, what probably that would be disappointed is that if when the tax is collected, it not been put in good use. But whenever there's something good, the tax is good. I support it, man. You see, what happened is that sometimes when government. Give with one hand. They collect them with the other look. They already move the tax on cement, wood, lumber, galvanized. Wood, building materials. So they have to pick it up some way. Because if nothing is being collected, government cannot give anything. Yes, I do support it. Because number one, we need the police. The kind of things that are happening nowadays. We need the police protection. Now the police have to come from overseas. Even our own local police, boarding, lodging, everything. Money has to pass. I support that 100 percent. I support the universal health care. It is a good step in the right direction. I support it. It's a good thing. But on the other hand, St. Lucians have to watch themselves. You all St. Lucians, you'll have to pick up a healthy living, healthy lifestyle. Yes, I support it because we need proper health care and the police need. We need our crime. Everybody knows crime is a problem, right? But I hope that 2.5 percent, they use it for the intended purpose. Because look at, for so long, we've been paying a levy on fuel. And look at how bad the road is. So I hope that 2.5 percent, they use it for the intended purpose. Thank you. I do support it because the government has to raise revenue somehow. But it's a good idea. It's a good initiative because health care is not cheap. And we all St. Lucians know that. But we try to make it a political football. But I believe that the 2.5 percent would help the government a lot, a lot, a lot. What is really troubling the opposition is that the 12.5, that the prime minister removed on various construction items. And that really, really, really shook Alan Shastney. But otherwise, the 2.5 percent, I agree with it. Thanks for those responses. Now to our new discussion. The leader of the opposition, Alan Shastney, has been suspended from parliament over his refusal to apologize and withdraw allegations of corruption surrounding the sale of the men's land made during this contribution last Friday. The leader on the 2023, 2024 appropriation bill. During the hearing in Parliament on Tuesday, housing minister Richard Frederick said the land was sold to a private interest following several attempts to get slasper to buy it before the opposition leader on the land was sold at a massive discount. The Speaker of the House, Cornious Francis, said the opposition leader had failed. The position of leader of the opposition is just an inquiry I wanted to make. But Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to two pieces of hypocrisy by the leader of the opposition in conclusion. The Prime Minister earlier alluded to the first health levy that would have been passed when your humble servant and the member for Cassidy's North were part of the government. We were there. And it is because we saw it necessary then. We saw it necessary then to have had such a levy that in August or September 2011, we sat here and passed the statutory instrument. The unfortunate thing is, or the fortunate thing, rather, that we down to the benefit of solutions is that the United Workers Party was sent into political exile, albeit temporarily. Well, it was self-imposed. And so it did not see the light of day. But Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition can shelter under the premise that he was not Prime Minister then. But I will tell you what he did. And you can juxtapose it to what we are doing now when he was Prime Minister, when the leader of the opposition was Prime Minister, June 2nd, 2020. June 2nd, 2020, it may just have been June 3rd, because my instructions are, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, that's something I need to ask. Let us be hypothetical, Mr. Speaker. But today being the 11th of July, if the city of this house were to proceed beyond midnight, what date would a statutory instrument have on there if it is passed after midnight? Would it be the 11th, Mr. Speaker, or the 12th? The 12th. Because, Mr. Speaker, this statutory instrument was passed at 1 o'clock in the morning and it was passed when most persons who probably have an interest in the proceedings of this chamber would have fallen asleep. They had fallen asleep when he moved to pass the Public Health Offensive and Hazardous Regulations, which called for licenses, Mr. Speaker, in various trade, and guess what? Even created credit within the confines of this statutory instrument. You know, Mr. Speaker, let me just read a couple of sections to you very quickly. Essentially, it says you need a license for some of the following. Chicken farming. If you are farming chicken, you need a license. If you are slaughtering animals, you need a license.  Suka fe blok, u te buis oli sas. Suka cu peshive, u te buis oli sas. Suka process poe sas, u te buis oli sas. Suka fe ayed fiberglass, u te buis ei oli sas. And, Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. Farm, u te buis oli sas. Quarry, u buis oli sas. Mechanic, u buis oli sas. Jointry, u buis oli sas. Tu avais animo, u buis oli sas. Shebo, u buis oli sas. Weldin, u buis oli sas. You know, Mr. Speaker, I view, gracious Mr. Speaker, taking cognizance of the various trades that our people apply for a prime minister and minister of finance to impose those kinds of regulations on the citizens of this country, mandating them to have licenses for what we know to have been trades that were in existence from time immemorial. Mr. Speaker, well I guess the dangers of fiberglass, they are dangers in making black pudding as well. And they are dangers in spraying a vehicle. And they are dangers in making foam. And they are dangers in charcoal. And the list goes on and on in animal farming. And they are dangers in charcoal making welding. You know, Mr. Speaker, my difficulty is. And guess what? We all know, Mr. Speaker, given the smallness of our country, we all know that a lot of hairdressers, barbers, mechanics, they prepare a little place within the same place they operate to sleep if needs be. Most of them, not all, but a lot of them sleep where they operate, Mr. Speaker, on the section two. Let me read it to you, Mr. Speaker. And you'll understand that these guys had no conscience. They had no conscience. Section 16, use of premises for sleeping purposes. A person other than a catheter shall not sleep in any part of the premises used in connection with his trade. Can you believe that? They made criminals out of ordinary citizens, Mr. Speaker. Can you believe this? And guess what the penalty is? $2000 or six months in jail. $1000 or six months in jail.    You know, $5000, Mr. Speaker, or six months in jail. Making criminals out of the ordinary citizens.  You all come with that kind of thing. As the Prime Minister said, bastions of morality. You all know it all. And this is a society, Mr. Speaker, where to save rent, to save rent. Most people, most people have their little salon in the front and the bedroom in the back. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that my children, I have two children in the US, I have three. But two of my children's mother, Luanda, was a hairdresser. We lived in the same house that she had a salon. It was once set of premises. The leader of the opposition made a criminal offense out of that. And today, you all stand here. You all stand here, as though you all have people's interests at heart. Mr. Speaker, I won't say anything, much because the people, the people of this country, who were interviewed abhazardly, have indicated to the leader of the opposition that you can fool some people sometime, but you cannot fool the people all the time. And to make criminals out of ordinary, good citizens who all they try to do is to live and earn an honest living, if not egregious, if that could only be done by someone who lacks a conscience. And when that person tells you that colonialism had a conscience, you then know who you're dealing with. But Mr. Speaker, I want to say, like all the solutions who were interviewed earlier, I support wholeheartedly the imposition of the 2.5% levy to ensure that our security and our health facilities are in order. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.