Email

Print

He made it clear that he had a problem with the tax breaks and the exclusivity clause given to NCL, guaranteeing them to be the only cruise port in the south for the next 25 years. That sparked a back and forth between him and the Prime Minister. Here's how it went:

Hon. Mike Espat, Area Rep., - Toledo East
"We just passed a bill on the cruise terminal in the south and I believe that when that bill came first to the House, we did not agree on that 25 years exclusivity that they are giving that particular company and in the meantime we have had maybe 2 other Belizean companies that did not get any favour with this government. Why is it that we tend to want to support these companies that are very rich and yet they want everything free? That is a terrible thing. We have furniture makers in this country and all of us sit down in this house - people who can make beautiful furniture out of solid material and yet we will give them duty exemption on furniture. Why is it we cannot treat our Belizean people the same? We should be encouraging our Belizean people to get into business. But yet we give all the privileges to these people who comes from outside. What will the people in the south gain from all this? Where will they visit."

Michael Peyrefitte, Speaker of the House
"I was giving some leeway member. I thought that..... that matter has been debated and voted on member."

Hon. Mike Espat, Area Rep., - Toledo East
"You went too fast for me."

Michael Peyrefitte, Speaker of the House
"No man."

Hon. Mike Espat, Area Rep., - Toledo East
"But anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are speaking...."

Michael Peyrefitte, Speaker of the House
"Every time I started to debate I look to the left to the leader and nothing."

Hon. Mike Espat, Area Rep., - Toledo East
"Well I didn't see you, sorry. I am still speaking about investments in this country. We need to protect our Belizean people when it comes to investments in this country."

Hon. Dean Barrow, Prime Minister
"With respect to the question of exclusivity, it is true that this government gave Norwegian Cruise Lines a 25 year exclusive contract for the cruise port in the south. A port that initially you supported as I recollect when you were dealing with NCL and I wont - let me not get out of order. I wont say why you supported ai the time you did. But you and the member for Toledo West certainly supported initially. Now the question of exclusivity - we are not like you. That Port Loyola Cruise Port we talked about, you had given exclusivity to your brother and to Carnival and then you turned around and you gave exclusivity to FSTV or do I have it all the way around. You gave it to FSTV exclusive and then you turn around and you gave your brother and Carnival and Port Loyola a similar exclusive. You fellows are magicians you know. You really know how to jump through hoops - a kind of Alice in Wonderland or through the looking glass a type of thing where words mean what you want them to mean. There are no objective definitions, no objective criteria - you gave two exclusives. Thats a hell of a thing. What a contradiction in terms. But in any event we gave the exclusive to NCL before there was a challenge to the question of exclusivity raised by the developer who was interested in doing Stake Bank. That developer challenge one of the two exclusives that you had given and succeeded in getting a judgement of the supreme court saying that exclusivity cannot stand. Now with respect to Norwegian Cruise Lines, they and the government have to take account of that fact. There is now a judgement of the supreme court striking down exclusivity. What it means, apart from the implications for Norwegian Cruise Lines, is that when the Stake Bank developer comes to government and says I want a 25 year exclusive for my Stake Bank project, just after he succeeded in getting a judgement from the supreme court saying exclusives must go out the window. Of course government cant countenance that. When we did give an exclusive, it was before the ruling of the supreme court."