CONDOLENCES (MR. NAZIM MURADALINAZIM MURADALI) Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, as you may be aware, Mr. Nazim Muradali former Member of Parliament for Naparima North passed away on Friday,

1

Condolences 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

The House met at 1.30 p.m.

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

CONDOLENCES

(MR. NAZIM MURADALI)

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, as you may be aware, Mr. Nazim Muradali

former Member of Parliament for Naparima North passed away on Friday,

November 30, 2018. I now invite hon. Members to pay their respective tributes

to Mr. Nazim Muradali. Member for San Fernando East. [Desk thumping]

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Randall Mitchell): Thank you, Madam

Speaker. On behalf of my party, the People’s National Movement, I would like

to extend condolences to the family of the late Nazim Muradali.

Mr. Muradali served as the Member for Naparima North in the second

independent Parliament during the years 1966 to 1971. He won the seat for

Naparima North as a candidate for the Democratic Labour Party by a very close

margin, securing the seat ahead of three other candidates.

He was elected as a Member of Parliament for just four years after

gaining our independence which was a great time and era for Trinidad and

Tobago. He served with some of the political giants such Dr. Eric Williams,

Mr. Arnold Thomasos, Mr. George Chambers, Mr. Rudranath Capildeo, Ms.

Verna Crichlow and Ms. Leslie Balgobin.

As a new Member of this honourable House I can only imagine what it would

be like to serve in that era steering the course for where we are today as a

country.

Parliament Webmaster

Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER Unofficial Hansard This transcript of parliamentary proceedings is an unofficial version of the Hansard and may contain inaccuracies. It is hereby published for general reference purposes only. The final edited version of the Hansard will be published when available.

2


UNREVISED

Mr. Muradali was also a Justice of the Peace and a popular radio

announcer. It was as a radio announcer he met his wife Vidya Pooran-Muradali,

a former principal of ASJA Girls’ College San Fernando when he interviewed

her for one of its programmes after she returned from a trip to India.

The couple had two children: Kavita who became an attorney-at-law; and

Navi, a medical doctor and former councillor for the electoral district for Les

Efforts East/Cipero and subsequently former mayor of the city of San Fernando.

I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government Bench to express my

deepest condolences to Navi and the rest of the family during this time of

mourning, and I wish them the comfort and strength needed in this time of

bereavement. Thank you. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Member for Naparima.

Mr. Rodney Charles (Naparima): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, we

celebrate the life and contribution of a true patriot, Nazim Muradali who in 1966

entered this House as the MP for Naparima North.

Mr. Muradali died in Barbados on Friday, 30 November, 2018. He served

this country well and was among a host of cultural icons like Lionel F.

Seukeran, Baboo Ramsingh, Kamaluddin Mohammed, Hans Hanoomansingh

and Pat Mathura who were able to leverage their service in the development of

the arts to engage in politics. They were indeed patrons of Indian art in Trinidad

and Tobago.

In essence, Mr. Muradali and his fellow icons gave a voice to the largely East

Indian, rural and disenfranchised community in the national arena.

At the same time they were able to engage in cultural retention and

adaptation by giving a not-insignificant group of citizens a sense of cultural

3


UNREVISED

identity, self-esteem and social stability in a largely hostile colonial

environment that saw all things non-European—such what they called “the

heathen practice of shouting by Shouter Baptists”—as unworthy of

contemplation and social acceptance. Their contribution to our national ethos

cannot be ignored.

I met Mr. Muradali on many occasions at a well-known social spot on

Leotaud Street in San Fernando. He was a wealth—he was a walking

encyclopaedia of knowledge on social, cultural, economic and political

developments in our country. He was a global citizen and understood well the

need for tolerance, acceptance and for celebration of the various religions in our

country.

He believed that Trinidad and Tobago was a favoured place by having all

the great religions of planet Earth in this small geographic space. He was

equally comfortable at Susamachar Presbyterian Church, in any San Fernando

mosque or in any temple.

A practising Muslim, he married Ms. Vidya Pooran-Muradali who came

from a well-known Hindu family. His wife was a very successful principal of

ASJA Girls’ College San Fernando for many decades.

When issues rose with the principalship, which threatened the very

existence of the Concordat, Nazim worked tirelessly behind the scenes to defuse

the situation which resulted in his wife being transferred, by consensus, to the

Tabaquite Composite School.

I am personally grateful to him for helping me to adapt to Opposition

politics representing Naparima, the great constituency. He lived at a time when

Opposition had little hope of forming the Government. He had to deal with

4


UNREVISED

repeated negative comments and he stood his ground firmly.

He could at times be cast even as representing a recalcitrant minority but

he took it in stride, mindful always that this was part of building a successful,

first-world and peaceful Trinidad and Tobago, a task to which he was totally

committed.

He loved Trinidad and Tobago. He served in many political arenas

offering himself as an independent candidate for Pointe-a-Pierre in 1976. He

subsequently withdrew his candidacy during the allotted time. He was a

long-serving Justice of the Peace.

His children are all well-accomplished. His son Dr. Navi Muradali

became the eighth mayor of San Fernando after city status was granted to that

important southern urban community. He became the eighth mayor after

successfully contesting the electoral district of Les Efforts East/Cipero on a

NAR ticket. That seat was formerly held by Sen. Kazim Hosein who did not

contest.

We thank God for persons like Nazim Muradali. We celebrate his

contribution to our nation. May Allah grant him eternal peace in the hereafter.

[Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I too wish pay tribute to Mr. Nazim

Muradali. As an outstanding citizen, teacher, and Justice of the Peace, Mr.

Nazim Muradali not only served as an elected Member of Parliament but the

wider Trinidad and Tobago in his various endeavours.

Hon. Members, today we remember Mr. Nazim Muradali not only as a

parliamentarian, but as a school principal, radio host, father, husband, colleague,

friend, mentor and servant of our twin-island Republic.

5


UNREVISED

During his tenure he served on the Public Accounts Committee from 1969

to 1970, and 1970 to 1971; in addition to a special select committee in 1970.

His parliamentary debating record indicated that he was a true champion for the

development of his constituency, highlighting the needs of all citizens, and he

was known for his gracious parliamentary conduct.

I take this opportunity to express my deepest condolences to his family

during this time of mourning, and I pray that they be granted the comfort and

strength needed in this time of bereavement. I now ask that we stand and

observe a moment of silence as a mark of respect.

The House of Representatives stood.

Madam Speaker: May his soul rest in peace. Hon. Members, I have directed

the Clerk of the House to convey our condolences in writing to the family of the

late Mr. Nazim Muradali.

MAGISTRATES PROTECTION (AMDT.) BILL, 2018

Bill to amend the Magistrates Protection Act, Chap. 6:03, brought from

the Senate [The Attorney General]; read the first time.

PAPER LAID

Ministerial Response of the Ministry of Works and Transport to the Fourth Report

of the Joint Select Committee on Land and Physical Infrastructure on an Inquiry

into the Trinidad and Tobago Inter-island Ferry Service with specific focus on the

Procurement and Maintenance of Ferries. [The Minister of Planning and

Development (Hon. Camille Robinson-Regis)]

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT

(Presentation)

Local Authorities, Service Commissions and

Statutory Authorities (including the THA)

6

JSC Reports 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

Ms. Ramona Ramdial (Couva North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam

Speaker, I have the honour to present the following report:

Eleventh Report of the Joint Select Committee on Local Authorities, Service

Commissions and Statutory Authorities (including the THA) on an Inquiry

into the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Regulated Industries

Commission.

PRIME MINISTER’S QUESTIONS

Triggering Section 137 of the Constitution

(Course of Action)

Dr. Roodal Moonilal (Oropouche East): Thank you very much. Madam

Speaker, question number 1 to the hon. Prime Minister: Could the Prime

Minister indicate his course of action in relation to the request by the Law

Association to consider triggering section 137 of the Constitution of the

Republic of Trinidad?

Madam Speaker: Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): Madam Speaker, decency

would have dictated that this question be a little delayed. The vote at the Law

Association took place last night, I think, and I am now being asked what action

I intend to take. Madam Speaker, I have no matter in front of me at this time

and therefore I have nothing to report on.

Madam Speaker: Supplemental question, Member for Oropouche East.

Dr. Moonilal: Thank you very much for the comprehensive reply. Could the

Prime Minister indicate in light of his knowledge of what is in the public

domain already, whether or not he will venture to say what he proposes to do in

the circumstances where knowledge is in the public domain? [Desk thumping]


7

Prime Minister’s Questions 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, that might be the way some of my

colleagues in this House would conduct public business, but I have a lot of

knowledge about other things. This is a serious constitutional matter, and I do

not know that I am being asked to take action on something, on some

knowledge in the public domain. Madam Speaker, I do not intend to run the

business of the people of Trinidad and Tobago in that manner. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Supplemental, Member for Oropouche East.

Dr. Moonilal: Thank you very much. With regard to the response of the Prime

Minister, could I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister

can make a commitment today that he will attend to this matter with the alacrity

and urgency that it deserves?


Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, the commitment I made to the people

of Trinidad and Tobago was made right in this place in my oath of office, to act

without fear or favour, without malice or ill will. I have no other commitment

to make to the Member for Oropouche West or any other person in this country.

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni Central.

Sale of Clico

(Details of)

Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie (Caroni Central): Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker. Question number 2 to the hon. Prime Minister: Could the Prime

Minister indicate whether an agreement has been reached to sell Clico to a

company in the financial sector?


The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): Madam Speaker, I am not

aware that any agreement has been made to sell the assets of Clico to any

8


UNREVISED

institution in or out of the financial sector. What I do know, Madam Speaker, is

that the Central Bank, the authority in control had opened discussions with

Sagicor with respect to the asset base. The sale of those, the relevant assets

however, just as those discussions were opening up, another development with

an international implication occurred where Sagicor was somehow being

interested in or being the interest of an external party, and at that stage the

discussions have been paused while these developments clarify themselves.

Madam Speaker: Supplemental, Member for Caroni Central.

Dr. Tewarie: Yes. Prime Minister, would Sagicor be the only company which

is engaged in this matter if the pause is lifted in a future discussion?


Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: I could not respond to that at this time, Madam Speaker

because the circumstances would be determined by the Central Bank in the

appropriate fashion.

Madam Speaker: Supplemental, Member for Caroni Central.

Dr. Tewarie: Are you saying, Prime Minister, that this matter will be attended

to solely by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago?


Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, there are authorities that are involved in

this of which the Central Bank is the principal authority under the law, but with

the involvement, and the measured involvement, of the Ministry of Finance

which will eventually make the final decisions in the appropriate fashion.


Continued Agreements with Venezuela

(Steps taken)

Mr. Rodney Charles (Naparima): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given

9


UNREVISED

warnings issued by Opposition forces in Venezuela that they will not honour

agreements entered into with the Maduro Government, could the Prime Minister

indicate what steps the Government intends to take to ensure that our

agreements survive a change of Government in that country?


The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): Madam Speaker, I want the

population of Trinidad and Tobago to take careful note of the behaviour of the

Opposition in Trinidad and Tobago on this matter.

Madam Speaker, we took—we came to this House and indicated that we were

engaging in far-reaching discussions with the Government of Venezuela. We in

Trinidad and Tobago have no role in who is the Government of Venezuela; we

treat with the Government of Venezuela as it exists in Venezuela.

And on this particular matter, Madam Speaker, we have eventually done

what our Opposition colleagues say was not possible, which is to get an

agreement with the Government of Venezuela to have commercial access to gas

fields off our north-west coast.

I am aware, Madam Speaker, that Members of this Opposition in Trinidad

and Tobago have been trying to get Members of the Opposition in Venezuela to

oppose this matter. [Crosstalk] Madam Speaker, I make no—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley:—I make no further comments at this time but, Madam

Speaker, after a year and half of the successful conclusion of this international

agreement, lo and behold an individual—one individual from the Venezuelan

Opposition—comes to Trinidad and Tobago to say that the agreement may not

be honoured.

10


UNREVISED

I want to say to the people of Trinidad and Tobago, pay careful attention.

Whatever you think of the Government of Venezuela, whatever you think of the

Government of Venezuela, that Government is a matter for the people of

Venezuela. [Desk thumping] That Government is engaged in trading and

agreements with a number of countries around the world— Russia, China,

Colombia, the United States, Brazil. The only place where this kind of talk in

present and in vogue is in Trinidad and Tobago where the Opposition in

Trinidad and Tobago is trying to get the Venezuelan Opposition to torpedo an

agreement between the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and the

Government of Venezuela for the people of Trinidad and Tobago—

Madam Speaker: Prime Minister, time spent.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley:—and there is a name for that. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Supplemental, Member for Naparima.

Mr. Charles: I would, may state, categorically, we are not engaged with the—

Madam Speaker: Member of Naparima, do you have a question, Member?

Mr. Charles: Yes. I do.

Madam Speaker: Please, ask the question.

Mr. Charles: The question is: Given reports in the United States media that it

would take $1 billion worth of investment in order to facilitate this agreement,

does the Prime Minister think it prudent to invest taxpayers’ money in

something that may not last a regime change?


Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, this is the kind of misinformation that

is being fed to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. Madam Speaker, we are at

the stage in this agreement where there is a heads of agreement between the

11


UNREVISED

governments, commercial agreements have also been entered between

commercial companies. Madam Speaker, if a commercial contract exists

between Trinidad and Tobago business houses, Shell, PDVSA, these are

contracts that would be identified and come under the supervision of

international law. I do not know what is this obsession with this Opposition

about regime change.

And, Madam Speaker, if an investment is to be made to bring gas from

Dragon or anywhere else in Venezuela to Point Lisas, that investment will be a

business deal that will stand on that basis.

And, Madam Speaker, I will encourage the Opposition in Trinidad and

Tobago to look out for the people for Trinidad and Tobago and [Desk thumping]

support the best and not regime change.

Madam Speaker, this is a far-reaching development. For years we have

been talking about our gas and running out of gas in Trinidad and Tobago. We

have now a heads of agreement between our nearest neighbour where we now

need to build a pipeline from Dragon to Hibiscus platform. What is the problem

that the Opposition has with that?

Madam Speaker: Supplemental, Member for Oropouche East.

Dr. Moonilal: Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, in light of the

forthright response of the Prime Minister, could the Prime Minister now have

the courage and the honesty to state which Member or Members of the

Opposition Bench is speaking to the Opposition in Venezuela to undermine the

agreement?

Madam Speaker: Member for Oropouche East, I will allow you to re-ask your

question. There are certain innuendoes in two words that you used there.

12


UNREVISED

Please, ask your question without those two words. Thank you.

Dr. Moonilal: I will ask the question made simpler. Could the Prime Minister

now demonstrate the courage and the honesty to name the Members of the

Opposition who are involved in undermining the agreement in Venezuela?

Madam Speaker: Again, I did not say the two words. I expect that everybody

in here is honest, and that is the innuendo in the word. So, I am going to give

you an opportunity to ask, again, but if you persist, well then I will do what I

have to do.

Dr. Moonilal: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. On the third time,

could the Prime Minister—

Madam Speaker: Excuse me, it is not for the third time. You are now asking

it for the first time.

Dr. Moonilal: Okay. For the first time, could the Prime Minister indicate to

this honourable House the identity of Members of the Opposition who he is

aware of are trying to undermine the agreement between the Government of

Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela among Opposition members in Venezuela?


Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, normally we handle this by saying,

“call name, ah go whistle”. But, Madam Speaker, my colleague from

Oropouche East could assist us and the country by telling us who brought that

Opposition member here to come and talk that talk in Trinidad and Tobago.

Madam Speaker: Member for Pointe-a-Pierre, supplemental.

Mr. Lee: Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the hon. Prime Minister, in light of

his response: Could you state when would Trinidad and Tobago be getting the

first shipment or supply of gas from Venezuela?—based on what he said.

13


UNREVISED


Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that

question today. What we have done, we have laid the groundwork for a

commercial agreement, and we have said on many occasions inside of this

House and outside of this House, that what we expect to happen now is if there

are further agreements are to be concluded with respect to the construction of a

pipeline, the most difficult part of this agreement, Madam Speaker, was the

agreement on a gas price. And now that we have a gas price, we have a market,

and we have gas in the hole, we expect that the business will flow from there.

It is our intention to have that gas flowing as quickly as possible, and it all

depends on the agreement and the construction of the pipeline and the

businesses that go with that. And I should mention once again that we are in

partnership with Shell on this matter.

Madam Speaker: Supplemental, Member for Oropouche East?

Dr. Moonilal: No.


Mr. Charles: Thank you. Is the Prime Minister willing to indicate to this

honourable House that whatever agreement is arrived at in respect of the

construction of the pipeline or other infrastructure that taxpayers’ money will

not be involved, and it will be solely at the cost of the private sector?


Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, I will do no such thing because if it is

that the people of Trinidad and Tobago are required to participate in a pipeline

from the Venezuelan gas field to the Hibiscus platform which we are part owner

in, so as to keep Point Lisas going, so as to bring additional business to Trinidad

14


UNREVISED

and Tobago, what problem does my colleague have with taxpayers investing in

it? Madam Speaker, you understand where their mind is?

Madam Speaker, it is the investment that the taxpayers make in these

kinds of business that is carrying us today. The people of Trinidad and Tobago

invested in Point Lisas, we own the National Gas Company, and a Member of

Parliament is coming to ask me to make a commitment that we would not invest

in a pipeline if needs be?

If the private sector is prepared to partner with us—and I just told him,

Madam Speaker, Shell is partnering with us—what is their problem with the

Government taking some interest in the pipeline if we have to?

1.55 p.m.

That is what the business is, and it would involve a lot of money, but high

investment brings high returns in the hydrocarbon business. Madam Speaker, I am

telling the people of Trinidad and Tobago that this Opposition, on these matters,

are people to watch. I would make no such commitment. [Desk thumping]

Closure of Petrotrin

(Plans to assist Fence-Line Communities)

Mr. Rodney Charles (Naparima): The hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime

Minister state the plans in place to assist fence-line communities such as Marabella

and Santa Flora to cope with the closure of Petrotrin?

The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): Madam Speaker, a number of

initiatives, some have been taken, some are to be taken, and we will continue to

acknowledge that the south and south-west of Trinidad, in particular, would be

more affected negatively than elsewhere in the country. As a result of that, our

development programme in the area of San Fernando all the way down to Point

Fortin is leading the National Development Programme in Trinidad and Tobago,

15


UNREVISED

and that is in not accidental.

Madam Speaker, the first thing we did is to ensure that the company which

did not have the means and the wherewithal to provide the workers with a proper

separation package, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago obtained and made

available to the workers of Petrotrin who were directly affected, 2.6—2.6?

Mr. Imbert: Two point seven.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: $2.7 billion in cash so that those workers leave the company

with substantial cash in hand. The second thing we did is that we increased the

tax-free level from 300,000 to 500,000 tax-free so that the first 500,000 of

whatever they would get in the separation package is tax-free and taxes only would

apply to what is beyond half a million dollars.

Madam Speaker, we have indicated that we would ensure that the social

support systems of the country focus excessively on these areas to pick up any

hardship which will occur after proper scrutiny because, as you observe, even as

we are putting out money there to help people who are in distress, there are persons

in the national community who are prepared to take more than their fair share. We

have to be careful but we will do that to help persons.

And, Madam Speaker, we would also ensure that the lands that are available

to Petrotrin—Petrotrin being one of the largest entities over state land in this

country—that portions of those lands all over the south-western peninsula and

south Trinidad are identified for development and for transfer in ownership to

those workers at Petrotrin who can benefit from such, and I will be making a

statement in this Parliament in this very near future on that matter, Madam

Speaker.

Mr. Charles: Thank you very much, but could the Prime Minister answer the

question by stating at least two plan in place for Marabella, so that the national

16


UNREVISED

community and our citizens in Marabella and Santa Flora will know two things at

least that are being done for them?

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, if my colleague from Naparima cannot

count further than one to two, I just outlined far more than two plan there. I would

assist him to go back to kindergarten. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Naparima. Member for Princes Town.

Piarco International Airport

(Ministers’ Pattern of Behaviour)

Mr. Barry Padarath (Princes Town): Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you

to the hon Prime Minister, question No. 5. In light of additional reports surfacing

about a pattern of behaviour by at least one Cabinet Minister at the Piarco

International Airport, could the Prime Minister indicate what steps have been taken

to ensure that Government Ministers do not defy the authority of Customs officials

upon entering and exiting the country?

The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): Madam Speaker, I am sure my

colleague from Princes Town is getting his knickers in a twist, because it is not in

this Government that there are Ministers who have defined Customs and similar

authorities. I know of no Minister in this Government who has been defying

Customs at the airport, and I have no report of that matter in front of me. [Desk

thumping]

Mr. Padarath: Thank you, Madam. To the hon. Prime Minister: Could the

Prime Minister indicate whether he has spoken directly and asked for a report on

the incident concerning Minister Dennis Moses and Minister Camille Robinson-

Regis at the Piarco International Airport?

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, I have spoken to both Ministers and I am

quite satisfied that there is no question of Ministers in this Government defying

Customs at Piarco Airport. I know of no such report, and I have no Minister in this

17


UNREVISED

Government that is defying Customs at the airport.

Mr. Padarath: Thank you, Madam Speaker, to the hon. Prime Minister. Could

the Prime Minister say if he is concerned that Ministers who continuously defy

Customs and refuse to adhere to Customs laws might be using their position to

ensure that their persons and belongings are not checked and examined?

Madam Speaker: I would not allow that as a supplemental questions having

regard to the two questions and responses that have gone before. Member for

Princes Town, question No. 6.

Devastating Floods in South Trinidad

(Receipt of Grants)

Mr. Barry Padarath (Princes Town): Thank you, Madam Speaker, question No.

6 to the hon Prime Minister. In light of the devastating floods to hit south Trinidad

recently, could the Prime Minister indicate how many persons have received their

grants up to this time?

The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): Madam Speaker, the relevant

Ministry has received 186 assessment forms on November 21st and 23rd; 136 forms

were received on the 28th; both sets are being verified by the Ministry of Social

Development and Family Services, which is liaising with the Ministry of Finance

so that the qualifying applicants in that package will receive their published

assistance that would be made available.

Mr. Padarath: Thank you, Madam Speaker, is the hon. Prime Minister saying

that up to this time no one has received grants coming out from those floods?

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: I have said no such thing. I spoke about the number of

assessments and, Madam Speaker, I am not at this moment available to tell—I am

not in a position to tell him how many. But I do know that the process is well on

the way and those are the numbers that we are dealing with.

Mr. Padarath: Thank you, Madam. Could the hon. Prime Minister say whether

18


UNREVISED

he is aware that persons have still not received their grants since tropical storm

Bret in the areas of Penal, Debe, Barrackapore, Princes Town, Naparima,

Oropouche East, Oropouche West, Siparia?

Madam Speaker: I will not allow that as a supplemental question. Member for

Caroni East.

Dr. Gopeesingh: Prime Minister, would you indicate whether there has been any

investigation into the 45 million reported overpayment for the end of flood relief?

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: The matter is being actively investigated by the competent

authorities.

Fired Petrotrin Workers

(Plans for)

Mr. David Lee (Pointe-a-Pierre): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Member for

Oropouche West, hon Prime Minister question No. 7. With regard to the Prime

Minister’s comments, at a public meeting in Marabella, indicating that the Petrotrin

workers would be taken care of, could the Prime Minister indicate the plans for the

fired Petrotrin workers?

The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): In the absence of the Member for

Oropouche West I can simply say, Madam Speaker, I just answered that question.

Threatening Phone Calls

(Investigation of)

Ms. Ramona Ramdial (Couva North): Thank you, Madam Speaker, question No.

8 to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister state whether an official

investigation has been launched into the recent spate of threatening phone calls to

his phone?

The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): I would be assisting, Madam

Speaker, if my colleague from Couva South could tell me which of the threatening

phone calls you are talking about?

19


UNREVISED

Ms. Ramdial: Prime Minister, I make reference to those threatening calls that you

commented upon in the media after your number was circulated by former

Minister Devant Maharaj.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, any call which warranted the intervention

of law enforcement, and by that I refer to calls that were threatening, or calls that

were in breach of the law, such calls would be directed to the authority which is the

Commissioner of Police and that has been done, and I presume that—I presume,

while I cannot confirm—that any such report will be attended to by the relevant

police action.

Ms. Ramdial: Prime Minister, as you indicated also to the public, have you gotten

a new number and activated it?

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, there was a time when I would have easily

given that number to my colleague from Couva North, but given the behaviour of

my colleagues with telephone numbers I would do no such thing. [Laughter]

Sandals International

(Signing of Contract)

Ms. Ramona Ramdial (Couva North): Thank you, Madam Speaker, question No.

9 to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister state how close the Government

is to signing a final contract with Sandals International?

The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): Madam Speaker, there is an

obsession with this Sandals project which I cannot understand.

Ms. Ramdial: It is taxpayers’ money.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, I am so happy that my colleagues on the

other side are so concerned about taxpayers’ money now—now that the horse has

bolted.

Hon. Member: All of a sudden. All of a sudden.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: I wish you were so concerned when you were in

20


UNREVISED

Government, we would have been in a much better place today. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, as told to the national community, the gestation period and

activities involved in bringing this project into fruition is one that is ongoing and

we are not anywhere near to any position about signing any final contract with

Sandals. The process of developing this project is going ahead unhindered through

the normal channels and at the end of those processes, if a contract has to be

signed, we would be the first to inform the country. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Supplemental question Member for Oropouche East.

Dr. Moonilal: Thank you very much. In light of the fact that Sandals was not

procured through normal channels, could the Prime Minister indicate, whether

UDeCOTT is the project manager and UDeCOTT is under the Office of the Prime

Minister?

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, I would just like to ask my colleague from

Oropouche East to stop spreading misinformation. None of what he has said is

correct.

Mr. Charles: Mr. Prime Minister, based on what is in the public domain with

respect to the MOU with Sandals, could the Prime Minister give a commitment

that any tax breaks granted to Sandals in any final agreement will not transcend a

change of Government after 2020?

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, I am confused again, and I would like to

ask my colleague to clarify the question before I try to answer it.

Mr. Charles: Is the Prime Minister binding future Governments to tax

concessions in any negotiation?

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, [Crosstalk] Madam Speaker, [Continuous

crosstalk] Madam Speaker, I want the national community to listen very carefully

to the kinds of questions being asked. I grew up in this country knowing that it

21


UNREVISED

was standard public policy in this country for the Government of Trinidad and

Tobago to enter into contracts, and one of the things that made this country a good

place to invest is the sanctity of contracts in Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping]

So if it is that my colleague from Naparima is asking me that any arrangement that

this Government enters into is only binding until the next election, once again I

would say to him, no thanks for your advice.

The people of this country for decades have given all kinds of tax breaks to

all kinds of businesses that transcend Governments over and over. Where “all

yuh” come from with this now? Where? There was an IDC in this country that

existed expressly for giving concessions to business investments in this country.

All of a sudden—we have said not a word about what any tax breaks that would be

given, except to say that we are giving Sandals nothing of that nature. Sandals

would be a project manager of a business owned by the people of Trinidad and

Tobago, and whatever we give to that project, we give to ourselves. Why is that so

hard to understand? But I would tell you finally, if a contract is required to

facilitate that through appropriate tax breaks, the Government of Trinidad and

Tobago will have no hesitation in doing it for the people of Tobago and the people

of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping]

Dr. Gopeesingh: Could the Prime Minister indicate whether the office of

UDeCOTT is under the Prime Minister’s office?

Madam Speaker: Just now. Was not such a question—such a question was

already asked by the Member for Oropouche East. Member for Naparima.

Mr. Charles: Is the Prime Minister aware that almost every Caribbean

government—Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia—have problems with agreements

with Sandals engaged in and finalized which give excessive tax breaks, and are

you mindful—

22


UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: One question. Prime Minister.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker, I noticed that he did not call Jamaica and

Bahamas and the US. Madam Speaker, whatever arrangement we make in

Tobago, if we come to the point of making an arrangement, the only commitment I

can give to the people of Trinidad and Tobago is that this Government will make

an agreement in the best interest of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk

thumping]

URGENT QUESTIONS

TT Spirit (Return to Service)

Mr. David Lee (Pointe-a-Pierre): Thank you, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the

Member for Oropouche West, to the Minister of Works and Transport. With

regard to the TT Spirit being pulled from servicing the sea bridge last Tuesday due

to a cracked crankcase, could the Minister indicate when the vessel will be

properly repaired and returned to service?

The Minister of Works and Transport (Sen. The Hon. Rohan Sinanan):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the short answer is that the cracked

crankcase was repaired on Friday and the boat resumed service on Saturday, and

has been working since then. Thank you. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Lee: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Supplemental. Minister, could you

confirm if there is another vessel that was leased for the sea bridge service that is

due to start soon?

Madam Speaker: I would not allow that as a supplemental question. Member for

Oropouche East.

Dr. Moonilal: Thank you very much. Minister, are you concerned with the

statement of the Interisland Transport Committee of the Chamber of Commerce

today that, due to the challenges of the sea bridge, small and medium-size

23

Urgent Questions 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

businesses in Tobago are closing down?

Sen. The Hon. R. Sinanan: Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, I am

not concerned with that statement. I have not seen any facts to show me that.

Dr. Moonilal: Minister, could you confirm whether or not a vessel named

Champions Jet is coming in December to work the sea bridge?

Madam Speaker: I am not going to allow that as a supplemental question.

Increased Neonatal Deaths

(Preventative Measures Taken)

Mr. David Lee (Pointe-a-Pierre): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Member for

Oropouche West, to the Minister of Health. In light of the recent increase of

neonatal deaths at the San Fernando General Hospital, could the Minister indicate

what is being done to prevent same from reoccurring?

The Minister of Health (Hon. Terrence Deyalsingh): Thank you very much,

Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, in answering this question it pains me to give

details which I would not normally give out of respect for the families. One baby

was born at 29 weeks—11 weeks preterm—was born with severe congenital

anomalies including brain defect, kidney defect, limbs, respiratory-ventilated

dependence. That baby's life was incompatible with life. It grieves me to give

these details, but the Opposition does not seem to want to let this go. One baby

was born at 26 weeks—14 weeks early at 500 grams. Madam Speaker, 500 grams

is just about—just over the weight of a bottle of water. This is 350 cc, one cc is

one gram, could not survive.

I keep telling this country we had a spate of preterm deliveries. One was

born at 27 weeks, 1.3 kilograms with severe pulmonary haemorrhage, could not

survive. One was born with a combination of HIV and chlamydia infection passed

on by the mother at preterm, incompatible with life. One was born preterm with

MRSA, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, antibiotic-resistant

24


UNREVISED

bacteria, unfortunately incompatible with life. One was born at 26 weeks at 710

grams, pulmonary haemorrhage. Madam Speaker, it pains me to say this. It pains

me. But I must congratulate the Newsday and Carol Matroo. This was the only

media house that did a proper story on this by interviewing experts in the form of

Dr. Catherine Minto-Bain, and I quote her. She said:

There are multiple factors that would cause preterm births. Some of which

were unknown. But things like being overweight when one gets pregnant,

having high blood pressure, being diabetic, all of which are big problems in

Trinidad and Tobago.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Supplemental, Member for Fyzabad.

Dr. Bodoe: Thank you for that response, Minister. Minister, can you indicate

whether there is an increase in nosocomial infections within the NICU in San

Fernando Hospital?

Hon. T. Deyalsingh: There is an increase in nosocomial infections at San

Fernando because babies are being born with infections passed on by their

mothers. But, Madam Speaker, let us look at the drastic decline in the neonatal

mortality under this administration. For the years 2010 to 2014, it averaged around

15 to 14 deaths per 1,000 live births; from 2015 to 2017, we have dropped that by

40 per cent. [Desk thumping] The rate is now 8.8 deaths per 1,000 live births. We

did that. We have surpassed our SDG goals of nine per 1,000 by 2030, by

achieving that in 2018. I keep telling the country that we have achieved our SDG

goals in maternal mortality and neonatal mortality 12 years before 2030. [Desk

thumping] Twelve years. So we are doing fantastically well, but unfortunately in

October and November we did have this spate of preterm deliveries.

And I also add, many of these cases were sent by the private sector because

25


UNREVISED

they could not handle it, and we get these cases with no medical history, we do not

know what drugs they are on, and that is what we do in the public sector now. And

2018 will go down in the history of this country with the lowest rate of maternal

mortality deaths ever. Ever! Fantastic achievements. Thank you very much,

Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

Dr. Khan: Just one question, Minister, I would like to find out. Are you still

continuing the Maternal Review Committee recommendations that were done in

2015? [Desk thumping]

Hon. T. Deyalsingh: Thank you very much. Not only are we continuing it, but

we have improved it with each cycle quarterly meeting that I have with the

Director of Women’s Health, where we review all the cases, and I take an active

part in that. So not only have we done it—[Interruption]—government is a

continuum, as the Prime Minister has just said. We will continue to make it better,

and a future Minister of Health would take up the mantle that you started, and I

accepted from you. Thank you very much.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The Minister of Planning and Development (Hon. Camille Robinson-Regis):

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. There are six questions for oral answer;

we will be answering four. We are requesting a deferral for two weeks of

questions 12 and 13. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The following questions stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mrs

Christine Newallo-Hosein:

Recent Flooding

(Details of)

12. With regard to the floods during the period October 19 to 21, 2018, could the

Minister indicate:

26

Oral Answers to Questions 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

a) whether the site visits to flood victims were completed;

b) whether the assessment of flood victims was completed; and

c) the status of cheque distributions to flood victims?

Older Persons Information Centre

(Calls During Recent Floods)

13. With regard to the floods during the period October 19 to 21, 2018, could the

Minister indicate:

a) the number of calls received via the 800-OPIC (Older Persons

Information Centre) for assistance; and

b) the number of responses initiated by the Ministry as a result of calls

received in part (a)?

Questions, by leave, deferred.

Disposal of Oil in Caparo River

(Details of)

10. Mr. David Lee (Pointe-a-Pierre) on behalf of Mrs. Vidia Gayadeen-

Gopeesingh (Oropouche West) asked the hon. Minister of Agriculture, Land

and Fisheries:

With regard to reports of the disposal of oil in a tributary to the Caparo River

resulting in the destruction of various flora and fauna and threatening other

ecosystems, could the Minister state:

a) whether the tributary has been cleaned;

b) the Ministry’s plans to revitalize the ecosystem;

c) the measures taken to mitigate further contamination; and

d) the measures taken to ensure perpetrators are held accountable?


Thank you very kindly, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the issues raised in this

question are within the purview of the Environmental Management Authority and

27


UNREVISED

not the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries, and the EMA falls under the

purview of the Ministry of Planning and Development.

Madam Speaker, the EMA has advised that it investigated the reports of the

deposal of oil into a tributary to the Caparo River in August and October 2018. On

investigation it was found that a trucking or transportation company was

responsible for oil contamination in the waterways in Londonville. There was a

potential breach of an environmental requirement, namely the discharge of fluids

into the municipal drain. The company met with the EMA on October 16, 2018

and admitted to the EMA that oil had been disposed into a pond on the site in an

attempt to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes. At that meeting the company

agreed to clean the tributary.

Madam Speaker, with reference to part (a) the EMA has confirmed, at a site

visit on October 26, 2018, that the tributary has been cleaned and no oil was

observed in the pond. The EMA has advised that it observed that the regional

corporation had begun cleaning the municipal drains. With reference to parts (b),

(c) and (d), the EMA has advised that these issues are being actively addressed.

Madam Speaker: Supplemental Member for Pointe-a-Pierre.

Mr. Lee: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Minister, could confirm whether the

trucking company or the contractor has been fined for what he did?

Hon. C. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, those matters are being actively dealt

with at this time.

Pan American Health Organization

(Suicide Rate in T&T)

11. Mr. David Lee (Pointe-a-Pierre)on behalf of Mrs. Vidia Gayadeen-

Gopeesingh (Oropouche West) asked the hon. Minister of Health:

Given the report from the Pan American Health Organization that Trinidad

and Tobago has the third highest suicide rate within the English-speaking

28


UNREVISED

Caribbean, could the Minister indicate the measures implemented to treat

with the suicide rate in Trinidad and Tobago?

The Minister of Health (Hon. Terrence Deyalsingh): Thank you very much

again, Madam Speaker. The Ministry of health, in collaboration with the Pan

American Health Organization, is developing a multi-sectoral national suicide

prevention strategy that identifies the following key measures being implemented

and to be undertaken. Current initiatives:

1(i). Presenting at health facilities. Persons who present with signs of an

attempted suicide at the Accident and Emergency departments of public

health facilities are treated and seen by a liaison psychiatrist on the

ward with access to counselling support groups and psychotropic

medication for the necessary social work intervention.

(ii) National suicide hotline. The national suicide hotline is fully

operational 24/7 and supported by trained volunteers.

(iii) National media guidelines for responsible reporting on suicide. The

Ministry of Health recently launched the national media guidelines for

responsible reporting on suicide to guide reporters and editors on

protecting the dignity of persons who have died and their family

members and to encourage help-seeking behaviour for those

considering suicide.

(iv) Mental Health Gap Action Programme. The Ministry of Health has

also rolled out the Mental Health Action Programme that scales up

services for mental, neurological and substance-abuse disorders in

non-specialist settings.

(v) Strengthening of suicide surveillance. Strengthening of suicide

surveillance for suicide reporting by formally standardizing, for the first

29


UNREVISED

time, a feasible compendium of mental health indicators and reporting

tools.

(vi) Training and sensitization of key stakeholders including the police

service, teachers, primary care personnel, NGOs, faith-based

organizations and other key civil society organizations. Planned

activities for 2019 to 2020: developing an effective crisis health

systems response for priority groups including mentally ill patients,

adolescent school-age population, postnatal mothers, persons with a

previous suicide attempt, families of persons who have died by suicide,

and persons experiencing trauma.

2. Promotion of environmental and individual protective factors such as

effective coping skills, spiritual development, positive self-image and

healthy self-esteem, access to effective parenting skills, support of

community networks, and opportunities for meaningful advocacy.

3. To improve the assessment and management of suicidal behaviour by:

(a) integrating the GAP Programme into the training of medical

practitioners;

(b) implementing evidence-based clinical treatment protocols; and

(c) increasing access to rehabilitation for persons in recovery.

4. To improve the societal attitudes and beliefs that—and eliminate stigma

towards people with mental disorders and persons who may exhibit

suicidal behaviours.

5. Strengthening leadership and increasing collaboration amongst key

related sectors, including social development, education, sports, culture,

and the general media.

6. Finally, decriminalization of suicide for recognition of suicide as a

30


UNREVISED

public health problem and not a criminal offence.

It is expected that these initiatives with the adequate resources should reduce the

national suicide rate significantly over time.

I thank you very much, Madam Speaker.


Dr. Bodoe: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Minister, thank you for that update. I

was just wondering whether you can update us on if there are any active measures

within the secondary school population, especially Form 4 and Form 5 and Form 6

students who are at risk.

Hon. T. Deyalsingh: Thank you very much, and that is a very good question. We

piloted an initiative under the North Central Regional Health Authority where we

have actually gone into the schools. And I must thank publicly Dr. Asha

Pemberton for leading that charge. And the response from teenagers has been

positive in that they are now seeing mental health as a spectrum of disorders. So,

yes, we are doing it.

2.25 p.m.

But, Madam Speaker, I want to share some statistics to show where the

figures are, and these are from the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, because we

have implemented some of these plans already: 2012, the number of suicides, 106;

2013, 113; 2014, 104; 2015, 111—well listen to this now, because we have

implemented some of these things—2016, 90; 2017, 103; and up to November of

2018, 69. So the rates are actually coming down over the past two to three years

because at the Ministry we are paying significant attention to the issue of mental

health.

Madam Speaker, allow me the opportunity—in question time this morning

in the UK Parliament the point was made about cyberbullying and suicide. This is

31


UNREVISED

an issue that this country has to deal with. A question was put to Theresa May this

morning from an MP from Scotland, a child killed themself due to cyberbullying.

This is something that we have to come to grips with because it has the potential to

get out of control. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Flooding During October

(Details of)

14. Mrs. Christine Newallo-Hosein (Cumuto/Manzanilla): With regard to the

floods during the period October 19 to 21, 2018, could the Minister state:

a) the number of social workers who were stationed at designated

shelters to provide counselling and psychological support to flood

victims; and

b) whether counselling and psychological support continues to be

available in the aftermath of the flooding?

The Minister of Social Development and Family Services (Hon. Cherrie-Ann

Crichlow-Cockburn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A total of 18 shelters were

operational in the aftermath of the flooding incident of October 19th to 21st 2018;

11 of which were located in the eastern region. The National Family Services

Division assigned five social workers to provide psychosocial support at the

shelters. Counselling and psychosocial support were also provided to persons who

required service outside of the shelters. During the period after the flood several

press releases and notices were disseminated by the Ministry notifying persons of

the availability of these services.

Part (b): As an agency offering free psychosocial support to citizens who

have experienced trauma, the National Family Services Division continues to serve

as a critical resource in helping citizens recover from natural and other disasters.

This division received numerous calls from persons who identified themselves as

victims of the flooding in the aftermath of the disaster.

32


UNREVISED

However, as at November 26t, 2018, only one person requested counselling

and it was received and addressed by the National Family Services Division Head

Office. The other requests were mainly for updates on flood relief applications.

The Ministry also provided support to the centre established at Greenvale by the

Housing Development Corporation. Social workers from the Ministry of

Education also provided support at that centre on a daily basis. Thirty-one

referrals for counselling were received by officers of the National Family Services

Division for residents of the Greenvale community. However, of that figure only

11 persons actually requested counselling, the others requested information on the

status of their relief grants.

The National Family Services Division continues to be available to lend

psychosocial support to persons requesting such support, and persons can request

the various services offered by the Family Services Division by contacting the

Ministry of Social Development and Family Services. Thank you, Madam

Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Supplemental question, Member for Cumuto/Manzanilla.

Mrs. Newallo-Hosein: Hon. Minister, in light of the response, how does one

access these services? In other words, is it available 24 hours, is it available only

Monday to Friday, 8.00 to 4.00, can you advise please?

Hon. C. Crichlow-Cockburn: Once a request for counselling is received by the

National Family Social Services Division, a social worker is assigned and

arrangements are made with the person who has requested the counselling. It is

generally provided between 8.00 and 4.00. However, if necessary, it is also

provided on weekends.

Trinidad and Tobago Police Service

(Detection of Psychological Issues)

21. Dr. Lackram Bodoe (Fyzabad): Given the recent alleged

33


UNREVISED

murder-suicide involving two police officers, could the Minister state the current

measures for the detection of psychological issues amongst members of the

Trinidad and Tobago Police Service?

The Minister of Housing and Urban Development and Acting Minister of

National Security (Hon. Maj. Gen. E. Dillon): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the Commissioner of Police has advised that the matter under

reference was handled entirely by the Tunapuna Magistrates’ Court, which referred

the couple for court-ordered counselling. The Trinidad and Tobago Police Service

is cognizant of the fact that an employee’s well-being and job performance will be

affected by psychological issues. For example, suicidal/homicidal thoughts,

addictions, mental disorders and other psychosocial disorders. To demonstrate its

commitment to promoting the health, safety and welfare of all individuals

employed in the organization, the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service has the

following measures in place:

1. The Police Academy provides training in peer counselling and some

behavioural modules to assist supervisors and police officers in the

detection of psychological and behavioural issues among colleagues.

The academy also provides peer counselling modules as part of the

training for recruits so they are also able to identify psychological

issues among their peers.

2. The Trinidad and Tobago Police Service introduced an Employee

Assistant Programme with psychologists and psychiatrists within the

Trinidad and Tobago Police Service Social Work Unit. Trinidad and

Tobago Police Service provides training of the EAP staff in traumatic

incident reduction, traumatology, cognitive behavioural therapy and

narrative therapy.

34


UNREVISED

Based on the training undertaken, supervisors, peers and the EAP staff can

detect psychological issues among police officers through the observation of any

change in the officer’s normal behaviour. Deterioration in an officer’s

performance and/or behaviour in the workplace, other indicators of psychological

issue result in referral to EAP as a client. In the Trinidad and Tobago Police

Service a supervisor can make a formal or informal referral of an officer to the

EAP.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, a peer can make a similar informal referral or

an officer can visit the EAP of his own or her own volition. It should be noted that

all visits to the EAP are voluntarily and not mandatory. The EAP undertakes:

1. Prevention and education. Example, seminars and psycho-educational

workshops;

2. Direct psychosocial interventions. Example, assessment and

appropriate referrals, counselling, critical incidents, stress

management;

3. Resource work. Example, interviews, housing assistance, child

placement, subject matter expert at meetings, seminars and

committees, clergy services, et cetera.

The EAP conducts psycho-educational programmes intended to prevent the

escalation of negative behaviour. The training includes: trauma and post-traumatic

stress disorder in policing, emotional intelligence, assessing and managing risk of

mental illness among employees, domestic violence, both male and female

workshops, cognitive behavioural therapy, stress and motivational lectures, drug

awareness programmes, health and wellness, stress management, conflict

resolutions, conflict management.

The EAP provides critical services, such as: assessment and referral.

35


UNREVISED

Example, psychological test for adults or psychoeducational testing for children

and adolescents; short-term and long-term problem resolutions; case management

and follow-up, and critical incident stress management, Madam Speaker.


Dr. Bodoe: Thank you for that response Minister. While all of those will detect

the problems after they have been—well, treat with the problem after they have

been detected, my question is, whether any consideration is being given to any sort

of measure that will be mandatory, screening or assessment of police officers on

some sort of regular basis? Are you prepared to give consideration to that?

Hon. Maj. Gen. E. Dillon: Madam Speaker, I think within the answer that I gave

it is more on a voluntary nature and not mandatory for most of the incidents.


Dr. Bodoe: Sorry, Minister. I understand that, but what I am asking is—will

consideration be given to mandatory testing? I understand it is all voluntary, the

measures you described. Is that something you are prepared to consider?

Hon. Maj. Gen. E. Dillon: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Commissioner of

Police is working on different areas to treat with the matter.

Madam Speaker: Supplemental, Member for Barataria/San Juan.

Dr. Khan: Minister could you indicate if on recruitment, if there are any

psychological profile assessments made on recruitments of police officers.

Hon. Maj. Gen. E. Dillon: Madam Speaker, on recruitment, I know that

psychometric tests are conducted with the recruits.

DEFINITE URGENT MATTERS

(LEAVE)

Abuse and Violence Towards Children

(Alarming Increase)

Dr. Tim Gopeesingh (Caroni East): [Desk thumping] Thank you, Madam

36

Definite Urgent Matters 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

Speaker. In accordance with Standing Order 17, I hereby request leave to move

the adjournment of the House of Representatives, at a sitting today, for the purpose

of discussing the following definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,

the alarming increase in serious abuse and violence towards children. The matter

is definite because of this alarming increase in serious abuse and extreme violence

being perpetrated against children. The matter is urgent since the school and the

social support systems and structures existing in our country are woefully

inadequate, slow and painfully bureaucratic in helping these children. The matter

is of public importance because of the increasing numbers of sexual abuse cases

involving children, including as well as children who are themselves perpetrators

of crime. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members. I am not satisfied that this matter qualifies

under this Standing Order. I advise that the Member may pursue this matter under

Standing Order 16. Member for Caroni East.

San Fernando General Hospital

(Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Deaths)

Dr. Tim Gopeesingh (Caroni East): [Desk thumping] Thank you, Madam

Speaker. In accordance with Standing Order 17, I hereby request leave to move

the adjournment of the House of Representatives, at this sitting today, for the

purpose of discussing the following definite matter of urgent public importance,

namely, the reported deaths of 16 babies at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of the

San Fernando General Hospital. The matter is definite because it pertains to the

reported tragic deaths of the 16 neonates at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the

said hospital. The matter is of public importance because hundreds of pregnant

women nearing delivery time who are going to be delivered at the San Fernando

General Hospital, as well as at other major hospitals are deeply concerned, anxious

37

Definite Urgent Matters 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

and in fear over the possibility of loss of their newborns in light of the existing

situation.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I am not satisfied that this matter qualifies

under this Standing Order. I advise that the Member pursue this matter under

Standing Order 16.

STATEMENT BY MINISTER

Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME)

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, I have been advised that in accordance with

Standing Order 126, there has been an agreement with regard to the speaking time

allotted for Statements by Ministers to allow the Prime Minister to complete his

statement on the policy with respect to the CSME. Prime Minister. [Desk

thumping]

The Prime Minister (Hon. Dr. Keith Rowley): Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Chief Whip and my

colleagues for allowing—

Dr. Moonilal: Undermining.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Member for Oropouche East—

Hon. Member: Get him out. [Madam Speaker is on her legs]

Madam Speaker: I would just like you to retract what you just said there.

Dr. Moonilal: I withdraw.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much. Prime Minister.

Hon. Dr. K. Rowley: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

And as I was about to say, I thank the Chief Whip and my colleagues on the other

side for allowing me to make this statement. Madam Speaker, if one looks at the

very brief history of the Caricom Single Market and Economy one would see that

38

Statement by Minister 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

it was an instrument that was conceived to facilitate economic development in the

Caricom and its manifestation on the intent to deepen the integration process that

began with the signing of the Treaty of Chaguaramas in 1973. That treaty was

later revised and the Community is now governed by the revised Treaty of

Chaguaramas establishing the Caribbean Community, including the Caricom

Single Market and Economy, (CSME), which was signed by the Heads of

Government in 2001.

The CSME came into effect in January 2006 with the signing of the

declaration by Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community marking the

coming into being of the Caricom Single Market, by the Heads of Government of

Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Jamaica, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. Antigua

and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent

and the Grenadines joined the single market several months later.

The ultimate goal of the CSME, Madam Speaker, is to provide the

foundation for growth and development through the creation of a single economic

space for the production of competitive goods and services. There has been

progress made in the implementation of the CSME, for example: The free

movement of skilled Caricom nationals has moved from five initial categories to

10; those Caricom nationals issued with skills certificates can move without the

need to acquire work permits; businesses can utilize the regimes under the right of

establishment as well as the movement of service providers and technical,

supervisory and managerial staff to enhance their operations; preference is given to

trade in goods produced within the single market; and the application of a

Common External Tariff, (CET) for goods entering from Third States.

The functioning of the single market has also been supported by a number of

regional institutions that have been established for that purpose. Among them is the

39


UNREVISED

Caribbean Court of Justice, (CCJ), whose objective is to provide legal certainty to

the operations of the CSME. Caricom Member States that participate in the single

market subscribe to the original jurisdiction of the Court. The Caricom Regional

Organization for Standards and Quality, (CROSQ) and the Caribbean Agricultural

Health Food Safety Agency, (CAHFSA) set the standards for goods in trade under

the CSME, while the Caricom Competition Commission aims to promote

competition and protect consumers from firms abusing their dominant position in

the market.

Madam Speaker, what is the shape and structure of this Caricom market? If

I look at the 2014 GDP data one would see, Madam Speaker, that Guyana has a per

capita income of $3,628; Belize, $4,617; Jamaica, $5,203; Dominica, $7,002; St

Vincent, $7,203; Suriname, $9,120; Antigua, $13,277—that is Antigua and

Barbuda. Barbados, $15,454; and Trinidad and Tobago, with the highest per capita

income of $18,798.

In 2016, Madam Speaker, Trinidad and Tobago exported just under $870

million to the OECS/ECCU and imported under $50 million from them. This

results in a large trade surplus of over $800 million in favour of Trinidad and

Tobago. Trinidad and Tobago, with our manufacturing and industrial base, also

maintains similar favourable balance of trade with our other Caricom neighbours

of the MDCs namely, Jamaica, Barbados and Guyana.

In short, Madam Speaker, Caricom is the major outlet for Trinidad and

Tobago’s manufactured products and is responsible for maintaining thousands of

associated jobs and preservation of investments within Trinidad and Tobago.

Caricom is our market and we must do every reasonable to protect its existence, its

health and its growth.

Over the years, Madam Speaker, Member States have lamented the slow

40


UNREVISED

progress in the implementation of decisions of the Conference. Further, the CSME

matters were not being treated in a sustained and consistent fashion at recent Heads

of Government meetings. To advance the single market, much work remains to be

done in areas pertinent to legislative reforms and administrative arrangements in

the five core regimes namely: the free movement of goods; the free movement of

capital; the free movement of skills; the free movement of services and the right to

establishment of a business.

Work is also ongoing in the regulatory and supporting areas, such as,

competition, consumer protection and intellectual property. In framing the

Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, certain areas were identified for further

elaboration within the scope of the single market, such as, government

procurement, free circulation and electronic commerce.

It is against this backdrop that the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, at

the 38th Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of Caricom in

July 2017, called for the convening of a special meeting to have a comprehensive

discussion on the CSME. This proposal found favour with the other Heads who

agreed at the 29th Inter-sessional Meeting of the Conference in Port-au-Prince,

Haiti, February 26th to the 27th, 2018, that such a meeting should be convened.

This decision was reinforced at the 39th Regular Meeting of Caricom Heads

of Government in July 2018 in Montego Bay, Jamaica, where it was agreed that a

special meeting of the Conference on the CSME be held in Trinidad and Tobago in

November 2018. That meeting, Madam Speaker, took place in the first week of

December 2018. The Special Meeting served as an important watershed forum

where Heads took decisions on definitive CSME matters which have been

outstanding for over a decade. The national interest of Trinidad and Tobago

resides and is well served in a strong and thriving integration movement. Trinidad

41


UNREVISED

and Tobago has regained its leadership position in Caricom. [Desk thumping]

The 18th Special Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of

Caricom on the CSME was convened in Port of Spain, as I said, on December 3rd

and 4th. At the meeting, Member States reaffirm their commitment to the

integration movement to Caricom and to taking heightened action towards the full

implementation of the CSME.

The St. Ann’s Declaration was issued at the conclusion of the

above-mentioned Special Meeting. The main decisions contained therein are as

follows, Madam Speaker. And, Madam Speaker, the St. Ann’s Declaration is as

follows:

“We, the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM),

meeting at Port of Spain Trinidad and Tobago, 3rd to 4th December, 2018 on

the occasion of the 18th Special Meeting of the Conference of Heads of

Government of Caricom;

Recalling the 1989 Declaration of Grand Anse which initiated the process

towards the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME), the signing of

the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas in 2001, which established the CSME

and the launch of the CSME in 2006;

Convinced that the CSME continues to be the most viable platform for

supporting growth and development in the Member States of Caricom;

Recognizing the need to make it more closely attuned to the needs and

priorities of Member States and contributing more visibly to growth and

development and to the welfare of the people of the Community;

Having reviewed its progress and acknowledged that it should have been

further advanced;

Having considered the Report of the Commission to review Jamaica’s

42


UNREVISED

relations within Caricom and CARIFORUM frameworks;

Having also considered the perspectives of the Member States of the

Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS);

Underscoring the critical role of the Caricom Development Fund, (CDF) in

supporting the CSME;

Having exchanged views with the representatives of the private sector and

labour and encouraged by their commitment to the regional integration

project and their recommendations for the enhancement of the CSME;

Recognizing that the goal of our regional integration process is to enhance

the well-being of all of its citizens of our Community;

Declare:

We are committed to take action at the national level to advance the regional

integration agenda;

We are determined to ensure the equitable distribution among the peoples of

the community of the gains realized through the regional integration process;

We have agreed on a formalized structured mechanism to facilitate dialogue

between the Councils of the Community and the private sector and labour;

We have also agreed to amend the Treaty to include as associate institutions

representative bodies of private sector and labour;

We have agreed that in accordance with Article 50 of the Revised Treaty

which deals with the principle of accelerated implementation, that the

principle will be applied to any initiative which is consistent with the

Revised Treaty;

We agree that that those Member States so willing would move forward

towards full free movement within the next three years;

We have mandated that steps be taken to deepen cooperation and

43


UNREVISED

collaboration between the Secretariats of Caricom and the OECS to avoid

duplication and maximize the utility of scarce resources;

We will enforce the operation of our security mechanisms to ensure the

integrity of the regime allowing the free movement of Caricom nationals;

We will examine the re-introduction of the single domestic space for

passengers in the region;

We have agreed to work towards having a single security check for direct

transit passengers on multi-stop intra-community flights;

We will conduct a special session on Air and Maritime Transportation at the

Inter-sessional Meeting of the Conference in February 2019 to focus on this

critical aspect of integration as a whole and the CSME in particular;

We will include agricultural workers, beauty service practitioners, barbers

and security guards to the agreed categories of skilled nationals who are

entitled to move freely and seek employment within the Community;

We reiterate that skills certificates issued by one Member State would be

recognized by all Member States;

We will complete legislative and other arrangements in all Member States

for all categories of free movement of skilled persons;

We will finalize the regime that permits citizens and companies of the

Community to participate in the public procurement processes in Member

States by the year 2019;

We will take all necessary steps to allow for mutual recognition of

companies incorporated in a Caricom Member State;

We have mandated the Community Council to develop appropriate

recommendations on the proposal for the introduction of a regime of

sanctions for the consideration of the Conference;

44


UNREVISED

We welcome Haiti’s commitment to full integration into the CSME by 2020;

We have appointed Professor Avinash Persaud to lead a restructured

Commission on the Economy to advise Member States on a Growth Agenda

for the Community

The Members of the Commission on the Economy (CCE)-

Professor Avinash Persaud (Barbados Government Special Advisor

on the Economy)

Mr. Chester Humphrey (Trade Union Leader, Grenada)

Dr. Damien King (Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics,

the UWI, Mona, Jamaica)

Mr Georgy McGuire (Senior Manager, Office of Strategy

Management, National Gas Company, Trinidad and Tobago)

Mr Roger McLean (Research Fellow Health Economics Unit, UWI, St

Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago)

Dr. Wendell Samuel (Programme Coordinator of the Caribbean

Regional Technical Assistance Centre of St Vincent and the

Grenadines)

Mr. P. B. Scott (Chairman, Musson Group, Jamaica)

Ms. Therese Turner-Jones (General Manager, of the Country

Department Caribbean Group, IDB, The Bahamas)

Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala”—I trust that I have pronounced that

appropriately—“(Co-Chair of the Global Commission for the

Economy and Climate and former Finance Minister of Nigeria)

Mr. Pascal Lamy (Former Director-General of the World Trade

Organization, France)”

2.55 p.m.

45


UNREVISED

Madam Speaker, that brings us to the next steps. Given the intent to bring new

impetus to the implementation of the CSME, the following outlines the next steps for

Trinidad and Tobago on a number of key commitments in the St. Ann’s Declaration.

I. Commitments made with regard to the Free Movement of Persons:

In the Declaration, Member States committed to:

- move towards full free movement within the next three (3) years (by

2021) for those willing.

Once ratified, Trinidad and Tobago would be required to undertake a comprehensive

review of the relevant legislative and administrative frameworks governing the entry

and stay of Caricom nationals as well as benefits to be accorded to them.

II. Commitments made with regard to the Free Movement of Skilled

Community Nationals:

We are to include agricultural workers, beauty service practitioners,

barbers and security guards to the agreed categories of skilled Caricom

nationals who are entitled to move freely and seek employment within

the Community;

We are to reiterate that a skills certificate issued by one Member State

would be recognised by all Member States; and

complete legislative and other arrangements in all Member States for all

categories within the framework of the Free Movement of Skilled

Persons.

Fulfilment of these commitments requires that Trinidad and Tobago amend its

existing legislation, the Immigration (Caribbean Community Skilled Nationals) Act to

include, inter alia:

- the expanded categories of skilled Caricom nationals;

46


UNREVISED

- the recognition of skills certificates issued by other Caricom Member

States; and

- authorization of the benefits to be extended to spouses and dependents

of skills certificate holders as outlined in the Protocol on Contingent

Rights.

III. Implementation of a single transport space for community nationals.

In accordance with the St. Ann’s Declaration, the Conference agreed to:

- to examine the re-introduction of the single domestic space for

passengers in the Region;

- to work towards having a single security check for direct transit

passengers on multi-stop intra-community flights; and

- conduct a special session on Air and Maritime Transportation at the

Inter-sessional Meeting in February 2019.

The next steps for Trinidad and Tobago include:

- Ratification of the MASA, which is the Multi Access Security

Agreement;

- Conduct of consultations for the development of national policy

positions for deliberations at the regional level;

- Allocation of adequate resources for the regional security apparatus; and

- Ensure effective preparation for and representation at the special session

of the Air and Maritime Transportation at the Inter-sessional meeting in

St. Kitts and Nevis in February 2019.

IV. The commitment for the mutual recognition of companies incorporated

in a Caricom Member State.

Trinidad and Tobago would be required to conduct stakeholder consultations for the

purpose of considering the existing Caricom model legislation and formulating

comments thereon. These comments would then be transmitted to the Caricom

47


UNREVISED

Secretariat for circulation to other Member States and discussion within the relevant

Organs at the regional level.

With respect to signature of Caricom Instruments, Madam Speaker, it should

be noted that the following Caricom Instruments were signed by the Prime Minister

of Trinidad and Tobago at the special meeting on:

(1) Host Country Agreement for CARIFESTA XIV, 2019.

The Host Country Agreement for CARIFESTA XIV outlines the legal and

operational framework for the management and staging of CARIFESTA in Trinidad

and Tobago during the period August 16-25, 2019.

(2) Caricom Arrest Warrant Treaty.

The Caricom Arrest Warrant Treaty establishes within Caricom, a system of arrest and

surrender of requested persons for the purposes of:

(a) Conducting a criminal prosecution for an applicable offence; or

(b) executing a custodial sentence where the requested persons have

fled from justice after being sentenced for an applicable offence.

(3) Caricom Multilateral Air Services Agreement (MASA)

The Caricom Multilateral Air Services Agreement focuses on the exchange of route

and traffic rights within the Community within the context of the goal of the

Community Transport Policy, which is to, and I quote:

“provide adequate, safe and internationally competitive transport services for

the development and consolidation of the Caricom Single Market and

Economy (CSME)”.

To this end, the MASA seeks to give effect to the “Community of Interest

Principle (CoIP)” towards the achievement of a single domestic space for

transportation. This principle allows any Caricom State that does not have a national

airline the right to designate another Caricom State airline to operate on its behalf.

This has far-reaching consequences for Caribbean Airlines, Madam Speaker.

48


UNREVISED

(4) Protocol on Contingent Rights and the accompanying provisional

application.

The Protocol on Contingent Rights and the accompanying provisional application

denotes the benefits to be extended to the holders of Caricom skills certificates as well

as their spouses and dependants within participating Member States.

Madam Speaker, what are the benefits in summary? The single economic space

comprising the market infrastructure and the macro-economic policy framework and

environment is intended to stimulate greater production, improved efficiency and

competitiveness, production integration, higher levels of domestic and foreign

investment, increased employment, expansion of intra-regional trade, particularly in

inputs and intermediate goods, and provide a platform for accessing extra-regional

markets.

The CSME is therefore intended to better position Member States to grow by

having access to, and using the resources of the region as a whole rather than relying

only on the resources of the resources of the particular Member State. Fundamentally,

it is intended to support sustained improvement in the standard of living, increased

employment and opportunities for employment for all Caricom nationals.

Under successive PNM governments, Trinidad and Tobago has a proud

legacy of championing and supporting the vision of regional integration, and this

Government has resurrected this idea and has returned our country to the forefront

of the leadership efforts that are required to advance not only the interests as

described but the interests of all our Caribbean brothers and sisters in these our

Caribbean island homes where Trinidad and Tobago stands to benefit more than

most.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni Central.

49


UNREVISED

Dr. Tewarie: Madam Speaker, may I, under 24(4), ask a question? Prime

Minster, I did not hear you mention in your statement anything about ICT or

telecommunications. Nevertheless I ask: What, in your opinion are the prevailing

conditions now that will allow for this acceleration of the matters that you

mentioned in Caricom that did not exist before?

Dr. Rowley: Madam Speaker, firstly, I must say that I am sure somewhere in

there I mentioned one of the imperatives was the technology on commerce. But

the question, I think, is more directed to the whole position on the single ICT

space. That, Madam Speaker, is a priority and it is one of the initiatives that is

identified and is being actioned, championed by the Government of Grenada. So it

is not left out, and maybe I did not go into details on it, but there is a phrase in here

that catches it, and we did spend some time discussing it and there is agreement

and an enthusiasm for the single ICT space.

And with respect to—what is the other point?

Dr. Tewarie: What are the—

Dr. Rowley: Oh, why something would happen now. Madam Speaker, if I may

quote the Prime Minister of Jamaica and a position that was—one of the

preparatory exercises for this meeting that took place last week, was that a small

group, led by former Secretary General Edwin Carrington, and a couple other

specialist persons, did a paper for myself and the Prime Minister of Barbados as to

why we have failed to do what we are now trying to do. And in that paper, I think

on three occasions it was mentioned that there was a failure of the political will,

and heads were confronted with that at the meeting, that it was a failure of the

political will of the leadership of the region why we have not made the steps that

were promised by our potential.

50


UNREVISED

The group of leaders in Caricom now have been asked: How are we going to

be held accountable? And the Prime Minister of Jamaica answered that question,

saying that we have made declarations, as I have just made here to this

Parliament—we have made declarations, unanimous declarations last week to the

people of the region that we will do these things and we are to be held accountable

by the people of the region for carrying out those commitments. [Desk thumping]

FINANCE BILL, 2018.

Order for second reading read.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Colm Imbert): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I beg to move that a Bill to provide for the variation of certain duties and taxes

and to introduce provisions of a fiscal nature, and for related matters, be now

read a second time.

Before you this afternoon is the Financial Bill, 2018. The Bill is aimed at

putting in place fiscal measures and matters related that were announced in this

honourable House on October the 1st, 2018 in the budget statement. I will also

put before you and this House certain other matters that were not mentioned on

that day. These matters, nevertheless, will go towards the implementation of the

plans and initiatives outlined in the 2019 budget statement and Government’s

policy.

In 2014, Madam Speaker, our nation suffered a significant blow to its

economy owing to a decline in oil and gas prices, and oil and gas production, as

revenue from petroleum plunged by $10 billion between 2014 and 2015, and by

a further $10 billion thereafter—the financial crisis from which we are still

recovering. As a direct result, there was an immediate requirement to stabilize

51

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12

Hon. C. Imbert (cont’d)

UNREVISED

the economy by taking viable steps to facilitate sustainable growth and

development.

Since 2015, and upon taking office, we have worked assiduously to

achieve this goal in keeping with Government’s policy to restore growth,

diversity and confidence in the economy, and after several years of economic

stagnation the economic indicators signalled that Trinidad and Tobago’s

economy will grow in real terms by 1.9 per cent in 2018.

This growth inspired the theme of the 2019 budget statement:

“Turnaround”, as it adequately captures the recent progression of the economy

and adequately reflects a commitment to put the economy of Trinidad and

Tobago back on a sustainable path. It shows that we have begun to deliver on

our promise to the citizens in the 2018 budget statement, and we have, in fact,

changed the economic paradigm with the resumption of real economic growth

in 2018.

The turnaround in our economy can be attributed to developments in the

energy sector, reinforced by developments in the non-energy sector and

improved macroeconomic conditions. This has led to the inflation rate of

Trinidad and Tobago being recorded at 1 per cent in August 2018. This is a vast

improvement from the forecasted 2018 average for all Caribbean countries, of

4.5 per cent inflation, and the average rate of 7.2 per cent inflation recorded in

Trinidad and Tobago over the last 50 years. Again, Madam Speaker, this is

consistent with the theme: “Turnaround”.

As part of this administration’s commitment to deliver on our promises to

52

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

the people of Trinidad and Tobago, we saw the need for greater public

involvement in the generation of revenue. Accordingly, through our very

innovative revenue-raising measure, we offered the unique National Investment

Fund, (NIF) bond, which led to a $4 billion injection into our economy. It is

against this backdrop of prudent and careful financial management, well-

targeted and realistic spending, and innovative ideas for revenue generation,

such as NIF, that the Finance Bill, 2018 is presented.

I will now take the opportunity to deal with the Bill itself in its entirety,

which will implement certain measures outlined in the 2019 budget statement,

in addition to other policy matters. Given the nature of the provisions and the

bunching, I do not intend to proceed with the clauses in sequence, but in groups.

I shall now examine the clauses of the Bill before this House.

Clause 1 is self-explanatory and needs no further explanation except to

say it contains the Short Title of the Bill. Clause 33 is the commencement

provision, containing the date from which the provisions of the Act will come

into force. All the clauses except for clause 26(b) will come into operation on

January 01, 2019.

Clause 26(b), which provides for a threshold on the exemption from tax

with respect to severance pay, will come into effect on November 30, 2018. It

is, in fact, already in effect through the operation of section 124 of the Income

Tax Act. I propose to address firstly the measures contained in the Bill that

form part of the 2019 budget statement.

Pensions—interim pension to public officers. I would like to treat first

53

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

with the 10 clauses of this Bill which amend various pieces of legislation to give

effect to an interim pension for public servants and other relevant persons.

These clauses are as follows: clause 2 amends the Retiring Allowances

(Legislative Service) Act, Chap. 2:03. Clause 6 amends the Judges Salaries and

Pensions Act, Chap. 6:02. Clause 8 amends the Prison Service Act, Chap.

13:02. Clause 10 amends the Retiring Allowances (Diplomatic Service) Act,

Chap. 17:04. Clause 13 amends the Pensions Act, Chap. 23:52. Clause 14

amends the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension Act. Clause 16 amends the

Municipal Corporations (Pensions) Act, Chap. 25:05. Clause 20 amends the

Fire Service Act, Chap. 35:50. Clause 21 amends the Teachers’ Pension Act,

Chap. 39:02 and clause 22 amends the Assisted Secondary Schools Teachers’

Pensions Act, Chap. 39:03.

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in the budget statement, a number of

public servants face financial burdens post-retirement, given the decline of

disposable income and change in employment status. These constraints are

usually compounded by delay and by the extended delivery of pensions to

public officers after years of dedicated service. It is therefore proposed by the

amendments in the clauses itemized above—the ones I have just gone

through—that until final pensions and gratuities are determined, public officers

be given an interim pension in the sum of $3,500 per month immediately upon

their compulsory retirement. This interim pension will be coupled with the

$3,000 NIS pension per month, so that in total, public servants can immediately

get a total of $6,500 per month.

54

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Through this measure, public servants, inclusive of those in the civil,

teaching, protective services and the Legislature, who have attained the age for

compulsory retirement and are otherwise eligible, are afforded temporary

financial relief from the date that their pension becomes due as they await their

full pensionable disbursement. We have put some conditions. In order to

receive this interim pension, public servants must have retired compulsorily, are

entitled to pensions and have a minimum of 10 years’ service.

I wish to reiterate, Madam Speaker, that this measure is intended to be

temporary in nature. There will be an aggressive move in 2019 to approve the

efficacy and completeness of the pension-and-leave records system to ensure the

prompt payment of pensions to public servants upon retirement. In this regard,

the Ministry of Finance is at an advanced stage of improving the administrative

arrangements to enable a much more efficient system, thereby ensuring that

pensions are paid on time.

It is noteworthy that there are two groups of persons not covered by the

pieces of legislation listed above, to whom this measure must apply. Those

persons are members of the defence force and police service. And in order to

provide for the interim pension of $3,500 to these categories of persons, the

Defence (Pensions, Terminal and Other Grants) Regulations and the Police

Service Regulations will be amended at a later date so that those persons in the

protective services and the defence force can receive the pension amount—the

police service, actually.

Senior citizens’ pension: Although not forming part of the clauses in this

55

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Bill, I would like to signal that changes will be made to the Schedule under the

Senior Citizens’ Pension Act, Chap. 32:02. The Schedule will be amended to

introduce a new band to treat with the income qualification. The changes will

effectively increase the cap of eligibility for the senior citizens’ pension, from

$5,000 to $6,000, and will put an additional $1,000 into the pockets of

approximately 25,000 elderly people. The amendment of the Schedule will be

done by way of an Order signed by the Minister of Social Development and

Family Services, subject to negative resolution of Parliament. This measure

will come into effect in this way on January 01, 2019.

Disability Assistance: The Public Assistance Act, Chap. 32:03 provides

for access to public assistance for the needs of a child who has a physical or

mental disability. A child with such a disability must be living in a household

where the household income is deemed inadequate. This benefit is presently

found at regulation 3A(d), Public Assistance Regulations. It is proposed to

amend the legislation to provide that a child who is under the age of 18 years

shall receive the disability assistance instead of—or shall be eligible to receive

the disability assistance instead of the public assistance now payable under the

Regulations. The disability assistance to be paid for a person under 18 will now

be in the amount of 1,500 per month. This will require an amendment to the

substantive part of the Act under section 11A, dealing with disability assistance

to provide for the payment of the disability amount.

Additionally, certain fundamental amendments will be made to the Act to

provide for, among other things, the transitioning of recipients from the public

56

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

assistance to disability assistance. There will also be provision in the

substantive part of the Act to allow for recipients under 18 years of age, and

guidelines to be made by the Minister with responsibility for Social

Development and Family Services for the purpose of efficient and effective

administration of the disability assistance. It is also proposed to amend the

Public Assistance Act to increase the amount of disability assistance for

recipients 18 years and over, from $1,800 as it is now, to $2,000. These

amendments can be found at clause 18 of the Bill.

Tax benefit measures—business levy: This Bill provides for a number of

tax incentives to individuals. One of the first such incentives will be an

amendment to section 5A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, Chap. 75:01, to provide

equity in taxation between the Income Tax Act and the Corporation Tax Act,

Chap. 75:02 in respect of the business levy. The threshold for a self-employed

individual subject to business levy will now be increased from $200,000 to

$360,000. This increase will bring the business levy threshold for

self-employed persons in line with the business levy threshold for companies.

In other words, the gross receipts and sales of a person making gross receipts

and sales not exceeding $360,000, will not be subject to business levy. This

benefit to the self-employed can be found at clause 26(a) of the Bill.

Exemption from tax on severance pay: Madam Speaker, at clause 26(b),

section 5(6)(a) of the Income Tax Act is being amended. This amendment

allows for an increase in the exemption from tax on severance pay from

$300,000 to $500,000. It allows for a person under a contract of employment

57

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

who receives severance pay to benefit from a higher threshold that would be

exempt from tax.

Madam Speaker, the payment of severance to a departing employee,

whether due to redundancy or ill-health, is a supportive gesture of the employer,

and with respect of redundancy, is a legal necessity. Severance payments

cushion an employee’s recent employment and is a means through which

terminated employees can maintain their standard of living. With this in mind,

the decision was made to provide some well-needed relieve to any affected

individual. This measure took effect on November 30, 2018. As you may

know, it is a benefit to any person who, having met the criteria under the

Income Tax Act, that they will be eligible for severance pay and hence the

exemption.

In view of the fact that the exemption is a benefit and not a burden, there

is no need for a special majority for the retroactive applicability of this measure.

However, what I would say is that under section 124 of the Income Tax Act,

“the President”, meaning the Cabinet, is empowered to exempt any tax in any

situation if it considers it just and equitable to do so. And on November the 29th

at its regular Cabinet meeting, the Cabinet agreed to increase the threshold for

exemption from income tax for workers who have been terminated or made

redundant, their severance payments, from $300,000 to $500,000. And that was

immediately effective at that point in time. And if you go—

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Minister, there are the two provisions, which is the

one that you are now amending in the Income Tax Act, and the 126 where the

President has the power. Having utilized that section, I guess you did it in order

58

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

to facilitate the payments to Petrotrin workers; their severance payments. Is it

necessary that you now amend this? If you have that provision there, is it

necessary to amend it? And if yes, what are the consequences of this? Or is it

that both, I am asking, legally—is it that each would be—one can use either

provision in certain circumstances? Or is it that that 126 and this one here,

5(6)(a), it seems to make one otiose—if that is the correct pronunciation. So I

seek your advice.

Hon. C. Imbert: Certainly. Firstly, it is section 124 of the Income Tax Act,

not section 126. And there are some very innovative lawyers on your side and

we would not want to leave—

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Some very brilliant lawyers.

Hon. C. Imbert: Innovative. And we would not, Madam Speaker, want to

leave any loophole for one of those innovative lawyers to try and upset this

matter. So we felt, for the avoidance of doubt, not only would the Cabinet

utilize section 124 of the Income Tax Act, that it is empowered so to do, and

therefore the severance exemption was increased to $500,000 from November

30th, and if you go on the income tax—sorry, the Board of Inland Revenue, or

the Inland Revenue Division, I believe is the proper terminology now—if you

go to their website you will see that as of November 30th the threshold for

exemption from income tax of severance pay was increased to $500,000. But

we are making doubly sure that it is both in the substantive part of the Act and

in the operative part of the Act. The operative part of the Act, the 124, is

discretionary. So we just—for the avoidance of doubt we do not want any smart

lawyer to come and say that if you want to utilize 124, you have to name all the

people and, you know, state all the amounts, and so on. So we do not want a

59

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

smart lawyer to do that.

Hon. Member: Innovative.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: We have already done that.

3.25 p.m.

Hon. C. Imbert: That is okay. As far as the Cabinet is concerned, and as far as

our legal advisors are concerned, and based on the advice of the Attorney General

and the Treasury Solicitor, the utilization of section 124 is perfectly legal and in

effect, but as I said we do not want any smart lawyer to come and tie up this

situation. So that is why we are doing both. So it is certainly not otiose. It is in

fact very, very important that we do that.

So, Madam Speaker, I have indicated that we have made the change, and we

are making the change to that particular section of the Income Tax Act which

would allow now, henceforth, the increase in the threshold for severance pay, the

exemption, from 300,000 to 500,000 to be actually codified in the Income Tax Act.

And this is separate and apart from the utilization of section 124 that we did on

November 29th.

With respect to tertiary education, Madam Speaker, clause 26(c) of the Bill

amends section 10(9) of the Income Tax Act as this particular amendment deals

not only with the increasing of fines and penalties, but rather allows for an increase

in the allowance for tertiary education expenses from the current $60,000 per year

to $72,000 a year to take into account the prohibitive costs of overseas education.

This benefit is aimed at investing on our nation’s children. We firmly believe that

in order to build a prosperous and successful future for our country, we need an

educated and productive workforce, and this measure is in furtherance of this

belief. This measure will benefit a number of students, especially those from

60

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

working and vulnerable households, thereby improving the livelihood and well-

being of our nation as a whole.

Stamp duty threshold. As indicated in the budget statement, homeownership

is one of the greatest accomplishments a person can hope to achieve in their

lifetime. It offers a sense of stability and security. However, few are able to

achieve homeownership status, given the increasing cost of real estate. This point

is further compounded and illustrated by the thousands of applications received by

the Housing Development Corporation for affordable government housing which

has led to a demand that is far greater than the available supply. Whenever I hear

the numbers, Madam Speaker, I am always a bit taken aback; over 100,000

applications for housing.

In furtherance of the aim to make homeownership more accessible, clause

27 will amend the Stamp Duty Act, Chap. 76:01. The aim of this amendment is to

facilitate accessibility and affordability of first-time homeownership. As a result,

now exempt from stamp duty are deeds in respect of conveyances or transfers on

sale of any property where the value of the consideration for sale does not exceed

1.5 million. In addition, this clause also exempts from stamp duty mortgage deeds

in respect of property with the sum secured by the mortgage does not exceed 1 5

million.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: Thank you very much. When you spoke about

helping first-home owners—this is clause 27—I think it is a laudable effort,

certainly one that is not objectionable, but I wonder if you may want to consider

27(a) where it is says:

the property is, or includes, a dwelling-house

So therefore, a person who is in even a worse position, not being able to buy

land and the house on top of it, that person would be excluded here, but they may

61

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

be in a worse-off position.

I am asking if you would kindly consider that it is to be used, which you

have it there, mainly for a dwelling house. So say you have a young couple, they

can buy a piece of land which is cheaper than buying house and land, and then they

can use the land as collateral for a mortgage and start building. So I am asking if

you would kindly consider using a slightly wider definition where the properties

are used mainly for what you have it here, or only for a dwelling house. You do

not have to answer now. You can at the committee stage.

Hon. C. Imbert: Madam Speaker, I do not know if the hon. Leader of the

Opposition intends to speak in this debate. I do not know if the hon. Member’s

contribution will be by way of interruptions and interjections, but it is okay. It is

okay. Let me just move on to this point. I was about to make the point. The First

Schedule of the Stamp Duty Act, by way of amendment, will provide that an

application can be made to the Board of Inland Revenue in the approved form with

the requisite evidence in support in order to benefit from the exemption.

The criteria for the benefit are where the first-time homeowner is acquiring

property, as I indicated, that is or includes a dwelling house to be used wholly or

mainly for residential purposes and the cost of said property does not exceed $1.5

million. Questions may be asked why we are exempting only first-time property

owners. In answer, I wish to emphasize that priority must only be given to first-

time homeowners, and this measure is an incentive geared towards making first-

time home acquisition more affordable and attainable, especially for young

families. This measure will save first-time homeowners up to $37,000 in stamp

duty and will benefit up to 1,000 families a year. And if you do the maths, Madam

Speaker, we are talking about a loss of revenue to the Government of up to $37

million per year.

62

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Now the question of land. The cost of land by definition will always be less

than the cost of land and buildings. There is a completely different stamp duty

regime for land. The current stamp duty on land is 7 per cent, but that 7 per cent is

on a smaller amount because it is for the value of the land itself and not on the

house on the land. There is merit in looking at this, but one must understand the

economic realities facing this country. By this exemption, increasing the amount

from 850,000, as it now stands, to 1.5 million, the Treasury is losing $37 million.

We felt that $37 million was a gift that we could give to first-time homeowners. If

we now extend that benefit, or a similar benefit, or a partial benefit, to purchasing

of land for the purpose of constructing a dwelling, that will result in a further loss

of income. So it is something we need to look at very carefully. What I would say

is that there is merit in looking at it and we will certainly look at what the loss of

revenue would be if we were to exempt land for the purpose of constructing a

dwelling house, and perhaps the Member of Parliament for Siparia is looking into

my mind and looking at what I may do in the 2020 budget. But there is merit in

the suggestion. We will certainly consider it very, very, very seriously.

Tax compliance measures. Registration of Clubs Act, Chap. 21:01. I now

turn my attention to clause 11, which deals with the increase in the rate of interest

for late payment of taxes by members’ clubs governed by the Registration of Clubs

Act, Chap. 21:01. The Registration of Clubs Act will be amended at section

23(8)(b) by increasing the rate of interest for late payments from 15 to 20 per cent

per annum. This step was taken in order to harmonize late payment interest rates

under the legislation administered by Board of Inland Revenue. So for years the

rate of interest on late payment of taxes has been 20 per cent, but for the

registration of clubs—so-called casinos—it was left at 15 per cent probably as an

administrative oversight. So this is simply to harmonize what the interest rate

63

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

should be for late payment of taxes.

In keeping with the theme of the tax compliance, consideration must be

given to clauses 26 (d) and (e) of the Bill. These sub-clauses seek to amend certain

sections of the Income Tax Act in order to provide for the increase in existing fines

and penalties contained in the Act that are regarded as not sufficient to be a

deterrent. Section 98(2)(b) will be amended to increase the fine from $3,000 to

$10,000 where a person fails to file a declaration as required by the sector or files a

declaration that contravenes this section.

Another amendment would be made to section 119 of the Income Tax Act to

increase the fine for the offences in respect of fraud from 50,000 to 250,000.

Again, consistent with what was announced in the budget, the penalties

under the Litter Act will be increased. Clause 17 of the Bill amends the Litter Act

by increasing the penalties contained therein. The Act was enacted in order to

protect the environment from the harmful effects of reckless disposal of waste and

effluent. We are still dealing with some of these harmful effects. Madam Speaker,

most recently, challenges related to flooding was one of these harmful effects. As

a result, all penalties under the Litter Act will be increased by 100 per cent from

January 1, 2019. This will see penalties in the Act increase from as low as they

currently are at $400 for minor offence to $800, and as high as $800 to $1,600.

Penalties under the Children Act. I wish to draw your attention to clause 23

of the Bill which amends the Children Act, Chap. 46.01, to provide for an increase

in all fines for offences committed pursuant to the Act by 100 per cent. This is in

direct response to statistics reported by the Children’s Authority who reported that

during the period May 18, 2015 to April 30, 2018, 14,581 cases of child abuse

were reports. As a result, the fines have been increased on the lower end of the

spectrum from 3,000 to 6,000 for minor offences, and at the higher end for more

64

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

serious offences, fines under the Children Act have been increased from $100,000

to $200,000. Again, the severity of the offence will determine the fine, and this is

consistent with the committing of this Government to foster the development of

our children as seen in our Vision 2030 statement.

Agriculture fires. During the budget statement, I informed this House that

fire authorities have advised that in the past five years over 9,000 bush and forest

fires occurred with the major contributors being individuals. In response, clause

24 will amend the Agricultural Fires Act by increasing the fine imposed on persons

found guilty of offences under the Act from $1,500 to $20,000. It is envisaged that

this will deter citizens from doing acts that lead or contribute to bush fires, and

other destructive behaviour giving rise to offences under the Act.

Credit exposure. The amendments to the Financial Institutions Act, Chap.

79:09 and Insurance Act, No. 4 of 2018, found at clauses 28 and 29 of the Bill, are

aimed at increasing the credit exposure limits of licensed financial institutions and

insurance companies. This will allow the financial institution, or insurer to ensure

a credit exposure in the form of an investment bond in an aggregate amount of up

to 50 per cent of its capital base. The amendments are in direct response to

concerns raised by financial institutions and insurance companies that were

interested at the time in participating in the fixed rate bonds issued on July 09,

2018, by the National Investment Fund Holding Company (NIFTT). Concerns

were raised that while the intended level of participation of those interested is

permissible under the current Insurance Act, should the new Insurance Act be

proclaimed during the life of any series of the bonds, then the proposed level of

participation would no longer be sanctioned.

The amendments to both the Financial Institutions Act and the new

Insurance Act will also introduce certain criteria related to any bond in which a

65

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

financial institution and insurer would invest. The criteria include but are not

limited to the bond being fully funded and denominated in Trinidad and Tobago

dollars as an investment grade rating from a credit rating agency approved by the

Central Bank and is issued by a company incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago,

wholly owned and controlled by Corporation Sole. So this is specific to

Government Bond issues, or bond issues from government companies. This will

require consequential amendments for other sections in the two pieces legislation

in order to provide for consistency. These amendments are found at clauses 28 and

29 of the Bill.

Madam Speaker, could I know how much time I have left?

Madam Speaker: You have 12 minutes exactly.

Hon. C. Imbert: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I also

wish to say at this time we have some amendments to tidy up certain clauses in the

Bill, and the Attorney General will address those amendments in his contribution.

I now wish to put before the House other matters that did not form part of

the 2019 Budget Statement, two of which I am sure hon. Members opposite will

support. Clause 15 amends the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap. 25:04, to

permit a council to deposit and withdraw from the Mayor’s Fund such moneys,

fees, and charges collected by the corporation as the Minister with the

responsibility for Finance may authorize. Madam Speaker, I am constantly

bombarded, even tormented, by officials from regional corporations across the

whole spectrum, Government and Opposition, to assist them in dealing with

utilization of moneys in the Mayor’s Fund, deposits into and withdrawals from,

and there is so much interpretation and misinterpretation of the sections that we

have simply had enough.

So we are now changing it to make it crystal clear that councils may deposit

66

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

into their Mayor’s Fund, such moneys, fees and charges collected by the

corporations as the Minister with the responsibility for finance may authorize.

[Desk thumping] So that the council will collect its fees and so on, and with the

approval of the Minister of Finance, can now deposit these into the Mayor’s Fund

and withdraw from the Mayor’s Fund. The other one is even more important.

Ms. Mc Donald: The excess funds. [Laughter]

Hon. C. Imbert: I would not call that an echo, Madam Speaker, because I have

not spoken yet. [Laughter] The Municipal Corporations Act—this is the one that I

had to deal with—is further amended at section 112(2) due to its surplus amounts

in the corporation fund. It is the intention that the surplus, with the consent of the

Minister, and under the direction of the council, may be applied for the

improvement of the municipality and for the service and benefit of its inhabitants.

We have taken all the convoluted language in the Municipal Corporations Act that

talks about land, and buildings, removed all of it, and we have simply put a

provision that corporations will now be allowed to use their unspent balances for

the improvement of the municipality, and for the service and benefit of its

inhabitants. [Desk thumping] You cannot get better than that and no public

servant now could interpret or misinterpret this to suit themselves. Now, every

corporation, whether UNC or PNM, would be able to use its unspent balances for

the service and benefit of its inhabitants. I am sure we will get the support of the

Opposition for this.

Clause 12 amends the National Lotteries Act, Chap. 21:04, at section 9, to

extend the powers to and duties of the National Lotteries Control Board. The

clause renumbers the section 9 as section 9(1) and inserts a new subsection (2) that

authorizes the board to facilitate the payment of money to public bodies by

electronic means. This will allow for ease of payment where the need arises. In

67

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

this amended section, the term “public body” is given the same meaning assigned

under section 4 of the Public Procurement Act.

Conservation of Wildlife. Clause 25 of the Bill amends the Conservation of

Wild Life Act by increasing the penalties contained therein. The amendment seeks

to maintain the wildlife population and prevent the illegal killing, wounding,

capturing and pursuing of wildlife. It increases the penalties for various hunting-

related offences under the Act. Fines have been increased in ranges from as low as

100 to 1,500, and as high as 200 to 10,000. The seriousness of the offence will

determine the fine.

State Liability and Proceedings Act will be amended in section 27(1) by

clause 7 of the Bill. This section presently allows for a person in whose favour the

court has made an Order, including an order for cost against the State, to apply to

the proper office of the court any time after the expiration of 21 days from the date

of the Order for the issue of a certificate containing particulars of the Order. The

amendment would delete the words “twenty-one days” and substitute the words

“one hundred and twenty days”. Twenty-one days is just too short a time for the

court to do what is required to produce the certificate and for the State to do what

is required.

The clause also provides that the certificate be addressed to the Comptroller

of Accounts and the Solicitor General, and a copy of the Order is to be served on

the Attorney General by the person in whose favour the Order is made. The

amendment will also provide that payment of any damages, cost, or otherwise, be

made as soon as reasonably practicable.

I will now address certain clean-up measures. The Interpretation Act. We

are amending the Interpretation Act by clause 3 of the Bill, and amending section

70 of the Interpretation Act, Chap. 3:01. This is necessary to deal with certain

68

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

ambiguities as they relate to administrative matters. We propose to add the

definition of “collecting officer” to the existing list. Pursuant to this amendment

the term “collecting officer” will be defined as:

A person, appointed or designated, as or required to perform the functions of

a collecting officer with regard to any Act required by or for the Judiciary

pursuant to any rules of court or any law.

The person who will be a collecting officer is that person who will treat with

attachment of earnings and maintenance Orders in relation to Family Court

matters. We also dealing with this definition of “collecting officer” in the

Miscellaneous Provision (Supreme Court of Judicature and Children) Act. This

definition will be repealed by clause 32 and placed in the Interpretation Act.

Summary Courts Act is being amended to treat with the form or manner by

which a complaint includes any information or charge relating to a summary

offence may be made.

There is a proposed amendment to the DNA Act, but because of certain

concerns about language we may not proceed with clause 5 of the Bill, and one of

the amendments may be to delete that for it to be returned to this Parliament at a

later date.

Child rehabilitation centre Act, clause 9 seeks to amend the child

rehabilitation centre Act for the purpose of proper referencing. It would provide

that in respect of a report being made to the Commissioner that a resident has been

subject to a form of prohibited method of punishment, the Commissioner having

investigated must notify the resident of this centre, alleged perpetrator, and person

making the allegations of the finding of the investigation.

Clause 19 amends the Friendly Societies Act, provides that they shall be in

the public service a registrar of friendly societies.

69

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

With respect to the Criminal Division and District Criminal and Traffic

Courts Act, clause 30 amends this Act to revise the list of positions where certain

terms of reference in the written law in relation to proceedings in respect of

criminal matters or traffic violations.

Electronic Payments into and out of Court Act, 2018, clause 31 amends the

Electronic Payments into and out of Court Act, 2018 at section 42. The Marginal

Note has been amended to provide for filing and other fees to be paid

electronically, whereas section 14(2) has been amended to extend the use of

prepaid cards issued by the court executive administrator to include the payment of

filing fees, fees collected by the Judiciary under written law and fees for services

provided for by the Judiciary. This amendment, in particular, would go a long way

to easing up some of the frustrating aspects of interaction with the Judiciary in

terms of paying fees.

Madam Speaker, I am happy and proud to be the Minister of Finance in this

PNM Government [Desk thumping] that has been mandated to increase the

disability grant, public assistance grant, the limit on pensions, the increase in the

threshold exemption from severance, the increase in exemption from stamp duty

on house and land, and so many other innovative, generous, [Desk thumping] and

people-friendly measures that were introduced in the 2019 budget. I am so happy

as part of a caring PNM Government, [Desk thumping] we can make all of this

increases to help the little people of this country.

I beg to move, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

Question proposed.

Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie (Caroni Central): Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker. I am very happy for the opportunity to make a short contribution on an

Act to provide for the variation of certain duties and taxes, and to introduce

70

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12

Dr. Tewarie (cont’d)

UNREVISED

provisions of a fiscal nature and for related matters.

I listened to the presentation of the Minister of Finance and he started out

with his conventional narrative of growth and diversification, and turnaround in

both the energy and non-energy sector, and then he went on at the end to introduce

with energy his spin on the entire matter, and in between he dealt some of the

elements of the Bill. I want to speak to some of those issues now but not before I

disagree with the Minister of Finance and indicate that things are not as rosy as he

would like us to believe in this House and in the population. I do not think the

population will believe him at all because they are living with realities of penance

every day, and they feel the deterioration, and the decline, and you can sense the

loss of enthusiasm in the population wherever you go, whatever they do,

everywhere.

The objective realities as outlined for instance in this Monetary Report,

which was recently published by the Central Bank, indicates that what the Minister

of Finance is saying could not possibly be true. Because you see, Madam Speaker,

the net outflow of foreign exchange in this country annually is $1.6 billion, and if

you assumed that everything is going to continue as it is and remain as it is for the

next few years—which is why we must make change—if you assume that

everything is going to continue as it is going, by 2025 the foreign reserves of this

country would be absolutely zero. That is a reality that is calculable by

mathematics. [Interruption] In the foreign reserves. I did not say anywhere else

because I did not even come to touch what you might do with the HFS.

So, the debt to GDP at the present time is about 62 per cent, but based on the

commitments of the Government, the promises, the arrangements they are making

with the multilateral institutions, et cetera, it is not going to be long before we hit

80 per cent and we are not seeing any rise in the GDP either.

71

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

3.55 p.m.

And we have a situation where we know that productivity is weak in the

country, we know that the Ease of Doing Business Index has fallen by almost 30

points. The cumulative deficit over the last three years is more than the deficit

under the People’s Partnership for five years. It is now $25 billion. And we have

university graduates waiting for jobs that they cannot see and, therefore, standing

in the line thinking about migration because that is where they can see possible

opportunities because of the situations here.

So it is true that we have more income from natural gas because of the gas

finds and because of production of Juniper and a whole range of things set in

motion since 2011 to 2014, but that does not, Madam Speaker, speak to anything in

Trinidad and Tobago that is positive outside of the energy sector.

Because the monetary policy report tells us here:

“The still sluggish overall economic climate has resulted in less favourable

labour market conditions.”

And they talk about the increasing unemployment and the 59 per cent labour

participation rate had dropped from the year before last year. And:

“In the domestic economy, the improvement in the energy sector observed in

the first quarter of 2018 continued in the second quarter.”

But they do not see any major boost in other sectors although they sense that

something might be happening in finance and in construction.

But as I pointed out in another debate here, Madam Speaker, the cement

figures for January to September of 2018 are lower than the cement figures for the

same period in 2017, and that is an indicator of what is happening in construction.

It could not be rising. There may be things in the pipeline, I do not know, but the

reality is that we really have a weak economy in most sectors outside of the energy

72

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

sector, and that the energy sector is, in fact, the gas-based sector in Trinidad and

Tobago.

So here we have an economy with growing debt. We are not moving out of

the recession; no growth outside of the energy sector; a falling GDP; an increase in

the number of people not participating in the labour market in the economy;

retrenchment; graduates without jobs so you have the 40/50 year-old-age group

affected in a certain way by retrenchment, unemployment; you have the young age

group 18 to 20 affected out of high school because tertiary opportunities are not the

same as they used to be, and you have the university graduates coming outside

facing a pretty bleak future.

So I would not boast too much about the condition of the economy, and he

was right to leave that quickly and go to the substance of the Bill in terms of the

clauses. And I myself will not dwell on it anymore. I will go to some of the issues

here in the Bill to speak to some of the clauses and the important things that we

might want to consider in the Bill.

The first thing that I would say is that this Bill came to us on Friday and

today, on Wednesday, we are debating the Bill. This Bill amends 31 pieces of

legislation. It amends 31 pieces of legislation and I suppose it may be assumed

that we have nothing to do on Saturday and nothing to do on Sunday, and perhaps

Monday and Tuesday might be enough to attend to the Bill. But what I did notice

was that the outline of the Bill, the details of the Bill were not finished by the

parliamentary staff until today, which means to say that they had some difficulty

with the time frame within which they had to look at this Bill and give some details

about the meaning of the various clauses and how they impact. Because, the

parliamentary staff is one of the most efficient staffs I have been ever exposed

[Desk thumping] to in the public service and if they were pressured into providing

73

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

the details of the Bill, today from Friday, then it would create a little pressure to

study this Bill comprehensively and come here. But we have done our best and we

will speak, as I said, to some of the issues of the Bill.

But I do want to underscore, having said that, that the way that the

Government deals with Bills—and I have raised this issue before—really reflects a

kind of attitude to the Opposition that is not a reasonable approach to addressing

the issues of Parliament. When you take things like the time squeeze, to me,

inconsideration of the Opposition, sometimes abuse of the majority and ultimately

with that, the abuse of the parliamentary system. I think when you take all of these

together, the Government has much to make up for in terms of the manner in

which it deals with legislation in the Parliament. [Desk thumping]

So there are 31 Acts being amended here and they are Acts of great variety

and diversity and the one thing I would say though is that I find that there is a kind

of—perhaps because the Bill only deals with what it is supposed to and based on

legislation or statements that have been made in the budget, it is a Bill that is fairly

easy to follow even though it covers such a variety of things in the Bill.

The pension payments’ issue, the other issues that the Minister mentioned as

being favourable things that a Minister of Finance could do. He mentioned some

today, I would not go over them. But the pension payments’ issue must be seen as

a positive intervention in a dysfunctional system and I think that it is important to

know that. Because what it does, it does give the pension to the person at the time

that they retire, whichever one we take here in the particular case, and there are

several instances of this; you get your $3,500. But what it does speak to is of a

dysfunctional administration. And, I am not blaming the Minister of Finance for

this, this is something that is persistent in the system, but it is high time now that

we deal with this matter.

74

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

And it is one thing to intervene, as you have done here, Minister, on behalf

of the citizen and I see it as a positive thing, but I want to say this issue of IHRIS

and the human resource system which has been going on for years in the public

service, simply to harmonize the HR files of all of these people in the public

service and the integrated financial system which would make it easier to link the

IHRIS system to the financial system going on, persisting year after year, and I did

ask questions about this during budget debate. These two things need to be fixed

so that we can fix the system and this is a critical part of the big solution to the

problem that is being addressed here. So the amendment, while positive for the

human being, while positive for the citizen, is really an attempt to intervene to deal

with this reality of a dysfunctional system that does not seem to be going away.

Now, there are in here a series of revenue-raising measures I would say. A

lot of the increases that I see here are really attempts to raise revenue I know,

partly because of this issue of the budgetary deficit that I mentioned. After three

years, it is about $25 billion now. But some of the areas in which the penalties

have been increased, to me, are areas that are worth attending to because they deal

with children; they deal with indiscriminate practices in relation to hunting; deal

with matters, littering, I think, if I am not mistaken. They deal with issues that

need to be attended to.

But the key issues here, Madam Speaker, would be the extent to which we

have systems, again, that work and we have enforcement that is reasonable and fair

and that allows for the guilty and those who infringe the law to be prosecuted and

does not allow for arbitrary exercise of power simply because laws exist, and we

always have to be concerned about that.

You must have laws and you must have the systems to enforce the law but

you also need to ensure that laws are enforced fairly and that there is no

75

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

discrimination in the exercise of the law. So I think the revenue measures are

measures that we need to take in the spirit in which they are given here. Some may

say that some of the—in most cases, they have been doubled, if I remember

correctly from reading it. So basically, it is a signal that this is the direction we are

going. We want people to obey the law, we do not want them to litter. We do not

want to have people indiscriminate in the way that they treat with animals. These

kinds of things: the environment, and therefore, I can see the rationale behind it.

I see there are also issues related to electronic payments; I may come back to

that. But the two issues that really kind of caught me when I was reading this Bill

were the amendments to the Financial Institutions Act and the amendment to the

Insurance Act. And you see, the Minister came here this time and he explained it

by saying that the institutions, when they considered with the NIF, although they

could have done it, they were concerned that if the new Bills were proclaimed, that

it could affect how they conduct their business and what their situation was

according to the law, and there may be some truth to that.

But I must say that when this matter came up for the NIF, I raised the issue

of the fact that—I think at that time I said related party transactions would become

an issue because of that National Investment Fund Bill and the Minister, when he

spoke, he said the right word and it is in the law, it is “connected parties

transaction” but it is the same principle. And this matter has come up and the real

reason for the amendments to these Bills have to do with the fact that they came

with the NIF here and they passed the Bill. And as I indicated then and the

Minister was not kind to me when he spoke at the end of that debate, Madam

Speaker.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar SC: And he would not be kind today also. [Laughter]

Mr. Imbert: “How you know that?”

76

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Dr. B. Tewarie: Yes, when he speaks today, he will not be kind either, you know.

I mean, I have his speech here and I have mine, you know, in case he says he did

not say that. [Crosstalk] But I would not chastise him with that. All I would say

is he was not kind. He called me names and he insulted me. [Crosstalk] But, of

course, he had the last word and I could not say anything in the debate after that. I

had already said what I had to say and he made it seem as if I had come here—

[Crosstalk] No, I would not say it, you know my position. He made it seem as if I

did not know what I was talking about, you see. And in the last debate, he, in fact,

said that I did not know what I was talking about. [Crosstalk and laughter]

But, Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue. This is a very important

issue you see, because what this amendment does, it really creates the conditions

for an investor in the financial sector or in the insurance sector to make unlimited

investments if they are in Government bonds and if they fit certain criteria. The

criteria have been read out by the Minister, I need not go into them again, but it

really gives the unlimited rein to the financial sector to invest locally. It says 50

per cent here but, I mean, the reality is they now have unlimited range. But let me

tell you why this is important, Madam Speaker and I speak especially to the

citizens out there so that they appreciate and understand that the Opposition comes

here very, very responsibly, [Desk thumping] to ask the right questions when they

come up with things that we do not fully understand and we question them, we

probe them when we are not sure. We try to get them to tell us the truth.

Dr. Moonilal: “And they lie.”

Dr. B. Tewarie: And then—

[Madam Speaker stands]

Dr. Moonilal: I will withdraw that, Ma’am.

Madam Speaker: Member for Oropouche East, there is a particular kind of

77

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

penchant so I will ask you to exercise a little restraint. Thank you. Member for

Caroni Central.

Dr. B. Tewarie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When we are not sure of it, we

have to ask questions and we have to probe and sometimes we speculate in the

questions and we say “Is this so, or is this not so”, and then after the fact, we find

out that we were right. [Desk thumping] But they would not come here and say,

“Well, yes, these are really the reasons why we are doing it”.

And I want to say this because, you know, I outlined at the beginning that

we are in a situation of rising debt and rising debt to GDP, okay, and there is a

Prime Minister of the region, recently elected. A very good Prime Minister. A

politician of some standing and strength for many years in Barbados, now Prime

Minister. And when she came into office and she inherited—I cannot remember

what was the percentage, but it might have been close to 120 per cent of GDP.

[Crosstalk] 175? She said when you have a debt—when a country has a debt of

over 100 per cent, the banks cannot expect that that country would pay back the

money.

Mr. Imbert: [Laughter] “She really say that?”

Dr. B. Tewarie: She actually said that. Now, she did not rack up the debt,

Madam Speaker. She met the debt there. It was done by other administrations but

she said that. And what do you think that would do to the financial sector that is

lending to governments? The first thing that it does when you have that kind of

framework or understanding or context or appreciation of the context is that the

value of Government debt to the banking sector is reduced because it is no longer

secure. Okay? Immediately, you unlatch the pure-gold nature of government debt,

because most people would lend to Government what they would not lend to the

private sector, expecting that the Government would honour their obligations.

78

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

And the second thing that it does, of course, is that the private sector

institutions, whether they are banks or insurance companies, would begin to

rethink how they address this situation in relation to Government because they will

have a less of an appetite for giving government debt and they would want to

reduce their own risks by managing how they deal with Government in the

accumulation of government debt.

And when we asked that questions, it was a genuine, honest question in a

situation in which here was the Government doing the NIF, asking a number of

institutions to invest. A lot of those institutions being state institutions, and then,

in addition, the NIF, as a new state enterprise, now having ownership of financial

institutions with which it had to do business. So it was in that context that I raised

the issue. The issue remains a legitimate. The issue remains a valuable issue. And

what is happening here now is that the amendment is being made so that insurance

companies and financial institutions will now be able invest up to 50 per cent. And

it is the same clause worded appropriately in each instance so I will just read it

once. The Inspector in the case of the financial institutions and:

“The Inspector may grant approval to a licensee to directly or indirectly,

incur a credit exposure to a person, borrower group or related group in the

form of an investment in a bond in an aggregate amount of up to fifty per

cent of its capital base where such bond—

(a) is issued by a company incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago, wholly

owned and controlled by…”—the State.

Okay. That is the NIF, a company wholly owned by the State. Okay? So this

amendment is really for that which they did not want to answer truthfully on the

occasion that I asked. [Desk thumping]

“(b) is fully funded and denominated in Trinidad and Tobago dollars;”

79

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

You would remember it was a local bond. We asked the question: Why did you

not put it on the stock market; why did you not raise the money outside, et cetera?

Then:

“(c) has an investment grade rating from a credit rating agency approved

by the…Bank;”

You would remember they got CariCRIS to do the assessment and they brought the

ratings here from CariCRIS. As the agency, they rated the bond.

“(d) is collateralized by highly marketable assets where the value of the

collateral is at least 180 per cent of the value of the bond;”

And those are the shares inside of the banks, the Phoenix Park, et cetera.

“(e) is supported by a sinking fund or appropriate creditor protection

arrangement; and

(f) satisfies any other conditions which the Inspector may require.”

So basically, this legislation has come after the fact and seeks to make legitimate—

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Caroni Central, your original speaking time

is now spent. You are entitled to 15 more minutes if you wish to wind up.

Dr. B. Tewarie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It seeks to make legitimate now the

investments in the NIF and also creates the conditions in which the NIF can deal

with other financial institutions and other banks, other insurance companies, et

cetera, and it does free up some of those insurance companies as well and other

financial institutions.

I want to raise another issue and I hope the Minister of Finance answers my

question when he speaks at the end and he does not treat it as a speculative

question of no account and that he does not treat it as nonsense because I am

asking a legitimate question because this also opens the door, Madam Speaker, for

another investment that I want to address.

80

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

You see, there has been for months, certainly over a year and a half now,

discussion about Sandals and there has been a lot of discussion about three critical

things in Sandals. One is how will Sandals be funded; secondly, what would be

the tax incentives given, and thirdly, what would be the environmental cost? There

are other issues but those are the three critical ones. And I want to know if by the

amendment that we are making here, we are creating the conditions for

investments to be made by the private sector in the Sandals project through a

particular vehicle and agency in which the Government might be indirectly

involved.

You see, we have asked questions in this House here, many of the Members

on this side. I, myself, have asked questions on it but other Members have

persisted. They have insisted on asking questions on it and every time we have

been told it is going to be a government project. Then we heard, well, we might

invite some private investors. Then we heard it is going to be a management

contract, and today, we heard from the Prime Minister that if it deserves incentives,

we are going to give the incentives because “is we giving weself”.

So, in view of all of those things, Madam Speaker, I simply want to ask the

Minister of Finance to answer straight when he gets up to reply to say whether

this—I am not asking him if anybody is going to use this to invest, eh. I am not

asking him who is going to invest, I am not asking him how much they are going

to invest. I am not asking him the nature of the partnership between Government

and the private sector. I am simply asking him whether a door is opened by this

piece of legislation for the private sector to invest with Government as an indirect

financial player in support of the private investment. [Desk thumping] That is all I

am asking and I want a straight answer for that. [Crosstalk]

4.25 p.m.

81

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

So, Madam Speaker, this Bill has some good measures in it and I am sure

that there are measures in here that we can support. But it also has some things

that require explanation and clarity, but—and the clarity is especially pertinent to

the financial sector and the insurance companies and the banks, because I want to

add to that, this proviso. I mentioned what the statement by the Prime Minister of

Barbados would have meant to the value of government debt and the attitude of the

financial sector. Because you see, if you open up the door for related party

transactions like this, which really means that government or the institutions of

government can borrow, pretty uninhibitedly from the banking sector or even from

the insurance sector for that matter because it is possible to do that, if you do that,

then what is going to happen is that there is going to be a response to this

legislation because up to now, it is the Government that legislated on this matter of

related parties transactions, connected party transactions.

But when Government opens the door on connected party transactions so

wide, financial sector institutions will have, not to rely on the legislation to protect

themselves, but will have to rely on rules that they make themselves to protect

themselves from government legislation.

And I wonder, as I asked them when they came with the NIF, “if they tink

through this ting properly”. Okay? And you know, in another debate, the Minister

say, “She think through everything properly, down to the accreditation and

everything”. So, I want to know “if they think through this ting properly”.

You see, because in the debate on the amendment to the Income Tax Act

having to do with the Global Forum and so on, the big issue was that they were

very, very, concerned about what would happen to the banking sector. They were

very, very concerned about correspondent banking and all of those issues, which

are so critical to the survival of the banking sector and the sustainability of the

82

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

sector. But in this particular issue, I do not see the least bit of concern for issues

such as that. So there is an inconsistency there, Madam Speaker that bothers me.

There is an inconsistency that bothers me. Because, you know, the law can

be used to do anything. The law can be used to subvert a Constitution and I am not

drawing reference to anything here that does that because there is no connection at

all, but I am saying how the world works. The parliamentary system, the

governance system can be used for the purposes of subversion of legitimate things

sometimes held sacred. It has been done. I would not even mention the countries

surrounding us that are doing this and have done it every day.

And therefore, the legitimacy of what is happening here in terms of the

bigger picture is something that I am concerned about. And the consistency of

position on this one issue, which is the banking sector, is something that I am

concerned about. And the legislation brought here and rationalized in the way the

Minister of Finance rationalized it is something that I am also concerned about,

Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Hon Member, might I ask how much longer you intend to

speak?

Dr. B. Tewarie: Probably less than 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker: Probably less or less than?

Dr. B. Tewarie: Less than.

Madam Speaker: May I ask, would we allow, so that—? We would allow the

Member for Caroni Central to complete within the 5 minutes.

Dr. B. Tewarie: I will wind up now, Madam Speaker. I mean, this Bill has a lot

of clauses, as I said, it amends 31 Acts. I do not want to go into 10 or 12 of those

things and I do not want to speak on every issue. But, I did want to speak on this

amendment to the Financial Institutions Act and to the Insurance Act because I

83

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

think it strikes at the core of something bigger.

And I wanted to ask the two fundamental questions. Well, one question, I

know the answer to and I have stated my position, which is the question of the

NIF. I am very clear now about that. So the finance Minister does not have to say

anything about that. I am clear, and whatever he says, I know what the answer is.

[Laughter]

But, on the issue of Sandals, I would like to have the one answer to that

simple question, does this open the door to a transaction which allows for private

sector participation, but in which the Government is indirectly involved in the

financial support for that transaction?

Madam Speaker, I think I have spoken enough and I told you I would finish

within the allotted time before—to allow us to go for tea. And I want to say that

there are many issues here that my colleagues, I am sure will deal with and raise

because they cover so many issues, from children as I said, to nature and the

environment and there are very, very important issues to be covered. But I have

said my little bit, I hope my contribution makes sense, Madam Speaker and I thank

you for the opportunity—[Desk thumping]—for giving me the time to make the

contribution. I thank you.

Madam Speaker: I thank you, Member for Caroni Central. Members, it is now

4.32, we shall take the suspension now and we shall resume at 5.10.

4.32 p.m.: Sitting suspended.

5.10 p.m.: Sitting resumed.

The Minister of Public Administration (Hon. Marlene Mc Donald): [Desk

thumping] Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to join in this debate

this evening, very short debate. Madam Speaker, this is a very simple exercise.

What we are doing here this evening is more or less giving teeth to the budgetary

84

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12

Hon. M. Mc Donald (cont’d)

UNREVISED

measures which were passed in the budget presentation last October. Many of

these measures, Madam Speaker, would require amendments to certain pieces of

legislation and what we are doing here this evening is trying to operationalize these

measures. The said measures, Madam Speaker, should take effect from the 1st of

January, 2019.

Now, Madam Speaker, I would want to respond to some of the concerns

raised or statements made by the Member for Caroni Central, but I thought it best

that I address him as I present my debate this afternoon.

Madam Speaker, it was just three years ago that this Government started a

journey, a journey which has brought a level of calm, a level of stability to a

traumatized society, a society which has been traumatized for five years and 90

days—[Desk thumping]—from 2010 to 2015. And if we examine the theme of the

Minister’s first budget from 2016, it says: “Restoring Confidence and Rebuilding

Trust” and that is a very apt description for that budget theme in that year.

From the word “go”, Madam Speaker, in 2015, this Government had to

grapple with certain critical issues: falling oil prices, decreasing gas production,

overall declining revenues, minuscule growth in the non-energy sector, minuscule

growth in the tourism sector, in the services sector; and I ask the Member for

Caroni Central at this point in time, what did they do on that side for the five years

and 90 day? What did they do to arrest the problems in that non-energy sector and

the energy sector, particularly, to deal with that problem in Petrotrin? What did

they do?

And the Member for Caroni Central has the temerity to stand here this

evening and talk about, there is no growth in the energy sector. He spoke about the

cumulative deficit under this regime was more than their regime. I stood here for

five years, Madam Speaker, five years and every year I came to this Parliament, I

85

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

always pointed out the deficit that they ran for the five years.

Mr. Imbert: Billions. [Desk thumping]

Hon. M. Mc Donald: Five years, Madam Speaker, and you know, today was one

day I did not walk with my figures. For five years, their deficit was on an average

of $6 billion a year, $6 billion a year. And the Member for Caroni Central all of a

sudden, you know, he cares, all of a sudden, “What are you doing, how are you

going to fix the system, rising debt”? Suddenly, after 2015, he suddenly wakes up

and finds out that he cares about this economy.

Madam Speaker, because of their fiscal irresponsibility for the five years,

over $400 billion was spent and little to show for it. Madam Speaker, because of

them no new income streams were created over the five years, none. And let us

not talk about your budget deficits. Tell me one year that you came to this

Parliament and presented us with some sort of avenue where you will get out of the

budget deficit situation. Not on one occasion. Madam Speaker, they even drew

down on the $14 billion at National Gas Company. Tell us where that money went

to.

Furthermore, this country lost over $20 billion in revenue over the five years

and they took no action to stabilize our finances. But yet the Member for Caroni

Central stands here this afternoon like a paragon of virtue trying to lecture to us.

Absolute madness.

Dr. Tewarie: “Doh tell nobody, darling, I could say what I have to say.”

Mr. Imbert: “Ay-ay-ay.”

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: “Buh A-A.”

Hon. M. Mc Donald: I am not “darling”, I am Port of Spain South. [Desk

thumping] Madam Speaker, that would be our new reality. When we came here

three years ago, we had to change the paradigm. The Minister of Finance had to

86

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

place this economy on a sustainable growth path, [Desk thumping] and that is

exactly what he has done and we have been doing it. Hard decisions had to be

made, things were tight. But as far as possible the discomfort was very minimal.

In our quest to stabilize the economy we sought to reduce the expenditure

from an all-time high of $63 billion—I wonder if the Member for Caroni Central

remembers that—$63 billion down to $50 billion now. We started the

diversification of the economy. He said that the Minister of Finance stood up and

talked in his conventional way, his narrative of growth and diversification and

turnaround.

Let me tell you what we are doing. In terms of diversification, look at La

Brea, the dry-docking facility. Just recently—[Crosstalk]—just recently in

September, this Government and China Harbour Engineering Company Limited

signed an agreement for the construction of a dry-docking facility in La Brea. This

will provide job opportunities for skilled workers, it is projected that 5,000 jobs

will be created in that area, in the area of La Brea and surrounding environs.

Let us look at Couva, as part of our diversification plan, many new

businesses and industries are being promoted by the various industrial estates.

Madam Speaker, in collaboration with Beijing Construction Engineering Group,

we are developing a new modern industrial park in Phoenix Park, Couva, at a cost

of US $104 million. Trinidad and Tobago has been identified as the gateway for

China to increase market integration and economic cooperation. And we will

become so strategic here in South and Central America.

In Moruga—and Moruga was not forgotten—

Hon. Member: Very good.

Hon. M. Mc Donald:—the government-driven Moruga agro-processing and light

industrial park. It is now in construction. This is being built at a cost of some $77

87

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

million and it will accommodate private businesses. There will also be facilities

for canning, bottling and freezing of finished products. And we should see the first

of products coming out from March 2019. That is what we are doing Member for

Caroni Central and there are many more, but I have just highlighted the major

ones.

The strengthening of our institutions: the Revenue Authority will be coming

to the Parliament, the Property Tax being implemented, the Statistical Institute. We

know that we have to become an economy where we are not only data-driven, but

also we need to get statistics off-the-cuff and not like when you all were there.

You all shut down the CSO and had people working at home. That is what you all

were doing. People at home, shut down the CSO, could not get current figures.

Mr. Hinds: And he was the advisor.

Hon. Member: Yes.

Hon. M. Mc Donald: Madam Speaker, we have achieved a lot as a Government,

despite our very stringent financial situation and it is in these times, Madam

Speaker, that you have to become innovative. You become innovative and creative

with very minimal resources, that is what we have done for the past three years.

But when one examines our fiscal package for 2019, we would have observed that

the whole stabilization of the economy centred around the citizens of Trinidad and

Tobago. [Desk thumping] It is people-driven, it is people-centred.

This Government was able to maintain spending on education, maintaining

our social safety net. We made sure that despite what happened, the social benefits

of our poor, our vulnerable in society, remained intact and I am just going to give

you some figures. My colleague, the Minister of Social Development and Family

Services will certainly go off on all the various grants, but I will just give you just

the overall figures.

88

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

In 2016, the budget for the Ministry of Social Development and Family

Services was $4.7 billion. 2017—

Mr. Lee: Madam Speaker, 48:1, please. I need your guidance.

Madam Speaker: It is not just only a finance Bill, I believe the Member was

responding to certain statements made by the Member for Caroni Central, okay?

So that, I will allow it. [Interruption] Nothing, Caroni Central. Please, Member

for Port of Spain South.

Hon. M. Mc Donald: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Member for Pointe-a-Pierre, I

am very disappointed in you, [Laughter] I am very disappointed in you.

Mr. Lee: I try to give you some breathing space.

Hon. M. Mc Donald: Madam Speaker, I will start again. [Laughter] 2016, Social

Development allocation, $4.7 billion; 2017, $4.7 billion; 2018, $4.7 billion; 2019,

$4.9 billion. What I am trying to say here, this caring Government, we have never

reduced the allocation for the poor, the needy and the vulnerable. [Desk thumping]

Never did it.

Madam Speaker, we stimulated the private construction in this country,

especially in the housing sector. [Interruption] Yes, we did. Yes, we did. Madam

Speaker, where we gave cash incentives of up to $100,000—were given to

approved developers. What we did, we also revitalized the energy sector by

tackling the hard issue like Petrotrin. We have now put a new model in place to

operate down there at Petrotrin.

Madam Speaker, I think the best of it is the deregulation of the fuel subsidy

and the Minister of Finance, he stood in this Parliament and he told us, because he

was able to do that, he saved $700 million, $700 million was the savings. And

then he was now able to take that $700 million and plough it back into the

economy and he did so by improving the standard of living of the citizenry of this

89

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

country. That is how we were able to get—increase food cards. All those grants,

disability grants, the education grant, the public assistance. The first-time

homeowners went from $850,000 to $1.5 million. And that is why I said, Madam

Speaker, that though things are tight there was minimal discomfort.

Madam Speaker, I am going to highlight some of the areas in this fiscal

package as it relates to the Bill under review and how it shows the people-

centredness of this Government. Clause 2, and that is the retiring allowances Act,

we are making an amendment there. The Government, in its usual caring manner

examined the situation where a lot of public officers upon retirement are unable to

access their gratuity and their monthly pension. Some of them get ill, some of

them die, some of them just waiting, just suffer, cannot get their pensions. What

this Government has done is to give what you call an interim pension. It is an

interim pension where they will receive $3,500 upon retirement, along with their

NIS payment of $3,000. At least they have $6,500, so they can start, but it is just a

temporary measure, Madam Speaker, so something that they can look forward to

whilst they wait on the administrative processes to be completed so they can get

their gratuity and their monthly pension.

As a consequence of this initiative, nine amendments to nine different Acts.

So, the Prison Service Act, the Retiring Allowances (Diplomatic Service) Act, the

Pensions Act, Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension Act, the Municipal Corporations

(Pensions) Act, the Fire Service Act, Teachers’ Pension Act, the Assisted

Secondary Schools Teachers’ Pensions Act. Everybody was touched here, public

officers, all public officers, they were touched, once they qualify, we touched each

and every one. Madam Speaker, this—of importance here is 1,500 public officers

would benefit from this measure and it will cost this country $63 million, and this

goes into effect from the 1st of January, 2019.

90

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

But, the Government said this is a temporary measure. To this end, the

Prime Minister has mandated all his Ministers who have responsibility for various

Ministries, to fast-track pension and leave records for their Ministries and submit

same to the Comptroller of Accounts. [Desk thumping]

And, Madam Speaker, I am happy to announce that the Ministry of Public

Administration has taken the lead with respect to this directive. As a matter of fact,

we have set up at the Ministry, a pension and leave unit in order to fast-track the

processing of those records on behalf of public officers whose retirement from the

public service is imminent. And, we will be liaising with other Ministries in order

to do the same fast-tracking of their records. So, despite the fact that it is an

interim payment, it is temporary, but we are doing things in-house to make sure it

stays like that—it is temporary—and not become something that is permanent.

Madam Speaker, clause 15, again, I am showing the caring nature of the

Government. The amendment to the Municipal Corporations Act—and the

Minister of Finance spoke about it, where it allows a council to deposit into and

withdraw from the Mayor’s fund. That, Madam Speaker, legislatively, I am very

happy because each month as I Chair the legislative group for the party—

Mr. Imbert: “You get pressure.”

Ms. M. Mc Donald:—I get a—every month. That is why I was so excited when

the Minister was speaking, because every month the Councillors, Aldermen,

Chairmen, there is always a concern at the legislative group meeting because there

is this—unspent balances, excess funds, surplus, whatever you call it, and they

cannot use it.

5.30 p.m.

So, you know, and they are always asking me: How do we get around it?

The Minister with responsibility may give directions, but somehow or the other, it

91

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

is never, ever carried out. So, legislatively, I am happy to see that all this has been

cleared up. It has removed all doubts as to whether the fund could be used and for

what purpose. So I have to commend the Minister of Finance for this. [Desk

thumping]

We look now at clause 27, the amendment to the First Schedule of the Stamp

Duty Act, and again, Madam Speaker, we want to reach out to everyone in society,

especially our young persons, young couples, young individuals, et cetera. And

when I researched this—so long ago, you know, I would have bought property. I

did not realize it was $850,000 was the threshold. And now we have moved from

$850,000 where you are exempt to now $1.5 million. Madam Speaker, this would

benefit each person to the tune of $37,000 in stamp duties, and of course it will

benefit 1,000 families, and the Government would have lost, on an annual basis,

$12.5 million, but it is to the benefit of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. And

that is why I said, when the Minister deregulated the fuel subsidy, that $700

million he ploughed back into the system, and this is one of the ways that we are

benefiting from that ploughing back in the system. [Desk thumping] The

amendment to the Income Tax Act. Again, the Government has continued over the

past three years in its efforts to stabilize the economy. Things are tight, but we are

able to retain our workforce as far as it was possible.

The Minister of Finance has continued on this journey, alleviating the

financial stress of some of our citizens. There are two benefits in this amendment

in clause 26. One, severance payment, exempt from taxes. It now moved from

300,000 to 500,000. I know that the Member for Siparia made a suggestion to the

Minister of Finance and he has responded that he would look at it, with respect

to—also to the issue on the land. Madam Speaker, in accordance with our Vision

2030 we need to build an innovative society, so we need to continuously involve

92

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

our young persons in educating them and having them prepared for the workforce.

In so doing, from the 1st of January, the Government will be increasing the tertiary

education expenses from $60,000 to $72,000 per year to assist needy parents in the

cost of overseas education. Madam Speaker, this measure would benefit

approximately 4,000 persons, and would involve an additional cost to the

Government of $15 million.

Hon. Member: Allowance.

Hon. M. Mc Donald: Allowance, yeah.

Madam Speaker, we look at the amendment to the Children Act, and I know

that my colleague from Tobago East has been doing quite some good work in that

area, [Desk thumping] and one of the goals of Vision 2030 is to develop strong

families, and as a consequence, stronger communities, and the protection of the

nation’s children would become of paramount importance. I look at them as the

Generation Next, and the Generation Next is the greatest asset that we can have. In

so doing, the Government is very concerned about the protection of our children.

Between May 2015 to April 2018, 14,581 cases of child abuse were reported to the

Children’s Authority. With this in mind, we propose to increase, Madam Speaker,

in clause 23, all offences against the children, the penalties would be increased by

100 per cent, and this will take effect from the 1st of January, 2019.

So, Madam Speaker, in total the fiscal measures—I have just done a few,

those that I felt were people-driven, they were much more, and my colleagues will

deal with them. In total, the fiscal measures for 2019 are designed to improve the

welfare and the livelihood of our working and vulnerable families. The cost, the

overall cost, I estimate at some $423 million, and it will impact approximately

1,556,350 members of our national community, including our senior citizens, our

retirees, our working families, and major vulnerable groups. Madam Speaker, I do

93

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

not think I should burden you any further, save and except to say that I endorse

these proposals. They are merely for operationalization of this Finance Bill, 2018.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Member for Tabaquite. [Desk thumping]

Dr. Surujrattan Rambachan (Tabaquite): Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker. Madam Speaker, I am very, very happy to participate in this debate, and I

want to say up front that there are some elements in these provisions that are

worthy of support, and of course we will support it, because anything that is done

to benefit the people of the country and to make life easier for them, we must, of

course, also join in doing that. Because the People’s Partnership Government was

a people-centred Government, [Desk thumping] and when you look at the records

of the People’s Partnership Government, including the Children’s Hospital in

Couva, which remains closed, you will understand the extent to which we aimed at

improving the quality of life of people, including the Teaching Hospital in San

Fernando, including the opening of all the health centres that used to be open for

extended hours. There are a range of things, including all the ECCE centres, early

childhood centres that were built by the then Minister of Education.

But, Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Port of Spain South began her

contribution by talking about the traumatized nation between 2010 and 2015. I

want to remind her that we have never seen trauma like we are seeing now, and it

seems to me that all of Trinidad needs an emergency centre now to deal with this

trauma that has been caused by the policies and inaction of the People’s National

Movement in this particular element of their incarnation.

What is more traumatizing than two Mondays ago, 6,000 persons got up and did

not have a job to go to at Petrotrin? What is more traumatizing than people went to

work this morning and 51 were laid off their jobs at TSTT, plus the other 500 that

94

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12

Dr. Rambachan (cont’d)

UNREVISED

were laid off, which will lead to 703 persons overall? What is more traumatizing

than to have read in this morning’s newspaper that we have reached 500 murders

in Trinidad and Tobago? We wish, and I particularly wish Mr. Gary Griffith, the

Commissioner of Police, well, because I said in an interview that we needed an

operational leader for the police service and Mr. Gary Griffith is proving himself to

be an operational leader. But 500 murders, Madam Speaker, is something that has

traumatized this nation, and we continue to be traumatized. But not only by that,

by also the level of home invasions that, are taking place, the level of robberies that

are taking place. So when the hon. Member speaks about trauma, she should really

talk about how Trinidad and Tobago has been traumatized over the last three and a

half years as a result of the incompetent and ineffective PNM. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker, you talk about trauma? What about the schools that are in

a state of disrepair where children have to be cramped in other public spaces and

they cannot get their schools? What about what is happening to the roads in the

country, potholes all over this country? Madam Speaker, the question of potholes

is a very serious one. The Government has closed down Petrotrin, and in closing

down Petrotrin they did not look at all the secondary effects and tertiary effects of

the closure of Petrotrin.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Works and Transport himself admitted on

December 02, 2018, in an Express article, that it is now going to cost more to fix,

repair and build new roads, and one has to do it. It has to do in part with the

closure of Petrotrin and the unavailability of bitumen. But it is worse than that.

Contractors are now reporting a 42 per cent increase in the cost of bitumen, and

when you take into consideration a 30 per cent tariff, Madam Speaker, on the cost

of the bitumen, you can begin to understand how the price of roads are going to

increase in the country.

95

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

So that if you say that you are saving money, on the one hand by removing

the fuel subsidy, and what have you, and so on, you are eating it up on the other

hand with these increased costs that you have to pay. But what this also means is

that the private sector is going to be affected. So those people who are developing

housing estates, their road costs are going to go up, their infrastructural costs are

going to go up, which will now make the price of housing even higher.

Madam Speaker, you know, the Minister talked about the growth in the

economy and the transformation when he began his speech. I want to remind the

Minister to remind his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries,

that he has done nothing so far to deal with the red sand crisis in Trinidad. All he

has done is closed down all the quarries and therefore he has increased the price of

red sand from about $900 to $2,000 for a load of red sand. So a lot of things that

the PNM promised to do they are not doing.

Madam Speaker, when you have, like I said, in Parliament, when you have

about 800 plans less being submitted to Town and Country on an annual basis, it

says something about the construction sector. Madam Speaker, it is one thing to

say that you are doing construction in the country, for example, like building the

road to Toco—I have nothing against building the highway to Toco. I also want

the highway to Mayaro built through Princes Town; I want all of those projects to

be done. But, Madam Speaker, you must understand those high capital projects do

not use a lot of labour. They use a lot of equipment. And therefore when my

colleague, the Member for Caroni Central, spoke about cement sales dropping,

what he was reflecting is that the sector, that is the building sector, the residential

houses, and so on, because it has fallen in terms of a number of start-ups, what you

are having now is the skilled and unskilled labour, they are unemployed, and that is

very dangerous. But that is very dangerous because your unemployment rate is

96

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

also going to rise.

So there is a connection between the drop in cement sales and the number of

plans are not being submitted, and the housing start-ups that are not taking place.

So for the Minister to talk about the economy will grow, you know, it leaves me to

ask the question, what sectors of the economy is he talking about? If he is talking

about the economy growing, it is because of the energy sector. But he must also be

complimentary enough to say that it is because of the policies that were placed by

the People’s Partnership administration that that is now being reflective in the level

of increased energy [Desk thumping] developing in the country, and today we are

benefiting from that.

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Port of Spain South also spoke about

several arrangements they are making with the Chinese. She referred to Chinese

partnerships. I want to tell you that we got to be careful when we look at what is

happening in other parts of the world with what the Chinese are doing. You know,

Madam Speaker, the Chinese Government, through its own state companies as it

were, they come and invest in your country, and then in several African countries,

if you notice, they have actually seized the assets of those countries.

Hon. Member: Sri Lanka.

Dr. S. Rambachan: And Sri Lanka also. Chinese partnerships often lead to

Chinese indebtedness, and Chinese indebtedness can eventually lead to your very

democracy being undermined and your stability being undermined, and the kind of

economic independence that you enjoy, Madam Speaker, is also going to be

undermined.

So we have to be very careful how we borrow and from whom we borrow,

because some things are happening in the country that we ought to be very careful

about. In the Review of the Economy, and the Minister of Finance may want to

97

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

reply to this, the central government debt service was expected to rise by 29.9 per

cent, central government debt service, from 6.7 billion to 8.7 billion; that is about

$2 billion rise in central government debt service. The domestic debt service also

is going to be $7 billion, and the external debt service was going to rise by 15.5 per

cent from 1.45 billion to 1.67 billion. But what is more interesting is that central

government debt, as a percentage of central government revenue, is going to rise

this year by, according to the Review of the Economy, by 18.6 per cent—sorry,

from 18.6 per cent in 2017 to 20.6 per cent in 2018.

So, Government indebtedness as a percentage of central government revenue

is rising. And if you cannot increase your revenue base and your debt is rising,

then you are heading along the road that my colleague from Caroni Central was

talking about. You are going to have to go back and draw down on the Heritage

and Stabilisation Fund and you are going to threaten the very thing that you are

boasting about.

So that, while you talk about diversification, and so on, the proof is in the

eating. Where is the diversification? You talk about the Mitsubishi plant. The

Mitsubishi investment started under the People’s Partnership Government. It

started there, and you may criticize us for how much you want, but it was after 19

years that the Japanese Government had sent an investment mission to Trinidad

under the People’s Partnership; after 19 years. [Desk thumping] So we were

building relationships and bringing in investments, and the level and quantum of

investments that we brought in annually, between 2010 and 2015, is virtually

higher than anything that this Government has done in its three and ahalf years in

office. [Desk thumping]

So, to say that we did not do and we did not achieve, you know, it is a

fallacy, and it is meant to create a false narrative. Madam Speaker, as I speak

98

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

about that, this Government has letters of guarantee to state enterprises. At the end

of 2018 it will rise by 6.4 per cent, $635 million, from 9.8 billion to 10.5 billion,

and the guaranteed debt to state enterprises and state authorities, it is estimated to

increase by 98 million, from 15.2 billion to 15.3 billion.

Just to remind you, Madam Speaker, that to do all of this, while the

Government is saying what they are saying, they are borrowing money heavily and

indebting the nation. So the total public sector debt in 2017 was $121.258 billion.

In 2018 it was estimated $122,173,000,000. So I have to make those points in

order to show that while he talks about the expansion and the economy will grow,

and so on, I think that, really, you have to ask the question: Where is it growing

and how is it growing? And I think that is very, very important.

Madam Speaker, the Member for Diego Martin North/East, the hon.

Minister of Finance, and his colleague, the Member for Port of Spain South, spoke

about the amendments to the Pension Act, and so on, in several of the Bills. Now,

I think that it is important that people have access to what they have contributed,

that is their pensions, as early as possible after they have left their employment.

But, Madam Speaker, it is one thing to say that you are going to give them this

$3,500, plus $3,000, immediately on their termination of office, but for how long

are they going to just receive that and not receive their pension? What is really

going on in terms of record keeping in the different Ministries and in the different

state enterprises?

You know, Madam Speaker, it is heart-rending for me to think that we have

a University of the West Indies and we are turning out all of these people with BSc

in Computer Science, and X, Y, and Z, and so on, and all of these people are being

educated, and you are telling me that up to now we just cannot develop a proper

programme to put all these things on the record and do it. How long is this going

99

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

to take us?

And, you see, sometimes the public service does not like to be criticized, but

public service managers have to take some responsibility for this kind of

inefficiency. People have to do their jobs in this country, and this is one

Opposition that is not going to condone inefficiency, and is not going to condone

lack of productivity at all. You know, people must rise up to the challenge.

Taxpayers’ money is involved in this and taxpayers deserve service, and quality

service, for their investment in the public service.

So, for how long are you going to tell that we are going to get it right, we are

fixing it, we are—what?—computerizing all the records? How long are you going

to tell us that? Is this what you are doing simply a way to reduce the dissonance,

or part of the dissonance that exists in the hearts and minds of the people of this

country on a wider basis? And let us face it, there is tremendous dissonance in this

country with the PNM Government. [Desk thumping] There is tremendous

dissonance with the PNM in this Government. So I want to simply ask: What

really is being done to correct the situation with respect to record-keeping of all of

these things?

Madam Speaker, the next point that was raised by the Member for Port of

Spain South in particular had to do with clause 23, which involves the Children

Act, and the hon. Member spoke about the penalties to increase the fines—sorry,

that part of the amendment will increase the fines for offences committed against

children by 100 per cent. I agree with that. I agree, you should increase the fines,

because children are under pressure. But, Madam Speaker, the penalties are only

one side of the argument. There are other sides of the argument that are important.

There is a document that is entitled, the “Fourth Report of the Joint Select

Committee on Human Rights, Equality and Diversity”, which was the Second

100

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Session of the Eleventh Parliament, systems in place to protect children from

abuse. And, Madam Speaker, while it gives excellent statistics which have been

repeated here in the Parliament—I am not going to do that again—about child

abuse, and pregnancy in schools also, I just want to remind the Government that

there was certain recommendations in this Joint Select Committee report that I

think is important. I want to refer particularly to paragraph four, subsection (6):

“The Committee was concerned that as at January, 2017, the…”

—Children’s Authority of Trinidad and Tobago—

“…was operating…”

—and I will take my time to say this:

“…at fifty-two percent of its human resource capacity, with 124 of 242

approved staff only.”

Now, that to me is a very serious matter, because when you have this level of child

abuse and all these calls being made, and so on, by children who are under

pressure, and you do not have the staff to carry out the kind of investigation, or to

provide the support services, then I think that you are in trouble. And one has to

ask the question: What has the Government done since January 13, 2017?

What has the Government done to employ the 118-more persons that are

required here? And listen to where the staff was short: assessment, 48 per cent

approved staff; child and family services, only 22 per cent approved staff; adoption

and foster care at 24 per cent approved staff; and investigation, 54 per cent

approved staff. That to me is a telling story, a very, very telling set of statistics,

because how are you going to protect children when you do not have the

investigating capacity, and when you do not have all the other support in terms of

human resource support that is required do that? So that doubling the penalty will

not necessarily be a deterrent if people know nothing is going to happen. [Desk

101

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

thumping] Nothing is going to happen. [Interruption] Yeah, sure.

Mrs. Webster-Roy: Thank you, hon. Member for Tabaquite. Just to update the

House and to put on the record, since then we would have opened two new

assessment centres, one in Sangre Grande, one today in Naparima; one will be

open in Tobago on Friday. We have also had an HR audit done at the Children’s

Authority of Trinidad and Tobago, there is recommendation for additional staff,

and we are moving to have the positions filled—most of them. [Desk thumping]

Dr. S. Rambachan: Well, and that is good, you are moving to have the positions

filled, and let us hope that the positions can be filled in the shortest possible time,

and that we are not going to hear that what you have is a shortage of money, like

everything we ask for, Members of the Opposition, well, we have a shortage of

money. And now the shortage of money has become the general excuse for

inaction by the Government. This is a Government of blaming and a Government

of excuses; that is all. But this is very serious and I hope that this will be taken

very seriously by the Government, what I have said there about the lack of staff.

Madam Speaker, with respect to the public assistance, I agree with the

increase in the disability grant, $1,800 to $2,000 for people who are adults, but I

think that there are a lot of people in this country with disabilities who are finding

it difficult to get the social service division officers, especially the field officers, to

do their documentation, to do the paperwork that is necessary. And I want to tell

you as a Member of Parliament, I have had families come into my office in tears

because of how they have been treated by one particular officer in that south

division of the Social Services Division who go out there to do the documentation.

Madam Speaker, I think that there has to be somewhere where people can appeal

against the decisions of some of these field officers. [Desk thumping] There has to

be some method where people can appeal, and even if it is that we have to

102

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

strengthen the law or use the Equal Opportunity Commission, or what have you,

but, you know, people must be given the right to appeal. Madam Speaker, you

know, we talk about the public assistance. Only last week I brought down, with

the help of a friend, 18 wheelchairs from Canada to give out to people in my

constituency. [Desk thumping] Madam Speaker, you want to tell me that this

Government, in this day and age, cannot afford a $900 wheelchair to give to

people?

Madam Speaker, when I was Mayor of Chaguanas, I joined with the Lions

Club of Chaguanas, and we got to the Wheelchair Foundation of the world, and we

brought down 280 wheelchairs for US $28,000 and distributed it across the

country. Right now you can go back to that Wheelchair Foundation and they will

ship you between—they will ship you the value of wheelchairs between US

$16,000 and US $42,000, which means up to 280 wheelchairs, which will work out

to $1,095 for a wheelchair, landed in Trinidad because there are not duties and

taxes on it.

Madam Speaker, you are telling me we cannot find that kind of money to

buy wheelchairs and have them available to people so that they can use them; that

people have to come to your office? It is distressing when somebody comes to

your office and they have a stroke patient, or a patient with other kinds of spinal

disabilities, and you see them holding them like this, and so on, or people who are

amputees, and what have you, and you are there and you want to know where you

are going to find a wheelchair to give it to them. I am pleading with this

Government to have a stock house of wheelchairs available so people will not

suffer like this in the country. [Desk thumping] But I want to place on the record

my personal thanks, and I am sure the thanks of all my colleagues here, to the

Rotary Club of Trinidad, to the Lions Club of Trinidad, [Desk thumping] and to

103

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

private donors who have been making wheelchairs available in order to supplement

what is needed. [Interruption] Yes.

Mr. Hinds: I have noted, Member, and I thank you for your recommendation.

Would you like to say where the warehouse was when you all were in the

Government? [Desk thumping]

Dr. S. Rambachan: When we were in the Government, Dr. Glenn

Ramadharsingh, Madam Speaker, used to have a stock of wheelchairs available

[Desk thumping] and people used to get the wheelchairs—and they used to get the

wheelchairs. I can assure you about that. [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker, the other amendment that I want to deal with has to do with

the Litter Act. Well, again, fines are only as good as enforcement. If there is no

enforcement the fines are nothing. Madam Speaker, I would give you an example,

if you drive down—if you walk down the Main Road in Chaguanas any day and

you begin to check how many people are wearing their seatbelt as drivers, you

probably would make a mint of money if you are a police officer. But the police

officers are there and they do not even give them tickets for not having the seatbelt

on. If you, again look at what goes on in this country, you have people putting

their little kids on their laps and they are driving their cars.

6.00 p.m.

You have laws in this country and the police have advertisements about it,

where you need to put children in the back seat in the proper seat and so on, and

you see none of that being observed. So the fines are only as good as enforcement,

and our enforcement in this country is extremely weak—extremely weak. [Desk

thumping] Some people think that it is good politics not to enforce. I am saying it

is bad politics not to enforce, and only when people lose their lives or they get very

injured then we talk about, well, the laws are there.

104

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that this Litter Act, which was last

amended in 2014, is a very strong piece of legislation—very strong piece of

legislation. This does not only refer to the litter wardens, but if you read section 6

of this Act you will see that every member of the police service established by the

Police Service Act, and every member of special reserve police, established by the

Special Reserve Police Act, and every person to whom a precept has been issued

under the Supplemental Police Act, every member of the municipal police service

within the meaning of the Municipal Corporations Act, every public health

inspector, whether he is attached to the Ministry of Health or employed by a local

authority, every forest officer appointed for the purposes of the Forests Act, every

harbour master appointed under the Harbours Act, while acting in the exercise of

his powers or the discharge of his duties and so on, all of these persons under this

Act are litter wardens. So you have more litter wardens available to control

dumping and the other kinds of things that are going on. But are these people

exercising their rights under the Act? Are they performing their duty?

You know, hon. Attorney General, you often refer to your grandfather.

Well, you know, in the days when Shell UBOT, United British Oilfields of

Trinidad, existed, and my father would take up his bicycle to ride to go to work

down in Vessigny from Fyzabad, he never said he was going to work. He said he

was going to pick up his duty. There is a big difference between saying you are

going to work and you are going to pick up duty. How many people are picking up

duty? Because duty entails a responsibility and there seems to be a gap between

how people see duty. We have to have duty to this country. I am just using the

Litter Wardens Act to show that.

But, Madam Speaker, while you are going to increase the fines for litter

wardens, there are litter wardens now at all the corporations. But do you know

105

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

what? They cannot function—they cannot function. [Interruption] Yes, CTRC

has none, that is the Couva/Tabaquite—yes, six months now, none, because some

of them, their contracts have expired and they have not renewed their contracts.

But there are bigger problems. They do not have a vehicle in the corporation for

them to go out to do their work. They do not have a vehicle.

Hon. Member: You mean duty.

Dr. S. Rambachan: Yes, to do their duty. [Laughter] The municipal police in

several of the corporations are giving them trouble to accompany them to give

them protection. Although the Act—

Hon. Member: Say that again.

Dr. S. Rambachan: —the municipal police, frustrating them. They do not want to

accompany when they go out into difficult areas to do something. They are

frustrating them. And this is why it is important to see where the debate will go

when we come to debate, hopefully, the municipal corporations amendment to see

what will happen to the municipal police and how they are going to be able to do

their duty in a more formidable way. So the litter wardens are reluctant to go out

to places of work because they need support. Also, they need support when they

get to court. They need a prosecutor.

I want to always—to put on record here, there was a litter warden by the

name of Mr. Persad, in Chaguanas when I was Mayor, and that gentleman is a

perfect example of what a great litter warden is. He used to go and work with the

police in Chaguanas and get the prosecutions done in the Chaguanas Magistrates’

Court. I remember about 76 prosecutions were done at that time. Madam Speaker,

I will tell you one thing, you know. I swear to do my duty without fear or favour,

and I will do it when I have to do it.

Madam Speaker, I hope that the Government will say to themselves, “Look,

106

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

if we are going to collect so much more money as a result of the litter fines being

increased, that we are going to really put aside some to buy equipment for these

people”. “We are going to train them better” and so on. So as I said again, the

fines are only as good as enforcement. The fines are only as good as enforcement.

Madam Speaker, even if the litter wardens are not available now, I have just read

you a whole gamut of people who are litter wardens and who can apply the law.

Madam Speaker, a lot was said here this afternoon about the Municipal

Corporations Act and the Mayor’s fund, and the use of unspent balances and so on.

That is very good, very good, I applaud it. But you know what? Are the local

government corporations going to get the releases that will allow them to have

excesses? What has been the record of the local government releases over the last

three years? And how early do they get these releases, and do they get all the

releases?

Hon. Member: Never!

Dr. S. Rambachan: So if they do not get the releases in the first place, we do not

expect them to have a surplus. But let me tell you, I was speaking to the hon.

Minister of Rural Development and Local Government, Mr. Kazim, and pointing

out to him the number of pieces of equipment at corporations that are down right

now and cannot function for simple things—backhoes, trucks and what have you.

And if you are going to allow them to use these excess funds, I applaud that, but

are they going to get the funding at all?

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for Tabaquite, your original time is now spent.

You are entitled to 15 more minutes to complete.

Dr. S. Rambachan: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I did not think my time had

flown so fast. The Municipal Corporations Act, that amendment allowing them—

not the amendment to the Municipal Corporations Act, but the amendment that will

107

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

allow them to use these excess funds, I think it is a good thing, but are they going

to get the releases? Are they going to get the releases, and not only get the

releases, but get the releases on a timely basis?

Madam Speaker, the matter of the $1.5 million. I need a little bit of an

explanation on it. I might be totally wrong in what I am saying, but I think that the

public is a little bit confused, because while the hon. Minister was speaking,

someone sent me a text message asking for this clarification. I too want to be sure

that I am right in terms of my understanding.

Right now somebody who purchases a property, the first $850,000, you do

not pay any stamp duties. But when I read—and this might be legalese and, again,

I plead that I am “not no lawyer”—if you read clause 27 of the Bill that is before

us:

“Conveyance or transfer on sale of any property where—

(c) the amount or value of the consideration for the sale does not exceed

one million, five hundred thousand dollars…”

Now, some people are interpreting that to say that only properties up to $1.5

million are being exempt from the duties. Is it that when it is above $1.5 million

then the percentages apply? And if so, Minister, can you tell the public what are

those percentages that will apply? I think it is important to know that. Above

1.5—and they are not subject to the misunderstanding that it is only limited to

properties of $1.5 million. Is that the same also with the sub-clause on mortgage

deeds, in respect:

“where the sum secured by the mortgage does not exceed one million, five

hundred thousand dollars…”

Is it the same principle that will apply to the stamp duty that will also apply to the

mortgage? I think that is important.

108

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

You see, I agree with you, $37,500 they are going to save, that is a very

important sum of money. That will allow them to furnish their house, they can do

other things and so on.

I think that, you know, one of the pillars of the United National Congress

has always been a home-owning democracy. [Desk thumping] That home-owning

democracy is underpinned by a philosophical understanding that is also part and

parcel of the UNC, which is governing with compassion—[Desk thumping]

governance with compassion. We have to change the paradigm of how we think in

this country about governance. We just cannot use the word “governance”, it is

governance with compassion. And what does that mean? That implies several

other things. So, while the hon. Minister puts it only for housing, the whole area of

governing with compassion will apply now to the pensions, it will apply to the

social services, it will apply to all the other things that we need to apply it. I want

to tell you that that is how this UNC Government intends to govern—govern with

compassion.

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Port of Spain South talks about

diversification. Diversification is not something that you necessarily only look in

terms of big and large-scale projects. You also have to look at diversification from

the point of view of import substitution, and you have to protect people. You

cannot continue to allow imported honey to come into the country, and you have

the honey producers in Brothers Road and in Tabaquite and in other places, and in

Mayaro, and so on, suffering because all of this cheap imported honey that is

coming into the country, rather than the pure honey. So you have to have policies

that protect also, your people. Diversification, for example, can mean going back

and setting up cottage industries in areas, and providing people with the kind of

equipment that will allow them to set up these little industries.

109

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

So when the hon. Member for Port of Spain South talks about diversification

and talks about the big port and so on, nothing is wrong with that. But you have a

lot of people with a lot of skills that cannot get employed, and they need to make

something, and they need to sell something, they need to earn. You do not want to

create a society of dependence. You want to create a society of independent

people. [Desk thumping] You have to, as a government, provide the policies and

the framework that will harness the initiative of people, and that is how you will

create and build the creative and innovative society that Dr. Tewarie was

attempting so successfully when he was Minister of Planning. His vision for a

creative and innovative society is there; and what my colleague for Chaguanas

East, the then Minister of Higher Education, was doing in terms of that aviation

school and the aviation facilities and what have you, [Desk thumping] it was

forward thinking—forward thinking.

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the development of people in this

country, as we talk about all of the education, 60,000—72,000. I have a young

guy, 18 years old, he came to me looking for some work. While I was talking to

him I asked him, “What were you doing”? He said that he was working in

construction because he needed money. His father had abandoned them since they

were seven and eight years old, but he had nine subjects. He worked his way and

had nine subjects.

I said to him, well, what are these subjects in, and he gave me. One of the

things he did was electrical work, housing. But you know, in talking to him this

morning, I took him down to give him a job, and I said to him, “So what are you

going to do”? He said, “Well, I am thinking that everybody is only doing electrical

work on houses”. And, asking me the question, “What do you think about if I go

and I learn to deal with hybrid vehicles, that kind of electronics?” I said, “But you

110

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

are a forward thinker”. I congratulate young Azad, because that is the kind of

young man you want in the country, people who have a vision for themselves.

And it hurts when he is trying to use the little opportunities, and you see other

people not wanting to use the opportunities and they go into a life of crime, and

they go into a life of—so we have to be careful that we do not create a giveaway,

giveaway, giveaway society, but we create a society of independence where people

go strong with a vision. [Desk thumping] That is what we were trying to do with

the youths through the kinds of educational programmes and the opportunities we

provided, when my friend, the Member for Pointe-a-Pierre was also the head of

MIC.

What he did, it was interesting, he teamed up with us in the Ministry of

Local Government and trained the people there to actually build two-bedroom

houses. So they had a skill when they came out. Madam Speaker, these are true

things that were happening.

So in supporting several measures of this Bill, which I do, and I do

wholeheartedly, at the same time I want to take the opportunity to say to my

colleagues, and in particular the Minister of Finance, that enforcement is going to

be important in all of this, and that you have to be careful that you do not be a

giveaway, giveaway society.

This society is in for more trauma. The Minister of Energy and Energy

Industries has begun to talk about the floating price of fuel, and he is already

alluding to it and he was speaking somewhere and said it. It was all over the news

today. Are people going to be ready for that? What is it going to cost people to

drive around and so on? The trauma is coming, still coming, and it is going to

come more and more. Are we preparing our people to take advantage of the global

opportunities? Are we reorienting our people to train themselves in the way young

111

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Azad is thinking about training himself, or are we just putting people through an

education mill and just turning them out, so when they come out they cannot get

jobs?

I always say this, eh, Madam Speaker, and I will say it one more time: for

Trinidad and Tobago to progress, we must decide what does the world want which

we can produce. [Desk thumping] And that is what will be our island niche-

marketing in a global setting.

When the hon. Member for Diego Martin North/East spoke today, he spoke

like a true Santa Claus in the spirit of Christmas. The only thing was missing was

the Santa Claus hat and the Santa Claus jacket. But I want to tell you, be careful of

what Santa is coming with, because you know, the Santa with the smile is the same

Santa that came and sent home 6,000 people, and sent home 700 people, and so on

and so forth.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity, and in the spirit of the

season, best wishes.

The Attorney General (Hon. Faris Al-Rawi): Thank you Madam Speaker.

Mr. Imbert: Hear some sense now instead of nonsense.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Madam Speaker, I have to confess that I do enjoy listening to

my colleague from Tabaquite—

Mr. Imbert: You have no standards, boy. [Laughter]

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Because it is very rare that a speaker gives you so much to

respond to, and Tabaquite certainly does raise the tempo of debate and allow for

some energetic considerations. So I do enjoy my learned colleague for Tabaquite’s

contributions. I may not agree with all of his contribution, from a philosophical

point of view, and in those respects I propose to give at least a slightly different

position. Because Tabaquite is actually, surprisingly, not an attorney-at-law, but a

112

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12

Hon. F. Al-Rawi (cont’d)

UNREVISED

good advocate. He can present a convincing case with very little material, and

therefore, the ability to distinguish his argument is sometimes a little bit more

challenging because he is convincing in the way he delivers. And I mean that in

the best way possible.

So allow me to respond to my learned colleagues, both the Member for

Caroni Central and the Member for Tabaquite, and then to get into the crux of the

Bill as well. I am sometimes inter-splicing between the two.

Madam Speaker, this is a Bill to amend 31 laws, we know that. It is the

Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is a prerequisite to be followed from the budget

where we basically back-fill the laws in accordance with the budget undertakings

and implications, because there are some things that flow from the budget itself

which may not have been expressed but which are in fact implied.

The Minister of Finance has already put out the categorization of matters.

We deal with the money side, pension issues, across a number of pieces of law.

We deal with certain aspects of children. We deal with certain aspects of

harmonization of laws, and I will come to those in clause-by-clause detail.

But I note that both Tabaquite and Caroni Central started off in an effort of

revisionism. I say that because the snapshot and review of the state of the

economy that they both gave, with the warnings as to the indicators for debt-to-

GDP, government guarantees, state of economy, the indicators that Tabaquite

pointed to in the price of cement being indicative of the pace and development of

the country; all of these things were taken without reference to a full effect which

was caused in the five years of their governance.

And it is imperative in answering the argument, and in starting exactly as

Caroni Central does not want me to do, to remind that we were squarely in this

position—we are squarely in this position because of very bad decisions taken by

113

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

my learned colleagues opposite. [Desk thumping] These bad decisions involved

financing arrangements directly from the Consolidated Fund. They involved

companies drawing down hundreds of millions of dollars, that is, state enterprises,

in unsecured fashion. They involved failure to meet and treat with obligations to

the trade union environment. They involved a terrible decision for a failure to put

a cap on deferred taxation, which resulted in our revenue dropping as it relates to

oil and gas, by 96 per cent.

Now, that is to say that one cannot complain that the house is leaking and

that people are getting wet, when the tenants have just moved in and the last people

that owned the house failed to fix the roof, left gaping holes, knew that there was

bad weather alert coming, and then to now listen to those people, in this example

that I am giving, now complain, “Well, Oh lord, we getting wet”, it is a little hard

to swallow, because it takes away the culpability of the position. I will end on

culpability right there, because it was imperative to at least answer the submissions

made.

Madam President—sorry, I sometimes sit in both Houses, so forgive me for

crossing them at times. Madam Speaker, the submission made by Caroni Central,

asking a specific question as to whether the proposal that we make for the booking

of bonds, where we specifically state that the bond transaction and the amendments

we make to the Financial Institutions Act and to the Insurance Act—Caroni

Central asked a question, and he expressed a degree of worry. Caroni Central said,

“I am worrying that this will allow the Government to somehow get into a Sandals

structure, to somehow”—as Caroni Central put it, “allow for the Government being

indirectly involved and shifting bond arrangements around to facilitate an entity

which is not a Government entity”.

That was effectively what Caroni Central said. He actually said it twice, and

114

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

on each occasion that he said that, the hon. Member went on to repeat the questions

that he had and to raise the caution. And he then went even further to say, “I know

what the Minister of Finance will say, but I know what the truth is”, implying that

the Minister of Finance’s position could not be true.

Dr. Tewarie: You always misinterpret what I said. I said whatever the Minister of

Finance says when he makes his remarks, I know what the truth is.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: So I thank the hon. Member for confirming exactly what I just

said, which is why I gave way.

So I want to go to clause 28 of the Bill:

“The Financial Institutions Act is amended...”—(a), (b), (c)—“…licensee;”

And listen to this, (ii) where we insert the new 1(A):

“The Inspector may grant approval to a licensee...”—et cetera—“where such

bond—

(a) is issued by a company incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago,”—hear the

words—“wholly owned and controlled by Corporation Sole;”

Let me repeat that:

“wholly owned and controlled by Corporation Sole;”

Black and white, page 22, in the law which can only be changed if you come to

Parliament to debate it. But Caroni Central, saying that he knows what the

Minister of Finance will say, but he will know something else, and then asking a

question and expressing doubt to say Sandals is somehow on the horizon and the

Government will be indirectly involved, and that some bond market could happen.

For heaven’s sake, Madam Speaker, it just does not make sense.

The express law is that it must be wholly owned by the State. And that is to

characterize the submissions made by my learned colleagues, as submissions that

you just cannot hold on to.

115

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Madam Speaker, the hon. Member for Tabaquite went on to talk about some

very important positions in relation to the Litter Act, in relation to enforcement.

He asked for an explanation in respect of clause 27. He went on in relation to

being careful not to be a giveaway society. And I propose to answer those

submissions, as I go through the clauses of the Bill right now.

So, I want to drive to a few important provisions in the Bill. Madam

Speaker, the Minister of Finance indicated that the Government certainly does

intend to move a few amendments. I also propose to touch on those amendments

as we go through. Let us go specifically now to a few of the provisions. In this

Bill the first one that pops up is effectively the provisions that treat with retiring

allowances, clause 2, et cetera, clause 6, clause 8, clause 10, clauses13, 14, 16. In

treating with those particular provisions, in particular clauses 2, 8, 10, 13, 16, 20,

21, 22.

The hon. Members have asked a question about pensions. The Government

intends in keeping with the commitment given during the budget that we will in

fact, in these several clauses that I just mentioned, provide specifically that the

interim payment, the $3,500 which is being done to ease up citizens. Because the

public service is just not doing over the many years that they have the control of it,

what they should do to make sure that people who are retiring get their benefits, as

an interim relief to save citizens from the indignity that they are suffering, the

Minister of Finance made a commitment, which I personally have a great amount

of compliment and commendation for, to say that you will get an interim pension.

But it is important in treating with these to make sure that it is only with

respect to people who compulsorily are retired. That is an important amendment

which the Government proposes ought to be put into those several clauses that I

have just mentioned, because we are not looking at the position of voluntary

116

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

retirement. And why, Madam Speaker? Because the mischief that we are looking

at is the public service not doing six months in advance, before compulsory

retirement, what they should be doing.

I would like to set out here publicly now, for the benefit of the listening

public through you, Madam Speaker, the excellent work of the Member for Port of

Spain South, the Minister of Public Administration, because listening to the cries

of the people and to the initiatives of the Cabinet, the Minister of Public

Administration did a phenomenal job. That is, to demand by way of active

preparation, that Ministries, six months in advance and reporting twice a year,

come up with the list of persons who are retiring within a year, five years, and 10

years. So that the line of sight is known.

But Tabaquite in asking what we are going to do about getting the final

position done—and I wish to commend the Minister of Finance now—he is not

aware, the hon. Member for Tabaquite, that the Minister of Finance has not been

sleeping on this job. The Minister of Finance in fact came to our Cabinet very

early in the day and went out and procured RF tags for files, so that those files

could no longer go missing. So that the Ministry could actually track the

movement of files from desk to desk, and that is thinking outside the box. That is

the Minister of Finance making sure that the excuse that the public servant “cyah

find de file”, could no longer be true. I wish to publicly compliment the Minister

of Finance for taking an excellent initiative for the benefit of the thousands of

public servants who operate in our system, and who rely upon their pension

benefits to be paid after they have left employment and service. [Desk thumping]

6.30 p.m.

Madam Speaker, clause 3 treats with the Interpretation Act, and in the

Interpretation Act we are adding in the definition of a “Collecting Officer”. This

117

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

relates very squarely to clause 32. Clause 32 says that we will repeal section 9A.

And it is important to note what we are doing by putting in the collecting officer is

another ingenious step by this Government in the implementation. Let me explain

what that is.

The creature of the collecting officer is a creature which was, for the first

time, statutorily treated by way of definition in a Bill called the Payments Into

Court. In that Payments into Court Bill, despite the Opposition’s complete

rejection of the legislation, despite Pointe-a-Pierre bench’s admonition that the

court pay should not be structured and supported because of an allegation of a

company called WiPay, where they alleged they—that it was a 1 per cent

company, where that 1 per cent that was actually Gerry Hadeed, a past UNC

Senator and Member of Government, notwithstanding that deprecation that came

from the Members opposite, that court pay legislation was the first place that we

defined a collecting officer.

For the purpose of allowing people to have dignity, for mothers to collect

maintenance where they did not have a bank account, for mothers to collect

maintenance or fathers to collect maintenance in circumstances where they could

not suffer spending a whole day behind a court counter waiting to get their

moneys.

So it is okay that the UNC does not support that, but the Government in

supporting that said we will take the definition of “Collecting Officer”, we will

remove it from the Payments into Court Bill exclusively, because the interpretation

of law would mean that law would stand on its own, and we have lifted the

collecting officer and put it now into the Interpretation Act in section 79 so that the

definition can apply to all the laws in Trinidad and Tobago; and let me explain

why.

118

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

The Member for Tabaquite in asking where we are going to, about

innovation, about diversification, as the Member for Caroni Central did it. You

see, they have a lot of advice right now. I would wishfully enjoy the Member for

Tabaquite, not politically now, enjoy the Member for Tabaquite to stay in

Opposition forever, and I will tell you why. Because the Member for Tabaquite

has all the answers, and the Member for Caroni Central has all the answers to

every ill and to every issue of innovation and every issue of diversification possible

under the sun only when they are in Opposition and not when they are in

Government.

And, Madam Speaker, I say that within the context of clause 3 of this Bill

because we are about to bring to life electronic payments not only in the Judiciary

as we have done already, in the Registrar General, in the Licensing Authority, for

the incorporation of businesses, in the Intellectual Property Office, in the Ministry

of Finance.

You see, the UNC passed a Bill which the Government had support from the

then PNM Opposition for, called the Electronic Transactions Act, but you know

what they did with respect to the Electronic Transactions Act passed in 2011

straight to 2015?—absolutely nothing. It has taken this Government to implement

electronic payments, Madam Speaker, and we are very proud of that,

notwithstanding the Opposition’s refusal to give support. So that is clauses 3 and

32 at the same time.

Madam Speaker, let us go next to clause 4. In clause 4, we are proposing an

amendment to section 39 of the Summary Courts Act, and it is important to note

what we did in section 39.

In the miscellaneous provisions legislation which we passed this year, again,

with no support from the Opposition, we did a very important thing. We amended

119

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

section 39 to say with respect to the:

“Form of requisites of complaint.

It shall not be necessary that any complaint shall be in writing, unless it is

required to do so by the written law on which it is founded, or by some other

written law. However, if a complaint is not made in writing…”

—it should be:

…every person designated by the Chief Justice to receive the complaint shall

reduce it into writing.

We removed the concept of the clerk and we allowed for any person appointed by

the Chief Justice. The UNC said no to that, the Member for Couva North said no

to that, the Member for Princes Town said no to that, but here is what it meant for

the people of Trinidad and Tobago.

The amendment to section 39 of the Summary Courts Act meant that

domestic violence victims who go to a Clerk of the Peace who is not legally trained

and in breach of the legal protection Act—the Member for Couva North, in saying

no to the replacement by somebody who is qualified and designated by the Chief

Justice, did not support the ability for victims, for example, of domestic violence to

have proper advice and get relief. Because Clerks of the Peace are telling domestic

violence victims in the operation of section 39 about the roles of the wife, go back

home, take the abuse, that is your husband, you are a wife;, and these are actual

reported cases. Again, it is an example of where the UNC says that they will not

support the improvement of laws. So that is clause 4.

Madam Speaker, let us go to clause 5. Clause 5, we had recommended be an

amendment to the Administration of Justice (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Act, the

DNA Act. In fact, it came by way of a roundtable recommendation coming from a

number of stakeholders in the children’s arena. On looking at those

120

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

recommendations, I personally have recommended to the Minister of Finance that

we delete clause 5, and I want to put on record why.

Clause 5 was proposing that we actually have an amendment to section 13 of

the DNA legislation. In section 13, we were going to, on the recommendation of

the players in the children’s arena, meaning Children’s Authority and several other

entities, for good reason they were fulminating that we ought to treat with

children’s homes and child rehabilitation centres to allow for DNA testing to

happen in the circumstances permitted.

But, Madam Speaker, on drilling down into the law, recognizing that we did

Child Rehabilitation Centre Regulations, in those regulations we had initially

provided who the qualified supervising officers for children ought to be, and they

do not yet exist for children’s homes. So until we bring those recommendations

for children’s homes up to muster, I think it prudent that we delete clause 5 of the

Bill so that we make sure there is one standard for protection of children who have

to have DNA testing, and that is the rationale for deleting clause 5, as you will be

seeing in the amendments coming forward.

Madam Speaker, we have also proposed that we cause some amendments to

clause 7 of the Bill. Clause 7 of the Bill is a very important clause. Clause 7 of the

Bill proposes an amendment to the State Liability and Proceedings Act, and in an

amendment to section 27(1).

Now, the amendment to the State Liability and Proceedings Act is a very

important thing. First of all, the State Liability and Proceedings Act, Section 2 (2)

describes who is the agent of the State that fits that category, and that law is

important, I will put it onto the record. Clause 2(2) says:

“servant’, in relation to the State, includes an officer who is a member of the

public service and any servant of the State, and accordingly (but without

121

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

prejudice to the generality of foregoing) includes—

(a) a Minister of the State;

(b) a member of the armed forces of the State;

(c) a member of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service,

but also does not include—

(d) the President;

(e) any Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace or other judicial officer,

any officer, employee or servant of a statutory corporation;”

And, Madam Speaker, section 27 is the ability for the Comptroller of Accounts to

certify a payment and have it paid. So, you have litigation. Litigation against the

State is run by the Office of the Attorney General. The Attorney General under

section 76 of the Constitution is charged with the responsibility for criminal law

and for civil law.

In the civil law discharge, the State Liability and Proceedings Act, Chap.

8:02 comes into play. The Chief State Solicitor, the Solicitor General, they handle

the litigation. When a judgment comes from the court, the High Court, there is an

award that is made, costs, a judgment say damages where the State has to pay.

Currently in section 27, they say that:

“…at any time after the expiration of twenty-one days from…the order…”

And then, it allows the litigant to go the Comptroller of Accounts, have the

Comptroller of Accounts certify the payment, and once the Comptroller of

Accounts certifies the paper, it is a demand to be made on the State. And there is,

in fact, case law, very persuasive and strong case law that says that, with respect to

the immediacy of payment, it must be done immediately.

Now, we do know, Madam Speaker, that the case law, for instance, The

Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance v Financial Investment and

122

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Consultancy Services. It a case coming out of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme

Court, Court of Appeal of Grenada. In that particular case, it was held quite

squarely, and also to be found in another case which is that of Gairy v the Attorney

General of Grenada which is coming from the Privy Council which has persuasive

authority for our jurisdiction, the State can be put under a mandamus, meaning the

court can order the immediate payment of the moneys coming under section 27. So

let me break it down for you.

Current law, section 27, any agent of the State, somebody brings a claim,

there is an award, there is damages, there is costs. Under the current section 27,

you can approach the Comptroller of Accounts, it must be paid immediately, the 21

days must go into effect. What does that mean?

The State currently, Madam Speaker, has to consider its position. Is it going

to appeal? But if you are going to appeal, the time frame for an appeal is 42 days

under part 64 of the Civil Proceedings Rules. If you are going to appeal and you

want not to pay, you have to apply a stay of execution, again, under part 64 of the

Civil Proceedings Rules.

So that is 42 days and then you have to make an application to the Court of

Appeal. You go to a single court chamber Judge in the Court of Appeal. If that

Court of Appeal Judge does not give you the stay, you go to the full court.

So what is going right now, the State has observed a legitimate exploitation

of an old piece of law where litigants are stepping aside from the State and going

to get payment where there is an appeal outstanding, there may be a need for a

stay, but worse yet, the certification is only going to be served in the current law to

the Comptroller of Accounts.

In other words, the practice has been they will not serve the Solicitor

General and, in fact, not serve the Attorney General. And if you do not serve

123

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

either of those parties, you run into a risk of paying something that you really

ought not to pay, and when you pay out the taxpayers’ dollars, you run the risk of

not getting it back.

So, Madam Speaker, we propose that we actually amend and you will see it

in the circulated amendments, this clause, and this clause is going to be amended

by inserting the time frame of 120 days. We are also going to ask that there is a

certificate to be served upon an address to the Comptroller of Accounts and the

Solicitor General, and that you must serve it on the Attorney General just in case

there are people outside acting—and not the Chief State Solicitor and Attorney

General departments.

Madam Speaker, we also propose by way of amendment, amendments

coming into the clauses that treat with the Litter Act and the Children Act. Quite

simply, Madam Speaker, we, in a run-through to look at perfection, we realized we

had omitted inadvertently in the Bill some of the offences which needed to be

doubled as we had done in the Litter Act; and in the circulated amendments we are

going to put that forward where we have omitted inadvertently to do that.

We are looking in clause 17 as well to make—in clause 18 we are looking to

amend the provision to put clarity for people who receive disability grants. What

we are doing, Madam Speaker, is that we are proposing an amendment to that

clause to make it clear that adults are to be treated separately from children, but

that you cannot double dip, that you cannot go into the zone where you are actually

receiving two forms of benefit. So, a person who is receiving a benefit for

disability ought not to receive public assistance because then you are double

dipping into the taxpaying pot.

Madam Speaker, we have also proposed, and it will be in the amendments

that the Minister shall make guidelines so we can fine-tune this process and better

124

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

target the delivery of the relief for our citizens.

Madam Speaker, with respect to clause 27, Tabaquite raised a very

important point about the application of the scales, and Tabaquite is perfectly

correct. We may need to do a bit of tweaking to that clause. How it will operate,

the stamp duty exemptions that we are giving the current law is that the first

$850,000 is nil, you pay no stamp duty.

The $400,000 above the $800,000 you pay 3 per cent. The next $500,000

you pay 5 per cent and every dollar after that 7.5 per cent. So let me break it down

for the listeners. If you are buying something for $2.5 million, you take that $2.5

million, the first $800,000 zero stamp duty; $850,000, forgive me, zero stamp duty.

The next $400,000 that is taking you up to $1.25 million, you pay 3 per cent

on that $400,000. You then go up another $500,000, so from $1.25 million you

add $500,000. On that $500,000 you are going to pay 5 per cent, and then the

balance above that, you are going to pay the 7.5 per cent.

Where we are making the amendments now it results with us being between

the 3 per cent and 5 per cent bracket, because we are moving up from 850, we are

saying that for the amount—

Mr. Imbert: The 5 and the 7.5.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Right. So, we are saying that the amount that we are going to

give tax free now is the $1.5 million. So, you will be between the 5 and 7.5 per

cent bracket right now. So, we are going to look at making a clarification to make

it pellucidly clear so that we do not have to guess what it is. But there is a

proposed amendment which we will put into circulation to treat with that to make

it clear we too form the view that we should give some clarity to that.

Madam Speaker, we are also proposing to treat with amendments. I have

already dealt with it, 20, 21, 22; that is the compulsory retirement aspects. We had

125

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

inadvertently omitted a section coming in clause 23, and clause 23 treats with—

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member for San Fernando West, your original 30 minutes

are now spent. You are entitled to 15 more minutes to wrap up.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Should it please you, yes.

Madam Speaker: Please, proceed.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: [Desk thumping] So under the Children Act which is what

clause 23 proposes to treat with, we had left out one of the fines to go up, and that

was specifically with respect to section 86 of the Children Act. So in our

proofreading we believe that we ought to add that into legislation.

Madam Speaker, there is another very important issue, it might seem

innocuous to Members, but I want to put it on the record. There are actually two

issues that I want to treat with separately now.

The first is in relation to the Friendly Societies Act, which we propose an

amendment with respect to the Registrar and that, Madam Speaker, is to be found

at clause—if I can just find it. I will find the clause in just a moment. The first is

the Registrar of the Friendly Societies Act. And the second with respect to the

National Lotteries Act. The National Lotteries Act is at clause 12.

So, Madam Speaker, when we are looking at these two positions, the

Registrar of the Friendly Societies is something which is really a legacy item in

Trinidad and Tobago. The Friendly Societies Act, Chap. 32:50 is an old piece of

law. People may not know this but at one point in time as in the 19th Century we

moved into the domain of moving out of indentureship and slavery, et cetera, the

State had to find—[Interruption] Pardon?

Ms. Ramdial: It is clause 19.

Hon. F. Al-Rawi: Clause 19. Thank you, Couva North. So clause 19 in treating

with the Friendly Societies, this is a legacy item in Trinidad and Tobago. In the

126

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

19th Century we had to come up with mechanisms to support people who were

dislodged from the traditional plantation economies then.

In 1950, we came up with this particular piece of law, but quite intriguing is

to know that in 1950 there were approximately 364 registered societies. And hear

this: the total membership in 1950 was 135,000 people, and that affected almost 25

per cent of our country. And it was that one, that Friendly Societies organization

which thrived on mutual insurance organizations for working class. They were on

the principle of each one help one, something which I will love to see come back to

Trinidad and Tobago today. Each one help one. Something that I know that is

dear and close to the Minister of Social Development and Family Services.

And, Madam Speaker, when we look to the Friendly Societies, we currently

have 50 of them registered with an asset base of $70 million serving about 70,000

people. But hear this: 1950: 364 societies, membership 135,000; 1960: 324,

membership 127,000; 1970: 302, membership 77,000; 1982: 242 societies, 60,000

members; 2016: 63 societies, 10,000 members; 2018: 50 societies, 7,000 members.

But, Madam Speaker, in complimenting the Minister of Labour and Small

Enterprise Development for taking the Friendly Societies out of the depths of being

ignored, the depths of desperation, the Minister of Labour and Small Enterprise

Development took that challenge and this week alone gave out cheque distribution

to people who had been waiting 50 years [Desk thumping] and 60 years for their

moneys, which nothing was being done about. And I wish to compliment in the

most glowing terms possible that act of kindness coming from the Minister of

Labour and Small Enterprise Development’s dedication to ensuring that the

poorest of our people are well served.

So, Madam Speaker, the fact is that the friendly society currently requires a

public officer to work as the Registrar. But, Madam Speaker, when you look at the

127

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Trade Union Act, that is not the same. When we look to the Trade Unions Act, it

is just a legal officer, and the fact is, we can only get this improvement if the

Ministry of Labour and Small Enterprise Development has the ability to work

outside of the public service if necessary, and that is an important tool that this

Parliament can give to allow the excellent work that the Minister of Labour and

Small Enterprise Development has done to come to fruition and to continue.

Madam Speaker, I will deal with the National Lotteries Act which is clause

12 of the Bill. And in treating with the National Lotteries Act it is important to

note that currently the National Lotteries Act has a very limited purpose. The

National Lotteries Act, Chap. 21:04 has its powers and duties set out at section 9 of

the Act. And section 9 of the Act is extremely limited in its context.

Section 9 of the Act applies only to purposes that manage the strict

provisions of general powers and duties of the board confined to issuing tickets:

“(b) fix the number and price of tickets…

(c) appoint and remunerate agents for sale of…tickets;

(d) …prizes…”, et cetera, et cetera.

Currently, Madam Speaker, in contemplating how the Government is going to

move this country forward in the right direction in going to e-payment, in making

sure that this society goes cashless so that you do not expose people to robbery,

you do not expose them to long lines waiting, you do not expose them to not being

able to account for where their money comes from because that is a side of the

equation as well. We are proposing that the National Lotteries Act include a

specific power to allow them to go into transactions with the State for the payment

of moneys.

And, Madam Speaker, when you look to clause 12 of the Bill, we are

looking specifically at the language as follows. We are proposing that section 9 of

128

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

that National Lotteries Act be amended, keep section 9, put it as subsection (1), but

in subsection (2) we are adding in:

“(2) Notwithstanding sub-section (1), the Board may facilitate the payment

of moneys to a public body by electronic or other means.”

Let me repeat that:

“…to a public body by electronic or other means”.

Secondly, we are saying that a public body has the meaning assigned to it in

section 4 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Property Act. Let me unfold

and unwrap that. What we are saying as a Parliament is that national lotteries will,

by this amendment, be capable of removing itself from monopolistic tendencies

where they have to rely upon a third party doing service. National Lotteries can

now come into the equation where they will own their own hardware, have

licensed software, and facilitate e-payments to public bodies, which as you know

under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Property Act is a wide-ranging

sector which touches almost every entity that receives public moneys, and that is a

dynamite provision, this clause 12 of the Bill. [Desk thumping]

Members may not understand it, but this has the ability to change the shape

of our country from a decency point of view, from understanding the good

treatment of our citizens, from a dignity point of view, and very importantly to

eliminate corruption, because we are now targeting payments by secured

mechanisms as opposed to cash. And as every Member here knows, cash corrupts,

and cash in public institutions corrupt almost absolutely.

So, Madam Speaker, this is no simple Bill. This is a very far-reaching piece

of legislation. Tabaquite talked about children and the Children’s Authority being

underfunded. Regrettably, I must remind Tabaquite that the Children’s Authority

when there was the world of money available to it in the period 2010 to 2015,

129

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

when it was raining with money in box drains which obviously have not worked

because they have not solved any flooding, billions of dollars in box drains,

billions of dollars in contracts. The Minister with responsibility for the Children’s

Authority under the UNC came to this Parliament, I sat on the opposite side, and

the hon. Minister then was solely concerned with the fact that I as an

attorney-at-law had done the lease for the Children’s Authority.

And the hon. Minister the UNC said that lease was unholy because I did the

lease and instructed the Children’s Authority to give up its premises as to half of its

premises. So the UNC itself sabotaged the Children’s Authority. Why? Simply

because Faris Al-Rawi, attorney-at-law in private practice, was the lawyer acting

for the landlord who rented the premises. Can you belief that?

And today, we are hearing, what more can we do for the Children’s

Authority. You see, this is a matter of public record you know, Madam Speaker.

When some people act out of pure spite, they end up hurting thousands. And,

Madam Speaker, that is not the way our country has to operate because you will

find no example of that over here. Nobody went to disturb any landlord building

under the UNC’s grant in a PNM tenure. Nobody did that. They continued the

way they were. And there is a lot more to that, as a matter of fact, where there are

clear relationships and other positions available. So long as it is value for money,

it is done with distance, it ought to stand as proper, because there is a continuance

of government.

Even though, Naparima cannot understand that for love nor money, for

praise or torture, Naparima cannot understand that there is a continuance of

government, and legitimate expectation borne upon it. The fact is, this

Government acts by value for money and arms-length distance without regard to

who it is, so long as it is right for the people of Trinidad and Tobago.

130

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

So, Madam Speaker, I compliment the Minister of Finance for an excellence

piece of legislation built on the back of a fantastic budget. I am very pleased for

the hard work of the many public servants that were engaged in this exercise.

I thank Tabaquite for the exhortations and philosophical underpinnings

rendered by him. But, Madam Speaker, we as a Government are very satisfied that

we know what we are doing, and that we are ultimately creating law for the good

governance of this country. I thank you, Madam Speaker. [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East. [Desk thumping]

Dr. Tim Gopeesingh (Caroni East): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure

to speak for a while on this Bill. Unfortunately, we were first served with a

document on Friday when we were about to leave Parliament to tell us that we

have to return on Wednesday, four days later with this. And this morning when we

were here, we were given this proper Bill for debate this afternoon. It is

unsatisfactory. [Desk thumping] The Government must be able to understand its

legislative agenda and give adequate notice.

The Minister knows that he has to pass this piece of legislation so that he

can implement on the 1st of January because he has to do it here, then he has to go

to the Senate.

It is a Finance Bill. We all know you have the majority, we cannot object to

it, you will pass the Bill here. It goes to the Senate, the Senate has no vote on it, it

will be passed in the Senate, but all we ask you is to give some respect to the

legislative process, the legislative agenda, and do not bring things “in the thief of

the night”, as you are accustomed doing, for us to debate, from time to time—

[Desk thumping]

7.00 p.m.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Thank you very much, Member, for giving way.

131

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12

Dr. Gopeesingh (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: “I eh give way, yah know.”

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Yeah. You did.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I thought you were standing on a point of order.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam, we gave proper notice in relation to this.

Hon. Member: You tricked us.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: No. We gave proper notice, and so it is really unfair and

disingenuous for the Member to be stating otherwise. We gave the requisite notice

and we moved the proper Standing Order to ensure that you had proper notice.

That is not fair.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, I thought she was going to stand on a

Procedural Notice, but I was tricked there, anyway, we are off that point. We are

off that point.

Madam Speaker: Member, you know, in terms of—trickery has a certain

connotation, and I heard “would the Member give way”? I heard that. Okay, so

please.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: All right. Okay, I would not go further than that, Madam

Speaker. The other issue is that the budget statement of 2019, I read it through

again Minister of Finance, and I looked at it over the weekend, and a number of the

things that you have brought on in this Bill have not been spoken about in this

budget statement of 2019. [Desk thumping] And all I saw on the 2019 budget

statement were a few areas for consideration for January 2019, but here we are

today with a miscellaneous—an Act to provide for the variation of certain duties

and taxes and to introduce provisions of a fiscal nature, and for related matters.

And here in this Bill now, we have so many new areas to deal with which

were outside of this budget statement of 2019 which you presented in October—

September/October. But nevertheless we are here. This Bill, as my colleagues

132

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

have indicated has 33 clauses, about 30 related to different Acts, and in some of

these clauses and in some of these Acts we have to go deeply into about 15 to 20

sections, example, the Litter Act and one or two others. So, the research on this

had to be very wide and very deep for a proper understanding of this Bill that has

been presented to us.

Now, Minister of Finance, I believe this is your 11th presentation on finance since

you have to come into office and since you have taken over as Minister of Finance.

Four budget statements or budget presentations, three midterm Variation and

Appropriation Bills, and this is your fourth on the Finance Bill to carry over

implementation of budget statements into 2019. And after 11 presentations,

honestly, Minister of Finance, I find it difficult for you to be able to tell this

population that we have economic movement, we have economic progress when

the whole country is telling you and telling this Government that the country is at a

standstill [Desk thumping] and there has been no economic progress over the last

three years-plus. So, it is sad that after 11 statements in the House on finance you

cannot convince the population that there has been any benefit and gains from your

governance during the last three years and three months. Eleven times you have

had the opportunity to tell this population.

Now, the hon. Attorney General during his contribution, spoke of—and I

think I heard him make the statement, the UNC will not support the enhancement

of laws. We have shown you time and time again that when you come with bad

laws we will not support it. We will work with you, we will go to joint select

committees, we will work in the Joint Select Committees and we will bring out

proper laws for you. We did that with FATCA, we did that with many other laws.

Just today, this evening here—I want to compliment my two colleagues, the

Member for Caroni Central and the Member for Tabaquite. [Desk thumping] The

133

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Member for Tabaquite indicated there is confusion in terms of the stamp duty, and

there is admission by the Attorney General that that clarification will come from

you all this afternoon. So, is he not making a statement that we are bettering the

laws that you are bringing? So right this evening here, the Member for Tabaquite

indicated that, so that is one.

Two, the Member for Caroni Central spoke about the Financial Institutions

Act, and there are a number of areas within that that have to be clarified. And you

all are admitting even with a miscellaneous provision, a Bill which speaks about a

miscellaneous provision of so many areas, you still have to come with amendments

this evening. That is very saddening.

Dr. Moonilal: Amendments to the amendments.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Yes, amendments to amendments. So, when you speak about

the UNC not able to enhance laws in this country; total misstatement and it cannot

be accepted, you are putting the wrong areas forward.

Now, I want to first respond to the Member for Port of Spain South, and we

converted a miscellaneous provisions Bill into basically a finance Bill, which it is

in a way, and the Minister spoke about a number of areas which we need to

correct. And time and time again, the Government speaks about—[Laughter] [Mr.

C. Imbert leaves Chamber] —you must stay and listen to the misstatements that

you make, Minister.

Dr. Moonilal: He cannot. He cannot.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: You cannot listen. The Member for Couva South said that

we spent over $400 million during the five years. Total misstatement. During our

five years, you can check it in any one of the finance books, we have spent $295

million during the five years.

Mr. Hinds: Million?

134

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Billion, $295. So that must be corrected. We never spent

$400 billion in the five years, we spent $295 billion in the five years; go in and add

it up. They also said that we had a budget one year, of $63 billion and so on. Of

course, we had a budget of 63, but we did not spend the 63. We spent about $53

billion out of that $63 billion. If you go and check that, you will see that in the

2014 budgetary allocation we spent only $53 billion out of the 63.

Now, we must understand, in your three years that you have been here, you have

spent almost the same amount of money that we spent in our three years and

coming into Government. We have been able to show what we have in the

country, all the infrastructure work. It is not for me to go into it now, hospitals,

roads, schools, police stations, all over the country. [Desk thumping] But you

cannot show what you have done within three years that you have been there.

[Desk thumping] Tell us one thing that you have constructed, and one thing that

you have done for this country in the three years that you have spent the same

amount of money that we spent in three years. You have spent the same amount

and you cannot show anything or any edifice, or anything of importance that you

can tell this country that in your three years and three months, so far, that you have

been able to do this.

Hon. Member: Brian Lara stadium.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: So, I would want to debunk that.

Dr. Moonilal: Not a school, not a stadium, not a university.

Hon. Member: Brian Lara.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: When we came into office—Brian Lara 100 million more.

Brian Lara cost $1.2 billion [Desk thumping] when it was supposed to cost $200

million. That is a shame on the treasury.

Now, when we came in, Madam Speaker, we met a $20 billion fiasco. We

135

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

were owing $5 billion to contractors—5 billion—and when we left we were able to

move the Heritage and Stabilisation Fund from US $3.5 billion to US $5.6 billion.

We were able to leave in the foreign reserve US $11.5 billion, almost 11 months of

import cover. Translate that into TT dollars, we left TT $117 billion equivalent,

for the PNM Government coming in—[Desk thumping]

Mr. Hinds: How much he left in NGC?

Dr. T. Gopeesingh:—$117 billion was left for you. And you have gone on, you

have borrowed $22 billion so far.

Mr. Imbert: Twenty two?

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Twenty two billion dollars in the three years you have

borrowed, you have carried the debt-to-GDP ratio close to 72 per cent, and you are

now owing for Petrotrin close to $9 billion. So, where are we now? That is the

state of the economy at the moment, Madam Speaker. That is the state of the

economy. And despite that, you raided the Heritage and Stabilisation Fund of

about US $2.1 billion. So, those are the facts, and then the Member for Port of

Spain South—

Mr. Hinds: Madam Speaker—

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I am not giving way.

Mr. Hinds:—48(4), the Member is accusing us of raiding.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: All right, I withdraw that statement.

Madam Speaker: Caroni East, you withdraw? Yes?

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: All right, they had the fund and they did not use it

appropriately.

Mr. Hinds: The biggest raiders in town.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: They did not use it appropriately.

Madam Speaker: Even with “not using it appropriately”, it has also another kind

136

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

of connotation, so I am sure you could find another way.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: They depleted the funds, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Hinds: You all are the original raiders.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Now, every day we hear the Government saying we are going

to do this, we are going to do that, and the Member for Port of Spain South, a very

nice person who we have a very lovely relationship. I know her long before many

of you who are around in politics, we knew each other from those days, in 2007

and so on.

But the Member for Port of Spain South spoke about a revenue authority, a

CSO, a statistical institute. We were hearing that from day one, the PNM speaking

about, we are going to bring in a revenue authority, we are going to have a

statistical institute, we are improving the CSO. Where are they? They are not

there at all. So only promises being made all the time and you are not able to fill

these promises. The Member also stated about stimulating the housing

development, well, my colleague from Oropouche East could possibly deal with

that. But the question is, PNM has not built one single home since they have come

into Government for the three years and three months. [Desk thumping] They

have not built one single home.

Dr. Francis: I would take you to Moruga.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Not one single home you have built and the People’s

Partnership Government built close to 8,000 homes during the five years.

[Crosstalk] [Desk thumping]

Madam Speaker: Order! Order!

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Eight thousand homes that people were being allocated at

least 100 homes per week over the period of time. So, now you are giving out

homes that were built under the People’s Partnership Government. Then the

137

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Member spoke about a new model for Petrotrin.

Well, Madam Speaker, if the new model for Petrotrin is decimating the lives

of 100,000 people and more, in fence-line communities around Petrotrin, and

putting close to 9,000 people out of work, and out of jobs, and out of their medical

plans, et cetera, well, if you can speak about that new model for Petrotrin, it is a

very sad state with that model that you had in mind. Decimated the entire lives of

thousands of people and in fence-line communities as well. The same thing the

PNM did with Caroni (1975) Limited.

You spoke about revitalization of the energy sector. If the People’s

Partnership Government did not give the enhancing ability for oil companies to do

some drilling, and did not give them some benefit, would you have had the Juniper

Platform and the other platform—I cannot remember the name now—that is going

to come on stream pretty shortly? Would we have the increase of gas from 3.4

billion cubic feet to nearly 4 billion cubic feet? Almost 600 million cubic feet

more, as a result of the work that we did in giving the companies some area to

advance drilling possibilities.

Madam Speaker, this Bill now has about 10 areas where we speak about the

pensions and retiring allowances, and they include the legislative services, judges

and salaries and pensions, prison service, diplomatic service, municipal areas or

municipal pension, Fire Services Act, teachers’ pension, and assisted secondary

schools. Now, what the Minister of Finance has done with his team, to give a

$3,500 from the date of retirement—now, the first thing I want to ask, would you

be able to effect that or would it be a promise that you want to give but you might

not be able to effect it because of the same exigencies that are operating now, and

whether you will be able to fulfil what you are saying in terms of giving this

$3,500? We support it. It is something to help. And I will give you a little

138

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

example. [Interruption] We say we support it.

When I was in Government and in the Ministry of Education, you would

have people calling almost on a regular basis, “How can you help me get my

pension and gratuity”? And so, I am sure the Minister is experiencing the same

thing now and most of you will experience the same calls. Now, how do we deal

with that issue? And what caused that issue? Well, you have the public service,

you have the Teaching Service Commission, you have the Statutory Authorities

Service Commission, well, we do not bother too much with the Judicial and Legal

Service Commission because that is independent.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, may I invite you to look at 55(1)(b)

please.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Member, I have allowed you to respond to some. I would

also like to remind you, really, of 48(1), okay?—48(1). So I will ask you now if

you could kind of zone in on the matters in the Bill before us.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, I thought I was doing that when speaking

on the pensions—[Laughter] I was speaking about the pensions for teachers, and I

will tell you what area I am in now. [Crosstalk] The pensions to the teachers is

clause 21, in clause 21 of the Act, the Teachers’ Pensions Act, and 22 is the

Assisted Secondary School Teachers’ Pensions Act.

Madam Speaker: But remember, Member, I drew reference to both things. I

think there have been at least five or six speakers already, and everyone I think so

far has spoken about the pensions to teachers, and the pensions provisions in

particular, so I will invite you really to speak to another provision of the Bill.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, I want to bring all these 10 areas, these 10

clauses under one umbrella so that I can make my point very pointedly on the issue

that is at hand. The issue at hand is that we as a Government now and governments

139

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

in the past, have been unable to computerize and bring IT skills to the documents

of the thousands of public servants and teachers, and therefore when these

commissions have to work and the members in the various Ministries have to work

with documents that are not up to date, they have difficulty in producing the end

result.

So, no matter whether the Minister of Public Administration asks for things

to be given within a six-month period, I wish her well. But until we are able to

computerize and document the thousands of employees’ files in computerized

version, and be able to transfer that information from point A to point B—I

understand the Minister of Finance is making some movement forward in having

the files documented and noted so that they will know where the files are.

But the time has come for us as a country to be able to bring the information

technology to the system of having all public servants, teachers, et cetera, which

might be about 40,000, so that their files and documents could be seen readily, and

you can note when they are going to retire so that you would not find yourself in

the difficulty. At the moment, if there is difficulty in determining how to give your

payments in terms of pensions and gratuities, the Ministries complete their work

generally—

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 55(1)(b) please.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: What? No, nobody mentioned that.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Everybody said that.

Madam Speaker: Yes, hon. Member for Caroni East, I am certain very early in

the day the Member for Caroni Central spoke about IHRIS. The Member for

Tabaquite spoke about the number of students that UWI was turning out with all

these computer degrees and employment in the same thing, with respect to pension

and the records. So, I would ask you to move on to your next point.

140

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I want to summarize it and say that we need to bring

information technology to the forefront.

Madam Speaker: Okay, so if you are just going to—

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I am finished, I am moving on.

Madam Speaker:—make your final statement on it—

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Yes, I am moving on.

Madam Speaker:—meaning a sentence, and move on.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Right. Sure.

Madam Speaker: Okay, thank you.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I want to come to the clause on administration of the justice

department, the deoxyribonucleic acid. Now, I do not think anybody spoke about

that.

Madam Speaker: If I am not mistaken, is it not the Attorney General—the

Attorney General made the point that this is going to be deleted in committee. I

am very certain, if we did not hear it when the Bill was moved, the Attorney

General a short while ago, said that. This is clause 5.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Well, I probably did not hear it, but here it is on the

document, Madam Speaker, so I made mention of it. If it is going to be deleted we

accept that it is going to be deleted.

Dr. Moonilal: You could change your mind.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: You could change your mind, that is why we said in the

miscellaneous provisions of this Bill, you are bringing amendments at this time,

and telling us—so, we studied it, and then you come today and you are telling us

you delate it. I mean, how unsavoury is that?

I am very happy that you were able to provide some degree of comfort to the

judges and the judges salaries because they have been crying in the wilderness for

141

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

a long time about not being able to get their pensions, and even $3,500 is still

something that they will accept. But I want to ask the Minister of Finance, if a

judge’s pension is about $7,000 or $8,000 per month, and you pay them $3,500 as

soon as they demit office, what happens to the other—

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam—

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: What? What is your point?

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: You allowing—just the sentence?

Madam Speaker: Maybe just one minute.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: I am again asking you to look at Standing Order 55(1)(b),

Ma’am.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: You come to frustrate me. You are frustrating—

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: He is still talking about the same thing.

Dr. Moonilal: She did that at the airport.

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East, I am going to give you a lil leeway

because I get the sense that you may be asking a different type of question, so I am

going to give you a lil leeway. Continue.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I am asking what will happen to the $4,500 that is going to be

owing to the person, [Desk thumping] are you going to pay them an interest on the

$4,500? You must answer that, because if you pay them $3,500 now and their real

pension is $8,000, what are you doing about the other $4,500? So you must

answer that question.

The other areas about the child rehabilitation centre, which is Chap. 13:05,

and that is clause 9, there are a number of areas within that child—the issue

relating to the children, but one of them that gives me a little difficulty is the issue

of the employment of children at age 16, because the Children Act has that

mentioned, and there is a fine for that, if a parent allows their child at age 16 to be

142

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

employed there is a penalty attached to that. So, are we going to be penalizing

children who are at 16 years of age?

Dr. Moonilal: That is a valid question.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Yes, it is a valid question.

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East, I believe you said you were speaking

with respect to clause 9, and therefore if it is clause 9 I will not permit it on the

question of relevance. You referenced clause 9. Okay? Nothing in this provision

deals with the matter that you have raised, and there is nothing in this amending

Bill that deals with that, so I will ask you to move on to your next point, please.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, the Child Rehabilitation Centre Act, Chap.

13:05 has 21 sections in it, and I am referring to one of the sections in—

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East, I recognize you pointed out from the

beginning the short time you had with this Bill. Clause 9 refers to specific

sections, and therefore I will only allow you to speak to that.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Which two? [Crosstalk] Madam Speaker, may I have an

understanding of what you are allowing me to speak about?

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: The Bill. Only the Bill.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I am on the Bill. I am speaking about clause 9 to amend the

Child Rehabilitation Centre Act, Chap. 13:05, to mandate the commissioner to

notify the resident, and there is another section here which speaks—it has 25

sections in it, another part of the Act which has 25 sections, and one of the sections

in it, dealing with the issue of the child working at age 16.

Mr. Imbert: We are not amending that.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: All right, you are not amending that.

Mr. Imbert: No.

Dr. Gopeesingh: So you want to penalize a child who is at age 16 being

143

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

employed?

Mr. Imbert: You passed that law. It is your law. [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: Members. Members, please, no crosstalk. Member for Caroni

East, please continue, but please be guided by what are the provisions of this Bill.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Sure. So I ask the question, it is for them to answer what

they are doing about it. Now, the Retiring Allowances (Diplomatic Service) Act,

Chap. 17:04, my colleague from Naparima has been asking for almost three years

now for settlement of outstanding pensions and gratuities for—

Mr. Imbert: Madam Speaker, Standing Order—point of order.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: What is your point of order? What is your point of order?

Mr. Imbert: But you “cyah” stand up. [Crosstalk] You cannot stand up!

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Well, sit down.

Mr. Imbert: Why is he standing up, Madam Speaker? You have to sit down.

[Crosstalk] These are not the rules, you have to sit down.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: No, you address the Speaker.

Mr. Imbert: Point of order, Madam Speaker. [Crosstalk]


Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Well, now I will sit because the Speaker stands.

Mr. Imbert: “Nooo.”

Madam Speaker: The way I understand it is that a Member will stand to raise a

point of order, the Member who is speaking will sit, the Member will make the

point which he raises, and then the Speaker will stand and make a ruling. So I

have not as yet heard the point of order. Member for Diego Martin North/East.

Mr. Imbert: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, 48(1). [Interruption] But

he is not entitled to stand up.

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East, I allow you to continue.

144

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I am moving on with the

various clauses, and to give my interpretation and ask my questions on the various

clauses of this Bill, which is 33 clauses.

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East your original speaking time is now

spent, you are entitled to 15 more minutes, if you wish to continue your

contribution. Please continue.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Yes, I am accepting it. If I were not interrupted so much I

would probably be at an end. Okay, so the point on the Retiring Allowances

(Diplomatic Service) Act, the Minister of Finance must be able to answer the

questions of the number of diplomats who are awaiting their pensions and

gratuities and have not been paid. That is the point I want to make.

Mr. Imbert: Madam Speaker, 48(1).

Madam Speaker: So, Member for Caroni East—

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Yes.

Madam Speaker: Please. Again, that is not a relevant issue, and please move on

to something that is relevant to what is before us. Please! Continue. Remember

you were granted 15 minutes extension.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: The Registration of Clubs Act.

Dr. Moonilal: Nobody spoke about that.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Nobody. Can the Minister of Finance—now, he is raising

interest rates from 15 to 20 per cent on the clubs that have not paid their taxes. We

do not have an idea in this country, and in Parliament for a number of years, how

many clubs are registered, whichever entity has to register the clubs, what taxes are

paid totally into the Consolidated Fund or to the State by these clubs. So when you

raise the interest rate for non-payment, tell us how much money you feel that you

might be receiving by going through this and raising it from 15 to 20 per cent?

145

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

You can say that we have—that you are raising the interest rate for clubs that have

not paid their taxes. But the country is not wiser and smarter to how many clubs

there are in Trinidad that are registered, what is the approximate amount of taxes

that you pay—that is being paid, and what is the approximate amount of taxes that

you have not collected.

7.30 p.m.

So therefore, would 15—increasing the interest rate from 15 to 20 per cent—

does it really make any big difference? What is the amount? So that is a valid

question. I would not go into the Widows’ and Pensions’ Act because that is

incorporated into the whole area of the funding that has to be—the $3,500 that will

be given every month.

My colleagues spoke about the Municipal Corporations. I would not go

there, but I want to ask some questions on the Litter Act, Chap. 30:52. The Litter

Act states about doubling the fees and penalties, but they also speak in the law:

“3. (1) A person who without reasonable excuse—

(a) deposits any litter in or on any public place other than—

(i) in a receptacle placed for the purpose of collecting it; or

(ii) in or at any approved site; and”

—and they go on to specify a number of things—

“(b) …(a) in or on any public place (whether inadvertently or

otherwise)…

3A. (1) A person who transports in or on a motor vehicle or trailer along

any motorway…

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East, on the question of relevance, you

have taken us to clause 17—


146

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Madam Speaker:—of the Bill. Could you please assist me in which clause you

are addressing, which sub-clause of clause 17?

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Clause 17.

Mr. Imbert: You are not. “Yuh doh even know wey it is.”

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I am speaking about the origin—the Act in itself. So what is

happening now—

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East, I have asked you to assist me with

respect to which sub-clause of clause 17 you are referring to. Because while clause

17 deals with the Litter Act, not in its entirety, it just deals with particular sections

and subsections of the Litter Act. So that if what you are speaking of refers to one

of these, I will allow it.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I am referring to sub-clause (3)A, (1) and (2). Sub-clause 3A

(1) and (2).

Mr. Imbert: Of what?

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Sub-clause 3A (1) of the Act says:

“A person who transports in or on a motor vehicle or trailer along…”—

[Crosstalk]

Hon. Member: 48(1).

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I have to, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: Just one minute. [Crosstalk] Just one minute. Member for

Caroni East, everybody has a right to raise a valid objection under the Standing

Orders, okay? Clause 17 deals with section 3(6), section 3A (2), section 4, section

6(4) and section 9(2). If it is that your section that you just referred to does not fall

under one of these, I would ask you to move on please.

Mr. Hinds: I beg to move.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: No.

147

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Hon. Member: With those few words.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: The issue on the Litter Act, on the Bill related to litter, you

are doubling the penalty for contravention of certain areas under the Act, but you

are not putting in place the necessary requirements for ensuring that you can

facilitate the national community in having areas and receptacles and all of that

for—

Mr. Imbert: Point of order, Madam Speaker, 48(1).

Madam Speaker: Okay, so Member for Caroni East, I have advised you on

several occasions; if you can move on to your next point, please.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: The next point is the Public Assistance Act. Now, the public

assistance, you boast that you are giving an increase from $1,800 to $2,000, for

public assistance and your Attorney General just spoke that if you are receiving

public assistance you cannot get a Disability Grant.

There are hundreds more who are unable to access the Disability Grants and

the Public Assistance Grants for no reason of their own. So when you say that you

are increasing it by $200, still thousands are disenfranchised in not being able to

access these Disability Grants and the Public Assistance Grants. For example—

[Interruption]—why you getting up again?

Mr. Imbert: Point of order 48(1). [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: Okay, so, Member for Caroni East, I will just give you a little

leeway to develop that and move on to your next point, okay. Please.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I think I just almost completed the point on that, [Laughter]

that you cannot boast as a Government that you are doing—[Crosstalk]


Mr. Imbert: Madam Speaker on her legs now.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, $15,000—

148

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: I am just giving you some protection. Because I am not

hearing you. [Laughter] Member for Caroni East.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, I am so happy that you are giving me

protection against those guys on the other side. I am so gratified. All right. No,

but the public assistance, you cannot get up and boast to the country that you are

increasing it by 200, really, when there are thousands more who are suffering. You

are really doing nothing under the social system for helping these people.

I spoke about the teachers’ pension, and we hope that there will be some

quick amelioration to these teachers who are still waiting for two years and three

years. [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: We dealt with pensions en masse. Member for Caroni East, I

know you have a certain penchant for education. Please continue to your next

point, please. [Laughter]

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Right. Madam Speaker, the other points that are worth

consideration and worth elucidation, I leave that for my colleagues with a better

understanding and who have a more in-depth knowledge—

Mr. Deyalsingh: The whole depth.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Yes. So when the Government speaks about us having to

improve the laws across on that side, and we have showed them time and time

again that we were able to help them to improving the laws and improve on the

Bills that they have brought forward, it is because of the brilliance on this side.

[Desk thumping and Laughter]

Dr. Moonilal: Well said, well said.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: So, Madam Speaker—[Crosstalk]

Hon. Member: Madam Speaker, 53 (f)

Madam Speaker: Even though sometimes I enjoy when we are in a lighter spirit

149

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

than a very adversarial one, we still have to remember the decorum that is required

here. And therefore, I caution all Members to please comply with that standard.

Member for Caroni East, I guess you are winding up?


Madam Speaker: So as you started, you shall end.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Madam Speaker, you have come straight to the issue that out

of these 31 clauses, where 10 related to pensions and so on, [Crosstalk] we want to

see that even with your $3,500 that you promised to pay—

Mr. Deyalsingh: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 55(1)(b).

Mr. Imbert: Come on, enough, enough.

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: I am winding up.

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East, unless you have another unrelated

point to make, one that you have not made before, I will therefore invite you to

come to an end to your contribution. So, do you have another point that you would

like to raise?

Dr. T. Gopeesingh: Yeah. [Laughter] I want to respond to one area where the

Attorney General spoke about the Judiciary. The issue now is that, just now the

Law Association has voted that there is no confidence—

Hon. Members: No, no, no.

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 48. [Crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: Member for Caroni East, kindly resume your seat. Next.

Member for Princes Town.

Mr. Barry Padarath (Princes Town): [Desk thumping] Thank you, Madam

Speaker, for the opportunity to make a short intervention. [Crosstalk] I know many

colleagues have raised particular issues on several of the clauses contained in the

Bill today. [Crosstalk] However, Madam Speaker, I will contain—

150

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12

Mr. Padarath (cont’d)

UNREVISED

Madam Speaker: Excuse me, Members, I will like to hear the Member for

Princes Town. I usually do not have difficulty in hearing him. [Laughter] I am

having difficulty now.

Mr. B. Padarath: Thank you, Madam. Madam, I will contain my comments on

specifically, clause 9 and clause 23, raising points that have not been raised by

other Members, but specifically geared towards specific concerns.

Madam, I know that Members opposite have indicated that clause 5 will be

removed from the Bill. However, I would like to make one point on that, Madam,

and that is, you would recall when there was another Miscellaneous Provision Bill

that came with respect to the Havana Rules and Conventions that affected this

particular clause and clause 9. I did indicate that this sort of piecemeal approach

we will encounter problems. And, Madam, so said, so done. It is almost déjà vu to

see that this particular clause is being removed because then what it means is that

the DNA provision with respect to these community residences will linger and it

will languish for months to come and the children in those residences will not have

the benefit of the protection of this particular piece of legislation. [Desk thumping]

Madam, as I said, so said, so done. The hon. Attorney General at that time

was very angry when I was raised the point of piecemeal approach and again,

today while a similar approach was adopted at the very last minute, the rug is now

being pulled out.

Madam, with respect to that particular clause, I am reminded that just—

Madam Speaker: Just a minute. Is this clause five?

Mr. B. Padarath: No, Ma’am. Sorry. I was going on to clause 9.

Madam Speaker: Clause 9, okay, thank you.

Mr. B. Padarath: Thank you, Madam. Madam, with respect to clause 9, as I was

moving on with respect to that particular clause, I just wanted to raise one

151

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

particular point with respect to clause 9, and clause 9 says:

“…seeks to amend the Child Rehabilitation Centre Act Chap. 13:05 to

mandate the Commissioner to notify the resident, the alleged perpetrator and

the person who made an allegation of findings.”

While, Madam, I think that this is “laudy” and notable—because I do see the merit

in this particular piece of legislation.—I do wish to caution at this point as well that

there is another flip side to that that has not been dealt with and I am almost certain

that we will come back in another piecemeal approach to deal with the tribunal as

with respect to the abuse of the said Commissioner contained in clause 9.

I just wanted to point out that and put that on the record. I would hope that

the hon. Attorney General at some point, I know the Minister of Finance may not

particularly address this particular concern in clause 9, but I know the Member for

San Fernando West—certainly.

Mr. Imbert: Could you just please clarify, expand on the point that you were just

making?

Mr. B. Padarath: Thank you, hon. Minister. The point I was making with

respect to clause 9 is the role and responsibility of the Commissioner in notifying

the resident, the alleged perpetrator and the person who made an allegation of

findings. What I am saying is that there is also another flip side to that that has not

been dealt with in the parent legislation, which is the tribunal or any other

mechanism that will be set up with respect to abuse or bias on the issue of the

Commissioner, in terms of abuse or bias with respect to the findings or any

investigation.

So I am saying that on one hand I do see the merit with respect to clause 9,

but—[Interruption]—sure, Attorney General, if you are willing at this point.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes, please. I thank you for giving way. Just to clarify and I

152

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

omitted to speak about it because there were so many things. So I brought this

amendment through the Minister of Finance specifically in keeping with an

undertaking I gave when we were debating the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. The

observation made was that we should at least have the right of fair hearing to

inform the resident, the alleged perpetrator and the person against whom the

allegation was made of the findings. But to address your position, specifically, we

actually have that via the Children’s Authority which is regulating for the first time

all of this and the supervision of the court.

So the Authority goes in, the probation officers, the rules and regulations

bite and what we do is we put that, the tribunal goes, authority, court and therefore

we have two routes of access to treat with that. So this was to keep a specific

undertaking that I gave in the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill and it found good

place on this point. I am not sure if I got you.

Mr. B. Padarath: Yes, thank you for the—

Madam Speaker: Procedural Motion.

PROCEDURAL MOTION


Thank you very kindly, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, in accordance with

Standing Order 15(5), I beg to move that this House do sit until the conclusion of

the matter before it.

Question put and agreed to.

FINANCE BILL, 2018

Mr. Barry Padarath (Princes Town): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam

Speaker, I thank the Attorney General for the rationale that he has provided and I

am so guided and I will take comfort in knowing that there are other areas in the

153

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

law where this particular area will be addressed. I am hoping, hon. Attorney

General, that we will not have to come back on another occasion to deal with a

specific remedy with respect to this matter that I have raised and that it is

comprehensively dealt with in those areas of the law that you have mentioned. As

I said, I am a bit uncomfortable with the way in which things have progressed and

which things have proceeded with respect to legislation affecting children which

finds its way in the Bill as identified in clause 5 and clause 9.

Madam, I wish to move on with respect to clause 23. And while there are

several areas in Chap. 46:01 with respect to children, I wish to just point out the

offences and which particular area that I have a concern with, and again for the

hon. Attorney General or any Member of Government to be able to clarify at this

point. Madam, 46:01 would deal with the prevention of cruelty to children which

will be affected by this provision in clause 23 of the Bill. It would also look at

offences in relation to begging, risk of burning firearms and ammunition. It will

also look at offence of female genital mutilation, abuse of children through

prostitution. It will also look at other sexual offences.

Madam, if we look at this particular clause with respect to section 25(1) of

Chap. 46:01, you will see it says:

“Where a person has on at least two earlier occasions, met or communicated

with a child in Trinidad and Tobago or elsewhere, by any means, including

the internet, for the purpose of sexual grooming, and he meets, attempts to

meet or travels for the purpose of meeting the child in Trinidad and Tobago

or elsewhere with the intention of doing anything to or in respect of the

child, during or after the meeting, which if done in Trinidad and Tobago

would constitute the commission of an offence under Part V and this Part,

the person commits an offence.”

154

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Then it goes on to identify, Madam, in subsection (2):

“A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of fifty thousand dollars and to

imprisonment for ten years; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of one hundred thousand

dollars and to imprisonment for twenty years.

Essentially, what the Bill will now provide for, Madam, is that in:

(a) on summary conviction to a fine, it will now be of 100,000 and to

imprisonment for 10 years.

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine of 200,000 and to imprisonment

for 20 years.

Madam, I am a bit troubled when I look at this particular piece of legislation in the

context of this clause, not to say that we do not support the increase in the fine.

But, Madam, for me, I have sat on Joint Select Committees that deal children rights

as raised by the Member for Tabaquite and several other Members who have

spoken about legislation that have passed through this Parliament affecting the

rights and privileges of children.

Madam, when I look at this particular clause and this particular section it

reminds me of when you go to the hospital, when you get a wound, and they dress

it and it starts back bleeding and you have to go back for them to dress again. You

keep dressing the wound but the wound never gets better, it gets worse, it becomes

infected. Madam, when I look at this particular provision in 25(1) it speaks about

repeat offenders. In principle, what we are being asked to do today, Madam, is to

pass this piece of legislation without putting any other areas with our ambits within

the law, any other avenues available to deal with matters of prevention as opposed

to a reactionary clause in this particular Bill.

155

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Madam, that is something that I have advocated for and I will raise—

Mr. Deyalsingh: Member, just for clarity, please, what clause are you referring to

you, because 25 deals with the Conservation of Wildlife Act, which, which, no,

seriously.

Mr. B. Padarath: Clearly, Member for St. Joseph you are very lost because I am

dealing with clause 23, but I am looking at Chap. 46:01 and what it contained here.

And if you look at clause 23 it will give you a breakdown of all the areas in 46:01

that will be so affected. So I respectfully advise that you read your Bill so that you

know exactly what is before the Parliament at this point.

Hon. Member: What!

Mr. B. Padarath: Madam Speaker, I would like to go back, to again, the point I

raised with respect to clause 23, section 25 in 46:01, with respect to the area of

looking at alternative prevention as opposed to just this particular issue that is

contained in section 25. And I was going down a particular road, Madam, because

I have been trying to utilize several medium, some you may be familiar with, some

you may not, but I felt a bit of despair, as a young Parliamentarian, despair but not

unhopeful. But when I saw this Bill coming before Parliament today, it brought

me back a sense of hope, because within this particular context I am able to raise

an issue purely relevant to clause 23, section 25 with the issue of the Sex Offenders

Registry for children.

Madam Speaker, the Member for Tobago East confirmed in this very

Parliament on March 23, 2018 that the Sex Offenders Registry had been

completed. [Crosstalk] Since then the hon. Attorney General has made several

pronouncement—

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 48(1)

Mr. Deyalsingh: It is not part of this.

156

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: This is not part of what we are dealing with.

Dr. Moonilal: That is the problem we are raising.

Madam Speaker: Member for Princes Town, I think what I understood you to

say is you would be just dealing with certain sorts of deterrents. I am not going to

let you develop the Sex Offenders Registry in the way that you wish. You

mentioned it, and I ask you to move on please.

Mr. B. Padarath: Thank you, Madam, and I just mentioned it in passing—

Mr. Deyalsingh: No, no, no.

Madam Speaker: And move on.

Mr. B. Padarath: And I do intend to move on. The hon. Attorney General said

that the Opposition had all the ideas with respect to diversification and the

diversification thrust when we are in Opposition. And I take serious umbrage with

that particular statement, Madam Speaker, because the Member for San Fernando

West knows that is totally untrue. You see, I also heard the Member Port of Spain

South describe the Member for Caroni Central’s behaviour as one of behaving as

though he is a paragon of virtue. And, Madam Speaker, I recall that the Member

Port of Spain South sat in a previous administration, between 2007 and 2010, when

Madam, we had a situation of the People’s Partnership Government inheriting

from that legacy $20 billion in Clico.

You had, Madam Speaker, Government—

Mr. Deyalsingh: Madam Speaker, 46(1).

Mr. B. Padarath: I am responding to the Member for Port of Spain South and the

Member for San Fernando West.

Mr. Deyalsingh: Okay, you want to talk about Clico?

Mr. B. Padarath: I recall, Madam Speaker, when the Member for Port of Spain

South and the Member for San Fernando West tells us that the Opposition has all

157

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

the ideas when we are in Opposition for diversification, they would not be honest,

Madam Speaker, and tell the country that when the Partnership Government took

over that administration, where the Member for Port of Spain South sat very

quietly at that time, $7 billion had to be paid in outstanding contracts to the

construction industry. [Desk thumping] That you would not hear of. [Crosstalk]


Ms. Mc Donald: Listen, you just shut up! [Laughter and crosstalk]

Madam Speaker: Member for Port of Spain South, I will just ask you to

withdraw that outburst, please.

Ms. Mc Donald: Madam, I withdraw.

Madam Speaker: Thank you very much. Member for Princes Town, a lot has

already passed on both sides with respect to the underlying issue about

diversification, et cetera, and therefore I am now at the stage of saying that that is

tedious repetition.

Ms. Mc Donald: Yes.

Madam Speaker: Next point.

Mr. B. Padarath: Certainly, Madam. Madam, I will move on. As I said, I would

have confined my contribution to the specific issues that were contained in 5, 9 and

23. I think I have dealt with that. I have heard some explanations provided by the

Member for San Fernando West. As I said, I am not totally comforted by it, hon.

Attorney General, but at this occasion I know we will have another opportunity to

measure you and take you at your word, but I would hope that these are some of

the critical areas. Because the one of the comments made by the Minister of

Finance was that this particular piece of legislation was a direct response to

statistics provided by the Children’s Authority.

Madam Speaker, we were also told about the importance of these pieces of

158

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

legislation. I remember the Member for San Fernando West boasted about the

work of the Member for Tobago East and while I know some work has been

ongoing, I look forward that much more needs to be done. Madam, in that context

I wish to really lend my support with respect to some of these provisions; however,

I do not have 100 per cent faith and confidence as I know, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker, one thing is said on this side of the House, another is said on that

side of the House, but we can always be taken for our word [Laughter] because we

follow up, we have a history—

Madam Speaker: I think you are bordering on imputing improper motives.

Mr. B. Padarath: It was not my intention, Madam.

Madam Speaker: Even not, okay. Your intentions might be a bit skewed, right?

So I am not going to allow you to go down that road, please.

Mr. B. Padarath: Thank you, Madam. As I said, my contribution would have

been contained within 5, 9 and 23, because I have indicated already to the hon.

Attorney General what my concerns are and I hope that we will not continue to see

a similar pattern with piecemeal, piecemeal, piecemeal, piecemeal legislation and

that some of these areas will be addressed comprehensively within the parent law

so that they will not have to continuously bring legislation to the Parliament and

then at the very last minute pull the clauses.

Mr. Deyalsingh: Madam Speaker, Standing Order 55(1). [Crosstalk] This is the

third time he is saying this.

Mr. B. Padarath: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to be able to

make a short contribution.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Colm Imbert): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Crosstalk] Madam Speaker, I have tried with great difficulty to discern a relevant

point made by hon. Members opposite. I have struggled with that assignment,

159

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

[Crosstalk] I have agonized over it, Madam Speaker, and no matter how hard I

tried over the last several hours to determine whether there was any relevant point

made by hon. Members opposite, it was hard, it was really hard. I would say that

the closest that a Member came to making a relevant point was when the Member

for Tabaquite queried something that is already in the law, but he was of the view,

Madam Speaker, that it required clarification.

For the avoidance of doubt, the present law with respect to stamp duty, for

residential property for first-time homeowners has a sliding scale of stamp duty in

which or by which the first $850,000 in value of a property, dwelling house, land

and building—for a first-time homeowner—is exempt from stamp duty. The next

$400,000 attracts stamp duty at a rate of 3 per cent. So what this means is that

stamp duty for a property value at $1.25 million would be 3 per cent of $400,000

being the excess over the threshold where there is no stamp duty.

Thereafter, for the next $500,000, after the $400,000, stamp duty is applied

at a rate of 5 per cent and after that—which takes it up to $1.75 million—and after

that, stamp duty is applied at a rate of 7.5 per cent. Since we are increasing the

threshold for complete exemption from stamp duty for land and building,

residential dwelling house for a first-time homeowner to 1.5 million it falls

between the 5 per cent band and the 71/2 per cent band. The 5 per cent band

would begin at 1.25 million and would end at 1.75 million. So the 1.5 million

threshold falls in the middle.

8.00 p.m.

So for the avoidance of doubt, to assist the persons who called the

Member for Tabaquite, or messaged him, and for the general public and for hon.

Members opposite, the stamp duty on the first $250,000 after the $1.5 million

160

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

exemption has been applied, would attract stamp duty at the rate of 5 per cent,

being in the middle of two bands, and thereafter when it hits $1.75 million it

will attract stamp duty at 7½ per cent. And we are going to circulate an

amendment to this Bill that makes that crystal clear. There is absolutely no

room for interpretation or misinterpretation.

With respect to statements made repetitively by the Member for Caroni

Central who went on, and on, and on, about the concept in his wild speculation

that for the Sandals Hotel we might somehow utilize a particular provision in

this Bill which now amends the Financial Institutions Act and the Insurance

Act, to deal with the whole issue of a connected party, and the amount that any

financial institution can invest in a bond as a percentage of its paid-up capital.

What the Member for Caroni Central missed is very unfortunate—because it is

written in plain and simple English—is the fact that the adjustments to the

Financial Institutions Act and the Insurance Act apply only to a wholly-owned

state enterprise, and therefore it is impossible for the Government to invite

investment in a company to do the Sandals Hotel, or anything else, and then

apply this amendment to that entity. Because if the private sector were to invest

in a special purpose company or a state enterprise that is set up to raise funds for

the Sandals Hotel, or any other similar venture, then that company would no

longer be a wholly-owned state enterprise. So it is simply impossible to connect

the dots in the way the hon. Member for Caroni Central connected the dots. It is

just impossible.

This provision applies solely and only to wholly-owned state enterprises,

161

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

such as the National Investment Fund Holding Company. And it is designed to

correct a lacuna in the law where one law provides complete exemption for

government or state enterprise debt in terms of bond issues. One law does and

another law does not, and it is clear that over the years—in fact, it is different

sections of laws. Over the years the drafters simply missed that point. So what

we are doing is simply correcting an anomaly. In many other countries—

Barbados is one, for example—government debt does not attract any of the

limitations of investments by banks in terms of bond issues. It is exempt. So

we are simply doing a similar thing. So that deals with that.

So let me reiterate. It is impossible for the Government to invite

investment in a company that is financing the Sandals Hotel, or any other

similar project of the Government, and then use this clause to allow financial

institutions to avoid limitations in terms of their paid-up capital, and so on. This

applies only to a wholly-owned and controlled—it does not just say, owned; it

says owned and controlled wholly by the State.

With respect to some of the other points raised, the Member for Caroni

East, who has left, made very curious observations about the minimum pension.

What we are doing is recognizing that because of the limitations of the pensions

division which leads to delays—and this is not something that happened today;

it is something that happened years and years and years and it was exacerbated

when the treasury department, the pensions department, the buildings in which

they were in, were being closed down as a result of OSH complaints by the

Public Service Association under the tenure of the former administration and

162

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

flowing into the tenure of this administration.

For those of us who are aware of reality, you will recall that in 2015 and

going into 2016, and so on, the PSA was being quite aggressive in terms of

citing complaints of unsafe working conditions in various government

buildings, including the pensions department. And for more than six months

under the former Government, they shut down, literally, the operations of the

pensions department, creating a huge backlog which we, in this Government,

had to deal with as we came in. That backlog is being cleared off now, from

what the Treasury tells me. They have the waiting time down to about six

months to seven months. We would like to get it down to much lower than that

for a person who retires, as to when they would get their government pension.

So in the interim, as we move and continue to modernize and improve the

efficiency of the pensions division of the Ministry of Finance and improve the

speed at which public servants get their pensions, for which they have put in

long years of service, we have decided, in order to mitigate the distress that

public servants experience when, having worked for many years in the public

service, earning an income every month, they then find themselves reaching

retirement, retiring on a compulsory basis, and they have no income for six

months, nine months, sometimes a year, and that is not a nice situation—

Hon. Member: Correct.

Hon. C. Imbert: So what this seeks to do is to pay them their minimum

pension immediately. And I am also saying this to correct a fallacy uttered by

one of the hon. Members opposite. I suspect it was the Member for Caroni East.

163

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

In fact, it was where he said: “How long would it take for them to get this?”

But the whole point about this is that the law will now require, just like salary

where salary is due at the end of the month, this will now require that as soon as

the public servant retires, immediately they will receive a pension of $3,500,

minimum, at the end of the month—the first month after they retire. So there is

no question of when will this be available to public servants. It will occur with

payroll and the payment of salaries. And this is something the public servants

had clamoured for, for many, many years, and I am happy to be in the Ministry

of Finance when we could actually do this. [Desk thumping]

So that the public servant who retires would be able to get their NIS

pension within a month or two, and then immediately get their public service

pension so that, within a month or two, public servants who have worked long

years will be able to get at least $6,500 a month. [Desk thumping] It will go a

long way to ameliorating the difficulties that they face, moving into a new phase

of life where their income is substantially reduced.

So this is a very innovative move on the part of this Government. I am

happy to be in Finance at the time this was done, and we have received very,

very positive feedback from public servants. Many received many letters. The

Attorney General has told he has received letters; my other colleagues, like the

Minister of Planning and Development, has told me. I, myself, have received

many letters of commendation thanking the Government for doing this.

In respect of other comments made, Madam Speaker, I was confused. I

really struggled throughout the entire contribution of the Member for Caroni

164

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

East. I struggled.

Hon. Member: He did too.

Hon. C. Imbert: I heard the hon. Member for Caroni East ask whether we

would pay interest if a Judge is entitled to $7,000 and we are only giving $3,500

immediately, when he gets the next four, would we pay interest. I have never

heard of that before.

Mr. Hinds: Never.

Hon. C. Imbert: This has to be new law, Madam Speaker. And it is precisely

because interest is not due on these pension payments. That might be a defect in

the law, but it is the law. Interest is not due on pension payments. Why we are

doing this? To make sure they get something as soon as possible. [Desk

thumping]

Mr. Al-Rawi: And that has been the case for—

Hon. C. Imbert: And, I mean, that has been the situation in Trinidad since

independence. I think we are more than 50 years now. So it is just astonishing

that the hon. Member for Caroni East would ask such a question. I am just

flabbergasted. I am blown away by some of the commentary coming from the

other side.

In terms of the other matters, hon. Members opposite tried their best to go

outside the ambit of this Bill and talk about the parent Act in each case.

Fortunately, they were not able to do so for very long. But in terms of what we

have come here to look at, I want to compliment the Parliament once again for

yet another time. The Parliament produced Bill Essentials. The Bill Essentials

165

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

was published yesterday, 11th of December, 2018. It gave the key features of

the Bill. It went through every single clause. It explained the purport, the

intent, the effect of every single clause, and it gives a very simply rationale for

everything we are about today. [Desk thumping] And, therefore, I was

astonished—astonished—knowing that every single Member of this House

received this document from the Parliament yesterday for this complaint to be

made that they did not have enough time.

Madam Speaker, I have been in this Parliament now for 27 years, and on

multiple occasions, while I was in Opposition, the Members opposite who were

in Government produced legislation and asked us to debate it on the same day.

Mr. Al-Rawi: That is right.

Hon. C. Imbert: Sometimes legislation with 100 clauses, they would just

come, wave the Standing Orders and tell us, debate that today.

Mr. Al-Rawi: And not an amendment come with it—

Hon. C. Imbert: Yes. And they would not listen to Opposition’s proposals in

terms of amendments, especially when we put them in writing; especially when

we did what I have never seen hon. Members do in this session of Parliament,

we produced written amendments. They would toss them away. And we would

do those written amendments on the floor in a couple hours and they would not

even let us speak on the amendments until they were in writing. But, no, we

have a different kind of Opposition now.

This Bill was laid in Parliament on Friday. You had Friday, Saturday,

Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and this morning to read this Bill. It is, in my

166

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

view—respectful view—Madam Speaker, it is sheer political laziness on the

part of hon. Members [Desk thumping] to come and complain that they only had

a couple days to read this legislation. This legislation flows from the budget.

The ones that did not—and that is the other point that I was astonished at when

the Member for Caroni East said this has things in it that were not in the budget.

And that was a complaint.

I made the point in my introduction—I made the distinct point—that there

are issues, matters referred to in this Bill that are in addition to the things that

we dealt with in the budget. And particularly in the ones that I thought were

necessary were the amendments to the Municipal Corporations Act. I notice

not a single one of them spoke about it, not one. And you know why, Madam

Speaker? Because those amendments to the Municipal Corporations Act are

very progressive—

Mr. Al-Rawi: That is right.

Hon. C. Imbert: —very progressive, [Desk thumping] and are going to clear

up years and years—the Municipal Corporations Act was enacted in the year

1990. What year is this, Madam Speaker?—2018—28 years of confusion and

mischief and deliberate misinterpretation. And this does not affect only PNM-

run corporations. It affects UNC and PNM. And while I was saying that, I saw

those Members across the floor opposite us who are a little—they make little

concessions every now and then. When I said this affects both UNC and PNM,

they said, “Yes, it is true. And it is true. Both UNC and PNM corporations

have been harassed and interfered with by misinterpretations of the Municipal

167

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Corporations Act.

So this is why, in particular—I want to pay particular attention to the

amendment that deals with the use of unspent balances. I want hon. Members to

pay particular attention to that because that one, that particular clause in the

current law in the Municipal Corporations law, that one has extremely

convoluted language that gives the impression that you can only use unspent

balances for the acquisition of land or buildings. And then it has a very

confusing sub-clause that speaks about for the benefit of the residents and

inhabitants of the municipality. And it has been interpreted in many different

ways over the years. Some administrations, some public servants interpret it to

mean you can spend it for the benefit of the inhabitants. Others say, no. You

could only use it to buy a building or to acquire land. So we have taken out all

of that language about the acquisition of land and building. It gone!

Hon. Member: Well done. Well done. [Desk thumping]

Hon. C. Imbert: And if you go to the actual amendment itself, it deletes all of

the words—let me see if I can find it; the particular clause, clause 15; that

particular clause in 15(b), in section 112(2) of the Municipal Corporations Act,

by deleting all the words after the word “Council”. That is all the convoluted

language about buildings and land, and substituting the words:

for the improvement of the municipality and for the service and benefit of

the inhabitants thereto.

This means that henceforth, once this Bill is passed, any council, any regional

corporation, any UNC and PNM, can use their unspent balances for the benefit

168

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

and service of the inhabitants thereto. Plain and simple English. [Desk

thumping] I want to see somebody misinterpret that.

And then there is the issue—the other amendment to the Municipal

Corporations Act came with the collection of fees. Corporations collect fees.

Like Port of Spain, for example, collects fees for wrecking services which they

had deposited into the Mayor’s fund, and then they were told by public servants

they could not withdraw it. They were told that these fees cannot be used by the

council for the purposes of the Mayor’s fund. This also happened in Point

Fortin. This also happened in other regional corporations, UNC and PNM.

So we have removed that ambiguity by saying that the corporation will be

authorized by the Minister of Finance to deposit into the Mayor’s fund such fees

and charges that they collect, and they will be authorized by the Minister of

Finance to also withdraw such fees and charges that they collect. And that is all

part of giving local government more cash flow, more autonomy and more

control over their own affairs. [Desk thumping] And I heard quite a specious

argument coming from—I think it was the hon. Member for Tabaquite—saying

we do not give the corporations releases, and the Member for Couva North

chimed in, in the back, like a political echo—

Ms. Ramdial: Timely releases.

Hon. C. Imbert: Yes, political echo.

Ms. Ramdial: Whatever.

Hon. C. Imbert: The Member for Tabaquite said: “They doh have any unspent

balances, so there is nothing to give. So even if you make this amendment, it

169

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

does not matter, because there will be no balance to spend.” I checked with the

hon. Minister of Local Government during this sitting of Parliament, Madam

Speaker. I asked for an update on the quantum of unspent balances residing in

municipal corporations in Trinidad and Tobago. It is $100 million.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Wow. Wow.

Hon. C. Imbert: And if $100 million in unspent balances is nothing, well, I am

sorry for them. I am sure that when the UNC corporations and the PNM

corporations access that aggregate of $100 million, that the residents of their

municipalities will be very happy and will be very appreciative of what this

PNM administration has done [Desk thumping] to make local government more

effective and more efficient.

Ms. Ramdial: Yes, yes. Let us see that.

Hon. C. Imbert: I do not think there is anything much more to say, because the

hon. Members opposite really did not deal with the clauses in the Bill. They

were all over the place, hither and thither—

Mrs. Robinson-Regis: “Doh” forget the “yon”.

Hon. C. Imbert:—and yon. Everywhere: up, down, left, right, upside down,

inside out, but they did not deal with clauses in the Bill.

So, Madam Speaker, let me just complete my presentation by reiterating

what this PNM is doing with this Finance Bill. We are introducing, for the first

time, a minimum pension for some 50,000 public servants; [Desk thumping]

Mr. Al-Rawi: Well done! Well done!

Hon. C. Imbert:—immediate minimum pension on retirement. No longer

170

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

would public servants have to wait months and, maybe a year, to get their

pension—immediate relief for public servants. We are increasing the grant for

disability. We are increasing the public assistance grant. We are increasing the

conditional cash transfer grant. We are increasing the penalties for infractions

involving littering, bush fires, danger to wildlife, and so on. We are making

homeownership easier for first-time homeowners [Desk thumping] by increasing

the exemption on stamp duty to $1.5 million.

We are clearing up a lacuna in the Financial Institutions Act and

Insurance Act, and we are also allowing electronic payments—very important.

I must say, I must give all credit to the Member for San Fernando West for this.

Hon. Member: Yeah. [Desk thumping]

Hon. C. Imbert: He has been a champion of electronic payments, a bit of a

terror, I will have to say, but all for the common good. The Attorney General

has been pushing and pushing and pushing to allow the court system and

payments into court to be modernized and brought into the electronic age and

into the modern era. So I will say all thanks to the Attorney General for

modernizing the law and introducing electronic payments into and out of court

and in many other areas of Government. And as we move along, we hope—not

hope—we will ensure that electronic payments become the norm rather than the

exception for all types of government activities in Trinidad and Tobago.

And, therefore, Madam Speaker, with pleasure, I beg to move. [Desk thumping]

Mr. Al-Rawi: Well done, Colm.


171

Finance Bill, 2018 2018.12.12


UNREVISED

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Bill committed to a committee of the whole House.

House in committee.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.

Question proposed: That clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

In proposed section 6A-

(a) in subsection (1), insert after the words “a person”, the words “who

compulsorily retires”;

(b) insert after subsection (3), the following new subsection:

“(4) Where prior to January 1st, 2019, a person retired under this Act but

is not in receipt of a pension under this Act, this section shall apply to

him.”.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, I propose to assist; much obliged. Clause 2—and

I will put this reasoning carefully because it applies to several other clauses later

on. The Government proposes that just after the word “person” in the clause,

we add the words “who compulsorily retires”, and that is where “person”

appears for the first time. And the rationale for that is specifically because this

Bill is intended to treat with compulsory retirement which is predictable.

Voluntary retirement is not predictable and therefore we wish to be acting with

certainty in making sure that public servants, as they approach their position, are

well looked after as of the immediate day one when they come out whilst their

pensions are being processed.

172

House in Committee 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

In the proposed amendment to subsection (3), we propose an addition of a

sub-clause (4) to say, where, prior to January 1st, 2019, a person retired under

this Act but is not in receipt of a pension under this Act, this section shall apply

to him. This is to take care of the people are in that need of clean up, i.e. people

who would be out in the cold if we went prospectively as opposed to

retrospectively. So this rationale, in fact, applies to several other sections which

we would come to, and for the record they would be taken with the same

rationale. That would be clauses 8, 10, et cetera, as we come along. So those

are the reasons and rationale for the amendments, and I think that that should be

fairly clear.

Madam Chairman: Just for clarification, Attorney General, it means that

subsection (4) is now being inserted after subsection (3)?

Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes, Madam Chairman. So as circulated, it should be—

Mr. Imbert: The word “insert” is missing.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes, the word “insert” should be there.

Mr. Imbert: Madam Chairman, I just want to correct. It should be:

“After subsection (3), insert the following new subsection.”

Mr. Al-Rawi: Yes. Apologies, Madam Chairman.

Dr. Tewarie: Madam Chair—

Madam Chairman: Yes, Member for Caroni Central?

Dr. Tewarie: I want to ask a question for clarification. On the (3) that you

have here, there is no change. I just want to ask a question:

“Any amount paid pursuant to the subsection (1) to a person who is not

eligible for a pension under this Act, may be recovered as a civil debt.”

173


UNREVISED

But how would that occur? You mean if there is a mistake? Is that—

Mr. Imbert: No, you could have somebody who may have—a garnishee, or

some sort of charge, or surcharge of some kind that is in process. This is an

automatic thing. Soon as the person retires, they get the $3,500, but they may

not be eligible. They may owe money. They may have received accountable

advances to travel and have not repaid. So it means that if you give them

money that they should not really get, you can get it back from them.

Dr. Tewarie: All right. I appreciate it.

Mr. Imbert: But that will be small numbers of people.


Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.


“Delete clause 5.”

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, we propose that clause 5 be deleted. We do this

specifically because on a deep reflection of the standards that apply for DNA

testing as they are separately done between children’s homes and children’s

community residences, we have regulations currently in effect with respect to

the child rehabilitation centres, but we do not have them with respect to homes.

In that regard, we propose to first bring in the regulations to match those which

we have done to the CRCs, for homes, and then to cause the amendment later.

So, regrettably, we were a bit premature in coming to this conclusion, but as a

result of the need to be careful and to safeguard the rights of the child we

174


UNREVISED

propose that we defer this by deleting this clause.


Clause 5 deleted.

8.30 p.m.

Clause 6.


In proposed section 13A—

(a) in subsection (1), insert after the words “a person”, the

words “who compulsorily retires”;

(b) insert after subsection (3) the following new subsection:

“(4) Where prior to January 1st, 2019, a person retired

under this Act but is not in receipt of a pension under this

Act, this section shall apply to him.”

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, it is the same rationale for clause 2 as it relates to

clause 6.



Clause 7.


175


UNREVISED

Delete all the words after the words “section 27” and replace with

the following:

“—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) by deleting the words “twenty-one days” and

substituting the words “one hundred and twenty

days”;

(ii) by deleting the words, “at any time after the costs

have been taxed, whichever is the later” and

substituting the words “one hundred and twenty days

from the date the costs have been taxed”; and

(iii) by inserting after the words “person a certificate” the

words “addressed to the Comptroller of Accounts

and the Solicitor General”; and

(b) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

“ A copy of any certificate issued under this section shall

be served by the person in whose favour the order is made

upon the Attorney General in accordance with section 20.”;

(c) in subsection (3) by inserting after the words “Accounts

shall” the words “as soon as reasonably practicable”.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, we propose that clause 7 be amended, as circulated,

specifically to make an improvement to the manner in which the State is obliged to

pay certified damages or costs as a result of the Registrar’s certification. In my

176


UNREVISED

debate, I think I may have said Comptroller of Accounts. The Comptroller of

Accounts does the approval, but it is the Registrar that does the certification and I

apologize for that. So in section 27, we are proposing, firstly, that we remove the

21-day period; we put in fact, the 120-day period that would allow us the time for

the working of appeals which are 42 days for substantive appeals to go to work, the

opportunity to request a stay of execution at the Chamber Court of the Court of

Appeal and if necessary, at the full court.

And then secondly, we ask that we look for service upon the Solicitor

General and the Attorney General in the manner circulated. This is to make sure

that not only the Comptroller of Accounts has an input into this—because often the

Comptroller of Accounts has no clue about the litigation itself—but that the

litigation is definitely in the hands of the Chief State Solicitor, Solicitor General

and Attorney General’s attention so that there can be no mistake made. It would

also allow the attorneys to take care of errors under the slip rule positions in the

Civil Proceedings Rules. And lastly, so that we could also have a further

amendment by allowing—instead of an immediate payment for which there can be

a mandatory provision by the court, we allow for payment to be done as soon as is

reasonably practicable so that we do not expose the Comptroller of Accounts and

the State to the liability of having an immediate payment. Those are the reasons

for the proposed amendment to clause 7.



Clause 8.


In proposed rule 6A(1)—


177


UNREVISED






Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, the rationale for the amendment to clause 8, as

circulated—and, Madam Chair, I wish to say this in respect of all of these positions

and I think I did not say it in respect of clause 6, it is the same formula that “insert

after subsection (3), the following new subsection”. So just to make sure in case

the circulated version does not have the insertion of a subsection (4) after

subsection (3), please do harmonize for the record all of those positions, but the

rationale stated quite simply for this is as mentioned for clause 2.




Clause 10.









178


UNREVISED

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, I wish to repeat the rationale for clause 2 as the

rationale for this proposed amendment as circulated.




Clause 13.









Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, I wish to repeat the rationale for clause 2 as the

reason for this proposed circulated amendment.




Clause 16.





179


UNREVISED





Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, I repeat the rationale for clause 2 as the reason for

this circulated amendment.



Clause 17.


A. Insert after paragraph (b), the following new paragraph:

“(ba) in section 3B(2), by deleting the words “five hundred

dollars” and substituting the words “one thousand

dollars”.

B. Insert after paragraph (d), the following new paragraph:

“(da) in section 5, by deleting the words “five hundred


dollars”;”

C. Delete the word “and’ at the end of paragraph (d).

D. In paragraph (e), delete the word “.” and substitute the word “;”

E. Insert after paragraph (e), the following new paragraphs:

“(f) in section 13A(3), by deleting the words “one thousand

180


UNREVISED

dollars” and substituting the words “two thousand

dollars”;

(g) in section 16C(5), by deleting the words “one thousand


dollars”;

(h) in section 16D(e), by deleting the words “one thousand


dollars”;

(i) in section 17, by deleting the words “five hundred


dollars”;

(j) in section 21, by deleting the words “five hundred


dollars”; and

(k) in section 24(9), by deleting the words “five hundred


dollars”;”

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, the circulated amendments are really to take care of

omissions on a second read of the Litter Act. Specifically, we had omitted to catch

some of the improvements to offence prescriptions, meaning the fines, and they are

as set out in the circulated versions. It really is in keeping with the single

philosophy and just catching all of the fines that needed to move upward.



181


UNREVISED

Clause 18.


Delete all words after the word “amended” and substituting the

words:

“in section 11A –

(a) in subsection (1) by deleting paragraph (c);

(b) in subsection (3) by deleting all the words after the word

“shall” and substituting the words-

“in relation to a person who is-

(a) eighteen years old and over, be two thousand

dollars; and

(b) under the age of eighteen years, be one

thousand and five hundred dollars.”; and

(c) by inserting after subsection (3) the following new

subsections:

“(3A) A person who is under the age of eighteen

years who is in receipt of disability assistance under

this section shall not be in receipt of public assistance

under this Act.

(3B) The Minister may make guidelines for the

administration of disability assistance for persons

under the age of eighteen years.”

182


UNREVISED

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, the rationale for the circulated version is the need to

disaggregate the treatment between persons who are 18 years and over and those

who are under 18 years. We thought that it was better to express it in a clearer

version as we have done here. Secondly, we wanted to make sure that persons who

receive the disability assistance versus public assistance, that they could not

receive both because it would be a double-dipping concept and there would already

have been support provided by the State. Lastly and very importantly, we propose

that the Minister have the capacity to make guidelines for the administration of the

disability assistance. This would allow for regulations and other positions to be

easily put into effect to make sure that there is not any loss of taxpaying money

and that there is certainty in the roll-out of the assistance by the State. Those are

the reasons for these proposed amendments.




Mr. Imbert: Madam Chairman, may I recommend that we take 20, 21, and 22 in

sequence because they are all the same.

Madam Chairman: Yes. Thank you very much. We shall.

Clauses 20, 21 and 22.

Question proposed: That clauses 20, 21 and 22 stand part of the Bill.

20 In the First Schedule, in proposed paragraph 3A

(a) in paragraph (1), in the chapeau insert after the

words “a person”, the words “who

compulsorily retires”.

(b) insert after paragraph (3) the following new

183


UNREVISED

subsection:

“(4) Where prior to January 1st, 2019, a person

retired under this Act but is not in receipt of a

pension under this Act, this section shall apply

to him.”

21 In proposed section 12C-

(a) in subsection (1), insert after the words “a

person”, the words “who compulsorily

retires”;

(b) insert after subsection (3) the following new

subsection:

“(4) Where prior to January 1st, 2019, a

person retired under this Act but is not in

receipt of a pension under this Act, this

section shall apply to him.”

22 In proposed section 11-

(a) in subsection (1), insert after the words “a

person”, the words “who compulsorily retires”;

(b) insert after subsection (3) the following new

subsection:

“(4) Where prior to January 1st, 2019, a

person retired under this Act but is not in

receipt of a pension under this Act, this

184


UNREVISED

section shall apply to him.”

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, the Government proposes the amendments, as

circulated, for clauses 20, 21 and 22, all in exact terms for the very reasons offered

with respect to clause 2.


Clauses 20, 21, 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23.

Question proposed: That clause 23 stand part of the Bill

Insert after paragraph (x), the following new paragraph:

“(xa) in section 86, by deleting the words “five thousand dollars”

and substituting the words “ten thousand dollars;”

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, there was an omission to catch the improvements to

section 86 of this particular Children Act and, therefore, we have proposed the

insertion of a new paragraph (xa) as circulated.



Clauses 24 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27.

Question proposed: That clause 27 stand part of the Bill

Delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and replace with the following new

paragraphs:

“(a) under the Exemption heading “Conveyance or transfer on

sale of any property:”, insert after item “(1)” the following

new item:

185


UNREVISED

“(1A) Where the owner of the property is a first-time

homeowner and the property is, or includes, a

dwellinghouse and the property is for use wholly or

mainly for residential purposes, if an application has

been made to the Board in the form approved by the

Board and evidence has been provided to the Board

sufficient to satisfy it as to those matters, instead of

the rates of duty provided for in paragraph (1), the

duty is as follows:

The following rates shall apply to the amount or

value of the consideration for the sale:

for every dollar of the first two

hundred and fifty thousand

dollars in excess of one

million

five hundred thousand

dollars…

for every dollar thereafter…

5%

7 ½ %”

(b) after the Exemption commencing with the words “Mortgage

deeds” insert after the words “(b).” the following new

Exemption:

“Mortgage Deeds for first-time homeowners in respect of

Property that–

186


UNREVISED

(a) is, or includes, a dwelling house; and

(b) is for use wholly or mainly for residential purposes, where

the sum secured by the mortgage does not exceed one

million, five hundred thousand dollars, but this exemption

only applies if an application for it has been made to the

Board in a form approved by the Board and evidence is

provided to the Board sufficient to satisfy it that the sum

secured was required for the purchase of property satisfying

the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b).”

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, we propose that taking into account the observations

by Tabaquite, as shared by the Minister of Finance, specifically raised by him as

well, that we improve the clarification as to the application of the stamp duty

exemption scale. Specifically, we are confirming here in these circulated

amendments, firstly, that the figure of $1.5 million is duty-free, that there is no

figure, and then for the figures above that, for every dollar of the first $200,000 in

excess of the $1.5 million—sorry, $250,000, in which case we would just need

to—

Mr. Imbert: No, it is correct. It says—

Mr. Al-Rawi: For every dollar of the first $200—sorry, my own says 200.

Mr. Imbert: Mine says 250.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Two-fifty, okay, good. Thank you, Madam Chair. We just had a

slight dip. Maybe my version of paper is slightly older. So, for the first $250,000,

that it shall be at 5 per cent, and for every dollar thereafter, at 7 1/2 per cent. We

also propose that the exemption commencing for mortgage deeds, that we

harmonize that and that we treat with dwelling houses, et cetera. So the rationale is

just simply to clarify the observations in the debate, make sure that the Schedule is

187


UNREVISED

working properly in the version circulated.

Mr. Lee: Madam Chair, just to the Minister of Finance, just a clarity. The

Member for Siparia—in your opening debate—had mentioned if some

consideration would be given to first-time owners with respect to land alone as

opposed to dwelling homes.

Mr. Imbert: Not in this clause in this Bill. In due course. We are going to

review that regime.



Clause 28.


A. Insert the word “.” at the end of end of paragraph (h).

B. Delete paragraphs (i) to (y).

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, believe it or not, the amendment to clause 28 is

really quite simple. In the printing-off of this Bill, there was an inadvertent

inclusion in the typesetting of clauses that should not have been referred to in the

Bill at all. So this was one of those very rare occasions of Murphy going to work,

in the context of Murphy’s Law. So I apologize that this actually happened. It was

an administrative difficulty and the CPC’s Department certainly did not intend for

this to feature into the Bill, and it really is just a simple deletion.




Clause 31.


188


UNREVISED

Delete paragraph (a) and the word “(b)”.

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, we did not actually need the first part of clause 30,

which is (a), which is an amendment to the Marginal Note and, therefore, what we

have proposed is just the deletion of that reference to Marginal Note and then to

bring up what is sub-clause (b) into the operative aspect of the clause, joining it to

the chapeau. So it is really just a tidy-up of the language of the clause.

Question put. [Crosstalk]

Mr. Lee: Just for clarity, AG, how would it read now?

Mr. Al-Rawi: So the clause would read:

Electronic Payments into and out of Court Act, 2018 is amended in section

14 in subsection (2), by deleting all the words after “payment” and

substituting the following words:

“of fees required…(a), (b), (c).”

So it is just one clause now.

Question agreed to.



Clause 33.


A. Renumber clause 33 as clause 33(1).

B. Insert after sub-clause 33(1) as renumbered, the following

sub-clause:

“(2) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, section

26(b) shall be deemed to come into force on November

30, 2018.”

189


UNREVISED

Mr. Al-Rawi: Madam Chair, we propose a small amendment to clause 33. In

clause 33, we are proposing that 33 be broken into two parts. We create what is

clause 33 as 33(1), and then we insert a new clause 33(2), and this is really the

dates of operation of it. So, 33 will start, one:

“This Act come into force on the 1st day of January, 2019;”

And then sub-clause (2) which is being inserted now, will say:

“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, section 26(b) shall be deemed to

come into force on November 30, 2019.”

And that is specifically to take account of the severance and for the retroactivity of

the application of that law that Parliament makes a positive statement as to that, so

that there can be no issue with it biting in relation to the application for severance.

Mr. Imbert: Now that we have come to the end—are we not on the end? Oh,

sorry. My apologies. We are at 33.

Madam Chairman: We are at 33, but we have not—your comment, is it based on

33?

Mr. Imbert: No, it is what happens after 33.

Madam Chairman: Okay, all right.

Dr. Tewarie: Could I ask a question? Yes, it is just clarification really. What

shall be deemed to come into force on November 30th?

Mr. Imbert: The severance. The increase in the severance payments that are

exempt from tax from $300,000 to $500,000, shall be deemed to come into effect

on November 30th.

Dr. Tewarie: All right.

Mr. Imbert: It is already in effect from November 30th, using section 124 of the

Income Tax Act. This now puts it into the law itself.

Dr. Tewarie: This is basically the Petrotrin matter.

190


UNREVISED

Mr. Imbert: Yes. Yes. Can I speak now?

Member: She has to put the question.

Mr. Imbert: Oh, sorry, yes. Go ahead.



Mr. Imbert: Yes, I just have a query. I remember, in the distant past, when we

took out clauses, we renumbered. I see no reference here to renumbering. Is there

a new procedure? Does it happen automatically? I am just asking because we took

out 5, you see. We took out clause 5. So that would mean 6 would become 5, 7

would become 6, and so on. [Interruption] Yeah, but we used to actually say that

in the amendments.

Madam Chairman: My guidance is that usually there is a note saying that all the

clauses after will be renumbered, but it is not put as a question to the committee.

Mr. Imbert: Okay. All right then.

Madam Chairman: But thank you for the observation.

Question put and agreed to: That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the

House.

House resumed.

Bill reported, with amendments, read the third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT


Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn to Monday, the 17th

day of December, 2018 at 1.30 p.m., at which time we will do the Miscellaneous

Provisions (Proceeds of Crime, Anti-Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Unit of

Trinidad and Tobago) Bill.

Madam Chairman: Hon. Members, there is one matter that qualifies to be raised

191

Adjournment 2018.12.12

UNREVISED

on the Motion of the Adjournment of this House, but I have been advised that this

matter has been deferred.


House adjourned accordingly.

Adjourned at 8.54 p.m.

Documents

CONDOLENCES (MR. NAZIM MURADALINAZIM MURADALI) Madam Speaker: Hon. Members, as you may be aware, Mr. Nazim Muradali former Member of Parliament for Naparima North passed away on Friday,